Project Steelman: Gun Control

[trenton]

I have been working on project steelman for a couple months now. I came to an issue in which I seem to have gotten genuinely stumped as to what can realistically be done. Not only do policy suggestions have weak empirical backing, but the political stakes also seem nearly impossible to overcome in America given extreme polarization and ideological disagreements. Attempting to legislate such things would realistically lead to a gridlock with no sustained solution passing.

Gun Control is a uniquely American problem, probably because of the Second Amendment which itself has an ambiguous meaning. Some dispute the preamble regarding the regulated Militia because it may be referring to the scope of the Amendment. 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is a part in this Amendment that throws me off. It talks about a Militia being necessary. I remember that this was supposedly for the American people in case the government became tyrannical so we could overthrow them. The problem is that I am not convinced that the emerging government would necessarily be any less tyrannical depending on how the new government forms in the event of a seemingly successful revolution against the government. Additionally, the American government has been extensively designed in a way that makes it resistant to attempted revolutions. I struggle to imagine a scenario in which this would go well for anybody. This is certainly something we should avoid. Imagine where America would be if the January sixth attacks were successful and MAGA killed countless officials while taking over the government themselves.

Furthermore, although mass shootings drive a lot of the emotional pull around this debate, most gun deaths are the result of suicide. Personally, I don't believe I would be alive if I had access to a gun because I could have killed myself much more easily while I was stuck living with a family of drug addicts. Means prevention is the most effective way of preventing suicide. Another part I am skeptical of is the idea of using a gun for self-defense. My main objection on this point is that if too many people have guns, then there is the problem of attackers having the first move and therefore the element of surprise. The outcome is that I would expect attackers to be more successful than defenders because the defender draws his arm second. On a big enough scale, I would then imagine that overall we would all be less safe if more people had guns. There is again the problem of empirically measuring such things, so I can't be certain about these ideas.

If we are dealing with a country in which there are more guns than people and the government comes to a standstill when attempting to pass legislation which may not even be enforced, then I start to become stumped in terms of what could even be done. I never really came up with a convincing method of suicide prevention in these scenarios if people often purchase guns illegally anyway. There are background checks and licensing which can therefore easily be circumvented.

If suicide by firearm seems difficult to prevent, then we could try homicide and mass shooting prevention. To my understanding, women generally feel less safe in a home with an intimate partner if there is a gun in the house because of the increased likelihood of homicide from an abusive partner. From this standpoint, I would imagine that preventing abusive relationships should give people a means of exiting such situations. This can include things like avoiding isolation and maintaining contact with other support networks such as friends and family. If our lives revolve too much around intimate partners, we would create a situation of co-dependence which would become difficult to leave. Having regular check ins with an outside perspective would be important for ensuring people don't end up trapped with someone homicidal. This is part of the problem with modern romantic relationships as they are commonly structured in ways that enable abuse if it comes with isolation from others. I believe organizing relationships more consciously to avoid isolation is a strategy that works independently of government gridlock. This might be something the people would have more leverage over when it comes to safety.

When it comes to preventing mass shootings, the best I could come up with would be the security measure of dispersing the target. One of the reasons schools are common targets is because they are crowded with a lot of targets. A larger quantity of schools combined with smaller classroom sizes and online courses where applicable would help keep schools less crowded, thereby reducing the number of children killed per attack, assuming we can't prevent all attacks. We can't guarantee that parents will actually pay attention to children enough to discover they are looking at gore forums which glorify violence. Some schools have started using metal detectors in case kids do try to come in with weapons, though this is criticized for security theater while making students feel less safe and presently lacking clear proof that this really deters attackers.

Personally, I am kind of lost when it comes to what data is reliable from a policy standpoint. Policy doesn't seem to be particularly helpful if the government will realistically be stuck in a gridlock over the second amendment. that said, the best leverage I can see on this issue would be looking for ways to make us more secure without needing to go through gun control policy. It looks like there are some ways to circumvent this problem, though I don't know how successful or impactful the changes would be at scale.

What can you come up with for project steelman on this issue.

[Basman]

I think the 2nd amendment is kinda outdated. We don't need militias anymore, private people, to run security and we haven't had to for over a century. The whole stipulation is centered around the necessity of militias, if I'm interpreting it correctly. People interpret it as a blank right to own guns with no stipulation or purpose. 

But guns are part of American identity, which is why its not going to change much. Other countries have very little hang ups over banning guns in contrast if they serve no functional need. The monkey, the man, then the gun. 

[Basman]

Americans have no chance at beating the military. It's a pipedream that they can meaningfully resist. At best they can hope to outlast the military till it exhausts itself politically. Guerilla tactics has outlasted the US military before, but no American wants to pay that cost realistically. Nobody wants to be at the tail end of an MQ-1 Predator. You can't see it, but it can see you.

Strong institutions are much more meaningful at curbing government corruption by a longshot. And the US already has some of the strongest institutions in the world. Americans are just being dumb. 

[trenton]

A common argument from gun rights defenders goes as follows. I will keep looking for better arguments because this one doesn't hold in my opinion.

Premise 1: A person has a right to life.

Premise 2: Given a right to life, it is almost universally accepted that a person has a right to defend himself if someone tries to harm him.

Premise 3: In the event that a person had to fight someone bigger or stronger, the weaker person would realistically lose without a weapon.

Conclusion: The right to self-defense is hollow if a person does not have access to the means of defending themselves. If a gun is that means of defending themselves, then people should be allowed to own guns.

The main objection to this argument is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. First of all, if the logic is applied consistently, then a five year old with the right to defend himself should be allowed to use a gun. The problem is that a five year old does not have the capacity for sound judgment, and most gun rights defenders would agree that a five year old should not have guns. If the right to own a gun is capacity based, then this opens up many fronts with which to dispute the right to gun ownership such as drug addicts or violent felons who demonstrate poor judgment. Therefore, the right to defend oneself does not entail entitlement to gun ownership.

The rebuttal in this case succeeds in establishing that gun rights can be reasonably restricted if a person demonstrates poor capacity for sound judgment. This leads to a point where both sides agree. The bad guys shouldn't have the guns and we shouldn't have people with AR-15s running schools shooting kids. There may also be a fair case for people with depression or suicidal behaviors because they would be much more likely to kill themselves due to medical problems. In the end, I believe background checks would be a justified and defensible decision if the right to own a gun is ultimately capacity based in terms of a person's capacity for sound judgment.

This probably isn't the best argument from gun rights defenders, so I will keep looking.

[Leo Gura]

It would be funny if it was called Project Strawman.

[trenton]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It would be funny if it was called Project Strawman.

If my goal were comedy, then I would definitely do that. My goal would be to make the dumbest arguments I possibly could.

For my purposes, my goal is to find the strongest arguments and see how they hold when compared to different counter arguments.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, trenton said:

my goal is to find the strongest arguments

Good, good!

[trenton]

@Leo Gura

Currently the problem I am noticing with the pro gun position is that the second amendment is load bearing. In my effort to create a steel man, I am looking for a philosophical argument for the right to own a gun independent of any legal assertion that such a right exists.

Presently, I haven't found a solid argument for the right to own a gun that stands on its own regardless of the second amendment or regardless of any legal system. I will keep looking though.

So far it looks like we have the right to bear arms because the second amendment says so, making it uniquely American and not really an inalienable right.

I tend to naturally lean anti-gun because I didn't like being around a bunch of crazy drug addicts who couldn't be trusted with anything and a gun would have been way worse if they had one.

I recall that at the end of the day, rights are inherently social constructs, so they must be groundless when questioned deeply enough. If there is no real right to bear arms, then maybe we would be better off without the second amendment, although realistically it is here to stay.

[Leo Gura]

@trenton There is no right to own a gun. There is no right to anything.

But that doesn't mean we must outlaw guns.

The only justification you need is freedom. You can simply take the position that you believe some number of deaths are worth the benefit of being able to play with guns.

That's the most honest ground. Inventing rationalizations is not smart.

There are many dangerous items you are allowed to own in any country. Why draw the line at guns? It is an arbitrary line.

Edited 15 hours ago by Leo Gura

[trenton]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@trenton There is no right to own a gun. There is no right to anything.

But that doesn't mean we must outlaw guns.

The only justification you need is freedom. You can simply take the position that you believe some number of deaths are worth the benefit of being able to play with guns.

That's the most honest ground. Inventing rationalizations is not smart.

There are many dangerous items you are allowed to own in any country. Why draw the line at guns? It is an arbitrary line.

The idea of some number of deaths being worth the benefit of playing with guns sounds like it would be criticized for its priorities.

The second argument that many dangerous items are allowed seems more interesting to me. I remember the argument "why are there so many knives in London?" In that case my argument was that guns are more efficient at killing than knives because they don't require you to close the distance in a mass shooting. This makes more people die in mass attacks compared to knives. The number of deaths per attack is lower by comparison.

There is also the problem of owning cars and gasoline. If mass shooters didn't have a gun, then they might try filling a car with explosives and crashing them into crowded areas like a suicide bomber.

I think the problem with this counter argument from me is that it is narrow in scope to mass killings. Most guns are used for suicide or homicide. Likewise most knives in London are used for single attacks and they are kitchen knives. I always felt scared of kitchen knives as well, but there isn't really much that can be done about that. 

I started connecting removing the second amendment with the prohibition of alcohol. Weapons trafficking would probably sky rocket and there would probably be more deaths than prohibition.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, trenton said:

The idea of some number of deaths being worth the benefit of playing with guns sounds like it would be criticized for its priorities.

So what?

That is the truth of what gun nuts want. Own it.

Guns are useful for security and hunting too.

[trenton]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So what?

That is the truth of what gun nuts want. Own it.

Guns are useful for security and hunting too.

If guns cause harm to third parties due to being designed to injury or kill, then it makes sense to restrict how or where they can be used. Should you be allowed to take a gun just anywhere to play with it, like a bank or a school? It is similar to why you can't smoke just anywhere as enjoying cigarettes harms third parties.

If I concede that guns are useful for hunting, then that is narrow in scope regarding gun use. If guns are useful for security then that justifies the military and police having guns. If the general population has guns, then that doesn't necessarily improve security if now anybody can walk into school with a gun. There would need to be much better enforcement to prevent people from taking guns to places where guns are not supposed to be.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, trenton said:

If the general population has guns, then that doesn't necessarily improve security if now anybody can walk into school with a gun.

In general yes, but in particular there is value in the freedom for a person to decide he needs a gun for protection and use it responsibly.

Just because idiots misuse guns doesn't mean the freedom should be taken away from everyone. Freedom is a real value and has a real cost. Freedom requires responsibility.

The best argument is freedom. You want to live in a free society, not a nanny state for dum-dums.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Raze]

14 hours ago, Basman said:

Americans have no chance at beating the military. It's a pipedream that they can meaningfully resist. At best they can hope to outlast the military till it exhausts itself politically. Guerilla tactics has outlasted the US military before, but no American wants to pay that cost realistically. Nobody wants to be at the tail end of an MQ-1 Predator. You can't see it, but it can see you.

Strong institutions are much more meaningful at curbing government corruption by a longshot. And the US already has some of the strongest institutions in the world. Americans are just being dumb. 

That’s the point, if the government because authoritarian and ban enough Americans with guns could have the option of outlasting them with guerrilla tactics 

[trenton]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because idiots misuse guns doesn't mean the freedom should be taken away from everyone. Freedom is a real value and has a real cost. Freedom requires responsibility.

Firstly, what counts as misuse of a gun and what would proper use be?

Secondly, why would the value of freedom in this context outweigh the real cost that involves taking freedom away from others?

Thirdly, how do we determine who is responsible enough to handle this kind of freedom?

Currently, the best argument I can imagine for pro gun would be "I like guns and I personally feel safer with access to a gun." In some situations I can imagine why a person would feel this way.

In my case my grandpa loved guns. He slept with a handgun under his pillow because it made him feel safer after a traumatic incident in which a gang tied him and his best friend up, accusing one of them of being a snitch. My grandpa lied to save his own life, sacrificing his friend's life. He had nightmares about this constantly after experiencing this, so he slept with a gun under his pillow in case any gang members discovered he was the snitch and they came after him. He was secretly working with the police.

For a person like this, not having a gun would sound insane because it would be a death sentence if gangs maintained access to illegal weapons and his address anyway.

I find this kind of argument more convincing because I knew my grandpa. I think a strong anti-gun argument should be able to take on a scenario like this. I'm having a hard time imagining how I would argue that my grandpa should not have a gun in this situation.

[Basman]

3 hours ago, Raze said:

That’s the point, if the government because authoritarian and ban enough Americans with guns could have the option of outlasting them with guerrilla tactics 

You will just import guns if your at that point of civil unrest like every other civil war across the world has. Even as is, rebels would still want to import bombs, drones, machine guns, ammo, etc. The Mexican cartel will run a gambit.

Point is, I think the militia justification is an outdated idea. Preparing for civil war is schizo. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Basman

[Basman]

The American fantasy of needing to combat an authoritarian takeover is funny because a lot of Americans would probably support it and see it as more legitimate than the current order if it where to happen. Trump's authoritarian and a sizable portion of Americans support Trump. People are at an all time distrust of the government. Why would they fight and die for it? 

[trenton]

@Basman what kind of tyrannical government do you think the pro gun position is imagining? I would understand that a coup would be justified in the event of Nazi Germany leading a genocide. There were attempted assassinations, but they failed.

Meanwhile, the attempted coup on January 6th was over an election that was allegedly stolen with the evidence being extremely weak. This is part of why I argued that even if we did overthrow the American government, we would probably end up being run by a government which solely allows MAGA supporters and no one else. Why wouldn't they start a genocide against immigrants in captivity given this kind of power?

[Schizophonia]

Banning weapons for people with a criminal or psychiatric record

[Basman]

1 hour ago, trenton said:

@Basman what kind of tyrannical government do you think the pro gun position is imagining? I would understand that a coup would be justified in the event of Nazi Germany leading a genocide. There were attempted assassinations, but they failed.

Meanwhile, the attempted coup on January 6th was over an election that was allegedly stolen with the evidence being extremely weak. This is part of why I argued that even if we did overthrow the American government, we would probably end up being run by a government which solely allows MAGA supporters and no one else. Why wouldn't they start a genocide against immigrants in captivity given this kind of power?

I don't think Americans would be all that unified against an authoritarian regime if it came to power if many of them percieve it as more legimitimate and American than what we have now. Or just don't care.

You have already people who are in support of ICE rounding up illegals and shooting lib protesters. Purging them in camps would be like setting things straight. Plus, an authoriarian regime would clamp down on the press because its better then that people don't think about politics. You might not even know about any purges going on.

I think a civil war would be fought by a minority against the rest of the country + the military. But I could be wrong. 

Edited 10 minutes ago by Basman