So I read your Atlantic article, was more sensible than some. It jumped the shark when it described Obamas initiative as "plausible" though.

---
Quote: ""
Here are some approaches that don't seem to work, at least not by themselves, or in the ways they've been tried so far:

Stiffer prison sentences for gun crimes.
Gun buy-backs: In a country with one gun per person, getting a few thousand guns off the street in each city may not mean very much.
Safe storage laws and public safety campaigns.

We don't really have good enough evidence to evaluate these strategies:

Background checks, such as the Brady Act requires.
Bans on specific weapons types, such as the expired 1994 assault weapons ban or the handgun bans in various cities.

These policies do actually seem to reduce gun violence, at least somewhat or in some cases:

More intensive probation strategies: increased contact with police, probation officers and social workers.
Changes in policing strategies, such increased patrols in hot spots.
Programs featuring cooperation between law enforcement, community leaders, and researchers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods.
""

This is a pretty good summation, its only mistake is that it is known (and common sense) that bans on guns with certain cosmetic features would not impact crime.

Also, with regard to high capacity mags - even if none were available reloading a modern firearm takes a few seconds tops, in the context of a one sided shooting it is illogical to think it makes a material difference.

The summation regarding things known to work is however, correct. In a nutshell: members of a community working to combat crime combined with law enforcement that works with the local individuals as opposed to against them.

Which is why I find it hard not to see ulterior motives in these who want to disarm the populace. It has been well known for a long time, that if you want to combat violent criminal behavior - a civic minded populace with properly functioning law enforcement agency makes it extremely difficult for crime to thrive.

Most gun violence occurs is the poorest areas, where guns are banned , law enforcement is scarce and considers itself at odds with the population and civic thoughts are far from foremost among the locals concerns. Even taking the fact that guns are effectively banned out of the equation, its still a recipe for social disaster.

If you want to reduce crime and violence, including gun violence - especially in the hardest hit areas that account for the bulk of the statistics - the recipe is well known. You clean up the local police depts , kick out the old cronies and good ole boys, put more badges actually on the beat, and reach out to the locals.

The above method has been reasonably if not very successful in pretty much every serious implementation.

As the article notes, mass shootings are extremely rare. Ofc what the big event is differs on year. Last year it was a mass shooting. I remember a few years before that, some old geezer moved down a few dozen people with his car at a farmers market. Which is why I dont think firearm access will ever address the "crazy" problem. Even though the geezeer mentioned wasnt crazy, if guns werent available someone bent on making headline news by causing mass carnage can look to any number of other extremely easy means and methods - from homemade bombs to hijacking a fuel truck at a gas station to simply grabbing a beater car and playing crazy taxi IRL.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)