The Tragedy in Highland Park

Sarah, Steve, Jonah, and David discuss two major events from the last week, including the ...

By

Sarah, Steve, Jonah, and David discuss two major events from the last week, including the chaos across the pond with the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s resignation on Thursday morning. Near Chicago, at least seven are dead and dozens injured after the July Fourth shooting at Highland Park, prompting questions about whether red flag laws really work. An update on Ukraine is also in order, as well as 2022 midterm implications for the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Show Notes:

–TMD: Boris Johnson to Resign

–Stirewaltisms: Boris Johnson and the Survival of the Silliest

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (90)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    The best thing about these is the dynamic between the four hosts.

    Also I love Steve’s “I’m an adult” response to Sarah at the end.

    Collapse
  2. Nicky Boy

    The use of love child made me search Diana Ross and the Supremes, good song.

    Collapse
  3. Matthew Krane

    A clarification on slang: Do Sarah et al. mean that a Republican victory in the house this fall is "baked in", instead of "baked"? The term "baked" usually means "stoned on pot." Just asking.

    Collapse
  4. Laura

    It seems hypocritical to say that we should raise the minimum age for buying a gun, but not also raise the age of the draft. Can we do both? "At age 18 you are recognized to be a trustworthy defender of the nation, but not of yourself" is just weird to me.

    I am skeptical of the military carve out for the same reason, but I'm open to hearing more. Is this reasoning logical (by being in the military, is there good evidence that there is a fairly quick boost in mental maturity), or just practical (is recruiting 18 year olds a critical strategy for our military's future)?

    Collapse
  5. Laura

    Topic Request / Mailbag:
    The United States has a different view on intellectual property than Russia and China. This is the source of enough conflict that it will get mentioned during national elections. At the same time, the US patent law system is far from perfect in clearly defining what should and shouldn't be patentable. How much animosity might we be bringing on ourselves regarding intellectual property? (Vaccines and medicines seem to be a sore point internationally.) Where did our position on intellectual property come from? Has the US position on intellectual property and patents changed over time?

    I know patents have been a thing since the dawn of our country because Benjamin Franklin smugly noted (I think in his autobiography) that his stove design that he provided to the public for free was superior to a knock-off version that someone else patented.

    (Not sure if this would be more suited for The Remnant, but figured I could put this here and you guys could sort this out in your slack channel.)

    Collapse
  6. Evan

    I thought this was a particularly good episode. Smart, thoughtful, and very funny too. Well done team :)

    Collapse
  7. AS Upstate

    Great episode. But Jonah, the British are our allies, not the English!

    As much as they might like to, the English don't have their own foreign policy - though they might in the next few years, due to Boris Johnson and the epochal own-goal (to use an English term) that was Brexit.

    Collapse
  8. Jake the Curmudgeon

    It's entirely possible that there exists some set of gun laws that would reduce mass shootings by a little, but it's a bit surprising and disheartening to me that none of you are pointing out the obvious: we have a cultural problem that has nothing to do with guns. In my opinion, the breakdown of the family is one of the primary factors, though there are undoubtedly others. We could enact the strictest possible gun laws that the constitution would allow, and we wouldn't significantly reduce these types of crimes.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    I feel David needs to get off his high chair with his baby spoon about Red Flag laws.

    In the same breath he says these other interventions don't work while he advocates for Red Flag Laws, which he has acknowledged on other podcasts have mixed evidence at best that they work. While there is a great amount of evidence that Red Flag laws prevent suicide there is not much evidence that they prevent homicide or mass shooting.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/05/29/1101973246/do-red-flag-laws-work.

    It is clear that David's motivations in supporting Red Flag laws are not that they are proven to work but because he is a gun rights advocate and doesn't want to place burdens on law abiding gun owners. Yet instead of putting burdens on law abiding gun owners a focus on finding "disturbed individuals" will shift the burden to random young men who simply make us uncomfortable. If you are going to make it easy to purchase weapons you logically have to create a drag net on the back end. And what that means is a lot of just "weird young men" will be caught up to that drag net to not much effect.

    This Daily podcast

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/podcasts/the-daily/most-violence-is-not-caused-by-mental-illness-from-the-archive.html

    Makes the excellent case for why trying to police young angry and resentful men would result in the mass forced temporary confinement of a lot of men who simply will never do anything. Red Flag laws are certainly less severe than forced commitment. But if you are going to put a lot of resources into them and if you hope to catch the few violent individuals whom might commit a mass shooting this does seem to be the only practical solution. And as the podcast notes to not much effect. To maintain easy access to firearms you will have to deprive weird yet innocent people of their civil liberties on a large scale.

    Red Flag laws are basically pre-crime without the pre-cogs. Will they sometimes work? Sure I guess. But will they do anything to put a dent in the problem. Probably not. Because human beings are stupid when it comes to foresight and brilliant when it comes to hindsight. As Ben Shapiro noted the expectation that close family members are going to report on their loved ones is unlikely. It isn't so much a case of personal responsibility that it is that we want to see our loved ones in a favorable light even if they have problems. This is how a lot of people get in abusive relationships. It is not that there are not red flags. It is that the red flags are not outweighed by their love for their intimate partner. We all choose to overlook things in our loved ones because we want to be with them. Sometimes this helps to promote healthy relationships since if you are constantly being critical relationships will fall apart. But there is a dark side to that coin in human nature. That dark side will make Red Flag laws largely ineffective as they were in this case. It is stupid pre-crime. You will get lucky sometimes. But every failure you will just write off to the need for more funding or more that. Because you don't want to deal with the real issue. Easy access to firearms.

    How could they no have known? We have been asking this question since the 90's

    https://www.npr.org/2016/02/16/466618817/sue-klebold-mother-of-columbine-shooter-carries-him-everywhere-i-go-always

    The fact is whether our children broadcast their intentions or don't we have trouble seeing the worse in them because we love them. We should just acknowledge this truth instead of writing laws that deny this truth.

    Part of the problem with discussing gun policy with David is that the other hosts on the Dispatch are really not formable opponents to his knowledge on the subject. I am not insulting their intelligence. They clearly are widely read and thoughtful people. But for a lot of reasons they simply have not put the time into researching gun policy that David has. May this be because this is not their area of interests or they are simply too busy David can take advantage of this and be a logic bully. Sitting studies like the Rand study that support his viewpoint while leaving out studies that maybe he is aware of or not aware of that contradict his viewpoint. A debate on gun policy is simply not all that helpful if you don't have someone who is equally knowledgeable on the subject.

    I thought David's debate with Rajiv Sethi on Barry Weiss' podcast Honestly is the best debate on gun policy I have heard in my life.

    https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/f41eb15b/what-to-do-about-guns

    Rajiv shows how David is not necessarily lying but how he frames statistics to support his side and how they can be viewed differently if you know how to frame them.

    It has been a while since I listened to it but Rajiv basically suggests that we focus on responsible gun ownership and safe storage laws and punish irresponsible gun ownership. If you don't report your weapon missing and it is used in a crime you should be prosecuted. This would essentially solve the straw purchasing problem since many straw purchasers simply lie and saw the weapon they sold was lost or stolen and there is not a lot ATF agents can do to disprove that. Perjury is a very hard crime to prosecute so Sarah's suggestion that more resources need to go to prosecuting straw purchasing won't work. Because the real issue is lying. The only solution is to punish the irresponsible and the liars. This is much like in Aliens when they wanted to nuke the bugs from orbit. It is excessive but it is the only way to be sure.

    Rajiv also proposes to increase the age limit as Sarah does. I think this is no brainer. This along with licensing regimes up front that are shall issue rather than may issue I think will do a lot to curb a lot of gun violence.

    https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/licensing/

    Licensing has proved extremely effective in such countries as Switzerland which have relatively high rates of gun ownership but lower rates of gun violence. They don't have a second amendment so they have a may issue regime. The government turns down all sorts of people from owning guns up front for a variety of reasons. While I would like this it won't fly in the U.S. If you are going to have a regime where anyone can get a gun if they jump through the hoops then the only way to reduce gun violence is to punish people if they fail to store their guns properly on the back end.

    Here are some other stories on mass shootings with some interesting suggestions

    https://www.npr.org/2022/05/31/1102188931/what-research-says-about-mass-shootings

    https://www.npr.org/2022/06/14/1105082501/can-the-next-school-shooting-be-prevented-with-compassion

    I disagree with the first one that restrictions on high capacity magazine will make a lot of difference. The VT shooter didn't need high capacity magazines to do the damage he did.

    As too showing compassion on bullied kids. I think that is deeply needed. But it is hard to get anyone to care about people beyond their own family circles.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Seth Higgins

      I disagree with a lot of your solutions, but I love the "drag net" analogy for red flag laws. I might end up borrowing it. I used to be more supportive of red flag laws but am coming around to your position.

      I think I'm in agreement with your strawman buyer solutions, but want to make sure I understand it. Are you suggesting if a gun someone bought gets used in a crime, that person is legally responsible for that crime in some way regardless of whether or not the gun was actually stolen or the person just lied about it? Or are you saying your MUST report a gun as missing or stolen within a certain timeframe you realize your gun is missing or stolen? If you don't, and that gun gets used in a crime later, you have some legal liability. In that case, pretty sure you can count me in.

      As for magazine capacity limits, I agree. Advances in 3D printing mean it would be really really difficult to clampdown on the supply of magazines. And as you point out, while magazine size matters, it is usual marginal.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Will Roberts

        Hello,

        Sorry for the lack of clarity. I see how you could be confused.

        I meant that an owner would have to report a gun stolen within a certain amount of time. If the don't and it is used in a crime they would be liable. I think punishing irresponsible gun ownership is one of the solutions David's opponent made in his honestly interview with Barry Weiss. And I think it would make a lot of difference. Science vs. from gimlet also has a couple of good episodes on gun control. Switzerland for example has a pretty high rate of gun ownership but little gun crime. One of the components that we could adopt is safe storage laws. Current laws against straw purchasing are ineffective because people can lie. I think it fair that if you report the gun stolen you should not be liable. But this regime would eliminate straw purchasing because it makes lying not an option. If you report the gun stolen authorities will track and look for it which makes it hard to sell. A straw purchaser wouldn't want to report a gun stolen to the police before they sell it.

        As far as red flag laws they are functionally stupid pre crime and will result in the persecution of socially awkward individuals. We had a kid in high school that many feared would shoot up the school for he was obsessed with weapons and the military. Never did. Instead he joined the military and as far as I know has been a productive member of society. Gun ownership is an immense responsibility. I don't think it against the second amendment to make irresponsible gun ownership illegal. Perhaps we can give rebates for smart safes or something. This and raising the age range to 21 to an upward limit of 25 when the male brain matures would make a lot of difference

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Seth Higgins

          Thanks for the clarity. I've heard of similar proposals before and I think you could count me in. I'm a pretty big 2nd-A supporter and I've never heard of a good argument against required reporting if a gun goes missing or stolen.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Will Roberts

            A policy point that is on target..

            Collapse
    2. Karin

      Another great post. Thank you!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Will Roberts

        that is what I am gunning for. Pun totally intended...

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Marc Frischhertz

    Why can’t the purchase of body armor be restricted? It seems every one of these Mass shooters use body armor to prolong their carnage.

    There is no constitutional right to purchase body armor.

    Collapse
Load More