I've been monitoring the various gun-related discussions being had on this forum, some of which I have participated in, all of which I have eventually removed myself from. The discussions pretty regularly devolve into name calling, a wide variety of personal attacks, and some pretty wild accusations - from both sides. That type of discussion doesn't interest me, and when it seems to me there is no way to pull it back from that space, I withdraw. Further discussion seems pointless. The two sides of this discussion appear to be as entrenched as the two sides of the abortion discussion.
So I'd like to try a thread that sets, as its goal, a hyperbole-free, personal-attack-free, discussion about gun violence and the possible strategies to deal with it. If you're going to post in this thread, I request that people remain civil and refrain from personal attacks, and make a reasonable effort to understand what the other person is saying, even if you disagree with it. If you disagree, why you disagree is important. I don't think any of us is going to avoid being impassioned about this topic - but I am going to ask that the discussion remain respectful. If you cannot do that - please don't post in this thread.
I'll kick it off with some data. So far, in 2018, there have been 2,135 gun-related deaths in the U.S. Thats a rate of 40 deaths per day. Some estimates place gun deaths/day as high as 96/day. That means, that somewhere between 14,600 and 35,040 people will die this year at the business end of a gun. By comparison, 40,000 people died in an automobile incident. The rate misses the CDC top-ten list, coming in at between 33% and 79% of the tenth item on the list (suicide, and we have to factor in that some of those suicides are gun-related). That makes gun violence an issue - but not the thing killing the most Americans. Still, it is the equivalent of a 9/11 scale event every 1-2.5 months, depending on which numbers you believe.
We rank 31st in terms of gun violence. Statistically, with respect to gun violence, we are slightly better than Iraq. Based on deaths per capita, our population is only slightly safer from gun violence than a country in the midst of significant conflict. Given these statistics, I suspect we can all agree on the need to reduce the violence by gun in the U.S. What we appear to disagree on is how.
We also have a 2nd Amendment that provides for certain rights related to guns. This is another place where I see fairly wide disagreement: what this amendment was intended to protect, and the limits that can'should be imposed on these rights.
I suggest we make these two core issues the initial focus of the discussion.
So I'll start with my own position. I believe gun violence is at epidemic levels in the U.S. Any other source that did comparable harm to our population has long since been studied or is currently under study, and recommendations have been put forward to resolve it. AIDS was a problem, so research was funded and solutions put forward. Car deaths were (and are) a problem, so research was funded and solutions put forward. The same is not true of gun violence. By law, the primary research agency for threats to the health, safety, and security has been barred from using federal funds to conduct any research that might be used to advocate for gun control. I believe one of the reasons for the wide variation in the numbers above is because we have not have good, independent, impartial, peer-reviewed research on the scale of the problem and the effect of possible solutions. Ever since the 1993 study by Kellerman, the CDC has been widely seen by the right as "biased" and "having an agenda."
So my #1 item is: we need to find/fund a neutral body acceptable by both sides that can do the necessary research to find the root causes of this epidemic and recommend possible solutions - solutions based on fact and research.
We also have a need to make a reasonable effort to prevent those who should not have guns (i.e., those with mental issues, those with criminal records, etc.) from legally securing them. Illegal gun trade is always going to be present, but it's presence should not stop us from closing all legal paths by which these people can obtain guns. To suggest that the presence of an illegal gun trade should stop us from closing all legal paths to these people would be the equivalent of suggesting that we refrain from setting speed limits because some people speed, or that we refrain from classifying all drugs on the existing schedule system because we have addicts and an illegal gun trade, or that we simply leave all the holes in our border security because some immigrants enter the U.S. illegally. The primary tool for closing these legal paths is the background check. Today, only 78% of the guns acquired in the U.S. are acquired after a background check has been done. That is because background checks are not universally required in all states. I believe this hole needs to be patched.
So my #2 item is: Background checks, with proper funding to ensure that they are done rapidly and accurately, need to be universalized. I do not believe we need a "study" to justify this: I believe this one is just basic common-sense. When there are legal paths to securing a firearm without a background check, we are exacerbating our own problem.
Data is a powerful tool. With the right data, we can set parameters that can raise flags. If someone passes a background check, and secures a gun, and then their mental state degrades and they become a risk, there is a danger. If someone passes a background check, and secures a gun, and then is convicted of a crime, there is a danger. If someone is stockpiling arms, there is a potential danger. Big data can help here. It helps us track who is voting for whom. It helps us track who is buying what to target ads. It helps us track epidemics and health patterns. It could help "pop flags" when a combination of circumstances exists that becomes "cause for concern." A key piece of that data is who owns what gun.
So my #3 item is: A national database of gun ownership, with proper funding to ensure that it is maintained and interlinked with other databases to create the ability to raise those flags. Interestingly - there is precedent for this: the founding father actually saw this as an important part of maintaining a "well-regulated militia."
I believe most other proposed "solutions" cannot really be pushed forward until #1 (above) is done. We don't know if arming teachers/staff will help/hurt. We don't know if gun free zones are helping/hurting. We don't know if limiting the number of rounds in magazines, the type of armaments that can be purchased, bumps stocks, or pretty much anything else that has been proposed will help/hurt. We simply do not have the data. What we have are anecdotes, opinions, and a sea of data funded by partisan sources pushing an agenda.
As for the Second Amendment, I believe it provides for the protection of gun rights. However, like the 1st Amendment, it has limits and is not absolute. I think we disagree on what those boundaries should be. I think those boundaries should be essentiall the same as they are for the 1st (and other amendments): the rights end when they create a clear and present danger to the population. One is free to speak in the U.S. without government intervention - but they are not free to use that speech to incite violence. They are not free to use that speech to slander. There is a long list of limitations to free speech. Likewise, there are limitations to gun rights. We can disagree on what those limitations should be, but any claim that the right to own guns is inviolate is simply a non-starter.
OK - so that's my (lengthy) kick-off. Let's see if it's possible to have this discussion respectfully.
So I'd like to try a thread that sets, as its goal, a hyperbole-free, personal-attack-free, discussion about gun violence and the possible strategies to deal with it. If you're going to post in this thread, I request that people remain civil and refrain from personal attacks, and make a reasonable effort to understand what the other person is saying, even if you disagree with it. If you disagree, why you disagree is important. I don't think any of us is going to avoid being impassioned about this topic - but I am going to ask that the discussion remain respectful. If you cannot do that - please don't post in this thread.
I'll kick it off with some data. So far, in 2018, there have been 2,135 gun-related deaths in the U.S. Thats a rate of 40 deaths per day. Some estimates place gun deaths/day as high as 96/day. That means, that somewhere between 14,600 and 35,040 people will die this year at the business end of a gun. By comparison, 40,000 people died in an automobile incident. The rate misses the CDC top-ten list, coming in at between 33% and 79% of the tenth item on the list (suicide, and we have to factor in that some of those suicides are gun-related). That makes gun violence an issue - but not the thing killing the most Americans. Still, it is the equivalent of a 9/11 scale event every 1-2.5 months, depending on which numbers you believe.
We rank 31st in terms of gun violence. Statistically, with respect to gun violence, we are slightly better than Iraq. Based on deaths per capita, our population is only slightly safer from gun violence than a country in the midst of significant conflict. Given these statistics, I suspect we can all agree on the need to reduce the violence by gun in the U.S. What we appear to disagree on is how.
We also have a 2nd Amendment that provides for certain rights related to guns. This is another place where I see fairly wide disagreement: what this amendment was intended to protect, and the limits that can'should be imposed on these rights.
I suggest we make these two core issues the initial focus of the discussion.
So I'll start with my own position. I believe gun violence is at epidemic levels in the U.S. Any other source that did comparable harm to our population has long since been studied or is currently under study, and recommendations have been put forward to resolve it. AIDS was a problem, so research was funded and solutions put forward. Car deaths were (and are) a problem, so research was funded and solutions put forward. The same is not true of gun violence. By law, the primary research agency for threats to the health, safety, and security has been barred from using federal funds to conduct any research that might be used to advocate for gun control. I believe one of the reasons for the wide variation in the numbers above is because we have not have good, independent, impartial, peer-reviewed research on the scale of the problem and the effect of possible solutions. Ever since the 1993 study by Kellerman, the CDC has been widely seen by the right as "biased" and "having an agenda."
So my #1 item is: we need to find/fund a neutral body acceptable by both sides that can do the necessary research to find the root causes of this epidemic and recommend possible solutions - solutions based on fact and research.
We also have a need to make a reasonable effort to prevent those who should not have guns (i.e., those with mental issues, those with criminal records, etc.) from legally securing them. Illegal gun trade is always going to be present, but it's presence should not stop us from closing all legal paths by which these people can obtain guns. To suggest that the presence of an illegal gun trade should stop us from closing all legal paths to these people would be the equivalent of suggesting that we refrain from setting speed limits because some people speed, or that we refrain from classifying all drugs on the existing schedule system because we have addicts and an illegal gun trade, or that we simply leave all the holes in our border security because some immigrants enter the U.S. illegally. The primary tool for closing these legal paths is the background check. Today, only 78% of the guns acquired in the U.S. are acquired after a background check has been done. That is because background checks are not universally required in all states. I believe this hole needs to be patched.
So my #2 item is: Background checks, with proper funding to ensure that they are done rapidly and accurately, need to be universalized. I do not believe we need a "study" to justify this: I believe this one is just basic common-sense. When there are legal paths to securing a firearm without a background check, we are exacerbating our own problem.
Data is a powerful tool. With the right data, we can set parameters that can raise flags. If someone passes a background check, and secures a gun, and then their mental state degrades and they become a risk, there is a danger. If someone passes a background check, and secures a gun, and then is convicted of a crime, there is a danger. If someone is stockpiling arms, there is a potential danger. Big data can help here. It helps us track who is voting for whom. It helps us track who is buying what to target ads. It helps us track epidemics and health patterns. It could help "pop flags" when a combination of circumstances exists that becomes "cause for concern." A key piece of that data is who owns what gun.
So my #3 item is: A national database of gun ownership, with proper funding to ensure that it is maintained and interlinked with other databases to create the ability to raise those flags. Interestingly - there is precedent for this: the founding father actually saw this as an important part of maintaining a "well-regulated militia."
I believe most other proposed "solutions" cannot really be pushed forward until #1 (above) is done. We don't know if arming teachers/staff will help/hurt. We don't know if gun free zones are helping/hurting. We don't know if limiting the number of rounds in magazines, the type of armaments that can be purchased, bumps stocks, or pretty much anything else that has been proposed will help/hurt. We simply do not have the data. What we have are anecdotes, opinions, and a sea of data funded by partisan sources pushing an agenda.
As for the Second Amendment, I believe it provides for the protection of gun rights. However, like the 1st Amendment, it has limits and is not absolute. I think we disagree on what those boundaries should be. I think those boundaries should be essentiall the same as they are for the 1st (and other amendments): the rights end when they create a clear and present danger to the population. One is free to speak in the U.S. without government intervention - but they are not free to use that speech to incite violence. They are not free to use that speech to slander. There is a long list of limitations to free speech. Likewise, there are limitations to gun rights. We can disagree on what those limitations should be, but any claim that the right to own guns is inviolate is simply a non-starter.
OK - so that's my (lengthy) kick-off. Let's see if it's possible to have this discussion respectfully.
Comment