posted by justincredibleSuicide sucks, I don't disagree. But, as the US is very different than other countries, and Alaska is very different than Hawaii, suicide is very different than murder.
Taking away guns or adding laws for the millions of people who actually follow the law isn't going to prevent suicide either.
posted by like_thatTaking away guns or adding laws for the millions of people who actually follow the law isn't going to prevent suicide either.
I agree it's a poor argument. Rights are not dependent on the actions of other people.
posted by HereticNice off-topic apples-to-oranges comparison!!!
I'd guess any outrage would be blunted by the simple truth that, while it's obviously not a desired result, when a person makes law enforcement their occupation, it's basically understood that there is a chance that on a given day or night, you'll be in a situation where your safety and even your life may be at risk and there also is a chance that you won't survive that situation. It's the reality of a profession where one is expected to confront and apprehend criminals who may be violent.
Which is a bit different than groups of young people being shot down in their schools by deranged classmates and the like. Neither are good, but there's always going to be less outrage for the death of a professional in a job that has moments of high risk than there will be for young people getting killed in their school, or worshipers getting killed in their church, or concert-goers getting killed at a venue. That's the sort of common sense thing that anyone with enough brain cells to handle basic motor functions should be able to reason their way through.
Hope this helps.
Oh, I well understand your statements. My post had to do with the media-driven scenario that when police are killed, well it can be sort of ok, since many of them deserve it ...... Just a little more warpage from the failing journalism field.
posted by BoatShoes3. "More laws ain't doing shit." - This is an argument against law in the first place.
My issue with more laws is when the new laws would not have prevented the crime. In the case of the Connecticut shooter his mother passed every background check and lived in a very restrictive state. He killed her and took her ar-15. So the solution some come up with is that I need a background check? That wouldn't have prevented the crime. The Texas shooter used his father's shotgun and pistol. He was not old enough to buy a gun. What new law would have stopped that.
Another issue I have with background checks is that the there is currently no gun registration. Even if the govt wants to ban them, they don't know where they are. If Donald Trump decides tomorrow that he wants to collect all the ar-15s I'm happy he doesn't have a list and I'm not about to provide one for him.
And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it.
This argument goes both ways. People on both sides use the same arguments when arguing for something they want
posted by BoatShoes3. "More laws ain't doing shit." - This is an argument against law in the first place.
Not really. It's an argument against redundant laws or unrelated laws. Not necessarily against laws themselves.
Though I'd say it's worth asking: Are laws the only way in which we attempt to change our society for the better, real or perceived? Should they be?
posted by BoatShoes
And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it.
This is fair. The hypocrisy of a man crying over extra regulations on firearms when he would turn around and bitch about two men who touch peckers wanting to be married is ... well ... palpable.
posted by BoatShoes
There has not been a St. Valentine's Day massacre with Tommy Guns since they were made illegal. Laws work because the free market works and motivated criminals are not totally free from rationality. If the costs are high and there are barriers to opportunity they'll try to use vans instead of guns and you can't drive a van into a school full of children.
San Bernadino in 2015. That shooting had double the casualties of the St. Valentine's Day massacre, and it was with fully automatic weapons.
If someone wants one, they can find one, make one, or convert one.
posted by O-Trap
If someone wants one, they can find one, make one, or convert one.
I mentioned this months ago, but 3D printers will change the game on this. Good luck regulating that.
posted by justincredibleI agree it's a poor argument. Rights are not dependent on the actions of other people.
The end.
posted by like_thatI mentioned this months ago, but 3D printers will change the game on this. Good luck regulating that.
I don't know....seems like they'll flag those people just like they do people searching for how to make bombs and sarin gas on the internet.
And I haven't looked in a while, but a lot of those 3D printed guns didn't appear to be capable of firing more than a few rounds before failing.
posted by gutI don't know....seems like they'll flag those people just like they do people searching for how to make bombs and sarin gas on the internet.
And I haven't looked in a while, but a lot of those 3D printed guns didn't appear to be capable of firing more than a few rounds before failing.
posted by gutI don't know....seems like they'll flag those people just like they do people searching for how to make bombs and sarin gas on the internet.
And I haven't looked in a while, but a lot of those 3D printed guns didn't appear to be capable of firing more than a few rounds before failing.
The technology is going to get better is my point. I'm interested in how they will flag these people down, when all they have to say is they have a 3D printer. It's much easier to connect the dots on bomb making vs how a 3D printer is going to be used.
posted by like_thatThe technology is going to get better is my point. I'm interested in how they will flag these people down, when all they have to say is they have a 3D printer. It's much easier to connect the dots on bomb making vs how a 3D printer is going to be used.
I'm sure the tech will get better. But just like they flag you when you visit a bomb making site, they'll flag you when you download blueprints to 3D print a machine gun. Hell, they'll probably implant a virus in the blueprint to spy on you.
posted by justincredible
I'm not sure how this addresses either point I made. I know 3D instructions have been out there for a while.
posted by gutI'm not sure how this addresses either point I made. I know 3D instructions have been out there for a while.
You said that a lot of guns printed don't look capable of firing multiple rounds. I provided a link to better technology.
Granted, it's not printing guns out of thin air, but it does allow for easier milling at home.
A real hero. Definitely teacher of the year.
The media needs to stop the coverage of this shit. Obviously glorifying it causing more of them
posted by SpockThe media needs to stop the coverage of this shit. Obviously glorifying it causing more of them
While there's technically no conclusive evidence of this, I'd wager it's probably true.
posted by like_thatTaking away guns or adding laws for the millions of people who actually follow the law isn't going to prevent suicide either.
Why are you so sure? The opportunity theory of crime/socially deviant behavior has strong empirical evidence to support it. Those motivated to commit suicide are less likely to do so when the opportunity to do so is obviated. Suicide was reduced substantially when coal gas stoves were regulated. Adding barriers to bridges reduces suicide. Setting aside the moral argument one might make that human's have categorical value that makes their lives worth saving - in purely economic terms just thinking of human beings as factors of production that society invests a lot of money in, these small costs of regulation/means reduction cost way less than suicide.
Means reduction has strong evidence to support it.
See a quality link from the Harvard School of Public Health:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves-lives/
It is not conservatism or libertarianism to say regulation cannot or will not work - but nihilism. The conservative or libertarian argument is that even if suicide can be reduced and the evidence supports that claim (it does) - burdens however slight are unjust.
But on those grounds - our Supreme Court and the Constitution are not libertarian as regulation of firearms would be wholly compliant with the Heller decision which holds that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited and may subject to licensing and regulation like all other fundamental rights that are not unduly burdensome.
posted by SpockThe media needs to stop the coverage of this shit. Obviously glorifying it causing more of them
No additional regulations of firearms are acceptable but I constantly hear sentiment like this from those who are conservatively inclined with some even suggesting that the media be prohibited from providing coverage of such incidents - an obvious burden on First Amendment rights!
posted by justincredibleGranted, it's not printing guns out of thin air, but it does allow for easier milling at home.
It is desirable from a public policy perspective for motivated criminals having to resort to unlicensed and unregistered milling of their firearms from 3-D printing machines as opposed to waltzing into Daddy's shed and grabbing carelessly stored firearms without consequence for Daddy.
