"It's always too soon to talk about gun control"

[Morganite]

This sounds to me then like the US really needs to reconsider its culture.

That's such a broad assertion that it's basically impossible to judge. What changes, where? Homicide rates are far from evenly distributed, so just saying "American" is overbroad to start with. (Also, the nationwide numbers are already going down, so maybe we now return you to our cultural changes already in progress?)

But on the other hand, I've seen some reasonably compelling arguments that you could get a huge improvement by ending the war on drugs, and that's not really a cultural change as such, even if it ties into cultural views about crime and punishment.

As for the paperwork snafu resulting in the confiscation of license and guns... You complain about me looking at the tools but not the hands, but in this case it seems to me that the SAFE Act was working very much as intended by removing the weapons from the possession of someone that as far as the authorities knew was a risk to himself or others. That this was a result of a paperwork snafu is of course something that needs to be addressed and if as such there was no reason to invoke the SAFE Act those possessions and rights should be returned to him with all due speed.

Yeah, that part about returning posessions and rights... it just doesn't sound like they do that unless you go after them with lawyers. While the need for rapid action is sort of understandable, the part where by default there's nothing like "go before a judge and prove that you have a good reason to take someone's property" is pretty suspicious. (One story I read suggests that they by policy don't even tell the person whose property is being run off with *why* they are doing so, which just adds a fine coating of motor oil to the whole production if true.)

(I've also seen it suggested that SAFE is basically one solid mass of HIPPA violations, but I'm not sure how well that plays out in practice.)

If you're serious about reducing gun deaths, you need to look at all gun deaths.

That sounds about as sensible as grouping together car vs. deer accidents and red light runners when looking at traffic safety. They're different kinds of problem that aren't going to respond to the same remedies.

Now, this is interesting: 9th Circuit Rules There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms. Will the Supreme Court Care?

Hmmm. Seems like kind of a funny way of phrasing it to me, even if I'm not sure if I'd call it strictly wrong. It looks to me like the short version would be "This set of regulations does not amount to a de facto ban", which seems fairly reasonable. (Though the "near other gun shops" part seems pointless, protectionistic, and in need of stomping.) But that headline sounds like they want it to mean "Hey gaiz, we can regulate gun sales all we want" even though the part clearly saying if you go too far you'll get stomped* is *right there*.

*I may have been watching too many Super Mario Bros videos lately. What would the powerups be in Super Supreme Court Justices?

-Morgan.