If you really believe in the sanctity of life & protecting the most vulnerable in our society, then gun-control legislation & enforcement should be championed
The New England Journal of Medicine "article" cited by Shermer is actually a letter to the editor written by three gun-control activists. It wasn't peer-reviewed and contains many statements that are simply false. Of course mainstream media, who are always desperate to find any support for gun control, widely disseminated the claims of the authors anyway.
Analyze the data [1] for yourself. There were a total of 43,676 gun-related deaths in 2020, excluding instances where the shooter was a police officer. Of those deaths, 56% (24,292) were suicides. The 19,384 homicides were less than half the number of motor vehicle fatalities (40,698). The CDC data are consistent with a report [2] in the Harvard Political Review, which noted that suicides accounted for nearly two-thirds of the gun deaths in 2019.
While the letter to the New England Journal of Medicine is flawed, there has been a large increase in violence in America during the past two years. From January 1st to April 10th of this year, robberies in the New York transit system are up more than 70% year over year. Felony assaults in the subway have increased by 28%. Grand larceny is up by more than 100%. The problem isn't more guns. More American families had guns at home 50 years ago than they do now. According to the Rand Corporation, 45% of American homes had a gun in 1980. In 2016, that percentage had dropped to 32%. The problem is that people have become more violent, and Democrats have increasingly removed the major deterrent to crime by refusing to prosecute criminals.
The use of antidepressants in this country is increasing dramatically. Between 1991 and 2018, the total consumption of Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the most commonly prescribed antidepressants, increased in the US by more than 3,000%. In Canada, state-funded antidepressant prescriptions for young people doubled over the last decade. During the COVID lockdowns, SSRI prescriptions increased by more than 20%. More than 107,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2021. That's the highest annual death toll ever recorded and a 15% increase from the year before.
So, people are more depressed, more unstable, more suicidal, and, in some cases, more dangerous to others. In addition, people are increasingly disconnected from other human beings. In 2020, adults in the United States spent an average of 8 hours every day on digital media staring at a screen. That's a 20% jump from 2019. The lockdowns made it worse, especially for school-age kids, who were the least likely to spread or suffer from COVID yet were often subjected to the most severe isolation.
One of the people who spent a lot of time online during the pandemic was the shooter in Uvalde. The shooter in Buffalo also spent a lot of time online. In fact, he blamed the Internet for radicalizing him: "I spent almost a year planning this attack," he wrote on April 26. "Oh, how time flies. If I could go back, maybe I'd tell myself to get the f off 4Chan and the worldtruthvideos and get an actual life. Too late for that now."
Both shooters were detached from their peers and families, and both were mentally ill. We should be focused on what makes people like them dangerous, and how we can better help them, rather than blaming the inanimate objects they used to commit murder. If they hadn't used a gun, they would have substituted a knife, crowbar, bomb, arson, or, like the murderer in Waukesha, a car.
As Democrats try to use the recent mass shootings to justify pushing gun control legislation that would outlaw rifles such as the popular AR-15 platform, it’s worth noting that knives, clubs, hands and feet actually kill more people than rifles. If you examine the 2019 FBI homicide data [3], the vast majority of gun deaths do not involve the dreaded semiautomatic rifles Democrats want to ban. Only 364 people were killed by rifles out of 10,258 gun deaths that year, and not all of those rifles were semiautomatic. For comparison, 600 people were killed in 2019 by the use of hands or feet, and 1,476 were killed by use of a knife. More people (397) were killed by the use of a blunt object, such as a hammer or bat, than were killed by rifles.
As is always the case with mass public shootings in general and school shootings in particular, the response of the Democrats, besides trying to exploit the tragedy for political gain, is to do nothing but call for more of the sort of gun control legislation that failed to prevent these shootings in the first place. Regions where the Democrats are in charge and have implemented the strictest gun laws, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, have the highest homicide rates in the country.
Shermer says that "gun control is a pro-life issue," but more lives are saved by guns than are taken by them. More than 2 million lives [4] are saved each year when potential victims use a gun to defend themselves. That's over 5,000 lives saved each day, and far more than the number of gun homicides. In most cases, simply brandishing a gun is enough to send an attacker running.
Shermer: "I'll have much more to say about this problem when my rational faculties return." When it comes to this problem, Shermer's faculties have been missing for decades and seem unlikely to appear. Mental illness, drug abuse and broken families can lead to violence. Part of the appeal of gun control is the simplicity of its narrative, but it ignores the real drivers of homicide. Politicians and pundits should devote more time and resources to policies that might actually reduce violence, rather than simple-minded tropes that are politically expedient but help no one.
Your comment has on display the sort of rational, evidence-based and scientifically-minded content and structure --- as a prototype at a minimum --- that is urgently needed for the discussion, analysis and knowledge-discovery of issues addressed here. Thank you!
I love the connection you’ve made between gun violence and abortion. So obvious. I’m mad at myself for not thinking of it.
Anyway, for my brief comment on gun control, I offer the text of a yet to be published letter-to-the-editor I sent to the local paper.
The Second Amendment, which established the right to bear arms, is moot. And it has been for over 100 years. In 1903, HR 11,654, “a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes, and to replace the Militia Law of 1792," was passed into law. It became known as the Dick Act.
The Act, with its subsequent amendments, effectively did away with the militia in the 2nd Amendment. It set up the National Guard and Reserves in its place.
“Arms” means weapons of war. Arms are used by an army and kept in an armory. “Present Arms” is a command in the military.
There are those, of course, who want the 2nd Amendment to say something that it doesn’t say, that it is the right to own guns for any purpose. But rendering the 2nd Amendment inoperable doesn’t mean there is no right to own guns.
That right is a matter of common law or one of the unenumerated rights in the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – like owning guns.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce. A common use of that power is to assure that products are safe. Guns, by their nature, are not safe. Therefore, Congress is free to establish such rules as are necessary to make guns safe, including the manufacture, sale, use, and conditions of ownership. If only they would.
As Alexander Hamilton wisely observed, “When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation”
If you’ll permit me taking a second bite of the apple, here are a few thoughts on abortion.
A driving force behind the objection to abortion, which is seldom discussed, is the oppressive influence of patriarchy. Back at the dawn of civilization, the concept of property ownership was born. For too many reasons to discuss here, women in some parts of the world became property and, thereby, subordinate to men.
When a female is born, she takes her father’s surname. Essentially, she belongs to her father. That being the case, paternity became a big deal. A woman’s virginity was to be protected until marriage, thereby confirming who the father is while ensuring that no bastards were produced.
This is a country dominated by believers in Christianity. For them the ownership concept is found in the Tenth Commandment:
“10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his donkey, or anything that is thy neighbor’s [property].”
A good example of women as the property of men is the marriage ceremony. The bride’s father is asked to “give his daughter away,” which just affirms the fact that he has transferred his property, the wife-to-be, to her husband so that she then becomes his property. She then takes on his surname. (And sometimes, ‘ol dad gets a nice dowry as a bonus.)
It used to be that the wedding vows required the bride’s promise to “obey” her husband. The most commonly cited reason for including the word “obey” comes from the bible:
Ephesians 5:21-24: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”
Notwithstanding the influence of religion, men exercise their superiority over women across the world in both Eastern and Western societies. But most don’t realize it. Here in the U.S., it was only in the 20th century that married women could buy, sell and own property, enter contracts, and vote. Native American women for centuries had those and other rights that have been denied to women who are descendants of male-dominated cultures, including right here in the good ‘ol U.S. of A.
Paternity and patriarchy are so baked into our culture that granting women the right to use contraception, the morning-after pill, and other means of stopping a pregnancy, including abortion, are anathema to the idea that women can control their bodies without male approval.
So, when it comes down to abortion and laws pertaining thereto, men still want their dominance over women. Subconsciously or not, they still regard women as property. This is not to say that men are misogynists. Those that are are probably not even aware of it. It’s just that men are incapable of knowing, feeling, or appreciating what goes on in a woman’s body. With that in mind, I think it wise that men shouldn’t make laws regarding the health of women. Doing so merely underscores the inequities and reduces women to the status of slaves. And slavery is both illegal and immoral, at least in this country.
Um, you do realize that almost all of the laws that have been for the direct benefit of women and their rights over the years have been made by men, including the all male Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade. Do you realize that women ‘fighting’ for their rights in history has been mainly a matter of most men agreeing with women and supporting them against other men and women? Anti-male divisiveness is not helping your cause.
algirl -- For several millennia, many cultures around the world treated women as property or worse. In some countries, like those that are Islamic theocracies, women have limited freedom -- bordering on no freedom. And men ain’t helping much. In fact, it was only in the last 200 years or so did women assert themselves enough to get men to start championing their cause. The exception is indigenous people.
In the 19th century, Native American women, who we called heathens and squaws, had virtual equality with men since they showed up here 15 or so thousand years ago. In fact, suffragettes in the 1800's and early 1900's like Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, met with Iroquois women and women in other tribes for ideas that would help them get parity with men.
You say that, women ‘fighting’ for their rights in history has been mainly a matter of most men agreeing with women and supporting them.” Well, duh. Men were in charge and women were dominated by them for the vast majority of that history. After all, one would expect men to help make women more equal when they are locked out of the bedroom.
But women still have a ways to go. The ERA amendment has stalled, the battle for parity in wages between men and women is still going on, and, of course, the rights of women to control their own bodies is now in jeopardy – a threat that is mostly by men; especially those in the GOP.
Sorry to be so verbose, but I want to make my position clear. That said, you might find this article helpful.
Your position is very clear. You think men 'shouldn't make laws regarding the health of women'. Well they did, and some those laws were in their favour, as I pointed out. And that was because those men listened when the women spoke. Yes, men have 'dominated' throughout history, but from my perspective that was a role assigned to certain capable men through the agreement of men AND women. There are deep biological and evolutionary roots at play in that agreement. It was not simply a matter of oppression, but of trade-offs and mutual sacrifice based on what was deemed beneficial to both sexes. It's not 'duh'. It's meaningful, and significant that when the socio-economic conditions developed, allowing for women to renegotiate their 'roles', they spoke up and men listened. Not all men, but enough to make change happen. That's not a sign of oppression, it's a sign of cooperation, understanding. Do you think if men really wanted to maintain dominance over women, they couldn't? Absolutely they could, just by dint of physical prowess. But they didn't and they don't. And you forget, those 'dominant' men weren't in positions of power just to 'oppress' women. Oppression or social control affected the vast majority of other men also. Would men who had real power voluntarily march off to war in the thousands and millions to be very likely slaughtered because they were dominant? Not very likely. They were oppressed too, and by the way ALSO had to fight for the vote to be given a say in whether they should be shipped off to the front. That too was not forthcoming for men for a long time, lower class men without property. They got the vote before women, but not much before women, and when women got the vote it came with no conditions or responsibilities at all, such as military service imposed on men. Voting rights for women in fact are still today more favourable for them than for men because men are obligated in the US to register for service or their franchise will be taken away. This is how men are discriminated against, and it is NOT equality. The feminist narrative, unfortunately, takes a very narrow band of men in power and draws the false conclusion that it is MEN as a class who oppress women, when the truth is it just happens to be men who for deep historical reasons have been assigned the role of public leadership, then gain power, and proceed to limit the freedom of BOTH sexes in different ways. And meanwhile, ordinary folks do their best within their particular circumstances to make a happy life together. My vision of the future is not where women simply take over decision making because men cannot 'understand' women. Where does that lead? Should we bar women from making decisions that affect mainly men, like doing the most dangerous and dirtiest jobs in society? It's absurd. Look at Ukraine. That society AGREED that women and children should be protected and men go into battle. Oppression of women? Give me a break. No, we should continue what has really always been the case, men and women working together to do what's 'right' or needed for each other according to the exigencies of the time. If that means greater freedom for women, fine. Or changes in roles for men? Fine. But don't call it male oppression. It's just not true.
Well, I’m not willing to pin a nice shiny badge on men for doing what they should have been doing what they should have been doing all along. That’s like recognizing the abolitionists without considering the racists.
You say, “we should continue what has really always been the case, men and women working together to do what's 'right' or needed for each other according to the exigencies of the time.”
That is factually and historically not true. Tell that to women in Muslim countries or China or India. Tell the Catholic women and the ladies who are white evangelicals and their sisters in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Black women or Asian women. You focus on a singular culture and your conclusions are heavy with confirmation bias. Globally, women’s rights are not an either/or proposition. I think if you broaden your scope and open your eyes that you’ll agree.
Keep in mind that my original post here was with regard to abortion. Here there is no equality in male and female anatomy. Males have no idea of what women go through physically. I live in a state that possibly has the most draconian abortion law in the country. Except where there is a treat to the mother’s life, abortion here is illegal from conception to birth. This is a hardcore far right wing Republican controlled state. And they are proud as punch that they have succeeded in outlawing a woman’s right to choose.
As of May 31, 2022, there are 23 states where their governor and their legislatures are controlled by Republicans. No doubt they too will show their domination over women.
I don't deny facts or history. I know what you are saying about other cultures etc. And from our moral perch, the treatment of women can be appalling. My point is my moral perch does not matter. What matters is the reasons people in other cultures or in history have for maintaining their social reality, and those reasons whatever they are are generally accepted by the so-called oppressed, that is, until they are not, or the reasons become untenable due to changing circumstances (eg. like the invention of the pill for women). That's when change happens. Men 'oppress' women? Well, yes they do, when women themselves accept it because it is 'acceptable'. They get a benefit, they gain something, some power or safety or wealth or protection or stability, what have you. They agree to the limited freedom. Thus you see many Muslim women strongly asserting that they like wearing the hijab or even the burka, that it's part of their identity. In return, for the sacrifice of freedom, for example, they get the commitment of a man through marriage, which traditionally places a particular responsibility on the man and functions socially to restrict his sexuality for the benefit of the woman and their family. Your chivalry, that it is up to men to set women free and be good men instead of the typical bad man is condescending and a denial of women's agency, the choices they actually make, and condescending to men as well, who enter into relationships with similar trade-offs, one as cited being a promise to give up their own bodies in battle, with an intruder or foreign invader, for the sake of their women and children. Yes, there has been a lot of imbalance or injustice in these relationships, but the imbalance hasn't always favoured men and instances of corruption or tyranny are a constant in human society and always something to fight against. For me, a rule to remember when analyzing any social dynamic is something someone wise once said, which is, 'there are no victims, only volunteers'. I don't take that to be an absolute, but as a norm that applies in most situations, like gender relations throughout all of human history, it is useful. To your point about abortion, the strict laws in your state, what I would ask first is, do the majority of women in the state support that law? How many? If so, what are their reasons, based on what values? What 'benefit' do they get that outweighs the chance for a freedom to choose? If the voting plurality of women clearly do not support the laws, I agree there is a problem. But if they do, my view would be to accept them at their word, they are making the right choice by their lights. I have no problem with that. They are not 'oppressed'. They agree to limit their freedom for their own reasons, maybe to serve God, whatever it may be. The fact that it might be men who make those laws is neither here nor there because they can be voted out and new laws enacted. Women decided they needed the vote a long time ago and they got it. Are there going to be unhappy people like you? Of course. Then change minds, convince men, women, whoever will listen. Deciding that some people don't deserve a voice because of what is between their legs, as you do, very ironically I might add given your support for women, is not helpful. I would call that a form of tyranny.
I'd like to see the best evidence available particular legislation can reasonably be expected to reduce harm in the US, especially given our somewhat unique culture wrt weapons, war, and Am Exceptionalism, and factors like drug prohibition, et al.
Also nice would be: the strongest counters to arguments from:
Although it's still early, it appears the "good guys with guns" stood outside a school for an hour while a lunatic executed children a few days ago.
>- hunting
I don't think hunting would be impacted by many of the legislative changes Democrats are proposing. I am not arguing that any of them would be effective at reducing mortality - that is a separate discussion - but I don't see how better background check, mandatory training, etc would impact hunting
>-Bkgd checks don't work
I am agnostic on this claim, having no opinion one way or the other as I haven't done my own research to form an opinion. When you say they don't work, are background checks like cloth masks - 100% useless serving no purpose other than to make us feel good? Or are they more like form fitted n95s - still almost completely useless, but you might occasionally trap the odd virion now and then?
>-2nd Amendment
When the bill of rights was written, can we agree that the scale of firepower between the most powerful gun an American could own in 1776 and the most powerful gun the (nonexistent for 8 more years) US Army had access too were nearly identical in power? Does the intent of the 2nd amendment change when the military has drones, B2 bombers, daisy cutters, and tanks?
When the bill of rights was written, using the best firearm available at the time, how many people could a bad actor reasonably kill if he were to walk into a theater with intent to kill before he would be overpowered? 1? 2?
Is it possible that in fact the gap between our feeble AR-15s and what the US government has available had rendered the 2nd amendment obsolete by the 20th century? Could it be our handguns and shotguns are about as useful stopping government tyranny as a cloth mask is stopping a virion passing through - both giving us merely the illusion of safety?
It always seemed to me that the intention of the 2nd Amendment was framed during an era that has no bearing on today. If the government wants to shut you down in the 21st century it doesn't need it's nuclear bombs and drones. It can freeze you bank account, suspend your visa, bug your house, slander you, etc.
Perhaps we could compromise - make it completely legal for anyone to own a musket or whatever were the strongest weapons at the time the 2nd amendment was written? Brown Bess perhaps which could shoot a staggering 3 volleys per minute? Would that be fair?
>- Illegal/underground sales
I'm unclear the argument here - are you suggesting that prohibiting sale of weapons would have no impact on availability? Because it was much harder to get pot 20 years ago than it is today. I suspect it is also much, much harder to get a gun in 1st world countries where guns are illegal than it is in the US.
Do you think the GOP would support mandatory service for everyone 18 years old and over with mandatory weapons training, registration, and background checks like Switzerland?
> GGWG: If single instances/anecdotes are our best evidence, we need more research.
> Hunting: I largely agree with you on this.
> Bkgd Chx: The claim is that most gun homicides are not from legally acquired guns.
> 2nd Am: The claim is that guns offer some protection against govt (and other tyranny/violence/predation), and I suspect a musket would not be considered sufficient deterrent, but an AR is.)
For good guys with guns, in this instance, it seems the guys were not ‘good’ enough. Why’s that? A couple of points to ponder. Maybe they would be if our culture put more value on traditional masculine virtues like courage and risk-taking, instead of denigrating men and their place in society at every turn. Maybe they would be if our culture valued law enforcement more instead of doing everything we can to demoralize the police with campaigns against their very existence and calling them agents of white supremacy. Don’t get me wrong. I am not simply pro gun. But I do see a major disconnect in the liberal narrative. Look at Ukraine. We took away their nukes for the sake of ‘peace’ which made them vulnerable to the evil of Putin. Then we praise the courage of Zelensky for standing up to him and send him a 40 billion dollar arms support deal because he and all the men of Ukraine are good guys protecting women and children. Good guys with guns are in fact necessary for our safety. They have a point. The failure of the police in Uvalde proves it.
Look at gun laws in Australia. Or even gun laws in Mexico. Of course Mexico is an outlier however for an average citizen to legally own a gun is actually quite difficult. It's against the law to carry a gun and if you do manage to get a permit to have one you can only keep it in your house. The gun laws in Australia or changed after they had a mass shooting and they seem to have worked. We need to look at other societies who have been successful with regards to this problem.
Mexico was a terrible example. What I wanted to Point out was the difficulty obtaining a gun legally in Mexico. you're right about Australia also, however the same thing can be said for any place. Someone determined enough to do this will find the means to. Seems like easy access makes it easier. There are some things that could be done in the short term and there are more difficult things which may take Generations to change.
The Problem is multifactorial. Different ways of Framing and defining the problem are fine, however it seems time to put our resources into finding ways to improve this. I'm really getting tired of all the finger-pointing.
I agree "easy access makes it easier", but there has to be more to it, like culture. I would love to never wake up to one of these tragedies ever again, but I haven't heard any easy or hard solutions that seem like they would be effective.
Just not that simple to do a comparison. What about the 107,000 drug overdose deaths last year due to our open border? What about the human trafficking due to the open border? Terrorists coming across. What about the teacher that left the door ajar and now 19 children are dead? Common practice in these school shootings is to go in immediately to limit the killings. But that didn't happen hear did it? The Democrats are doing a lot more damage to our country than the Republicans ever did. How many babies died because they couldn't get formula? I'm really disappointed in you, Michael. Maybe it's the emotion that is affecting all of us but I thought you more analyzing than this.
By definition, restrictions on human behavior diminish at least one person's liberty. Most of us recognize that and can have intelligent and even rational discussions about how to calibrate the compromise.
Most of us also understand the concept of diminishing returns. At some point more restrictions do not achieve significant reduction in bad outcomes. Take deaths from vehicle accidents. Yes, 43,000 dead in 2021 is a large and tragic number, and 10% higher than in 2020. But the rate for 2021 was 1.33 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled, down slightly from 2020. In other words, you could have circled a (paved) earth more than 3000 times before reaching a even chance of dying.
Could we reduce vehicle deaths further? Certainly. We could continue to add features (and expense) to vehicles. We could try to improve driver performance. Or we could turn the most direct knob and reduce the miles driven.
What about deaths attributed to guns? Again 45,000 deaths in 2020 is a huge, tragic number. Even if we filter out suicides (a very different kind of tragedy), 20,000 gun murders is too many. Averaged over the entire population, that translates into a murder rate of about 6 per 100,000. And for average people outside high risk demographics and areas, that number is smaller. Should that be lower? Of course. Could it be lower? Sure--but at what costs to rights, including rights that might not matter to you? And how effective would new restrictions be? How much more intrusive and severe would restrictions need to be to make a difference? In a nation of 330 million, what would it take to reduce murders by 10% or 50%? And what about 100%?
I hesitate to contribute anything because it often invites insults, but, we'll see how it goes.
I'm a bit surprised at the logic (or lack thereof) in this piece, and I attribute to the emotion of the moment. Emotions I share. But, frankly, as an admirer and long time reader of Shermer's, I'm disappointed by the argument he lays out.
For example, the comparison to the automotive industry regulatory efforts and how we treat cars is very flawed because we're not talking the same kind of regulation (pretty much anyone can and does get a license to drive a car, often as early as 16).
I like the comparison to the abortion issue, but that again is specifically aimed at one particular segment of the population and useless as an argument against a larger percent of the population, and if you're trying to reach that segment, using flawed logic won't work. Because it's not that they don't agree that school shootings are abhorrent, it's that they don't agree on how to go about addressing the issue.
I would like to see specific proposals rather than hear "we must do something" even as we acknowledge it's a complicated issue, and that very little is known about many of the mass shootings. Note that I'm excluding the ever-shifting definition of mass shootings that includes gang shootings and incidents where the assailant was known to the victims (families and friends shooting each other).
I read all the suggested controls we could put in place . . . Fine, let's say we can put those in place, and then? What do we do for the next indescribably horrific and random shooting by someone whom we cannot begin to understand?
Can anyone articulate the motive and chain of events that leads someone to look at a child's fearful face and still shoot them?
Always, in hindsight, we figure out "all the signs were there" . . . and we did nothing.
Understand, I'm not saying let's do nothing. I'm saying stop making cosmetic suggestions and approach it from multiple aspects. It's the mentality you have to change, and it's not going to happen at the stroke of a pen. We had a long and twisted road here and thinking we can fix it with a couple of pieces of legislation will have us continue on that path.
Yes, we should have more gun control, more laws, more checks, etc. etc. But, tell me . . . have we eliminated alcohol-related moralities? According to the CDc, about 12 kids a day die because of alcohol-related events. But we don't see their faces and names in the news. Why is that not flagged as a huge problem?
Random school shootings kill fewer kids per year than are intentionally murdered by their parents. What are we doing about parents who murder their children? Why can't we stop it?
Again, I'm not trying to engage in "what-about-isms", and I'm very much in favor of gun control. The threshold to owning a gun should be high, with training and safety requirements, but first admit that our society, and specifically because of the way our society works, it favor criminals and unbalanced individuals and anyone with twisted intentions . . . because we don't have the legal tools to remove dangerous individuals from circulation until they act.
That's the so-called price of freedom, not the guns. People who buy guns react to that potential cost. When someone doesn't have any other recourse, they will seek the means to protect themselves, and buying a gun is one of the cheapest options (be that a smart or stupid decision). You coming along and telling them they no longer have that right because someone else might abuse it isn't going to cut it as an argument.
Admit that specifically because our legal system is set up to respond to violent crime as opposed to prevent it, it's very difficult to tell people to disarm. This is especially true since cops have formally and summarily abdicated the second part of their supposed motto (to serve and protect).
We've had an increase in gun deaths because in 2020 people were scared, and now more people with little to no training in the use and safe storage of guns, are gun owners. People might not like it, but even with more checks in place, those people would still have bought those guns (even people previously against owning guns) . . . because they were scared and because our legal system does not restrict their right to do so.
Also because people perceived we came close to having a societal breakdown (something that some say is still possible), a perception largely fueled by the media. People don't think about buying guns when everything is going well.
And to those who naively say we could just repeal or even change the Second Amendment, please, inform yourselves.
Yes, states can regulate guns, but we don't enforce the the laws we have, and I suspect new laws would be difficult to enforce. And, what do you do about the 300M guns already in circulation?
Before you suggest confiscation, please, take a civil liberties class and read the Constitution, otherwise you're just sounding ignorant.
If you want meaningful change, you have to engage the majority of the population, and change the culture, and you don't do that by denigrating them. And you don't do that by proposing things that make little to no sense to the people who would be affected.
Not to mention that by body count, guns used by urban criminals to kill folks, mostly each other, still dwarfs those killed in school shootings and other mass murder events. My point with this comment is that any solutions we come up with should address this issue, unless we don’t really care about those deaths. 
We have tons of gun control laws. And criminals don't care what the laws say. That said, we certainly do need to focus on our large and growing mental health crisis.
I just reread this with an open mind, and I am actually more irritated than the first time I read it. Michael, for a smart guy, you’re falling into the trap so many people do, blaming Republicans, as if Democrats are peaceloving pacifists. Just to be clear, I have never been a Republican and never will be, and I don’t have much time for most politicians in either party. That being said, the Democrats these days and their allies in the media are in lockstep about the need to escalate the killing in Ukraine, and to avoid negotiating a peace. And now, for good measure, they are talking about further antagonism China over Taiwan. That senile clown Biden thinks it’s a great idea to draw a line in the sand and say we will militarily defend Taiwan against China. So much for strategic ambiguity. 
Wake the F up people, this is not 1945, we are not in any way shape or form some shining light for all the world to emulate. We have spent trillions of dollars going around the globe in recent decades, killing people directly or indirectly, ruining entire countries. 
I am also not a big fan of whataboutism, but one really does have to have one’s priorities. I understand that my comment is tangential to the main topic, which is mass murder and the need for more effective gun regulation. but in comparing this issue to the abortion issue, the door for whataboutism as regards the value of human life is wide open.
Four years ago, when — as now — the nation was reeling from the horror of a mass school shooting, a retired Supreme Court justice suggested a radical solution: getting rid of the Second Amendment.
Four years ago, when — as now — the nation was reeling from the horror of a mass school shooting, a retired Supreme Court justice suggested a radical solution: getting rid of the Second Amendment.
“The pro-life movement is about the value and equality of all human beings. The belief that all human life is created equal regardless of size, level of development, education, and degree of dependency.”
This dogma is seriously flawed, and it should not be used by progressives (including Michael) to support gun control. What is a human being? Are human zygotes, embryos, and early fetuses human beings? Hell no! “Human being” and “human person” are the same thing. A human organism does not become a human being or a human person until it acquires the capacity for consciousness at around the 24th week post conception, as I asserted in a Skeptic article. Pro-lifers oversimplify and make category errors.
Human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are NOT totally equal. They are alike in that they are alive, human, and organisms, but they are different in just about every other respect – biological and psychological. Unique DNA profiles and womb environments ensure this diversity. The author of this dogma is trying to make a moral or political statement seem as if it is a biological statement. It’s not. Not even close. What he is hiding is something like this: “A human zygote should be considered to be a person and should be assigned the same human rights as an adult human person or even a baby.” That is a moral and political claim requiring rational justification, and I believe it is nonsense. Human rights are not for all human life. They are for the lives of human persons!
Level of development, the brain having developed the capacity for consciousness while in the womb, should certainly be critical in the assignment of human rights. Yes, AFTER human organisms become human persons with consciousness, then rights ought to be assigned EQUALLY, without regard to “size, level of development, education, and degree of dependency” and without regard to race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age.
We are far from perfect north of the border, but sure am glad we live here! This irrational behaviour and set of beliefs belies the international facts and experience.
The New England Journal of Medicine "article" cited by Shermer is actually a letter to the editor written by three gun-control activists. It wasn't peer-reviewed and contains many statements that are simply false. Of course mainstream media, who are always desperate to find any support for gun control, widely disseminated the claims of the authors anyway.
Analyze the data [1] for yourself. There were a total of 43,676 gun-related deaths in 2020, excluding instances where the shooter was a police officer. Of those deaths, 56% (24,292) were suicides. The 19,384 homicides were less than half the number of motor vehicle fatalities (40,698). The CDC data are consistent with a report [2] in the Harvard Political Review, which noted that suicides accounted for nearly two-thirds of the gun deaths in 2019.
While the letter to the New England Journal of Medicine is flawed, there has been a large increase in violence in America during the past two years. From January 1st to April 10th of this year, robberies in the New York transit system are up more than 70% year over year. Felony assaults in the subway have increased by 28%. Grand larceny is up by more than 100%. The problem isn't more guns. More American families had guns at home 50 years ago than they do now. According to the Rand Corporation, 45% of American homes had a gun in 1980. In 2016, that percentage had dropped to 32%. The problem is that people have become more violent, and Democrats have increasingly removed the major deterrent to crime by refusing to prosecute criminals.
The use of antidepressants in this country is increasing dramatically. Between 1991 and 2018, the total consumption of Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the most commonly prescribed antidepressants, increased in the US by more than 3,000%. In Canada, state-funded antidepressant prescriptions for young people doubled over the last decade. During the COVID lockdowns, SSRI prescriptions increased by more than 20%. More than 107,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2021. That's the highest annual death toll ever recorded and a 15% increase from the year before.
So, people are more depressed, more unstable, more suicidal, and, in some cases, more dangerous to others. In addition, people are increasingly disconnected from other human beings. In 2020, adults in the United States spent an average of 8 hours every day on digital media staring at a screen. That's a 20% jump from 2019. The lockdowns made it worse, especially for school-age kids, who were the least likely to spread or suffer from COVID yet were often subjected to the most severe isolation.
One of the people who spent a lot of time online during the pandemic was the shooter in Uvalde. The shooter in Buffalo also spent a lot of time online. In fact, he blamed the Internet for radicalizing him: "I spent almost a year planning this attack," he wrote on April 26. "Oh, how time flies. If I could go back, maybe I'd tell myself to get the f off 4Chan and the worldtruthvideos and get an actual life. Too late for that now."
Both shooters were detached from their peers and families, and both were mentally ill. We should be focused on what makes people like them dangerous, and how we can better help them, rather than blaming the inanimate objects they used to commit murder. If they hadn't used a gun, they would have substituted a knife, crowbar, bomb, arson, or, like the murderer in Waukesha, a car.
As Democrats try to use the recent mass shootings to justify pushing gun control legislation that would outlaw rifles such as the popular AR-15 platform, it’s worth noting that knives, clubs, hands and feet actually kill more people than rifles. If you examine the 2019 FBI homicide data [3], the vast majority of gun deaths do not involve the dreaded semiautomatic rifles Democrats want to ban. Only 364 people were killed by rifles out of 10,258 gun deaths that year, and not all of those rifles were semiautomatic. For comparison, 600 people were killed in 2019 by the use of hands or feet, and 1,476 were killed by use of a knife. More people (397) were killed by the use of a blunt object, such as a hammer or bat, than were killed by rifles.
As is always the case with mass public shootings in general and school shootings in particular, the response of the Democrats, besides trying to exploit the tragedy for political gain, is to do nothing but call for more of the sort of gun control legislation that failed to prevent these shootings in the first place. Regions where the Democrats are in charge and have implemented the strictest gun laws, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, have the highest homicide rates in the country.
Shermer says that "gun control is a pro-life issue," but more lives are saved by guns than are taken by them. More than 2 million lives [4] are saved each year when potential victims use a gun to defend themselves. That's over 5,000 lives saved each day, and far more than the number of gun homicides. In most cases, simply brandishing a gun is enough to send an attacker running.
Shermer: "I'll have much more to say about this problem when my rational faculties return." When it comes to this problem, Shermer's faculties have been missing for decades and seem unlikely to appear. Mental illness, drug abuse and broken families can lead to violence. Part of the appeal of gun control is the simplicity of its narrative, but it ignores the real drivers of homicide. Politicians and pundits should devote more time and resources to policies that might actually reduce violence, rather than simple-minded tropes that are politically expedient but help no one.
1. https://wisqars.cdc.gov/data/analyze-compare/home
2. https://harvardpolitics.com/suicide-gun-related-deaths/
3. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019
4. https://www.theepochtimes.com/gun-control-myths-how-politicians-the-media-and-botched-studies-ignore-basic-facts-on-gun-control-larry-elder_4336405.html
Your comment has on display the sort of rational, evidence-based and scientifically-minded content and structure --- as a prototype at a minimum --- that is urgently needed for the discussion, analysis and knowledge-discovery of issues addressed here. Thank you!
I love the connection you’ve made between gun violence and abortion. So obvious. I’m mad at myself for not thinking of it.
Anyway, for my brief comment on gun control, I offer the text of a yet to be published letter-to-the-editor I sent to the local paper.
The Second Amendment, which established the right to bear arms, is moot. And it has been for over 100 years. In 1903, HR 11,654, “a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes, and to replace the Militia Law of 1792," was passed into law. It became known as the Dick Act.
The Act, with its subsequent amendments, effectively did away with the militia in the 2nd Amendment. It set up the National Guard and Reserves in its place.
“Arms” means weapons of war. Arms are used by an army and kept in an armory. “Present Arms” is a command in the military.
There are those, of course, who want the 2nd Amendment to say something that it doesn’t say, that it is the right to own guns for any purpose. But rendering the 2nd Amendment inoperable doesn’t mean there is no right to own guns.
That right is a matter of common law or one of the unenumerated rights in the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – like owning guns.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce. A common use of that power is to assure that products are safe. Guns, by their nature, are not safe. Therefore, Congress is free to establish such rules as are necessary to make guns safe, including the manufacture, sale, use, and conditions of ownership. If only they would.
As Alexander Hamilton wisely observed, “When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation”
right on, Herb! I have admired Michael Shermer for decades.
If you’ll permit me taking a second bite of the apple, here are a few thoughts on abortion.
A driving force behind the objection to abortion, which is seldom discussed, is the oppressive influence of patriarchy. Back at the dawn of civilization, the concept of property ownership was born. For too many reasons to discuss here, women in some parts of the world became property and, thereby, subordinate to men.
When a female is born, she takes her father’s surname. Essentially, she belongs to her father. That being the case, paternity became a big deal. A woman’s virginity was to be protected until marriage, thereby confirming who the father is while ensuring that no bastards were produced.
This is a country dominated by believers in Christianity. For them the ownership concept is found in the Tenth Commandment:
“10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his donkey, or anything that is thy neighbor’s [property].”
A good example of women as the property of men is the marriage ceremony. The bride’s father is asked to “give his daughter away,” which just affirms the fact that he has transferred his property, the wife-to-be, to her husband so that she then becomes his property. She then takes on his surname. (And sometimes, ‘ol dad gets a nice dowry as a bonus.)
It used to be that the wedding vows required the bride’s promise to “obey” her husband. The most commonly cited reason for including the word “obey” comes from the bible:
Ephesians 5:21-24: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”
Notwithstanding the influence of religion, men exercise their superiority over women across the world in both Eastern and Western societies. But most don’t realize it. Here in the U.S., it was only in the 20th century that married women could buy, sell and own property, enter contracts, and vote. Native American women for centuries had those and other rights that have been denied to women who are descendants of male-dominated cultures, including right here in the good ‘ol U.S. of A.
Paternity and patriarchy are so baked into our culture that granting women the right to use contraception, the morning-after pill, and other means of stopping a pregnancy, including abortion, are anathema to the idea that women can control their bodies without male approval.
So, when it comes down to abortion and laws pertaining thereto, men still want their dominance over women. Subconsciously or not, they still regard women as property. This is not to say that men are misogynists. Those that are are probably not even aware of it. It’s just that men are incapable of knowing, feeling, or appreciating what goes on in a woman’s body. With that in mind, I think it wise that men shouldn’t make laws regarding the health of women. Doing so merely underscores the inequities and reduces women to the status of slaves. And slavery is both illegal and immoral, at least in this country.
Um, you do realize that almost all of the laws that have been for the direct benefit of women and their rights over the years have been made by men, including the all male Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade. Do you realize that women ‘fighting’ for their rights in history has been mainly a matter of most men agreeing with women and supporting them against other men and women? Anti-male divisiveness is not helping your cause.
algirl -- For several millennia, many cultures around the world treated women as property or worse. In some countries, like those that are Islamic theocracies, women have limited freedom -- bordering on no freedom. And men ain’t helping much. In fact, it was only in the last 200 years or so did women assert themselves enough to get men to start championing their cause. The exception is indigenous people.
In the 19th century, Native American women, who we called heathens and squaws, had virtual equality with men since they showed up here 15 or so thousand years ago. In fact, suffragettes in the 1800's and early 1900's like Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, met with Iroquois women and women in other tribes for ideas that would help them get parity with men.
You say that, women ‘fighting’ for their rights in history has been mainly a matter of most men agreeing with women and supporting them.” Well, duh. Men were in charge and women were dominated by them for the vast majority of that history. After all, one would expect men to help make women more equal when they are locked out of the bedroom.
But women still have a ways to go. The ERA amendment has stalled, the battle for parity in wages between men and women is still going on, and, of course, the rights of women to control their own bodies is now in jeopardy – a threat that is mostly by men; especially those in the GOP.
Sorry to be so verbose, but I want to make my position clear. That said, you might find this article helpful.
https://www.equalitynow.org/news_and_insights/era_amicus_brief/
Your position is very clear. You think men 'shouldn't make laws regarding the health of women'. Well they did, and some those laws were in their favour, as I pointed out. And that was because those men listened when the women spoke. Yes, men have 'dominated' throughout history, but from my perspective that was a role assigned to certain capable men through the agreement of men AND women. There are deep biological and evolutionary roots at play in that agreement. It was not simply a matter of oppression, but of trade-offs and mutual sacrifice based on what was deemed beneficial to both sexes. It's not 'duh'. It's meaningful, and significant that when the socio-economic conditions developed, allowing for women to renegotiate their 'roles', they spoke up and men listened. Not all men, but enough to make change happen. That's not a sign of oppression, it's a sign of cooperation, understanding. Do you think if men really wanted to maintain dominance over women, they couldn't? Absolutely they could, just by dint of physical prowess. But they didn't and they don't. And you forget, those 'dominant' men weren't in positions of power just to 'oppress' women. Oppression or social control affected the vast majority of other men also. Would men who had real power voluntarily march off to war in the thousands and millions to be very likely slaughtered because they were dominant? Not very likely. They were oppressed too, and by the way ALSO had to fight for the vote to be given a say in whether they should be shipped off to the front. That too was not forthcoming for men for a long time, lower class men without property. They got the vote before women, but not much before women, and when women got the vote it came with no conditions or responsibilities at all, such as military service imposed on men. Voting rights for women in fact are still today more favourable for them than for men because men are obligated in the US to register for service or their franchise will be taken away. This is how men are discriminated against, and it is NOT equality. The feminist narrative, unfortunately, takes a very narrow band of men in power and draws the false conclusion that it is MEN as a class who oppress women, when the truth is it just happens to be men who for deep historical reasons have been assigned the role of public leadership, then gain power, and proceed to limit the freedom of BOTH sexes in different ways. And meanwhile, ordinary folks do their best within their particular circumstances to make a happy life together. My vision of the future is not where women simply take over decision making because men cannot 'understand' women. Where does that lead? Should we bar women from making decisions that affect mainly men, like doing the most dangerous and dirtiest jobs in society? It's absurd. Look at Ukraine. That society AGREED that women and children should be protected and men go into battle. Oppression of women? Give me a break. No, we should continue what has really always been the case, men and women working together to do what's 'right' or needed for each other according to the exigencies of the time. If that means greater freedom for women, fine. Or changes in roles for men? Fine. But don't call it male oppression. It's just not true.
Well, I’m not willing to pin a nice shiny badge on men for doing what they should have been doing what they should have been doing all along. That’s like recognizing the abolitionists without considering the racists.
You say, “we should continue what has really always been the case, men and women working together to do what's 'right' or needed for each other according to the exigencies of the time.”
That is factually and historically not true. Tell that to women in Muslim countries or China or India. Tell the Catholic women and the ladies who are white evangelicals and their sisters in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Black women or Asian women. You focus on a singular culture and your conclusions are heavy with confirmation bias. Globally, women’s rights are not an either/or proposition. I think if you broaden your scope and open your eyes that you’ll agree.
Keep in mind that my original post here was with regard to abortion. Here there is no equality in male and female anatomy. Males have no idea of what women go through physically. I live in a state that possibly has the most draconian abortion law in the country. Except where there is a treat to the mother’s life, abortion here is illegal from conception to birth. This is a hardcore far right wing Republican controlled state. And they are proud as punch that they have succeeded in outlawing a woman’s right to choose.
As of May 31, 2022, there are 23 states where their governor and their legislatures are controlled by Republicans. No doubt they too will show their domination over women.
I don't deny facts or history. I know what you are saying about other cultures etc. And from our moral perch, the treatment of women can be appalling. My point is my moral perch does not matter. What matters is the reasons people in other cultures or in history have for maintaining their social reality, and those reasons whatever they are are generally accepted by the so-called oppressed, that is, until they are not, or the reasons become untenable due to changing circumstances (eg. like the invention of the pill for women). That's when change happens. Men 'oppress' women? Well, yes they do, when women themselves accept it because it is 'acceptable'. They get a benefit, they gain something, some power or safety or wealth or protection or stability, what have you. They agree to the limited freedom. Thus you see many Muslim women strongly asserting that they like wearing the hijab or even the burka, that it's part of their identity. In return, for the sacrifice of freedom, for example, they get the commitment of a man through marriage, which traditionally places a particular responsibility on the man and functions socially to restrict his sexuality for the benefit of the woman and their family. Your chivalry, that it is up to men to set women free and be good men instead of the typical bad man is condescending and a denial of women's agency, the choices they actually make, and condescending to men as well, who enter into relationships with similar trade-offs, one as cited being a promise to give up their own bodies in battle, with an intruder or foreign invader, for the sake of their women and children. Yes, there has been a lot of imbalance or injustice in these relationships, but the imbalance hasn't always favoured men and instances of corruption or tyranny are a constant in human society and always something to fight against. For me, a rule to remember when analyzing any social dynamic is something someone wise once said, which is, 'there are no victims, only volunteers'. I don't take that to be an absolute, but as a norm that applies in most situations, like gender relations throughout all of human history, it is useful. To your point about abortion, the strict laws in your state, what I would ask first is, do the majority of women in the state support that law? How many? If so, what are their reasons, based on what values? What 'benefit' do they get that outweighs the chance for a freedom to choose? If the voting plurality of women clearly do not support the laws, I agree there is a problem. But if they do, my view would be to accept them at their word, they are making the right choice by their lights. I have no problem with that. They are not 'oppressed'. They agree to limit their freedom for their own reasons, maybe to serve God, whatever it may be. The fact that it might be men who make those laws is neither here nor there because they can be voted out and new laws enacted. Women decided they needed the vote a long time ago and they got it. Are there going to be unhappy people like you? Of course. Then change minds, convince men, women, whoever will listen. Deciding that some people don't deserve a voice because of what is between their legs, as you do, very ironically I might add given your support for women, is not helpful. I would call that a form of tyranny.
I'd like to see the best evidence available particular legislation can reasonably be expected to reduce harm in the US, especially given our somewhat unique culture wrt weapons, war, and Am Exceptionalism, and factors like drug prohibition, et al.
Also nice would be: the strongest counters to arguments from:
- "good guy with a gun"
- hunting
- Bkgd checks don't work
- 2nd Amendment
- Illegal/underground sales
- Switzerland (high gun ownership, low gun homicide rate)
- other?
I'll take a crack:
>"good guy with a gun"
Although it's still early, it appears the "good guys with guns" stood outside a school for an hour while a lunatic executed children a few days ago.
>- hunting
I don't think hunting would be impacted by many of the legislative changes Democrats are proposing. I am not arguing that any of them would be effective at reducing mortality - that is a separate discussion - but I don't see how better background check, mandatory training, etc would impact hunting
>-Bkgd checks don't work
I am agnostic on this claim, having no opinion one way or the other as I haven't done my own research to form an opinion. When you say they don't work, are background checks like cloth masks - 100% useless serving no purpose other than to make us feel good? Or are they more like form fitted n95s - still almost completely useless, but you might occasionally trap the odd virion now and then?
>-2nd Amendment
When the bill of rights was written, can we agree that the scale of firepower between the most powerful gun an American could own in 1776 and the most powerful gun the (nonexistent for 8 more years) US Army had access too were nearly identical in power? Does the intent of the 2nd amendment change when the military has drones, B2 bombers, daisy cutters, and tanks?
When the bill of rights was written, using the best firearm available at the time, how many people could a bad actor reasonably kill if he were to walk into a theater with intent to kill before he would be overpowered? 1? 2?
Is it possible that in fact the gap between our feeble AR-15s and what the US government has available had rendered the 2nd amendment obsolete by the 20th century? Could it be our handguns and shotguns are about as useful stopping government tyranny as a cloth mask is stopping a virion passing through - both giving us merely the illusion of safety?
It always seemed to me that the intention of the 2nd Amendment was framed during an era that has no bearing on today. If the government wants to shut you down in the 21st century it doesn't need it's nuclear bombs and drones. It can freeze you bank account, suspend your visa, bug your house, slander you, etc.
Perhaps we could compromise - make it completely legal for anyone to own a musket or whatever were the strongest weapons at the time the 2nd amendment was written? Brown Bess perhaps which could shoot a staggering 3 volleys per minute? Would that be fair?
>- Illegal/underground sales
I'm unclear the argument here - are you suggesting that prohibiting sale of weapons would have no impact on availability? Because it was much harder to get pot 20 years ago than it is today. I suspect it is also much, much harder to get a gun in 1st world countries where guns are illegal than it is in the US.
>- Switzerland (high gun ownership, low gun homicide rate)
Do you think the GOP would support mandatory service for everyone 18 years old and over with mandatory weapons training, registration, and background checks like Switzerland?
Many thanks for your thoughtful responses.
> GGWG: If single instances/anecdotes are our best evidence, we need more research.
> Hunting: I largely agree with you on this.
> Bkgd Chx: The claim is that most gun homicides are not from legally acquired guns.
> 2nd Am: The claim is that guns offer some protection against govt (and other tyranny/violence/predation), and I suspect a musket would not be considered sufficient deterrent, but an AR is.)
>Illegal sales: Kinda duplicates Bkgd Chx point...
>Swiss: Definitely!! :)
For good guys with guns, in this instance, it seems the guys were not ‘good’ enough. Why’s that? A couple of points to ponder. Maybe they would be if our culture put more value on traditional masculine virtues like courage and risk-taking, instead of denigrating men and their place in society at every turn. Maybe they would be if our culture valued law enforcement more instead of doing everything we can to demoralize the police with campaigns against their very existence and calling them agents of white supremacy. Don’t get me wrong. I am not simply pro gun. But I do see a major disconnect in the liberal narrative. Look at Ukraine. We took away their nukes for the sake of ‘peace’ which made them vulnerable to the evil of Putin. Then we praise the courage of Zelensky for standing up to him and send him a 40 billion dollar arms support deal because he and all the men of Ukraine are good guys protecting women and children. Good guys with guns are in fact necessary for our safety. They have a point. The failure of the police in Uvalde proves it.
What gun-control legislation & enforcement would have prevented an adult with no prior mental or criminal record from buying a gun?
Look at gun laws in Australia. Or even gun laws in Mexico. Of course Mexico is an outlier however for an average citizen to legally own a gun is actually quite difficult. It's against the law to carry a gun and if you do manage to get a permit to have one you can only keep it in your house. The gun laws in Australia or changed after they had a mass shooting and they seem to have worked. We need to look at other societies who have been successful with regards to this problem.
Mexico is a terrible example, and really, nothing in Australia stops someone from committing mass murder with a gun if they really wanted to.
Mexico was a terrible example. What I wanted to Point out was the difficulty obtaining a gun legally in Mexico. you're right about Australia also, however the same thing can be said for any place. Someone determined enough to do this will find the means to. Seems like easy access makes it easier. There are some things that could be done in the short term and there are more difficult things which may take Generations to change.
The Problem is multifactorial. Different ways of Framing and defining the problem are fine, however it seems time to put our resources into finding ways to improve this. I'm really getting tired of all the finger-pointing.
I agree "easy access makes it easier", but there has to be more to it, like culture. I would love to never wake up to one of these tragedies ever again, but I haven't heard any easy or hard solutions that seem like they would be effective.
Just not that simple to do a comparison. What about the 107,000 drug overdose deaths last year due to our open border? What about the human trafficking due to the open border? Terrorists coming across. What about the teacher that left the door ajar and now 19 children are dead? Common practice in these school shootings is to go in immediately to limit the killings. But that didn't happen hear did it? The Democrats are doing a lot more damage to our country than the Republicans ever did. How many babies died because they couldn't get formula? I'm really disappointed in you, Michael. Maybe it's the emotion that is affecting all of us but I thought you more analyzing than this.
By definition, restrictions on human behavior diminish at least one person's liberty. Most of us recognize that and can have intelligent and even rational discussions about how to calibrate the compromise.
Most of us also understand the concept of diminishing returns. At some point more restrictions do not achieve significant reduction in bad outcomes. Take deaths from vehicle accidents. Yes, 43,000 dead in 2021 is a large and tragic number, and 10% higher than in 2020. But the rate for 2021 was 1.33 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled, down slightly from 2020. In other words, you could have circled a (paved) earth more than 3000 times before reaching a even chance of dying.
Could we reduce vehicle deaths further? Certainly. We could continue to add features (and expense) to vehicles. We could try to improve driver performance. Or we could turn the most direct knob and reduce the miles driven.
What about deaths attributed to guns? Again 45,000 deaths in 2020 is a huge, tragic number. Even if we filter out suicides (a very different kind of tragedy), 20,000 gun murders is too many. Averaged over the entire population, that translates into a murder rate of about 6 per 100,000. And for average people outside high risk demographics and areas, that number is smaller. Should that be lower? Of course. Could it be lower? Sure--but at what costs to rights, including rights that might not matter to you? And how effective would new restrictions be? How much more intrusive and severe would restrictions need to be to make a difference? In a nation of 330 million, what would it take to reduce murders by 10% or 50%? And what about 100%?
I hesitate to contribute anything because it often invites insults, but, we'll see how it goes.
I'm a bit surprised at the logic (or lack thereof) in this piece, and I attribute to the emotion of the moment. Emotions I share. But, frankly, as an admirer and long time reader of Shermer's, I'm disappointed by the argument he lays out.
For example, the comparison to the automotive industry regulatory efforts and how we treat cars is very flawed because we're not talking the same kind of regulation (pretty much anyone can and does get a license to drive a car, often as early as 16).
I like the comparison to the abortion issue, but that again is specifically aimed at one particular segment of the population and useless as an argument against a larger percent of the population, and if you're trying to reach that segment, using flawed logic won't work. Because it's not that they don't agree that school shootings are abhorrent, it's that they don't agree on how to go about addressing the issue.
I would like to see specific proposals rather than hear "we must do something" even as we acknowledge it's a complicated issue, and that very little is known about many of the mass shootings. Note that I'm excluding the ever-shifting definition of mass shootings that includes gang shootings and incidents where the assailant was known to the victims (families and friends shooting each other).
I read all the suggested controls we could put in place . . . Fine, let's say we can put those in place, and then? What do we do for the next indescribably horrific and random shooting by someone whom we cannot begin to understand?
Can anyone articulate the motive and chain of events that leads someone to look at a child's fearful face and still shoot them?
Always, in hindsight, we figure out "all the signs were there" . . . and we did nothing.
Understand, I'm not saying let's do nothing. I'm saying stop making cosmetic suggestions and approach it from multiple aspects. It's the mentality you have to change, and it's not going to happen at the stroke of a pen. We had a long and twisted road here and thinking we can fix it with a couple of pieces of legislation will have us continue on that path.
Yes, we should have more gun control, more laws, more checks, etc. etc. But, tell me . . . have we eliminated alcohol-related moralities? According to the CDc, about 12 kids a day die because of alcohol-related events. But we don't see their faces and names in the news. Why is that not flagged as a huge problem?
Random school shootings kill fewer kids per year than are intentionally murdered by their parents. What are we doing about parents who murder their children? Why can't we stop it?
Again, I'm not trying to engage in "what-about-isms", and I'm very much in favor of gun control. The threshold to owning a gun should be high, with training and safety requirements, but first admit that our society, and specifically because of the way our society works, it favor criminals and unbalanced individuals and anyone with twisted intentions . . . because we don't have the legal tools to remove dangerous individuals from circulation until they act.
That's the so-called price of freedom, not the guns. People who buy guns react to that potential cost. When someone doesn't have any other recourse, they will seek the means to protect themselves, and buying a gun is one of the cheapest options (be that a smart or stupid decision). You coming along and telling them they no longer have that right because someone else might abuse it isn't going to cut it as an argument.
Admit that specifically because our legal system is set up to respond to violent crime as opposed to prevent it, it's very difficult to tell people to disarm. This is especially true since cops have formally and summarily abdicated the second part of their supposed motto (to serve and protect).
We've had an increase in gun deaths because in 2020 people were scared, and now more people with little to no training in the use and safe storage of guns, are gun owners. People might not like it, but even with more checks in place, those people would still have bought those guns (even people previously against owning guns) . . . because they were scared and because our legal system does not restrict their right to do so.
Also because people perceived we came close to having a societal breakdown (something that some say is still possible), a perception largely fueled by the media. People don't think about buying guns when everything is going well.
And to those who naively say we could just repeal or even change the Second Amendment, please, inform yourselves.
Yes, states can regulate guns, but we don't enforce the the laws we have, and I suspect new laws would be difficult to enforce. And, what do you do about the 300M guns already in circulation?
Before you suggest confiscation, please, take a civil liberties class and read the Constitution, otherwise you're just sounding ignorant.
If you want meaningful change, you have to engage the majority of the population, and change the culture, and you don't do that by denigrating them. And you don't do that by proposing things that make little to no sense to the people who would be affected.
Not to mention that by body count, guns used by urban criminals to kill folks, mostly each other, still dwarfs those killed in school shootings and other mass murder events. My point with this comment is that any solutions we come up with should address this issue, unless we don’t really care about those deaths. 
We have tons of gun control laws. And criminals don't care what the laws say. That said, we certainly do need to focus on our large and growing mental health crisis.
I just reread this with an open mind, and I am actually more irritated than the first time I read it. Michael, for a smart guy, you’re falling into the trap so many people do, blaming Republicans, as if Democrats are peaceloving pacifists. Just to be clear, I have never been a Republican and never will be, and I don’t have much time for most politicians in either party. That being said, the Democrats these days and their allies in the media are in lockstep about the need to escalate the killing in Ukraine, and to avoid negotiating a peace. And now, for good measure, they are talking about further antagonism China over Taiwan. That senile clown Biden thinks it’s a great idea to draw a line in the sand and say we will militarily defend Taiwan against China. So much for strategic ambiguity. 
Wake the F up people, this is not 1945, we are not in any way shape or form some shining light for all the world to emulate. We have spent trillions of dollars going around the globe in recent decades, killing people directly or indirectly, ruining entire countries. 
I am also not a big fan of whataboutism, but one really does have to have one’s priorities. I understand that my comment is tangential to the main topic, which is mass murder and the need for more effective gun regulation. but in comparing this issue to the abortion issue, the door for whataboutism as regards the value of human life is wide open.
The USA is a Failed State. It cannot be saved because the powerful do not want it to be saved.
Boo
Four years ago, when — as now — the nation was reeling from the horror of a mass school shooting, a retired Supreme Court justice suggested a radical solution: getting rid of the Second Amendment.
Four years ago, when — as now — the nation was reeling from the horror of a mass school shooting, a retired Supreme Court justice suggested a radical solution: getting rid of the Second Amendment.
OK, then what?
“The pro-life movement is about the value and equality of all human beings. The belief that all human life is created equal regardless of size, level of development, education, and degree of dependency.”
This dogma is seriously flawed, and it should not be used by progressives (including Michael) to support gun control. What is a human being? Are human zygotes, embryos, and early fetuses human beings? Hell no! “Human being” and “human person” are the same thing. A human organism does not become a human being or a human person until it acquires the capacity for consciousness at around the 24th week post conception, as I asserted in a Skeptic article. Pro-lifers oversimplify and make category errors.
Human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are NOT totally equal. They are alike in that they are alive, human, and organisms, but they are different in just about every other respect – biological and psychological. Unique DNA profiles and womb environments ensure this diversity. The author of this dogma is trying to make a moral or political statement seem as if it is a biological statement. It’s not. Not even close. What he is hiding is something like this: “A human zygote should be considered to be a person and should be assigned the same human rights as an adult human person or even a baby.” That is a moral and political claim requiring rational justification, and I believe it is nonsense. Human rights are not for all human life. They are for the lives of human persons!
Level of development, the brain having developed the capacity for consciousness while in the womb, should certainly be critical in the assignment of human rights. Yes, AFTER human organisms become human persons with consciousness, then rights ought to be assigned EQUALLY, without regard to “size, level of development, education, and degree of dependency” and without regard to race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age.
We are far from perfect north of the border, but sure am glad we live here! This irrational behaviour and set of beliefs belies the international facts and experience.
Well that was helpful, thanks for explaining the difference in outcomes. 
This image made by survivors of mass shootings says it all:
https://marchforourlives.com/thoughtsandprayers/