World events

Ahem.

Yeah, just seeing who's paying attention here....who's been naughty...who's been nice.
Making a list, you see...

I can respect that.

Hopefully not the same economics that assumed stricter alcohol laws would lead to less alcohol consumption. The Prohibition was surely one of the most interesting attempts to legislate against consumer demand ever -- and is judged on its eventual removal as law as a failure. Without a change in underlying social preferences, all regulation can do is determine the legality of the firearm trade. And many would respect it as law, but not all laws alter social behavior. If demand remained sufficient, supply would come onstream through other channels. The belief in legislative power is strong, but a bit misplaced.

Perhaps recreational drug possession is a good comparison -- there is currently a 'war' on this that has gone on for a number of years, but demand is resilient, providing the profit margin that justifies the risky supply and pays for the palms that need to be greased along the way. Is it so hard to believe the suppliers of firearms in an economy where they were illegal would not simply move downstream from the politicians to the policemen and customs officers, and apply pressure there?

I personally think a change in the role of guns in American culture would be a positive thing. (Who doesn't?) I respect though that when a country starts from mass private firearm ownership, it's very different starting position to say -- no private firearm ownership at all. International comparisons can be thin ice. And I would also suggest that you'd have to transplant a few images also out of the culture -- all those shoot-em-ups, defiant resistance to the last historical landmarks. And these images are not just historical -- they are reinforced quite regularly by entertainment media. Every time I see a shoot up at a school or a workplace in the world, I find myself thinking about the foyer shoot out in THE MATRIX and how much damage that might have done.

(Having said all that, regulatory restraint is a starting point.)

Thanks, Christopher. You make some excellent points as well. I've always found it curious how people can ignore the part about "well-regulated militia", as it kinda underlines the fact that we're dealing with a very different period in time. I have seen people argue for why it should be ignored, and they do seem to make interesting points. In any case, it would have been nice if the amendment had expanded a tad on this point.



Very good points, which is why I doubt the effects of strict gun control would be immediate. I do think however that there might be a bit of apples and oranges going on here, or perhaps apples and a different variety of apples. I do think that things that can give immediate pleasure (release of endorfins and all that) like sex, food, alcohol and other drugs does, where addiction is so commonly seen, is a different animal than guns. I've no doubt that people can become obsessed with guns, just like any other hobby, but I don't think being without them will cause the same primal cravings as the other examples.

Christopher's point about economics is also good. While ordinary americans will be able to find their guns, they will cost more and more once outlawed, and it will make it more difficult for, say, a desperate, drug addict living on the streets to get his hands on a piece, to commit his next hold up.

Peter

It's all Obama's fault.

Don't forget sleeping with the sheriff's wife

Continuing the theme from my earlier posts about the limits of consitutional amendments to change behaviour, this article is an interesting criticism of the implied agenda of Spielberg's LINCOLN:
http://jacobinmag.com/2012/11/lincoln-a … adicals-2/

(Mind you -- what they're saying is a lot more needs to be done from the top than just an amendment for an amendment to take root. The subject is slavery, not firearm culture, but I think you could come to the same conclusion here. An amendment is a good start, but it may end up being a dead letter without a popular movement making the law common practice across the land.)

Seems like the link is dead, Michael?

Hah. It's working again now. Apparently the entire site was experiencing a glitch when I first tried it.

Good points one and all. I must stress I'm all for action. Just I feel enduring action needs to be as carefully designed and ripe for acceptance as any government policy.

I agree. Anyway, I'm sure that what Obama is currently cooking up, won't be anything close to a ban. Attitudes do indeed have to change first, to the point where it won't be political suicide anymore to propose such a bill. Alas it will probably take a couple more decades of mass killings before it happens, and the final straw in that distant future will likely be another big massacre involving children. Sounds pessimistic, but that's how reality works sadly.

Peter

Good point.
But as smoking isn't constitutional, it's a bit easier to move against it without resistors invoking constitutional rights (devillishly hard to change).

Not sure how I feel about that picture, give it a couple more years and might make for some hot cosplay action.

Unfortunately even if that is a staged photo there are more than enough real ones out there.

Moronic cretins.