Monday, January 21, 2013

Musings On the Gun Debate

...
Everybody's an idiot.  This debate may be unique amongst all political arguments for its overwhelming bi-partisan stupidity, delusion and magical thinking.  Sure, the health care debate was incredibly annoying, but at least one side was thoughtful, compassionate, pragmatic and mostly honest.  It was the other side of the debate, with it's lies and paranoia and shrieking about everything from Socialism to Death Panels that provided the ignorance and stupidity that fueled most of the misery.  But now, in a post Sandy Hook political environment that opens the window to some kind of common sense action to reduce the horrific toll of gun violence and the associated terror, no one on either side seems capable of focusing on the basic truths and realities - instead, they all keep shrieking slogans and lies at each other without either thinking about the problem or listening to calm, logical voices.

On the fragility of the 2nd Amendment:
Of course, the leading madness and delusion comes from the Right, primarily due to their recent tendency to take the most extreme, absolutist position on every issue and refuse to consider anything less.  In this ideologically paranoid worldview, there are only two choices - Freedom and Tyranny.  Or in this case, unfettered access to all firearms by all Americans, with no limitations on the right to own, carry or use guns; or a blanket government ban on firearms, complete with criminalization and confiscation.  Now all absolutist and binary positions are stupid, because they prevent thoughtful common sense from entering into the discussion.  It's very easy to see a path to a set of regulations that would reduce the availability of guns in our communities while remaining broadly compatible with the Constitutional Guarantee.  For a group of people so focused on a constitutional provision, they seem to believe it is terribly weak.  In their fevered paranoia, they repeatedly make the claim that "the government" or "the President" is going to ban or confiscate their guns.  But they never seem to think through exactly how this might happen - which would bring them to quickly conclude it cannot.  The government cannot ban guns unless legislators could pass a bill through both houses, the President signed it and the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional.  Since this is a constitutional guarantee we're talking about, that obviously could not happen.  If the President ordered civilian firearms to be confiscated, that order would be illegal and would not be carried out, and the President would very likely be impeached.  The fact of the second amendment and it's broad interpretation by the courts stands as the protector of gun ownership rights, and as a very real practical limitation on those would seek to restrict those rights.  So it is within the terms of the US Constitution that we should all be able to agree on effective regulation.  That we can't is the result of greed, paranoia and delusion.

Nobody NEEDS an AR-15:
Meanwhile, over on the left we're having a pointless argument about banning some particular rifles, not because we have a particular problem with them - they're used in less than 1% of the shootings in America - but, we are informed, nobody needs an assault rifle.  I hear an important argument framed in such a dishonest and meaningless manner and it makes my head hurt.  The statement is true, of course, but then, you can't debate rights and regulations based on need.  What do people need?  Some food, a place to sleep, a pair of trousers.  We don't need golf, or a front lawn, or a ski boat, or carpeting or a flat screen teevee or running shoes or diamond rings or Cadillac Escalades or cigarettes or chocolate chip cookies.  What's need got to do with anything?  Why does anyone think they can frame ANY issue (beyond perhaps health care) in terms of need?  Nobody claimed to need an AR-15, so taking the position nobody does need one gets us not one tiny step closer to solving any real world problem.

Let's just ban semi automatic firearms:
You see an awfully lot of ink and pixels wasted with this idiocy.  Even setting aside that fact that it's both politically and constitutionally impossible - sometimes you have to discuss solutions that can't be implemented in the current political environment - it's also legislatively and practically impossible.  What does "semi automatic" mean?  At it's core, one could take the position that it refers to a gun that fires repeatedly with no user interaction but the pull of the trigger.  But that also includes revolvers and double barreled rifles and shotguns.  And even within the intended universe of self-loading rifles and handguns, there are a huge number of different mechanical implementations.  You couldn't write a law that would cover them.  But, just for fun, let's say you did.  Apparently, the assumption is that the gun makers, with thousands of brilliant designers and engineers would simply shrug their shoulders and run up the white flag.  As they would tell you on the rifle range, Maggies Drawers - clean miss.  They would design new actions that were compliant with the law.  And if you updated the law, they would design further changes.  It simply isn't a battle you can win if you start with a constitutional guarantee that has been broadly upheld by the Supreme Court.


The Limits of Legislation:
Between the constitutional guarantee (which can't be changed) and the legislative environment (which can) there are, tragically, very tight limits to what can be done about gun violence in America today.  I've spoken at length about the practical problems with type bans and magazine capacity limitations, but it's important to recognize that in spite of their virtually non-existent impact on firearms crimes in the US, it's unlikely that even these mostly symbolic actions will be enacted by Congress.  So a realistic approach would take three simultaneous directions.  First, work to keep effective, common sense gun regulations in the public dialog.  This should include product liability and insurance mandates, along with reassurances that the Second amendment guarantee of the right to gun ownership isn't going away in our lifetimes.  Second, we should encourage and support the Executive to take whatever actions they can take through commerce and import regulations.  Anything that can begin to reduce the nightly body count that doesn't depend on courageous congressional action should be done - but the President has to believe it is good politics, not just good policy.  Third, we need to do a better job of electing congresspeople who will stand up to the gun lobby and work to reduce the levels of gun violence, not simply to increase the profits of the gun industry.
...

19 comments:

  1. You couldn't write a law that would cover them

    I work in a highly regulated environment where you could say the same thing. There are so many ways to build buildings, writing codes that apply to make them all relatively safe is too daunting.

    And yet, the Code Officials do it. And continue to refine it for changing conditions and technologies every year.

    For instance, the ADA is the federal law that mandates accessibility, but does not elaborate the specifics. There are specific codes that contain the technical applicability of the many elements that make up Universal Accessibility.


    But all that is besides the point; what about moving these various weapons into a higher class of regulations, as we have discussed regarding the Class III regulations? Nobody has ever 'banned' automatic weaponry in America. Just put it behind a regulatory firewall. Why wouldn't something similar work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference is there is additional profit in conforming with the ADA's requirements. More materials, more effort, larger budgets. In the case of guns, the profit is in circumventing these sorts of provisions...

      Delete
    2. not from the standpoint of building owners, who view it as additional expense.

      Delete
    3. Sure, but they're not the ones in a position to circumvent it. An assault rifle ban would probably (a guess because we don't have any DATA - thanks, GOP) increase the cost of whatever the manufacturers replaced them with, because of tooling costs, additional SKUs and, of course, because they CAN...

      Delete
    4. Sure, but they're not the ones in a position to circumvent it.

      On the contrary, they are often the ones that push to circumvent building codes.

      Delete
    5. But you have to recognize the incentives are different, and the rewards are utterly different...

      Delete
    6. The ADA requires ADDITIONAL functionality, while an assault weapons ban demands REDUCED functionality. If the ADA sought to ban stairs there might be an incentive to circumvent that ban by redesigning stairs to fit within the constraints of the law. But it doesn't - it mandates things like ramps, side by side with stairs. It's hard to see how that's equivalent to a specific features limitation like an assault weapons ban...

      Delete
    7. I didn't say equivalent. I said that it was a complex regulatory environment, and used the ADA as one example of a portion of it. There are many things that are defined, including stairs. When is a gentle slope a ramp? What qualifies as an exit? How many windows are required, and how do they qualify as exits? What is a dead end or just a wide hallway?

      Building codes beyond the ADA mandate certain dimensions of steps; many steps of existing buildings no longer meet the code. Stairs have, in fact, been redesigned to meet the code. In fact, the ADA DOES cover stairs; there are such things as accessible stairways. Furthermore, the entire concept of universal accessibility extends far beyond wheelchairs, although that is what most people think of. Visual impairment, other physical restriction such as paraplegia, hearing loss, mental impairment....

      In fact, the ADA does actually ban some things. For all intents and purposes, rotary doorknobs are nearly extinct, at least as it comes to commercial construction. Bathrooms have become a very different thing. some types of appliances can no longer be used.

      I don't see where the effort to define and regulate an item is any different if it is expansionary or reductionary; the things still need to be defined. And your argument is that regulation of guns is difficult because once something is defined, gun manufacturers will change their design; my response is that we have already successfully regulated things that are as complex and subject to incentives to sneak around the laws.

      Delete
  2. Oh yeah! That would be the BEST solution by far, completely compatible with the second amendment and yet reducing the insane ease of availability that is the core of the gun violence crisis. In fact, I'd prefer to see ALL firearms covered by a tiered set of regulations premised on the NFA. This should be the goal - but if we can't even get an easily circumvented type ban through our frightened and corrupt congress, that's a longer term goal...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As are addressing global warming, our two-tiered justice system, and ending wars for corporate profits.

      Expect our media to continue focusing on "entitlement reform" and getting us into more wars. (E.g., Here's David Ignatius adding his voice to the crescendo over at The War Criminal Post.)
      ~

      Delete
    2. Y'know, I don't see anything close to a path for actual "entitlement reform" OR getting us into new wars happening now.

      You might have to update your screed to reflect 2013 realities, mi amigo...

      Delete
  3. We don't need golf, or a front lawn, or a ski boat, or carpeting or a flat screen teevee or running shoes or diamond rings or Cadillac Escalades or cigarettes or chocolate chip cookies. What's need got to do with anything?

    This is as silly or sillier than the argument you're confronting. It's tough to mow down a crowd with a chocolate chip cookie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But THAT'S the silly argument, Subs. If you think that a particular gun is a problem, then you should say so. But to say, not that it's a problem, but rather it should be banned because nobody NEEDS one is stupid. THAT'S how you'd get to banning chocolate chip cookies. If you're making the case based on NEED you're NOT making the case based on danger to the community.

      Which should be directed at handguns anyway, which kill over 90% of the murder victims...

      Delete
    2. Also, too, why I quite intentionally included cigarettes in that list. They are perfectly legal and "mow down" about a million times more people than rifles in civilian hands...

      Delete
    3. Cigarettes AREN'T perfectly legal. There are laws and regulations involving them. The same goes for everything on your list (except maybe the shoes), most of which have, as their reasons for existence as a product, some other purpose than killing things. Man, cigarette execs must lie awake nights dreaming of paydays involving a magical healthy cigarette and 20 more years of life per addict.

      The "need" argument confronts gun mythology, which is useful.

      Delete
    4. And I absolutely and loudly agree that American firearms policy is insane and dangerous, and that there should be a strong regulatory regime around manufacture, sale and ownership. That's the goal. But that's the goal because they are dangerous, not because they are 'not necessary'...

      Delete
  4. Lemme try it this way. There's no historical or legal basis for banning things that people don't need. On the other hand, people felt they needed DDT, but on balance the cost was greater than the benefit, and DDT was banned.

    So make the case, if you can, that certain rifles that account for a tiny fraction of American gun violence should be banned because they are dangerous. But to try to make the case that they should be banned because nobody NEEDS to own one is ridiculous. Nobody ever claimed to need one in the first place. They are either legal or they are regulated or they are banned. Let's start there...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just don't get it then, because it seems obvious to me that people claim to need them.

      Delete
    2. I honestly haven't seen that. I see lots and lots of people who want them, and lots of justifications for wanting them - some of which are more effective than others - but I have never seen the argument from anyone that they NEED them. They do insist that restrictions, regulations or bans would be unconstitutional, but that's far from claiming need...

      Delete