Gun Control

[Immanuel Can]

Clamping down on that one particular model turns out to be like so many politically-correct symbolic gestures...useless in reality.

By your logic, anything would be more effective than a useless ban on the AR-15.

Well, bans just don't work.

I wish they did: I really do. I would give up any right to own a firearm if I thought it would prevent gun crime. I'd say, "Roll up a big incinerator, throw all the guns in there, and we'll be done with drive bys, school shooters, robberies, domestics, accidents, and the whole lot. Who cares if it ends wildlife management, home defense, police security, the military, and so on...maybe it's worth it." But we know for a fact that bans are neither possible nor effective.

They're like the recycling craze...people love both, because they get to feel virtuous, because they've "done something." But nobody wants to hear that of the seven types of plastic we're throwing away, only one is recyclable at a profit, so the rest are being sorted out (at additional waste and expense) and being landfilled; and at the same time, we now have twice as many waste trucks cruising our streets as we used to have.

And we're doing something else loony: we're "reforming" the prison system by downgrading gun crimes and early-releasing offenders. That means the people actually using the guns to do harm are being put back on the streets, and criminals are not afraid to acquire black market guns or use them. In some places, we're denying a right to defend the home to homeowners, and yet allowing home invaders to use guns. And we're not even prepared to talk about first-person shooter games, or the role of media in school violence...

The gun-ban solution is a simpleton's panic reaction to a problem he doesn't understand, and the virtue-signallers solution to a problem about which he's actually doing nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, school shootings sure are high-profile and bad things, no doubt. But far more people die from other firearms, especially handguns.

This is a reason not to ban AR-15s?

It's a reason not to imagine that banning the AR-15 is going to do a darn thing. It's certainly a reason to start asking hard questions about what real "gun control" means.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s the horror of the AR-15 that motivates me to start with that. For me, the horror transcends the numbers. I imagine it’s the same for many of the people who feel animus toward the AR-15.

You have given your opinion about they and them based on what?

Well, where is this "horror" coming from, if, as you say, the "numbers" don't support it? Are we freaking out because we don't like Darth Vader looking guns? There are uglier, more frightening guns around than the AR-15, I assure you.

Let's take the shooter in Highland Park: when he was arrested, he had a Kel-Tec Sub2000, not an AR-15. The two look nothing alike, and I would think they are equally "horrifying" if we are afraid of looks.

But here is a nice graphic of the actual facts: https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.co ... homicides/

Why, then, are we so "horrified" at the AR-15?

For the same reason that people are more afraid of dying in a plane crash than an automobile accident. Risk is poorly estimated.

Right. But we can't let our fears rule us -- not if putting an end to gun crimes of all kinds is our real intention. We can't treat this serious question with such shabby, purely-symbolic gestures instead of real and substantial solutions.

To ban the AR-15 would really be like trying to end traffic accidents by banning the Chevy Malibu. If that's all we did, wouldn't people have a right to say, "Hey, you don't seem serious about this problem at all"?

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Well, bans just don't work.

I wish they did: I really do. I would give up any right to own a firearm if I thought it would prevent gun crime. I'd say, "Roll up a big incinerator, throw all the guns in there, and we'll be done with drive bys, school shooters, robberies, domestics, accidents, and the whole lot. Who cares if it ends wildlife management, home defense, police security, the military, and so on...maybe it's worth it." But we know for a fact that bans are neither possible nor effective.

Well they are in every country that has tried them.

[commonsense]

And all those folks who own AR-15s, who've never harmed, killed, or even threatened another with that weapon, they lose their property.

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless. L Spooner

We are all individuals who live in a collective society.

Not seein' how livin' together obligates folks to give up property when they've done no wrong with it.

And the excuse well, you might do wrong with it stinks of you're guilty till you prove your innocence.

I see your point.

But I’m sure that if private citizens owned M-79 grenade launchers or 90 mm recoiless rifles, there would be an effort to take them away from their owners as well, even if they never harmed anyone.

It may be a stinkin’ excuse for confiscating property, but apparently it’s the excuse that’s offered.

[Skepdick]

Thanks to my good friend, skep: I also won't be drawn into comparisons between the self-regulation of the 4 rules and the plain-as-the nose-on-your-face violation of natural rights proposed by the control crowd.

Last word is yours, skep.

Oh ok, thank you for the last word.

I guess you also won't be drawn into a "battle" over why Stan, who has been driving drunk all his life and never had an accident or killed anyone has to be subjected to drunk driving laws just because Joe ploughed into a familly of 4 and killed all of them.

Why would the control crowd possibly impound his vehicle after his 3rd DUI conviction?!?

It's really hard for henrietta to understand that reprimanding people only after they've done wrong doesn't bring back the people killed through wrong-doing. The entire reasoning behind "Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is foreign to henrietta.

[henry quirk]

I’m sure that if private citizens owned M-79 grenade launchers or 90 mm recoiless rifles, there would be an effort to take them away from their owners as well, even if they never harmed anyone.

No doubt, and the excuse would be the same: well, you might do wrong with it.

I can't see the possibility of harm justfyin' takin' away, or restrictin' the use of property.

But, of course, that isn't what any of this is really about...

It's not what you own or how you use it that's on the table.

You are on the table.

[Immanuel Can]

Why, then, are we so "horrified" at the AR-15?

For the same reason that people are more afraid of dying in a plane crash than an automobile accident. Risk is poorly estimated.

[commonsense]

Why, then, are we so "horrified" at the AR-15?

For the same reason that people are more afraid of dying in a plane crash than an automobile accident. Risk is poorly estimated.

Exactly. The raw number of murders and manslaughter for whites is larger than the raw number for blacks, giving rise to totally erroneous risk estimates!

[commonsense]

I’m sure that if private citizens owned M-79 grenade launchers or 90 mm recoiless rifles, there would be an effort to take them away from their owners as well, even if they never harmed anyone.

No doubt, and the excuse would be the same: well, you might do wrong with it.

I can't see the possibility of harm justfyin' takin' away, or restrictin' the use of property.

But, of course, that isn't what any of this is really about...

It's not what you own or how you use it that's on the table.

You are on the table.

I glossed over “You are on the table” the other time I read these words. I just scratched my head wondering why you were talking about surgery and decided to let it go.

So, just for a lunkhead like me, could you elaborate? I sorta understand what you’re saying, but not necessarily why you’re saying it. School me.

Thanks

And I see your point about possibility not being the right reason for restriction. My example of the military gear was just the way things are, unfortunately for those of your ilk.

[Immanuel Can]

For the same reason that people are more afraid of dying in a plane crash than an automobile accident. Risk is poorly estimated.

Exactly. The raw number of murders and manslaughter for whites is larger than the raw number for blacks, giving rise to totally erroneous risk estimates!

Are you looking at a different chart? There are no "raw numbers" on it. It's the rate "per 100,000."

[commonsense]

Exactly. The raw number of murders and manslaughter for whites is larger than the raw number for blacks, giving rise to totally erroneous risk estimates!

Are you looking at a different chart? There are no "raw numbers" on it. It's the rate "per 100,000."

Use your imagination. The raw numbers come from imagining that there are so many more whites that a small rate for whites results in a large raw number, not shown on the chart.

[Immanuel Can]

Exactly. The raw number of murders and manslaughter for whites is larger than the raw number for blacks, giving rise to totally erroneous risk estimates!

Are you looking at a different chart? There are no "raw numbers" on it. It's the rate "per 100,000."

Use your imagination.

I'd prefer data, actually.

It's "imagination" that creates the false estimates.

According to the census, "In 2020, the Black or African American alone population (41.1 million) accounted for 12.4% of all people living in the United States..." Meanwhile, "whites" of various kinds were 61.6%. So we should expect, all else being equal, that the incidence of gun violence among "whites" should be abour five times (5X) the level of violence among "blacks."

We have to ask ourselves, if "whites" are the "biggest terrorist threat," as the marchers in the picture want us to believe, why isn't that so?

[commonsense]

Are you looking at a different chart? There are no "raw numbers" on it. It's the rate "per 100,000."

Use your imagination.

I'd prefer data, actually.

It's "imagination" that creates the false estimates.

According to the census, "In 2020, the Black or African American alone population (41.1 million) accounted for 12.4% of all people living in the United States..." Meanwhile, "whites" of various kinds were 61.6%. So we should expect, all else being equal, that the incidence of gun violence among "whites" should be abour five times (5X) the level of violence among "blacks."

We have to ask ourselves, if "whites" are the "biggest terrorist threat," as the marchers in the picture want us to believe, why isn't that so?

Of course you prefer data. It’s objective. It’s accurate.

But people like the sign carriers are not analytical thinkers. I know it’s wrong to think that way. I just want you to realize that people with poor critical thinking skills may think that a mere 1.1X in deaths and injuries means whites cause more problems than blacks.

And those people who are not critical thinkers will rely on their imagination more than on data.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course you prefer data. It’s objective. It’s accurate.

But people like the sign carriers are not analytical thinkers. I know it’s wrong to think that way. I just want you to realize that people with poor critical thinking skills may think that a mere 1.1X in deaths and injuries means whites cause more problems than blacks.

And those people who are not critical thinkers will rely on their imagination more than on data.

Yep. Most of what the public thinks it "knows" today it "knows" only as a group of slogans, it seems. Data and facts are just out.

But reality has a way of winning, in the end. The sloganeers eventually destroy themselves on their war with the facts. Reality just never yields ultimately.