… why not change America instead of the Constitution?
As has happened after every mass shooting, my Facebook feed is saturated with virtuous anti-gun sentiments. Some of them squarely attack the Second Amendment, e.g., by citing this New York Times Op-Ed (interesting because the article’s first example of a current Constitutional right is immigration). The handful of Deplorables among my friends are outraged and defend their beloved freedoms with statistics showing a downward trend in U.S. gun violence. An AR-15 doesn’t kill people; a pissed-off American with an AR-15 kills people. The Deplorables assume that their attackers are rational and ask questions such as “If the population doubles, would you expect the number of mass shootings to go up, down, or remain the same” (Harvard-educated liberal arts majors respond “the same”! Also, “think of the children”).
Apparently all options are on the table now. Although I am not a gun owner myself I wonder if it wouldn’t be simpler to reengineer the U.S. instead of changing the Constitution so that the gun nuts could be deprived of what is currently their right.
We could start by assuming that any mass shooting will result in a media frenzy and national despair. Thus we need to reduce the absolute probability of a mass shooting anywhere in the U.S., not try to comfort emotional folks with “as a statistical percentage of our current population of 1 billion, this wasn’t as bad as back in the supposedly good old days.”
Mass shootings should scale at least linearly with population growth. If there were 1 person in California and 1 in New York with an empty territory in between it wouldn’t be possible for there to be a mass shooting. With 100 million people the probability should be 2X that compared to 50 million, assuming everyone’s mood stays the same given the higher density. Right now we’re at 327 million residents, mostly in cities packed like rat habitats in a cruel academic experiment. How about a goal of cutting population back to 180 million, the 1960 level? So we eliminate existing cash payments to Americans who have babies and also eliminate low-skill immigration.
Traffic makes people angry. Just last week my regional neighbor Graciela Paulino got angry and shot a fellow user of the collapsing road network (Lowell Sun). How about congestion pricing for the road system so that there is never a traffic jam?
School makes young people angry, apparently. Why not offer the angriest the opportunity to learn in some other environment other than the one-size-fits-all public high school that motivates some to come back with guns?
Criminality is heritable (example: Swedish national adoption study). Why not offer criminals and children of criminals cash incentives to live in a serene environment where criminal tendencies won’t be triggered (so to speak)? And, if we believe the research eggheads, we wouldn’t want to accept immigrants from any society where violence is common or immigrants whose relatives had been criminals.
Suburban isolation seems to be unhealthy for everyone. In the non-profit ideas page that I wrote for my crazy rich Google friends I proposed that, instead of shipping barrels of cash to Africa (like Melinda Gates is doing with the money that Bill earned!), American billionaires could fund “Latin American-style Towns for the U.S.” Then we could all go down to the town square every evening and chat with friends and, ideally, not shoot any of them.
Having a lot of time on one’s hands seems to lead to mental health problems and mental health problems lead, in some cases, to mass shootings. Why not terminate all of the government programs that enable Americans to be idle and brooding for years or decades? (High school itself could be considered one of these programs! It is not intellectually demanding for anyone of above-average intelligence (i.e., 50 percent of people) and therefore gives students plenty of time to brood and plot.)
I’m sure that the above ideas only scratch the surface, but the posting is really about floating an idea: rather than having a huge Constitutional fight and increasing the overall level of hatred that Americans with different political views have for each other, why not try to redesign our way out of this situation?
Readers: What do you think? Could we reengineer U.S. society so that substantially fewer people are motivated to become mass shooters?
[Here’s a post from a Facebook friend who works as a teacher in California, plus excerpts from her follow-up comments:
Why do so many people think gun control is the answer to the problem. That’s as preposterous as the war on drugs. Guns and weapons are nothing new under the sun, but anger seems to be rising in the youth and in the world. We need to heal our broken people and gun control just is a band-aid to the real problem.
[in response to a proposed ban] That’s just it though, u think they won’t have access suddenly. That’s just not reality. Drugs are illegal yet…
Making something illegal is not gonna make the problem disappear. Who here was able to get alcohol before they turned 21? Buy drugs? Make drugs? Pretty sure no law stopped you. Even if they banned all fire arms, do u think that fire arms would disappear??? You’re wasting your time with this argument. Don’t criminalize good people for owning a gun. It’s just gonna create more problems. We don’t live in a country where guns don’t exist so stop pretending. I don’t even eat animals because I hate violence obviously I’m not one to want a gun, but reality is reality.
]
No we can’t. A few mass shooting matter at lot less to happiness than family law. And we can’t even establish family law that is remotely close to rational. See http://realworlddivorce.com/
We need to take the PRC approach – reporting/discussing/exposing any mass violence becomes a crime. The problem goes away.
Bill: isn’t family law an example that changing America is easier than changing the law? High income women, for example, will not marry middle income men and thus avoid exposure to alimony lawsuits. People who don’t want to be involved in a multi-year custody fight that will consume 100% of assets in legal fees can move to a state with 50/50 shared parenting (eg AZ NV).
I bet the police officers that are already in the high schools could start screening the “at risk kids” for violence issues. Set up a screening and interview log. Talk to the kids. This should stop a bunch of these school shootings. Most every principle and vice principle knows the top 100 kids who are likely to cause trouble in the school. They sure did in this case and many others. So get together with the police and make them do their job and screen these kids and take away those kids guns and maybe put a few of them in mental health lockups. The issue is get the kids some help before they go off and do bad things. Do some real intervention instead of waiting for the kids to blow up and hurt someone.
The issue is poor police work IMO. We need them to wake up and do their jobs RIGHT. I know this means police and FBI might have to do some real work and they have shown vast incompetence in recent times. But is there any other way????
Bill #2: I don’t think it is reasonable to depend on American police officers or the FBI doing a better job in the future. If anything we should expect them to get worse at their jobs since they are hiring from a population with a falling average IQ. That’s why I propose the restructuring!
–Place an outright ban on the AR-15, and any weapon like it.
–Make all gun owners register their guns yearly, and pay a registration fee as well…just like cars, fishing & hunting licenses, etc…
–Raise the legal gun ownership age to 21.
–Require background checks on ALL gun owners. Re-require a background check every two years. (Here in California we have to re-certify our vehicles with a smog check every other year).
–Totally dissolve the NRA. They would serve no purpose whatsoever to gun owners if the suggestions above were in place.
–If that fails, get the NRA out of politics.
These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. We will never be rid of guns in this country. The 2nd. amendment is a constitutional right and I accept that and respect that. But gun owners have to respect that the vast majority of people in this country would be happy to ban all guns.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Guns are dangerous even in the right hands, and downright deadly in the wrong ones…make it difficult to own one.
Jim-
Maybe we’re closer to your wishes than you think. I went to buy a hunting rifle last month and was denied on my background check despite having no criminal record that would restrict my ability to own a firearm. Must’ve been a clerical error, but I can’t talk to a person about it. I can’t even be told why I was denied. I had to fill out an appeals form, and the line is more than 2 years behind (there was a time during Obama’s term when NCIS was told not to process any appeals) .
I bought a shotgun in 2014 without a problem, and now I have to wait an estimated 2.5 years. I’d call that making it difficult to own one.
Let’s not forget the factor that poor nutrition has on mental health. http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/sites/default/files/2015%20Mental%20Health%20America%20June%204%20Hibbeln.pdf
In line with the current groupthink logic I believe we should also eliminate motorized vehicles due to massive amounts of deaths caused every year by traffic deaths, drunk drivers and the occasional terrorist attack. Knives, clubs and baseball bats should be next.
It’s a relatively simple process to amend or vacate the 2nd amendment, it involves a constitutional convention. Congress can act too, but I like a gridlocked congress for exactly that reason.
There is an interesting article concerning the affected area’s progressive school board requesting that officers stop arresting students for criminal behavior as apparently it was affecting the districts ability to obtain funds. As with most issues these actions took several years to come home to roost. Here is the article, I’m sure the conservative slant may turn off some readers, but the article does raise some troubling points with some compelling support.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/21/its-too-late-broward-county-school-board-beginning-to-admit-their-mistakes/
Jim – the fact that your suggestions are off the top of your head (and you’re not the only one) is apparent. Some of the implications of what you suggest are pretty scary. Let’s start with your penultimate suggestion: dissolving the NRA. The NRA is a private organization. In this particular case you’d be happy to see them go, but are you comfortable living in a country where the government can “dissolve” a private organization at will? How about, for example, the ACLU? Same applies to “get the NRA out of politics.” As for the AR-15, it’s just a rifle. It has no special capabilities, and most of what differentiates it from a hunting rifle is appearance. It’s not an automatic. It fires a single shot with every trigger pull. Banning the AR-15 “and any weapon like it” would effectively ban *all* rifles. Your other suggestions, while I disagree with them (they are onerous restrictions on a fundamental liberty) are at least within the realm of debate.
Mass shootings are spectacular, but the real toll from unrestricted firearms sales comes from higher suicide rates.
As Europe has shown in the last few years, you will also have to ban heavy vehicles. Or, possibly, muslims.
Tony P/Paul – as expected there are those who will make this into a circular debate. When compared to motorized vehicles, knives, etc..guns only serve one function. And that function is killing. A person can be killed with a thousand paper cuts.
It matters not that the NRA is a private organization. They have far too much political influence. I’m stunned that they are steering the drive to arm all teachers. Think about that…let’s arm all of the teachers in all of the schools. Does it stop there? Let’s arm ushers in theaters as well. How about the cashiers in grocery stores? They’ll need a gun, too.
This has gone way beyond the right to bear arms. What we have now is lunacy.
So that’s 1 and 2 down, I wonder how Jim feels about having soldiers quartered in his home?
FWIW Gallup polling shows the American public is at best split evenly on banning “assault weapons.” A large majority (around 2/3) are opposed to a ban on handguns, which are used in roughly 90% of crimes involving guns. There’s a reason the NRA is as powerful as it is and it’s not because they speak for a tiny minority.
I bought a shotgun in 2014 without a problem, and now I have to wait an estimated 2.5 years. I’d call that making it difficult to own one.
Yet somehow that kid in Florida didn’t have a problem.
Yet somehow that kid in Florida didn’t have a problem.
That’s the problem with crappy bureaucratic filters – they are BOTH over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Some poor schnook whose name is the same as some on the terrorist watch list (we don’t know the reason because the government won’t tell you – it’s a secret you see, even if the secret is that Brenda the data entry clerk can’t type without misspelling your name) can’t get a gun to go deer hunting and there’s no way to straighten out this stupid error without waiting years (or maybe forever) AND someone like Nikolas Cruz whose friends and family all know he is totally bonkers slips right through no matter how many times they call the FBI, who is too busy chasing after Rooshians and the local cops are too busy eating donuts.
And meanwhile the population of Florida has gone from 5 million in 1960 to 21 million today (thanks in large part to 1/2 of Latin America now living in Miami) so of course the bureaucracy is totally out of control and no one really has any idea what is going on. Back in the old days, Sheriff Billy Bob would stop by the dry goods store and tell Willie Joe, “If that crazy Cruz boy comes by here, y’all don’t sell him no guns. And Willie Joe would say, “no way Sheriff – that boy is as crazy as a loon, I wouldn’t sell him so much as a Boy Scout knife.” But now we rely on the wonderful Federal background check system which is totally perfect like all government data processing systems, ’cause no one knows anyone.
Colin – In fact they do speak for a tiny minority. See this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/15/most-gun-owners-dont-belong-to-the-nra-and-they-dont-agree-with-it-either/?utm_term=.6a944d0b1a01
And: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/
Gun ownership has nothing to do with the NRA.
Oh, and I could have a 100 guns and I wouldn’t be able to stop soldiers from “quartering” in my home.
Jim – Colin is referring to the third amendment (No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law), suggesting that since you have no qualms throwing out the first and second amendments, perhaps you wouldn’t mind losing the rest.
Great ideas.
I think everyone agrees that Guns + Angry, Alienated, Atomized, Resentful People = Trouble.
It makes a lot more sense to reduce the numbers of Angry, Alienated, Atomized, Resentful People than reduce the number of guns.
After all:
Guns have other legitimate uses besides Trouble. Angry, Alienated, Atomized, Resentful People do not.
Many people like Guns & having Guns. Nobody likes Angry, Alienated, Atomized, Resentful People. Or being Angry, Alienated, Atomized, Resentful People.
There is a constitutional right to have Guns. There is no Constitutional right to have Angry, Alienated, Atomized, Resentful People.
Solution: Ban any weapon that uses a clip. If you own a weapon that uses a clip, you get hard time.
This is a simple operational law that will solve the problem, still allow hunting (with single shot rifles), still allow private citizens to bear arms (and form militias), and not require high IQs to decide who is a criminal and who isn’t.
What’s more, banning any weapon that uses a clip does not require any bureaucracy of any kind beyond the ordinary police force. It is small government on steroids.
A lot of our problems would be fixed if we fix our Family Law system.
No more children out of wedlock and children with single family.
Tony P – Thanks for the clarification. Apologies, Colin, for my misunderstanding.
I will come down on the side of the pedants and say the question “If the population doubles, would you expect the number of mass shootings to go up, down, or remain the same” is so poorly posed to be meaningless. If population doubles and shootings stay the same, then shootings are actually going down as a proportion. If they double then shootings remain the same (as a proportion). The question leaves the responder to mind read whether the answer is meant as absolute or relative numbers, and offers two possible ways of confusion on ‘remain the same’. Hence the question could have been ‘if pop doubles, would you expect (1) a doubling of the shootings, (2) more than a doubling of the shootings, (3) fewer than a doubling but more than current or (4) fewer than the current number. This is one way of posing that question that avoids misunderstandings and the need to mind read.
Concerning guns, Switzerland shows that it is possible to have both high availability and high controls on firearms. Switzerland is a place where stuff works though.