

Complicated is OK - kdaigle
http://kyledaigle.position.cc/complicated-is-ok

======
potatolicious
Hear hear. HN was much better than average throughout this whole affair. There
were heated arguments, but it was (mostly) civil and people at least took the
time to elaborate on their positions.

I wish the same could be said for my Facebook feed (and why I wish I could
keyword-filter my Facebook feed), which were full of snarky one-liners,
catchphrases, and image memes from both sides of the aisle (well, mostly the
pro gun control side, given my demographics) - none of which is productive.

These simplistic sound bites (image bites?) add no understanding to the
discourse, oversimplify a _massively_ complicated issue, and are nothing more
than self-congratulatory feel-good rhetoric that serve to further polarize and
separate the two sides.

It's not unique to this shooting though - the dumbing-down and meme-ification
of my Facebook feed has been increasing for some time, across all age groups
I'm friends with. People don't express themselves anymore and opt to share an
oversimplistic, insipid image macro instead - even distinctively non-Redditor
middle aged people on my friends list do this.

------
Sniffnoy
See also:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/)

In short: Tighter gun control might help on net, or it might be harmful on
net. But whichever is right, we shouldn't pretend that the option that's
better on net has _no downsides_ , that it is a _strict_ improvement, which is
what people tend to do.

------
danpalmer
Coming from a country where you essentially can't own guns (sport is an
exception, and very tightly controlled), it strikes me as odd that anyone
would want to own one, for personal defence, or reasons of freedom. And on
first thought it seems obvious that tighter gun control will prevent gun
crime.

However I think the issue is far more complicated than this. As I understand
it, a large number of countries allow guns to a larger extent than my own,
Canada being a good example, but they don't suffer from the increased gun
crime. Deaths relating to guns here and in Canada are roughly the same, as
they are in most countries. But the US is consistently several orders of
magnitude worse in gun related deaths than anywhere else.

Perhaps this is not a question of gun control, after all, if people really
want a gun there is probably little that will stop them. Perhaps this is an
issue of cultural attitudes to guns?

------
room271
It is vitally important to recognise the complexity and uncertainty in
deciding on these kinds of big issues. There will rarely be clear winners, and
evidence is almost always partial and flawed.

BUT as a non-American citizen I can't understand why you would allow citizens
to own semi-automatic weapons. The only purpose of these weapons is to kill
other people (or hold the threat of such). Why not allow weapons for hunting
(rifles, etc.) but criminalise anything allows you to simply hold down the
trigger and count.

------
gersh
Suicidal lone-nuts need shouldn't be able to obtain guns. There are probably
ways to do this without an outright ban, or excessive bureaucracy. I propose
the following possible solutions:

1) Outlaw buying a gun by yourself, and require 10 co-signers, who assume
personal liability for any misuse of the gun. Everyone must be free of a
criminal record, and take an oath to follow the law.

2) Require liability insurance to own a gun like car insurance. The insurance
company would ensure you aren't a threat, or they probably wouldn't provide
you with liability insurance.

------
newishuser
Prohibition is never a solution to anything. What we need is a cultural shift
of some sort that involves identifying people in situations that lead to
increased risk of later in life criminal activity and providing them the tools
they need to escape that fate. This is more complicated than just thinking
critically about gun control.

The goal isn't to create a perfect, utopian, society. It's to target certain
statistics for reduction. It's hard to get elected on a platform that has a 10
year wait for results.

~~~
wlesieutre
Prohibition is very definitely a solution to some problems. Take drugs as an
example: You can make an argument that marijuana, or even harder drugs like
cocaine or meth should be personal choices. But those arguments have limits.

For instance, nobody would run a "Legalize Vancomycin" campaign. Being one of
our last resort antibiotics that remains effective against many cases of MRSA,
preventing its overuse is critical. If not for our prescription drug system,
it'd take less than a week for someone to start selling ANTIBACTERIAL SOAP!
KILLS 99% OF MRSA! and the drug would become useless in short order.

While I won't say that's analogous to gun laws, it's a good example of there
being cases where prohibition is an effective solution, and there are
_absolutely_ situations where things should only be available to people with a
strong need to use them.

Saying that prohibition is never a solution reeks of the same aversion to
complex opinions that the linked article was written about.

~~~
newishuser
I don't agree. I think prohibition can coincide with a cultural perception
that creates the illusion that the prohibition is effective, but in my opinion
it's the culture itself not the prohibition.

Nothing can truly be prohibited. Especially things culture demands. What
you're talking about is regulation anyway. There is a deference between
prohibition and regulation. Take prescription drugs for example.

People absolutely would campaign to legalize Vancomycin if there was a
cultural perception in favor of it's benefits.

~~~
wlesieutre
>Prohibition: Noun The action of forbidding something, esp. by law. A law or
regulation forbidding something.

I don't see how it isn't prohibition. What differentiates it from any other
prescription drug, especially those with recreational uses? Would you apply
the word to marijuana, but not to OxyContin?

Regarding your last point: If there were a massive outbreak of something best
treated by Vancomycin, I'm sure we would see arguments that it should be
available over the counter to anyone who wants some. And that would be a
terrible idea because of people who would buy a bunch and take it constantly,
figuring it would keep them safe. And maybe it would, but at the cost of
Vancomycin becoming a less effective treatment, and overall a lot more people
dying.

That's one aspect of the argument that _does_ fit pretty well with the debate
on firearms.

------
saosebastiao
The situation we are in is quite simple actually. It is nothing more than a
Nash equilibrium. Suboptimal, but stable...and nobody gains anything by
changing their strategy. Everybody wants to disarm everybody but themselves.

The solution? Now that is complicated. Has anybody ever seen a Nash
Equilibrium broken by anything other than a third party? What happens when
neither side trusts the third party?

------
sneak
From the article:

> Complete and utter freedom doesn't work in America

Uhh, you wouldn't know. You've never had it.

~~~
wlesieutre
We used to have something closer to it. Side effects included child labor,
people burning to death in factories because the doors were locked, and
Standard Oil, among other things.

Even the most hard-line Libertarians will admit that "complete freedom" is
overrated.

~~~
derleth
> Even the most hard-line Libertarians will admit that "complete freedom" is
> overrated.

Be careful with statements like these: Every time you use them, you're betting
that you _have_ , in fact, _actually_ seen the hard line.

In this case, I am pretty sure there are others here who have experience with
Libertarians (self-proclaimed, perhaps, but loud enough) who do, in fact,
believe that complete freedom would lead to market solutions to _everything_.
Utopian Libertarianism, like Utopian Socialism, is quite dogmatic on some
issues.

~~~
wlesieutre
Admittedly, the libertarians I've spoken to personally have some concept along
the lines of "Your freedom ends where mine begins," and don't think a society
where someone might feel entitled to murdering you over a parking space would
be a good idea. But I could probably have worded it better.

In any case, I don't see "complete freedom" for everyone as a concept that can
even exist in the abstract. If you have complete freedom, I can't (as a silly
example) lock you in my basement and make you sew Snuggies for 20 hours a day.
But one definition of freedom (#3 on dictionary.com) that I think applies here
is:

> _the power to determine action without restraint._

If slave ownership isn't permitted, then I don't have that power. Either you
get "complete freedom" or I do.

Replacing "overrated" with "not possible/feasible" should make it a bit more
accurate.

