|
A few additional resources regarding gun control: 2013 WaPo article about the "Revolt in Cincinnati" by which Wayne LaPierre et al took over the NRA. Well-cited Kristof piece in NYT on different regulatory options and their likely effects on violence. BATF: A recently finalized rule on the definition of firearms that's a big deal; it was previously part of gun control bills, and its passage through admin law makes it easier to overturn, but realistically also makes gun control legislation easier to pass. This is often reported as responding just to "ghost guns", but it's a much broader overhaul of the core definitions used by the agency. CDC: Firearm Mortality by State Firearm stats hub, including links to related research. Note the CDC being allowed to study firearm violence is a recent change pushed through following past mass shootings with funding for such research starting in the last year or so, overturning a bar known as the "Dickey Amendment" in past budget bills. Coverage: The Trace is a nonprofit group that does advocacy journalism focused entirely on firearms. It's funded by Everytown for Gun Safety, which is itself largely funded by Michael Bloomberg. The Dems have so many gun control bills that I can't find a good single source for the currently active ones; the uniform limitation is the Senate.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
It would be good for you to take a bit and read the BATF rule I linked above, Mulva. This has already been addressed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Assuming the futility of regulation or gun control, and working backwards, is just internalizing and restating the rhetorical playbook of every regulated industry seeking to dismiss the viability of regulation. As others have stated, the fact that it is possible to violate a regulation or print a ghost gun does not make it somehow equally trivial or easy. Time to repost the reactionary rhetorics for a third time, I suppose: Since I originally developed it with examples from the NRA, and since the thread is currently functioning as a menagerie exhibit for them, here's a lightly updated version of my effortpost on rhetorical methods used to shut down and poo poo up policy discussion from the media thread. Hirschman's rhetorics, Or: how to poo poo up a policy discussion In this post we’re going to be looking at some arguments used by bad faith actors to short-circuit policy discussions. Identifying and diagnosing bad faith requires interpreting the mindset of the actor, and as a result it can be labor-intensive. This is as true in the press as on the forums. One way to approach this problem is to identify ill-formed arguments that are frequently deployed for this purpose. Trying to grapple with the seeming disconnects that led to the rise of conservatism and neoconservatism in the 1980s, Albert Hirschman attempted to identify the common roots of arguments against social change. This effort was supported by an analysis of historical writing around the time of events such as the British and French revolutions, including some of the classical canonical texts of political philosophy. The resulting book, The Rhetoric of Reaction, is the primary basis for this post (I’ve gone through and given some parts clearer names and more up-to-date examples). Hirschman ultimately identifies three "rhetorics of reaction", common reactionary forms of argument that are specifically deployed to argue against and ultimately derail policies of change. Hirschman also describes how the inverses of these arguments can be used to speciously argue for change, which he refers to as the three "progressive rhetorics" (unfortunately he spends much less time on these, since there are fewer examples from the historical periods he was focused on). Both kinds of rhetorics are, in Hirschman’s words, “arguments that are in effect contraptions specifically designed to make dialogue and deliberation impossible”. It’s important to emphasize at the start here that although these are called “reactionary” and “progressive” rhetorics, they’re not right and left-wing arguments. “Reactionary” in this case means argument against reform or change- any kind of reform or change. This is a conservative position only in a specific and limited sense. The progressive rhetorics are similarly applicable to left- or right-wing positions, depending on what policies they are arguing for or against. Bad faith sources can mix and match both kinds, because the effect is to paralyze discourse, not actually drive a particular change. The reactionary and progressive rhetorics are useful shorthand, but they should not be confused for complete or comprehensive tools of analysis; these rhetorics aren’t necessarily signs of bad faith on their own, and there are many other indicia of bad faith that can be discussed. Reactionary Rhetorics  Rhetorics of Perversity “Perversity” doesn’t necessarily mean gross or weird; it’s really arguments claiming that a given change will have the opposite of its intended effect. Reactionary positions often involve arguing against a popular movement, and there’s no better way to short-circuit advocacy for a popular idea than by telling its supporters that it will backfire. “If you ban guns, only the criminals(or the police) will have guns”. “If you give handouts, no one will want to work”. Advocates become forced to debate these claims, and from there the bad faith actor can deploy other methods to distract and derail the effort. Hirschman attributes the rise of these arguments to Burke and the effects of the French Revolution, but he also goes to great lengths to show how they were used to attack efforts to expand suffrage, as well as in arguments over welfare programs in the United States. In modern terms, these arguments often work by treating the potential limited backfire effects of a policy as if they will overwhelm the positive effects, and can play upon stereotypes about the people involved. A classic example is the 1980s “welfare queen”: a bullshit argument based on a single example that was transposed to the entire population.  Rhetorics of Futility Related to argument from perversity is argument from futility- that whatever you are trying to accomplish is destined to fail. Hirshman notes that over time, both of these rhetorics have shifted from appealing to divine order to appeals to human nature; where once a given progressive change was destined to fail because it struck against the “natural order” or would be undone by “providence”, nowadays we’re more likely to blame “people” or “society”. In the context of gun control, it's common to pretend that US gun culture is universal and immutable. Modern arguments from futility frequently deploy ill-structured, fundamentalist claims about criminality or human nature, and often make the buried assumption that the purpose of any change is to completely solve the problem on its own. Efforts to penalize toxic waste dumping will just make companies do it abroad, or they’ll just pay the fine. Putting pressure on organized crime in one area will just cause it to go underground or change locations, etc. Bad things are inevitable, or “bad” people are fundamentally bad. Efforts at change cannot succeed, and, according to the person abusing the rhetoric of futility, reflect the advocate’s ignorance of reality.  Rhetorics of Jeopardy Tax reform will destabilize the economy. Gay marriage will threaten to wreck marriage rates. [$politician] is going to tear up [$founding document]. The rhetoric of jeopardy argues that even if a proposed change seems desirable on its face, it will have other side effects that will destroy the current order. Note that these aren’t necessarily slippery slope arguments (though they can be). The rhetoric of jeopardy is about more than just a threat to the status quo; it’s about undoing other accomplishments. Hirschman provides, for one example, Friedrich von Hayek arguing about how vesting the government with welfare power could be used to threaten freedom: Freidrich von Hayek posted:Freedom is critically threatened when the government is given exclusive power to provide certain services—power which, in order to achieve its purpose, it must use for the discretionary coercion of individuals. Next, I’m going to go over the progressive rhetorics, and cover how to consider, identify and address cases where these lovely arguments are seeing heavy use in media or discourse. Hirschman’s progressive rhetorics Or: yes, these are also bad arguments Rhetoric of Synergy (or the rhetoric of “mutual support”) The new state of Puerto Rico may not vote Democratic. The kids of Latino immigrants in border states may not either- and if you invest everything in getting them a better life, you may be in for a deeply unpleasant surprise when they reach voting age. Inverting the the jeopardy thesis, the synergistic fallacy assumes that any change benefitting or improving any one group or policy area is automatically a net good that will last over time and benefit other policy efforts. This can be a root issue of naïve approaches to intersectional policy change, or of ultimatums for specific policies, often more divisive ones that limit the viability of other actions. Sophisticated political actors will actively encourage the use of wedge issues along the lines of the synergistic fallacy, because it winds up destroying support (and the voterbase) of their target group through infighting. Many of the focal issues of culture war topics are driven along this line. The synergistic fallacy often papers over backlash effects, or the presence of intersectional privileges or biases in benefited populations. A policy might truly benefit and lift up a group in need- but that doesn’t mean they’ll vote for other reforms, or that pursuing this policy doesn’t cost other, greater opportunities. A conservative example of the synergistic fallacy might be the interaction of anti-abortion activists with the Republican party, and the assumption that once the cause of an abortion ban is achieved, it will further benefit the broader regressive goals of the party. It doesn’t consistently work out that way, because satisfying the demands of this single-track group can mean they’re not activated to work for the benefit of other conservative goals. Rhetoric of Imminent Danger The jeopardy thesis can also be used to argue against inaction. Hirschman struggles to provide examples of the inverse of this aspect of the jeopardy argument, because the use of a similar framework to demand change is, well, still an argument from a sense of jeopardy (and the historical material he's working with is limited). In the straightforwardly pro-change context, though, this can be understood as a Moral obligation of immediate and complete change, requiring the replacement of prior, threatening sources of order with a new, privileged theory or reasoning. Reasoning from this thesis calls for immediate, no-questions-asked action: building the third temple, killing the nearest police, or invading the capitol building. This concept is also closely linked to accelerationist arguments, demanding the worsening of conditions and direct, immediate effects in the pursuit of transformative change. Rhetorics from this position demand that the audience “immanentize the eschateon”; in other words, hasten the apocalypse. In function, this goes hand-in-hand with the progressive perversity thesis, covered a bit later. In response to the conservative and progressive forms of the jeopardy thesis, Hirschman argues that the appropriate evaluation of policy requires a middle ground: “there are threats in both action and inaction. The risks of both should be canvassed, assessed, and guarded against to the extent possible.” Hirschman also emphasizes that threats aren’t known with the absolute certainty prescribed by “alarm-sounding Cassandras”; those who use the certainty of mutual support, or of a perceived threat, to dictate their arguments don’t want to let a discussion of the uncertainties happen. Rhetoric of Historical Law (“having history on one's side") ”Theodore Parker” posted:I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. ”Albert Hirschman” posted:If the essence of the “reactionary” futility thesis is the natural-law—like invariance of certain socioeconomic phenomena, then its “progressive” counterpart is the assertion of similarly lawlike forward movement, motion, or progress. Rhetoric of Ultimatum ”Albert Hirschman” posted:By insisting on the perfectibility of existing institutions as an argument against radical change, [Burke’s] Reflections may have contributed to a long line of radical writings that portray the situation of this or that country as being totally beyond repair, reform, or improvement. The short version: identifying the rhetorics in the wild The below basic definitions are modified from a table Hirschman provides. Rhetoric of Perversity: The proposed action will backfire and have the opposite of the intended effect. Rhetoric of Ultimatum: Anything but the proposed action will make things worse. Rhetoric of Jeopardy: The proposed reform or action will undo or threaten previous gains. Rhetoric of Synergy: The proposed action will automatically and mutually reinforce past actions and benefit future ones. Rhetoric of Imminent Danger: The proposed action must be undertaken immediately and strictly to address the problem, which is of singular importance. Rhetoric of Futility: The proposed action attempts to change permanent or natural rules; it is therefore bound to be worthless. Rhetoric of Historical Law: The proposed action is rooted in inescapable historical or religious forces; opposing them would be futile and pursuing their course is destiny. Weaponizing the rhetorics The progressive and reactionary rhetorics rarely appear one at a time. Instead, they arrive together in a jumble of attacks and assumptions, creating a powerful draw from which a discussion of reality struggles to emerge. At root, this is because all of the rhetorics involve counterfactual claims; assertions about what will happen in an alternative situation that isn’t presently true. This shifts an impossible burden onto opposing speakers; they must address a shifting hypothetical and, simultaneously, has to deal with the moral freight that the rhetorics provide: the user of the rhetoric is primed to attack them for, e.g., “threatening the American Way of Life” or “not caring about the people this would help”. Disgareeing is simultaneously amoral, futile or ignorant of the nature of the world, and will backfire to cause greater harm. On the other hand, a source making one of the arguments described in this post is not automatically wrong in a specific case; individual policies can be futile! But to work, their argument needs to be backed up by some form of empirical evidence, and the evidence needs to match the strength and breadth of the claim. If the argument uses the rhetorics to make an absolutely certain claim that can’t tolerate alternatives or discussion, it's not a meaningful contribution; it’s someone taking an ideologically motivated sledgehammer to good faith discussion. How to respond to Hirschman’s rhetorics The solution and method for addressing these rhetorics is to break the counterfactual with shades of grey: provide specific, factual information that addresses the underlying hypothetical. If the policy claim can’t be grounded in terms of its effects, and if those effects aren’t clear and limited and capable of falsification, then its claims aren’t really valid. Getting specific, getting details, and determining the actual consequences of a proposed action are good ways to turn a counterfactual into a claim that can be interrogated (more on claims in a future post). People in politics have read Hirschman; you will sometimes see the reactionary arguments deployed deliberately, in sequence, in whitepapers or political coverage. The rhetorics have filtered into broader culture and formed the basis of many people’s identities. Dogmatic, thought-terminating arguments are internalized and use to end conversation (the widespread distribution of reactionary rhetorics through new media forms is the phenomenon that drove Hirschman to write the book). Even if they're deployed accidentally, if a writer is routinely falling into a pattern of deploying these arguments, it's a sign that they're either caught up in an ideological framework that makes them immune to countervailing information...or they're doing it deliberately to poo poo up the discussion. Either way, they are not participating in good faith and have nothing to contribute. As mediating sources, they should at best be viewed with massive skepticism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:What is the Rhetoric of Ultimatum called when the proposed solution will also make things worse? It's the rhetoric of perversity when proposed solutions are supposed to backfire or cause harm in some generic sense. It's rhetoric of ultimatum when they are dismissed in this way relative to some more extreme counterfactual which will usually involve completely reshaping society and ignoring all perverse effects or uncertainty about outcomes, e.g. "the only solution is burning down the courts so that the gun nuts are finally put in their place". This is my best interpretation; Hirschman spends a lot less time on the progressive rhetorics, and the inverse of the perversity rhetoric is especially limited (it's like 4 pages). It may help to say that he gives the example of revolutionary writings reacting to Burke that "portray the situation of this or that country as being totally beyond repair, reform, or improvement". Hirschman muses that the reactionary and progressive rhetorics sort of feed off of each other's categorical assertions in this way. In practice, a bunch of the rhetorics , progressive and reactionary, are deployed in combination, e.g. "Regulations will do nothing to actually stop guns and will also galvanize the gun nuts. The only solution that matters is revolution". Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jun 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Jumping in with a slightly different topic, "gun confiscation" mostly exists as a fundraising line for the NRA. That said, I believe several countries that implemented type-based gun restrictions were able to do it without issue; I believe in the form of buybacks that accompany the ban. Unlike normal buybacks, which have debatable efficacy and depend on how well they're designed, buybacks accompanying a ban straight up reduce the gun supply. Pro-gun speakers frame the issue to talk up how different and atomically worse America is to make the concept of removing guns by any means sound futile or perverse (or they use the jeopardy appeal which has gotten a real workout over the last few pages). fake edit: A quick google gives this summary of the Australia process, which links to specific studies. There's also reason for a degree of optimism on gun control over the next few years; the NRA's doing very poorly and the industry is as well, harming its ability to mobilize politically. This is part of why you're seeing broader traction with gun control bills. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Discendo Vox wasn't talking about public health, but rather about the NRA and gun industry having the money to lobby. This is the most opposite-of-reality perversity claim yet. The NRA has been fundraising off of the same panic, continuously, regardless. Fear that the NRA will promote guns in response to gun control, an ever-more-popular cause, as they are actively in bankruptcy and increasingly isolated, is completely unfalsifiable. By this logic, it would be a bad idea to do any good thing that has an opposing constituency, ever, unless it was a permanent, absolute solution.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Vox you seem really optimistic that the NRA collapsing means the tables are about to turn, but it hasn't led to any actual legislation so far as I know. And New York State Rifle is almost certainly about to significantly limit any possible gun licensing laws. I feel like the chilling effect of Heller far outweighs any supposed momentum from one lobbying ground falling apart. I don't need to be "optimistic". We've already discussed several bills, including one likely to pass the senate, a BATF rulemaking that accomplished significant goals that were part of past bills, and the actual concentration of public opinion on the issue. Cease to Hope posted:Ironically this paralysis for fear of RW backlash that Liquid Communism is pushing is a common liberal failure, one Obama in particular suffered from badly. It's not paralytic fear of RW backlash, it's just RW talking points, period.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 05:12
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Wait, they refiled? When did that happen? Sorry, you are correct, the bankruptcy was rejected so they couldn't discharge their debts, which is worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This seems pretty good but does this get around the gun show loophole too? Unclear without a draft.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Are there any studies or news investigations that actually dive into different policies and see what type of effect those could (in the best possible circumstances) have on shootings, or even just mass shootings? Something like "X number of shootings were conducted with weapons bought at gun shows/through private parties," "Y number of shootings were conducted by individuals with a disqualifying DV conviction," etc. It'd be useful if such a thing existed to see exactly how toothless the regulation will be. There's a lot out there; the Trace site I linked earlier has some resources. This site from Harvard has a few comparative policy studies: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/policy-evaluation/ Of particular note, an article on how some of the studies claiming no effect of gun control interventions appear to be fraudulent: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fjphp.2009.26.pdf Here's a full text comparative interstate study. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1661390 Here's a Rand review of policy outcomes: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html It provides fairly specifically what you're looking for. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jun 13, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Washington Post has discussion of one potentially impactful aspect of the developing gun control deal: The gun deal could close the ‘boyfriend loophole.’ Here’s what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
Thread from Sen. Murphy summarizing Senate deal; note he has an incentive to talk this up, but I'll try to find the bill text when I'm back at my desk. https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1539380315201933314
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
You seem to be doing the futility schtick again. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Mulva posted:The boyfriend thing is great and I said so? The other provisions also address and set up infrastructure to further address gun violence. You know that counts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
Let me be more specific, since you're doubling down on disingenuousness. If the argument that a given provision is futile is "people will just break the law", then you're making a bullshit argument about whether it will have an impact. "Just" filing a false police report, and, by your own acknowledgement, punishing the related crimes, has an impact on subsequent trafficking practices.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hey, I don't disagree entirely, but given confiscatory gun control is as likely as the end of capitalism or anything materially being done about our right wing domestic terrorism problem... You just did it again. There are forms of gun control that matter other than confiscation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Per a post from Velocity Raptor in USCE, efforts to block the new definition rules have failed. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/24/federal-ghost-gun-regulations-go-into-effect-after-judges-reject-challenges.html quote:New Biden administration rules that put homemade firearm kits used to build “ghost guns” in the same legal category as traditional firearms went into effect on Wednesday after federal judges declined requests to pause the change.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2022 18:59
|
|