You're absolutely right that everything can't be reduced to economics and Brexit illustrates where believing it does can fail so massively. The biggest mistake the EU makes is trying to paper over the difference between being a German and a Greek or Romanian and a Swede. This isn't to say economics don't matter (they absolutely do) but it takes more than removing trade barriers for governing institutions to earn legitimacy.
Because people on this side of the border finance it, live by its laws, and die for it if it tells them to. They do all of these things because they (at least in theory in a Western democracy) have a say in how its run. As long as the nation-state in its current paradigm remains the primary political entity on this planet then its duty will be first and foremost to its citizens. When that ceases to be the case (or even when it's perceived to cease to be the case) it loses legitimacy and rightly so.
I think you're incorrect when you say they aren't offering plans. The plans they're offering just aren't sensible, plausible, or likely to improve the lot of the people who are being appealed to. However I think even a ridiculous plan, especially one that plays on latent (or not so latent) prejudices sounds appealing in the absence of an alternative.
Some such people can probably never be swayed but insisting that none of them could be strikes me as a dodge, and maybe a tacit admission that the cosmopolitan progressive side of this debate doesn't have an answer either. I'd like those of us doing ok in the current economic order to start coming up with one before the dispossessed of globalization succeed in putting a demagogue in power.
I have no disagreement that there are some really ugly sentiments that come out of that movement. I also don't want to give the impression that I object to calling a spade a spade. What I think is that, if we want to keep those ugly sentiments from becoming a truly dangerous political movement, we need a better answer than 'shut up you stupid insecure racists.'
That racism is wrong can and should be part of the message, but that message also needs to include a plan for how those people are going to have a decent economic quality of life and a stake in the government.
It's a lot easier to call people racists (and no doubt some are) than grapple with the fact that globalization and trade policy is leaving a big chunk of citizens in Western countries behind. If I were British I'd have voted to stay and I certainly don't support Trump. However I understand why someone who lives in some former industrial town where the jobs left decades ago and the standard of living has dropped and low skill work is now done by immigrants for peanuts might see the world differently.
But yes, it'd be racist and xenophobic for the state to ever take their interests into account.
That's my opinion as well. The fact that a referendum may have disagreeable results sometimes doesn't mean they have no place in how government works. It's not like elected officials never craft bad laws or policies themselves.
I'm pretty sure this is basically what happens. The banality of so many of the diplomatic wires that were leaked is pretty good evidence that the government is classifying information that isnt dangerous but is awkward or embarrassing.
I don't entirely disagree, and I tried to speak to that in my response below to Jaybird. I could live with delays in disclosures, or temporary secrecy provided there's a regular system that promptly and reliably, if not immediately, brings things to light. Maybe it's just my attorney ways but there are also times for in person conversations where certain thoughts aren't put to writing. I'm sympathetic to off the record discussions when needed and a good leader should know how to distinguish that.
That said my position is based on my view that our government is too opaque, not too transparent. I'm more worried about citizen ignorance of official activity than I am about a politician or bureaucrat having an embarrassing or sensitive email disclosed.
I think that issue is something that can be addressed with statutes of limitations and normal sunsetting of classification protocol. To me it's more the allergy to any type or accountability that prevents positive change. The government has just convinced us there's something noble in its secrecy, and finding out what it does behind closed doors, even many years later, could jeopardize our safety because terrorism, etc.
While it'd be a great thing for Congress to act on I think ruling class nihilism ensures it will never happen. The last thing anyone wants to do is write a law increasing government accountability. Any Rep or Senator with any ambition knows that it one day might be used against them.
When it comes to those cases my advice is be careful what you wish for. In the current paradigm where overreaction and excessive use of force is a major problem I'm not sure that we want to tell the police they can be sued for failing to intervene. It'd be another incentive to escalate every situation.
'The suspect was behaving aggressively and I feared if I didnt shoot he might attack a bystander and I would be subject to liability,'
I mean, that argument actually sounds better to me than 'I was afraid for my life due to the suspect's furtive movements and fighting stance.'
I think we may be talking passed each other. To the extent anyone buys a piece of property at market value (no government intervention, favors, greasing of the wheels, etc.) and does what they want with it, I have no objection.
I've never advocated for a free for all, and I'm personally very conflicted on the subject. I can't speak to the realities of SF but you and @north are acknowledging that there can be an arbitrariness to this process. We had a thread a few months ago discussing a situation where (if I recall correctly) a city was using zoning to force a mechanic's shop out if an area where the city was pushing urban renewal. That's the sort of thing that bothers me.
Now I agree that restrictons trying to preserve the character of a neighborhood at some given point in history can also be arbitrary and I tend to oppose them. That doesn't mean I have to love the idea of people's homes and livelihoods being subject to whether developers can get their guy on the city council (or strong NIMBYism frustrating needed changes for that matter). From a policy perspective I'm sympathetic to safety rules (it makes sense not to have chemical plants next to residential homes) but less so to zoning that seems designed to keep who is perceived as the wrong type of people out or bring the good type of people in.
The part I think you're missing is the public policy piece. The perception in many places is that local governments are putting their fingers on the scale in various ways (zoning laws, eminent domain, etc.) in favor of the monied interests. If it was purely organic I think the anti-gentrificaton side would have a much weaker argument.
There are police reform advocates out there within law enforcement. Radley Balko interviews/discusses some of them in his book. How we get there from here I think is the challenge. Law enforcement sees themselves (incorrectly in my opinion) as under siege. This episode will sadly only reinforce that view.
Look my preference would be a country where the force of prosecution is used very lightly and with considered, sober restraint. However we don't live there. The bigger concern for me about authoritarianism is the fact that high ranking government officials can do what they want with impunity for their own politial purposes, while people who make innocent mistakes or god forbid act as a whistle-blower are harshly punished.
The fact that BSDI isn't a defense of the Republican party, it's an indictment of what our system has become. The closest I ever came to being a Democrat was during the Bush years until I realized all the opposition to the security state and imperial presidency was really just a ploy to get their guy in charge of the drones. The D's are playing the same game, they're just appealing to a different, more urbane culture since the R's have the jingoistic vote wrapped up.
Plenty of people in blue America realize this. It's why Bernie was able to get as far as he did even if he probably never had a realistic shot at the nomination.
I don't see the hypocrisy of the Republicans as much of a defense of Clinton... just more evidence of Republican hypocrisy. The parallel justice system is what bothers me most. It's always the politician or the banker or the cop who gets the benefit of discretion.
I don't want to relieve those who voted for Brexit (particularly of the UKIP stripe) or Trump supporters of responsibility for their actions or viewpoints. They're all individuals with agency of their own. However, I do wonder if we shouldn't expect the Merricks of the world, be they in London or Wall Street to take a little responsibility for their own lifestyles and what they ask for as a culture and class. I mean, is there really something so noble about how our economy rewards people in big finance? I won't say that the people involved aren't smart and driven, but it's also the result of a few decades of policy choices, pushed in no small part by the industry and the politicians in their pockets.
Merrick has something that all those rubes wearing "Make America Great Again" hats that are so easy to take pot shots at on social media don't. Money and the ear of the people who make the rules.
I skipped most of this post to avoid spoilers. I am a huge horror fan but did not particularly like the first one. It had some ok jumps but i thought it was just a bunch of haunted house tropes (it did have decent acting, not that horror sets a high bar). With that context do you recommend I see it in the theater or wait until I inevitably come across it on showtime after a night out drinking?
@greginak your comment actually reminded me of an essay I came across after Sandy Hook. It's pretty long but lays out probably the best left wing argument in favor of gun rights I've ever come across. Not without flaws but it gets into the issues of fear and irrationality that I think you're alluding to. Worth a read if you're interested.
@oscar-gordon @davidtc I apologize for taking forever to respond. The beginning of my week went in a very unexpected direction. I will cop to not having that data.
The *seventh* person is ‘less shot’ if the shooter is shooting with a gun with only six bullets.
I get that in a mass shooting situation something that is slower to reload and/or has lower capacity might (and I stress might) in some circumstances result in a lower body count. However, because we're in agreement that mass shootings really shouldn't govern how we look at this, I don't see how that's relevant to what a person can legally purchase for self defense. The self and home defense issue is what I was responding to.
Well, *shotguns* (Firing shot) don’t go through drywall, at least not any reasonable manner. In theory, if you hold them right against the wall and shot, they would make a hole in the other side, and if someone was literally leaning against that wall, they *could* be injured, but practically speaking, from any logical distance you might accidentally hit a wall while aiming at someone (Call it five feet), shotguns do not go through walls.
However, I keep saying the term ‘high velocity small caliber’, and for someone who seems to know a lot about guns, you keep sorta skimming over me saying that.
While slower, larger bullets *can* go through walls, they lose more momentum, and are more likely to start tumbling and causing less damage. High velocity smaller caliber just cuts straight through them.
On top of that…these sort of rifles also are basically *designed* for people to fire repeatedly, very quickly. They have less recoil, they have less trigger tension, they are designed that you can fire more shots than with a traditional rifle. A traditional rifle, a 308 for example, you aim it, you pull the trigger, the person is down before you can aim the thing again and fire. With AR-15 style rifles, you pull, pull, pull, pull, pull, and you’ve put two bullets in them and three through a wall.
I think where we differ is on how much the issue of penetrating a wall matters when we're talking about what should be permitted for home defense. By the time we're at a point where deadly force is legally justified we're already talking about a very dangerous situation.
I also think you're discounting why it is people would want a high velocity, small caliber weapon for home defense. It's precisely because you can get those multiple shots off to stop your assailant in a platform that's easy to wield. To me that's a feature, not a bug.
I’ll assume you’re conceding my point that rifles are pretty stupid for *self* defense, as opposed to home defense, because you can’t actually carry a rifle around ready to go.
Would it be practicable for me, and where I live, and the types of threats that may or may not be out there? No, it's not something I would chose, but my life isn't everyone's life and my circumstances aren't everyone's circumstances and I am therefore hesitant to say that it would never be reasonable. I'm also probably the wrong person to ask. Even if I lived somewhere that it wasn't nearly impossible to carry a handgun legally for self defense it's not something I have any desire to do.
Interestingly, in Maryland it's legal to openly carry a long rifle but very difficult to obtain legal permission to carry a handgun so under the law in my state there are times where a long gun could be your only option if you feel you really need something.
Only because we have created devices that shot so quickly that people don’t have to. Which is, as I pointed out, entirely counter to the idea of self-defense.
The law does not say you have to pause. However, the law could easily say ‘You have a use a weapon that *forces* you to pause.’. Or, rather, not only could it say that, it actually should, if we believe in what we’ve said about self-defense.
On this we'll just have to disagree. I think that being able to get those shots off could be essential for self or home defense. Trying to force a slower rate of fire on people who are lawfully using deadly force is not a worthwhile trade-off for me.
‘Largely’ because 90% of a gun is, in fact, a grip for people to hold. Asserting we’ll be 3D printing them is like asserting that because a flash drive is mostly plastic, we’ll be 3D printing those soon. No, we won’t, because they have a crucial bit that *isn’t* plastic.
There are already companies out there working on this. Just because they might never match up to a firearm with metal parts doesn't mean they'll never get to something capable of firing a few hundred rounds before coming apart.
Erm, no, that’s pretty much what everyone who looks at the issue says: Explosives are much much harder to get than they used to be, and you are very likely to trip over the BATFE while getting them. I’m not going to bother to argue with you over this, but if you think criminals can just switch to explosives, you are wrong…in addition you’re, weirdly, being deliberately stupid, because we both know, and have already said in this discussion, the *actual* problem is normal gun violence of individuals being shot in the streets, not mass shooters. Random gangbangers aren’t going to switch to explosives!
I think we might be getting into a disconnect because of the numerous topics. My reference to explosives was only about your reference to a mass shooter limited to revolvers and/or very low capacity magazines. I don't think that explosives would ever be used in what we (sadly) would have to classify as routine criminal violence. I think it might be something that someone determined to cause mass murder for political reasons or due to their own insanity would explore.
Regarding the government, to me that's just an appeal to authority. Of course they say they're successful at what they do, and maybe they are but no law enforcement protocol is going to catch everything.
I didn’t say anything about ‘honor’. They don’t want to be involved in mass shootings or terrorism because the police will *track them down and arrest them*. A handgun used in a crime, shrug, could have gotten to the criminal any way. An assault rifle….maybe spend the time tracking that down. An *actually illegal weapon*. Yes. Track that down.
I don't think I'm the one postulating that the market would change. If the guns they're selling now that are legal generally but illegal for the particular purchaser become illegal the black market is not going to just stop dealing in those weapons.
Regarding Australia and the UK, I don't want to get too much into link trading (I'm not Australian or British so all information is limited to what I happen to come across), but contradicting the success stories you do also see stuff like this:
On “How Brexit Turned Into an Immigrant’s Nightmare”
You're absolutely right that everything can't be reduced to economics and Brexit illustrates where believing it does can fail so massively. The biggest mistake the EU makes is trying to paper over the difference between being a German and a Greek or Romanian and a Swede. This isn't to say economics don't matter (they absolutely do) but it takes more than removing trade barriers for governing institutions to earn legitimacy.
"
Because people on this side of the border finance it, live by its laws, and die for it if it tells them to. They do all of these things because they (at least in theory in a Western democracy) have a say in how its run. As long as the nation-state in its current paradigm remains the primary political entity on this planet then its duty will be first and foremost to its citizens. When that ceases to be the case (or even when it's perceived to cease to be the case) it loses legitimacy and rightly so.
"
I think you're incorrect when you say they aren't offering plans. The plans they're offering just aren't sensible, plausible, or likely to improve the lot of the people who are being appealed to. However I think even a ridiculous plan, especially one that plays on latent (or not so latent) prejudices sounds appealing in the absence of an alternative.
Some such people can probably never be swayed but insisting that none of them could be strikes me as a dodge, and maybe a tacit admission that the cosmopolitan progressive side of this debate doesn't have an answer either. I'd like those of us doing ok in the current economic order to start coming up with one before the dispossessed of globalization succeed in putting a demagogue in power.
"
I have no disagreement that there are some really ugly sentiments that come out of that movement. I also don't want to give the impression that I object to calling a spade a spade. What I think is that, if we want to keep those ugly sentiments from becoming a truly dangerous political movement, we need a better answer than 'shut up you stupid insecure racists.'
That racism is wrong can and should be part of the message, but that message also needs to include a plan for how those people are going to have a decent economic quality of life and a stake in the government.
"
It's a lot easier to call people racists (and no doubt some are) than grapple with the fact that globalization and trade policy is leaving a big chunk of citizens in Western countries behind. If I were British I'd have voted to stay and I certainly don't support Trump. However I understand why someone who lives in some former industrial town where the jobs left decades ago and the standard of living has dropped and low skill work is now done by immigrants for peanuts might see the world differently.
But yes, it'd be racist and xenophobic for the state to ever take their interests into account.
On “Our Public Records Laws are Broken”
That's my opinion as well. The fact that a referendum may have disagreeable results sometimes doesn't mean they have no place in how government works. It's not like elected officials never craft bad laws or policies themselves.
"
I'm pretty sure this is basically what happens. The banality of so many of the diplomatic wires that were leaked is pretty good evidence that the government is classifying information that isnt dangerous but is awkward or embarrassing.
"
I don't entirely disagree, and I tried to speak to that in my response below to Jaybird. I could live with delays in disclosures, or temporary secrecy provided there's a regular system that promptly and reliably, if not immediately, brings things to light. Maybe it's just my attorney ways but there are also times for in person conversations where certain thoughts aren't put to writing. I'm sympathetic to off the record discussions when needed and a good leader should know how to distinguish that.
That said my position is based on my view that our government is too opaque, not too transparent. I'm more worried about citizen ignorance of official activity than I am about a politician or bureaucrat having an embarrassing or sensitive email disclosed.
"
I think that issue is something that can be addressed with statutes of limitations and normal sunsetting of classification protocol. To me it's more the allergy to any type or accountability that prevents positive change. The government has just convinced us there's something noble in its secrecy, and finding out what it does behind closed doors, even many years later, could jeopardize our safety because terrorism, etc.
"
While it'd be a great thing for Congress to act on I think ruling class nihilism ensures it will never happen. The last thing anyone wants to do is write a law increasing government accountability. Any Rep or Senator with any ambition knows that it one day might be used against them.
On “Second and Main”
When it comes to those cases my advice is be careful what you wish for. In the current paradigm where overreaction and excessive use of force is a major problem I'm not sure that we want to tell the police they can be sued for failing to intervene. It'd be another incentive to escalate every situation.
'The suspect was behaving aggressively and I feared if I didnt shoot he might attack a bystander and I would be subject to liability,'
I mean, that argument actually sounds better to me than 'I was afraid for my life due to the suspect's furtive movements and fighting stance.'
On “No Sleep Till (We’re) Brooklyn”
I think we may be talking passed each other. To the extent anyone buys a piece of property at market value (no government intervention, favors, greasing of the wheels, etc.) and does what they want with it, I have no objection.
"
I've never advocated for a free for all, and I'm personally very conflicted on the subject. I can't speak to the realities of SF but you and @north are acknowledging that there can be an arbitrariness to this process. We had a thread a few months ago discussing a situation where (if I recall correctly) a city was using zoning to force a mechanic's shop out if an area where the city was pushing urban renewal. That's the sort of thing that bothers me.
Now I agree that restrictons trying to preserve the character of a neighborhood at some given point in history can also be arbitrary and I tend to oppose them. That doesn't mean I have to love the idea of people's homes and livelihoods being subject to whether developers can get their guy on the city council (or strong NIMBYism frustrating needed changes for that matter). From a policy perspective I'm sympathetic to safety rules (it makes sense not to have chemical plants next to residential homes) but less so to zoning that seems designed to keep who is perceived as the wrong type of people out or bring the good type of people in.
"
The part I think you're missing is the public policy piece. The perception in many places is that local governments are putting their fingers on the scale in various ways (zoning laws, eminent domain, etc.) in favor of the monied interests. If it was purely organic I think the anti-gentrificaton side would have a much weaker argument.
On “Baton Rouge, St. Paul, and Now Dallas”
There are police reform advocates out there within law enforcement. Radley Balko interviews/discusses some of them in his book. How we get there from here I think is the challenge. Law enforcement sees themselves (incorrectly in my opinion) as under siege. This episode will sadly only reinforce that view.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.07.05.T}”
Can you really not see the irony in that comment?
Look my preference would be a country where the force of prosecution is used very lightly and with considered, sober restraint. However we don't live there. The bigger concern for me about authoritarianism is the fact that high ranking government officials can do what they want with impunity for their own politial purposes, while people who make innocent mistakes or god forbid act as a whistle-blower are harshly punished.
"
The fact that BSDI isn't a defense of the Republican party, it's an indictment of what our system has become. The closest I ever came to being a Democrat was during the Bush years until I realized all the opposition to the security state and imperial presidency was really just a ploy to get their guy in charge of the drones. The D's are playing the same game, they're just appealing to a different, more urbane culture since the R's have the jingoistic vote wrapped up.
Plenty of people in blue America realize this. It's why Bernie was able to get as far as he did even if he probably never had a realistic shot at the nomination.
"
I don't see the hypocrisy of the Republicans as much of a defense of Clinton... just more evidence of Republican hypocrisy. The parallel justice system is what bothers me most. It's always the politician or the banker or the cop who gets the benefit of discretion.
On “Morning Ed: Brexit II {2016.07.03.Su}”
The reaction is what happens when a movement that claims to eschew values in the traditional sense suddenly realizes that not everyone shares theirs.
On “The Siege of London”
I don't want to relieve those who voted for Brexit (particularly of the UKIP stripe) or Trump supporters of responsibility for their actions or viewpoints. They're all individuals with agency of their own. However, I do wonder if we shouldn't expect the Merricks of the world, be they in London or Wall Street to take a little responsibility for their own lifestyles and what they ask for as a culture and class. I mean, is there really something so noble about how our economy rewards people in big finance? I won't say that the people involved aren't smart and driven, but it's also the result of a few decades of policy choices, pushed in no small part by the industry and the politicians in their pockets.
Merrick has something that all those rubes wearing "Make America Great Again" hats that are so easy to take pot shots at on social media don't. Money and the ear of the people who make the rules.
On ““The Conjuring 2” Movie Review”
I skipped most of this post to avoid spoilers. I am a huge horror fan but did not particularly like the first one. It had some ok jumps but i thought it was just a bunch of haunted house tropes (it did have decent acting, not that horror sets a high bar). With that context do you recommend I see it in the theater or wait until I inevitably come across it on showtime after a night out drinking?
On “Choosing A Side”
It's one of the best pieces of writing I've ever found online.
"
@greginak your comment actually reminded me of an essay I came across after Sandy Hook. It's pretty long but lays out probably the best left wing argument in favor of gun rights I've ever come across. Not without flaws but it gets into the issues of fear and irrationality that I think you're alluding to. Worth a read if you're interested.
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html
"
@oscar-gordon @davidtc I apologize for taking forever to respond. The beginning of my week went in a very unexpected direction. I will cop to not having that data.
"
The *seventh* person is ‘less shot’ if the shooter is shooting with a gun with only six bullets.
I get that in a mass shooting situation something that is slower to reload and/or has lower capacity might (and I stress might) in some circumstances result in a lower body count. However, because we're in agreement that mass shootings really shouldn't govern how we look at this, I don't see how that's relevant to what a person can legally purchase for self defense. The self and home defense issue is what I was responding to.
Well, *shotguns* (Firing shot) don’t go through drywall, at least not any reasonable manner. In theory, if you hold them right against the wall and shot, they would make a hole in the other side, and if someone was literally leaning against that wall, they *could* be injured, but practically speaking, from any logical distance you might accidentally hit a wall while aiming at someone (Call it five feet), shotguns do not go through walls.
However, I keep saying the term ‘high velocity small caliber’, and for someone who seems to know a lot about guns, you keep sorta skimming over me saying that.
While slower, larger bullets *can* go through walls, they lose more momentum, and are more likely to start tumbling and causing less damage. High velocity smaller caliber just cuts straight through them.
On top of that…these sort of rifles also are basically *designed* for people to fire repeatedly, very quickly. They have less recoil, they have less trigger tension, they are designed that you can fire more shots than with a traditional rifle. A traditional rifle, a 308 for example, you aim it, you pull the trigger, the person is down before you can aim the thing again and fire. With AR-15 style rifles, you pull, pull, pull, pull, pull, and you’ve put two bullets in them and three through a wall.
I think where we differ is on how much the issue of penetrating a wall matters when we're talking about what should be permitted for home defense. By the time we're at a point where deadly force is legally justified we're already talking about a very dangerous situation.
I also think you're discounting why it is people would want a high velocity, small caliber weapon for home defense. It's precisely because you can get those multiple shots off to stop your assailant in a platform that's easy to wield. To me that's a feature, not a bug.
I’ll assume you’re conceding my point that rifles are pretty stupid for *self* defense, as opposed to home defense, because you can’t actually carry a rifle around ready to go.
Would it be practicable for me, and where I live, and the types of threats that may or may not be out there? No, it's not something I would chose, but my life isn't everyone's life and my circumstances aren't everyone's circumstances and I am therefore hesitant to say that it would never be reasonable. I'm also probably the wrong person to ask. Even if I lived somewhere that it wasn't nearly impossible to carry a handgun legally for self defense it's not something I have any desire to do.
Interestingly, in Maryland it's legal to openly carry a long rifle but very difficult to obtain legal permission to carry a handgun so under the law in my state there are times where a long gun could be your only option if you feel you really need something.
Only because we have created devices that shot so quickly that people don’t have to. Which is, as I pointed out, entirely counter to the idea of self-defense.
The law does not say you have to pause. However, the law could easily say ‘You have a use a weapon that *forces* you to pause.’. Or, rather, not only could it say that, it actually should, if we believe in what we’ve said about self-defense.
On this we'll just have to disagree. I think that being able to get those shots off could be essential for self or home defense. Trying to force a slower rate of fire on people who are lawfully using deadly force is not a worthwhile trade-off for me.
‘Largely’ because 90% of a gun is, in fact, a grip for people to hold. Asserting we’ll be 3D printing them is like asserting that because a flash drive is mostly plastic, we’ll be 3D printing those soon. No, we won’t, because they have a crucial bit that *isn’t* plastic.
There are already companies out there working on this. Just because they might never match up to a firearm with metal parts doesn't mean they'll never get to something capable of firing a few hundred rounds before coming apart.
Erm, no, that’s pretty much what everyone who looks at the issue says: Explosives are much much harder to get than they used to be, and you are very likely to trip over the BATFE while getting them. I’m not going to bother to argue with you over this, but if you think criminals can just switch to explosives, you are wrong…in addition you’re, weirdly, being deliberately stupid, because we both know, and have already said in this discussion, the *actual* problem is normal gun violence of individuals being shot in the streets, not mass shooters. Random gangbangers aren’t going to switch to explosives!
I think we might be getting into a disconnect because of the numerous topics. My reference to explosives was only about your reference to a mass shooter limited to revolvers and/or very low capacity magazines. I don't think that explosives would ever be used in what we (sadly) would have to classify as routine criminal violence. I think it might be something that someone determined to cause mass murder for political reasons or due to their own insanity would explore.
Regarding the government, to me that's just an appeal to authority. Of course they say they're successful at what they do, and maybe they are but no law enforcement protocol is going to catch everything.
I didn’t say anything about ‘honor’. They don’t want to be involved in mass shootings or terrorism because the police will *track them down and arrest them*. A handgun used in a crime, shrug, could have gotten to the criminal any way. An assault rifle….maybe spend the time tracking that down. An *actually illegal weapon*. Yes. Track that down.
I don't think I'm the one postulating that the market would change. If the guns they're selling now that are legal generally but illegal for the particular purchaser become illegal the black market is not going to just stop dealing in those weapons.
Regarding Australia and the UK, I don't want to get too much into link trading (I'm not Australian or British so all information is limited to what I happen to come across), but contradicting the success stories you do also see stuff like this:
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/11/10/australias-secret-gun-problem-exposed/
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/police-reveal-277000-guns-scotland-6529023#FjdEvHzmtOFK6FEz.97
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.