Maybe you saw Obama's powerful (and both emotional and logical) speech
about exec. action for gun control. Even Trump called it sincere and
that Obama's meant well (but of course disagrees with his proposal). But
the shock-and-awe attention-whore pseudo-anchors at Fox insinuated that
Obama faked the tears to be more convincing, and that he should cry
about other problems like ISIS terrorism as much as he cries for gun
victims.
Well, if you have that degree of bias and hate,
there's nothing more to say really. We've had way too many threads about
gun violence, but I'll offer this position:- In a society, you implicitly or explicitly give up some personal freedoms/liberty/resources/
happiness for the greater good (according to our values, but of course "good" can be subjective) - Seat belt laws, hunting licenses, child abuse laws, etc.
- No society manages this sacrifice/balance perfectly, but the US is relatively low corruption, fairly transparent, and at least maintains some public channels for change/redress
- The US is already one of the most libertarian nations on earth due to our laws, Constitution, and culture
- We are accustomed to bitching about "the gov't", but really we don't know how spoiled we are vs. places like France or god forbid, Iran
- And so we have our 2nd Amendment and the modern warped interpretation of it... but no right is absolute
- The gov't can take away your right to vote, or your right to life if you are convicted of a certain crime
- We can debate the prudence of such policies, but some gun control is sound and lawful
- I don't know why pro-gun folks are so defensive; gun laws have generally relaxed more than strengthened since Sandy Hook
- Therefore, the pro-gun arguments about standing up to gov't tyranny and upholding freedom & the Constitution are pretty much invalid
- That crap is mostly NRA propaganda; a majority of gun owners do want the things Obama proposed (universal bkgd. checks, closing of the gun show loophole - and plenty of other loopholes still remain)
- But I suppose the NRA's position is that they can't give an inch, or the US will start to accept/see the benefits of gun control and want more (similar to how the GOP feels about Obamacare)
- Some minority groups get the "short end of the stick" for socially-beneficial decisions:
- Alcoholics might lament that some bars must close at 2AM
- Speed freaks could be disappointed that the limit is 65 mph
- So gun sellers (either businesses or hobbyists) should accept more paperwork/oversight due to the social threat of their wares
- And some gun nuts should compromise that while they might prefer 50-round magazines on their assault rifles, people really shouldn't have those things
- And there are still plenty of lethal and less controversial alternatives like semi-auto shotguns and .44 magnums they can own instead
- The "rights and freedoms" of the pro-gun camp need to be subordinate to the right to life of gun victims, within reason
- But some people are selfish pricks and they want the status quo to persist, even if it contributes to innocents getting killed (i.e. someone else's problem)
- In other words, they don't mind if others suffer as they benefit (externalities)
- Now to the next issue: most of us agree that innocents should not get murdered, but will more or fewer guns (or less mass-murder-capable guns) reduce that problem?
- The gun lobby has prevented public research and data collection on the issue, but there is literally zero credible evidence that more/deadlier guns makes us safer, and a decent amount of trustworthy evidence to the contrary
- So even if the research is partly flawed/wrong, how much social harm is there to limit magazines to 10 rounds, with the potential upside of preventing dozens (or hundreds, or more) of murders a year?
- Same goes for better background checks/tracking, assault weapons bans, more oversight of online/private sales, etc.
- It is way harder to get a student loan than to get an assault rifle - is that the type of society we want?
- In some cases, the atmosphere of regulation can deter crime, even if the actual laws and enforcement are flawed
- E.g. how much tax fraud is avoided just by the mere specter of the IRS, even though they may not audit and catch much of the fraud?
- In other words, what do we have to lose, apart from pissing off a privileged minority group of gun nuts, gun makers/sellers, the NRA, and the politicians who enable/benefit from them (and remember, they will still have the right to buy and sell plenty of other types of weapons)?
- Since the gun violence problem is so large (~30K killed per year in the US), it's possible that these new regs won't make much of a dent. But as Obama said, isn't it worth it to save even a few kids (some of whom might grow up to be the next Einstein or Obama)?
- So gun control is legal and responsible (see points above), economically justified (limiting guns might reduce some revenue/taxes, but will likely pay for itself through social cost savings), and morally good (in many people's minds)
- Anyone who opposes gun control on these grounds does not have their arguments based in facts and logic (likely emotional/ideological instead)
- But that's the problem, in Polarized America, you can't persuade anyone with facts and logic; you just have to ram your agenda through and not care about your opponents' wishes
- So that is what we should do re: gun control, stop letting the minority terrorize the majority
No comments:
Post a Comment