The trouble is that for reasons which we can only attribute to some key lessons missed at school, @NOS4A2 doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'cause' so will be confused by...

More guns = more mass shootings — Mikie

...thinking that the guns alone cannot shoot people.

Oddly though, he was totally fine with censorship causing a loss of literature, when, as any true student of causality knows, the only cause of loss of literature is people choosing to comply with the government's wishes, who, of course, merely spoke or wrote their edicts, and we all know that mere words are powerless (although oddly something is still lost when they're censored).

I think it's that governments can cause things, but corporations and right-wing pundits can't... I think that's how it works...

For those struggling with the link between gun availability and mass shootings. The explanation might be a bit technical for some, but stick with it...

I appreciate it.

The availability of guns certainly contributes to the use of them. There is no question about that. But gun control laws have steadily increased over time, not receded. The only arguable step backwards on gun control I can find is the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which nonetheless banned the sale of machine guns to civilians. Oddly enough a number of laws making schools a gun free zone came into effect in the early nineties, right before the modern phenomenon of school shootings rose precipitously.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_Schools_Act_of_1994

As for the record of neoliberalism, the first gun-control in California was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the Milford act. He was for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban.

I cannot see that deregulation has occurred, much less by any avatars of neoliberalism.

But gun control laws have steadily increased over time, not receded. — NOS4A2

Your source is?

Oddly enough a number of laws making schools a gun free zone came into effect in the early nineties, right before the modern phenomenon of school shootings rose precipitously. — NOS4A2

This doesn’t affect the number of guns nor the ease at which they can be attained.

I cannot see that deregulation has occurred, much less by any avatars of neoliberalism. — NOS4A2

The AWB was allowed to expire in 2004, and that was already very weak— for example. You’re also overlooking the role of the courts, particularly the Heller case and its affects.

The NRA and right wing media have been in bed with gun manufacturers for years— lots of money in it. This has contributed to the push to loosen regulations. Even state regulations are being struck down by the courts.

May I share some more of my mathematically profound intuitions ... again? :smile:

No. But feel free to say something relevant.

No. But feel free to say something relevant. — Mikie

:sweat:

Mike, neoliberalism is a global phenomenon. The EU is a neoliberal project. Gun control is an issue unique to the US due to its history and culture. Neoliberal Brits have no problem heavily regulating guns, just as American neoliberals don't care about whether drugs are regulated. Neoliberal deregulation is about the markets, not about social issues.

The FBI publishes analyses of mass shootings, providing statistics about the events and perpetrator profiles. If you look at the latest one, you'll see the correlation between mass shootings and recent economic hardship in the lives of perpetrators. It would be easy to argue that the flimsy social safety net associated with American neoliberal policies exacerbates desperation that leads to events like mass shootings. Though school shootings make the headlines most prominently, most mass shootings happen in retail or restaurant environments.

If you look at the latest one, you'll see the correlation between mass shootings and recent economic hardship in the lives of perpetrators. — frank

Since economic hardship is not a rare thing, there is undoubtedly a wide set of correlations with economic hardship. I believe the saying is, correlation is not causation.

Since economic hardship is not a rare thing, there is undoubtedly a wide set of correlations with economic hardship. I believe the saying is, correlation is not causation — Pantagruel

That's true. It's not a slam dunk. It's definitely food for thought, though. Per the same FBI analysis, shooters were usually expressing desperation on social media prior to the events. They often have mental health issues. Economic hardship has been identified as a major stressor, so it stands to reason that in a society with a better social safety net, desperation of the type that leads to mass shootings would be less common.

Economic hardship has been identified as a major stressor — frank

Right. In fact, economic hardship is widely recognized as a major contributor to a host of problems. I work in the health-care industry and the impacts of poverty on health is among the current topics of interest for improvement of quality of care. So focusing and addressing an underlying major cause directly rather than any one of the myriad, multiple, host of associated symptoms (all of which have a more complex causal profile) seems a much more reasonable approach. And, of course, poverty is nothing new.

All I can say is that I hope I don’t sound like Jack D Ripper. — Mikie

Well you don't, but I wouldn't let that stand in the way of a laugh, as you see.

Even so, I don't think it's appropriate to blame the problems you note on neoliberalism, just as I don't think it was appropriate to blame communism for the problems of our Great Republic (or for polluting our precious bodily fluids, for that matter). I doubt that government efforts to ban or limit the purchase of guns or opiates will be successful, so I don't see deregulation as the source of their prevalence. Here in God's Favorite Country, we love our guns and our drugs and those of us who want them will find a way to get them, and those who wish to profit from their sale will find a way to provide them.

My personal belief is that the "War on Drugs" is futile and hugely expensive. As for guns our freakish regard for the Second Amendment will always stand in the way of effective regulation.

And, of course, poverty is nothing new. — Pantagruel

In a country like the US, it could be a lot more rare. Wouldn't you agree?

In a country like the US, it could be a lot more rare. Wouldn't you agree? — frank

I think from a technical perspective, humanity is fully capable of engineering a productive, healthy, balanced global society. It just needs to be established as a primary goal.

:up:

I think from a technical perspective, humanity is fully capable of engineering a productive, healthy, balanced global society. It just needs to be established as a primary goal. — Pantagruel

I'd like to think this is true, but isn't the substantive problem that with different worldviews and values, people tend to have extremely different ways of understanding what productive and healthy looks like and how it should be achieved.

I'd like to think this is true, but isn't the substantive problem that with different worldviews and values, people tend to have extremely different ways of understanding what productive and healthy looks like and how it should be achieved. — Tom Storm

Yes, that's a big one. To what extent are "different worldviews" archaic in light of our current level of cultural and technological development I wonder? Personally, I can't see allowing cultural differences to become an impediment to global cooperation. But then I don't have a competing agenda. And there are those out there too.

I think it is generally easy to agree on goals - everyone says they want world piece and happiness. But the devil as they say is in the details. Take the recent and massive disagreements about how to manage COVID. While I don't want to get into the debate itself it seems clear that there's an intractable culture war about almost every environmental, social and health policy position going.

Do you have suggestions for how these differences can be reconciled or overcome?

Do you have suggestions for how these differences can be reconciled or overcome? — Tom Storm

I do believe that the current partisan-tendency is a by-product of the way we sub-divide (and govern) our selves along partisan lines. I'm not exactly sure what the steps to the cure are; but I believe it starts with healthy political reform, so that our elected representatives can actually be said to represent us and not whatever special interests funded their election. Then a basic attack on things like really monstrous income and wealth disparity. It's all about the renovating the attitude of the average person, because that is who is going to dictate how things unfold (assuming that democracy works as designed).

I doubt that government efforts to ban or limit the purchase of guns or opiates will be successful, so I don't see deregulation as the source of their prevalence. Here in God's Favorite Country, we love our guns and our drugs and those of us who want them will find a way to get them — Ciceronianus

The states with greater gun regulations, like here in NE, have far less mass shootings. Had the large pharmaceuticals been better regulated, it is unlikely we’d have the opioid crisis.

To say we love our guns and drugs isn’t much of an argument. It means nothing can be done, because it’s just human nature or what people “really want,” so becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Similar arguments are made about transitioning to electrification— “people love their cars and furnaces.” Never gonna happen, because “human nature.”

But many of these desires have been deliberately manufactured by the industries that push for their deregulating.

As for guns our freakish regard for the Second Amendment will always stand in the way of effective regulation. — Ciceronianus

The second amendment was only interpreted as it is in 2008. Not long ago. That itself is also an affect of neoliberalism, as is the depression that arises from years of neoliberal policies that have destroyed the working and middle class.

There are reasons why we’re an outlier in so many areas. And it’s not because the populace is stupider or more susceptible to painkiller addiction or anything like that. It’s a matter of how our society functions, how it’s structured and organized. In short, it’s largely a matter of public policy.

I’d also add that blaming communism isn’t close to blaming neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is simply the policies I mentioned, which are as real anything. Nothing conspiratorial about it.

Neoliberalism obviously can't surgically separate, for it, the conjoined twins (economic growth) and (guns, drugs, suicides, mass shootings).

The second amendment was only interpreted as it is in 2008. Not long ago. That itself is also an affect of neoliberalism, as is the depression that arises from years of neoliberal policies that have destroyed the working and middle class. — Mikie

I'm not sure how neoliberal policies impacted the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. And we must deal with the Second Amendment and views of it as they exist now, not as they may have been in those halcyon days before neoliberalism, when guns and opiates posed no problems.

The states with greater gun regulations, like here in NE, have far less mass shootings — Mikie

Indeed. Just look at California.

Prohibition should have taught us something about the efficacy of regulation of stimulants, depressants, pain-killers, etc. Opiates like fentanyl have a legitimate use as a pain-killer. It is being abused. Is it being abused because of neoliberalism, or because people want it? If its use is outlawed or limited by law, what is the likelihood it won't be abused?

Is it being abused because of neoliberalism, or because people want it? — Ciceronianus

Is this serious?

With respect to neoliberalism -- I can see the connection between economic policy and gun sales, but in addition to Heller (though that certainly could have been a place where gun sales to citizens were lowered, certainly, so it's important to note) I'd cite Citizen's United as a turning point supreme court decision which really opened the political field to the forces of capital, turning what semblance of a democracy that was there into a government for sale.

After Heller, my grim but true estimation of removing various kinds of weapons from the general population would take overturning the second amendment, at this point, and that would take democratic action -- but given how flush the NRA is, it's not a small amount of activity. And I'm not sure you could even get enough people on board with the demand, which is the real reason no one brings it up. It doesn't seem like a feasible political goal.

Tend to agree. E.g. Trump could dismantle neoliberal economic policies and replace them with populist ones and simultaneously make the gun situation much worse. There's some connection but it's not the focus I'd go for.

Is this serious? — Mikie

Certainly not. Clearly, it's being abused because of neoliberalism.

One possible objection you could bring up is that what we live under right now would be more akin to "managerialism" than "neoliberalism." That is our societies are run primarily not by capitalist elites but by technocratic experts who rule more or less on their own behalf. You could draw a line from that to addiction/deaths of despair (eugenics)

Neosocialism? Neo-social democracy?

The big mistake about the neoliberalism theory is that it puts people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden among its ranks. But these people explicitly rejected neoliberalism and pushed “modern social democracy”, a communitarian “third way”. Blair explained it to the International Socialist Congress here:



At the turn of the century, politicians subscribing to the Third Way governed five out of the G7 and headed 12 of 15 EU nations.

Here is an illuminating discussion about the third way according to some of its greatest advocates at the time.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?122788-1/progressive-governance-21st-century

One possible objection you could bring up is that what we live under right now would be more akin to "managerialism" than "neoliberalism." — LancelotFreeman

What do you mean by managerialism? That's also a term used for the period prior to neoliberalism in some quarters. I think I know what you mean though -- it's often called the "9.9%" (rounding off the top 10% but not the .1%). There's plenty of truth in that. But what I'm referring to with "neoliberalism" is a set of policies. Whether it's the managerial elite or capital elite is another story, and one I'd gladly discuss.

The big mistake about the neoliberalism theory is that it puts people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden among its ranks. — NOS4A2

It's not a mistake, it's a fact. We don't have to guess about this, either: just look at the policies. There's a long record of it. The "third way" has always been vague window dressing.