I saw a celebrity advocating for the politicians in TN to pass gun laws that are "pragmatic and evidence based". While that sure sounds reasonable as all get out, I wonder what those specific laws are. Obviously, there were no details that I saw on what these magical laws might be, nor on the "evidence" that underlies them. But I wanted to make a few general observations.
Pragmatic. For a politician, what might be pragmatic might not necessarily good law. It'd be pragmatic for a Tennessee DFL politician to vote for anything labeled as a gun law, because it would benefit them electorally. It might also be pragmatic for a politician to support a gun law because they know that the enforcement would hurt their opponents more than it would hurt them. I know were kind of spitballing here, but the point remains that pragmatic for a politician isn't always good for their constituents. It was clearly pragmatic for Biden to support and Harris to enforce the '95 crime bill, they rode that shit a long way. But it turned out pretty shitty for lots of folks who are still in jail because of it.
Evidence based. I've wondered for a while why the gun control folks can't come up with a simple law that will do exactly what they say, and then look back 10 years later and see that it worked. The simple fact is that it's insane to claim you can produce evidence of how an unpassed law will affect people, or how they'll behave. So, let's look at the evidence for other laws and see how that looks. We know that is already against TN state law to shoot people to death with a gun (with obvious exceptions), yet we see that 500 people die from homicide (by gun) yearly. 8th highest in the US. I haven't been able to find statewide numbers for non fatal shootings, but in Nashville there were 87 in the last year. Finally there were another 4100 and change (in Nashville) other firearms crimes. Yet, I'm pretty sure that there already laws against shooting people, robbing or threatening people with a gun, or killing people with a gun, aren't there? If so, then what is the magic of these unpassed gun laws that has evidence to support that they'll be more effective than current laws?
The person who posted this (I suspect) lives in several houses which all potentially contain guns. I'd be shocked if this person or their family don't employ armed security from time to time. So, one has to wonder why. Why post this sort of nonsense? I suspect #1 on the list is to get praise and support from the "right" people. Beyond that, who knows. No matter what, the "pragmatic, evidenced based" magic bullet gun law simply doesn't exist.
9 comments:
Leftists don't care about proof and evidence if they feel they have some belief their crappy ideas are "moral" or "ethical" or "good for the people". Indeed, they need only insist their proposals are such in order for them to expect that the rest of us agree.
The modern progressive constantly cites "gun violence" as a problem, when the true problem is always the criminal mentality which results in certain scumbags shooting people. If those same scumbags were deprived of their firearms and the means to get more, they'd move to other implements they could use to achieve a similar result.
When the modern progressive speaks of gun laws..."pragmatic", "evidence based", "common sense" gun control laws...they're basically announcing to the voters that they are both stupid and liars. It's no more complicated than that. Until we can find a means by which we can compel the criminally oriented to forsake their criminal ways and join the brotherhood of man, enacting gun laws will only serve to increase the number of victims of gun violence. This is an evidence based reality the modern progressive is too dishonest to accept.
I would suggest a few things:
1. Of course, our gun and violence problems are multi-faceted and complex.
2. That being the case, there are/will be no "simple fixes," as in, "If we just passed THIS law, we'd be free of this problem of deadly violence!" No one serious is suggesting that.
3. Indeed, any laws that we pass will, perforce, only be dealing with a few aspects of our gun violence problem.
4. Given the real world data, though, we have to be clear that we DO have a gun violence problem. Other western nations aren't shooting one another at the rate we do.
5. So, when some propose, for instance, "red flag laws," they aren't saying that will solve our gun violence problem. It WOULD however, address one aspect of our gun violence problems - people who are at least temporarily out of control and where people have legitimate reasons to suspect harm might come from them being armed. With ~80%+ support in the US, this is a popular and rational aspect to deal with ONE area of concern around gun laws.
https://journalistsresource.org/criminal-justice/mass-shootings-red-flag-laws-update/
6. Another extremely reasonable position to take is that we ought to actually STUDY the topic. As the link above notes: Gov't and gun "rights" advocates have made it difficult to actually do research into the topic. This is just crazy. We have a serious gun violence problem in our nation and we need to have data so we CAN form rational policies. Contrary to nonsense claims by some people, REASONABLE people across the political spectrum DO want data and research into areas where we have demonstrable problems. Because, of course, we do.
7. Another reasonable position to take, seems to me, is that there should be registration and training required to own and use firearms. You have to have a permit and registration to own and use a motorized vehicle, there is nothing wrong with requiring the same for firearms, especially given our real world gun violence problem. This notion is another with vastly universal support from the population.
From there, we could go on, but these are three extremely reasonable starting points where there is vast agreement by the US: There should be research done, Red flag laws, training and registration should be required.
These ARE pragmatic solutions and no doubt would be evidence-based IF we could actually do the research.
Because, why not?
I see no reason to address each of these bullet points, as they just restate old talking points.
I will focus on the last two lines. This notion that IF we do the research (as if there isn't excellent research out there all ready and as if there is some mysterious cabal preventing research from being done) that the research will validate the position of those advocating more gun control is simply absurd. Does anyone really believe that they will simply stop advocating for their position if the research doesn't show what they assume it will show? The problem is that what's being advocated is NOT do some research, and then pass laws based on that research. what's being advocated is to pass a bunch of laws that likely won't have any measurable impact on gun violence, and then we might do some research.
This straw man of "they won't let anyone do any research" is simply bogus.
I find it interesting that the same types of people who succeeded in overturning the laws that allowed people to be civilly committed for mental health treatment (resulting in plenty of negative consequences, now want to reintroduce something similar. Although it's not to get people mental health care, it's just to confiscate their guns.
"I see no reason to address each of these bullet points, as they just restate old talking points."
OK. I'll do it:
1. No it's not. First, there's no "gun problem". It's a character problem and that problem is enhanced and enabled by the modern progressive who pretends that problem is the result of that which occurred one hundred years ago.
2. Also not true, as the lifting of the many stupid laws and policies enacted by modern progressives which enhance and enable the problem will go a long way toward mitigating the harm the modern progressives caused. After removing those stupid laws, the notion that any new laws would make a difference if the character issue isn't addressed is typical modern progressive stupidity. We have laws enough to deal with those whose low character leads them to act criminally. We just need to enforce them with extreme prejudice. In other words, "zero tolerance" of criminal behavior excuse so routinely by the modern progressive.
3. Only those passed by modern progressive led governments will, mainly because those morons believe it's a "gun problem".
4. The "real world" data does not account for where the majority of violent crimes takes place, and who is running those towns. The modern progressive provided the liberty for the violent to be violent and pretends the problem is "guns". What's more, the modern progressive insists on making comparisons to other countries in a false manner, including the fact that with fewer guns involved in violent crimes, violence in modern progressive controlled nations is as pervasive as anywhere else.
Getting back to the "real world" data, remove the three worst Dem run cities and the United States becomes a far safer nation than most of the others the modern progressive would cite as less dangerous.
5. "Red Flag Laws" are unConstitutional as they've been proposed. It allows for any claim against a gun owner to be perceived as a lunatic with a gun, when often the accuser is lying.
No bad law should be enacted because modern progressives insist it has widespread support. When a modern progressive uses this argument, one must immediately investigate the polling methodds.
6. As Craig said, there is no obstruction to such research. None. The opposite is true, in that the modern progressive obstructs legit research from those who oppose their gun grabbing ways. We know why violence and crime exists as it does in this nation in this day and age. We need no more research which, if done by modern progressives, will seek to reject truth and reality in order to disarm those victimized by their policies.
7. This is as stupid as the rest of Dan's suggestions and totally unConstitutional. The moronic attempt to equate the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms for self-defense with the privilege of driving a car demonstrates the total ignorance and dishonesty of the modern progressive. As the primary purpose of the 2nA is to allow the law-abiding to protect themselves against the very despotism the modern progressive seeks to install, the idea of registration of one's arms, or any regulation of the ownership of one's arms, by the very government denied by the Constitution to infringe upon the right of ownership shows just how little regard the modern progressive has for this nation and its founding principles.
If there's anyone who should be registered, monitored or regulated by the government, it's the criminal and insane (and I would add the modern progressive as well). If when I seek to purchase a weapon, my name is not on a list of felons or lunatics, I get my gun. Should I at some point commit a felony or go insane, I lose my gun. It's that simple.
The modern progressive is a moron and a great danger to the safety of all Americans.
[Rolls eyes]
Art,
I'll gladly let you address Dan's tired, old talking points.
It's amazing how removing a very few DFL run cities so drastically affects the crime statistics in the US.
As far as research goes, I have to point this out. Any credible research into gun crime has to address the use of guns to prevent crime, and to differentiate between someone shooting a criminal to protect themselves from murder. Any research that does not look at the good uses of firearms and compare that to the bad uses of firearms is worthless.
Art,
While I have problems with red flag laws (not the least of which being the number of high profile shooters who's families did raise concerns and were ignored), I'm not sure that they are blanket unconstitutional. I do see constitutional concerns that would need to be addressed, but it's possible that they could be.
As I said, had the left not gone nuts and completely eliminated civil commitment laws it's likely that not only would we see less gun crime but also less of what's making large cities shit holes.
If there is some evidence and a warrant issued, anyone can have their weapons taken from them. Even in a righteous shooting, a self-defense shooting, one's weapons are confiscated. Thus, I don't know that any additional laws are necessary to remove weapons from truly dangerous people. So while LE has dropped the ball in the past (the Parkland shooting, for example), complaints must first be investigated beyond merely taking someone's word for it that another is a threat. People were executed as witches for mere accusations. Red Flag laws have more of that quality than the Constitution allows.
I'm fully with you on the culpability of the modern progressives in the proliferation of dangerous people these days.
Art,
I suspect that you are correct, that existing law would probably provide LE with the ability to act preemptively and take firearms out of the hands of people at risk. The fact that one common thread in many of these high profile shootings is the fact that LE was aware of the threat, and failed to act.
Post a Comment