It is well studied that Means Reduction saves lives. As easy access to weapons and methods to commit suicide/murder are reduced people do not often substitute other methods, therefore the tragedy is avoided.
Gun control does not confront any of the root causes of the problem, however. Isolation, loneliness, disenfranchisement, and hopelessness are at all-time highs in American society. Anyone feeling these, or other crushing emotions, is not alone. Restricting access to guns will avert tragedy, but neglects to treat a more serious illness of society.
According to Robert Putman’s Bowling Alone the transition from active engagement to passive consumption (the specific example he studied was how TV watching impacted Americans’ social lives) has been the single greatest factor contributing to an epidemic of social disengagement. Bowling Alone is now 21 years old, and the trends Putman identified in 1999 have not improved, they have been exacerbated by the internet, social media, and smart phones.
Gun control will save lives, and I am therefore in support, but it is not enough to take away access to guns and consider the problem solved. We must also address the difficult questions such as “in a democratic society, why does someone feel they have no say in their government and therefore they feel the need to own a gun in case violent revolution is necessary?” and “why do people in this community feel unsafe around their neighbors and feel the need to own a gun for self-defense?” We need to do a better job engaging the people who feel powerless, and the people who do not trust their neighbors, to promote positive social engagement within their communities.
I believe social media can be re-engineered to promote the positive characteristics of human psychology, instead of the current situation where social media (and consumptive entertainment generally) have been engineered to manipulate and exploit human psychology for profit. I believe gun violence and suicide are symptoms of a far more serious withering of American community by toxic hyper-individualism. I also believe these issues have reached a critical mass and solutions are beginning to be implemented, but change is uncomfortable and slow. I feel very hopeful that these problems will be solved, and we will look at the last 30 years in America as a tragic and confused period.
While I agree that mental health is the main factor that is being ignored, I disagree with the banning of firearms for everyone. You wouldn’t ban rope if hangings were the top method of suicide, would you?
Mass shootings are relatively modern thing, so we need to look into the root causes. Radicalism is becoming a more and more prominent issue. People need to be taught how to see things from different perspectives and how to think critically. Without this people will just use different methods for causing mass destruction in the absence of guns.
While not banning rope seems like common-sense, it is well studied that Means Reduction saves lives. This means that if we did ban rope fewer people would commit suicide; most people would not substitute another method such as a knife or jumping off a bridge, they simply would not commit suicide at all.
Banning rope would be hugely disruptive to many industries and peoples personal lives, however, so it is not a practical possibility.
Banning guns would not cause significant disruption to industry or the vast majority of peoples’ personal lives, so it is practical.
Without this people will just use different methods for causing mass destruction in the absence of guns.
The means reduction studies show that most people will not choose another method for harming themselves or others, they will not act on their impulses if acting on their impulse is made more difficult.
You should read the book “A People’s History of the United States”. The government isn’t there for you, it’s there to protect the interests of industry. Time and time again the government has turned against its own citizens because they didn’t agree with the government.
The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the masses have the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, but it also inadvertently plays a huge role in people’s ability to defend themselves and others from those who mean to cause serious harm.
A gun is the only thing that levels the field; by matter how small or weak you are, guns allow you to defend yourself against the biggest, strongest person, or several people. There just isn’t anything else like that.
I agree with this comment. While it’s true that gun control can save lives, there’s always another freedom in line you can revoke to save lives as well.
It is well studied that Means Reduction saves lives. As easy access to weapons and methods to commit suicide/murder are reduced people do not often substitute other methods, therefore the tragedy is avoided.
Gun control does not confront any of the root causes of the problem, however. Isolation, loneliness, disenfranchisement, and hopelessness are at all-time highs in American society. Anyone feeling these, or other crushing emotions, is not alone. Restricting access to guns will avert tragedy, but neglects to treat a more serious illness of society.
According to Robert Putman’s Bowling Alone the transition from active engagement to passive consumption (the specific example he studied was how TV watching impacted Americans’ social lives) has been the single greatest factor contributing to an epidemic of social disengagement. Bowling Alone is now 21 years old, and the trends Putman identified in 1999 have not improved, they have been exacerbated by the internet, social media, and smart phones.
Gun control will save lives, and I am therefore in support, but it is not enough to take away access to guns and consider the problem solved. We must also address the difficult questions such as “in a democratic society, why does someone feel they have no say in their government and therefore they feel the need to own a gun in case violent revolution is necessary?” and “why do people in this community feel unsafe around their neighbors and feel the need to own a gun for self-defense?” We need to do a better job engaging the people who feel powerless, and the people who do not trust their neighbors, to promote positive social engagement within their communities.
I believe social media can be re-engineered to promote the positive characteristics of human psychology, instead of the current situation where social media (and consumptive entertainment generally) have been engineered to manipulate and exploit human psychology for profit. I believe gun violence and suicide are symptoms of a far more serious withering of American community by toxic hyper-individualism. I also believe these issues have reached a critical mass and solutions are beginning to be implemented, but change is uncomfortable and slow. I feel very hopeful that these problems will be solved, and we will look at the last 30 years in America as a tragic and confused period.
While I agree that mental health is the main factor that is being ignored, I disagree with the banning of firearms for everyone. You wouldn’t ban rope if hangings were the top method of suicide, would you?
Mass shootings are relatively modern thing, so we need to look into the root causes. Radicalism is becoming a more and more prominent issue. People need to be taught how to see things from different perspectives and how to think critically. Without this people will just use different methods for causing mass destruction in the absence of guns.
While not banning rope seems like common-sense, it is well studied that Means Reduction saves lives. This means that if we did ban rope fewer people would commit suicide; most people would not substitute another method such as a knife or jumping off a bridge, they simply would not commit suicide at all.
Banning rope would be hugely disruptive to many industries and peoples personal lives, however, so it is not a practical possibility. Banning guns would not cause significant disruption to industry or the vast majority of peoples’ personal lives, so it is practical.
The means reduction studies show that most people will not choose another method for harming themselves or others, they will not act on their impulses if acting on their impulse is made more difficult.
Banning encryption would save lives too. Do you support that?
Is the utility in allowing the general population to own guns even in the same ballpark as the utility encryption provides to society?
deleted by creator
What do you need encryption for? You trust the government, don’t you?
deleted by creator
You should read the book “A People’s History of the United States”. The government isn’t there for you, it’s there to protect the interests of industry. Time and time again the government has turned against its own citizens because they didn’t agree with the government.
The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the masses have the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, but it also inadvertently plays a huge role in people’s ability to defend themselves and others from those who mean to cause serious harm.
A gun is the only thing that levels the field; by matter how small or weak you are, guns allow you to defend yourself against the biggest, strongest person, or several people. There just isn’t anything else like that.
deleted by creator
I agree with this comment. While it’s true that gun control can save lives, there’s always another freedom in line you can revoke to save lives as well.