[mc32]

Author asks:

"I would start by measuring the magnitude of mass shootings as a problem. How does it compare to other issues such as preventable diseases, regular crime, terrorism?"

But is that the best comparison?

What about comparing it to frequency and impact in other countries?

When we want to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment, we don't measure efficacy against the treatment to a completely different disease. So here, I think it would be more informative to have comparative study done across countries, societies rather than this distraction.

Author is basically saying, anything that is statistically small, does not deserve attention. So research into any low probability disease should be ended because there bigger fish to fry. I think we can do both.

[stfu]

Author is basically saying, anything that is statistically small, does not deserve attention.

No, he is not. He is saying, anything that is statistically small, and the elimination thereof would substantially restrain the rights and freedom of others, should be questioned.

No matter how you are going to argue, there is at least "some" purpose for guns - for self protection, etc. If the discussion were really about saving lifes, it makes no sense why not putting a ban on smoking, something that clearly has no purpose at all.

[Daishiman]

He's saying that things that have such a low occurrence that they're indistinguishable from statistical outliers are not good targets for generalized public policy, since the benefits are not provable.

[csense]

> But is that the best comparison?

Yes, it is. You have a limited amount of resources -- in this case, tax dollars and political capital.

If you're spending dollars or votes to save lives, you should spend them on the thing which saves the most lives per dollar spent.

> What about comparing it to frequency and impact in other countries?

Another commenter on this article said that this comparison indicates that gun control doesn't really help [1].

To this, I'd add that most countries that have a strong gun control never had the situation of the US: millions of guns already in public circulation; many pro-gun individuals and a powerful political faction; and a very difficult procedure (amending the Constitution) required for changing policy.

These obstacles are pretty much insurmountable right now; you'd be well-advised to spend your political capital on an issue where you have a decent chance of winning.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934323

[mc32]

I think that makes sense.

I think what I was reading sounded like "there might be less gun violence over there, but don't look into why, it's not worth your while".

My thought was that maybe it is worth our while to look into why.

when one decides upon controlling guns, it would be prudent to grandparent people in. New rights revocation would only be applied to the upcoming generations. This way you don't alienate a population from something they hold dear, but would ensure whatever you're enacting becomes effective over time.

[hga]

You think parents and grandparents care that little about their descendents' future? That they're that selfish? (Do note we apparently have very different worldviews, my side sees widespread gun ownership as a good thing; you don't have to agree with that, just agree that there are 10s of millions like me.)

I'm afraid you're wrong, and are proposing just another way to spark the 2nd American Civil War, which I'd rather avoid. (I'm assuming you won't repeal the 2nd Amendment first, since I can't see that happening politically in the foreseeable future.)

[ollysb]

I visited Phoenix a couple of weeks ago and was shown a gun collection owned by a previous member of the army. I was shown a pistol collection, then rifles, then semi-automatics. Really a quite staggering amount of hardware. When I asked what license was required to own this type of equipment he replied none. Without making a judgement on whether or not civilians should be allowed to own this type of equipment in the first place, should it not be an absolute minimum that people first obtain a licence to purchase guns. We don't allow people on the roads without a licence and they're not even designed to kill. A simple first step would seem to be requiring basic equipment/awareness training and a licensing process.

[pc86]

Something gun control advocates seem to forget is that gun ownership is a Constitutional right for Americans. You cannot compare it to driving a car, or buying a television, or buying something from Amazon. If you're going to compare to something else for the purposes of limiting and regulating it, you need to compare to voting, assembling, practicing your faith or some other Constitutional right.

When you are required to get a license to cast your ballot or attend your church, then you can make the argument for getting a license to purchase a firearm.

[zzzeek]

The most recent supreme court decision DC v Heller upheld the fact that second amendment rights are not unlimited.

> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#...

this is considerably more limited than the restrictions on attending churches. w.r.t voting, you do need to register ahead of time and in some states you may even have to show a photo ID, though this is under debate.

[tthomas48]

Remember it's an amendment. Which means it can be repealed. We also at one point had an amendment outlawing all liquor and then another that repealed it. The inverse could be done easily with the 2nd.

I'd imagine it's something that won't be out of the question in about 20-40 years. Gun owners are overwhelmingly white, male and older. A demographic that is dying of old age.

[wonderzombie]

Remember it's an amendment. Which means it can be repealed. We also at one point had an amendment outlawing all liquor and then another that repealed it. The inverse could be done easily with the 2nd.

This is something that often goes without mentioning, so thanks for bringing it up.

The founders were not idiots. They did not want to create a set of stone tablets, a collection of unchangeable holy texts. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were intended to be changeable, living documents, adaptable to the times.

Maybe it's time to question whether or not the status quo can scale and remains consistent with our societal values.

[joshuahedlund]

This is a trend I would expect too, but the data does not appear to support it. Gun control has actually become consistently less popular over the last two decades[1]. I actually don't have a clue why, as it seems to counter other various demographic/political trends.

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07...

[tthomas48]

It correlates with a massive decrease in crime. It's interesting, but I live in a fairly mixed-income and higher crime area and guns are very unpopular here. I think ultimately it's some sort of weird reaction to extreme safety. Our brains start creating fake risk when we don't have any in our lives.

[nollidge]

I assure you gun control advocates have not forgotten about the second amendment since the opposition will not shut up about it.

Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.

[pc86]

And I welcome you to explain to me how my owning a particular type of firearms constitutes "threat of death or injury." Brandishing is already a crime, so I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

[smacktoward]

If you fail to store it securely, it could be stolen and used against me.

If you fail to operate it properly, I could be struck by a bullet fired by you at somebody else.

2nd Amendment absolutists love talking about their rights, but spend precious little time talking about the responsibilities that come with them. Which are (or should be) significant, when the right you are talking about is the right to wield a lethal weapon.

[pc86]

A stolen weapon used to commit a crime does not constitute a crime on the part of the original owner. In my state there is no legally required way to store a firearm. Shooting someone accidentally certainly leaves the person operating the firearm open to civil litigation, and possibly criminal prosecution. I don't think anyone has every implied otherwise. All the regulations that have been mentioned refer to purchasing a firearm. If you want to require rifles be locked up at night, make the argument that it will help prevent theft. Don't make the argument that someone can't purchase it in the first place.

I'm not a "2nd Amendment absolutist" as you put it, no more than I am a free speech or free press absolutist. I have no problem with licensure or registration so long as it's not prohibitive, and you will be hard pressed to find gun owners who say there are no responsibilities associated with gun ownership. To get a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state requires $20 and a few weeks while they do a cursory background check, depending on the county. To get a handgun or rifle takes half an hour for a phone call background check.

If politicians like Sen. Feinstein would stop talking about banning weapons wholesale that had nothing to do with any recent tragedy, and instead talk about a national level of firearms reciprocity (while requiring locations like NYC, Chicago and DC to come up to par), you'd see folks on the Right move quickly and decisively to supporting more common sense gun regulations.

[nollidge]

I think my point was pretty explicitly clear. Perhaps there's some other point you imagine I was making that you disagree with, but I can't really help you out of that pickle.

[boboblong]

You sound like a parody of the left. "Your rights end where my feelings begin!" Is that really your stance?

[Steko]

That's not his stance, that's fundamental constitutional law. Quoting Paul Waldman from TAP:

"for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right."

[boboblong]

He said:

>Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.

Apparently, if someone legally owns a gun, this presents a "threat of death or injury" to others. Of course, if the gun weren't legally owned by an individual but still existed, it would either be illegally owned by an individual or be legally owned by the government or by some other exempted institution. You might feel safer with only the government and criminals owning guns, but many others would feel less safe. What makes your fear more legitimate than theirs? Other rights are restricted only when exercising them would directly infringe on the rights of others. You can't demonstrate that you would be safer if a particular gun owner with no criminal record were forced to turn in his gun. You can't even demonstrate that you would be safer if all law-abiding gun owners were forced to turn in their guns. Even if you could, you couldn't demonstrate that your increased safety wouldn't be more than offset by the decreased safety of the gun owner(s).

The comparison between gun ownership and first-amendment rights is not a good one, because there are already restrictions on gun ownership comparable to the restriction on first-amendment rights. True, you don't have the right to practice human sacrifice--you also don't have the right to murder people with your legally owned guns. True, you can be prosecuted for incitement--and also for waving your gun around in public. True, you can be sued for libel--and you can be prosecuted for brandishing.

[nollidge]

Point out where I said "feelings".

EDIT: The word I used was threat, which, if arguing in good faith, you would have read as "actual risk", rather than "angsty feelings".

I also qualified it with the phrase such as it is. Which, again in good-faith discourse, means "if it exists" or "whatever form it takes".

But do continue to tell me more about how I feel.

[boboblong]

If a particular gun owner is threatening you, you can take legal action against him or her.

[wonderzombie]

Many items in the Bill of Rights are far more nuanced than this absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

For one thing, there are multiple restrictions on freedom of speech. Maybe you think those oughtn't exist, but we're talking about the status quo, not ideal worlds.

This is not to mention the idea that there are multiple ways to adjudicate whether this means "all guns" or "some guns," since there's quite a difference between an assault rifle or handgun and a simple rifle. Then there's the "well-regulated militia" piece.

I'm not advocating for any particular reading. Rather I disagree that the Bill of Rights ought to be the last word in any discussion. I think the Bill of Rights is better suited to a starting point, and the history of the judiciary in this country seems to bear this out in practice.

[jack-r-abbit]

True. It is kind of interesting how often the "well-regulated" part is overlooked. To regulate something is to control it. So... there is that.

[boboblong]

When the second amendment was written, "well-regulated" essentially meant "properly functioning".

[Anechoic]

DC v. Heller: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

[ollysb]

> gun ownership is a Constitutional right for Americans

To turn this round, this constitutional right is the reason that Americans are allowed to own weapons that are normally used in warzones at the age of 18 and without any safety measures. The world has changed since the constitution was written. If you were writing it today, would you still include the right to bear arms?

[hga]

Absolutely. The French Revolution which followed not long after sparked a new type of government mass murder, with death tolls in the 20th Century in the 10s to 100s of millions (the latter is my adjustment based on how much estimates of Communist mass murder get increased when a country really opens up).

Somehow, these actions always happen to disarmed people....

They are, at least here, truly "unthinkable", for "it can't happen here" without a preceding confiscation of the nation's guns. Which is a sufficient tripwire to provoke a counter-revolution to stop things from ever getting that nasty.

One might also look at the Swiss experience.

[hga]

Driving is not an enumerated Constitutional right ... and you're not comparing the same things. Generally, you don't need to have a drivers license to own a vehicle, that is, have your name is on the title. You do need one to drive, and strangely enough, of the 42 states with de jure and de facto shall issue concealed carry regimes, all but 3 require a license. Although Arizona is a recent example of dropping that as a requirement, along with Alaska, and Vermont since the founding (the only state not to enact gun control to restrict those pesky freedmen or immigrants).

[bdunbar]

> We don't allow people on the roads without a licence

I'm not convinced by this argument. Firearms are not used in public spaces, but in private land, or on club-owned property.

[Zimahl]

Actually, most hunting is done on public land - typically state or federal. There are private game ranches, but those aren't the standard.

[bdunbar]

Point! I was thinking 'shooting range', not hunting.

Which is silly - where I live half the office is gone during deer season.

[Maxious]

> NEWTOWN, Connecticut: People in the rural, hilly areas around Newtown are used to gunfire. [...]

> But in the last couple of years, residents began noticing loud, repeated gunfire, and even explosions [from propane gas tanks used as targets], coming from new places. Near a trailer park. By a boat launch. Next to well-appointed houses.

> [...] ''We're growing,'' [Council Ordinance Committee Chairwoman, Mary Ann Jacob] said on Saturday, describing a town where hikers and mountain bikers competed with gun owners for use of trails and forested areas.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/guns-are-why-were-free-8230-peop...

[bdunbar]

Your point - do you have one?

[justincormack]

Firearms are never used in public? Ever?

[hga]

Both Clayton Cramer and the US Government Accountability Office ("Investigative arm of Congress charged with examining matters relating to the receipt and payment of public funds.") this summer estimated there are outstanding around 8 million licenses to carry concealed.

I can't speak for others, but I can say that almost every time I walk outside I've carrying a M1911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol).

[bdunbar]

The only occasion I can think of where a private citizen would use a firearm in a public area is a city-owned gun range, or hunting on public land.

[thezilch]

Sort of; the author does go onto say how R&D could help "solve" both mental illness and mass shootings. There is definitely a cap on what can be done, so the suggestion is to bake the cost into issues that are already more statistically large and probably solvable.

Theoretically, he does compare to other countries, as the statistic is a rounding error -- not statistically relevant.

[sp332]

I don't understand your question. Mass shootings seem to be more rare in e.g. Europe. But how does that help anything?

[jbellis]

"If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

"You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooti...

[Turing_Machine]

"Mass shootings seem to be more rare in e.g. Europe."

History indicates otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

[sp332]

I can't downvote you, but that's a useless comment and you know it.

[Turing_Machine]

Don't worry. Your cobelievers already did it.

I guess I just don't have the "sophisticated" European point of view that says that millions killed by government don't count.

[sp332]

It's not relevant to the conversation. We're talking about individuals. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... seems to have a lot more action than the part of your page since the late 18th century, so I think you're wrong either way.

[Turing_Machine]

The death toll from the European wars is in the millions.

In addition to the wars per se, European governments have killed millions of their own citizens, and they've been at it for centuries.

[throwit1979]

It's absolutely relevant, since the purpose of the Second amendment is largely protection against governments, not critters, varmints, or even criminals.