Mark Steel on NRA reaction to Boston bomb. Genius

Post Reply New Topic

It seems to me that there are some pretty sweeping assertions, not least the claim that "Every gun crime is a result of an unhealthy relationship with guns." That's a very difficult statement to swallow, (and that's coming from me, a proponent of the "guns as fetish objects" school of thought).

I have been brought around to the point of view that there is nothing to distinguish the etiology of firearms violence with any other type of violence. So this can take us to a hypothesis that if a person has an urge to do violence (for whatever reason) and reaches for the most effective tool for the job, then a readily available firearm is going to be used. It seems an easy leap to the conclusion, "make firearms less readily available." But what this thinking omits is that the person who intends to do violence will still reach for the most effective tool. And if it's not a firearm it may still be a blade, a blunt object, or a motor vehicle. Lethal violence can still occur in the absence of firearms. So a public policy that only focusses on firearms violence is missing the larger public policy issue: What are the causes of violence?

Now, I don't go so far as to say that all regulation of firearms is ipso facto pointless. And I do think that cultural views have a strong impact on how people respond to the causes of violence. So I think that there is a proper place for regulation; and that cultural shifts will demonstrate impacts on public policy approaches.

If a society is truly and honestly determined to get to the root of violence, it will not do so through treatment of the symptoms.

I am strongly persuaded that income inequality is the single largest contributor to violent crime. That might not be a view widely shared, here; and I don't pretend that it has been proved, but it is strongly supported in academic resarch. A society that wants to prevent violence will address inequality. A society that simply wants to be seen to do something to respond to political pressure will merely react to the consequences of that inequality.

None of our societies have demonstrated themselves to be in the first category, alas.

If someone is deliberately doing something that would kill or seriously injure you or someone else, and you think using a gun to stop them would be wrong, what do you think should be used instead? A feather pillow? Asking very nicely?

Whatever your answer, keep in mind what will happen if the attacker is not stopped.


That's irrelevant. A good case could be made that the life of someone willing to do something so awful that shooting them is a reasonable response is significantly less valuable than someone who isn't, but if we consider the lives to have equal value it really doesn't change anything.

The problem is there are so many guns floating around on the black market that it's impossible to stop criminals from obtaining them. Not without government literally going house to house confiscating weapons. I highly doubt Americans will ever accept that kind of a solution. The other problem is despite what statistics you try to argue, on an emotional level people who already legally own guns would rather be armed than not armed as long as weapons still exist in high numbers on the street.

Despite the somewhat low statistics on legal gun carriers stopping crimes, some people feel more secure being armed. This is a very non-libertarian argument since libertarians tend to dismiss emotions. I tend to think how people feel actually IS important, so I don't see it as justified to tell people they can't carry a weapon for self-defense. I also happen to think how people feel about being systematically discriminated against by employers due to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, in a way unrelated to their ability to perform a job justifies anti-discrimination laws.

Last edited by marshall on 03 May 2013, 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I just feel so terrible. What ever shall I do?


If I like guns then you should hate them by association.

What exactly constitutes an unhealthy relationship with guns?


Swiss gun laws aren't nearly as lenient as most believe.


The populace of this country does not favor gun control at the time and that won’t change for years if ever.


Are any rights important? I don't think it was meant to be a pick and choose constitution driven by what's in vogue in other countries.


The people that truly appreciate the constitution including the 2nd Amendment are the least likely of all to be irresponsible.

Where do you get your information?

When the gun substitutes for your penis.

Like this?

Wait, if you can accept the idea that guns deter more crimes than they cause, why are you even arguing the position you are? Do you have an objection to net benefits or something? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because as written, that doesn't make a lot of sense. That would be like me arguing that the police prevent more crimes than they commit, but they do commit plenty of crimes, and so I think we should get rid of them.



Perhaps you should explain exactly what you mean by "gun culture", as the term seems to have different meanings to different people. The gun culture I'm a part of, for example, is highly respectful of our guns and their capabilities, as are most "gun people" I know. I'm a licensed carrier, that means that I'm held to a higher legal standard and assumed to be the adult in the room in any given situation, that's not something to be taken lightly, if only for the legal implications. You don't even live here, let alone own or carry firearms, so I don't really think you can speak to American gun culture, at least not with any credibility. I live it, you read about it on the internet; guess who's going to have the better information?



And the Swiss concepts of safety and discipline would make gangsters less inclined to shoot each other why again?
Remember, licensed carriers commit any crimes at a rater lower than that of the police, so tell me again about how irresponsible American gun owners are...



How about none of the above? Our Constitutional rights are of utmost importance and are recognized by the Supreme Court as individual rights, so you can drop that "supposed" BS and the scare quotes right now. You're making the common anti gun mistake of mistaking your opinion for common sense, which it is not.




And? Guns are deadlier than clubs and knives, and all of them are deadlier than fists; is any of this news to you? Is anyone here arguing that guns are not the most effective practical personal weaponry currently existent?



Utter BS. Mexican cartels regularly field fully automatic weapons, grenades, RPGs, and other military hardware that may well have come from the US, but not by being bought in a gun shop and walked across the border, unless you count the ATF. What turned Mexico into a war torn failed state was the drug war and the ill considered assault on the cartels by the Mexican government, not our sporting rifles coming over the border. What's that failed policy that kills millions of people that I keep wanting to end again?



You're right, I would agree that if guns are available, they're the most likely tool to be used when someone decides to commit murder, as they're usually the best tool for the job. Where you lose me is this idea that simply having guns around makes people more likely to kill each other, that idea assumes that guns somehow turn normal people into murderers, and that is foolishness. Even here in the gun awash US, you know what you very seldom see? Someone who's led a perfectly clean life right up to the point they murder someone, there's almost always a long criminal history leading up to it. Want to reduce violent crime? Address the reasons that people become criminals, don't try and make society into one big rubber room where we can't hurt each other.



I take accusations of bad faith very seriously. Can you actually back that extremely offensive assertion up with evidence, or are you just another brainwashed Brit who can't comprehend someone actually having an honest difference of opinion? Seriously, this is a real asshole move.



See, you don't get to cop the condescending attitude when your post didn't actually make sense. I wasn't arguing that a lack of guns leads to more suicides, I was arguing that the presence of guns alone does not lead to more suicides, as the statistics bear out, especially considering Japan. You misinterpreted my argument and then made a nonsensical counter argument.



You left out "according to me" and "I think", as in "nobody would be stepped on according to me", and "it would save thousands I think. The UK system, in practice, is a de facto ban on most types of firearm for most people, which is unacceptable both Constitutionally and in general, and even you admit that suicides would be the bulk of the "saved", assuming perfect non substitution of other methods. We've already established that I consider suicide a private matter, and accidents are, again, less people than are struck by lightning; shall we also mandate rubber boots and hats? Also, if you're so concerned about suicide, why aren't you railing for more robust suicide preventing and support services instead of gun control? Wouldn't it be better to help people feel better rather than simply trying to minimize the damage they can do to themselves?



In theory. What's not theory is that you don't have privacy or anonymity of movement, between the cameras and the automatic license plate scanners and the emergent facial recognition software, you can't move about without someone being able to track you as effectively as if you had a GPS receiver in your pocket. What you're doing is trading a lot of liberty for a little security, and it's not even security, it's a slightly better chance at the person who victimized you being apprehended. In the meantime, all the innocent people just trying to go about their lives are subjected to pervasive surveillance, which is a real encroachment. You're living proof of the slow boiling frog analogy, you've never known anything different and don't see any downside to the status quo, even as the water gets hotter and hotter.

Guns are the same really, you don't actually have any experience, merely what you've been spoon fed from birth, and you're not showing any inclination to challenge the party line. You think your gun control schemes will save lives, and that pervasive surveillance is a good thing.



Got something better for the task? Before you answer, remember that I'm not just a gunsmith, but a martial artist and general weapons expert, so think carefully

Also, I think it was addressed by another poster, but you're really going to go with the whole "the attackers life is just as valuable as the defender" thing? The snarky answer to that is play stupid games, win stupid prizes, while the more historical one would live by the sword, die by the sword, or gun, in this case.

You are totally wrong. Having the will or plan to murder somebody does not always mean there is the appropriate tool to carry out the plan. Moreover not all murder plan are successful.

For example you really want the president dead. You would at least need a decent guided missile launched from outside the security parameter. Not being able to find a missile = no murder. Maybe you take the best you get, say a gun, but your chance is next to none. Again no murder.


Fact: the same de facto ban on machine guns and other destructive devices exists in the US. In other words, the whole 'unacceptable both Constitutionally and in general' is nothing but you think.


The two are not mutually exclusive. You are committing a false dichotomy.

(Don't take this the wrong way, but I totally got this image in my head when I read that sentence!!)

Yeah, I don't normally like to make such innately mockable claims, I'm just sick of getting ridiculous suggestions from people who don't really know anything about fighting or weapons. My favorite is tranquilizer darts, I can't tell you how many times I've seen that one suggested, as if the equivalent of phasers on stun existed and people were just choosing not to use it. Tasers other stun guns too for that matter, they don't work like people seem to think they do. I think I even once had someone recommend "knock out gas", like we're living in the Batman universe.

Murder is routinely committed with bare hands alone, so what's your point?
If I need to drill a hole in something, I reach for a power drill, if I don't have a power drill, I grab a brace and bit, if I don't have that, I chuck a bit in a pin vice, or use a hammer and punch, or use the tip of a knife like a reamer. What I don't do is go "well sh*t, I don't have the optimum tool for this job, I'm just going to give up".



Maybe if you're uncreative. I don't think it would take a genius with massive resources to crash a model airplane full of tannerite into the cockpit of Air Force One as it's landing, or use some over the counter DMSO to whip up a contact toxin administered through a handshake. Since I don't want a social call from the USSS, I'll just stick with those two low hanging fruit, but you get the idea. Hopefully.



I can own a machine gun, it's just expensive. I also happen to think that the laws regulating them are still unconstitutional on a number of levels, notably on commerce clause grounds, but that's a whole other argument. What I think is irrelevant to what the Constitution says, UK style gun control would not be legal here without repealing the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you should leave the snark to the pros, you're not very good at it.



Did I say that there were only two options? I suggested a more efficient course of action than the one currently being pursued by another poster. You should read that Wikipedia article on fallacies a little more carefully before jumping in next time.

A lot of murders aren't premeditated. Many are a result of a botched robbery, road rage, altercations, etc... Pulling a trigger is a lot easier to do on an impulse than most any other methods of killing. I don't see how anyone can deny this in good faith.

Yes, and by that logic a gun can also be used for a quick DEFENSE against an aggressor. Why not stop tap dancing around and take a side, ANY side.. Just because that horrible Raptor likes them doesn't make guns evil. Evil is as evil does.

Last edited by Raptor on 04 May 2013, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I won't argue that guns make killing easier, making a normally difficult task easier is the task of most tools. However, I would point out that robberies definitely fall under the types of crime that can be reduced by better social policy rather than gun control, and that road rage type incidents are extremely rare. I would further argue that even altercations leading to violence could be significantly reduced by alleviating the conditions that breed a culture where respect is seen as a person's only commodity of value, and is thus worth killing over.

Systemic reform of the justice system, ending the war on drugs, removing barriers to entrepreneurship, all policies that would reduce violence that I've been on the record for years as supporting, not just as alternatives to gun control either. I know this isn't really your issue though, so I'm not really arguing with you here, just pointing out some things that others have missed.

I agree 100% with those statements.

I think if the government came and confiscated everyone's guns to the point where they were incredibly rare to either own legally or purchase on the black market, homicides would go down some. If we forbid people from driving and forced everyone to take public transportation it would probably reduce automobile collision related deaths. I'm more of a civil libertarian leftie so I don't think those kinds of actions are necessarily worth the sacrifice of freedom even if they would statistically save lives.

Last edited by marshall on 05 May 2013, 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.