"prayers for the victims and their families"

[downer]

I'm with Paul Bloom generally on empathy, (i.e. against it as a basis for public policy).  I'm also with the Stoics in using reason to reduce fear and get risks in perspective. So I'm sympathetic to Tyson's efforts. But his comments were ill-timed.

It is obvious that we could change the laws and policy to reduce the number of mass-murders, murders, accidental deaths from guns (~600 per year in the US), and suicide by firearm (~10,000 per year in the US), if there were a political will to do so. It's a problem that these changes are resisted by the politicians with the power to make changes. It is worth bearing in mind that none of these are among the 10 leading causes of preventable deaths in the US, and there are dangers of far greater disruptions to everyday life, as Polly explains. None of that takes away from the arguments for more gun control.

But the current focus of the media is nationalism, racism, and fascism. They are also my main current concerns now.  I'm not sure what it means to say that American exceptionalism is reaching the end of its road -- it seems to me that it could run and run.

[polly_mer]

People are absolutely right to wonder how these things can happen to innocent people just going about their daily lives and to want government action taken to make us all safer.  However, what those government actions should be in light of the current realities that make the US different from current realities in other first world countries is something worth discussing with data.

For those who like data, I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

The map at the top shows patterns that require very little extra data to draw some conclusions related to effectiveness of proposals being floated to address gun violence.  In particular, a few other maps may be useful: https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7 and https://www.concealedcarry.com/america-gun-maps-law-politics-permit/.

The table near the bottom of the Wikipedia page also shows some patterns that could be used to do some correlation and hypothesis testing related to data. 

For those who are interested in domestic terrorism, I suggest doing some web searches on high profile incidents from the past 30 years on what one or two determined people can do with a little planning and compare those numbers to the typical numbers for an incident on the list at the bottom of the Wikipedia mass shootings page.

I also will mention that if we don't trust our government to be working in our best interest, then I wonder about the logic involved to propose that only the government be allowed to have guns and that more laws be passed to criminalize currently legal activities with resources devoted to checking that people step up and obey all the new laws.  Again, murder by any mechanism is already illegal in the US and yet people are doing it.  Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.

[fast_and_bulbous]

Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.

Translation: Don't bother trying, it's too hard! <shrug shoulders>

There's no quick fix but doing nothing and expecting a different result is not a bad definition for insanity.

Australia managed to ban assault rifles against a strong resistance following a rise of mass shootings.

(Cue a wall o' text about how "that is different.")

American exceptionalism my ass. The only thing I see us exceptional at these days is deluding ourselves that we are truly exceptional.

Again: I thought Americans were all about grit and determination and making hard decisions. Sure doesn't seem that way today.

Rant off.

[Descartes]

I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."

I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??

He was absolutely right and should not apologize.  You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting.  Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?"  When are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?

Also, if he should stick to Astrophysics, then the celebrities who speak out should stick to acting and singing, right?

[nebo113]

I think the issue of weapons is larger than simply....weapons.  Because El Duce feels the need to turn out his base in large numbers for his 2020 re-election, he caters to their basest urges. His rhetoric is not directly responsible for Gilroy or El Paso, but I do strongy believe that such rhetoric from the President of the United States makes it easier for the shooters to act; it justifies, to them, their own evil urges.

If we consider weapons in this larger context, of  increasing right wing violence, fanned by El Duce, then it rises above Polly Mer's comments, although I don't disagree with them.

[Parasaurolophus]

DeGrasse Tyson has a history of making inane remarks, especially about fields of study far outside his specialization.

He was absolutely right and should not apologize.  You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting.  Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?"  When are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?

On the gun issue, this comment seems especially thoughtless because all those other things are issues we take a lot of steps to prevent happening on a wider scale. That's why, for example, there are so many traffic laws, so much traffic enforcement, licenses, registration, insurance, etc. Guns, however, are one issue for which Americans are willing to do almost nothing, but just about everyone else in the world does lots, and with very positive results. While we certainly don't properly compute risk, especially risk associated with our daily activities, we do collectively take a lot of steps to minimize most of that risk. But to put the point this way looks to me like it amounts to a call to do nothing, which is stupid.

Also, if he should stick to Astrophysics, then the celebrities who speak out should stick to acting and singing, right?

That's not much of a reductio, because I think everyone agrees that should be the case where discussions of substance requiring specific expertise are concerned. The world would be a better place if celebrities weren't pushing miracle cures and cults.

[ergative]

I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."

I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??

He was absolutely right and should not apologize.  You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting.  Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?"

Well, we have laws about seat belts and distracted driving and drunk driving and speed limits and signalling turns and reckless driving and traffic lights and coming to complete stops at stop signs. We have written and practical tests before you can get a driver's license.  All of these provisions minimize the risk of incompetent drivers, control the flow of traffic, and reduce your risk of dying in crashes. We're doing quite a lot already, and I'd be very happy of guns were regulated as well as cars.

When are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?

People of color would be happy to explain how zero-tolerance cops are about enforcing traffic laws.

[Kron3007]

I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."

I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??

He was absolutely right and should not apologize.  You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting.  Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?"

Well, we have laws about seat belts and distracted driving and drunk driving and speed limits and signalling turns and reckless driving and traffic lights and coming to complete stops at stop signs. We have written and practical tests before you can get a driver's license.  All of these provisions minimize the risk of incompetent drivers, control the flow of traffic, and reduce your risk of dying in crashes. We're doing quite a lot already, and I'd be very happy of guns were regulated as well as cars.

When are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?

People of color would be happy to explain how zero-tolerance cops are about enforcing traffic laws.

There is also a fundamental difference in that driving serves an important function in modern life and the associated deaths are an unfortunate consequence.  Likewise, there will always be work place accidents that kill people, but obviously we cannot stop working.  In both cases, laws are enacted to minimize deaths and damage and enforced based on available resources.

In the case of military grade weapons, they do not serve a daily function and there is absolutely no reason most people need them or should have access.  Even if you subscribe to the right to bear arms, that does not mean there should not be strict regulations and steps required to enact those rights or restrictions placed on the types of guns that you can have.  I really done see how the second amendment is automatically interpreted as unfettered access to guns for all, it's literally insane.

The USA has always baffled me on so many levels.  You are generous and the most charitable nation on Earth, yet have huge problems with inequality and access to basic health care.  You are the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, yet you still use the imperial system for some unknown reason and fail to listen to scientists/researcher about climate change, gun violence, the efficacy of sex ed., etc.  There is definitely something exceptional about the USA but I dont think we are using the word in the same manner.     

[permanent imposter]

The USA has always baffled me on so many levels.  You are generous and the most charitable nation on Earth, yet have huge problems with inequality and access to basic health care.  You are the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, yet you still use the imperial system for some unknown reason and fail to listen to scientists/researcher about climate change, gun violence, the efficacy of sex ed., etc.  There is definitely something exceptional about the USA but I dont think we are using the word in the same manner.     

You and me both. And I've lived here my whole life.

[polly_mer]

Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.

Translation: Don't bother trying, it's too hard! <shrug shoulders>

There's no quick fix but doing nothing and expecting a different result is not a bad definition for insanity.

Australia managed to ban assault rifles against a strong resistance following a rise of mass shootings.

(Cue a wall o' text about how "that is different.")

American exceptionalism my ass. The only thing I see us exceptional at these days is deluding ourselves that we are truly exceptional.

Again: I thought Americans were all about grit and determination and making hard decisions. Sure doesn't seem that way today.

Rant off.

Have you checked on how the Australian and New Zealand gun bans are going?  It turns out they have collected almost nothing: https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncompliance-kneecaps-new-zealands-gun-control-scheme/

People who have guns generally have them for a reason and are very unlikely to turn them over just because the government asks.  I live in the Western US where the authorities who would be tasked with knocking on doors to ensure compliance (e.g., the police, members of the National Guard) have a nearly identical overlap with the people who own the guns that the government would want to collect.  Bring in outsiders to do the collection and you're looking at starting another civil war because we remember what happens in places when only the police and military have guns and laws are passed to criminalize law-abiding citizens.

The rural/urban split is pretty significant on gun ownership and concerns related to guns.  The rural folks tend to have high suicide rates with guns, not high homicide rates.  That's why Texas is so interesting to watch at the moment.

The UK is quite concerned about knife violence and acid attacks.  Limiting legal gun ownership does little to reduce violence and I'm happy to put up as big a wall of text as it takes for examples from around the world to make that point.

Again, I'd rather have localized one-off gun violence than widespread bombings, gas attacks, or biologicals introduced into the metro systems.  The body count is lower while we work on changing other factors.  Diverting resources to a futile attempt to make people feel good is a bad idea.

[Kron3007]

Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.

Translation: Don't bother trying, it's too hard! <shrug shoulders>

There's no quick fix but doing nothing and expecting a different result is not a bad definition for insanity.

Australia managed to ban assault rifles against a strong resistance following a rise of mass shootings.

(Cue a wall o' text about how "that is different.")

American exceptionalism my ass. The only thing I see us exceptional at these days is deluding ourselves that we are truly exceptional.

Again: I thought Americans were all about grit and determination and making hard decisions. Sure doesn't seem that way today.

Rant off.

Have you checked on how the Australian and New Zealand gun bans are going?  It turns out they have collected almost nothing: https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncompliance-kneecaps-new-zealands-gun-control-scheme/

People who have guns generally have them for a reason and are very unlikely to turn them over just because the government asks.  I live in the Western US where the authorities who would be tasked with knocking on doors to ensure compliance (e.g., the police, members of the National Guard) have a nearly identical overlap with the people who own the guns that the government would want to collect.  Bring in outsiders to do the collection and you're looking at starting another civil war because we remember what happens in places when only the police and military have guns and laws are passed to criminalize law-abiding citizens.

The rural/urban split is pretty significant on gun ownership and concerns related to guns.  The rural folks tend to have high suicide rates with guns, not high homicide rates.  That's why Texas is so interesting to watch at the moment.

The UK is quite concerned about knife violence and acid attacks.  Limiting legal gun ownership does little to reduce violence and I'm happy to put up as big a wall of text as it takes for examples from around the world to make that point.

Again, I'd rather have localized one-off gun violence than widespread bombings, gas attacks, or biologicals introduced into the metro systems.  The body count is lower while we work on changing other factors.  Diverting resources to a futile attempt to make people feel good is a bad idea.

No one has claimed that enacting gun control will have an immediate impact and stop gun deaths, but stopping the continued flow of military grade weapons into the hands of anyone who wants them will have a long term effect.  Coupling this with background checks, licensing, buy back programs, seazures of illegal guns, etc, will also help to slowly shift the pendulum.

The UK is worried about stabbings, but their stabbing rates are lower than the USA.  They are worrying about stabbing deaths not because stabbing rates are so high, it's just that they are high compared to their relatively low rate of gun deaths, they basically have the luxury of worrying about this while Americans have much bigger concerns even though they have a bigger stabbing problem.  While acid attacks and bombings generate a lot of attention, the overall homicide rate in the UK is far lower than the US, so it is pretty clear that the UK is a safer country than the US despite these concerns.