commenter-thread

A interesting conversation, well done. However at this point to continue it would be circular.

...it’s important to remember that Prohibition did achieve the goal it intended...

My zip code's murder rate of zero can't go down. Ergo my area benefiting from this plan is a non-starter.

The bulk of our murder rate comes from places that already have serious anti-gun policies and everything that's happening in terms of people getting and using guns is already illegal.

My expectation is they're are already getting the "benefits" of Prohibition-of-guns with their murder rates reduced to whatever degree gun control is going to work. Getting rid of Prohibition of Drugs would serve those places better in terms of reduced crime and cultural attachment to violence.

The rest of the country has murder rates approximating that of the first world so there are little "benefits" on the table for us to collect.

Once it becomes clear that the law is enforced, even if only 5% are actually fined, people start saying ‘I can’t afford that risk for literally no benefit to me,

This entire line of argument is it could similarly be used to argue why Prohibition would simply work.

I also am baffled as to why you think this is a huge drain on the budget. You realize that large-scale refusal would actually bring in money, right?

For the same reason I think the War on Drugs is a drain on the budget. Vast amounts of money and other resources are spent with little to show for it. The gov runs around creating criminals by passing laws that people aren't willing to follow.

And you think gun owners are so lawless they will steadfastly refuse to do that even if we charge then $1000 a year _and_ the ATF shows up twice a year at their door to manually check things.

I think you're making it harder to follow the law than to break it. There will be a huge demand for off the books weapons which don't end up with gov insisting on micromanaging how you use/store them and threatening fines/imprisonment.

I think there will be "lost" guns where the real answer is "I don't feel like filling out paperwork or getting it out". Keep in mind the vast number of guns aren't used in crimes so this is a low risk move.

I don’t even understand how you think this is hard.

Because you're pointing to examples (cars) where vast numbers of people don't obey the law and claiming you'll do the same thing but they'll obey the law. Worse, our RL examples of gun registration suggests a compliance rate of close to 5%.

So when we have 95% of the gun owning population disobey this... what happens?

Does the federal gov send the ATF to every household where this happens? (That's why I'm claiming you'll need a lot of cops). If the federal gov checks it's budget and sees it doesn't have money for this number of cops and gives this "priority" to the locals we're back at local official foot dragging (which is where we are now for current laws).

The VAST number of guns aren't used in crimes, is keeping the database up to date going to be a national priority to the point where we use those kind of resources?

This is not…reasonable. This isn’t amenable to the normal push and pull of politics and democracy. It becomes religious zealotry.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

And…what are _you_ trying to imply here? Are you trying to imply that gun owners are a bunch of lawless individuals...

I'm saying that if we're moving to a "cars" model for enforcement, similar to how my state mandates all cars have insurance, the number of people who ignore that law is more than 20%. Which implies we're going to need a lot of cops to enforce this because the non-compliance rate will be very high.

So it means for this sort of thing to work we'd need to make policing guns a serious(!) priority.

My intuition is rather than burden the entire country with this it'd be cheaper and easier to put a cop on every street corner in the neighborhoods where it'd we want the results to be felt.

I want the would-be mass shooter or would-be girlfriend murderer to have to wait a while before they can legally buy a gun.

Mass shooters typically plan their things out for months or years before doing anything. Typically they get their guns legally, occasionally they steal them or even kill for them.

The only exception I can think of who might have been delayed by a waiting period is that Pulse guy... but that's just on paper. He was a professional gun user so access to guns wasn't really an issue and he planned it for a long time so it's really not an issue.

Do we have any evidence that a cooling off period actually helps?

What happens if someone just ignores the 6 month notice?

And on a side note, I expect 3D printers to get scary good and common over a period of time a lot less than 50 years.

You’ve hit upon a real problem there: Law enforcement in places where there is no gun violence will, because they don’t care about guns, uh…completely ignore the guns they are…recovering from all the criminals with guns…um…huh. Not really sure what you’re talking about there.

The phrase "criminals with guns" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, inappropriately so considering you're radically changing that definition and drastically increasing the percentage of the population who fit in that category.

A third(ish) of adult households have guns in them, anyone who doesn't fill out your paperwork is, with the stroke of a pen, now a criminal with a gun. You're expecting local law enforcement to deal with them harshly and round up the guns of these "criminals". In other contexts we'd call these people "voters" and "civilians" and we'd call their "criminal guns" "private property".

In other posts you've said the police are too "lazy" (your words) to enforce the anti-gun laws we already have. What you mean is the police have limited resources and this isn't a priority. It probably can't be a priority. The local police here deal with a murder rate of zero. The Chief is elected. If he decides their top priority is harass local voters to stop crimes which aren't hurting people and aren't causing local problems then he'll be replaced.

Or they could just…put them where they can see them...

He's got them sealed away deep enough that just getting them accessible enough to count would be both problematic and make them less secure. We're not talking about a collection you can put on your wall, we're talking about scores or hundreds of old pieces. And this is a tiny portion of his actual collection which is WW2 stuff which wouldn't fit in his large house.

Or they could, you know, not have huge collection of guns to start with.

As long as you're insisting other people live their lives according to your desires, it'd be more useful to insist people not shoot each other over shoes and that sort of thing. That's a much smaller group of people and they're the problem you're trying to fix.

If it's not possible to insist that with a very small group, then moving a much larger group of society is likely to be a problem.

I have to _physically put a sticker_ on my car each year...

A better comparison would be insisting that everyone track and label every bottle of alcohol they have and use (btw the number of Alcohol related deaths makes the number of gun deaths look small).

You're trying to insist large numbers of people make lifestyle changes which won't benefit themselves.

How do guns get to the criminals under what I proposed? Let’s say that Mexican drug cartels start shipping guns north along with drugs. Seems like a reasonable premise. But where is that drug cartel buying guns?

This is like saying "where will they buy drugs". You're creating a huge unfilled demand. The people involved have lots of money and are already used to breaking the law. It's not that hard to build guns, it's just the big mass producers make them at such a low cost and high quality it's not profitable.

If Pfizer starts producing and cocaine+heroin and then selling them for pennies, all the illegal producers will go out of business. That's our current world for guns.

3D printers are not even vaguely a viable source for the sheer number of guns that criminals currently have. Even metal shop guns, a much _more_ reasonable ‘amateur gun’ producer, are not viable.

And how are you going to maintain this current situation after you make creating amateur guns very profitable? 3D printers and metal shops are legal. A front for a criminal organization can trivially set up one, or a dozen, or a hundred, and start producing... just exactly like they do with illegal drug labs right now.

Australia and managed to make a few hundred before it got shut down. That... are the entire extent of homemade guns in the modern history of gun control.

Because even in Australia the homemade industry is competing with the professional industry. If you have money and want guns you're going to buy and smuggle rather than build a shop.

Even scaling that up, hypothetical worst-case scenario, a few thousand amateur guns made a year is not even vaguely close to the several million professionally-made guns a year that make it to criminal hands.

Similarly, the first drug labs were pretty clown school amature hour things.

The illegal markets currently servicing drug dealers can function at a large scale. Trying to claim they can't because they don't currently do that with guns ignores our history with drugs.

I think gun-as-a-symbol-of-power is going to be less of a thing with few guns around, so for them it'd probably have to be cars or something else capable of inflicting large amounts of death.

You say all this like it supports your cause. Yes, the Nazis were going to win any specific battle where they could bring the resources to bear.

Yes, they could, and did, bring in bombers, artillery, and so forth.

However if that's what they need to do to win, they can't do that everywhere. The reason they didn't need to bring in bombers and artillery against my wife's home town was because they had no guns.

With guns, there are not an infinite amount of bombers or artillery and it becomes a question of which battles the Nazis chose to fight.

So why are American men so fragile? Why do they feel like they are suffering injustice when they clearly arent?

Feelings trump facts. Injustice is everywhere. That you feel they're not suffering injustice (or at least that the white ones aren't) doesn't change that most of them don't have mates and probably won't (or that their lives are otherwise failing).

Presumably there are other countries where men aren't getting laid so the question is why aren't they doing something similar there.

I think the answer is advertising. These shooters study and revere the shooters who came before them. Picking up a gun makes their life story a success. Other people will study and revere them.

So it's a combo of the internet, the media, Columbine, the size of our population, etc. Gun access certainly plays a role but probably more from a symbolic standpoint. If other countries routinely made movies where we routinely have the hero mow people down with his car and then that became "a thing" in real life with the media giving billions of dollars of attention to people who do that, then we'd see something like what we have.

Also agreed... but add "advertising" to that list.

Over-represented, how? Given that they suffer far worse than white people we should expect those numbers to be much much higher.

Translated into english, what George's stats suggest is that...
This issue isn't connected to race, or closely to poverty.

When faced with facts like this the solution isn't to look for why it really is connected to race/poverty, but to look for what it is connected to (thus far, gender).

This line of thinking would only be useful if whites were seriously over represented in the ranks of mass shooters.

Since they're not, race isn't the issue. AFAICT, class, and even poverty.

Looking at this and calling it "white terrorism" says more about where Rosenstein's head is at than it does about where the shooters' heads are at.

This deserves a long answer but I'm going to be out for a week.

Guns were pretty available in Poland.

That does not match up with anything I've seen or heard from any Polish national, Polish museum, Polish memorial, etc first hand (and my wife has dragged me to a bunch over the years).

It also doesn't match up with the blow by blow description of what happened in my wife's home town. 100 Nazis killed a few hundred jews and put 10k or so on trains over the course of a few days.

That also doesn't match up with either of the two history accounts I read where they talk about a "small" amount of arms.

So you're going to need some serious sources to make that believable.

...but in another generation, at least in the West, Hispanics will be white.

Both the Hispanics and Asians will be white in a generation. The blacks will take longer but they'll get there too.

Which is not to say everyone will be.

And we all know the rest of the plot, right?

You seem to be insisting that facts match up with the narrative.

That's starting with the conclusion and throwing out what doesn't match it.

If they are a contagion, then the question is, what do we do with Typhoid Mary who sits on his toilet in the White House tweeting white rage all day long?

Think of it as we're running a social experiment on whether or not that matters. To the best of my knowledge within the margin of error the answer is "no", but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

Let's put it this way. We have a subculture which has a murder rate that is scary high by 1st world standards.

Most of the solutions on table are for the rest of America to change. Every other subculture, or at least the ones which have lots of guns around and still have a murder rate of zero, is supposed to restructure themselves because of this.

These other groups insist that they're not the ones with the problem and are blocking change... and there is much finger pointing and wailing and gnashing of teeth on how unreasonable they're being.

I would be fine with "cultural differences being why they're less violent" except when we count corpses we see the opposite.

The carnage that is the streets is either obscuring or absorbing the problem of young-men-too-attracted-to-violence in those communities.

The question is whether this is "other things happen" sort of thing (i.e. violent people express their violence differently) or merely a "data collection" issue (i.e. when this sort of thing happens it gets put into a different media bin).

Why are black women so underrepresented in mass killings?

For the same reason White Women are. This is a guy thing.

If class was the variable to explain mass shooters we would expect there to be female shooters, black shooters and Hispanic shooters, roughly in proportion to their presence into class.

Agreed. Class doesn't do much for us here.

The underlying motive for mass shootings is to attack the world at large which they felt has done them injustice.

That or they're trying to make their mark. That it's a guy thing suggests this is a (misused high-risk) mechanism to impress the women and get a mate.

Yet the prevalence of white men is bizarrely out of proportion here.

Only if we exclude the carnage of the streets. Include that and it's still men but whites are under represented. Or if everything on the streets shouldn't be included, including even part of the streets does the same.

How do they manage to handle their problems without so much violence?

The simple answer is they don't. Other parts of this posting talk about the blood soaked streets of various parts of the US and claim we ignore them because they're minorities. Counting corpses suggests other groups have FAR worse issues with their young men running around killing people.

The concept that they're less violent combined with a much higher murder rate suggests we have a data classification error or gathering bias.

For example if that angry young man thinking of killing his romantic rival(s) does so and is black, then it clearly doesn't get written up as white nationalism and might not show up on that list of yours at all.

Chip,

I agree with most or all of this. However it doesn't support what you've said early. You've jumped from "White Supremacy the ideology is the problem" to "men who are angry at the world and have white skin".

And the "white skin" part seems to be optional.

If we have an angry young man who is unhappy with where he is in the world and who is thinking about killing his girlfriend, her lover, and anyone who gets in the way... transforming that into "white supremacy" because of his skin color is probably not all that helpful.

Are you objecting to the "cultural" aspect or the "things we need to put up with" aspect?

Your link is an opinion piece which is assuming this is an anti-feminism thing... much like you're assuming it's white supremacy thing.

That the bulk of the killers are male is beyond doubt, that their ideology matches what you (or that author) want to fight is not.

The "aggrieved/revenge" aspect seems reasonable but I don't trust my intuition and can easily picture other motivations. We get about a third of these guys alive, we really should be talking to them.

...because a gun was easily available.

Not legally available.

We've already outlawed murder, criminal access to guns, children's access to guns, & put in a cooling off period. We've passed all sorts of laws which prevent this behavior, but the people involved aren't willing to follow them, and society doesn't have the resources (or perhaps will) to enforce the law.

Now we could launch a massive "war on guns" style effort to disarm the people who are shooting each other... who are mostly minorities. So this would fill the prisons with minorities, convert large numbers of civilians into criminals, and empower criminals who presumably would still ignore the law.

I'm having problems convincing myself that the positive effects would outweigh the negative side effects.

The war on drugs has been a mess and has showcased the limits of the law and gov power. On paper it's supposed to help people; In practice, not so much. If ending the war on drugs would be a good thing, then firing up another would probably be a bad thing. And it's very hard to see how a "outlaw it" approach doesn't end up there.

Going after guns-in-general is pretending that putting restrictions on the law abiding will deal with the law disabiding.

What ties nearly all of them together is a white male feels aggrieved by some injustice and wants to strike back.

What percentage of mass shootings are you explaining here? If it's something like 50% or more then we should sit up and take notice. If it's in the single digits then you're just trying to score political points by blaming people you want to be guilty.

If we're go down the "white supremacy is an info-hazzard creating these" line of thought and look for a solution, then we need exclude (and thus live with) Pulse, Vegas, Columbind, Sandy Hook, etc. If we're excluding the bulk of the problem before looking for solutions then we should look for a different theory to explain what is going on.

Opposing 5% of these events because they match up with who we politically want to blame can't go anywhere useful.

Pro-gun people think easy access to handguns, assault rifles, and the like are worth thousands of needless deaths of people they don’t know...

So if I give up easy access to guns in my zip code (which has a murder rate of zero), Chicago's gangbangers will give up their illegal guns and live in peace and harmony?

How is that supposed to work? Intuitively it seems like I'd be worse off and they'd be no better.

You have to get a license to operate a car. In most states you have to pass proficiency tests to operate cars. You have to have special insurance to operate cars. You can have your privilege to operate cars taken from you for all sorts of bad life choices.

Let's follow the comparison. My teenage children have driver's licenses despite their mishaps with cars. Thus far all have been in accidents.

If THAT is the level of licensing and control you have in mind, then this will work, and the comparison is valid. However for places like Chicago that will mean tearing up a ton of their gun control laws because they're the equiv of preventing everyone from having access to cars and making them drive 10 mph.

Unreasonable (traffic/firearm) laws are ignored. It's expected everyone with very rare exceptions will have access.

If "regulation" actually means "proscription" then don't expect good things from prohibition.

Statistically it's hardly a mess.

The mass murders are so rare they vanish into the margin of error.

The street level killings are in a subculture thing and while unfortunate, are part of the price of being multicultural.

The suicides/murders are a problem but my personal solution is to not have a gun in the house so there's that.

This sounds like a description on how we're going to force Prohibition and other Serious cultural changes on the country and it's going to work. Everyone will put the huge amounts of work into this that it requires because everyone agrees the liberals are right.

My collector friend with his hundreds of pieces in storage will get them all out every few weeks to fill out paperwork. Law enforcement in my own zip code (and his) with our combined murder rate of ZERO will make this their top priority because gangs in Chicago need to be stopped.

There will be no bad actors who already have international supply routes. Everyone will act like sheep and turn in their existing stocks to be registered. Even the criminal element. 3D printers won't be used to make untraceable weapons even though it will be cheap and effective.

The law won't be so complex and onerous that it's effectively impossible to either enforce or follow, and it won't become "if the police feel like arresting you they can".

But we also need to notice that, despite how much the right-wing doesn’t want to admit it, far-right ideology is getting pretty common at terrorism.

Is it? Or is it more the media wants this to match a narrative so whenever it does (or maybe does), we hear a lot about it?

You find what you're looking for with data this noisy and sparse.

There's a cause a effect issue here too. We have violent people looking for violent causes and doing violent things... who can become heroes/celebs in their own story this way. Some of them kill for racism, or religion, or something else... but are these various causes actually creating them?

Is it once again time for me to point out that the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising _had_ weapons? They had _plenty_ of weapons. There were between 300,000-400,000 Jews, and around 2000 Nazis.

The Jews had tens of thousands of people and 68 firearms.

Several hundred resistance fighters, armed with a small cache of weapons, managed to fight the Germans, who far outnumbered them in terms of manpower and weapons, for nearly a month.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/warsaw-ghetto-uprising

Hundreds of people in the Warsaw Ghetto were ready to fight, adults and children, sparsely armed with handguns, gasoline bottles, and a few other weapons that had been smuggled into the ghetto by resistance fighters.

The Nazis, who had every reason to exaggerate the number of Jewish arms, claimed the Jews had the following:

7 Polish Rifles
1 Russian Rifle
1 German Rifle
59 pistols of various calibers
Several hundred hand grenades, including Polish and home-made ones .
Several hundred incendiary bottles
Home-made explosives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

There was a time when "no Irish need apply" signs were a thing.

You're wrong. These guys are using guns because that's what attracts the media and their attention. It fits the pattern of what has happened before.

This existing blueprint probably makes the low functioning guys more efficient. It also makes the high functioning ones less efficient. If we get rid of "assault rifles" without dealing with the media's driving force fueling this, we may look back at these days wishfully.

It's a REALLY bad idea to talk about how to min/max mass murder so I'm not going to go into details and PLEASE no one else take this any further.

This is known as nutpicking. If you're trying to argue that everyone Right of the Dems is eager to set up death camps then picking one nut isn't even close to proving your case.

– You get caught doing any of those things without a permit on file, it’s a felony. Period.
– Minimum 30 day waiting period on all gun purchases. Period.
– End of undocumented private sales. Period.
– Aggressive pursuit of gun trafficking with life sentences for anyone found guilty.

They're saying on the news that the shooter only has traffic tickets on his "criminal record". We're going to find out that none of these have anything to do with reducing these mass shootings that are fueling public outrage.

I would say that your definition of "white nationalism" is "not a democrat".

If everyone is a racist then no one is.

Could you elaborate on this point, like really fill out the details?

Look at the dead bodies, then look at the motivations of whoever killed them. "Respect" or "Conflict Resolution" plays a big role. Person X dies, the guy who killed him is killed, and so forth. Or Person X disses person Y's girlfriend so Y shoots him. Or some teenager shoots a different teen over shoes.

We have the war on drugs, so there are vast amounts of the economy that have no access to the legal system to enforce contracts or handle business disputes. Drug dealers need to handle their disputes with guns. The drug dealers are the big economic power houses in certain places, people respect and look up to them, ergo the local teens mimic them and handle their disputes the same way.

If one kid brings a gun to school to be a big man then they all need to. The same holds true outside of school in teenage disputes in general.

We've had multiple generations grow up watching all this play out. My expectation is a lot of people in prison for violent crimes were exposed to violence when they were young and had their inhibitions against it broken.

And although the war on drugs was the big thing which moved us here, culture is amazingly hard to change and stable. After we end the war on drugs we're going to be dealing with "too much violence" in certain sub-cultures for a generation or three.

A few dead, a lot watching.

Yes. That is the problem.

The media has already given [cause] a lot of national air time.
Worse, they're sending out the message that THIS WORKS!

All you have to do to be famous is to pick up a gun.

We are never going to harden every inch of the country to make us proof against this sort of thing. We're never going to round up everyone's guns. Most damning about the current set of proposals is they wouldn't have stopped this guy.

We shouldn't be giving air time to his ideology. We shouldn't know what he wanted. We shouldn't know his name.

White nationalism is a small minority of these things but they all want fame.