Another school shooting

[sys]

i mean, i have a lot of different opinions that don't necessarily form a unified, coherent ideology.

if you want a relatively short version based on u.s. politics, something like:  pro-business, environmentalist, globalist, dem-leaning independent with liberty-maximizing tendencies.

[wetwillie]

Would an assault weapons ban actually put a dent in overall gun deaths? It would put a dent in mass shooting events but I believe that's a pretty small percentage of all gun deaths

by cutting down the mass shootings you might not make a dent in total deaths but you would have a ten-fold reduction in general fear/anxiety that folks have about sending their children to school or going out to public gatherings etc.

eh anxiety seems really difficult to quantify and ww said he was most interested in making a real dent in the 42,000 gun deaths annually.

Mass Shootings are the biggest of the realistically controllable non suicides. 

Depends on how you define mass shootings, but there aren't very many mass shootings. Like fewer than 100 deaths per year. If you think that's the biggest group of realistically controllable non-suicide gun deaths I don't think you're being very rational.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/

Damn, barely anyone dies from mass shootings. 

[star seed 7]

This is where sys and I are symbiotic, give me that sweet maximized liberty

[CNS]

I think we should start with trying to address mass shootings and murders before moving onto suicides.

I don't think we should try to address suicides, as far as gun laws go.  Let's address the crap out of mental health and all the issues surrounding what drives folks to want to kill themselves for sure, but trying to address it though guns is not going to be fruitful and will probably just create a lot of horror stories about suicides that are much more gruesome than just shooting one's self.   

[catastrophe]

“I’m not a Libertarian, I just have liberty maximizing tendencies” sounds like a shirt Gary Johnson would wear.

[sys]

Not property taxes (where applicable), sales/gift tax, or the requirement to record changes in ownership. I’d also argue that the types of auto restrictions advocated for in this case are not on USE but ANTICIPATED USE—such as the requirement to obtain a driver’s license, license the vehicle, regularly inspect it (in some states), and carry liability insurance.

i only recently learned that some states assess property taxes on vehicles.  i've never lived in such a state, but i don't know how common that is.

sales tax is already assessed on guns, as it is on most goods.  recording ownership is a good point, though.

i don't think the distinction between use and anticipated use is meaningful.  how does it matter?

I’m really not sure what this distinction is getting at. The people advocating most vocally against gun restrictions are the same people arguing for the desirability of being able to use a gun at a moment’s notice.

Regardless, requiring training for gun owners and carrying liability insurance to benefit potential gun victims serves the exact same purpose as it does vehicle owners.

because people using guns to kill people is deliberate.  it is the intended use of the product by the owner.  training them in how to better operate their gun does not address this.

i could be wrong, but i suspect that auto liability insurance does not cover the driver deliberately using their vehicle to attack another person.

[michigancat]

I think we should start with trying to address mass shootings and murders before moving onto suicides.

I don't think we should try to address suicides, as far as gun laws go.  Let's address the crap out of mental health and all the issues surrounding what drives folks to want to kill themselves for sure, but trying to address it though guns is not going to be fruitful and will probably just create a lot of horror stories about suicides that are much more gruesome than just shooting one's self.

It was addressed, but thoughtful gun laws would reduce all gun death categories at the same time. You don't need to attack each category in order or something. And yeah you could look at like, Britain's suicide rate compared to ours and think a reduction in guns could also reduce suicides overall

[sys]

“I’m not a Libertarian, I just have liberty maximizing tendencies” sounds like a shirt Gary Johnson would wear.

well, very few libertarians would vote for me is one way to tell me and gary johnson apart.

[MakeItRain]

No

Gun debate aside, this is really rough ridin' stupid and there's no way you can't think we wouldn't have more driving deaths if we didn't license drivers. What are you even saying? lol, absurd. This is just digging in your heels because you just didn't want to walk into rusty's point.

[MakeItRain]

This is where sys and I are symbiotic, give me that sweet maximized liberty

Nearly every case is "maximized liberty" in this country benefits the few and comes at the expense of large groups of people. We've yet to deal with the isims that this country was founded on. We literally have a case right not where a man was legally carrying a gun and he was murdered by someone who was looking to kill a man just because he didn't like the fact that supported black people. The man said he was going to kill someone and the governor called to pardon him after he spent 24 hours in prison.

Maximized liberty is a cop out from taking care of social issues we've yet to address.

[wetwillie]

No

Gun debate aside, this is really rough ridin' stupid and there's no way you can't think we wouldn't have more driving deaths if we didn't license drivers. What are you even saying? lol, absurd. This is just digging in your heels because you just didn't want to walk into rusty's point.

The only real barrier to entry for a drivers license is age, and we already have that with gun ownership. In Kansas you can get behind the wheel of a car by yourself at 15 by passing a simple written test and having your parents sign an affidavit saying you drove a handful of hours in the car with them and take a day long drivers education course.  Anyone who wants to get one can, and the roads are still full of terrible drivers.

[michigancat]

lol I think he's serious

[Rage Against the McKee]

No

Gun debate aside, this is really rough ridin' stupid and there's no way you can't think we wouldn't have more driving deaths if we didn't license drivers. What are you even saying? lol, absurd. This is just digging in your heels because you just didn't want to walk into rusty's point.

The only real barrier to entry for a drivers license is age, and we already have that with gun ownership. In Kansas you can get behind the wheel of a car by yourself at 15 by passing a simple written test and having your parents sign an affidavit saying you drove a handful of hours in the car with them and take a day long drivers education course.  Anyone who wants to get one can, and the roads are still full of terrible drivers.

Licenses also get taken away all the time for things like DUIs, reckless driving, etc. I'd imagine we would stop a lot of murders with small arms if we took guns away for domestic violence like we take drivers licenses away for drunk driving.

[schreds21]

They already do take guns away for domestic violence.

[catastrophe]

Not property taxes (where applicable), sales/gift tax, or the requirement to record changes in ownership. I’d also argue that the types of auto restrictions advocated for in this case are not on USE but ANTICIPATED USE—such as the requirement to obtain a driver’s license, license the vehicle, regularly inspect it (in some states), and carry liability insurance.

i only recently learned that some states assess property taxes on vehicles.  i've never lived in such a state, but i don't know how common that is.

sales tax is already assessed on guns, as it is on most goods.  recording ownership is a good point, though.

i don't think the distinction between use and anticipated use is meaningful.  how does it matter?

I’m really not sure what this distinction is getting at. The people advocating most vocally against gun restrictions are the same people arguing for the desirability of being able to use a gun at a moment’s notice.

Regardless, requiring training for gun owners and carrying liability insurance to benefit potential gun victims serves the exact same purpose as it does vehicle owners.

because people using guns to kill people is deliberate.  it is the intended use of the product by the owner.  training them in how to better operate their gun does not address this.

i could be wrong, but i suspect that auto liability insurance does not cover the driver deliberately using their vehicle to attack another person.

The use vs. anticipated use isn’t a meaningful distinction in my opinion. Just pointing it out that many restrictions on cars apply regardless of use, although realistically you won’t face any consequences unless you do drive.

On #2, the fact there are barriers at all is very likely to reduce the amount of overall gun deaths (mass murder, murder, suicide, accident). Training to explain some basics won’t reduce someone’s desire to murder, but it will reduce some reckless decisions on storing guns and as an added bonus will result in fewer guns in the hands of suicidal and murderous people.

I’ll admit I haven’t looked it up, but car insurance not covering an intentional victim seems odd to me. In either case, there are plenty of deaths either by pure accident or poor storage (so it gets in the hands of a toddler or sandy hook type guy) where insurance would make sense.

[Institutional Control]

https://twitter.com/JeffreyGuterman/status/1645838276232658944?s=20

[sys]

although realistically you won’t face any consequences unless you do drive.

this is really the key point, i think, that makes gun control non-analogous to restrictions on vehicle use.  there are essentially no restrictions on purchasing a car (other than owner registry, as you pointed out, which is something).  if you want to purchase a car, take it home and put in your closet, the state has nothing to say to you.

the fact that enforcement of vehicle use restrictions is possible because cars are large, conspicuous and used on public roads while guns are none of those things also factors into how non-analogous these cases are.

In either case, there are plenty of deaths either by pure accident or poor storage (so it gets in the hands of a toddler or sandy hook type guy) where insurance would make sense.

does auto insurance reduce dangerous or reckless driving?  maybe it does, but i'm not sure that it's obvious that it would.  likewise, i'd think that your child not dying would be incentive enough for people with children to secure their guns (how many gun deaths are the result of young children playing with their parents' guns?  i assume not many, but i don't know), but i admit that humans often do respond prompts pushing them into behaviors that were obviously in their interest even without the prompt.

[sys]

Licenses also get taken away all the time for things like DUIs, reckless driving, etc. I'd imagine we would stop a lot of murders with small arms if we took guns away for domestic violence like we take drivers licenses away for drunk driving.

licenses get taken away, but cars do not.

[sys]

Nearly every case is "maximized liberty" in this country benefits the few and comes at the expense of large groups of people. We've yet to deal with the isims that this country was founded on. We literally have a case right not where a man was legally carrying a gun and he was murdered by someone who was looking to kill a man just because he didn't like the fact that supported black people. The man said he was going to kill someone and the governor called to pardon him after he spent 24 hours in prison.

Maximized liberty is a cop out from taking care of social issues we've yet to address.

i don't see any connection between the example you mention and maximizing liberty.

[catastrophe]

although realistically you won’t face any consequences unless you do drive.

this is really the key point, i think, that makes gun control non-analogous to restrictions on vehicle use.  there are essentially no restrictions on purchasing a car (other than owner registry, as you pointed out, which is something).  if you want to purchase a car, take it home and put in your closet, the state has nothing to say to you.

the fact that enforcement of vehicle use restrictions is possible because cars are large, conspicuous and used on public roads while guns are none of those things also factors into how non-analogous these cases are.

It's a fool's errand to try to regulate criminals away from committing crimes, and it's a red herring to raise that concern in this conversation in my opinion. People drive with expired licenses or car registrations all the time, and with very little risk of getting caught. Still, your average person will be incentivized to go through the legal steps because (1) they want to follow the law, and (2) they realize there is a risk you get stopped for a separate offense, in which case you will get dinged for your dereliction of the other stuff. Regulating guns would be the same way. Sure you could buy a gun and never get it licensed without any enforcement risk, but you could also get stopped for running a red light and for some reason the cop has probable cause to search your car and turned up an unlicensed/unregistered gun. Or maybe that gun accidentally discharges. Or any number of things. We criminalize possession of illegal drugs even though it's incredibly difficult to catch someone with them too.

In either case, there are plenty of deaths either by pure accident or poor storage (so it gets in the hands of a toddler or sandy hook type guy) where insurance would make sense.

does auto insurance reduce dangerous or reckless driving?  maybe it does, but i'm not sure that it's obvious that it would.  likewise, i'd think that your child not dying would be incentive enough for people with children to secure their guns (how many gun deaths are the result of young children playing with their parents' guns?  i assume not many, but i don't know), but i admit that humans often do respond prompts pushing them into behaviors that were obviously in their interest even without the prompt.

Licensing (i.e., requiring proof of basic knowledge regarding driving and road signs) definitely reduces dangerous or reckless driving.

And proper gun storage is not a matter of incentive but of ignorance. I think there are PLENTY of gun owners who do not appreciate the risks involved. The idea would be similar to a defensive driving course. Of course people want to not get in massive car accidents. That doesn't stop them from ignoring what puts them at risk of doing so.

[Rage Against the McKee]

They already do take guns away for domestic violence.

How does this even work if we don't register guns? How do the police even know how many guns they need to confiscate, or if you even have any?

[sys]

We criminalize possession of illegal drugs even though it's incredibly difficult to catch someone with them too.

i think this is a much better analogy for how gun control can/does work.  you restrict possession, not licence use.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

We criminalize possession of illegal drugs even though it's incredibly difficult to catch someone with them too.

i think this is a much better analogy for how gun control can/does work.  you restrict possession, not licence use.

mmm...i dunno about that. With drugs, it doesn't matter what your motivation is for having them...to use or to sell, either way everything you do involved with drugs is illicit. I think there's a big difference in how people behave when dealing with things that are always illegal vs things that are perfectly legal with the valid permits.

[michigancat]

Licenses also get taken away all the time for things like DUIs, reckless driving, etc. I'd imagine we would stop a lot of murders with small arms if we took guns away for domestic violence like we take drivers licenses away for drunk driving.

licenses get taken away, but cars do not.

cars get taken away for infractions all the time. Usually for improper storage!

[Spracne]

Licenses also get taken away all the time for things like DUIs, reckless driving, etc. I'd imagine we would stop a lot of murders with small arms if we took guns away for domestic violence like we take drivers licenses away for drunk driving.

licenses get taken away, but cars do not.

cars get taken away for infractions all the time. Usually for improper storage!

Not to mention civil asset forfeiture!