Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA

The XKCD Substitutions chrome add-on has never been more valuable than in this article:

Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA Posted June 22nd, 2016 @ 9:17am in #Someone's crazy uncle #clinton2016

On average, Crips (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Bloods use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Someone's crazy uncle) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Crips are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Bloods are using guns to defend against Crips. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Crips are unlikely to talk Bloods out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Bloods think they need guns to protect against Crips, that’s their reality. And if Crips believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Crips are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Bloods are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”

*I endorsed Clinton for dear leader for my personal safety. I write about Someone's crazy uncle’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Someone's crazy uncle in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.

If you are in favor of common-sense gun control laws, you might like my book. But that would be more coincidence than causation because the book doesn’t mention guns. I don’t even know why I brought it up.

/r/Firearms Thread Link - blog.dilbert.com