Hear hear. HN was much better than average throughout this whole affair. There were heated arguments, but it was (mostly) civil and people at least took the time to elaborate on their positions.<p>I wish the same could be said for my Facebook feed (and why I wish I could keyword-filter my Facebook feed), which were full of snarky one-liners, catchphrases, and image memes from both sides of the aisle (well, mostly the pro gun control side, given my demographics) - none of which is productive.<p>These simplistic sound bites (image bites?) add no understanding to the discourse, oversimplify a <i>massively</i> complicated issue, and are nothing more than self-congratulatory feel-good rhetoric that serve to further polarize and separate the two sides.<p>It's not unique to this shooting though - the dumbing-down and meme-ification of my Facebook feed has been increasing for some time, across all age groups I'm friends with. People don't express themselves anymore and opt to share an oversimplistic, insipid image macro instead - even distinctively non-Redditor middle aged people on my friends list do this.
See also: <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/" rel="nofollow">http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_...</a><p>In short: Tighter gun control might help on net, or it might be harmful on net. But whichever is right, we shouldn't pretend that the option that's better on net has <i>no downsides</i>, that it is a <i>strict</i> improvement, which is what people tend to do.
Coming from a country where you essentially can't own guns (sport is an exception, and very tightly controlled), it strikes me as odd that anyone would want to own one, for personal defence, or reasons of freedom. And on first thought it seems obvious that tighter gun control will prevent gun crime.<p>However I think the issue is far more complicated than this. As I understand it, a large number of countries allow guns to a larger extent than my own, Canada being a good example, but they don't suffer from the increased gun crime. Deaths relating to guns here and in Canada are roughly the same, as they are in most countries. But the US is consistently several orders of magnitude worse in gun related deaths than anywhere else.<p>Perhaps this is not a question of gun control, after all, if people really want a gun there is probably little that will stop them. Perhaps this is an issue of cultural attitudes to guns?
It is vitally important to recognise the complexity and uncertainty in deciding on these kinds of big issues. There will rarely be clear winners, and evidence is almost always partial and flawed.<p>BUT as a non-American citizen I can't understand why you would allow citizens to own semi-automatic weapons. The only purpose of these weapons is to kill other people (or hold the threat of such). Why not allow weapons for hunting (rifles, etc.) but criminalise anything allows you to simply hold down the trigger and count.
Suicidal lone-nuts need shouldn't be able to obtain guns. There are probably ways to do this without an outright ban, or excessive bureaucracy. I propose the following possible solutions:<p>1) Outlaw buying a gun by yourself, and require 10 co-signers, who assume personal liability for any misuse of the gun. Everyone must be free of a criminal record, and take an oath to follow the law.<p>2) Require liability insurance to own a gun like car insurance. The insurance company would ensure you aren't a threat, or they probably wouldn't provide you with liability insurance.
Prohibition is never a solution to anything. What we need is a cultural shift of some sort that involves identifying people in situations that lead to increased risk of later in life criminal activity and providing them the tools they need to escape that fate. This is more complicated than just thinking critically about gun control.<p>The goal isn't to create a perfect, utopian, society. It's to target certain statistics for reduction. It's hard to get elected on a platform that has a 10 year wait for results.
The situation we are in is quite simple actually. It is nothing more than a Nash equilibrium. Suboptimal, but stable...and nobody gains anything by changing their strategy. Everybody wants to disarm everybody but themselves.<p>The solution? Now that is complicated. Has anybody ever seen a Nash Equilibrium broken by anything other than a third party? What happens when neither side trusts the third party?