I've lost an inordinate number of friends to lunatics with guns. I am a gun owner, a liberal, and pro gun regulation. So I dig in to this quagmire with some regularity, searching for a way through to the other side. (The "other side" being some practical, legal way to regulate gun sales, training, and insurance, modeled kinda on car ownership.) There are two key stumbling blocks: 1. The Individual Mandate. The Supreme Court has ruled that an individual has the right to own any gun without restriction. That is the law of the land, currently. The only way to change that is to have the Supreme Court hear a case that shows the Individual Mandate to be in contravention of the Constitutional rights of Americans. I have noodled this quite a bit, but I cannot conceive of a court case where an individual's rights would supersede the rights of all Americans. (AKA - "The individual mandate so egregiously wrongs this individual that we are going to remove this Constitutional right from all other Americans.") That's just the reality of the situation. I do not currently think there is a case that could be brought before the Supreme Court that would cause them to backtrack on the Individual Mandate. So... 2. Reduce the number of guns in the wild. If we can't force people to give up their guns because of the Individual Mandate, then maybe we can incentivize people to turn in their unwanted guns, and make the transfer of ownership exquisitely difficult, and provided by few service providers. Take the example of a dealer in antiquities. They need to know the provenance of the piece they are selling. A full and reliable paper trail of ownership, going back as far as possible, so they know the object in question was not stolen from a museum, looted from a heritage site, a counterfeit, etc. Every item an antiquarian sells is highly scrutinized by multiple reliable sources, whose reputation is on the line, and who takes great pride in the work they do. There aren't many people that can look at an Egyptian figurine and determine where it came from, what it is, the chain of custody from when the item was discovered, all the way to the item sitting in the assessor's hands. Drawing the Antiquarian parallel to gun ownership: If I want to sell a gun, I need to register my desire to sell it. I have to provide as complete of a chain of ownership as I can. I need to provide a currently valid certificate that the federal government is not looking for this weapon in connection to any crime. Etc. To sell the weapon, I have to turn it over to an authorized dealer (the antiquarian-like professional described above), who certifies the transfer from owner to owner, and takes a small percentage of the sale price for their service commission, thereby incentivizing them also to sell it at the highest price possible. Along with some sort of federal buy-back program, targeted at gathering up the shittiest of the 250m+ guns off the market, this could, over time, be a Constitutionally-resilient way to begin to deal with the gun problem we have in the USA. ... yeah, it's still just a germ of an idea, but I'm teasing out the details, and working on how this could be implemented, practically speaking. (There's a good model for this here in Seattle right now. A lot of marijuana shops opened up when things got legalized. But as the business reality of regulation, taxes, banking issues, and supply chain management become more refined, the less-professionally-run pot shops are going out of business. This leaves us with higher quality shops, meeting strict regulations, and operating in a very professional manner. I can see the same thing happening with gun shops, if my gun sales idea ever goes into effect: consolidation of many small businesses into larger, more professionally run ones. Dodgy edge-case operators getting out of the business entirely. And the Gun Show loophole finally being closed for good.) Eh. It's an interesting puzzle to try to piece together. And a worthy goal, in the end.
They did run a Daily Show episode on the subject of Australia and their gun control laws. I'm not suggesting anything along the lines of "Just do that! It'll work", but there were a few reasons highlit-up for the success of the Australian campaign that may be of help to your argument. I'd say those Americans who died by the hands of a mass murderer with a gun in his hands got wronged pretty fucking hard. Their families, too. Hell, that ripple went far beyond their immediate friends list."The individual mandate so egregiously wrongs this individual that we are going to remove this Constitutional right from all other Americans."
Problem is, the Australian model doesn't include the "enshrined in the founding documents of the country" problem that we have. They made the law, and people adhered to it. Badda-boom, badda-bing. In the USA, you would have to alter the Constitution in such a way as to REMOVE a right from all Americans. That ain't gonna fly. Ever. In the end, a dead American can't bring a lawsuit before the Supreme Court. And even if someone did it on their behalf, the individual didn't die because of a gun. They died because someone shot them with a gun. Which is VERY different, legally speaking. And no matter how tragic that individual's death, it does not supersede the constitutionally-enshrined right of 350 million other Americans. It's just not a legally tenable position to take, so there's not point in discussing it.
The fact that it takes legalese-level of causal obscurantism to not prevent mass shootings is absolutely fucking insane.And even if someone did it on their behalf, the individual didn't die because of a gun. They died because someone shot them with a gun.
I don't agree. Every complaint you have about guns, every regulation you want to put in place, and your reasons for them, can also be applied to cars. Or planes. Or public pools. Or ladders. Remember, the law can't do anything about mass shootings. Law is something that is applied after the fact. Even if you could find a way to instantly ban all guns, criminals would still have guns. This is true in every country in the world. Gun deaths are the symptom. They are not the problem that needs to be solved. Those people are dead at the hands of an angry white man, and they are not coming back. Preventing the next angry white man from expressing his frustration/insanity with a gun, is the ACTUAL PROBLEM that needs to be addressed. Angry white men use guns, C4, fertilizer, home-made bombs, vehicles, and anything else they can find to express their anger. Guns are just easy to point at because they are scary. But it is the person holding the gun with rage in their heart, that is the actual problem we need to focus on. Otherwise they'll just move on to the next tool in the garage.
While I agree that guns itself are not the root of the problem, I get the feeling that your position lacks some pragmatism. Are they? Is there not a long between the thought of wanting to kill people and the act? I mean, it's not like other countries don't have angry losers that want to kill people, but they don't have mass shootings or mass C4 bombings or mass [whatevers] to the scale that the US mass shootings are happening. The root of the problem has been discussed here before (i.e. KB's "losers with no prospect and a gun") and I would want nothing more than to tackle the root of the problem, but the sheer ease with which you guys can buy and own guns is abhorrent at best and a catalyst for these shootings at worst. Wouldn't you much prefer the loon in the subway to have a screwdriver instead of an AR-15? It may not solve the actual problem but I'm pretty sure not doing that makes the problem way worse. So I think restrictions are desperately needed in the short term, with societal changes something for the longer term. Despite what the NRA wants people to believe, it has bipartisan support:Those people are dead at the hands of an angry white man, and they are not coming back.
I'd prefer we deal with the root problem and not have to worry about Phillips-head screwdriver wielding maniacs on the subway, or whatever.
A Quinnipiac University poll in June 2017 showed 94% of voters support background checks for all gun buyers–including 93% of Republicans. The same poll found that a majority, 57%, believed guns are too easy to buy, and only 35% thought more people carrying guns would make Americans safer. A Pew survey of gun owners found that almost 30% of them support stricter gun laws. “There’s a complete disconnect,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat. Link.
Listen, I want fewer guns out there in the wild. I absolutely do. I also want every single person that owns a gun, to have to regularly be certified in the proper use, cleaning, and care of the weapon, and have to carry insurance, both for theft and unlawful use of the weapon. I want it to be a difficult and long process to buy or sell a gun. All of this would be Good and Right. But none of it is legally feasible, for all the reasons I have already stated, and more. It is also not feasible from a practical perspective either, because there are simply too many guns in circulation in the US. We can't get 50k coal workers to accept retraining in higher-paid less dangerous work, for free. We are NEVER gonna be able to reclaim any significant portion of the 250+m guns in private hands in the US. So what CAN we do? We can address the actual problem, which is angry white men who see a gun as a way to express themselves, their anger, their frustration. This is a social, societal, medical, services issue that we can approach with science, data, and historical precedent, and grounds upon which the NRA has zero traction, experience, or skills with. Progress can be made on the Angry White Man Issue TODAY, with funding and programs that are already in place, with zero legal, legislative, or political action needed. Guns don't kill people. Angry white men with guns kill people. If we address the angry white man problem, the number of guns out there, who owns them, and how they get transferred between owners can be dealt with at another time. Because people will stop dying in droves from one man with issues. Of course, gun suicides still outnumber all other gun deaths by an order of magnitude, but ... oh wait, look at that... it's another social/medical issue, rather than a gun issue! Let's address that one at the same time. Remove the guns, and you still have angry white men with ANFO. Remove the angry from the white men, and ... shit. Can you imagine how cool the world would be then?!?
You want to resolve society before you put in place some scaffolding because, apparently, WE CAN'T DO IT™. Coming from a country that has trouble keeping up the 9/11 disability pension, I have high doubts about that being more feasable. I would like to see it happen. I don't see it happening. Maybe I'm blind, or maybe I'm blinded by the bonfire next to the AR-15 totem that people dance around.Remove the angry from the white men
I'm glad we largely agree. Still, I have a few points: I might be completely missing some basic understanding of your legal system, but isn't the Consitution a living document, at least to some degree? What are amendments if not improvements over that supposedly enshrined set of rules? (And wasn't it Jefferson who said the Constitution should expire after 19 years?) "[T]he Court adopted the notion that the Constitution is not static. It doesn't mean what the people voted for when it was ratified. Rather, it changes from era to era to comport with – and this is a quote from our cases, "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." [...] It seems to me that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent change, not to foster change and have it written into a Constitution." This seems to me a clear example of society maturing, becoming more civilized. Yet you give some good suggestions for how to do that in the top post! Maybe I'm just more optimistic and / or naive than you in this regard, but I think that a restriction on ammo and a reduction of supply might help quite a bit. And less suicide! Over here, women attempt suicide more often than men, but men succeed more often because they use more drastic (and less fail-prone) ways of suicide, like jumping off a building instead of trying to ODing on over the counter medication. I distinctly remember a factoid that the most dangerous single thing you can do in your home (largest increase in likelihood of death) is to get a gun, as it might make a difficult night into your final night. Can't find the source, but my point is that the availability of guns is not an insignificant contributor to the problem, and that I think "just" calling it a societal problem is a reduction of the complexity of this problem.But none of it is legally feasible, for all the reasons I have already stated, and more.
In a fascinating question-and-answer event in 2005 between Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, the question was broached as to when and how the concept of a "living" Constitution came to be. Scalia opined that the Court first began employing relativism to a significant degree starting around 1945, right after World War II. As Scalia says:
We are NEVER gonna be able to reclaim any significant portion of the 250+m guns in private hands in the US.
Remove the guns, and you still have angry white men with ANFO.
Yes. When the government is working in the way intended, the Constitution is supposed to be a living document that changes over time, and that's why the ability to add Amendments exists. The problem is, it has been a long time since Republicans and Democrats worked together to govern in the best interests of the American people. Since roughly the Reagan-era, it has been polarization and entrenchment, and any discussion, collaboration, or efforts to work with someone on the other side of the aisle has been seen as traitorous, rather than an effort to reach accord on real issues. The last time we had an actual Amendment to the Constitution that actual changed any material part of the founding document, was in 1961 when we limited Presidents to two terms. Prior to that it was giving women the right to vote in 1920. So in theory the Constitution is a living document that should undergo changes from time to time to adapt to the changing world. In practice? Our political discourse is broken, and until that is repaired, changing the Constitution just isn't feasible. True. But people don't buy ammo to go on a gun rampage. They use what is available to them at the moment. 220m guns take a lot of ammo. And people have been stockpiling that shit for decades. America is also fiercely anti-regulation, and it is an easy task to equate limiting ammo sales and production with "killing American jobs". Ain't nobody gonna vote for something that puts Americans out of work. Again, like I said, this is a social problem to be solved with treatment programs. Making suicide a guns issue is failing those who are inclined to commit suicide. We need ways for them to easily get the help they need, when they need it, whether they want it or not. Small anecdote: I lost 5 friends to a mentally-ill man with a gun, who walked into their cafe and shot everyone inside. His family knew he was unwell. They had tried a variety of treatments. But he was an adult, and living in a different state, and the laws said you had to consent to being committed for a psych eval, and he - being sick - refused the service. Multiple times. His family knew he was sick. They appealed to the authorities to help them do something about their son/brother, and the authorities failed. Blaming the gun for his death is a disservice to him and to anyone suffering from depression, or any mental illness. We need to address this problem systematically, with better options available all along the line. Unfortunately, Reagan dismantled these programs in the late 1980's, and there is no way to rebuild a social-service program in America, now that everything has to turn a profit. I might be completely missing some basic understanding of your legal system, but isn't the Consitution a living document, at least to some degree?
...I think that a restriction on ammo and a reduction of supply might help quite a bit.
And less suicide!
I wouldn't call that 'small'...I can't even begin to imagine how awful that must have been. I'm sorry, I did not mean to do anyone a disservice, especially not you. I wish there were easy answers to these issues. And I really do want systematic solutions, and I wholly agree that the root of the problem is largely with societal issues. My intent was to discuss the complexity of the issue - to not reduce this issue to any single cause, because my impression is that it is a mixed bag of illness, poverty, exclusion, lack of (societal) prospects and violence that kills people. It's not a guns issue but it's also not not a guns issue, if that makes sense...Small anecdote:
They'll come around. We often try to legislate behavior in the US. It doesn't work out most of the time. Legislate against guns. Fine. The next angry white man will go back to using fertilizer to make a bomb. Or a rental truck. Or poison in Tylenol. Or a dirty bomb. And I, personally, don't want to fight that war of escalation. I'd prefer we deal with the root problem and not have to worry about Phillips-head screwdriver wielding maniacs on the subway, or whatever.
I'm not sure what you mean by Individual Mandate with respect to gun ownership. You mean the second amendment right to own a firearm? The Individual Mandate typically refers to the section of the Affordable Care Act which compels health insurance coverage under a tax penalty. Not quite. You can't own a sawed off shotgun per the Supreme Court. But nonetheless, you're right that personal firearm ownership is a broad right. I'm with Sam Harris on the subject of gun ownership. It should be incredibly difficult to get a gun license. Think pilot license-level of training, scrutiny, and regulation. But it's such an intractable mess of history and politics right now that I'm not to hopeful for any imminent resolution, even in the next generation. I just want to hear an honest gun advocate come out and say it: mass shootings are the social cost of the ease with which people can buy and own firearms in this country. I resent that that cost is hoisted upon us, but it's not up to me.The Supreme Court has ruled that an individual has the right to own any gun without restriction.
He means McDonald v. Chicago. Basically, if the Feds say you can own a gun, your city can't stop you from owning a gun. Goobster's discussion is much more about the mechanics of minimizing gun violence. The relevant law, since John Roberts took over, has been that city and state bans can be superseded by federal permission. However, they didn't declare The Purge and drop the mic. Scalia: So. California's gun restrictions still stand. Massachusetts gun restrictions still stand. Pretty sure NY's restrictions still stand. What you or Sam Harris want isn't really the issue here - it's what can be made to happen. McDonald v. Chicago wasn't nearly as sweeping as it could have been. It's been seven years and you're not entirely aware of it. I'm no legal scholar but Scalia's opinion, to me, says "this is not an originalist end-run around gun laws and what's in the constitution is not clear enough to be considered a complete mandate. Fucking legislate, people."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.
I probably shouldn't have capitalized it, but in colloquial terms around the 2nd Amendment, the "individual mandate" is the Supreme Court's support for the idea that the individual's right to bear arms - regardless of their participation in or with a militia - cannot be infringed. This is commonly known as the "individual mandate", in 2A circles. McDonald v. Chicago establishes the right to self-defense with a gun, and builds upon District of Columbia v. Heller, which establishes the constitutional right of an individual to own a gun, outside of their participation with a militia.