You say that things like background checks aren't extreme, but the pro-gun lobby sees those as extreme (and those in power see them as the toe in the door), and responds accordingly.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 4:08 pm
Blackhawk wrote:Sure. But then the general voter screams that we have to solve the problem here and now, and rejects any solution that doesn't end the threat immediately ("It's not enough!"), while suggesting absurd solutions (like banning all firearms, or limiting them to a three-round capacity) that will never happen, followed by voting out any pro-gun-control politicians who don't try extreme measures that will never get passed and serve mostly to inflame the opposition...
Well that's certainly an interesting take. The problem with getting gun control legislation passed is because the left is too extreme.
Over and over and over again the left has tried to pass common sense gun control legislation in various states. Not extreme. Not banning all firearms. Simple things like background checks and red flag laws *that most responsible gun owners WANT* and the GOP has continuously shot every bit of it down. Over and over and over. The problem does not lie with people who want stronger oversight on these weapons. The problem lies with people who continuously find ways to make excuses as to why this problem can't be solved.
The problem doesn't lie with either. The problem lies with flaws in the system that allows the GOP to shoot every bit of it down, over and over, and with the element of our society that rewards them for it.
I'm not making excuses, and I don't think it can't be solved. I think it can't be solved by acting like flies trying get through a window and repeatedly slamming our faces into something that isn't going to budge.
I think it can
be solved by approaching it with a consistent, thought-out plan that ends in the problem being solved rather than the blind flailing we do every time there is a story on the news. Every time five or ten or twenty people are killed at once (when there are ~120 people shot and killed every day), everyone shouts, "Oh no! 18 people were killed. Quick! Do something! It didn't work the last few times we tried it, but common sense is that it really should
work, so let's do it again instead of trying something else!"
I'm saying it's time to try something else.
If you want an actual suggestion from a non-expert? I'll give it a non-researched, off-the-top-of-my-head try. A team of actual political, legal, and psychological experts could do much better. So, with that in mind, here's my brainstormed rough draft.
We need to step back, let the issue cool down a little (right now anything that touches on guns in any way is strongly opposed and blocked, and strong action against guns mostly backfires in an era when we can't afford the backlash), and start with the peripheral issues, like mental health, the way shooters are glorified by the media, the enforcement of existing laws, and continuing the cultural shift that's been taking place over the last ~15 years (ever notice how few 'hero with a gun' shows are on TV now compared to then?)
Meanwhile, start working on reforming the systems that prevent
common-sense solutions from working (like the Supreme Court, Congress, and some of the worst abuses of social media.) Obviously, those are also long-term projects that won't be fixed overnight, but we can start moving in the right direction, and it will start to help - a little. It wont be dramatic, and it won't bring about dramatic change. Then we move on to the next less-controversial measure, then the next. Before we address each, we look at the problems that it is likely to encounter, and move to address those first
- you know, playing three moves ahead rather than making it up as we go an hoping it'll work. And as the culture continues to shift, and as the old guard dies off, the opposition will decrease, and the progress will accelerate.
Instead of trying to cut gun violence 50% right now and failing, we look for a way to cut gun violence by 2% per year for 25 years (completely invented numbers for illustration.) In one approach we end up with 0%, but with the other we may actually see progress. The problem is that people aren't willing to settle for the 2%, and keep choosing the 0%.
My whole point is that it's time to wise up and start stacking the 2% up.
But we won't. We'll go for the 50%, then do it again next time this happens.
Bzzz *bonk.* Bzzz *bonk.* Bzzz *bonk.*