Fox News mocks Obama's tears over gunned down kids

http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-hosts-absurd-claim-about-obamas-tears-during-gun-speech

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

Glock's rise and gun control

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/01/170752391/how-the-glock-became-americas-weapon-of-choice

This is an older interview, but related to the gun control debate now. Technically speaking Glock is an excellent firearm vs. its early peers, but its marketing was leaps and bounds ahead:

- They fed on the negative press that Glocks were the weapon of choice of terrorists and bad people (if those hardened killers choose Glock, maybe I should too!).

- They made overtures to Hollywood armories to make sure Glocks got exposure in big time TV/movies like "Law and Order" (and unintentionally in many rap songs).

- Around the time the Glock was invented, cops were using old S&W revolvers and the military was using heavy Colt 1911-like automatics. The Glock was futuristic looking, with a sensitive trigger, made of plastic, and with no external safety. People were skeptical about using it. The genius of the Glock is that it is super-reliable, super-simple design, and made in a very efficient manufacturing process. Their original idea was to leverage that cost advantage to sell cheap and undercut rivals. But then they decided on a premium price, in order to signal to customers that it wasn't a flimsy plastic toy gun - it was in fact a premium, high-performance, superior gun. Though for hesitant police departments, Glock basically had a "name your price" + trade-in policy (subsidized by superior margins to the public). Cops were also motivated to get Glocks because they were tired of being outgunned by criminals with them. So this strategy got them impressive market share, and got the gun double exposure from the "good guy" cops and the "bad guy" crooks.

Here's the gun control side of the story. Glocks were made to accommodate a variety of magazines, some as high as 30 rounds. The gun control community were very opposed to Glocks, and looked foolish after they claimed that the plastic gun would get through airport security (half of the gun is still metal, and its outline would be obvious in an X-ray). But they got momentum after the Killeen, TX mass shooting (the worst in US history at the time) where the perpetrator used a Glock and other firearms. So capping magazine capacity was part of the assault weapons ban, though not retroactive (i.e. existing guns would be grandfathered). Legislation is slow and Glock anticipated this change, so for years prior their plants were pumping out a ton of Glocks and large mags. They sold like hotcakes leading up to the ban, in some cases at 3X higher prices than before Killeen. I guess like the AR-15 now. 

Glock was also the punching bag for many police departments, despite being their supplier. They employed a controversial practice of "trading in". In order to drive more sales, Glock reps would reach out to PDs and offer to buy their old guns in exchange for new, better Glocks (sometime every 1-2 years). PDs agreed, and then Glock would sell those used guns on the secondary market. Of course some of those guns got in the hands of criminals. Cops were blaming (and even suing) Glock for "flooding the streets" with guns, but where did those guns come from - the holsters of cops! If PDs resisted the urge to get the latest-and-greatest guns (subsidized by their current guns), then the problem could have been much reduced. They could have mandated that Glock melt down their old guns and sell them as scrap instead.

Colorado movie shooting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-the-aurora-shooting-wont-likely-change-the-gun-control-debate/2012/07/20/gJQA6qWpxW_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics

My wife and I recently saw "Bowling for Columbine" again and it's sad how not a damn thing has changed in a decade (except that Heston died in 2008), or maybe got worse (gun and ammo sales have spiked since Obama took office http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/why-the-gun-industry-secretly-loves-obama-09012011.html). This is despite VT, Oakland, Giffords, and many other incidents. Aurora CO is another suburb of Denver not far from Littleton, but this time the accused shooter is not a local but a neurosci PhD student who grew up in SD. Last time the pundits blamed Dylan and Eric's bloodlust on their enjoyment of Marilyn Manson music and violent video games. I guess this time techno music and Batman will be implicated (or stress and financial hardships from grad school?). Not that those are the real root causes.

If anyone watches "The Newsroom" on HBO, interesting fact that gun paranoia over Obama is totally unfounded: gun control watchdogs have given Obama an F rating, yet some people are convinced that he is coming for their weapons (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f

). I am not sure if "Fast and Furious" is part of that grade or not. Yet the NRA has declared Obama is the most anti-gun president ever. I guess anything to warp perceptions and try to kick him out of office?

It's the middle-class whites and Asians who perpetrate the mass killings in the US, but the public is still most scared of and hostile to poor urban blacks and Latinos.

-----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/obama-gun-control_n_1704246.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Yeah I forgot about Obama's 2008 comment about blue-collar whites "clinging to their guns." I wonder how much those 4 words really affected his future policy.

America is the only industrialized, non-wartorn nation with the following combination of conditions:
- A ton of legally and easily available guns (many with the capacity to inflict mass murder)
- A well-funded and entrenched pro-gun lobby
- A heritage of violence and individualism
- A media-consumer-social culture of paranoia, combativeness, and hostility towards each other
- Apathetic and/or reelection-obsessed politicians

Some nations have one or a few of those conditions, but no nation but us has them all. Maybe that would explain why we have the highest gun violence rates in the G20?

PS - in the slideshow at the bottom about the pivotal moments of the gun debate, for the image of the Reagan-Hinckley shooting, the Secret Service are carrying Uzis! To me that weapon doesn't seem appropriate for politician protection.