Thread by @DirkSchwenk

Guns. A rant. Do not listen to any 2A defender or conservative about how to stop the slaughter in the US. There is only one question to be asked: WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP THE SLAUGHTER?

Let's start with a thought experiment: If there were ZERO guns in the US, how many gun deaths would there be?

Sure there would still be murders and suicides. But there would be 38,000 less gun deaths annually. Can this be achieved? No. Can it be drastically reduced? Yes.

Background checks will not meaningfully reduce gun deaths - that's a bandaid and the patient is already dead. Red flag laws would help in a very, very few cases, and should be passed, but don't mistake either of those as a solution to gun deaths. They're not.

There are two major categories of gun death - murders and suicides. Suicides are higher. everytownresearch.org/report/gun-vio…

The difference between gun suicide and other suicides is that guns are usually effective the 1st try, and they are often done on momentary impulse. To reduce gun suicide YOU HAVE TO REDUCE ACCESS TO GUNS. Mostly this is just less guns, but gun safes, trigger locks, biometrics

Not all gun murders are the same (although all are reduced by reduced numbers of guns). The most heinous mass shooting events are almost all associated with semi-auto "assault" type weapons like AR-15s. To reduce these, you have to limit access to those weapons.

Reducing new AR-15 access (through background checks, age limits, etc.) can help to a minor degree but there are already 5-10Million in the country. The ONLY way to reduce killings by AR-15 is to reduce the number of AR-15s. They can be banned, despite 2A. We should.

The other category of weapon most likely to cause mass deaths are semi-auto handguns. They are relatively cheap, extremely plentiful, typically carry 15 rounds. They are much more difficult to regulate, due to SCOTUS read of 2A. Each and every one is a death risk.

Other kinds of handguns also pose a risk, especially in suicide and domestic cases. Actual rifles and shotguns for hunting - are a very, very minor issue in murders - slightly more in suicides.

And so, ANYONE TALKING ABOUT ANY SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT REDUCE THE NUMBERS OF GUNS IS JUST TRYING TO DISTRACT US FROM REDUCING DEATHS.

And before the Rs start talking about how solutions are too expensive: the cost of gun violence in the US is astronomical. everytownresearch.org/report/the-eco…

And our inability to solve this most basic life and death problem hurts our image - and the image of democracy - around the world. It literally weakens us in every way imaginable. Tourists are afraid to come to US cities, and they're right.

https://twitter.com/jackiekcalmes/status/1529934079705112576?s=20&t=IYjjQi0dpS9K5heu2Jqasg

First, what NOT to do. Do not let R politicians start talking about how they'll engage the question, then water down everything until it won't work. If they bring a bill up for vote to ban sale of AR-15s - sure - until then, ignore them.

Second, don't lower your goals. Passing improved background checks would be the opposite of a victory, if it came at the expense of doing something to reduce the number of guns in the US.

What to do? Given SCOTUS's 2A stupidity, here are some ways we can reduce guns. Congress has basically an unlimited power to impose tax. (That's what saved Obamacare). All sales, including private sales, of semi-auto weapons should be TAXED, heavily.

One of the ways we reduced cigarettes is via heavy taxes. We can with guns. With a tax scheme can come a REPORTING SALES scheme. And avoiding tax and failing to report can be criminalized. Possession of untaxed weapon - criminal.

Same for ammo. Tax it. Regulate it. Limit it. Both of these, however, only work on new guns and guns that are being sold on secondary market. Alone, it would work only slowly.

To reduce guns immediately, gun ownership has to be expensive and giving up guns has to be profitable. This means insurance and buy-backs. Gun owners must have insurance and that insurance must cover CRIMINAL acts with the guns. No exclusions.

Millions of people when faced with having to pay what insurance companies will charge them for having a murderous piece of metal in their house ... will decide they don't need it. Hence, BUYBACKS. Much cheaper than first responders, trauma wards and dead bodies.

Unleash the power of PRODUCT LIABILITY. Produce liability law makes delivering an inherently dangerous product into the market a matter of strict liability for damages. Gun manufacturers (unlike cars and everything else) HAVE IMMUNITY for no good reason giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-…

Without that immunity, AR-15s would have been unavailable after Sandy Hook, because the manufacturers and dealers would be bankrupt. Expand that chain of liability to owners ... and every owner has a powerful reason to sell their gun to the buy back program.

That's three ways to make the cost of gun ownership reflect the cost our society faces from the guns. I am sure there are lots more. All would pass constitutional muster (or at worst would be a regulatory taking, for the value of the weapon).

Do not settle for anything less than reducing the number of guns. Do not let these gun-worshippers stay in office or have anything to do with our children's futures, education or lives.

Dirk out.

I try to use this account for the betterment of humankind so if you dig that, please follow.