Yes, I do:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 06da87870f
I was not able to access it, I’ve reached my limit of free articles. Tell me what it said and how the author knows that some set of as yet unspecified regulations will not have a positive effect. Whatever study you cite there will be others that support the opposite conclusion.
Here is the entire text. Scatterplot graphic not included:Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 21st, 2018, 11:54 am
I was not able to access it, I’ve reached my limit of free articles. Tell me what it said and how the author knows that some set of as yet unspecified regulations will not have a positive effect. Whatever study you cite there will be others that support the opposite conclusion.
Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 21st, 2018, 11:54 am
The main point of your argument, however, is that we should not attempt to implement new regulations because that will lead to banning guns. It is the same kind of factless slippery slope argument trotted out whenever someone is opposed to change they do not want.
The article is not about reductions in gun deaths but reductions in homicide rates.Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.
There is a well known problem with this. There are no impediments to bringing guns across state lines.… it seems to me that the key question should focus on state total homicide rates …
A general “tendency” does not stand as a fact showing that any regulation of guns will lead to a ban on guns. It may be that some gun advocates fear this possibility and want to instill this fear in others, but this fear does not establish a causal relationship. It is nothing more than fear mongering that attempts to preclude any measure to regulate guns.Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."
Of course. But the correlation is the best evidence we have for the effectiveness of those laws.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 21st, 2018, 2:14 pm GE,
This is an argument not conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of nation wide gun regulations. As he says:
Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.
Yes, for the excellent reason he gives.The article is not about reductions in gun deaths but reductions in homicide rates.
That's true. Nationally, about 30% of guns used in crimes are bought out-of-state. But "Research has shown that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime were initially purchased lawfully. But through loss, theft and other channels, those guns make their way into the hands of people who use them for illegal purposes."In addition, it focuses on state rather than federal regulations:
There is a well known problem with this. There are no impediments to bringing guns across state lines.
That is true too. But "A vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings were bought legally and with a federal background check."Another problem is that it does not address the problem of mass shootings. The majority of people killed by mass shootings would not have died if the assailant had a knife.
The best evidence of the effectiveness of gun regulations would be to implement them and analyse the actual empirical results.Of course. But the correlation is the best evidence we have for the effectiveness of those laws.
You used the article to show that you know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact on gun deaths. You do not and the article does not support your claim.Yes, for the excellent reason he gives.The article is not about reductions in gun deaths but reductions in homicide rates.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ublic.htmlSo what federal regulation would you suggest that would make any visible dent in this problem --- other than banning firearms?
A two-pronged solution would (1) prohibit potentially dangerous individuals (members of identified groups) from purchasing or possessing firearms, and enact red flag laws, and (2) enforce this ban with universal background checks (that is, requiring everyone seeking to purchase a firearm to undergo a rigorous background check).
Yikes. I hope you wouldn't advocate building bridges or marketing pharmaceuticals on that basis. "Let's build it and see if it falls down." "Let's market it and see if it does any good."
No; on gun homicides. And I know the regs tried so far have not reduced them in the jurisdictions where they've been enacted.You used the article to show that you know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact on gun deaths. You do not and the article does not support your claim.
I fully agree with (2). But as I said earlier, where a demand exists a black market will always develop to fill it.A two-pronged solution would (1) prohibit potentially dangerous individuals (members of identified groups) from purchasing or possessing firearms, and enact red flag laws, and (2) enforce this ban with universal background checks (that is, requiring everyone seeking to purchase a firearm to undergo a rigorous background check).
Both building bridges and the marketing (as well as the development) of pharmaceuticals are based on empirical evidence and testing not on arguments of whether or not they are effective. We would have neither bridges nor pharmaceuticals without trial and error.I hope you wouldn't advocate building bridges or marketing pharmaceuticals on that basis.
The article is not about gun homicides but total homicides:No; on gun homicides.
GE:To begin with, here’s why I focus on total homicide, rather than gun homicide or all gun deaths.
That is not conclusive evidence that regulations do not work. At best it shows that regulations that have been enacted so far have not worked. One reason that might not have worked is that they are not wide enough or thorough enough.And I know the regs tried so far have not reduced them in the jurisdictions where they've been enacted.
We have been through this before. The Scalia court’s interpretation of the Constitution is questionable. It may be that cases that will come before the Court with its current members will favor your interpretation, but if the makeup of the court was different the decision might be different. The court was split 5-4 in Heller. Trump might get yet another appointment.(1) is a problem, however. Such a law would be unconstitutional, infringing not only the 2nd Amendment but the 1st (freedom of speech and assembly) and the 5th (due process). The government may not deny someone exercise of a constitutional right based on their political views, their associations, or upon what some bureaucrat thinks they might do.
That is your opinion, one not shared by the experts consulted in the articles cited.I asked for a regulation that would make a dent in the mass-shootings problem, short of banning guns. Given that nearly all of those weapons passed background checks and none of those shooters were members of any shady groups, you can expect the impact of the regulation you cite to be negligible.
Slippery slope arguments rather reflect inability to understand ratcheting up through a slope of decision making.Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."
True, a slippery slope argument is a false prophesy. His arguments here not only assume a false determinism, but they also assume that prevailing general social and economic conditions won't significantly change, but the latter is almost certain in these volatile times.Belindi wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2018, 6:50 pm GEMorton wrote:
Slippery slope arguments rather reflect inability to understand ratcheting up through a slope of decision making.Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."
Absolutely right. We have tested numerous gun regulations, in the "50 laboratories of democracy." And the results suggest they have not been effective.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2018, 4:59 pm
Both building bridges and the marketing (as well as the development) of pharmaceuticals are based on empirical evidence and testing not on arguments of whether or not they are effective. We would have neither bridges nor pharmaceuticals without trial and error.
The article is (for the good reasons Volokh gives), but my comment ("No; on gun homicides"), wasn't. It was a response to this comment of yours: "You used the article to show that you know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact on gun deaths." I made no claim about gun deaths. That includes suicides, which is a separate issue (and, in my view, not subject to public policy).The article is not about gun homicides but total homicides:No; on gun homicides.
To begin with, here’s why I focus on total homicide, rather than gun homicide or all gun deaths.
Well, that's why I asked for a suggested regulation that might work. The one you offered has two parts, one of which has been tried, and is current law, and the other is facially unconstitutional.That is not conclusive evidence that regulations do not work. At best it shows that regulations that have been enacted so far have not worked. One reason that might not have worked is that they are not wide enough or thorough enough.
(I assume you meant "impact"). But no, I did not claim that. I support universal background checks, but have never claimed they would have any significant impact (due to the black market problem). Their impact will be slight, as the evidence to date clearly shows.If you agree with #2, universal background checks of all gun sales, then you contradict your own claim that regulation will not have an appreciable impart.
I'd be surprised if even the "liberal" justices would support a law imposing penalties based solely on someone's beliefs or associations, but who has neither committed nor threatened any crime. Numerous cases, mostly concerning religious beliefs, but also political beliefs, support that view. In Brandenburg c. Ohio the Court ruled that even prohibitions on speech advocating violence were violations of the First Amendment.The Scalia court’s interpretation of the Constitution is questionable. It may be that cases that will come before the Court with its current members will favor your interpretation, but if the makeup of the court was different the decision might be different. The court was split 5-4 in Heller. Trump might get yet another appointment.(1) is a problem, however. Such a law would be unconstitutional, infringing not only the 2nd Amendment but the 1st (freedom of speech and assembly) and the 5th (due process). The government may not deny someone exercise of a constitutional right based on their political views, their associations, or upon what some bureaucrat thinks they might do.
The evidence there speaks for itself.That is your opinion, one not shared by the experts consulted in the articles cited.I asked for a regulation that would make a dent in the mass-shootings problem, short of banning guns. Given that nearly all of those weapons passed background checks and none of those shooters were members of any shady groups, you can expect the impact of the regulation you cite to be negligible.
Egads. What does that mean?Belindi wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2018, 6:50 pm GEMorton wrote:
Slippery slope arguments rather reflect inability to understand ratcheting up through a slope of decision making.Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."
If mandatory, as in Oz, it would not be possible due to the 2nd Amendment. Voluntary buybacks have been tried in several cities, with no significant impact.
We have not tested the regulations that do not exist. You are like the guy who stood there before the first successful bridge was built long ago saying don’t try to build a bridge it’s been tried and has failed.We have tested numerous gun regulations, in the "50 laboratories of democracy." And the results suggest they have not been effective.
Anyone who is interested can retrace the argument.I made no claim about gun deaths.
The current system has problems and loopholes.The one you offered has two parts, one of which has been tried ...
Federally licensed firearms dealers are required by federal law to conduct background checks on prospective buyers, but private (unlicensed) sellers are not. Some states require background checks for private sales, usually through a licensed intermediary, but others have few to no regulations on private gun sales.
https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-t ... state.html
Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act contains restrictions on who can buy a gun. Those who opposed it claimed it was unconstitutional, but it is the law and has not been successfully challenged. Those restrictions can, and likely will, be extended to others who can be shown to pose a danger.… the other is facially unconstitutional.
You said:But no, I did not claim that.
You have made your position clear. I do not agree. What more is there to be said?Yes, they do. Because banning guns is the only regulation that will have any appreciable impact on the problem, and where that approach must eventually lead.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023