site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Either we’ll force through a knee-jerk bill with symbolic limits on firearms, or we’ll (correctly) dismiss that as posturing and (incorrectly) do abso-fucking-lutely nothing.

Practically speaking, what measures will gun rights advocates actually tolerate? It seems like the only thing they can countenance is more guns.

It seems to me that there are many ways we could 'reformat' our conception of gun ownership in a way that would preserve the ability of 'the people' to bear arms while making them less available for use in crime or mass shootings (or suicide), but I find it incredibly unlikely that the current American gun culture would find it at all tolerable.

Meanwhile, I guess the best I can do is pick up some CCW training and a good holster. Fuck.

The best you can do is probably something like move to New Hampshire. The most reasonable thing you can do is nothing.

The odds of concealed carry protecting you from victimization of any kind, let alone a mass shooting, is incredibly low, if for no other reason than because a middle class defense contractor is already extremely unlikely to be victimized and the efficacy of concealed carry in stopping mass shootings is... mixed. It's a psychological prop more than anything.

Mass shootings are, frankly, more analogous to terrorism than ordinary crime. Terrorism doesn't kill very many people, but it does scare people and make them feel powerless because it is outside the 'normal' sociology of murder. Nevertheless, carrying a gun because you might get jumped by terrorists is hard to justify.

Practically speaking, what measures will gun rights advocates actually tolerate? It seems like the only thing they can countenance is more guns.

If we're honest, yes. I think more people with more guns is better. And I will countenance no taking of guns from people.

The odds of concealed carry protecting you from victimization of any kind, let alone a mass shooting, is incredibly low

Elisjsha Dicken

If we're honest, yes. I think more people with more guns is better.

Do you think more people with more guns is good intrinsically, regardless of potential costs? Or do you think more people with more guns will reduce violence?

I think it's an intrinsic good for people to be prepared to defend themselves, their families, and their communities.

It seems to me that there are many ways we could 'reformat' our conception of gun ownership in a way that would preserve the ability of 'the people' to bear arms while making them less available for use in crime or mass shootings (or suicide), but I find it incredibly unlikely that the current American gun culture would find it at all tolerable.

Well, the issue is that while gun control proponents like that frame, you are actually talking about three completely different issues with three different plausible solutions.

  1. Crime. This is the vast majority of non-suicide gun deaths, but most generally gets no attention (except when being aggregated to push gun control, or to scare boomers about cities). Simple solutions that don't really impinge gun rights exist for this such as: actually prosecuting straw purchasers, targeted Terry stop regimes, border security, and other general law enforcement scrutiny being increased such as beat cops and more enforcement against domestic violence complaints (in other words, stop dropping charges when the girlfriend recants a week later).

  2. Mass shootings. A tiny minority of deaths that drive lots of discourse. Hard to fix without significantly affecting gun and free speech rights simultaneously.

  3. Suicide. Something I think most people don't actually care much about, other than using it to aggregate "gun deaths" at a higher number. To the extent people genuinely care, the fix is also quite hard without also impinging the 1st and 2nd simultaneously. Low hanging fruit might include cooling periods t prevent spontaneously buying a gun and killing yourself on the same day.

I’m answering the first part for myself but I think unless/until the streets are safe and you don’t have to worry about being mugged or stores being looted or other forms of street crime, I don’t see any way you’ll convince people to give up guns. And so I think you’ll either going to need to rearm the police and get serious about “broken windows” policing, or deal with people wanting arms for self defense.

Most reformats I’ve seen are more like “disarm, then we’ll eventually circle back and deal with your concerns.” Which is frankly a bad deal and everybody knows it. If I said something like “give me your ring and then I’ll give you something for it later,” or worse “just give me your ring, and I’ll stop calling you a greedy ass,” nobody thinks this is a good deal. Nobody thinks it’s a reasonable idea. And no concerns are actually discussed. Like for people who want a gun because of break-ins or something, they’re not going to accept keeping the gun in a locker off-site. They’re not going to accept limits on bullets. Especially if they’ve had to deal with the cops and had a prowler and had to wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up, write a few notes and drive away. As self defense guys say “when seconds count, help is only minutes away.”

Practically speaking, what measures will gun rights advocates actually tolerate? It seems like the only thing they can countenance is more guns.

There is generally a sense among gun owners that there have always been more concessions to be made. Any "compromise" with gun owners needs to be an actual compromise, not just a "you lose one more inch" style compromise.

I'm not huge into the gun scene, but some of the compromises I've heard could be:

  1. Easier gun modification, specifically silencers. Its a pain in the ass to get a silencer on a gun right now. And unlike how Hollywood depicts them, silencers do not "silence" a gun. They turn it from instant hearing loss without ear protection to hearing loss under prolonged use. They also require subsonic rounds (otherwise the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier defeats the purpose).

  2. Some form of national gun transportation standardization. There are scenarios where you can legally own a gun, have it locked up in your trunk, drive across the wrong state line and suddenly you are violating a law.

  3. Some form of concealed carry reciprocity. States all have their own versions of concealed carry (or don't allow it).

There are 51 versions of gun laws out there. Standardizing them in a way that doesn't treat California or New York laws as basis for standardization would potentially be appreciated. One way I could see them doing this is create different levels of constitutionally approved gun restrictions. Maybe 5 levels. With level one being the strictest, maybe equivalent to cities in California, New York City, or DC. And level 5 being the least strict, something you might see in rural Alaska. Municipalities are allowed to choose one of these levels of strictness, but they can't keep making up all their own restrictions and bullshit.

One thing I'd personally be interested in seeing it to remove all special exception carve-outs for law enforcement or active military. Instead there is only one category of carve-out: "Militia". The police and military can be assigned to this carve-out. But there is also a path for regular citizens to join the militia (devil would be in the details here).

There is generally a sense among gun owners that there have always been more concessions to be made. Any "compromise" with gun owners needs to be an actual compromise, not just a "you lose one more inch" style compromise.

This is just sort of politics though, and it happens on every other issue. Gun owners like to use phrases like 'one more inch' quite a lot but the reality is that these things do go back and forth. Sometimes they lose inches, sometimes they gain them back (see Heller, Assault Weapons Ban, NYSRPA v. Bruen etc. etc.).

but they can't keep making up all their own restrictions and bullshit.

I mean this sort of thing really does seem like an unequal compromise because it amounts to putting a hard cap on gun control but still allowing very lax states. Why would Democrats agree to that, especially when all polling indicates that gun control is a winning issue for them?

I mean this sort of thing really does seem like an unequal compromise because it amounts to putting a hard cap on gun control but still allowing very lax states. Why would Democrats agree to that, especially when all polling indicates that gun control is a winning issue for them?

At the national level they could argue to change the specific restrictions in the strictest gun control category. At the state and local level they get to fight over upgrading the strictness level of gun control.

Also the whole attitude of 'we can win, so why compromise ' is part of why gun owners are so "uncompromising".

'we can win, so why compromise ' is part of why gun owners are so "uncompromising".

Well that's just politics on both sides though. If I have policy preference X, and think I can get it done, why would I compromise for less than X? I wouldn't begrudge the same behaviour from pro-gun activists..

Why would Democrats agree to that, especially when all polling indicates that gun control is a winning issue for them?

Because Democrats might want to win outside of their usual blue areas?

Beto O'Rourke tried the "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15" shtick in Texas.

He later achieved the honor of losing to Abbot by Nine Points.

Not that this was the only reason, of course.

He lost by nine points in an R+5 PVI state in a Democratic presidential mid-term. Shocking.

Republicans won the House elections by 20 points overall.

Why would Democrats agree to that, especially when all polling indicates that gun control is a winning issue for them?

It's not and historically has been a great way for Democrats to lose elections. Almost all the polling you're talking about is vague preference polling that has things like "should laws be stricter?" along with things like "<current law already on the books> is too far". Same sort of thing with economic policy questions. At least the Gallup poll includes data from the 90s or 50s depending on the question.

Almost all the polling you're talking about is vague preference polling

No. AWB, ERPOs, safe storage laws, licensing and raising minimum ages all consistently get comfortable majorities.

Four: Re-open the registry for machine guns.

That is, new machine guns (i.e. full autos) can be manufactured and can be owned and used by non-FFLs, but they might still have to be registered/a tax stamp applied.

As part of that, it shouldn't be illegal to own components that can convert a semi-auto into a full auto.

Practically speaking, what measures will gun rights advocates actually tolerate? It seems like the only thing they can countenance is more guns.

We also enthusiastically support enforcement of existing laws that target criminal acquisition, possession, and use of firearms. Most such laws, particularly those related to straw purchases on behalf of felons, are essentially unenforced.

The odds of concealed carry protecting you from victimization of any kind, let alone a mass shooting, is incredibly low

Based on what evidence? There have been multiple cases of public shooters ended by CCW response within the last few years, and I'm drawing them only from the cases where they got meme'd into public awareness. General self-defense via firearm happens, at best estimate, somewhere in the range of several hundred thousand times a year.

More generally, the mass shooting meme seems to be getting worse, likely as people get crazier and more polarized. It's hard to tell how much of this is perception vs reality, but I'm very glad my church now has armed security.

Do you (that is, the generalized you of gun rights advovates)? One of the constant fights in Congress is about universalizing the background check system to curtail private sales that don't go through it.

Because that is a regulation that mostly just would exist to annoy hobbyists and the inheritors of pap's guns, and would have no statistical impact on gun crime in any way.

Likewise, the ATF is frequently cited as a boogeyman and the paperwork FFLs have to do described as overly burdensome.

Because they are? The current system both places heavy burdens on FFLs, but focuses almost zero effort enforcing laws that would actually prevent homicide.

What are the particular ways in which enforcement of existing laws could be strengthened that wouldn't catch the ire of gun rights advovates? Can you be specific?

They could re-purpose 95% of their enforcement actions to border security and prosecuting straw purchases. They could also probably tinker with minimum security requirements for commercial distribution of guns, that is semi trucks, etc which occasionally are successfully raided.

There was a pretty famous one in 2013 that received NRA support, but was shot down because Dems preferred a version that didn't bother with a fig-leaf of due process.

Which kinda points to the problem. It is quite possible both for the ATF to require ridiculous levels of paperwork and come down like a brick shithouse on FFLs that don't require clients to spell out Yes and No on every line, while also ignoring a vast realm of straw or otherwise unlawful purchases (plausibly including the son of a sitting president!). It is quite possible for there to be a lot of support for Universal Background Checks in general, and then actually-written background check proposals to be so badly drafted as to require restructuring hunter education classes.

More broadly, there's also an issue where this is all very obviously just another step toward the next big restriction. We don't have particularly good reason to believe the rules that actually do get enforced actually prevent mass or spree shootings, and a lot of times they get brought up even when they very clearly couldn't prevent them (eg, several bills named after an incident where the mass shooter stole a firearm involved background checks) ... but they are great at making it difficult to be into firearms, or to get new generations into firearms.

What is the reason for stopping the government from using modern databases and technology to be able to effectively investigate these matters?

Because they had one and used it to harass people, leading the Gun Owners Protection act to be passed.

It wasn't preemptive.

You just told me that violations of the background check and false statement laws run rampant and virtually unchecked.

The ATF is barred by law from retaining records of legal firearms purchases. That is, if you attempt to buy a gun, submit the instant check form, are cleared, and complete the purchase, they are not allowed to keep a record of the gun you purchased. Laws have been written, passed, and enacted specifically to prevent them from doing this, because gun owners know for a fact that compiling a firearms registry is one of the dearest desires of the gun banners and the ATF both, and so they fought hard to ensure that doing so was flatly illegal.

We have very, very good evidence that the ATF has simply ignored these legal restrictions, and has in fact built such a database. Because laws Blues don't like don't matter.

Nothing prevents the ATF from retaining records of illegal attempts to purchase a firearm. When a felon or a straw-purchaser submits an instant check form, they have just signed a form confessing to a felony. The ATF exists to investigate and prosecute such crimes, which are about as open-and-shut as you can ask for. They have consistently declined to do so in all but a vanishing number of such cases, year after year, for decades.

The authorities absolutely refuse to enforce the laws we actually have on actual criminals. They refuse to prosecute straw purchases. They often decline to prosecute actual use of guns in actual crime. They absolutely have time to hammer the shit out of law-abiding gun owners, gun sellers, and gun manufacturers. It's the same anarcho-tyranny we see in numerous other aspects of modern life.

Why didn't the Trump Admin do something about the ATF's registries?

More comments
More comments

What is the reason for stopping the government from using modern databases and technology to be able to effectively investigate these matters?

The concern is that such modernization will make it easier to create a registry of who owns what, which can and inevitably will used for mass confiscation. If you don't believe me on the inevitably will part, look at NY state which has a registry and has used it to confiscate guns that were legal when purchased and registered, but later made illegal: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/another-nypd-gun-confiscation-letter-emerges/

Similar things have happened in Canada with their long gun registry, in Nazi Germany with mandatory gun registration leading to mass confiscation, and several other places.

General self-defense via firearm happens, at best estimate, somewhere in the range of several hundred thousand times a year.

True, but firearms don't seem to be a uniquely effective self-defence weapon, or at least there is some tentative evidence in that direction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188?via%3Dihub#s0010

I have a more prosaic objection: I don't find high-end DGU numbers believable. High-end estimates rely on self-reporting, which has two major issues. The first is that respondents could simply be lying. Self-reporting of anything is generally terrible. The second is that a sincere report does not mean an actual DGU occurred - the respondent could have imagined the threat entirely, or they could have pulled a gun to win an argument or similarly be misrepresenting what actually happened.

This is definitely true, and Hemenway has actually also done some good work on this front, but in fairness high-end DGU estimates go way higher than 'several hundred thousand'. The one I see a lot is 2.5 million which originates from a rubbish Kleck and Gertz study from the 90s.

Results from the NCVS find that guns are used by victims in less than 1% of crimes in which there is personal contact between the perpetrator and victim, and about 1% in cases of robbery and (non-sexual) assault. There were no reported cases of self-defense gun use in the more than 300 cases of sexual

...Is this not straightforward survivorship bias? A woman who presents a firearm to a would-be rapist very likely doesn't have an actual crime to report. Likewise for a host of other crimes, from muggings to assaults to murder.

More generally, every crime successfully completed is an instance where lawful self-defense would deliver a likely-superior outcome. If self-defense rates are really this low, why aren't we trying to improve them?

woman who presents a firearm to a would-be rapist very likely doesn't have an actual crime to report. Likewise for a host of other crimes, from muggings to assaults to murder.

Presumably they have an attempted rape/mugging/etc. to report to the survey?

More generally, every crime successfully completed is an instance where lawful self-defense would deliver a likely-superior outcome

Is it? Maybe I'm just too soy but if an armed mugger demanded my wallet etc. I'd rather give in than take my chances trying to defend myself, a lot of tail risk involved there, not to say that people shouldn't defend themselves though.

If self-defense rates are really this low, why aren't we trying to improve them?

Well I guess we can but the point is that increasing gun usage doesn't seem like it would actually achieve that goal.

All fair points. I shouldn’t let my frustration get carried away.

I am coming to think that any solution has to start from such a “reformatting.” When I was in college, there was a triple murder in town, some kid killing his family. It was big gossip for a couple days. But that was it. No Discourse about changes to be made, and certainly no national headlines. That “normal” sociology covers it just fine.

Is it possible to push mass shootings into that category? If state-level media mentioned it in passing and national-level didn’t at all, that might help bring public perception in line with the actual lack of threat. I’m not sure.

I would be interested in hearing what other “reformat” options you have in mind. I could see reducing personal ownership, but instating city and state arsenals and training would fit the idea of a “well-regulated militia.”

Is it possible to push mass shootings into that category? If state-level media mentioned it in passing and national-level didn’t at all, that might help bring public perception in line with the actual lack of threat. I’m not sure.

Let them keep happening without doing anything :v

I'm being facetious but also not - as far as I can tell, most mass shooters are pursuing notoriety or revenge against society, so if the broader reaction is a shrug, the appeal will fall off. But you can't persuade people to act like that, which really only leaves acquired exhaustion.

I would be interested in hearing what other “reformat” options you have in mind.

Not terribly far off that. Club/civic organization/municipal-centric models preserve recreational uses and keep ownership away from direct federal control while making it harder for guns to leak out to criminals, would be mass shooters, etc... If the revolution kicks off, you can all raid the club's ammo locker on the grounds that we're past enforcing gun laws, but in the mean time if Psycho Dave wants to go for a drive with a pair of rifles and 25,000 rounds of ammunition his club mates can see that and step in. I don't care if people want to own assault rifles or go hunting, but I also have a pretty negative view of everyday carry of firearms, especially open carry.

Practically speaking, what measures will gun rights advocates actually tolerate? It seems like the only thing they can countenance is more guns.

Correct. Since the entire history of gun control regulation has shown that advocates of gun control will never admit to a policy failure. Any violence that occurs is ultimately because there was insufficient gun control in place, thus no failure is actually a failure of gun control policy, it is instead a failure to go far enough.

California has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and also one of the higher murder rates. To say nothing of fucking CHICAGO. You literally can't get much stricter than Chicago in restricting firearms, and you also can't find many places with a higher murder rate. They've tried heavy gun control and it didn't help. So can they admit that gun control has failed in this instance?

If there are no circumstances under which they'll admit the policy is failing, then in what sense can they be said to be acting in good faith?

Every single compromise gun rights advocates have made previously has been met with demands for further compromise, and nothing is offered in return.

The best you can do is probably something like move to New Hampshire. The most reasonable thing you can do is nothing.

Speaking of, NH has some of the most permissive laws and also a negligible homicide rate. Again kinda makes the point for me.

The odds of concealed carry protecting you from victimization of any kind, let alone a mass shooting, is incredibly low, if for no other reason than because a middle class defense contractor is already extremely unlikely to be victimized and the efficacy of concealed carry in stopping mass shootings is... mixed. It's a psychological prop more than anything.

The odds of a fire extinguisher protecting you from a house fire of any kind, let alone an arsonist, is incredibly low...

You see the subtle error in reasoning here?

Terrorism doesn't kill very many people, but it does scare people and make them feel powerless because it is outside the 'normal' sociology of murder.

And because those instances are given outsized attention by the national media, who has every intention of maximizing the fear felt by their viewership.

But that's a fundamentally different problem. If it weren't terrorism it'd be something else.

You literally can't get much stricter than Chicago in restricting firearms

Thought experiment: Set aside the 2nd and 4th amendments for a second. Suppose the United Stated banned civilian firearms, all of them. No manufacture, no sales, no ownership. All citizens must surrender their guns to the authorities. Anyone who has ever posted a gun on social media gets their house searched for contraband. Children are taught in school about the importance of turning in their parents if there are guns in the home. What does the murder rate look like in Chicago a year later? How about 10 years later? Surely you concede that there would be less mass shootings in the USA, how would random 20-year-olds be getting access to weapons after a generation of total control?

Children are taught in school about the importance of turning in their parents if there are guns in the home.

Ah, so we'd further entrench the meme of Stop Snitchin'.

Children are taught in school about the importance of turning in their parents if there are guns in the home.

Well Chicago schools aren't exceptional for their ability to educate children... https://www.foxnews.com/media/chicago-democrat-sounds-alarm-55-schools-report-no-proficiency-math-reading-serious

Most of the murder in Chicago is drug or gang related, I expect they'd switch to knives, clubs, acid or machetes. Murder rate would be lower of course and I very much hope that adopting East German style intensive policing means that gangs are wiped out as well. But it's not neccessary to suppress everybody if you're just trying to suppress the problem people.

The root cause is the gangs and the drugs. Just wipe them out, not all gun-owners everywhere.

If we're going to demolish civil rights, why don't we start by reinstating stop-and-frisk, and see what effect that has on the crime rates? Maybe actually lock up felons in possession?

I'm not willing to countenance a massive reduction in rights when lesser reductions are taken off the table purely in the interest of racial balancing.

What does the murder rate look like in Chicago a year later? How about 10 years later? Surely you concede that there would be less mass shootings in the USA, how would random 20-year-olds be getting access to weapons after a generation of total control?

I mean,

See my other post about conservatively estimating that we could expect around 50,000 LEO casualties in trying to enforce a gun confiscation program.

PLUS the fact that guns can be 3D printed now, so it's not sufficient to confiscate those already in circulation.

Surely you concede that there would be less mass shootings in the USA, how would random 20-year-olds be getting access to weapons after a generation of total control?

I might concede this if you concede we would probably see an increase in vehicular-based massacres

Since nothing in your hypothetical has actually dealt with the issues that make mass shooters want to kill people, we have full reason to expect many of them will merely shift methods.

And if we accept the idea, for arguments sake, that we could toss out our civil rights in the name of achieving lower crime, then maybe the example of El Salvador represents a much MORE EFFECTIVE path we could follow to achieve a similar impact on violent crime.

So perhaps it looks really suspicious to zero in on the Second Amendment and impacting the rights of huge swaths of peaceful citizens in your zeal to bring down the crime rate, when there are readily conceivable alternatives that are less intrusive?

Thought experiment: let's just ignore the fourth and fifth amendment and massively incarcerate the most violent members of Chicago's population. What does the murder rate in Chicago look like a year later?

See my other post about conservatively estimating that we could expect around 50,000 LEO casualties in trying to enforce a gun confiscation program.

I flat-out do not believe this. At most you would get about 10 LEO deaths on the first day, and then the military gets called in to put down the insurrection. Rules of engagement are always optional. "There is absolutely no difficulty in using any level of the American security forces against the barbarians."

PLUS the fact that guns can be 3D printed now, so it's not sufficient to confiscate those already in circulation.

Can you 3D print gunpowder?

I might concede this if you concede we would probably see an increase in vehicular-based massacres

I do concede that. The standard economic result is that when one good is banned, some of that demand goes towards a substitute good, but not enough to completely make up for it. I would expect the new rate of vehicular massacres to be somewhere between the current rate, and the current rate + the gun massacre rate. I also suspect that "massacre-prevention software" would soon become standard on cars if this became an issue.

And if we accept the idea, for arguments sake, that we could toss out our civil rights in the name of achieving lower crime, then maybe the example of El Salvador represents a much MORE EFFECTIVE path we could follow to achieve a similar impact on violent crime.

Oh, I am absolutely not advocating for large-scale gun confiscation. I am simply pointing out that it is both possible to do, and that it would achieve it's primary goal of reducing gun murders (and murders in general).

Can you 3D print gunpowder?

I think @gattsuru or Beej once pointed to a furry who had figured out how to make guncotton at home all electrochemically and such, so...sort of, yes.

Cathode_G! (cw: sfw as explosives can be on direct link, but the rest of his feed does have furry porn) Absolutely fascinating guy.

I'm by no means an expert, but AFAIK making a case that can provide an adequate seal without breaking (and be cycled in without jamming and extracted without breaking, perhaps creating an obstruction in the barrel...) is far harder than making a simple gun.

It isn't actually that hard. It's simple drawn brass. https://www.petersoncartridge.com/technical-information/drawing-brass/

In addition, you can actually just turn a cartridge on a lathe from brass bar stock. Or mild steel. Both will work and while it's not as efficient as drawing brass, all you need is a lathe.

And each cartridge can be reloaded multiple times with equipment that is basically ubiquitous in the US.

I guess you'd be incentivizing revolvers though.

Polymer cases would provide substantial weight savings (and reduce how much brass you need), but I don't think anyone has cracked the problem, or at least hasn't come up with anything commercially viable.

True Velocity has apparently nailed it down for .308 and .50 BMG. The recent-ish US Army trials that produced the XM5 and XM250 almost had the 6.5x51mm be adopted in a polymer case.

Cathode_G does also have a non-corrosive primer (as above, link has no nudity, but be prepared for furry porn elsewhere on his feed) recipe, though most disposable guns in a highly restricted regime will probably just stick with the corrosive but dead-simple matchhead.

Primers are also kinda like the lye in cathode_g's guncotton formula; they have too many industrial and home uses to effectively ban. Even China still has them in common use for construction. If you don't want to bother with chemistry or corrosive primers, there's literally millions of these things out there.

Brass cases are obnoxious, but I'm not convinced they're the right decision rather than the available one. SuckBoyTony's done some interesting things with manufacturing polymer cases, and there's a lot of design space ignoring cases entirely that's largely unexplored because it makes so little sense these days. If you're custom-casting and electroplating bullets in mass, you could start experimenting with wacky designs like the Daisy V/L, Activ-style shells, or gyrojets, or truly caseless ammo... but unless you have absolutely no access to spent brass, it's mostly just coming up with new ways and reasons for the ATF to shoot your dog.

More comments

There is a 3d2a guy working on electronically primed polymer cased ammo. Very much a hobby project on a shoestring budget. One of the NGSW program entries used polymer ammo but the army went with Sig (to go with their Sig pistols and Sig LPVOs), you can buy polycased 308 ammo right now. The other area people go to for impractical is barrel rifling which at this point is mostly solved with electrochemical machining, at least for the lengths of things like the FGC which are designed around zero access to firearms parts regimes.

More comments

I flat-out do not believe this. At most you would get about 10 LEO deaths on the first day, and then the military gets called in to put down the insurrection. Rules of engagement are always optional. "There is absolutely no difficulty in using any level of the American security forces against the barbarians."

How does the military respond to disparate Americans shooting at LEOs knocking on their own doors?

Again a question of scale. How precisely do you expect the U.S. to successfully occupy itself?

I would expect the new rate of vehicular massacres to be somewhere between the current rate, and the current rate + the gun massacre rate. I also suspect that "massacre-prevention software" would soon become standard on cars if this became an issue.

Good. Then we can agree that gun deaths would decrease under a heavy gun control regime (although likely a massive spike given the aforementioned issue with enforcement) but there's as always the question of whether that simply results in further encroachments by the government once it has taken this step.

Simply put, I don't want to live under the rule of a government that doesn't trust its' citizens enough to allow them firearms.

How does the military respond to disparate Americans shooting at LEOs knocking on their own doors?

If you shoot at the cops, they know your address. After the first week all patrols will be accompanied by Predator drone air support. You'll have two Hellfire missiles crashing through your roof in minutes after opening fire. If they can't get officers to shoot at Americans in person, they can sure as hell get some loyal private to sit at the drone terminal in Alexandria.

If you shoot at the cops, they know your address.

So "shoot while they're knocking at someone else's door" is the equilibrium strategy, then? At least "one of us got shot before we killed the shooter" can be spun as a heroic story; "one of us got shot before some kid at a desk bombed innocent people" (not to mention the crime scene where evidence of the bullet trajectory used to be) is the sort of thing that makes you look for a better job than "sucker who draws fire on the civilian-bombers' behalf".

And that's assuming no other collateral damage, which is ... a stretch. The 1985 MOVE bombing was horrifying enough to show up in the news last year, even though all the "this is unconstitutional", "pay millions of dollars to the victims", etc. decisions were made decades ago. This does not scale up.

You are pattern-matching to some random commune in Philadelphia. You should be pattern-matching to Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor, because that is what questioning American sovereignty (the kind that elites care about) amounts to. It’s pretty undignified to die on a million-dollar battleship in port from a dive bomber hitting the magazine. Did America look at that and decide, “whoops, our bad. We’ll stay on our side of the Pacific and mind our own business from now on”? No, they hunted down and killed every single Japanese soldier who wouldn’t surrender. How many collateral casualties were acceptable in that conflict? Do you think there will be sympathy for the terroristic gunmen on American media? Fox canned Tucker despite much better ratings than anyone else on their network because nobody would advertise on his show. Can you imagine if there was an actual shooting civil conflict and a host sided with the “bad guys”?

More comments

And when friendly fire or kid bits end up on national news?

You know this is comical. Its like when Biden says something like, "what are you going to do about nukes." You can't fricken drone strike a single family house (let alone a single person's apartment) without causing mass collateral damage. Plus, the fact is you can't just siege Joe in 1F until he shits himself to death when there are 10000 Joes, nor can you snipe him when he leaves 1F without eviscerating all the other civil rights that exist. You'd be treating suspected gun owners worse than indicted criminals skipping bond.

All, in the end, probably for little benefit. Ask thyself, would the average gun control advocate accept this compromise (assuming it was ironclad): You get 10 years of doing your thing. But, if in year 10 the homicide rate of America is greater than any of Germany, England, or France all gun control laws enacted since 1900 are repealed permanently. Would they accept? Of course not. Nor for 20 or 25 years. Probably not even 50. This would all be rational, even though most of them would be dead, or nearly so at T=50. Because they would lose that bet. I mean, unless they engaged in a massive genocide program and somehow managed to gerrymander that to not be included in homicide.

You can't fricken drone strike a single family house (let alone a single person's apartment) without causing mass collateral damage.

Of course you can. Single family detached is easy. An apartment, maybe you're using a robot of some sort instead of a drone, but more likely police in riot gear. There aren't going to be 10,000 Joes; once you make an example over the first one, the rest will snap into line. Remember all the protests on Joe Biden's inauguration day? Of course not, because the government made its point on January 6.

(And the gun control advocates would totally take the deal. Then they'd welch. What are you going to do about it?)

More comments

Gun control in Chicago has failed. Specifically, it's failed to control access to guns, which are regularly used to commit crimes. The question of whether or not reduced access to firearms would have an impact on crime rates is not answered by Chicago. And, of course, there is the evergreen fact that one of the most crime-ridden part of the country is the Deep South, which has permissive gun laws and a hoplophilic culture. With that in mind it's hard to take idea that the solution is yet more guns seriously.

The odds of a fire extinguisher protecting you from a house fire of any kind, let alone an arsonist, is incredibly low...

You see the subtle error in reasoning here?

No. You're going to have to spell it out for me. The number of times of a tragic misunderstanding, accident, or interpersonal dispute involving a fire extinguisher led to severe injury or death is functionally zero. If your fire extinguisher had a greater chance of exploding and killing you than it did of stopping a fire, keeping one in your kitchen would be dumb.

And to be frank, for most people a home fire extinguisher is a prop.

Speaking of, NH has some of the most permissive laws and also a negligible homicide rate. Again kinda makes the point for me.

I agree. The actual underlying problem is culture - most Americans have a weirdly positive view of violence, of which the aforementioned hoplophilia is merely one manifestation. That doesn't change the fact that weapons are a major facilitator for homicide (and other crimes and suicide), else people wouldn't bother. Not to mention, mass reeducation is likely to be both unpopular and of dubious effectiveness, so the policy remedies in that direction are pretty weak.

The number of times of a tragic misunderstanding, accident, or interpersonal dispute involving a fire extinguisher led to severe injury or death is functionally zero.

There is some dispute about that re the Capitol Putsch, which would fall under the most literal definition of 'interpersonal dispute'.

Are you referring to the completely made up and fake story about Brian Sicknick being hit with a fire extinguisher? Well, if your point is that people can lie to provide fictional evidence in favor of their policy goals, you certainly have made it.

That's why I said there was "some dispute" regarding the matter.

And, of course, there is the evergreen fact that one of the most crime-ridden part of the country is the Deep South, which has permissive gun laws and a hoplophilic culture. With that in mind it's hard to take idea that the solution is yet more guns seriously.

The South isn't notably more hoplophilic than e.g. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or Alaska. Those all have loose gun laws.

Indeed, the South has LOWER gun ownership rates than those named states.

And yet those states are significantly less violent than the national average, let alone the South.

So if you're trying to claim a correlation I would bet you can find a stronger one than that.

This is kind of the glaring issue in the U.S., where homicide rates simply do not follow from gun ownership rates on a state-by-state basis. And violence is, of course, concentrated in cities. So in practice, gun control laws punish suburbs and rural areas for urbanites' bad behavior.

Quite unfair, no?

No. You're going to have to spell it out for me. The number of times of a tragic misunderstanding, accident, or interpersonal dispute involving a fire extinguisher led to severe injury or death is functionally zero. If your fire extinguisher had a greater chance of exploding and killing you than it did of stopping a fire, keeping one in your kitchen would be dumb.

The point is that because an event is rare that doesn't mean that a precaution against it is unjustified.

I suspect that house fires are actually rarer than most violent crime these days. The rate of deaths due to fire is certainly on the decline

And yet, the impact of a fire, if it happens, is massive enough that the risk probably shouldn't be ignored. Clipping the tail risk is a good idea.

You wouldn't dismiss somebody as a paranoid wacko for keeping fire-suppression tools around should the need arise, even if the odds are infinitesimal.

But it is seemingly easy to say that a guy who keeps a gun around is being paranoid, without even grappling with the actual risk imposed if you do happen to be victimized by a criminal.

So mitigating the risks of harm due to fire = keeping a fire extinguisher around.

Mitigating the risk of harm due to crime = ?

Thinking stochastically, there are steps you can take to minimize the risk of crime/fire happening, but given how much damage can be done, and given the fact that you can never get the risk down to zero, what steps is it reasonable to take?

You literally can't get much stricter than Chicago in restricting firearms, and you also can't find many places with a higher murder rate

Speaking of, NH has some of the most permissive laws and also a negligible homicide rate. Again kinda makes the point for me.

This is ridiculous. One cannot prove anything with one or two data points. To take just one example, here is some tentative evidence that permitting decreases homicides, and RTC laws have the opposite effect. I'm obviously not saying that just because there's a study here you have to agree with me, but at least engage with the literature rather than saying 'look at Chicago' and calling it a day.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29785569/

The odds of a fire extinguisher protecting you from a house fire of any kind, let alone an arsonist, is incredibly low...

You see the subtle error in reasoning here?

Fire extinguishers do not impose wider social costs.

And because those instances are intentionally given outsized attention by the media who has every intention of maximizing the fear felt by their viewership.

Different thing, but you seem to be framing this as a fault of the media but surely if there is blame to be assigned here it has to go to the consumer, given that the media is surely just satisfying the demand for such news which we all demonstrate by consuming it as much as we do.

This is ridiculous. One cannot prove anything with one or two data points. To take just one example, here is some tentative evidence that permitting decreases homicides, and RTC laws have the opposite effect. I'm obviously not saying that just because there's a study here you have to agree with me, but at least engage with the literature rather than saying 'look at Chicago' and calling it a day.

Chicago is such a useful example of the people who claim to want to solve the nations' problems absolutely failing to achieve any of their stated goals, though!

Its like, you can't solve violence in your own city, and attempt to externalize the blame for this fact, and then claim to be in a better position to solve violence on an national level than the people who live in the less violent areas! Chicago is itself a refutation of the efficacy of it's own policies.

I'm not certain what data you would, in particular, find convincing, but consider that the major source of firearms DEATHS in the U.S. is suicide. If you want to save lives, THAT is where you need to start.

And there are multiple countries that have strict gun laws and much higher suicide rates. Japan and South Korea as glaring examples here.

This suggests that, again, guns are not the driving or decisive factor here, and it would probably be better to investigate root causes rather than going after firearms directly.

Fire extinguishers do not impose wider social costs.

Would you support a ban on matches, lighter fluid, and fireworks, or other implements that can be used for arson? There's definitely a wider social cost there.

My point is that the extinguisher is there to defend against a low-probability but high impact event. You don't have a fire extinguisher because you genuinely think it's likely that you will have to put out a fire, but if a fire does break out it can burn down your entire house and/or kill people. So the precaution is fully warranted.

Likewise, you don't carry a gun, in most instances, because you think it's likely you'll ever be accosted by a violent criminal or mob... but if violence does break out it can destroy your belongings and/or kill people. So the precaution is fully warranted simply because of the fact that when violence does break out it can have outsized impact.

There's little evidence that a person who is legally carrying a firearm on their person imposes a 'wider social cost' in this respect, incidentally

And, of course, there is the evergreen fact that one of the most crime-ridden part of the country is the Deep South, which has permissive gun laws and a hoplophilic culture. With that in mind it's hard to take idea that the solution is yet more guns seriously.

That wasn't my comment.

Chicago is such a useful example of the people who claim to want to solve the nations' problems absolutely failing to achieve any of their stated goals, though!

No isn't because one data point cannot prove that. For all we know, Chicago may well have even more violence than it does already if gun control was relaxed. It may not of course, but simply pointing to one city proves nothing. Numbers are your friend.

Also, I will reiterate that it's very difficult for cities to control guns on their own, national or at least state level action is much more effective.

If you want to save lives, THAT is where you need to start.

I agree that gun suicides are very important to tackle! That why I support ERPOs and waiting periods which have been shown to effectively prevent suicides.

And there are multiple countries that have strict gun laws and much higher suicide rates. Japan and South Korea as glaring examples here.

Again, this proves nothing.

This suggests that, again, guns are not the driving or decisive factor here, and it would probably be better to investigate root causes rather than going after firearms directly.

Are they mutually exclusive? Governments aren't limited to one policy response per issue.

Would you support a ban on matches, lighter fluid, and fireworks, or other implements that can be used for arson

Probably not because the social cost of the arson facilitated by those items probably doesn't outweigh the value we get from their benign applications.

There's little evidence that a person who is legally carrying a firearm on their person imposes a 'wider social cost' in this respect, incidentally

Well they do, in part a) firearms are not tied to a person and more firearms in general circulation is bad for public safety, and more importantly b) even if they were SDGUs aren't that great compared to the average, and in consequence the expected utility for even a legal owner is negative given the facilitation of an easier suicide, accidents etc.

Probably not because the social cost of the arson facilitated by those items probably doesn't outweigh the value we get from their benign applications.

I'd like to see you apply this calculation to firearms.

Given that the uses for hunting, sport/recreation, and the occasional self-defense are necessarily far greater than the uses for criminal activity.

There are approximately 15 licensed million hunters in the U.S.

10 million who do sport shooting (these numbers probably overlap).

So on the one hand we've got literal millions who use guns for 'benign' applications (assuming you don't have some serious objection to hunting).

On the other other, around 50,000 deaths/year which involve firearms in some way.

So what would you estimate the 'social cost' of those 15 or so million people who use firearms without harming anyone being unable to hunt is?

This is excluding DGUs, now.

Not clear to me why we think it absurd to ban matches (50,000 burns require hospitalization every year, 4,500 burn deaths per year) just because it makes it harder for people to light candles, but civilian-owned guns are somehow inherently dangerous to even own.

and in consequence the expected utility for even a legal owner is negative given the facilitation of an easier suicide, accidents etc.

This seems obviously confounded by factors that contribute to suicide and accidents independently of gun ownership.

So I find it doubtful that for the median gun owner it turns into a net negative, even if we see on the lower end of the bell curve that accidents and suicide are an actual risk.

In the same way that owning a pool makes it WAY more likely you or a loved one will die of drowning, and yet there are fairly easy precautions one can take to mitigate those chances (learn to swim, learn CPR, fence in the pool, provide life vests) to almost zero.

So what would you estimate the 'social cost' of those 15 or so million people who use firearms without harming anyone being unable to hunt is?

Hard to say of course, but bear in mind none of the potential restrictions mooted by any mainstream figures in the U.S. would seriously damage hunting or shooting for sport in the U.S. After all we still have both of those in Britain.

This seems obviously confounded by factors that contribute to suicide and accidents independently of gun ownership.

So I find it doubtful that for the median gun owner it turns into a net negative, even if we see on the lower end of the bell curve that accidents and suicide are an actual risk.

In the same way that owning a pool makes it WAY more likely you or a loved one will die of drowning, and yet there are fairly easy precautions one can take to mitigate those chances (learn to swim, learn CPR, fence in the pool, provide life vests) to almost zero.

We make policy for aggregates, not individuals. Whether for some people owning a gun might be a net positive is irrelevant, society-wide they seem to do more harm than good which is the relevant point.

or shooting for sport in the U.S.

Can you tell me what you think shooting for sport looks like?

Because substantially all of the restrictions proposed would impact it.

Oh I appreciate that specific restrictions might make some forms of sport shooting harder or impossible, the point is that in general it could continue as a widespread activity, just in slightly altered form.

More comments

After all we still have both of those in Britain.

You also still have mass shootings in Britain even with the limited type of firearms you can legally acquire there (.22s are still plenty fatal if you put enough of them into the target; that's fundamentally what buckshot is), to say nothing of more general mass casualty events typically involving trucks. Of course, you'll never fully ban shotguns, because you have enough politicians and backers that have ludicrously-expensive H&H products to get away with that- I don't believe that this is "making policy for aggregates, not individuals".

In fact, Britain appears to be so incredibly violent that the nation takes placing a bunch of restrictions on kitchen knives seriously as well and has significant numbers of soldiers and heavily-armed paramilitary on patrol (more liberal European countries have this as well, of course). Maybe it's a good thing the gun law in that nation in particular is largely "no".

You also still have mass shootings in Britain even with the limited type of firearms you can legally acquire there

A few per decade.

All I can do is once again point you to the literature on the effectiveness of gun control measures, which you haven't engaged with.

Not clear to me why we think it absurd to ban matches (50,000 burns require hospitalization every year, 4,500 burn deaths per year) just because it makes it harder for people to light candles, but civilian-owned guns are somehow inherently dangerous to even own.

Dont forget to add in the deaths from pools. Or seed oils.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats