
End the Gun Epidemic in America - denzil_correa
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html
======
awl130
Leave it to a private institution like the NY times to have the gonads to do
what Obama will not.

Should we start a countdown, or an over/under pool, on when Obama will
actually do something about this "gun epidemic"? Obviously gun control is a
matter for Congress, but there is plenty of precedent where a President has
galvanized public opinion to drive political change. One instance (albeit
trivial) is when Pres. Ford in the 70s asked the nation to cut down on energy
use. By commanding the airwaves and print media (a unilateral option still
available to any sitting president), the next week citizens across the nation
wore these stupid buttons in response.

There are phenomenal tools available to the president to completely by-pass
conventional political process. It is merely up to him to risk his own
political capital and legacy to pull the trigger. Some may call it an abuse of
power but if our society believes supremely in following one's conscience than
surely history will vindicate him.

This could be one of Obama's biggest miscalculations. If Obama is not careful,
his few paragraphs in high school textbooks will include a sentence that
reads, "Obama's presidency is marked by his lack of response to the American
Gun Epidemic of the early 21st century, which during his tenure saw [1,000]
lives lost, including 22 schoolchildren in Sandy Hook, leaving it to his
successor to enact substantive gun control policy..."

------
Alex3917
What gun epidemic? Gun violence is near an all time low.

~~~
benjohnson
It's necessary to create a galvanizing idea in the population in order to
control them - hence the drumming of "gun epidemic" by government and media
when the statistics show otherwise.

------
DougN7
Do the same people who think there is a gun epidemic and guns need to be
controlled more also think there is a drug epidemic and drugs need to be
controlled more? It seems the same reasoning holds. Interestingly to me,
conservatives and liberals seem to be inversely inconsistent on the underlying
reasoning.

~~~
hijiri
Reading your and similar comments made me think about it, and I came to the
conclusion that the commonality between drugs and guns is superficial.

Starting with what they have in common, I would say the restriction of either
creates a black market, so that either allows criminal organizations to make a
profit selling them. I think there is a difference even there though, since
you can argue that criminals still benefit from loosening of gun regulations,
because they would have easier access to guns. The primary buyers of illegal
firearms are gangs and similar organizations, so that market is mainly there
to support criminals who would not be able to obtain them without it. I don't
know if that would change with increased restrictions though - maybe some
otherwise law-abiding people would be willing to buy illegal guns for self-
defense. On the other hand, I can't see how legalizing drugs could benefit
crime organizations, except that maybe they could use their existing
infrastructure to pivot into a legal drug business. Maybe that is a
significant boon, but it doesn't seem worse than any other "legitimate
business" that funds criminal activity.

One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is quality control -
street drugs often contain adulterants that are more debilitating than the
drug itself. From what I know, this can't apply to guns since illegal guns are
typically originally-legal guns from ordinary gun manufacturers, and don't
have as many quality control issues.

And the way they generate harm is different too - drugs mainly harm the user,
and guns mainly harm whoever the gun is used on (may sometimes be the same as
the user). So drug legalization might be desirable so the harmful qualities of
drugs could be reduced (as earlier), and not restricting guns could be
desirable in that people will be able to defend themselves from other people
with guns (criminals with guns, an oppressive government). This simplifies the
issue a bit, and ignores other factors like drug research or hunting and other
non-self-defense uses of guns, but I think it's clear that there is
significant room to agree with restricting one but not the other.

My post may reek of bias toward drug legalization, but hopefully you agree
that it's not as simple as "If you want to loosen drug/gun restrictions, you
should also want to reduce gun/drug restrictions".

------
mindcrime
"Gun epidemic" is a nonsense phrase. This is all complete tripe. If people
want to talk about reducing violence then great, let's talk about that.
Political game playing like this isn't helping anybody.

------
bryanlarsen
This was a front page above the fold editorial, which the NY Times has not
done since the 1920s.

------
DrScump
A key problem with this debate is that the NYT knowingly and deliberately
prints falsehoods on numerous facets of politics in which it has taken an
editorial position.

A key example is their reference to this story, as if it supports the
editorial case: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-
a-c...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-
vote-on-terrorism.html)

With the accompanying quote: "on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark
Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s
consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."

Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn't fail because of
anything to do with terrorism -- it's because that amendment would have
_overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare._

Here's the proposed language it is looking to overlay:
[https://www.congress.gov/congressional-
record/2015/12/01/sen...](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-
record/2015/12/01/senate-section/article/S8245-2) (the Obamacare component
repeal)

Now, here's the Feinstein amendment (scroll down to "SA 2910" portion, read it
only): [https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-
ame...](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-
amendment/2910/text)

Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it
claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention
of a specific criteria for "terrorist" or refer to the FBI watchlist by its
proper statute name). So it wouldn't have any effect on its own, being
unenforceable vague.

But that's not the point.

Now, note carefully how the legislation starts: _" In lieu of the matter
proposed to be inserted, insert the following:"_

See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter ("the matter" being ALL of SA 2874, the
Obamacare repeal).

The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom
Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns.
That's the first clue right there.

Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they
oppose with _unrelated_ content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to
trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the
Tom Foley days, if not Tip O'Neill or beyond.

The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother
to look at the bills...

...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.

------
toothbrush
Absolutely. I'm consistently surprised that things like [1] are not seen as
absurd and even illegal. I found another article, "Gun homicides in Poland are
about as common as deaths from bicycle riders being hit by cars in the United
States" (and many other variations) [2] very sad, too. How is it that a
civilised nation allows such things to happen? The US seems like a very cool
place, with so much potential, but increasingly, i'm considering putting it on
my personal blacklist as far as destinations to look for work go. I just can't
imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to
shoot the place up (and that's not even considering the violence perpetrated
by legitimate LEOs...).

Why would you want to have a killing machine lying around at home? That sounds
horrific.

1\. [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/02/gun-tv-
home-s...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/02/gun-tv-home-
shopping-channel)

2\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-
countries-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-
youre-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-falling-object-as-a-gun.html) (was on HN
recently)

~~~
Hogg
"I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding
goon deciding to shoot the place up."

You don't need a concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed gun; you just
need one to do it LEGALLY. I would venture to guess that a person who carries
concealed with the intent of committing murder will not have bothered to get a
permit.

My reasoning for keeping a killing machine (it lies around either in a safe or
on my person at all times) is because crime happens, and criminals are willing
to do things like use force and/or weapons. Police can't be everywhere, and
while their response time here is pretty good, it's generally more than enough
time for the criminals to do what they want and escape. I'd be happy to go
back in time and un-invent guns, but as it stands, I don't see any way to
remove all of them from all criminals' hands. So it seems to me the only
viable preventive measure is for citizens to defend themselves with the same
tools the criminals illegally use to commit their crimes.

~~~
toothbrush
That's one side of it, and it's a pretty common rebuttal to hear. I have some
thoughts on that.

If tomorrow all gun possession (except perhaps by LEO, but even that is
debatable IMHO) was made illegal, then within one year i'm sure there would be
many less guns in circulation (without considering who owns them). In my books
this is a net win, because a criminal entering the scene at that point in time
will arguably have a harder time sourcing a gun than is currently the case.
Profit, i would say. Indeed the stable state of this system is, as you point
out, that only non-law-abiding citizens will be in possession of guns, but
that is collateral i'm willing to accept (as in the society where i currently
live. Death rate per capita by guns is much lower here than in the US, see my
linked article from The Guardian). The end game of your desired society seems
to me that it's an arms race (excuse my wording): everyone who wants to be
'safe' should have a gun, therefore criminals have more incentive to have
guns, etc.

The other question i have is how one explains the fact that in many societies
where gun possession is not legal, the situation is far from the doom scenario
where criminals with guns are rife. Of course, they exist, and of course shit
happens, but it still seems that the evidence (just the statistics, no moral
arguments) points to the desirability of outlawing gun possession.

And finally, no matter how carefully you treat and/or store your gun, it is
still more likely (even if the likelihood is only epsilon) to accidentally go
off or get played with by a child than my gun, which does not exist at all.

~~~
DrScump
"Indeed the stable state of this system is, as you point out, that only non-
law-abiding citizens will be in possession of guns, but that is collateral i'm
willing to accept"

You have just described present-day Mexico. How much safer do you feel when
there, versus when in the U.S.?

