Monday assorted links

1. The economics of Broadway.

2. Them vs. us, but in Brexit demands, who exactly is the “us”?

3. Patrick Blanchfield, The Gun Control We Deserve.  Recommended.  And here is an alternative perspective on why so many people own AR-15s.  Also recommended.

4. “In Guadalajara, Mexico, streets are named after artists, constellations, Aztec history and mythology, rivers, writers and botany. Imagination costs little, yet it remains rare.”  Archaeology of street names.

5. “A political philosophy devoted to the pursuit of what we now consider ideal justice, and which seeks a “well-ordered society” based on this shared ideal, almost certainly will condemn us to a society based on an inferior view of justice. Political philosophy, I argue, has too long labored under the sway of theorists’ pictures of an ideally just society; we ought instead to investigate the characteristics of societies that encourage increasingly just arrangements.” That is from philosopher Gerald Gaus.

6. An explainer on the DAO attack.  And a Reddit explainer.

7. Henry on The Age of Em.  Robin responds, and more from Robin here.


5. Congrats to Gaus for arriving at Prince ch. XV 500 years after Machiavelli.

"Successful national independence movements usually have five things going for them: a deep sense of grievance against the existing order; a reasonably clear (even if invented) idea of a distinctive national identity; a shared (albeit largely imaginary) narrative of the national past; a new elite-in-waiting; and a vision of a future society that will be better because it is self-governing." The pro-Brexit side has all 5 in spades.

It also calls into question how "invented" these identities are in general. Since the article is trying to convince us that England recent invention.

TEXIT is coming.

Bring it on!

Will that be a secession referendum or an expulsion referendum?

3a is pretty reasonable, and as a moderate I feel lonely in the center of this configuration, neither minimalist nor maximumist.

3b is a bit of a cheat. Changing the caliber of an AR is an expensive proposition. False economy.

Yikes, $900?

I thought it was reasonable at first, but it got weird towards the end.

A real fear here is that “gun control” measures will be used to produce new opportunities to entrap and criminalize people who are already disproportionately targeted, as well as those who might pose any threat to the status quo.

Clamping down now makes sense as a way to stack the deck against escalations in civil unrest, whether catalyzed by climate change, economic disruption, or further instances of racist police violence.

So we can't have gun control because of disparate impact and some day we might need to stage an armed rebellion against Exxon Mobil or the Gestapo? I hope this is just a Turing Test failure, where he's trying to make arguments that he thinks will sound convincing to people on the left and simply made a hash of it.

I got suspicious when he (#1) started talking about neoliberalism, about masculinity -- implying but not stating that men who want guns are probably compensating for something re: their self image -- and about white supremacy as the core of America.

Yeah. I'm not sure whether it is an indication of insanity, Asperger's, or propaganda to begin the gun control argument in medias res. There's essentially no difference between (1) pointing out that many state laws protect individuals' rights to own guns in the (completely illogical and fictional) absence of federal law, and (2) espousing the recent Jeb Bush argument that "stuff happens."

The point is that innocent, free people are dying. Try starting there, and we can have a meaningful conversation.

"The point is that innocent, free people are dying. Try starting there, and we can have a meaningful conversation."

Emotional appeals that ignores the complexity of an issue often hinder meaningful conversation rather than starting it.

Gun control advocates often seem to follow this logic:

Gun violence is terrible -> We must do something -> Advocate for measure that don't make a difference but are politically possible.

I don't think this is advancing the discussion or their cause. If you think the high rate of gun death in America is a scandal and caused by too-easy access to guns, then the only real solution is drastically reducing Americans' access to guns (especially handguns). Of course this is impossible in the current political reality, and might even require constitutional amendment(s). But this discussion is not even happening (in mainstream political circles, anyway). Instead, pointless, weak measures are proposed, which play into pro-gun hands.

That is straw manning "advocates."

In real life advocates have achieved things like mandatory trigger locks, and gun safe requirements, which surely have saved lives.

Given that toddlers shot 23 people in 2015, more can be done to encourage safe storage and handling.

And California has the Bullet Button. It is a moderate path. You can have a CA legal AR, it is just harder to spree shoot.

@anon, perhaps I was being too broad brush. There may be some common sense, moderate actions that can be taken, and some people advocating for them. However, it is not a straw man. Lots of people are genuinely advocating for things that will make no difference. The assault weapons ban is one obvious historical example. The value of the terror watch list proposals is very questionable, as well.

I'm not sure trigger locks are such a good example of a common sense reform that saves lives (note this article is by a gun control advocate):

We can't have gun control because the Democrats and their allies in the media allowed the IRS to go after conservative groups without any kind of punishment. In fact, they even slow walked and ran the clock on Congress.

Therefore, the lesson taken by most people is: the government will not be held accountable. the government can indeed target politically. the rule of law is over.

If the left wanted gun control, they would be showing active restraint when in power, and come down like a ton of bricks on the IRS, with a swift and transparent investigation with full cooperation.

Instead, the left chose to play games. Congratulations! I now can no longer trust government. Heckuva job!

BTW, what this tells me is that there is no argument the Left will accept on guns...except maybe if a right-wing government is installed that targets the left so hard, they remember that government is supposed to protect your rights.

You trusted government before the IRS targeted conservative gun groups, but not afterwards? That was the thing for you, and you think it was also the thing for most people?

Gallup says that about 10% of Americans think we have too much gun control (30% think things are about right, 50% think we could do more).

It is possible that the minority, the 10%, might be right, but I think the burden is on them to make a strong case. "We are the majority" is an obvious disqualifier.

"Gallup says that about 10% of Americans think we have too much gun control (30% think things are about right, 50% think we could do more)."

By your own quote, 40% of the populations think we don't need to do more. So the split is 40/50. Which is too little of a majority to effect any kind of change from the status quo.

"It is possible that the minority, the 10%, might be right, but I think the burden is on them to make a strong case. "

Yes, I certainly don't think the 10% are going to get the existing gun laws removed.

A snapshot of the 10% right here .. or maybe just some of the more messed up 30% .. tactical amateurs to the rescue

In terms of what a simple majority should achieve, why not real universal background checks?

Out of curiosity I googled the type you linked and the cheapest option of the top result is less than 1/3 of what you linked -- even most expensive option on that page is slightly over 1/3. So certainly there has to be a price range here. Here's the link:

That one was the first I turned up, and it was good enough for my purposes that I did not search again. Mea culpa.

Fwiw I compare to things like a Remington® Model 783™ Bolt-Action Rifle and 3-9x40 Scope Combo, $399.99 at Cabela's. In .308 a good all-around gun. Also available in .223

You may not know guns Tyler, but 3b is the kind of link that puts conversation in the mud. It is wrong, but wrong in a way that can be endlessly defended in a comments thread.

I don't think so badly of you to think that is intentional, that you MEAN to cloud 3a with 3b, but there it is.

I don't find comments that both reject an entire essay and preclude further debate in a single sentence particularly helpful or edifying. MR's comment section is generous with its character limits; if you want to explain why the article's wrong, Tyler has afforded you unlimited liberty to do so, and I doubt I'm alone in appreciating a contrary opinion on the piece. But as a general rule, if something can be 'endlessly defended' it probably isn't wrong.

I guess I just feel tired already, knowing what is coming.

Guns are cheap in America. Owing a safe and a few guns for it is hardly rare. "The average gun-owning household now owns an estimated 8.1 guns, compared with 4.1 guns in 1994."

But let's do a news cycle on the false economy of conversions, and the false narrative that this reduces guns owned?

We're trending toward gun inequality? Perhaps the government can help with aid for marginal gun owners to buy their first gun.

Well, luckily for you, a government program called the Civilian Marksmanship Program already exists - 'CMP offers several opportunities to buy - and service - vintage rifles, including direct sales, auctions and custom gunsmithing. If you are looking to completely outfit a custom M1 Garand, this is the place for you!

CMP operations, warehousing, inspection & repair, test firing, sales order processing and distribution activities are headquartered in Anniston, Alabama.

The federal law that established the new CMP authorizes the Corporation to sell surplus .30 and.22 caliber military rifles, parts and ammunition to qualified U.S. citizens "for marksmanship". Accordingly, the CMP sells government-surplus M1 Garands, .22 caliber target rifles and small quantities of other rifles to qualified purchasers. Net revenue from CMP sales is used to fund operations and programs and to supplement a permanent endowment.'

The marketing of AR-15s in firearm magazines suggests that, as with other products,various intangible factors drive the AR-15's popularity. Probably the most important factor is its appearance. The gun just looks badass.

I have ideas why enthusiasts downplay this, but anyone who has paid attention to this space knows very well how important this is. Few purchasers of guns use them for anything other than light target practice. Ammunition is expensive and semi-auto rifles chew through it at a very rapid rate. Shots fired at living targets are exceedingly rare, and, for most, there is little reason to care if the gun you are using is perfect for its application. The oft-cited flexibility of the AR-15 is really only a benefit of you don't have any specific application in mind (other than accessorizing your gun as a hobby).

There is nothing particularly wrong with consumption for its own sake, but the industry appreciates that non-gun owners place little value on the joy gun owners derive from buying guns and gun-related products. Thus, they rely on a bunch of farcical arguments about the superior varmint-hunting attributes of the AR-15 platform. One imagines the country overrun with opossum if the AR-15 were banned and varmint hunters forced to rely on lever action rim-fire rifles.

If I had a varmint problem I _could_ buy a bolt action .223 with scope for under $500.

In the old days varmint hunters preferred the increased accuracy of that platform.

(For non gun people, this is a hunting gun that shoots the same ammo as the AR-15 in normal configuration.)

The gun control chimera is a diversion. Orlando and San Bernardino are national security catastrophes and results of Hillary's/Obama's disastrous policies. They are terrorist attacks and had nothing in connection with law-abiding Americans' right to bear/own weapons.

The Second Amendment isn't meant to protect your right to hunt. Americans do not have such a right. To hunt we must take and pass hunter safety courses/tests, pay for state hunting licenses, and obey hundreds of regulations.

I suggest you read the Constitution and the related published essays and debates.

The problem isn't long-barreled guns with pistol grips, high capacity magazines, flash suppressors, it's that thousands of Muslims are righteously outraged that Americans haven't slid their tongues far enough up their rectums.

If the fascists rescind the Second Amendment, as have CA, CT and NY, it will proceed like Prohibition and the drug trade. There are 200,000,000 weapons in our hands and 12,000,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition. Come and take them.

The Gallup Poll asked people "more, same, or less" gun control. Which are you?

Why do people talk about regulation as if it's a quantitative thing.

At least you're honest about gun owners owning them precisely to shoot people, targeting liberals especially, rather than animals.

I'm in the same boat as Heoragar, although you're missing the mark with the 'especially liberals'. I don't care if it's fascists or socialists that want control; either way it's bad for me.

What kind of a government would you personally take up arms against, Jan? What specifically would the is government have to do before you felt compelled to resist. Just out of curiousity.

I'm not ready to shoot some motherfuckers. Have you seen our army? Good luck "resisting."

People in the middle east seem to be resisting quite well. Technology apparently isn't everything in it's cracked up to be.

Sam, no offense, but I don't think you and your resistors have it in ya to wage a guerrilla-martyrdom war.

Me neither. Note that I didn't ask if you were ready right now.

What percentage of mass murders in the last 24 months have been committed by Muslims?

What do Clinton or Obama have to do with the entry of that guy's parents 30 years ago?

KLO: You and I don't need to beg for permission from, or explain to, ignorant drones our unalienable right to own a weapon.

FYI - Americans have been armed since 1609.

Re: lever action rifles, in the late 1800's cowboys and big game hunters arguably were better armed than the US Army Infantry. Lever action rifles have a higher rate of fire than the late-1800's Army rolling-block, single shot weapon.

The Bill of Rights didn't give you your unalienable rights, God did. The Bill of Rights set limits so the state couldn't take away your human rights.

But what rights did Allah give me? (NB: I live under Sharia law ever since the Moslems took over Oklahoma and rammed it down our throats.)

If you are an atheist, you can still use God as a fictional entity for the purposes of natural rights.

"semi-auto rifles chew through it at a very rapid rate"

A semi auto still fires bullets one trigger pull at a time.

Yes but the time between trigger pulls is much lower. Our AR-15 was by far the easiest of all our weapons to fire at a rapid clip, faster than a .38 because it was easier to control the recoil.

Actually, the time between trigger pulls is completely dependent on the operator. /pedant

Recoil is largely dependent on muzzle energy (related to caliber and cartridge selection) and weight of the firearm. In the case of AR-15s, I don't know of any long arm firing a .223 that has much recoil.

It's true that semi-automatics (particularly gas-operated) have slightly less recoil, but that's secondary (or more properly tertiary).

+1 to KLO

I grew up in Texas, and I have hunted since I was a child. I have never seen another hunter carrying an AR-15 of any type. The most common gun I see is various flavors of .30-06 (which also has a distinguished military history). All of the guys I know with AR-15s use them for target shooting while feeling like a badass.

In my experience, the overlap between "gun enthusiasts" and hunters is less than you might expect, all that it feels to me like it has been growing.

Anecdotal, of course.

And let us be honest, this line from the AR-15 owner's article is just silly -
'The AR-15’s incredible flexibility, accuracy, and ease-of-use combine with its status as the most thoroughly tested and debugged firearm in military history'

Unless, of course, one accepts just how bad the original M16 design was, and how much debugging was required before it began to approach the apparently not so thoroughly tested but considerably more reliable AK-47.

People buy cars and computers and houses and clothes and food partly (sometimes mainly) based on image (often based on the image of themselves they want to convey either to themselves or to others). It would be utterly shocking if that were not also true of guns. People who own a lot of guns, unsurprisingly, really like guns. Very few such people are a threat to anyone, and there isn't any utilitarian justification you can give for a large gun collection, anymore than there is for any other large collection.

3a: "Meanwhile, federal, state, and municipal administrations would commit to proven “violence interrupter” initiatives, in which former gang members, faith leaders, and activists intervene between feuding parties to prevent retaliatory escalation."


3. So 5 million purchasers of the AR-15 believe they need one. Do they believe they need one because they are "bloodthristy savages", "delusional", "military fetishists", or "insecure men with tiny hands" as the author of the "alternative perspective" states are the justifications of those opposed to their sale. The "alternative perspective" has more straw men than the Wizard of Oz. I don't believe those are the reasons people buy them and I'm opposed to their sale. People have two reasons for buying them: they need them to hunt people or they are imbeciles. The AR-15 is a weapon designed by marketers, made to look menacing, just like a weapon used by the military. GM sold an average of 30,000 Hummers per year, peaking at about 54,000 in 2006. Why would any sentient person buy one: they were expensive, poorly made, looked menacing, and Arnold Schwarzenegger owned a fleet of them. That's why: they (not including Mr. Schwarzenegger) were imbeciles. Just like most purchasers of the AR-15.

There are only two outcomes of appeasement: surrender or fight.

heh: calling other men imbeciles. Does that make you feel like a man?

If only one in the Pulse had been a man besides the tango . . .

Millions of strangers were imported from countries that criminalize many of our liberties, e.g., LGBT. Many hate us and our liberties. About every three months one or two, or more of them vents killing as many of us as they can. And, the bullshit solution is to criminalize millions of law-abiding, native-born Americans. When the guilty are not punished the innocent suffer.

If the shit never hits the fan, they are affordable adult toys. When the shit hits the fan, 5,000,000 imbeciles will be hunters not the hunted. We will be the wolf-pack, not the flock.

I'd say affordable adult toys. Shooting looks fun.

However, not sure what percentage of the 5 million is apt for war. Looking at armies around the world, it seems a top physical condition is needed for war. The guys from the Oregon siege were not what people calls a soldier.

A fully committed us military puts down any armed rebellion. However, I wonder if a sufficiently large armed rebellion would fracture or would at least be accompanied by the fracture of the political commitment to put down the rebellion in the early stages. One reason it's probably good from the regime's eye view to demonize gun advocates is that almost nobody (politically important) sympathizes when the fbi raids a compound.

If you think an armed population prevents oppression or jackbooted thugs, look into how the war on drugs has been fought for the last couple decades.

I have no idea how a civil war would work w.r.t. privately-owned guns. It's clear from the last 15 years of our wars in the middle east that guerrilla fighters can make life miserable for professional soldiers, but I suspect the professional soldiers are almost certain to win if they're willing to accept the cost. At any rate, if you start actually preparing for a domestic civil war, I'm going to think you're a genuine threat in ways that merely having a big gun collection will never do.

Importing the the stranger Omar Mateen from Pakistan was our first mistake. I'm really pissed Obama's Homeland Security guy at the airport didn't stop him at JFK when he immigrated in 2006. Same with Dylan Roof when he arrived in Charleston,SC in 2012 to immigrate from his native South Africa.

Is anything not a joke to you? Is it just snark all the way down?

I joke, because about 50% of the people commenting here are not capable of a reasoned conversation. It's factless vitriol. I respond in kind.

Jan is a liar. Jan initiates this shit posting. Jan is a Gawker-liberal.

"We will be the wolf-pack, not the flock"

You are crazier than a shit house rat

I don't like product for various reasons and and think no one else should like it either. Those who do, must be imbeciles with tiny hands who are compensating. Truly intelligent and enlightened people like myself, choose product instead.

Play fill in the blanks with guns, cars, makeup, deoderant, houses, energy source, food, whatevs

Oh heck - my post above would have been much more fun had the "omitted" stuck - shouldn't have used "" bracketing for "omitted"

And *deodorant too.


I think Thompson sub-machine guns are neat in full auto. 45 cal of thump, thump, thump.

Therefore I should have one?

The problem with "if we want it, we can have it" is that it was decided in 1934, against. The legal framework is in place. We could use the same permitting process for removable magazine semi-automatic weapons. There is no legal impediment. The Constitution does not divide semi and full auto. Regular Federal law does that.

"The Constitution does not divide semi and full auto. Regular Federal law does that."

I think you understate the issue. The Supreme Court has definitely indicated otherwise. The Heller decision struck down the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.

Therefore I should have one?

Absolutely, if you can find someone willing to sell at a price you're willing to pay and maybe barring a violent felony conviction.

The legal framework is in place.

And the natural response is to advocate breaking the framework, repealing the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. Which in fact is exactly what I and many others advocate.

AR-15s, Hummers, Porsches, makeup, 17 brands or deodorant, free standing-houses, crude oil... - these are all currently and legally for sale.

Thompson's are not.

You're the one who wishes to ban the sale of a random good, b/c, sniff, you're faaaaaar more enlightened than, sniff, we plebes who don't drive Prii nor shop at Whole Foods.

God save us from the "enlightened class"

Heller only struck down parts of the that law. With yet another denial of cert this morning (CT assault weapon ban) it looks like Heller/McDonald is going to be the new Lopez/Morrison -- a revolution that dies in the crib.

Why are lawn darts banned? If we reclassify them as semi automatic sport rifles,do you think I could buy them again?

Guns are for morons, real fun is driving around suburban strip malls in search of corn fungus that looks like feces.

> The AR-15 is a weapon designed by marketers, made to look menacing, just like a weapon used by the military.

No, it was designed by Eugene Stoner to be a mass producible modular firearm. He was an engineer not a marketer, though he had no formal education, he is considered to have been very ahead of his time in this field.

Of course there is a legitimate reason to own an AR-15, otherwise the police and military would not have it. Do you suppose the purpose of either the police or military is illegitimate? Do you suppose the Police and military are imbeciles or bloodthirsty savages?

You probably live in a bigger house than I do, you probably have a larger carbon footprint, heating it, cooling, the materials that made it. You don't need a house that big. Maybe you are the imbecile? Why would sentient person live in such a wasteful house... You don't "need" have a car that goes over 55 mph, you don't "need" to eat meat, you don't "need" to have access to news. You don't "need" children.

You don't even "need" democracy. Especially you Rayward. You seem to be convinced that you are morally and intellectually superior to others, logically there are others morally and intellectually superior to you, just let them rule you, give away your rights. Oh, that's rights, you are already willing to.

'he is considered to have been very ahead of his time in this field'

A lot of Vietnam era infantrymen before 1968 would disagree vehemently with that statement -

'The original M16 fared poorly in the jungles of Vietnam and was infamous for reliability problems in the harsh environment. As a result, it became the target of a Congressional investigation. The investigation found that:

The M16 was billed as self-cleaning (when no weapon is or ever has been)

The M16 was issued to troops without cleaning kits or instruction on how to clean the rifle
The M16 and 5.56×45mm cartridge was tested and approved with the use of a DuPont IMR8208M stick powder, that was switched to Olin Mathieson WC846 ball powder which produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the action of the M16 (unless the gun was cleaned well and often).

The M16 lacked a forward assist (rendering the rifle inoperable when it jammed).

The M16 lacked a chrome-plated chamber, which allowed corrosion problems and contributed to case extraction failures. (This was considered the most severe problem and required extreme measures to clear, such as inserting the cleaning-rod down the barrel and knocking the spent cartridge out.)'

I believe the switch to ball powder and refusal to issue cleaning kits is often laid at the feet of Kennedy's "whiz kids", maybe McNamara himself. However I am sympathetic to your points. I was always issued an M16A2 and they stilled jammed. I think direct gas blowback is responsible for a lot of this, but the incredible thing is in the civilian AR-15 that can be changed out with a piston due to the modular nature of it.

Regardless I personally don't love or own an AR-15. I seem to be a minority among veterans, they love it, and I still think Stoner was ahead of his time, you cannot deny the success the platform has had or the versatility of it.

Ray, this is your psychiatrist, Dr. Fleming. I've been monitoring your behavior online, as per our agreement during your last emergency visit. Please, take the full dose of Medication 1, followed by the double dose of Medication 2 as soon as possible. If you have problems locating your medications, give me a call without delay!

I wonder what diagnosis people in white coats would give to folks who like to play doctor online by playing at telling people that they have mental illnesses.

Do I need a diagnosis for pointing our that you have a condition known as 'humorlessitis'?

I don't think it's funny to call people mentally ill when you just don't like what they have to say.

Especially in a reality where sometimes the people who do so hold pens which can effectively incarcerate people with zero due process.

Yes, thinking anonymous internet chatboard teasing is a very serious matter is a primary symptom of humorlessitis

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

The author is welcome to start an Amendment process. The procedure is well laid out and reasonably straight forward.

And doomed to failure.

That is why gun grabbers use scare tactics and lies.

The 2d Amendment would be annulled by judicial decree if the sentiment in favor of that among the elite bar of the BosWash corridor were strong enough to overcome the blatant intellectual fraud incorporated into doing that. Gun ownership does not quite define in-groups and out-groups among that social set the way attitudes toward homosexuality or domestic division of labor do.

"The 2d Amendment would be annulled by judicial decree if the sentiment in favor of that among the elite bar of the BosWash corridor were strong enough to overcome the blatant intellectual fraud incorporated into doing that."

That's a doozy of a sentence. It is reminiscent of some of the examples of over-the-top rants Orwell cited in his "Politics and the English Language."

That’s a doozy of a sentence. It is reminiscent of some of the examples of over-the-top rants Orwell cited in his “Politics and the English Language.”

That's non sequitur. That aside, my statement only appears unreasonable to the intellectual frauds who populate the liberal wing of the legal profession and to the ignorant. In the last 80 years, the Supreme Court has declared that the distinction between foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and ordinary commerce is factitious; that a vague phrase in a constitutional provision enacted in 1868 allows it plenary discretion to annul any piece of legislation which draws a distinction it does not care for, that that same clause allows it to seize control of local school districts and dictate the placement of public housing to municipal governments (under pain of jailing the city council), and that another vague phrase allows it to annul statutory criminal penalties at its discretion. Robert Bork offered half a generation ago that constitutional law no longer existed as an academic subdiscipline. He was right, of course.

From New York City to Silicon Valley, many self-identified Democrats are vehemently Minimalist when it comes to the gun rights of most Americans—with the crucial caveat that those rights remain accessible to those able to surmount the cost barrier of licensing, insurance, and approved training. Meanwhile, as Arizona’s proposed legislation suggests—and the courting of Northern gun manufacturers by states across the South confirms—many professed Republicans have no problem abandoning small-government, no-handouts principles in favor of quasi-socialist support for individual gun owners and corporate gun interests.

This is not a very compelling example. A tax credit is "quasi-socialist support"? Legally mandating a raft of permits, fees, training, and connections is some kind of small-government contrast? This reads like the author is trying to gin up a false equivalence in order to feel smugly superior to both sides.

Now, there are interesting examples that make this same point--why, I'm old enough to remember when Democrats worried about unconstitutional abuse of the no-fly list!--but this ain't one of them.

(Oh yeah, and the old "white gun owners" thing. I was working at a big range day recently, and we had more black people show up than any three Whole Foodses. East Asians love guns.).

A basic first step for the it-gets-better scenario would be investing in trauma centers in high-risk areas nationwide.

Paging Moldbug, Moldbug to the white courtesy phone.

Also, apparently the only reason that gun control is bad is because it would be enforced against violent criminals and therefore racist. Today I learned.

I think it’s no coincidence that many of the most influential players in the best-funded sectors of the “gun safety” movement are white.

(((you don't say)))

"Paging Moldbug, Moldbug to the white courtesy phone."

I read Moldbug a while ago, but I hope you could be a bit more explicit with what you mean by this point.

Improved medical technology masking societal decline--peaceful citizens more likely to be violently victimized, but homicide rate doesn't reflect that since better medical care turns homicides into aggravated assaults and cops nudge survivors not to report aggravated assaults, so crime stats don't accurately track the level of dysfunction. Not sure which post of his has that in it, but it's an idea I associate with him.

Nice try. New York City saw an 82% decline in its homicide rate between 1990 and 2010. Rochester saw a 0% decline, in spite of hosting a handsome university hospital (located quite conveniently to the southside slums).

The decline in the frequency of homicide during the period since 1990 has been of a piece with the decline in the frequency of other index crimes. It's just been more intense re homicide.

You're right. It's actually because the judiciary decided back in 68 that warrantless search without probable cause is actually not a violation of one's rights. So NYC took full advantage of that to get guns off the streets.

Yeah, I don't claim that Moldbug is 100% right about this, but the suggestion to fix crime by better patching up the victims seemed like an effort to make his account come true.

Also, what is the deal with the ((())) thingies? I know that this is a signal meant to imply (disparagingly) that someone is Jewish, but besides the point of why it would show up in a comments section that is supposed to be civilized, what on earth is it even trying to imply here?

The deal is that it's perfectly OK to impugn the motives of prominent gun control (er, "gun safety") advocates by saying that they're disproportionately white, but not by saying that they're disproportionately Jewish, and I find this amusing. Shall I wheel out the fainting couch?

Jeez, say what you mean. Don't use weird punctuation signifiers that make everyone think you're a neo nazi or something.

The increase in the popularity of shooting sports, across many ethnic groups, is mostly due to Video games. That's how many Gen Xers get started.

Oh, those 5 million ARs are probably outnumbered 4:1 by semi auto 22 rifles. While not as powerful - and scary looking (an important feature for j-skool grads) - they have about ~3/4 the firepower & functionality.

also consider: What Gun Control Advocates Can Learn From Abolitionists
Slave ownership was once as entrenched in American life as gun ownership.

LOL, the author tries to link gun control with slavery. That does seem kind of Slate worthy.

Gun control and slavery actually have deeply-embedded links--just not of the sort the author seems to think.

Yes, that occurred to me. I doubt the author understands that "gun control" was explicitly used to keep the slaves unarmed and prevent rebellions.

And that trend persisted for long after slavery did.

It does cause me to wonder whether the modern gun control movement so conspicuously avoids using gun crime in South Chicago as the paradigmatic case that it is to avoid the unpleasant association, or if they just more straightforwardly don't actually care about gun crime in urban hellholes as long as it stays there.

If self-congratulation is the whole point, actual outcomes do not matter.

Bill I'd say that gun control people ceded that argument when the Supreme Court struck down Chicagos gun control laws.

"Well, we know that gun owners are not going to form a separate country the way slaveholders did with the Confederacy!"

How many people really want to restrict firearms ownership? If there was secession, Vermont that would go independent, the West, South and a few other states would break away.Then there's middle states, someplace like Michigan or Maine that wouldn't be down with major gun restrictions. New York would break away from NYC, Pennsylvania would break away from Philly and Pittsburgh.

Really, the secession would have to be reverse and it's reflected in the increasingly lax gun control regulations. Gun control is mainly an issue for urban residents. The solution is to break the cities out, put up border controls around the cities so no guns can get into them. Yes it will restrict commerce, but that's a small price to pay for safety. Let the people living outside the cities pay to wall the cities off and keep guns out. If guns are smuggled in and used in a crime, the states surrounding the gun-free zones have to pay damages. The police inside the gun free zones can also be disarmed, and the shooting of minorities would plummet. Progressives need to think outside of the box a little more.

BUILD WALL might be a bit much, but I'm totally OK with steps in this direction. Moving away from Reynolds v. Sims and letting the rural counties of e.g. California and Washington make their own rules would be a damn good start.

(And secession wouldn't just be about guns--I suspect it would also be about Federal land ownership and environmental laws. But throw those into the mix and it's on. Texit when?)

Reynolds v Sims has nothing to do with how much power is devolved from the state to county or local level. Relaxing it isn't a recipe for local rule in rural areas but rural rule everywhere.

"2. Them vs. us, but in Brexit demands, who exactly is the “us”?"

"Hardly anyone is even talking about England – all the Brexit arguments are framed in terms of Britain or the UK, as if these historically constructed and contingent entities will simply carry on regardless in the new dispensation. "

Doesn't the author undermine their entire piece with this quote? Surely if everyone except the English were against Brexit, it wouldn't even be called Brexit.

Here's another sight with a map of Brexit support across the UK:

It's clear that Scotland and Wales are relatively anti-Brexit, but is Wales likely to leave the UK over this?

A generation ago, Michael Kinsley wrote a column which included an aside on how British opinion journalism differs systematically from the American variety. Dispense utter rubbish with adequate self-confidence and you'll persuade some people. Fintan the Tool is a standard-issue practitioner.

Back in the world in which we live and not in the world where idiot scribblers need to build their brand by trafficking in pseudo-originality, Brexit currently has a slight lead in Wales. It's also been gaining in Ulster; It will likely lose but garner a majority of the protestant population. It's leading everywhere in England but Oxfordshire and the mid-section of greater London. It's losing all over the place in Scotland. Remain leads among people who despise Queen and country (Ulster Catholics), among people who fancy they've been done dirt by 'Southern English public schoolboys' (Scotland), and among internationally-minded fancy people loyal to their own (Oxfordshire and smart London) and not to their supposed countrymen.

Seeing as how the 2A directly mentions the "militia" as the reason to protect for people's right to bear arms, and the fact that the AR-15 is just the sort of rifle someone in a modern militia would need, that seems to be a reason enough.

That being said, the AR-15 is the logisticians weapon. Forget this nonsense you hear on the news that an AR-15 is a "high powered" rifle, the standard military version is positively not. Higher powered were the fifty caliber muskets carried during the civil war. High powered were the 30-30 lever actions at the end of the 19th century and 30-06 caliber used in WWI and WWII. Less high powered were the .308 used in the M-1a and M-14 mentioned in this article, and much less powerful are the .223 caliber rounds used in the AR-15. In summary we've gone form .5 inch in diameter, to .3 inch to .23 of an inch. A tiny bullet. In terms of ft-lbs we've gone from 2200 in the civil war, to 2700 in WWI & WWII back down to 1300 today.

This actually caught the Russians off guard, they moved their army to the AK-47 which used a .3 inch bullet but with 1500 ft-lbs of energy. Its bigger and heavier to carry, harder to supply, more expensive in terms of material cost. They had to backpedal with new smaller rounds. What makes the US army effective is its understanding of logistics, this is something Hollywood never gets. The round the AR-15 most often uses is the easiest to supply and the minimum in size and power while still being effective. Its the logistical choice.

Long range patrols have to carry 500 rounds on their backs, along with other gear. Smaller cartridges make it easier.

On #2 "Fintan O’Toole is a columnist with the Irish Times" should give you a clue. An Irish journalist writing for the Guardian.

And of course he gets his facts wrong. England didn't cease to be an independent country with James I and Vi at all. James proposed to the English Parliament that Scotland and England should be united and they turned him down flat, so Scotland remained an independent country with its own Parliament until 1707.

In fact, GM Trevelyan - England under the Stuarts - proposes that Scotland and England drifted further apart after 1603. Until Queen Elizabeth died there was constant diplomatic contact with Scotland because James was her heir, but once he became King there was no further need to cultivate the Scots, who then went their own way, legally and religiously. They even tried to have their own separate colonial Empire.

That aside, his main thesis is wrong. England is 85% of the population of the UK. If the UK separates from the EU, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would have the same economic dependency on the English economy that they do today. If they decided to become small independent states, what would change? They already have regional Parliaments. They are heavily dependent on UK - read English - Government jobs, and British - read English defence contracts.

In fact, their relationship with England is the mirror image of the UK's with the EU. We contribute to the EU, but they get fiscal transfers from us. They want a Sterling union, but we don't want to be in the euro. England is massively their main trading partner, while the EU has slipped from taking 60% of UK trade in the nineties to 55% in 2000, 45% today, and projected to fall to 37% by 2030.

And what does the EU get out of this? They lose their second largest financial contributor and in return they get three new members that will need subsidies. Is that really such a good deal for them?

None of them 'need' subsidies, though they might be able to claim them under the usual rules. The value added per capita in Scotland is about the UK average, so it does not 'need' them any more than the UK does today, bar that Scotland's economy is less stable because more resource dependent.

Scotland has an economy, territorial population, and key city of dimensions characteristic of a successful free-standing commonwealth (see New Zealand or Norway). Wales, which has only small-to-middling cities and a territorial population of about 3 million, is junior grade (analogous to Slovenia or Lativia, perhaps). Ulster, which is communally cleaved, has only middling and small cities, and a modest populaiton, is more like Bosnia (just a great deal more affluent). I don't think Wales and Ulster are going anywhere.

Scotland could certainly prosper as an independent state, under competent leadership.

Unfortunately, it has an SNP government wedded to socialist dictums and dependent upon transfer payments under Barnett (roughly matching prospective oil revenues) and more seriously large numbers of (UK) government jobs. Oil is in long term decline and the other would vanish post independence. They need to cut their spending by about 20% or more to balance the books, and there is just no appetite for it.

3. I grew up in a household with a half dozen guns, including an AR-15 and a .38. The AR-15 was fun to shoot, but no one ever said anything about "needing" it. For hunting we used shotguns, a .30-30 and a 7mm.

4) I studied and lived with a host mother in Guadalajara for a month, and definitely noticed the street names. The neighborhood I lived in was full of names of authors and poets, including plenty of Americans. I think if anything it encouraged curiosity and interest in different subjects and people.

Not sure if Guadalajara is peculiar for its street names:
Some that I remember:

Nile River st.
Amon-Ra St.
Gaugin St,
Canary St.
Huitlacoche St.(a mushrom)
Fresno St.
Tuberous St.
Aluminium St.
Tiber Valley St.
Tamarindo St.
Pelican St.
Nezahualcoyotl St.

On #4, there's something to be said for sane street names, like 1st St., 2nd St., etc. Much easier to find your way around without needing a smart phone or a map.

The first time I visited Corvallis, OR I noticed that a couple of the main avenues were Washington and Jefferson. Nothing notable about that, until I noticed that between them was Adams Avenue. A little reconnoitering confirmed that the next one after Jefferson was Madison, then Monroe, then Jackson (I would've done Quincy to avoid repeating Adams but maybe they considered that to be too obscure), etc.

That gives Corvallis the best of both worlds: enhance the navigability of your streets by having an ordered system, but instead of boring numbers or letters, choose to honor some people by naming the streets after them.

The article gave a lot of relevant examples of how we decide to name streets. One example which it skipped (perhaps because this is done only in the USA and not in Britain?) is naming streets near sports arenas after the local hero: Pittsburgh has Mazeroski Way and the Roberto Clemente Bridge, Portland's basketball arena has Drexler Drive, Seattle's ballpark has Edgar Martinez Drive, etc.

Tyrone's least favorite charity is the WNBA.

Victory begins at home.
Whatabout corporal punisment ?

A Brit offers a suggestion for our American cousins: replace the second amendment with the following;

You can have any weapon you want - but you must also have insurance against it's misuse / public liability

There - in one fell swoop we can sweep away all the tiresome wrangling about gun control. Less "dangerous" weapons are more "affordable", but rocket launchers are presumably available to men of good character or large corporations. The market will make it prohibitively expensive for the unsuitable to own guns, with the minimum of regulatory costs. The solution is even market led and Coase-efficient.

Partisan Democrats complain that the regime in gun law allows for mass shootings. The problem with your proposal is that it assumes rational actors. These are commonly kamikazes (e.g. Mateen, or Harris and Klebold, or Huberty) or they're clinically insane (Holmes, Loughner). Liability insurance or its absence will not alter their behavior.

By all means let's give the large corporations rocket launchers. No possible unintended consequences there.

Comments for this post are closed