The system, which authorities say was put in place about a week ago, prevented a "much larger tragedy,” Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Chris Hosey said.
Simplistic logic that sounds nice but doesn’t actually work.
There are more guns than people in this country.
We have significantly bigger problems with illegal drug cartels than most. Drug gangs, who have access to illicit import capability, commit the lion’s share of gun violence.
The right to keep in their arms is literally written into our Constitution.
Put those things together and you have a few very big problems.
The first is that any sort of gun ban will basically fail unless you amend the Constitution, which there is not political will to do by any means. And those who want to keep their gun rights will point out that there are at 4-5x as many defensive gun uses by law abiding gun owners as there are gun homicides. So it is unlikely that you will be able to get any sort of gun ban to happen.
Second, even if you did, you could never get rid of any significant number of them. There is no national registration scheme. A couple of states have their own registration schemes but those are generally not the states with the majority of firearms.
Look at other countries that had similar situations like Australia, they have had numerous amnesty periods for people to turn in firearms and they still don’t think they have a significant majority of them collected.
Finally the question is who you are disarming? Remember, the lions share of gun murders are committed by drug gangs. A gang that can import illegal drugs can just as easily import illegal guns. Or, guns are actually not that hard to make, significantly easier than drugs. Any decently equipped machine shop can crank out guns, and unlike a drug lab which has to be out of the country the machine shop has a legitimate day shift use so it can operate in the open and pay taxes.
Point is, you will end up disarming the law abiding citizens while the criminals will still be armed, and willing to sell those guns to other criminals.
I also very much want to end school shootings. I hate that we are turning schools into fortresses or prisons. I hate the teachers, who are already paid shit, have to think things like ‘time to attack a gunman with scissors’.
But I want to spend effort and money on the policy that will most likely bring that goal about. Maximum bang for buck if you will. And I’m sorry but gun control isn’t it.
Other countries have less gun crime sure. They also have a functional health care system, including mental health care. They have culture that doesn’t glorify violence and better emphasizes connections with fellow humans and collaboration rather than confrontation.
Behavior like bullying that in the US often elicits a ‘boys will be boys, let them work it out’ reaction would get kids severely disciplined or kicked out of school in most other civilized countries.
Other countries didn’t defund their mental health systems in the 1980s, turning a great many violent and mentally ill people out on the streets. I’m not a big Reagan fan generally but that policy did irreparable harm to the US.
And other countries don’t treat addicts like criminals, locking them up for years with violent criminals where they themselves become violent. Other countries treat addicts like medical patients.
So yeah other countries do a lot of things better than the US, in terms of cultivating a less violent more inclusive society. You can’t just point to gun policy and say THERE THATS THE ANSWER THATS ALL WE NEED.
you say the lions share of murders are committed by drug gangs, but that’s ignoring the majority of gun injuries are self inflicted.
And while it was written into the constitution it was amended into the constitution, and like the 21st which repealed the 18th, could be amended out again.
you also say there are 5x defensive Gun owners. This is a made up statistic - there is no formal definition of a defensive gun owner, there is no way to shoot a gun defensively.
While it may take time - a few generations - maybe even a dozen generations - to disarm the majority of households, it’s possible.
who are you disarming
the majority of gun owners own guns for fun/sport. So while, yes, it is sad to ruin fun, it’s also sad to have children killed.
Finally, you don’t have to ban all guns, you could keep say, bolt action rifles and single barrel shotguns - where sports and hunting could still continue. This wouldn’t solve all the problems but it might have saved lives multiplicatively in mass shootings.
you say the lions share of murders are committed by drug gangs, but that’s ignoring the majority of gun injuries are self inflicted.
Quite correct. Somewhere between 2/3 and 4/5 depending on the year of gun deaths are suicides. It’s why I hate most ‘gun violence’ numbers because they include suicides to get to a ~30k/year number (homicides are 10-12k/year most years) while the term ‘gun violence’ strongly suggests crime done to others.
I don’t believe we should blame a gun for suicide anymore than we should blame a knife, body of water, tall bridge/building, bottle of pills, etc. Suicide is a (shitty) personal choice someone makes for themselves. And I reject the idea that all of society should be prohibited from owning a tool simply because a suicidal person might use it to end their own life.
Suicide is a tragedy and I’m all for preventing it. But depriving hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens from having a tool they use safely, daily, for protection and recreation is not the answer. It’s not how a ‘free’ society works or should work.
And while it was written into the constitution it was amended into the constitution, and like the 21st which repealed the 18th, could be amended out again.
Yes it could be. Any part of the Constitution can be changed. Even the 1st Amendment. Should we rewrite the 1st Amendment to ban pornography or politically unpopular speech? Should we rewrite the 4th Amendment to exclude computers and only apply to printed papers?
Just because we CAN muck with the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean we SHOULD.
you also say there are 5x defensive Gun owners. This is a made up statistic - there is no formal definition of a defensive gun owner, there is no way to shoot a gun defensively.
I said ‘defensive gun USES’. That has a definition- it’s when a law-abiding citizen uses a lawfully-owned firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (90-95%) end with no shots fired- the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
Sorry for a reddit link but click here - that’s from /r/CCW (concealed carry weapon) and it’s a filter for ‘member DGU’, IE posts where a redditor is involved in a DGU situation. I’d encourage you to read some of them.
The problem with DGUs is they aren’t tracked. Most aren’t reported to the police and those that are aren’t centrally tracked in any database like the FBI’s homicide database. That means coming up with a number is done with statistical analysis of victimization surveys. This of course produces wildly different numbers, which range from 55k-80k/year (anti-gun researcher Hemenway) to ~2 million (pro-gun researcher Lott). Personally I think the number is somewhere around 300-500k (at least that’s what NCVS data suggests) but you can draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia has a great article on DGUs.
For the sake of this argument though I go with a low number of 60k-- 12k homicides, 60k DGUs, that’s about 5x.
While it may take time - a few generations - maybe even a dozen generations - to disarm the majority of households, it’s possible.
Let’s say you do that. Let’s say you repeal the 2nd Amendment, and do ‘buybacks’ (or as gun owners call it, ‘confiscation with compensation’), and you keep this up for 20+ years. What have you actually accomplished?
Most likely DGUs would drop to near zero. FIREARM suicides would drop to near-zero, and suicides overall might drop a little (a gun is faster and works at home, a lot of people who take pills or decide to jump off a building change their mind before they’re dead and survive). This would have little/no effect on drug gangs who are usually using illegal guns anyway. And without DGUs, criminals would KNOW their victims are ALWAYS unarmed.
Spree shootings would probably become less frequent. But under 100 people per year die in such incidents anyway, despite the big headlines (you’re literally more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a spree shooting in the USA).
I therefore look at that and say even if you stop a few spree shootings, you don’t do much for gang violence, you empower criminals, and you get rid of the DGUs. I don’t see that as being an effective policy.
the majority of gun owners own guns for fun/sport. So while, yes, it is sad to ruin fun, it’s also sad to have children killed.
And if there was a direct zero-sum tradeoff between sport shooting and dead kids you’d have a really good argument. There isn’t.
Finally, you don’t have to ban all guns, you could keep say, bolt action rifles and single barrel shotguns - where sports and hunting could still continue. This wouldn’t solve all the problems but it might have saved lives multiplicatively in mass shootings.
Well that also removes pistols for personal defense.
But even if you did, what happens when some enterprising machinist with a basement workshop downloads plans for a gun or to turn a bolt action rifle into a semi-auto?
THIS is why gun bans don’t work. They’re too easy to make. The only reason criminals don’t manufacture or import them in great number is because while they’re easy to make, they’re easier to steal or straw purchase. Just because a lot of crime guns were once legal guns doesn’t mean cutting off the legal guns will make gun crime go away.
Bomb laws don’t stop bombers. You CAN buy hardware store ingredients and make a bomb. Most people don’t do such things.
The point of the bomb law is so when they get a tip and raid someone’s house and find a few bricks of C4 wrapped in nails with a clock attached, they have something to arrest him for rather than saying ‘we have to wait until you use this to hurt people’.
But that’s also because that bomb has very few legitimate uses. There aren’t neighborhood bomb ranges where people go to compete and practice. You can’t use a bomb to hunt or protect yourself from 4-legged predators when in the woods. There aren’t bombing tournaments. You can’t use a bomb in self-defense or to protect your home or family. There ARE legitimate uses for bombs in mining, agriculture, industry, etc but those are uncommon and thus highly regulated.
A gun has many legitimate uses, and tens or hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans use guns legally every day. Neighborhood gun ranges host classes, practice sessions, and competitions / tournaments. Guns are used for hunting and defense from predators in the woods. A gun can defend your home and family from intruders. And a small concealed pistol can be used to defend against street crime.
Simplistic logic that sounds nice but doesn’t actually work. There are more guns than people in this country. We have significantly bigger problems with illegal drug cartels than most. Drug gangs, who have access to illicit import capability, commit the lion’s share of gun violence. The right to keep in their arms is literally written into our Constitution.
Put those things together and you have a few very big problems.
The first is that any sort of gun ban will basically fail unless you amend the Constitution, which there is not political will to do by any means. And those who want to keep their gun rights will point out that there are at 4-5x as many defensive gun uses by law abiding gun owners as there are gun homicides. So it is unlikely that you will be able to get any sort of gun ban to happen.
Second, even if you did, you could never get rid of any significant number of them. There is no national registration scheme. A couple of states have their own registration schemes but those are generally not the states with the majority of firearms. Look at other countries that had similar situations like Australia, they have had numerous amnesty periods for people to turn in firearms and they still don’t think they have a significant majority of them collected.
Finally the question is who you are disarming? Remember, the lions share of gun murders are committed by drug gangs. A gang that can import illegal drugs can just as easily import illegal guns. Or, guns are actually not that hard to make, significantly easier than drugs. Any decently equipped machine shop can crank out guns, and unlike a drug lab which has to be out of the country the machine shop has a legitimate day shift use so it can operate in the open and pay taxes.
Point is, you will end up disarming the law abiding citizens while the criminals will still be armed, and willing to sell those guns to other criminals.
I also very much want to end school shootings. I hate that we are turning schools into fortresses or prisons. I hate the teachers, who are already paid shit, have to think things like ‘time to attack a gunman with scissors’.
But I want to spend effort and money on the policy that will most likely bring that goal about. Maximum bang for buck if you will. And I’m sorry but gun control isn’t it.
Gun control works in literally every other developed country in the world.
(Apart from the zionist regime) most other states weren’t founded and ruled by an armed populace genociding the original inhabitants.
Other countries have less gun crime sure. They also have a functional health care system, including mental health care. They have culture that doesn’t glorify violence and better emphasizes connections with fellow humans and collaboration rather than confrontation.
Behavior like bullying that in the US often elicits a ‘boys will be boys, let them work it out’ reaction would get kids severely disciplined or kicked out of school in most other civilized countries.
Other countries didn’t defund their mental health systems in the 1980s, turning a great many violent and mentally ill people out on the streets. I’m not a big Reagan fan generally but that policy did irreparable harm to the US.
And other countries don’t treat addicts like criminals, locking them up for years with violent criminals where they themselves become violent. Other countries treat addicts like medical patients.
So yeah other countries do a lot of things better than the US, in terms of cultivating a less violent more inclusive society. You can’t just point to gun policy and say THERE THATS THE ANSWER THATS ALL WE NEED.
you say the lions share of murders are committed by drug gangs, but that’s ignoring the majority of gun injuries are self inflicted.
And while it was written into the constitution it was amended into the constitution, and like the 21st which repealed the 18th, could be amended out again.
you also say there are 5x defensive Gun owners. This is a made up statistic - there is no formal definition of a defensive gun owner, there is no way to shoot a gun defensively.
While it may take time - a few generations - maybe even a dozen generations - to disarm the majority of households, it’s possible.
the majority of gun owners own guns for fun/sport. So while, yes, it is sad to ruin fun, it’s also sad to have children killed.
Finally, you don’t have to ban all guns, you could keep say, bolt action rifles and single barrel shotguns - where sports and hunting could still continue. This wouldn’t solve all the problems but it might have saved lives multiplicatively in mass shootings.
Quite correct. Somewhere between 2/3 and 4/5 depending on the year of gun deaths are suicides. It’s why I hate most ‘gun violence’ numbers because they include suicides to get to a ~30k/year number (homicides are 10-12k/year most years) while the term ‘gun violence’ strongly suggests crime done to others.
I don’t believe we should blame a gun for suicide anymore than we should blame a knife, body of water, tall bridge/building, bottle of pills, etc. Suicide is a (shitty) personal choice someone makes for themselves. And I reject the idea that all of society should be prohibited from owning a tool simply because a suicidal person might use it to end their own life.
Suicide is a tragedy and I’m all for preventing it. But depriving hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens from having a tool they use safely, daily, for protection and recreation is not the answer. It’s not how a ‘free’ society works or should work.
Yes it could be. Any part of the Constitution can be changed. Even the 1st Amendment. Should we rewrite the 1st Amendment to ban pornography or politically unpopular speech? Should we rewrite the 4th Amendment to exclude computers and only apply to printed papers?
Just because we CAN muck with the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean we SHOULD.
I said ‘defensive gun USES’. That has a definition- it’s when a law-abiding citizen uses a lawfully-owned firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (90-95%) end with no shots fired- the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
Sorry for a reddit link but click here - that’s from /r/CCW (concealed carry weapon) and it’s a filter for ‘member DGU’, IE posts where a redditor is involved in a DGU situation. I’d encourage you to read some of them.
The problem with DGUs is they aren’t tracked. Most aren’t reported to the police and those that are aren’t centrally tracked in any database like the FBI’s homicide database. That means coming up with a number is done with statistical analysis of victimization surveys. This of course produces wildly different numbers, which range from 55k-80k/year (anti-gun researcher Hemenway) to ~2 million (pro-gun researcher Lott). Personally I think the number is somewhere around 300-500k (at least that’s what NCVS data suggests) but you can draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia has a great article on DGUs.
For the sake of this argument though I go with a low number of 60k-- 12k homicides, 60k DGUs, that’s about 5x.
Let’s say you do that. Let’s say you repeal the 2nd Amendment, and do ‘buybacks’ (or as gun owners call it, ‘confiscation with compensation’), and you keep this up for 20+ years. What have you actually accomplished?
Most likely DGUs would drop to near zero. FIREARM suicides would drop to near-zero, and suicides overall might drop a little (a gun is faster and works at home, a lot of people who take pills or decide to jump off a building change their mind before they’re dead and survive). This would have little/no effect on drug gangs who are usually using illegal guns anyway. And without DGUs, criminals would KNOW their victims are ALWAYS unarmed.
Spree shootings would probably become less frequent. But under 100 people per year die in such incidents anyway, despite the big headlines (you’re literally more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a spree shooting in the USA).
I therefore look at that and say even if you stop a few spree shootings, you don’t do much for gang violence, you empower criminals, and you get rid of the DGUs. I don’t see that as being an effective policy.
And if there was a direct zero-sum tradeoff between sport shooting and dead kids you’d have a really good argument. There isn’t.
Well that also removes pistols for personal defense.
But even if you did, what happens when some enterprising machinist with a basement workshop downloads plans for a gun or to turn a bolt action rifle into a semi-auto?
THIS is why gun bans don’t work. They’re too easy to make. The only reason criminals don’t manufacture or import them in great number is because while they’re easy to make, they’re easier to steal or straw purchase. Just because a lot of crime guns were once legal guns doesn’t mean cutting off the legal guns will make gun crime go away.
Curious for your thoughts/reactions to this?
Guys, there’s no point in making bombs illegal. Everyone can just buy the ingredients they need from their hardware store and Amazon anyway. /s
A stupid (as in, not intelligent) analogy.
Bomb laws don’t stop bombers. You CAN buy hardware store ingredients and make a bomb. Most people don’t do such things.
The point of the bomb law is so when they get a tip and raid someone’s house and find a few bricks of C4 wrapped in nails with a clock attached, they have something to arrest him for rather than saying ‘we have to wait until you use this to hurt people’.
But that’s also because that bomb has very few legitimate uses. There aren’t neighborhood bomb ranges where people go to compete and practice. You can’t use a bomb to hunt or protect yourself from 4-legged predators when in the woods. There aren’t bombing tournaments. You can’t use a bomb in self-defense or to protect your home or family. There ARE legitimate uses for bombs in mining, agriculture, industry, etc but those are uncommon and thus highly regulated.
A gun has many legitimate uses, and tens or hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans use guns legally every day. Neighborhood gun ranges host classes, practice sessions, and competitions / tournaments. Guns are used for hunting and defense from predators in the woods. A gun can defend your home and family from intruders. And a small concealed pistol can be used to defend against street crime.
Such confidence, such poise.