I don’t see that as a problem at all. If a state’s population (which is far more homogenous than a nation’s population) feels it doesn’t want assault weapons, they should be allowed to not have assault weaapons. That’s their right. If they want guns, they should be allowed to have them. But this gridlock between populous states and more rural states leaves both unsatisified and is suboptimal.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY, to the extent that most gun advocates see gun ownership as a check against an oppresive federal government, regulating it at the state level allows a state to repeal gun laws in such an event and arm up, if that population no longer felt the federal government was serving them. In this way, you maintain the spirit of the law. As a gun nut that views this as my primary objection, I find it FAR more palitable to live under this regime than a federally appointed ban. It’s an important distinction that explains why so many gun nuts support this framework.
why would this be the case? I could see SOME states completely getting rid of guns, while others would maintain the status quo. Then when all the law abiding citizens realize they’re fish in a barrel, they will either move to a propserous gun-toting state or change the laws back.
What else is good is that hopefully this system will allow a whole lot more flexibility and approaches to be put into place so based on the resulting experiential evidence the country will be able to continue to evolve its gun laws.
J****, I want this system so bad. I’m a genius. I’m talking like Apple store level genius.
I fully support your platform. Really, it’s an elegant solution.
Now, who would have the balls to propose something like this? The right can’t because NRA. The left won’t because it doesn’t fully (federally) address the AR issue. And, libertarians won’t because 2nd Amendment.
@Bchad. Always good thoughts. Of course the map looks very blue because radical muslims make up a small portion of a very small Muslim US population (1-4% depending on which source you use). The problem with this map and the thoughts behind it is it’s trying to compare two seemingly similar, but actually very different groups. What it’s saying is that radical muslims are a small problem when compared to mass killings overall. I don’t disagree with that (again why I’m actually in favor of very strict gun laws). Where the argument falls apart is that generally, mass shootings are very hard to predict. Yes they have a lot of similarities (the person is emotionally unstable, recluse, whackjob, etc…), but are so random. With radical Islam, there is usually a much more noticeable pattern. It can still be hard to pinpoint, but I’d bet the farm the odds are much higher. This is why this map and the ongoing Dem/Left arguments fall flat in my opinion.
Firstly, it doesn’t contain any outright restrictions on ownership and surprisingly most gun owners are supportive of stricter laws around ownership, particularly on the state level.
Secondly and most importantly, this ensures gun ownership and 2nd ammendment protection from federal overreach once and for all (or at least in the near to mid term). All of the gun nut states no longer have to worry about a federal overreach, you’re completely alleviating their concerns and the progressive states get to have their ban. I think most gun owners like myself would take that deal all day.
^ i haven’t read it, but you are you saying putting all gun regulation at the state level is your idea? hmmm.
anyway, there are so many instances where regulation at the state level is far superior. i wonder why so many average americans don’t understand this or resist it. Taleb is 100% right,on this matter - in order for a system overall (in this case a nation) to thriive it must have a mechanism for tinkering with ways of doing things, while taking on little systemic risk. States rights accomplishes this, while top down federal impositions achieve the exact opposite. By trying to eliminate uncertainty through control, they create gigantic systemic risks (e.g. in this case the possibility of a citizens revolt against a government that tries to force a uniform way of life on a vastly diverse population).
BChad, a mass shooting is defined as more than 4 people wounded or killed. This applies to gang shootings, work disputes, domestic violence etc etc etc. This is what the map shows.
But when most people think mass shootings, they have a very different connotation. If you were to isolate high casualty, public shootings like what happened in Orlando or perhaps even weigh it by casualties, the map would look different.
The point is to have regulation on the state level, but the framework (which is worth reading) is a federal series of laws that would enhance the effectiveness of state actions and put states in the driver’s seat.
I’m a HUGE Taleb fan and agree iwth your take on that.
I saw your post and reflexively began to formulate the pro-gun control debate in my mind to respond, haha. It was a very surreal experience being on the other side of the debate.
It was interesting to see clearly that the state vs federal level is really my only sticking point based on my response.
If we take seriously the notion that the point of bearing arms is to place a check on federal power, then SAMs and all sorts of military equipment should be kosher. The wealthy can own tanks and howitzers. Otoh, if the point of the 2A is to provide a mode of self defense or hunting it wouldn’t make sense. That said 2A is very clearly talking about arms in s military context, not in a self-defense/hunting role.
My opinion: 2A in letter and spirit gives people vast freedom to own arms. But if we really start taking some of these notions that underpin the 2A seriously, it becomes clear that the 2A is anachronistic and written with a very different world in mind. I am not sure any policy proposals will work without repealing 2A.
And that’s the great debate among libertarians and other 2nd Amendment advocates. If the amendment truly exists to keep federal power in check, then citizens need to be able to own weapons that could actually stand a chance against the US military. Anarcho-libertarians even believe in private ownership of nuclear weapons. Owning 20 ARs on your ranch in Idaho isn’t going to stop a few marines from killing you.
As very few people fit very nicely into any ideology, this is really my only problem with libertarians. They (we) take the constitution as gospel. However, if you take the 2nd Amendment literally, we’re already way out of bounds. Now it comes to degrees of sensibility.
I like BS’ plan because I’m strongly in favor of States rights. But, that would still leave some weapons banned at a federal level (SAMs for instance). Unless we want to leave that up to the states too, and then we’ll have guys in Montana with ICBMs. So, no matter what, some weapons will always be federally outlawed. That underminds the state’s right to choose…tricky issue.