If you really believe in the sanctity of life & protecting the most vulnerable in our society, then gun-control legislation & enforcement should be championed
You're going to have to eventually square the development of the right to resistance against the State (~established in the English Civil War) with the 2A provision. Taking that away is trying move us backwards in history.
You can tell the health of a society by the health of it's members. The problems aren't gun violence or abortion. Gun violence and abortion are both forms of violence. Both satisfy narcissistic desires. Both are symptoms of a sickness that's rampant in our society.
The BLM 'movement' legitimized Burning, Looting and Murder by even the highest among the political and legal members of our society who showed their support of BLM in many ways and continue to this day. Where is justice for the shop and home owners who got burned out? Where is justice for the people who were injured and killed during the 'demonstrations'?
When simple justice is perverted deliberately by such a large percentage of a society, there is a rampant and deadly sickness.
I keep remembering what Abraham Lincoln said; "What you see in your schools today, you will see in your government in 20 years."
That just keeps getting scarier and scarier each year. I've seen over 60 years of change, and very little in our political and judicial systems give me much confidence. Science is advancing. Technology is advancing. But as a society, we keep regressing as narcissism grows and divisions grow.
Look at all the countries who have outlawed guns, their gun violence has dropped dramatically, just as bombings, arson, bludgeonings and other forms of deadly violence have grown. There was half serious chatter about what to do about knife violence in Great Briton not long ago.
Plug one hole in the dam against violence and another hole will form until the problems with the dam are addressed.
Consider the thought experiment of requiring kidney donation. About 6,000 people die waiting for kidney transplants every year. Many of us could serve as donors, as most of us would do quite well with one kidney.
Imagine working to pass a law that would require all, adults and children--there are children who need kidney transplants--with 2 healthy kidneys to be tested for donor matching factors. The law would then require donation of well-matched kidneys to a people needing kidney transplants. The donated kidney would likely save a life.
Of course the law would never get out of a legislative committee. Compare such an impossible law with laws that require women to give birth. The moral foundation is that laws forbidding abortion save the life of a unborn person, the fetus.
Now consider that the health risks, including the risk of death, are lower--significantly lower--for live donation of a kidney than for giving birth. These two medical situations, live donation of a kidney and giving birth, seem morally indistinguishable to me.
Most gun-related deaths — 54% in 2020 — are suicides. Mass shooting casualties are less than 1% of all gun deaths, and there have been 13 mass school shootings since 1966. These data are little comfort to anyone mourning the loss of a shooting victim, but Shermer is attempting to exploit these extremely rare events for political purposes.
There are an estimated 400 million guns in circulation in the U.S., which leads gun-control advocates to conclude that school shootings are an inevitable outcome of having so many guns around. However, research has failed to find a causal relationship between changes in gun-ownership rates and changes in the level of school violence involving firearms. A recent analysis by Daniel Hamlin of the Rand Corporation found that the number of school shootings varies independently of gun-ownership levels.
Gun-ownership rates in rural areas are higher than in urban areas, yet our cities tend to be far more violent. Whites own firearms at much higher rates than blacks or Hispanics, yet gun violence among the latter two groups is much more commonplace. Moreover, proponents of additional gun laws ignore that shootings continue to plague places such as Chicago, which already has some of the country's most severe gun restrictions. How passing more gun regulations, or taking guns away from the law-abiding, will deter criminals is a question they can't answer.
Some states and countries (Wyoming and New Hampshire, for example) have both permissive gun laws and low homicide rates. Nine U.S. states with permissive gun laws have so few homicides a reliable rate cannot even be calculated. If suicides are excluded, five of the 10 U.S. states with the lowest gun-death rates are states with less restrictive gun laws.
Other states and countries (like Illinois, California and Brazil) have strict gun control laws and high homicide rates. Shermer is always quick to exploit a mass shooting to promote gun control, yet he ignores the bloodbaths in Chicago, where dozens (including women and children) are shot with illegal handguns on a typical weekend.
Some low homicide jurisdictions (Hawaii, for example) have tight gun restrictions but, crucially, already had low homicide rates before implementing their stricter gun laws. They did not get to their reduced homicide rate via their gun laws. They already had it.
In other examples (like with the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban in the U.S.) gun homicides fall in the wake of restrictive legislation but, crucially, were already on a downward trajectory when the legislation was implemented — and stayed on the same trajectory, thus demonstrating no discernible impact on the murder rate.
There simply isn't any correlation [1] between U.S. state gun control laws and their homicide rates.
I understand from prior communication that you believe you are not progressive in ideology yet you have recently expressed progressive/leftist ideas. More problematic, you attacked political adversaries in a very pointed emotional/nonscientific manner. Trying to limit this to politics, I will also include abortion and opioids in the complaint about your political bias. It is very interesting that you portray a non-conspiracy and fairness doctrine. I will try to limit the discussion on the individual issues.
The very idea of comparing "gun control" to "abortion rights" seems very illogical. Gun violence is always accidental or illegal whereas abortion is very intentional. The comparison makes no sense logically.
Let's talk politics. You have accosted Republicans/conservatives with "why don't Conservatives care about the children" (Yang interview 50:50), and "Why do Rep//Con obstruct any attempt to prevent mass shootings". Please explain how Democrats have not enacted "the answer" to gun violence during both the Obama and Biden administrations where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency. So, explain "Why Democrats do not care about the children?" - by your phrase.
On Gun Control:
So, about 4000 "children were killed in 2020 by gun violence. About 85% were 15-19 and debatably "children". Maybe 600 less than 15 years. All completely tragic for sure. There are many current gun laws and more importantly it is always unlawful to shoot a child/anyone. Murder penalties are the most severe in our society. Lifetime imprisonment and until very recently the death penalty. Better "gun laws" might help but it seems very doubtful, especially balanced against the constitutional right to bear arms. Please propose an answer rather than politicize!
To emphasize the political nature of your attacks on political adversaries consider Opioids and Abortion. Opioids kill >100,000 per year with the very high majority trafficked across the southern border. Why not tighten border security? - is it your political ideology? Abortion kills1,000,000 average per year (less in recent years) for the last ~50 years, so 50,000,000 "babies" (tissue, embryos, nonviable collection of cells - you choose the alternative euphemism). Why not limit abortions more severely? The progressive left wants no restriction - to the point of birth. That position has virtually no public support, yet that is the progressive stance. Where is your outrage against no federal restriction on late term abortion? (I am aware they are relatively rare - so why not make it illegal?) Both Opioid and abortion deaths are several orders of magnitude greater and seem to have easier solutions than the gun control issue.
What happened to the open, scientific, apolitical, non-conspiracy Schermer?
But the government *does* move to stop people who kill people with guns. It often shoots them to death, and puts them on trial for murder if they can be arrested alive. It is simply not true to say they allow gun owners to shoot people with impunity.
And the difference between cars and guns is that cars aren’t sold for the purpose of defending the driver from predators, four- and two- legged. If they were there would be fewer restrictions on them tolerated because the driver’s own life would be on the line if the restrictions interfered with the car’s ability to provide self-defence. The silly meme about abortion fails for the same reason.
Finally, I’d like to hear from American gun-control advocates—I’m a foreigner—just what measures they would like to see enacted. If it’s a ban of semi-auto rifles that fire centre-fire ammunition, and seizure of the rifles from current owners, why not come out and say so? (We’ve done the first bit in Canada. The government intends to begin a seizure program when it eventually figures out how to do that with our much smaller number of such rifles per capita.) And then you need to get started on handguns, which kill many more 13-19-year-old “children” than rifles do.
Yes it’s satisfying to mock the Republicans for their thoughts and prayers. But what do you exactly want to *do*? All I’m hearing from you is partisan nastiness in the hope that Uvalde will somehow prevent electoral annihilation of the Democratic Party in November. (As I say, I’m a foreigner. Makes no difference to me who wins your elections.)
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not work. Take the guns away from the law breakers and deputize law abiding citizens to help, instead of demonizing us. The only reason gun control focuses on law abiding citizens is were the ones who obey the law. In Chicago, NY, Portland, you name the Big Blue City, gun control does not work. Law breakers have all the guns and shootings and deaths keep coming
The sanctity of life notion is not reflected in nature or God or the Bible; quite thr opposite. Ironic because it is mostly religious people who preach it. At least when it comes to pro-choice.
You're going to have to eventually square the development of the right to resistance against the State (~established in the English Civil War) with the 2A provision. Taking that away is trying move us backwards in history.
You can tell the health of a society by the health of it's members. The problems aren't gun violence or abortion. Gun violence and abortion are both forms of violence. Both satisfy narcissistic desires. Both are symptoms of a sickness that's rampant in our society.
The BLM 'movement' legitimized Burning, Looting and Murder by even the highest among the political and legal members of our society who showed their support of BLM in many ways and continue to this day. Where is justice for the shop and home owners who got burned out? Where is justice for the people who were injured and killed during the 'demonstrations'?
When simple justice is perverted deliberately by such a large percentage of a society, there is a rampant and deadly sickness.
I keep remembering what Abraham Lincoln said; "What you see in your schools today, you will see in your government in 20 years."
That just keeps getting scarier and scarier each year. I've seen over 60 years of change, and very little in our political and judicial systems give me much confidence. Science is advancing. Technology is advancing. But as a society, we keep regressing as narcissism grows and divisions grow.
Look at all the countries who have outlawed guns, their gun violence has dropped dramatically, just as bombings, arson, bludgeonings and other forms of deadly violence have grown. There was half serious chatter about what to do about knife violence in Great Briton not long ago.
Plug one hole in the dam against violence and another hole will form until the problems with the dam are addressed.
What if the debate were framed in this way?
Consider the thought experiment of requiring kidney donation. About 6,000 people die waiting for kidney transplants every year. Many of us could serve as donors, as most of us would do quite well with one kidney.
Imagine working to pass a law that would require all, adults and children--there are children who need kidney transplants--with 2 healthy kidneys to be tested for donor matching factors. The law would then require donation of well-matched kidneys to a people needing kidney transplants. The donated kidney would likely save a life.
Of course the law would never get out of a legislative committee. Compare such an impossible law with laws that require women to give birth. The moral foundation is that laws forbidding abortion save the life of a unborn person, the fetus.
Now consider that the health risks, including the risk of death, are lower--significantly lower--for live donation of a kidney than for giving birth. These two medical situations, live donation of a kidney and giving birth, seem morally indistinguishable to me.
Most gun-related deaths — 54% in 2020 — are suicides. Mass shooting casualties are less than 1% of all gun deaths, and there have been 13 mass school shootings since 1966. These data are little comfort to anyone mourning the loss of a shooting victim, but Shermer is attempting to exploit these extremely rare events for political purposes.
There are an estimated 400 million guns in circulation in the U.S., which leads gun-control advocates to conclude that school shootings are an inevitable outcome of having so many guns around. However, research has failed to find a causal relationship between changes in gun-ownership rates and changes in the level of school violence involving firearms. A recent analysis by Daniel Hamlin of the Rand Corporation found that the number of school shootings varies independently of gun-ownership levels.
Gun-ownership rates in rural areas are higher than in urban areas, yet our cities tend to be far more violent. Whites own firearms at much higher rates than blacks or Hispanics, yet gun violence among the latter two groups is much more commonplace. Moreover, proponents of additional gun laws ignore that shootings continue to plague places such as Chicago, which already has some of the country's most severe gun restrictions. How passing more gun regulations, or taking guns away from the law-abiding, will deter criminals is a question they can't answer.
Some states and countries (Wyoming and New Hampshire, for example) have both permissive gun laws and low homicide rates. Nine U.S. states with permissive gun laws have so few homicides a reliable rate cannot even be calculated. If suicides are excluded, five of the 10 U.S. states with the lowest gun-death rates are states with less restrictive gun laws.
Other states and countries (like Illinois, California and Brazil) have strict gun control laws and high homicide rates. Shermer is always quick to exploit a mass shooting to promote gun control, yet he ignores the bloodbaths in Chicago, where dozens (including women and children) are shot with illegal handguns on a typical weekend.
Some low homicide jurisdictions (Hawaii, for example) have tight gun restrictions but, crucially, already had low homicide rates before implementing their stricter gun laws. They did not get to their reduced homicide rate via their gun laws. They already had it.
In other examples (like with the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban in the U.S.) gun homicides fall in the wake of restrictive legislation but, crucially, were already on a downward trajectory when the legislation was implemented — and stayed on the same trajectory, thus demonstrating no discernible impact on the murder rate.
There simply isn't any correlation [1] between U.S. state gun control laws and their homicide rates.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/
Michael
I understand from prior communication that you believe you are not progressive in ideology yet you have recently expressed progressive/leftist ideas. More problematic, you attacked political adversaries in a very pointed emotional/nonscientific manner. Trying to limit this to politics, I will also include abortion and opioids in the complaint about your political bias. It is very interesting that you portray a non-conspiracy and fairness doctrine. I will try to limit the discussion on the individual issues.
The very idea of comparing "gun control" to "abortion rights" seems very illogical. Gun violence is always accidental or illegal whereas abortion is very intentional. The comparison makes no sense logically.
Let's talk politics. You have accosted Republicans/conservatives with "why don't Conservatives care about the children" (Yang interview 50:50), and "Why do Rep//Con obstruct any attempt to prevent mass shootings". Please explain how Democrats have not enacted "the answer" to gun violence during both the Obama and Biden administrations where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency. So, explain "Why Democrats do not care about the children?" - by your phrase.
On Gun Control:
So, about 4000 "children were killed in 2020 by gun violence. About 85% were 15-19 and debatably "children". Maybe 600 less than 15 years. All completely tragic for sure. There are many current gun laws and more importantly it is always unlawful to shoot a child/anyone. Murder penalties are the most severe in our society. Lifetime imprisonment and until very recently the death penalty. Better "gun laws" might help but it seems very doubtful, especially balanced against the constitutional right to bear arms. Please propose an answer rather than politicize!
To emphasize the political nature of your attacks on political adversaries consider Opioids and Abortion. Opioids kill >100,000 per year with the very high majority trafficked across the southern border. Why not tighten border security? - is it your political ideology? Abortion kills1,000,000 average per year (less in recent years) for the last ~50 years, so 50,000,000 "babies" (tissue, embryos, nonviable collection of cells - you choose the alternative euphemism). Why not limit abortions more severely? The progressive left wants no restriction - to the point of birth. That position has virtually no public support, yet that is the progressive stance. Where is your outrage against no federal restriction on late term abortion? (I am aware they are relatively rare - so why not make it illegal?) Both Opioid and abortion deaths are several orders of magnitude greater and seem to have easier solutions than the gun control issue.
What happened to the open, scientific, apolitical, non-conspiracy Schermer?
Ken
But the government *does* move to stop people who kill people with guns. It often shoots them to death, and puts them on trial for murder if they can be arrested alive. It is simply not true to say they allow gun owners to shoot people with impunity.
And the difference between cars and guns is that cars aren’t sold for the purpose of defending the driver from predators, four- and two- legged. If they were there would be fewer restrictions on them tolerated because the driver’s own life would be on the line if the restrictions interfered with the car’s ability to provide self-defence. The silly meme about abortion fails for the same reason.
Finally, I’d like to hear from American gun-control advocates—I’m a foreigner—just what measures they would like to see enacted. If it’s a ban of semi-auto rifles that fire centre-fire ammunition, and seizure of the rifles from current owners, why not come out and say so? (We’ve done the first bit in Canada. The government intends to begin a seizure program when it eventually figures out how to do that with our much smaller number of such rifles per capita.) And then you need to get started on handguns, which kill many more 13-19-year-old “children” than rifles do.
Yes it’s satisfying to mock the Republicans for their thoughts and prayers. But what do you exactly want to *do*? All I’m hearing from you is partisan nastiness in the hope that Uvalde will somehow prevent electoral annihilation of the Democratic Party in November. (As I say, I’m a foreigner. Makes no difference to me who wins your elections.)
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not work. Take the guns away from the law breakers and deputize law abiding citizens to help, instead of demonizing us. The only reason gun control focuses on law abiding citizens is were the ones who obey the law. In Chicago, NY, Portland, you name the Big Blue City, gun control does not work. Law breakers have all the guns and shootings and deaths keep coming
The sanctity of life notion is not reflected in nature or God or the Bible; quite thr opposite. Ironic because it is mostly religious people who preach it. At least when it comes to pro-choice.