Gun policy suggestions from Jennifer Doleac

Several programs are at least worthy of consideration. Summer jobs programs for teens reduce mortality by 18 to 20 percent among participants. This effect is driven by a reduction in young men killed by homicide or suicide. Cognitive behavioral therapy for at-risk young men lowers violent crime arrests by 45 to 50 percent for participants. Access to Medicaid in early childhood decreases suicide by 10 to 15 percent later in life. Mandating that health insurance cover mental health benefits at parity reduces the suicide rate by 5 percent. Access to antidepressants also reduces suicide rates: An increase in antidepressant sales equivalent to one pill per capita reduced suicide by 5 percent.

In addition, repealing duty-to-warn laws for mental health providers—which require that they report a patient’s violent threats, perhaps causing patients to be less honest—could reduce teen suicides by 8 percent and decrease homicides by 5 percent. Repealing juvenile curfews could lower urban gunfire by two-thirds. And if the goal is to reduce mortality in general—not just gun deaths—then there are many more options policymakers should consider.

Here is more.  I don’t read her as endorsing all of those uncategorically, simply as noting that many available options are on the table.


I randomly read through one of the linked papers to see if it supported Doleac's claim; it is at odds with "the majority of previous research."

Caveat emptor.

These are all lame half-measures. Why just repeal the Second Amendment?

agreed it is time to go after the guns. worked for everywhere else in the world.

It worked so well in Venezuela.

Seriously! Repealing duty-to-warn laws!

America would rather recreate Xinjiang than give up their guns. Mass surveillance, facial recognition, CCTV, everything recorded, etc. They forget what freedoms truly matter. Hong Kong is living proof that you can fight tyranny without guns. America please don't mess this one up!

mebbe but
how is hong kong gonna fight tyranny after 2050

Hong Kong is not decided yet. China will come in with soldiers and kill or disappear those protestors and the protestors will have absolutely no recourse to this tyranny because they are intentionally unarmed.

Citizens have the right to defend themselves serfs do not.

It is an insane choice to make major policy and freedom changes because of a few nutcases who commit crimes. Essentially you are putting the nuts in charge of everyone's life.

So you'd rather have Big Brother? It is insane to give up all your rights just to keep your guns.

"give up all your rights just to keep your guns."

WTF does that mean. You give up no rights. They are trying to take your rights by taking your ability to defend yourself.

From the comment way up there, I think this is what they are saying:

"America would rather recreate Xinjiang than give up their guns. Mass surveillance, facial recognition, CCTV, everything recorded, etc."

I could see the US going down this road because they can't have a rational discussion about gun control.

To; From Europe...
You do know that Hitler disarmed Germany exactly so he could control the people and kill those he hated. If every Jew had owned a gun the brown shirts and Nazis couldn't have rounded them up and killed them. Every oppressor MUST disarm the people first.

You fail at history. All the guns in France, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway and Austria couldn't stop the Nazis. The Jews only chance was to emigrate. Notice that doesn't involve guns.

You fail common sense. If every Jew took one or two brownshirts with them when they came to take them to concentration camps the numbers of brown shirts would decrease dramatically.

You might reread history it was guns in the hands of the good guys that defeated the Nazis

Not to intrude on this little *ahem* debate on MR between you two, but guns didn't exactly beat the Nazis, at least not singlehandedly. It is certainly one component but the heavy lifting weapons-wise was certainly done by the bombers, tanks, and artillery in the European theater and in the Pacific it was all of the above plus ships.

Trump has made America the greatest in mass shootings and homegrown terrorism. Even the Chinese can never catch up to us. #maga

I am never disappointed. I come here to read stuff written by 27 year-olds that know absolutely nothing.

Mass shootings are huge Democrat campaign events and opportunities to wave the bloody shirt.

Almost daily, Sleepy Joe Biden et al threaten President Trump with violence.

James T. Hodgkinson, Jr. and Willem von Spronsen were not wearing MAGA hats.

We Are All Going To Die.

In 2017, 1,000,000 gestational Americans were killed by abortions; 250,000 were killed by medical mistakes; 70,000 were murdered by opiate overdoses; 4,000 were murdered by illegal invaders; and 417 died by self-animated, long-barreled fire arms - rifles, shotguns, assault weapons.

Yesterday, some people did something.

And, and you want to destroy America by not re-electing Trump.

The Dayton guy is a registered Democrat.

Since Trump's election, America is slowly cannibalizing itself. Instead of giving people hope, he's giving them a lot of ugly feelings with tragic results in Charlottesville, Christchurch, Poway, and El Paso. The rhetoric of deporting the "invaders" has metastasized into wholesale slaughter of fellow Americans.

If it were Muslims it would be OK.

Evidence? Numbers? Like 29 out of 335,000,000 is wholesale slaughter?

Just crazy talk.

Your comments tend to be a third trimester abortion of ideas and values.

And here it is, DtB has completely lost it. Guilt will do that to a man.

Mire crazy talk.

"In 2017, 1,000,000 gestational Americans were killed by abortions; 250,000 were killed by medical mistakes; 70,000 were murdered by opiate overdoses; 4,000 were murdered by illegal invaders; and 417 died by self-animated, long-barreled fire arms - rifles, shotguns, assault weapons."

Your numbers are misleading, beside the point, or just flat out lies.

Abortion. Reasonable people can disagree whether an unborn child, depending on the month or trimester - the later, the more likely a person - is a person or not. Abortions can certainly lead to lasting pain, but it's not the same as a child or adult being murdered senselessly.

Medical mistakes. Out of tens of millions of hospitalizations, mistakes are going to happen. My guess is many of these were performed on patients whose prognosis were grim. More to the point, I'm not as outraged by a negligent death than by a senseless act of murder. It's not the same.

Opiate overdose. Addiction is a terrible thing as is suicide, but self-inflicted for the most part. It hurts very much. Getting gunned down by a murder is still worse for the family.

Illegal invaders. I assume you're talking about the 11 or 12 million illegals in this country. Where the hell did you come up with the 4,000 figure when there were approximately 17,000 homicides total in 2017. Illegals represent about 3% of the population and commit a lower rate of violent crime than non-illegals . By my rough estimate, illegals commit at most 300 murders, but more likely about 100-200 per year (and I think that's inflated too) and, my guess, mostly by other illegals who had some relationship with them - isn't that true with murders generally? Again, not the same as being gunned down by a total stranger while minding your own business.

Bottom line is you're comparing apples and oranges, and spreading misleading or false facts. Your examples above do not provoke outrage as being shot to death by a mass shooter.

So 'misleading, beside the point, or just flat out lies' means essentially correct. The only lie here is that illegals commit less crime. Illegal aliens account for 20% of federal prisoners for committing crimes not including the fact they are here illegally.

Don't forget, the country is working to solve all those problems too. No one is REALLY working on solving the mass shooting issue. Meanwhile, terrorists have gone unemployed because we are killing innocent people in public so much more efficiently than they could ever hope to.

Trump cut DHS funding to counter extremist groups like white nationalists, last year. Looks like a big booboo in hindsight.

More proof the orange one isn't fit to lead.

In his inaugural address, Donald Trump declared, “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” He knew it would not. We know it did not.

“I’ll be able to make sure that when you walk down the street in your inner city, or wherever you are, you’re not going to be shot,” he declared during the campaign. “Your child isn’t going to be shot.”

"I alone can fix it!!!!"

didn't half the men and a couple of the girls running for the u.s. presidency say they wanted to or were gonna punch the donald last week?
heres an ideal! empathy!
how about if the congress and the donald agree not to threaten to or punch anybody this week.!

That is the 50 Cents Party impersonator.

-we thought you had demon infested poor old George Jones & wouldn't be needing the aka anymore!
-penultimately- what the heck is the 50 cents party?
-Programs to encourage labor market activity among youth, including public employment programs and wage subsidies like the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, can be supported by three broad rationales.

why do they need job programs for teenagers when there are a lotta actual jobs for teenagers available

Clarifying the 2nd Amendment covers civilian semi-automatic rifles and fast firing guns would also cut down on gun deaths.

If we can save one life it's worth it.

Adolph, you've changed. You used to be very strongly in favor of gun control.

Seeing how the nuts in our society went after Muslims, then Jews, then blacks, and now Hispanics, my spanish-speaking Trump supporting friends are now changing their tune. Nothing like a written manifesto spelling out your race out by name backed by actual ethnic cleansing to make you see which way the wind is blowing. They are still anti-immigration though.

The thing is, there's a grown up discussion to be had about immigration. But Trumpism is anything but that. It's 'oh no the invaders are coming!'

If you are being invaded, you are supposed to kill the invaders. El Paso was a logical endpoint.

Mexican is not a race. Neither is "Hispanics" by the way

"Muslims, then Jews, then blacks, and now Hispanics"?

Any of these proposals would be beneficial in their own right. Unfortunately, there's only one response that has the benefit of also reducing the ability of Americans to resist a tyrannical government and so that will continue to be the only one that gets publicity.

Isn't that what the Walmart shooter thought he was doing? That it was his right as a gun owning citizen to defend the nation?

That's the problem with this unregulated militia stuff. It very much requires that every gun toter have good judgement.

Yep. Trump has his minions like EdR and Dick the Butcher talking about invasions and replacement of white people, so good patriotic Trump followers pick up their guns and go do some more winning.

There are five to 30 million of us. We have 300 or so million guns; and eight or 12 trillion bullets.

Seriously, do you think exploiting mass shooting tragedies is going to change any of that?

You may need to nuke us.

Closer to 85 to 100 million gun owners.

Good luck storming the castle.

Use drones, robots, or special forces. America knows how to deal with terrorists.

We already knew you were a violent lunatic, that's my point. You guys love guns, and hate the other. Of course you will eventually unload on them in a Walmart.

This is on your head, Dick. Yours.

More evidence that public schools are government-sponsored child abuse.

You are right. The church is at least non-government-sponsored child abuse.

FYI I spent part of the afternoon saying the Rosary for the faithful departed.

Yes, superstitious chants are the answer

Considering it's your fault. You, personally.

Can one of you Trumpies rebut this?

- Low IQ and criminally inclined Hispanics are pouring across our southern border.
- The elites welcome this, because it allows them to replace white America with a reliable Democrat voter pool
- If they succeed, Democrats will win every election and the country is doomed
- The 2nd Amendment allows free citizens to protect themselves from tyranny and invasion with firearms.
- The southern invasion threatens our way of life, and must be stopped.

Are any of the above statements incorrect? If not, isn't El Paso a logical occurrence? Isn't the shooter a hero?

Targeting non-combatants in any situation is unacceptable, particularly in the case of Hispanic immigrants; if your assertions are correct they are pawns in the situation, the antipathy of some towards gringos notwithstanding.

Speaking entirely in the hypothetical, however, an equally correct conclusion for your syllogism would be that the elites should be stopped.

So please answer my question. Which statement above is false?

What do you mean by 'non-combatants'? Aren't Hispanic immigrants invaders? They are all combatants aren't they?

Since you are a disciple of logic you should know that "must be stopped" ≠ "must shoot unarmed Walmart shoppers who have not committed any acts of aggression". Kind of like how "send them back" ≠ "shoot them up".

Non-combatants in this context are the people who are not directly causing you harm. If I were twelve years old and a libertarian (one obviously following the other) I would say this is the basis of the non-aggression principle.

There are obviously other ways of handling this situation than resorting to violence.

Violence is how many of your fellow travelers operate. Is there any other reason to glorify the 2nd?

Not sure if you blew your logic load on the first go but "acknowledging the necessity of the 2nd" ≠ "glorifying the 2nd".

It's all crazy talk.

Don't waste time answering Alt-Black/Alt-Brown; Left nationalist/supremacist idiots.

otoh it is an elegant example of how one commenter defines terms and the other
commenter uses a series of false equivalancies

How about the part that justifies violent vigilantism?

By contrast, the Trump administration's conduct is one of following the rule of law on immigration. Every time Congress or the judiciary has refused to go along with his proposed immigration policies, Trump ended up folding. Real autocrats aren't such paper tigers.

Far from following Trump's example, this guy did what he thinks POTUS should be doing.

This guy also specifically says in his manifesto that he had these opinions before Trump came along and that he knows that some people will use this to blame Trump and his rhetoric for the shooting when that is not the case. Called that one, I guess.

He was 15 or 16 when Trump came along, so take claims of a fully developed political philosophy with a grain of sa!t.

Maybe the radical Islamic literature he had at the house had something to do with it.
Can't make one claim without the other.

Considering he wasn't a practicing Muslim but a practicing white nationalist who said he wanted to "kill as many Mexicans as possible" and wrote about dividing the country up into little ethno-states, I'm going to have to rule against you.

"Are any of the above statements incorrect? If not, isn't El Paso a logical occurrence? Isn't the shooter a hero?"

No, it's not a logical occurrence even if those facts are all correct. Such shootings only hurt the cause they purport to support. In fact, maybe it was a false-flag for gun control? That's the only policy objective that is aided by a mass shooting.

You mean progressives like James Hodgkinson who stalked and shot up a Republican Congressional baseball practice in 2017?

Whataboutism doesn't work on this one. One lefty tries (and fails) to kill some Republicans. Meanwhile any time there's a mass shooting in a mosque, synagogue, or Walmart it's one of you Trumpy white guys.

This is a direct response to your demonizing of Hispanics. Every day it's invasion this and demographic replacement that. Why wouldn't a patriot grab a gun and go make Trump proud?

This is on your head, personally. Yours.

Any time it's a white guy? You mean like the Iranian guy at the Gilroy Garlic Festival? Or the black guy at the Walmart in Mississippi?

Noticed all terrorists these days are all white? Why is that?

Not all, but in proportion to the population.

He said "these days", so yes, all. This year and last. Pretty much since Trump's election.

You are a racist and a vicious liar.

and you are selling your soul to make a lying point in an obscure comments section that almost nobody reads, wake up!

Living rent-free in imbeciles' heads is a hoot!

If you really believe that this shooting is an example of someone carrying out their perceived patriotic duty, as promoted by Mr. Butcher et al., then it should be obvious to you that guilt by association as a dissuasive tactic is going to be rather ineffective.

I'm genuinely hoping Mr. Butcher and the rest will finally see what their fear and hatred has led to. We have to turn it all WAY DOWN.

Stop rooting for Trump (or Obama or Bush or Clinton) like it's a god damned football team and take a step back and think.

Since you agree that we need to turn it all way down it's worth taking a step back to think about whether your rhetoric has had the effect of painting any fearful minions into a corner.

Take, for example, your "real White Americans" cited downthread. Their behavior is typically identified by our cultural masters as "white supremacist" and/or "white nationalist". Setting aside the conflation of these terms, it's possible that a significant portion of real White Americans are in fact "white separatist".

Strictly speaking, a "real White American" who is a white separatist would simply want to disengage from, for example, Hispanic immigrants, and form a separate, sovereign government that caters to the needs of real White Americans. This would obviate the need for violent confrontation or in fact any confrontation at all. It also seems to mesh with what we know about, if not general human nature, at least (non-racial) American nature; most people just want to be left alone in peace.

The question is, to what extent does the zeitgeist make a distinction along the spectrum from "white supremacy" to "white nationalism" to "white separatism"? We know that Facebook explicitly banned discussion of white separatism; it's not unreasonable to assume that other platforms take a less-than-enthusiastic position on it. It would be hard in turn to assume that a topic discouraged on social media is going to find purchase in legacy media. And, of course, we know that white supremacists and/or white nationalists are vilified by all parties (again setting aside the conflation of terms), with identified white supremacists and/or white nationalists losing their social media privileges, jobs, social circles, etc., so we can probably say that they feel similarly about white separatism and identified white separatists might meet the same fate.

So what is the effective message here? The prevailing orthodoxy seems to indicate that, if you are a "real White American", it is impermissible for you to advocate for, much less realize, a government that serves your interest in any sort of racial purview, even if said realization were to occur on completely non-violent and non-subtractive terms. In other words, it's beyond the pale for real White Americans to advocate for any sort of nation that caters to real White Americans, whether that nation is the whole of America, some fraction of it, some extant nation elsewhere, or even a nation created from terra nullius, say, on the Moon.

(It's worth noting here that this is not an inherently progressive view, as libertarians advocate for the same effect through the free movement of people across national borders. From the libertarian standpoint, whatever nation you create would be subject to unrestricted immigration, rendering you unable to create a nation on racial or really any arbitrary terms.)

Reading between the lines, it seems then that "real White Americans" are expected to be subject to the agenda of the cultural and political elite as well as current and potential real Non-White Americans. And it's well-documented that certain elements of the cultural and political elite as well as certain elements of current and potential real Non-White Americans take a less-than-favorable view on real White Americans, to the point where isolated individuals have expressed an interest (one might say, a delight) in real White Americans dying out altogether.

I personally try to avoid melodrama but it seems that if one were both a "real White American" and prone to anxiety issues that this situation would be a real pickle. In fact it may be construed by such an individual that the intent of the aforementioned elite and real Non-White Americans is to trap him in his own country until such time as he is effectively eliminated, and that any attempt to avoid such a fate would be met with vigorous ostracization. That individual may then conclude that there is no outcome for him that does not result in his maintaining his way of life, and if he were prone to violent or perhaps sociopathic tendencies, he might well decide to go down with guns blazing, so to speak.

So you see, when you talk about toning down rhetoric, it seems that there is perhaps toning down to be done on both sides. It may help for our cultural and political elite to affirm that "real White Americans" do in fact have a place in American society, and that their contributions are appreciated and will continue to be appreciated in the future. That should serve to assuage the concerns of the minority of unhinged individuals and discourage them from committing acts of violence.

But it sounds like you 'real White Americans' don't want a place in American society (LOL at thinking you don't have one), you want to separate yourselves from the rest of America. Good luck with that.

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm tired of you lot anyway.

"It may help for our cultural and political elite to affirm that "real White Americans" do in fact have a place in American society"

Wasn't that supposed to be Trump's job and part of why he was elected? He seems to be failing at assuaging anybody.

Well, look at what happened after he was elected. The TDS crowd kicked their rhetoric into overdrive.

Trump's election wasn't a gentle reminder to our cultural overlords that there are plenty of Americans who are not served well by either party, it was proof positive that all Trump voters are awful racists who were duped by the Russians.

If anything, his election has just shown his supporters how the Beltway class and their coastal cronies react when you go off-script. It's not pretty and it's not encouraging to the more unhinged among us that they don't have anything to worry about.

None of what you wrote addressed the points. Trump's not making certain Whites feel like they have a stake in society when that should have been his raison d'etre. Instead these Whites continue to shoot up the local mosques, synagogues, and Walmarts to express their frustration. Trump is failing.

Then what's up with all these racist dog whistles? Trump wants to bring back coal, he thinks there are good and bad people on both sides in Charlottesville, etc. The media tells me this is coded language that proves Trump is actually a white supremacist. If what you're saying is true, then that means that would all be just made up to support the left's agenda.

None of what you wrote addressed the points. Trump's not making certain Whites feel like they have a stake in society when that should have been his raison d'etre. Instead these Whites continue to shoot up the local mosques, synagogues, and Walmarts to express their frustration. Trump is failing.

The guy had radical Islam literature at his house. Should those opposing the ban from unstable countries, mostly Islamic, take blame as well?

DId you see his manifesto? The literature was his study of the enemy.

I get it, you feel like shit (at least I hope you do) so you are whatabouting like crazy. "Oh my yes what a tragedy in that Walmart. It's the exact same as when some antifa guy punched that one guy".

It's on your head, personally.

This is assuming that the manifesto is earnest; an alternate explanation is that the shooter, like others before him, are creating ambiguity intentionally to lure people into doing exactly what you are doing.

It's all just a troll game, with a body count. He doesn't actually think Hispanics need to die. Listen to yourself, can't you even once realize that maybe you guys went a little too far?

I'm not the one hysterically pointing fingers, my friend. That's how you let the terrorists win.

You're the one hysterically claiming the 20 dead Hispanics are a false flag operation, to avoid the obvious. Your people murder Hispanics and Muslims because reasons.

A false-flag operation would be if the shooting were perpetrated by other parties and framed on the alleged culprit to provide a case against the culprit's associates or ideology. If the shooter actually committed the shooting (and I'm not trying to imply he didn't) then it's not a false-flag regardless of his actual motive.

We know the motive. Own it.

Hi mouse!

It's me! EdR! I thought I would be just like you and post under a fake fake name, but I was afraid you would think I was someone else and then I would't get credit for my brillant observations, so I thought I would reveal myself, you know, just in case.

Thanks for mentioning me by name! So nice of you! I always thought
someday my fifteen minutes of fame would come and, sure enough, here they are! It's a Cinderella story!

Ok, down to business.

You are correct, those illegal alien invaders are indeed illegal alien invaders! They must be stopped! But they should not be stopped by guns but by the rule of law. You see, it is impossible to have a functioning state without the rule of law. " We are a nation of laws and not of men (sic)", said that great Irish Catholic POTUS John F. Kennedy. It is not an accident that lady justice wears a blindfold - justice must be blind and the rule of law must apply to all of us, even James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and impoverished people from those failed states in Central America. Ironically, those illegal alien invaders are trying to escape chaotic lawless nations and yet their first act on sovereign US soil is to break our immigration laws or to dishonestly game the system to violate the intent of the law. They know what they are doing. As we say in the software industry, that behavior doesn't scale. If we allow them to break the law because they are poor, or brown, or because their country is a sh*thole, then we are tacitly saying it's ok to break laws you don't like, that are inconvenient, or that interfere with your goals. If that's ok, then perhaps other people can decide which laws they will respect and which they will violate. That doesn't scale. For example, I have a great big white elephant gun safe chock full of war rifles, most of them old out of production bolt action rifles, but I do not have a single assault rifle, because it is illegal to buy an assault rifle in California. I don't like that law. I think it's a silly law that has little impact on deaths, but I respect the law because, well, because I respect the law. I think most Americans respect the law, even when nobody is looking. We have our scofflaws sure, and we have a place for them. There are people with Conduct Disorder (DSM) who regularly disregard the law but generally most people obey the law . The laws, passed by our elected representatives in the state and federal legislatures or city councils, county supervisors, or town selectmen exist to protect all of the people and to ensure an orderly and predictable society, and not the chaos of strongmen in places like most of Central America. If we don't enforce our laws, or we let people violate our laws because we find them deserving sympathy, then we are on the slippery slope just above chaos.

And yes, it has already happened in California. Due to white flight and illegal immigration from Mexico, California flipped from a Republican to Democratic state. Since Simpson-Mazzoli California has optimized itself to serve the needs of that demographic to the detriment of all the other people in California. And yes, California is in the bottom 5 or 6 states in IQ, keeping company with Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

I will legally and unapologetically fight to make sure we don't become like those sh*thole countries, and I will not be shamed or gaslighted by some shameless left wing nut like you.

As for the guns, my favorites are a newly manufactured M1 Garand firing the devastating 30-06 round, and a new milspec M1911 A1 .45 ACP - the best you can get for close quarters combat. The .45 ACP is big and slow (900 ft/s) and thus transfers all it's kinetic energy to the target.

If you don't like that, and I'm sure you don't, then molon labe.

Keep up the good work! You and the Demoncats are going to reelect Trump!

Stock market crashes 1000 points. Mexicans are being murdered by Trump supporters. Trump and his confederacy of idiots are digging their own grave!!

You better look in the mirror - you are frothing at the mouth.

We won't be shamed and we aren't going to shut up and go away.

Rants like yours are all over the news and social media and the deplorables are making mental notes.

They will remember and they will vote.

You know that, hence your desperation.

Own that.

Your racist terrorist buddies are the desperate ones turning Walmarts into slaughterhouses. The midterms were no fluke. 2020 can't come soon enough. America will vote out pedos like you out of office.

If you don't want lots of massacres, I would suggest you get off the banning guns bandwagon, because if that ever becomes policy, you will see El Paso/Dayton twice a day....or more, and it won't be done with only guns.

Seriously, this idea that banning guns is going to decrease violence in the US is just about the stupidest thing I have heard in the last 20 years.

I want Trump voted out and you Trumpies to take a long look at what you've wrought.

Not all Trump voters are complicit, just the EdR's and Dick the Butcher's posting every day about invasions. It's on them, personally.

Hi mouse!

Don't be fooled by my new fake fake name, it's me EdR, the evil manipulator that can trigger homicidal maniacs and inspire them to commit mass murder, all from the safety of my mountain home, aka EdR's ( rhymes with Hitler's sort of) Eagle's Nest. We (me and Einstein) call it "Spooky Influence at a Distance". It's kind of like quantum entanglement for evil thoughts. Whatever I think they think - thought entanglement. My thoughts appear in their heads instantaneously as I think them - they travel faster than the speed of light. Faster than photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons! We have yet to identify the force carrier that makes this happen.

I like a good mystery.

Anyway, where was I? Oh! You said, "I want Trump voted out and you Trumpies to take a long look at what you've wrought."

Don't be silly! The person responsible for the killings is the killer. Just like that crazed black man that killed 5 cops was responsible for those killings and not Obama or Black Lives Matter.

That said, keep up the good work. Don't forget to call people deplorables and that mullet thing that had your little mind twisted into knots. I thought a mullet was a fish but your usage clearly indicated it was not. I thought it might be some kind of silly hat, like the paper hat you are probably wearing. IAC, I guess it's a haircut, and an ugly one at that!

Mullet guys! Jeesh!

Btw, you seem to get quite agitated, posting scores of messages under different names. Have you ever had yourself checked for bipolar disorder, ocd, or borderline personality disorder? Maybe not borderline, but sometimes it looks like you are having a manic episode. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Kay Redfield Jamison says up to 25% of the population suffers from some form of mental illness.

I'm worried about you. Whatever you do, don't hurt yourself. It would hurt your kids terribly and I know you don't want that. Major negative life events like the death of a loved one, loss of a job (like the deplorables), divorce, the election of orange man bad, the utter failure of the Mueller "investigation" (hah!), Barr turning his sights (oops, I don't mean gunsights) on the fake and fraudulent and illegally obtained FISA warrant can trigger a manic episode or depression. You can get through this.

I'm on your side.

It's worked everywhere else in the world.

Sure, all of the above. But something procedurally possible, if politically difficult, like a Shooter's License(*) does not preclude jobs programs either.

* - with a test, possible suspension, etc. ,just like a Driver's Licence.

Requiring three tax paying signatories, on the record, to any firearm transaction would eliminate the mass shooting phenomenon. As well as most gang shootings. Which are the bulk of this problem.

The fact that this isn't the main proposal should raise immediate questions.

Anything that makes it harder for nutjobs to get guns is a good idea. ANYTHING.

If we disarm all law abiding citizens, including the police, and forbid the manufacturer, transport, storage, ownership, possession or use of firearms, that would surely do the trick, no?

Why don't you ask someone who said anything close to that?

Why don't you learn to read before commenting with the grown ups?

Good idea. Let's ban guns.

Why not just invent a portable force shield, while you're at it?

It would be equally realistic.

But my point was that "anything" isn't a useful answer bc it is wrong.

That would be racist.


How about a voter’s license? Contingent on proof of citizenship and paying a minimum of $1000 dollars in income tax in the previous year. Obviously voting should be in person and on Election Day.

As soon as you can kill someone with a ballot, we can consider this.

See the German elections of 1933 for one example of many.

Bravo, dummy.

Thank you.

I am honored to be labeled childish and facile by someone with your vast experience, mouth-breathing troll.

Can't have voter ID.

Voter fraud is hard enough already.

I mean! Look what happened in November 2016.

We have been told every day by the usual suspects that the election of Trump (it was BushHitler before) proved how dangerous voters can be.

I guess I was mistaken, voting for Trump is indeed a murderous act.

Then you should be advocating that we ban ballots and bullets.

You're as bad at sarcasm as you are defending murder

But if we just offer better mental health coverage we can expect that you will voluntarily seek treatment for your TDS and potential murderers will likewise get help and won't murder, right?

I know it's gotta hurt somewhere inside that Trumpism reached its apotheosis in El Paso. It's a pretty simple equation:

Hispanics are an invading culture of low IQ criminals. Good White Americans are being replaced every day by the Democrat vote machine. Fortunately, we have the 2nd Amendment that allows us to defend ourselves. So the only rational thing to do is pretty obvious, and you get El Paso. This is distilled Trumpism.

It's not TDS, man. Opposing Trump doesn't make you deranged any more than opposing Obama does. It's simple math.

There was no math in your rant, just a series of non-sequiturs.

Wake up and back away from the hate, and you can feel better about your guilt.

That additional antidepressant pill is just what the doctored ordered for you.

This news has depressed me a great deal, sad to see you are fine with it.

I prefer cannabis though.

The news is just an excuse for you to vent your TDS. That's sad for you. Weed has depressant properties, so you really should consider a real anti-depressant.

White boyz playing ISIS and you say the cure is anti-depressants? No, nigga we drop those MFers in jail. We FBI they ass.

the several percentage statistics stated as purefact are bogus and totally unsupported by any valid research

the whole post is just empty political rhetoric with a few phony #'s thrown in to enhance the advocacy

Empty political rhetoric with a few phony #'s thrown in to enhance the advocacy seems to be all Tyler is doing these days.

I'll ask the question being avoided: are supporters of Trump inherently violent, or does Trump encourage them to be violent? The suggestion on the blog post is that there are lots of folks prone to violence due to mental illness, something promoted this morning by Republicans on the news shows. Are lots of Americans crazy, or does Trump speak to the crazy Americans?

Trump is climate change and the lone gunman is the weather. You cannot link a specific weather event to climate change but many weather events demonstrate a pattern.

Trump has created this zeitgeist and emboldened his followers (not all of them of course). Anyone demonizing Hispanics and Muslims as invaders is complicit. This is not even debatable.

Before Trump, no one mass murdered Hispanics just for being Hispanic. No one mass murdered (and livestreamed the murders) Muslims for being Muslim. This is new, and it's on their heads.

According to this timeline, during the years 2008-2016 there were 16 mass murders in the US that killed 188 people.

Were any of those 16 committed by domestic terrorists explicitly trying to murder Hispanics and/or Muslims?

Illegal aliens are quite literally invaders. That doesn't mean you should shoot them. If you accurately label someone what they are in order to support legal measures aimed at legalizing immigration, and someone decides to shoot those people, it's got nothing to do with you. You just think the right wing should not be able to advocate for their preferred policies because you don't like them. If someone shot some rednecks would you blame the left-wing for demonizing them?

Exactly. The mouse is going all out to leverage this to beat Trump, but it is going to fail. Approximately half of the electorate knows we are being invaded and want to stop it. They are not swayed by the rabid arguments from whacko lefties like the mouse. The other half of active voters want to import people they know will vote Democratic. California is exhibit A and excited the demoncats. If they can flip Texas and Florida we will have a one party country.

Then the real violence will start and a few hundred mass murders per annum will seem like the good old days.

I dread that future, one in which nobody wins and everybody loses.

I prefer the stability and safety protected by the rule of law, including the enforcement of immigration law.

Those invaders are fleeing lawless countries ruled by their own corrupt sons. They need to fix their own house. Think of the mothers in Northern Ireland - it can be done.

Mass murder is not the answer. The answer is consistent enforcement of immigration laws, which does not mean the end of immigration.

What are you saying? People will become violent because politics doesn't go their way? What losers. Those who become terrorists and mass murderers will get what's coming to them courtesy of the USA. The rest of us will live peacefully and resolve differences through democracy.

Your question holds if you choose to ignore the violence committed by the left, and I'm sure that is what you choose to do.

This is so very different, and it's on your head. And you know it.

How is it at all different? Compare the ICE attack. Why weren't you on here bleating about how you felt guilty for personally causing the attack?

I don't know the answer to your question, just as I am less clear than you are that these latest two shootings are related to Trump, particularly, but I can volunteer the example of a normally kind, gentle schizophrenic relative (one who to my knowledge has only ever threatened harm to himself and to his parents).

He is approaching middle age now, and the illness - while its damage to his life is permanent - has simmered down somewhat, for which small mercy one may be grateful. But when he was younger and strongly in its grip, you never knew where his delusions might land from one year to the next. One summer he expressed anti-Semitism, at other times paranoia about his church upbringing. Much of the time he admired and emulated urban black culture; at other times his actions suggested fear of black people. Sometimes he was freely self-medicating with drugs, other times he was suspicious of consumer products that are "drugging" us all.

His example suggests to me that one should not look for lessons in the disordered thoughts and shifting targets of the mentally ill; but if you must, then consider the equal likelihood that the renewed, incessant framing of race as of paramount importance in the last twenty years - while it may, to you, rayward, be a beautiful thing - was certainly bound, with its histrionic, paranoid tone, to give mentally ill people something to fixate on, one way or another.

As to the larger issues, concerning freedom and guns and mental illness, as always - you can't have everything, without some cost. Why do people think you can? With age, it doesn't take much native intelligence to figure this out just from its being writ small but plainly in one's own life. Or am I the one who's deluded, and others' lives really are that charmed?

Watch this video

A normal, responsible, person knows that more troubled and less stable people are always listening. That's why they never go there. "Shoot them, har har."

But per Senator Chris Murphy,

"19 out of 20 murderers have no mental illness diagnosis.

4 out of 5 mass shooters have no mental illness diagnosis, and half showed no signs on a prior, undiagnosed illness.

Framing this as just a mental illness problem is a gun industry trope. Period. Stop."

Leaving aside that you can bet their schools know exactly who the disturbed individuals are, but are either not permitted to do or say anything about it, or pride themselves on their inaction - the average age of onset of schizophrenia, to name but one, is between 18 and 25, for men. And no, no family is eager to seek that diagnosis. It is usually thrust upon them by events.

Though, on occasion, a family may be met with deaf ears when they try to communicate their fears, as I believe was the case with a mentally-disturbed young man who fatally, randomly stabbed two students on our town's college campus.

The thing is, it is somewhat reasonable to say "anyone who wants to be a terrorist is crazy," but if we do that, shouldn't it cover all terrorists?

I don't think so, though clearly terrorist organizations may recognize the potential value of someone of unsound mind, especially in recruiting suicide bombers. I think there is a difference between a lone gunman with a perhaps transitory idée fixe and those for whom there is a sense of belonging to a gang, as with Al-Qaeda, for whom their participation is status-raising in some sense.

But maybe it is the word terrorist that confuses me, in place of the word "madman" which served people very well for a long time. I think of the Tower shooter. Apart from his having no ideology that I'm aware of, I would not characterize him as a terrorist, even had that term been in common use back then. His own suicide note said, please autopsy my brain when this is all over.

If I told you that 19 out of 20 drivers who had caused a car crash at an intersection had never been ticketed before for running a red light, would you conclude that it was impossible that they caused the crashes by running a red light?

This was not as good as you thought it was.

Easy answers. All red light runners are reckless. All killers are killers.

But that doesn't mean that all automatically gain an insanity defense. Because they are misunderstood white boys, and whatnot.

It's entirely possible it was perfectly fine and just went over your head.

The point is that if someone has a legit mental illness, but has never been checked out by a professional, that doesn't mean that anything he does can't be a result of his mental illness. It may make it difficult to definitively attribute it to such, but it's still in play as a factor.

The Senator's factoid alternatively suggests that there are a great number of people in our society who have mental problems and have fallen through the cracks. This starts to make sense when you consider other areas of our society where mental illness creates a problem, e.g., homelessness.

Of course, if you are dismissing what is obviously a significant issue as "misunderstood white boys" then it's pretty clear you are coming to the table with another agenda. It should go without saying that anyone who concludes that a problem can be solved by killing a number of innocent people is not all there, so to speak. It's absurd to suggest that this is a foregone conclusion and not something that could have been prevented in advance.

The thing with most standard gun control proposals is that it is a belief that hard or soft prohibition can work. That if we make it hard enough and risky to procure guns it will raise the barriers to using them in crimes.

Fair enough, but then the war on drugs should have been a smashing success. At the very least we should expect similar tradeoffs between product diverted and law enforcement expenditures. If we expect, at most to raise the functional cost of acquiring a firearm through some sort of gun control, we deter, at most those unable or unwilling to clear the marginal hurdles.

But what about public health interventions like the ones listed above. Absolutely, direct intervention with at risk populations can dramatically decrease the risk of bad outcomes. But how much does it cost to perform them? Heck how much does it cost to screen them.

After all pancreatic cancer is highly deadly, but we could save most people if we caught it soon enough with a focused MRI screen annually. It is just that the population is huge and most of the hits would be false positives.

The same is true of guns. Most of the people who use guns are never going to commit suicide and never going to commit homicide. Using "gun owner" as your target population is going to be woefully uneconomical because the baseline prevalence is so low. One in eight women will get breast cancer, but there are still people who question if mammography is worth it. There are a couple of hundred million people in the US who own guns (close to the number of women), yet only 1 in 315 will be murdered in their life. Whatever intervention you are contemplating with guns needs to be an order of magnitude better than mammograms to be cost effective.

Frankly, I suspect the problem is, and always will be, culture. Somehow the US survived the 1920s with literal machine guns being sold to criminals. Somehow, we went through all of the 50s with plenty of military surplus rifles in civilian hands and did not have the shootings of today.

The guns have not changed, we have.

I would suggest that the far better option than trying to quarantine guns would be to lock down the people most at risk. Frequent police and mental health contacts for people with problematic histories like domestic violence. Easier involuntary confinement and treatment for people who might be suicidal or homicidal. All of these target populations with far more accuracy than people with guns.

It just seems to be anathema to suggest that we might, somehow, need to reign in the unmoored hedonism and radical autonomy of society to save lives.

But that last sentence, how do we 'reign in' culture? Unmoored hedonism is already looked down on, and not celebrated like it was in the 1960s and 70s.

You can bring gun control into your model too, make it much harder for sketchy people to obtain guns. Hmmm's idea above is good, where you need 3 upstanding adults to vouch for you to buy a gun.

Finally, suicides are mainly about chemical imbalances in the brain aren't they? Depression mainly. So it's not necessarily culture that makes a depressed teenager on an impulse grab his dad's gun.

You are incorrect about hedonism, you just don't recognize the hedonism we have.

With out of wedlock birth rates at 10 times their rates in the 1950s, hedonism is not in peril. It is just unrecognizable to us.

Is it?

Donald Trump bragged about his serial philandering and routinely profiled his gaudy lifestyle and consumption. He is currently supported steadfastly by ~40% of the population for the highest office in the land.

On the Democratic side multiple Democratic candidates have come out for prostitution legalization/decriminalization, more have demurred from taking a position, and let us not forget that the Democratic house voted to allow DCs Democratic administration to legalize prostitution in the District. Nor is the Democratic party shy about backing marijuana legalization, abortion subsidies, gangster rap, or even alcohol access.

Maybe you just meant culturally. Okay, exactly which films show any sort of sexual hedonism in a poor light? You can have any type of sex you like: gay, straight, queer, BDSM, casual, or poly and there is a major motion picture depicting it as liberating and rapturous. When was the last time you saw a film where anyone caught an STI? What is the last film that showed somebody developing a pattern of minimal romantic attraction who ended alone and regretting it? Exactly which major motion picture depicts people getting stoned and having major life altering consequences (e.g. flunking out of college, losing a romantic relationship, losing custody of a child)?

Okay, how about portrayal of anti-hedonism? Who was the last character who was written to be sympathetic who skipped premarital sex (like one-fifth of the US population)? Which teetotalers (like over a third of the US population) do so without a tragic past or a domineer attitude? Which characters enjoy attending weekly religious services that are not written as theocrats or bigots (like say a quarter of Americans)?

I am sorry, but no, the hedonism of the 60s and 70s was that of a counterculture. There were hippies espousing free love and drug exploration, but this was also the era of the Brady Bunch, the Waltons, and Little House on the Prairie. Or alternatively, this was the era of the Vietnam Protest and the Hard Hat Riot.

We are in a hedonistic age. It is also becoming a moralistic age, yet all the new commandments are about not infringing upon others' pursuit of hedonism. Have whatever sex you like - just as long as everyone enjoys it. Don't say you oppose gay marriage because that makes people feel bad. Don't question the impacts of sexual dimorphism on workplace outcomes - that might stop others from doing what they love. Yet at the root of all the modern shibboleths is a commitment to giving everyone bulk happiness however they like.

Which might be a fine goal, though I have my doubts over the long (generational) haul, but certainly it entails a large number of people falling through the cracks because they are poor, unskilled, or too "weak willed" to adapt and make self-dooming choices.

Modern society is quite fine with death, hardship and loss - as long as it is born by someone over there who is "responsible" for bringing it on themselves.

Yesterday's shooter wasn't poor, unskilled, nor weak-willed. He comes from a nice Dallas suburb and definitely planned out his rampage given he wrote a 4 page manifesto and posted it on the internet. I mean you have to see this for what it is. Hatred tied to politics which led to terrorism.

It's not even a debate. This one is plain and clear as day what happened. I think, I HOPE it's the one that finally gets some of these Trumpies to reconsider some things.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns. Fix the people who kill people, leave the guns alone. The problem is solved.
But the solution has a problem (as usual). Psychiatric diagnosis is at best "educated guesswork", according the textbooks. You can't really permanently confine someone based on educated guesswork, or vague, ambiguous suspicions, or even their own disturbing behaviors. Nor has fixing broken people proved to be easy, assuming you know who is broke in the first place. The most important thing is not to infringe anyone's right to keep and bear arms. That would obviously be the first step toward tyranny and government control over our lives.

Nope. This is backwards. We are slowly eroding the bill of rights because we make the 2nd amendment the holiest. More government databases, surveillance, speech monitoring and other intrusions into our private lives because we can't do what is plain, obvious, and just common sense regarding guns. Personally, I'd rather live without guns and keep the rest of my rights than live with guns but be monitored for everything.

OK, in that case, keep the Second Amendment but make guns legal but impossible to get and have. As was done with sub-machine guns. Require a stamp, but didn't issue the stamp.

Are you implying that the government invasion of privacy et al. is done solely to curb gun violence?

If you live without guns there's no guarantee at all you will in fact keep the rest of your rights. Despotic governments the world over suggest the opposite is the case.

"Personally, I'd rather live without guns and keep the rest of my rights than live with guns but be monitored for everything."

It's not like you have that choice though. They will still monitor you. They don't monitor you now because of guns, guns are useless for larger acts of terror. 9-11 is an obvious example, but so is Timothy McVeigh for a domestic case. Also look at London going through a knife 'crisis'. Plenty of bombing, knifings, and shootings in Europe too. Even the European suicide rate is similar to Americas though we use guns much more - point being where there's a will, there's a way.

Even if you want to eliminate part of the problems by eliminating guns, you will now need to take ownership of the new problem. Guns prevent 2.5 million crimes a year. Colt's popular gun was called the Equalizer because it allowed the weak to protect themselves from the strong.

That's a lie. This is like outlawing Muslims to fight the surveillance state. Totally asinine.

Okay, take that as granted. This was premeditated terrorism. Will that change with the gun control proposals at hand?

Australia, for all the fanfare and effort, managed to remove about 20% of guns from circulation. If we are worried about people who premeditate and go to great lengths the effects of such a ban will be minimal.

Okay, so we need to cut down the sources of hate. What does that look like? Well overseas we approach ISIS or Taliban types with trying to give them a less violent form of the ideology they currently have. What exactly would you suggest is the form of racism we should try to turn racists toward?

Or we could try the German model. Get them jobs, have deep interpersonal contacts, and provide them with support. Yet I find no support for supporting people in leaving racist ideologies; the current American impulse is pure punishment.

All of the ways we have dealt with terrorist radicalism elsewhere are foreclosed here.

Okay, so what about taking away possible terrorists guns or confining them? Good luck. Both require quite high levels of evidence and worse require a lot of bureaucratic work to implement. We believe it to be anathema to violate the autonomy of the individual so doing so requires massive effort and is rarely sustainable.

I have yet to see a strategy for stopping these sorts of attacks that is well grounded in historical practice that is also acceptable to the modern fetish of autonomy. Instead all I see are people who believe that somehow we can magically change people or magically make gun prohibition work.

"Yet I find no support for supporting people in leaving racist ideologies; the current American impulse is pure punishment."

Not quite. Obama did have a program to rehabilitate racists but Trump cut its funding last year.

"In the final days of the Obama administration, $10 million in Countering Violent Extremism funding was awarded to 31 different applicants, including several groups dedicated to combating white supremacy and de-radicalizing neo-Nazis.
But the Trump administration froze funding for the grants ..."

Society has, in every era, been "quite fine with death, hardship, and loss", and in fact this era has less of all of those than any other, ever.

It seems as though in your ideal society, the following will all be illegal: recreational drugs, premarital sex, alcohol, divorce, gambling, atheism, adultery

I guess in short, it would behoove us all to be Mormons (and devout ones, not just in name). Maybe it would. But life isn't like that. There have always been poor people, and sick people, and people who can't handle some aspects of living in a world of free choices. And there's nothing you can do to change that, because even in your totalitarian theocracy, people would rebel or secretly engage in vice.

So maybe you are saying no I'm not advocating coercion, but a societal emphasis on clean living. Well, ok, sure. In daily life for the most part excessive vice is frowned upon. It's not about Trump or the movies. Does every Trump voter go out and cheat on their spouse and get divorced? Does every movie-goer go live like Hunter Thompson?

You are a fantastic poster, intelligent, and diligent. But I honestly can't figure out what you want to see happen, within the bounds of possibility.

There is less death, hardship, and loss today only by dint of technology. We undertake radical punishment, like shunning, for mild offenses (e.g. "dead naming") that in the past were reserved for behaviors that directly attacked group cohesion and hence survival. Likewise, we have lost the interpersonal connections that allowed the sick to be care for without massive expenditures. In earlier times we tolerated more death, hardship, and loss because we had no other choice (i.e. back in the day everyone, even the radicals, believed that ending slavery quickly would require a major war). Today we do so because we like getting buzzed.

Put it another way, if you have modern technology with pre-modern society you end up with Utah. If you have modern sensibilities with pre-modern technology, you end up with a dead society.

As far as what I want. I don't pretend to know the answers. Culture has evolved for a variety of reasons and changing its course is both easy (often trivial things end up having major impact) and difficult (hard to foresee that the GI bill might lead reasonably directly to greater than dectupling college costs in just a few generations).

I think the best first step is honesty. If we are honest, we should note that guns are not new and nor are they particularly more lethal than those of 80 years ago. Honesty would compel us to look harder at why people post manifestos online and then go rack up a body count. Maybe that would lead us to media blackouts. Maybe that would lead us to following the model we advocate for ex-ISIS fighters over there with ethnic radicals here at home (integrating radicals into the community, encouraging them to engage with a less violent form of their ideology, providing them with jobs, community, and general normalization aids). I don't know.

But what I do know is that if we use the same standard for guns that we use for other public health interventions the normal stuff - arming people or banning guns is wildly cost ineffective.

On the bigger picture of vices, I am a fan of either decriminalizing vices (e.g. not legal but unlikely to be prosecuted) or of taxing them sufficiently to offset their externalized harms. It seems like it is the best trade off between keeping social norms, the only really cost effective option for problematic behavior intact while not burning resources on low level vice offenses. For example, the data seems to be strongest for the Swedish model on prostitution - least amount of human traffic and violence against sex workers while not normalizing prostitution completely.

Everyone going fully Mormon or somesuch might be a better end state for a lot of things in life but I don't foresee that being popular any time soon nor something that would work well with hard or soft coercion. For that sort of thing, I believe there should be some sort of noblesse obligue for the powerful and wealthy to model virtues that they could ignore and buy their way out of the consequences. I am hopeful that people would be willing to live more "moral" lives to help the less fortunate, I am pessimistic that people will not find a way to ignore the harms that come when the less fortunate ape their ways without the mitigation provided by money, class, and intellect.

Solid comment.

How is it solid? It's basically calling for more government spending on useless programs.

I invite MR devotees to observe Jennifer Doleac's analysis closely enough to see that her measured recitations of metrics, statistics, and percentages deal with the visceral realities of how gun violence is perceived not one bit better than Robert Strange McNamara's measured recitations of metrics, statistics, and percentages demonstrated his prowess for mismanaging much if not most of America's war efforts in Vietnam.

I perceive a similar disconnect in Doleac's measured recitations, which could thus stand to vitiate any argument she might otherwise make. (Her measured recitations might also suggest why American academics connect so poorly with Americans who have not pursued academic careers.) [Yes, I know that Jennifer Doleac is an academic economist.]

You may now return to glamorous media portrayals of gun violence in your favorite American entertainment programming or video game, just as Americans have been treated to such entertaining lethality and mayhem in the comforts of their respective homes almost each and every day since the advent of television seventy years ago.

People in other countries watch the same TV shows and play the same video games. They do not kill each other at the same rate as Americans. These other countries have way way fewer guns per head. The problem is easy to see. Americans have too many guns.

"People in other countries", I hasten to add, are not "American people": Americans descended from Americans who've been here long enough to qualify as Americans, have a unique history and a unique history of managing domestic disputes at every level of political jurisdiction. America's population blend to this very day distinguishes Americans distinctly from "people in other countries".

That Americans have too many guns thus cannot possibly be "the problem", since the American solution to this quandary is also present and accounted for in this episode of "Humanity vs. Technology", to wit:

"Applied technology giveth and applied technology taketh away: blessed be the name of Applied Technology."

You wrote a lot of words but failed to make a coherent point. Now is the time to pass gun control laws. Going after bump stocks won't be enough this time.

Or: because of seventy years of uninterrupted conditioning with American gun violence depiction in television and cable entertainment venues, in the privacy of American homes of all descriptions, we could first (or also) draft a measure to return our corrupt and corrupting Media Establishment to pre-cable era broadcast regulations: begin, that is, to restrict American media entertainment programming to no more than a 16-hour day seven days a week.

Obviously, media production capability is being served by Hollywood screenwriters' inability any longer to compose credible dramatic or narrative material without resorting to cheap depictions of American gun violence: we can do Hollywood and all Americans a favor by relieving studios of the responsibility to spew their rotten swill at Americans in all walks of life.

Life, I somehow learned, life itself consists of primary experiences, somatic in nature. Because of American media saturation and practically universal ubiquity owing to the talents of our busy Tech Sector, most Americans live lives of limited primary experience today: most of their device-connected lives consist of secondary and tertiary experiences (depictions of other people's lives and concerns).

Our corrupt and corrupting Media Establishment has no Constitutional mandate, certainly not explicit in the First Amendment, to manage all public discourse according to its narrative framing preferences. Since the media culture they've created can't help but infest impressionable minds with glittering glamourous gun violence over the course of seventy years without interruption, Americans could well stand to do without 24/7/365 (366) media dosages: cut the pernicious cultural influence at the source and begin limiting media broadcasts and transmissions of all entertainment programming to 16-hour daily schedules. Worked just fine in the pre-cable era, c. 1949 to 1979. (I have called this proposal "UNPLUG-8" in other venues, unrelated to media dramatizations of gun violence.)

TLDR; mainstream media bad.

24/7/365 (366) media saturation that occludes primary experiences for millions for hours each and every day is not good for anyone, it only keeps the economic treadwheels spinning in their respective cages.

America has more gun deaths than other countries because it has more guns. It also has more gun deaths than you would expect based upon gun death rates in other countries. Therefore it seems likely that some reduction could be achieved by remedies other than taking away people’s guns. That said there is only one real way to stop this. Take away the guns like the U.K. did and Australia did. However, that will be very hard politically because of that stupid interpretation of the second amendment. So the best we can hope for is more restrictions like, perhaps, Connecticut where they reduced gun deaths by 40% through the introduction of a license scheme.

I don't think so. Brazil has been liberalizing its gun laws for a while now, but crime rates are actually decreasing. What Amwrica needs is what Brazil has: a no-nonsense, tough as nails on crime Administration.

Get tough on shooting sprees after they've already happened?
Brazil has laws against everything. Everyone does what they want anyway. Visit Brazil, George, and you will know. Laws are not the answer. The answer is to love your neighbor, not shoot him and her.

Switzerland has very high rates of gun ownership, yet doesn't seem to have mass shootings.

Rifles on the wall, from the mandatory military service where the Swiss learn to properly use, store, and respect guns.

So sure, let's bring back the draft.

Your interpretation is only marginally more sensible than claiming the low Swiss murder rate is due to excellent cheese. Only marginally.

His argument is a good one. Culture matters. The Swiss have a proper gun culture. Americans wave their 'piece' in the air like its a music video.

That's bullshit. Literally 99.99% of gun owners in the US commit zero gun crimes in their entire lives. Over 80% of criminals who used guns got them illegally, and that doesn't even consider the fact that many of them were already prohibited persons.

I'm sure you could find a few hundred videos of people waving guns in the air, but any amount you find is anecdotal for the 100 million gun owners each year over the past several decades.

If anyone waved their guns in the air at a gun range, range staff and other shooters would tackle or shoot those idiots immediately.

The amount of gun ignorance and false stereotypes floating around the internet, especially among gun grabbers, is staggering. They've obviously never actually seen a gun range, concealed carriers, training or weapons handling.

Switzerland requires that every individual who wishes to own a firearm get a permit from local government, who may require a psychiatric exam or consult other governments. Every firearm is recorded and logged at the Canton level.

These are all policies that the American conservative movement categorically rejects.

Because none of those are effective or necessary, at all. They're based on a flimsy belief that the bureaucrats and doctors can accurately gauge potential for misuse. Those systems are rife with false positives and false negatives. No one has ever proven that the Swiss murder rate would rise in the absence of those controls. They are window dressing. Plausible but fallacious. A mentally ill person planning a massacre can easily be on his best behavior for an exam. In fact, sociopaths are extremely good at this.

It's still better to get rid of guns though.

"Take away the guns like the U.K. did": no it didn't. Don't talk tripe.

Switzerland has lots of guns and a very high gun death rate. The highest in Europe I think. It is one of the countries often used as an example of the true statement... the more guns per head the higher the rate of gun death.

XXX. Wrong answer.

The Swiss homicide rate is 0.5 per 100k, nearly the lowest in Europe.

The trouble with leftists is that you know so many things that simply arent true. You uncritically consume the corn out of other people's shit and then vomit it all over the internet.

You moved the goalposts from gun death rate to intentional homicides. We're coming for your guns.

Because "gun death rate" is an irrelevant statistic. Its unremarkable, for example, that a country with more cars per capital will have higher rates of car related deaths. Same with power tools, swimming pools, trampolines, etc.

The problem with having an intelligent debate on this subject is that when gun grabbers are not telling outright lies, they are intentionally misdirecting the conversation.

P.s. Finland has a higher rate of gun deaths. Several other European countries don't collect or report that data.

No, America has more homicides than other countries because of Blacks and Hispanics.

Blacks commit 51% of all homicides.
Hispanics commit another 21%

This 30% of the population commits 72% of homicides.

The majority of all murders take place in four US counties.

The majority of US counties have zero murders, despite lots of guns and poor people.

As shown in my comment below, non Hispanic whites in the US have comparable murder rates to Europe. Maybe a little high. If I had to live in a country with 2.0 murders per 100k and get to own guns, hell yeah.

The lifetime chance of being murdered in the US is 0.3%. Much much lower if you mind where you go and when.

White supremacists commit only 0.3% of murders. Most states have zero homicides motivated by hate.

The vast majority of murders take place in Democrat controlled and majority Black cities.

Everything else you hear is leftist hysteria ginned up to ban guns. It has been a century long effort to disarm Americans for their totalitarian aspirations.

The inner city gang violence homicide rate is tragic and shitty and should be discussed.

But not now. This ain't that. This is someone doing exactly what you wanted....getting rid of Hispanics using 2nd Amendment methods.

The mass shootings are purely Trumpy white guys like you. This is on your head, Willits.

Another leftist crap corn eater.

White supremacists commit only 0.3% of homicides. The chances of being killed by a white supremacist are indistinguishable from zero.

White supremacists are the Russia, Russia, Russia of this issue. It is a red herring dragged by Democrats for the purpose of diverting attention from their own crimes.

Wake up. This is obvious. You are self duped. Read 1984. Read it again. Focus on Crimestop, Duckspeak, and Thoughtcrime. Yep, that's you.

Demonizing Hispanics and Muslims as invaders trying to replace real White America has nothing to do with El Paso. Well done.

I never made any such claim. This is one incident - anecdotal - out of all crimes in america. It doesnt characterize all, most, or even a substantial some murders. It is a rare event.

Mass shootings happen nearly every day in the US with 250 mass shootings so far this year. America has gotten a little too used to it. We should probably ban guns to save our country.

You want my guns? Come and get 'em. Your time is done.

White supremacists have been beating out Muslims in terrorism for a while now. I'm saying this as a white guy.

1. When current white supremacists get to 3000, wake me up.

2. Muslim terrorists are generally foreigners. The evil person down the street is more dangerous than the evil person on the other side of the planet. You've cracked the case!

3. Terrorist incidents are RARE. You are hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to be murdered by a robber, mugger, carjacker or even a relative or friend than some terrorist, and even less likely a white supremacist.

Your statements are sophistry. Carefully crafted propagandist rhetoric. It contributes only to the attitudes of pliant people and nothing to the debate about guns or racism.

Bro, relax, its just a comment on a blog. Are things okay at home? Nobody gets this wound up even on the internet. LOL. Keep stressing yourself out with paranoia and you too will put up a manifesto on 8chan (it's a joke!).

"The majority of all murders take place in four US counties"


No, it'll "be very hard politically because" semi-automatic hunting rifles are owned by tens of millions of voters. See the politics of long arms in Canada, with no Second Amendment but a similar hunting culture.

hmm, maybe a start point for further discussion
The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study

Particular kinds of gun-control measures are significantly more effective than others. In fact, three types of restrictions are most effective, individually and in combination, in reducing the overall homicide rate. They are: universal background checks, bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, and “may-issue” laws (which give police discretion in issuing concealed-carry permits).

Those are so painfully, colossally, obviously good ideas that it's simply retarded that they are even a debate.

That study is monstrously, obviously wrong. They dont get gun laws in the states correct. For example, they claim there are no background checks required in Missouri. No state requirements but there are FEDERAL requirements for the vast majority of purchases. 80% of criminals used a gun they obtained illegally so background checks simply dont matter.

Leftists as usual know nothing about guns, gun laws, and gun crimes. You're so ignorant, you literally suck IQ out of the conversation. Your malinformation is worse than total ignorance or Magic 8 Ball guesses. You're sucking daily at the teat of your propaganda masters.

Some questions for you a as I genuinely want to understand:
Why am I a leftist?
All three proposals arguably are consistent with the 2nd Amendment - "well regulated militia etc..."
The meta study identifies that these three things States can do, so is this not a win for States rights? As a win for States rights none of this requires worrying about federal requirements.
This could be argued as small Coasian bargain that is a win for Mental health, mortality all groups and retains individual ownership of the number and type of firearms. Is this not supporting Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
I'd genuinely like an honest response, because I am puzzled by the key board aggression to an opening for a good faith conversation.

But good luck getting Willitts to tone down the aggression and give you a good faith conversation. As you can see from his invoking '1984' and so on, the Trumpies are feeling a bit defensive today.

RAND spent a million bucks to study it.

RAND's study is flawed. Clearly the 1M just went into their pockets. Gun control really works and there's science to prove it:


Is that what we call them now?

US homicide rate: 5.5 per 100k

Non Hispanic white homicide rate: 1.97

Black homicide rate: 9.2

Hispanics: 5.73

Europe: 3.0

Northern Europe: 0.5 to 2.5

Iraq, Afghanistan, Togo, Paraguay: about 9.2

Non sequitur.

The vast majority of Blacks and Hispanics never kill anyone.

My sole point is that if we want to reduce the US murder rate, we need to focus on the places and people who commit these crimes and not waste oxygen talking about white supremacists. Even then, there is nothing wrong with the FBI having a task force to focus on white supremacists. I'm not sure that red flags will be obvious enough or early enough to matter. Overwhelming majority of false positives.

Yes. If these people actually cared about homicide reduction, they would support aggressive law enforcement efforts to systematically take the killers off the street. They don’t do that, in fact they generally obstruct those efforts.

Maybe the vast majority of Hispanics never kill, but they are all low IQ and prone to criminality. They are invading our great nation and trying to replace the electorate with Demoncrat voters.

It's a war. It's a war we can only win because of the 2nd Amendment rights we have. That man in El Paso is a national hero.


2/3 of all terrorist attacks on American soil are commited by right-wing terrorists, 100% of them are white.

If more guns was the solution to the problem then the USA would have a very low rate of gun deaths. The opposite is the case.

If tough on crime were the answer t9 the problem, well the USA's incarceration rate wou’d mean it should have lower crime rates than Western Europe which it does not.

It’s simple, this happens in the USA because there are more guns. Lack of prayers in school is not the cause of the problem.

Sophistry. See my stats above.

Vast swaths of america are virtually murder free.

Murders and violence are highly concentrated in Black, Democrat counties and even more concentrated into a handful of neighborhoods within those counties.

The non Hispanic white crime rate is typical of Europe and, in particular, European whites.

The US crime rate plummeted since the mid 1990s after the Republican congress passed a slate of tough on crime bills and consequently incarceration soared.

Guns have a small positive impact on murder rates, but we don't know whether banning guns would reduce that because angry husbands can slash their wives with a knife instead. Gun control doesnt get to take credit for abolishing all gun murders even with a total gun ban. It only changes the murder weapons. For example, South Korea has one of the worlds highest suicide rates despite having almost zero private gun ownership. They mostly hang themselves.

Then of course there is the loss of freedom. The nation was designed such that citizen militias served as a counterweight to the federal government.

If the federal government says you don't need your guns, you need your guns.

What good were guns at preventing or stopping the Obama tyranny?

Doesn't that imply that the "unregulated militia" does in fact have good judgment in determining what constitutes an existential threat to the welfare of the people?

Perhaps, but I would never attribute to competence that which can be explained by laziness.

"the USA's incarceration rate wou’d mean it should have lower crime rates than Western Europe which it does not. "

It has lower rates than the UK, right? Demographically I imagine it does very well compared to just about anywhere.

"Repealing juvenile curfews could lower urban gunfire by two-thirds."

Color me very skeptical. I wonder if the authors (white, professional women) would allow their children (or the authors themselves) to be roaming Washington, DC streets after 11pm weeknights/ midnight weekends.

They have a moral duty to do so, by their lights, as it is the presence of witnesses and the vibrant street life beloved by Jane Jacobs, that is thought to prevent shootings at the "marginal hour." At least in one study of D.C.'s seasonally-variable curfew. In another study, somewhere else, overall juvenile crime went down.

I am reminded of something I read once, a local reporter set out to discover why Walmart needed to be open all night, who it was serving at 2 AM, etc. Among the night owls, he was surprised to discover not a few very small children being pushed slowly around the store by their caregivers, who seemed to be aimlessly fingering the wares.

It's not that they want to get rid of norms altogether - they just want new ones in their place.

True or False: each and every time "the American gun violence debate" is conducted by members and officers of our (corrupt and corrupting) American Media Establishment, the "conversation" is decontextualized as completely as possible from the outset to dispose of ANY thought or consideration that our (corrupt and corrupting) Media Establishment has directly contributed to America's cultural problems with the lurid and glamorized "gun violence entertainment" programming it's been streaming directly into American households almost each and every day for the past seventy years.

How can "the conversation" be conducted with ANY legitimacy whatsoever if the corrupt and corrupting Media Establishment's role in setting American cultural norms and (relative) expectations is deemed "INADMISSIBLE" each and every time "the conversation" is broached?

True, in part. While the media certainly stokes hatred, division, and misinformation in favor of gun control, mass consumption of violence is not a reliable predictor of violence. The Swiss voraciously consume American action films and video games, famously are armed to the teeth, and have on of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

It is the cohesiveness and longstanding Swiss traditions that make them almost family (if not literally so) especially within their cantons. They are also racially homogeneous. While there are a relatively large share of immigrants, the vast majority are white Europeans who speak one of their native languages.

The have a very strong culture of hard work and diligence.

You might be underestimating the invidious practices of our Media Establishment: though most of its news presenters, commentators, and comedians rail whenever "The Great American Gun Violence Debate" comes on, the Media Establishment continues (as it has for lo these seven decades) to make its BILLION$ from the very entertainment programming that celebrates American gun violence. (For which sponsors buy ad time, yes, and programming which most American viewers can hardly be said to be watching with whatever critical faculties Swiss viewers exercise when watching American entertainment swill.)

America's recent terrorists are racially homogeneous too.

That's great news. We can solve the whole problem by consuming twenty antidepressant pills per capita, per day.

Tyler, you found a Texan of dubious qualifications to try to change the subject. It's often amusing that you are orthogonal and provocative. This time you aren't amusing. Why not stand up for the right thing? Of course much of your audience is sympathetic to the president and his stance on this topic....

Yep. "Gun policy suggestions" that say nothing about guns. Instead it's a jobs program for youth, a mindfulness therapy session, it's access to medical care, you know, things that usually get labeled "socialism" by this side of the aisle when the threat of taking guns away isn't present. The misdirection is so blatant. It reminds me of businesses that give out coupons instead of cash back, when they screw up.

We got to do something with these people with mental health!

Thoughts and prayers etc for these people with mental health.

Also, if we care about 2nd Amendment much, why isn't the public allowed nuclear weapons?

It is very difficult to force people with mental health problems into treatment unless and until they become violent to themselves or others. That's why vagrants with mental illness can choose to decline treatment and live on the streets (which has helped to turn so many cities into sh*tholes). The blame falls squarely on advocacy groups and SCOTUS (e.g., Olmstead v. LC).

You might read D.C. v. Heller for why the individual right to bear arms does not include the individual right to own cannons or nuclear weapons.

But then yours is a typically frivolous postmodern performance act.

Not enough people are addressing the real problem: what is broken about our society that is leading to people having the impetus to kill tens of strangers?

Is it social isolation?

And many causes. God knows why someone would walk into a Connecticut school and murder dozens of first graders.

This is not that. This isn't complicated. There's no debate: Trump and his more fearful minions have created an atmosphere of demonizing Hispanics and Muslims as invaders trying to replace real White Americans. They also valorize guns and the 2nd Amendment. El Paso is the logical endpoint.

Anyone who says "there is no debate" when the facts are just beginning to be uncovered is just emoting under the influence of TDS. A guy who apparently hated immigrants before 2016 doesn't need to try to tease out some twisted sense of tacit permission or approval from POTUS before committing murder.

But it helps...

Again, I've spelled out my logic above, you think there's an invasion, and the 2nd Amendment gives you the weapons to fight tyranny and invaders. Not that complicated.

Anyone who invokes TDS, or ODS, or BDS, or CDS has lost the debate.

You're the one who is insisting on the importance of Trump as a crucial causal factor despite no hard evidence in support of it.

Your "logic" stinks. You don't need the 2A. If you have convinced yourself into believing that there is literally an invasion of an enemy occupying force, then you'll be willing to take up arms to stop it (unless you're an actual pacifist), and you'll take up arms because you think that Trump is failing to do enough to stop the invasion.

But keep on with your TDS rants.

That was easy.

It seems the Dayton shooter wasn’t a Trump supporter. He Might have been an Antifa supporter.

Here’s my 2-cents suggestion: private cities where the companies owning them provide substantial insurance to cover for senseless killings like these in order to attract more citizen-clients. My guess is that the (private) police will start to use common sense to prevent mass murders.

None of these suggestions actually deal with guns. America bends over backwards with these contortions rather than do the needful and obvious.

The introduction of Australian style gun laws with a nationwide gun buyback would cost billions but I'm certain it will pay for itself through reduced gun violence.

If the US doesn't do something like this then their solution will be mass surveillance and use of robots and drones to detain people suspected of practicing their freedom to bear arms illegally or bringing one into a restricted zone around a school, shopping center, aged home, child care center, hospital, or place worship.

Which situation do you think brings greater risk of tyranny in this modern day and age?

Expect retailers, companies, and home owners associations to lobby together to buy streets to create private property in which gun procession can be banned. Surveillance will also allow instant credit checks allowing the poor to be prohibited. Why let someone who isn't going to buy anything in your nice, safe, mall?

Exactly. This is the kind of debate we need to have the in the US. Unfortunately we can't import reasonable people these days to help guide our debates due to our xenophobic leadership. I refuse to give up the rest of my rights just to accommodate the 2nd amendment. I'd rather put the utmost restrictions on guns than be subjected to dragnet surveillance, unreasonable search or seizure, AI facial recognition, or other invasive, undreamt-of policies that remove the joy of living in a modern democracy. Instead of the 2nd amendment stopping tyranny it is inviting it into our lives if we fail to be sensible about it.

"Import reasonable help guide our debates. "

Thanks for publicly admitting that Democrats want to alter the political landscape through immigration. Now, I want to shut it down completely and put Democrats on trial for treason.

What part of "right to immigrate" do you not understand?

The very essence of liberty is tolerating things the majority does not like.

Put Trump on trial for treason.

Importing reasonable people was how your country was founded, you idiot.

What part of "right" do you not understand?

Rights are not subject to opinions, debate, compromises, majority rule, reasoning, cost benefit analysis, or the ravages of time and circumstances.

The contours of rights are debatable, but not rights themselves. You cant vote rights out of existence. That's what "unalienable" means.

We didn't invent rights, but we perfected them. We are apparently the only country left that defends them, and not even all of us. Sad. Insane really. Who needs a dictator to eliminate rights when so many people will vote them away.

The very essence of liberty is tolerating things the majority does not like. If they did, they wouldn't need protection.

"Rights are not subject to opinions, debate, compromises, majority rule, reasoning, cost benefit analysis, or the ravages of time and circumstances."

They are. It's called constitutional amendments. If you hate that, then leave the country because we're coming for your guns.

If it didn't help in Australia, why would it work in America?

Gun laws were tightened in Australia and gun deaths went down. That's not exactly what I would call a failure.

Look at the link. Gun deaths continued its existing decrease. The ban had a short lived blip that went away.

It's a success in Australia, mate:

“Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years.”

Final Solution, amrite?

A Nebraska state legislator is calling out members of his own party Sunday after three mass shootings took place in one week in the United States.

Republican Sen. John McCollister posted a thread, saying that the GOP is outright “enabling white supremacy” in the United States and that as a lifelong Republican he couldn’t stand by any longer and watch it happen.

“I, of course, am not suggesting that all Republicans are white supremacists nor am I saying that the average Republican is even racist,” he explained. “What I am saying though is that the Republican Party is COMPLICIT to obvious racist and immoral activity inside our party.”
“We have a Republican president who continually stokes racist fears in his base. He calls certain countries ‘sh*tholes,’ tells women of color to ‘go back’ to where they came from and lies more than he tells the truth,” he went on. “We have Republican senators and representatives who look the other way and say nothing for fear that it will negatively affect their elections. No more. When the history books are written, I refuse to be someone who said nothing.”

47 people wounded in Chicago, 4 fatalities.

My reading of the paper (Figure 3) is that gunshots increased in the switching hour, but decreased in the previous hour. Criminals are just shifting the time of their shootings, not changing the overall number of shootings.

On this one the solution is obvious. Arm every Walmart cashier.

Re: her first point

Flooding the US labor market with cheap 3rd-world labor through immigration and visa policy (legal and illegal) has made it difficult for many teenagers to find employment.

Unemployment is at record lows. There are more jobs than teenagers that want them. If anything we need more immigration.

Comments for this post are closed