It’s been a weird few weeks. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of health care subsidies and marriage equality, which is a bit like a drunken hippopotamus sweeping a gymnastics competition with perfect scores all around.
But there’s one thing that wasn’t solved, and that was gun violence. Yet another mass shooting came and went, with no policy changes of any kind, nor any hope that such a thing could possibly happen. For whatever weird reason, it sparked the removal of the Confederate battle flag from all sorts of buildings, and that’ll perhaps lead to an incremental improvement in matters of entrenched racism, but it certainly won’t solve the underlying problems related to gun violence.
You see, the United States has a problem with guns. Despite 6 in 10 Americans thinking guns make us safer, the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite. As gun ownership rates rise or fall, gun homicides follow the same pattern precisely. As gun ownership rates vary by region or state, gun homicides vary right along with them. More guns = more murder.
This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, except for those 6 in 10 Americans who think the exact opposite of reality. If you’re one of those people, you’re simply wrong. And your wrongness is destroying America.
But this is a problem that can be solved.
With racism.
You see, if there’s one Americans hate more than the metric system, it’s weird foreigners. Just take a look at the last century of American cinema, with Russian villains all over the place.
Outside of film, we even have entire color-coded paranoia movements, like the Yellow Peril and the Red Scare. Remember “No Irish Need Apply?” And segregation?!?
This fear is misplaced, of course. Terrifying though Dolph Lundgren may be, it’s the Americans who are killing you. But Americans have pretty much made a national pastime out of being scared of the wrong thing. Just look at Shark Week.
As for guns, the problem for quite some time has been that gun-loving Americans view easy access to gun ownership as fundamentally good. And how can we possibly get gun-loving Americans to view easy access to gun ownership as fundamentally bad?
Easy. Get Muslims to do it.
Take a look:
This photo comparison made the rounds on the internet, generally under the title “Explain the Difference.” But a lot of gun lovers claimed they could explain the difference, and quite easily, because one is a freedom-loving American, while the other is a freedom-hating Muslim.
As far as this plan goes, it doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong. The only thing that matters is that they view only one of these as fundamentally dangerous. They’re happy to see white people getting guns, but they’d be absolutely horrified to find a bunch of Muslims doing the same thing.
Hence, bunch of Muslims:
Start doing the same thing.
Load up on as many guns as you can. Tweet about it all day, every day. Talk about how easy it is to get assault rifles and grenade launchers from the neighborhood vending machine without even having to show an ID of any kind. Post photos of your kids holding assault rifles with captions like “isn’t it so cute how they can barely lift them?!” You can even use toy guns, since they look the same anyway. Go ahead and mention how it’s practically impossible to get a gun in your home country, but here in America it’s soooo easy!!!
In fact, you don’t even have to do it. This’ll work even just saying so. Go ahead and write letters to NRA members thanking them for ensuring the ease of your many assault rifle purchases, and mention how you’ve recently expanded your collection with high-capacity magazines, explosive rounds, laser scopes, and bullet-proof vests so no one can stop you. Oh, and make sure to sign it Muhammed. That’ll get their attention!
Heck, you don’t even have to be Muslim. Americans can barely tell them apart from Sikhs and Hindus anyway, and I’d be willing to bet that anyone of Mediterranean or Latin American descent with an especially nice tan could scare the hell out of white America just as well as anyone. And Iranians?! Do I even have to mention how terrified Americans are of Iranians?!?! This plan practically writes itself!
Besides, you don’t even have to be within the US to do this. You can even borrow photos already posted by whichever paramilitary group is making headlines this week, and just start passing them around online, claiming they got all the guns at a Wal-Mart in El Paso, laughing and shouting “Can you believe they didn’t even do a background check?!! Thanks Obama!!!”
Yes, make sure to throw an Obama in there. And remember to call him Barack Hussein Obama, and mention how when he personally handed you your assault rifle and map of nearby elementary schools, he said, “It doesn’t matter if you have a criminal history. That’ll just be our…no, your little secret,” and he winked at you, and a tear streamed from your eye.
We’d have gun control in 5 minutes.
Do it, guys. Do it for America. We’ll never be able to do it without your help. We’ll thank you later, by making you the super-cool villain in every action movie for the next 50 years.
You are using statistics to try to predict human behavior, thinking you can architect a violence free utopia. Your statistics appear to show that if you enact gun control, people will respond with less gun violence.
But life is not so predictable. So rather than trust in your ability to craft a perfect world (“in 5 minutes”), why not just support human liberty, including the right to defend one’s liberty when human unpredictability strikes?
Also, racism in this country is an extremely sensitive issue. Its sad that you choose to press into the wound just to further your point. Obviously innocent Muslims deserve the right to defend themselves, especially in parts of the world where their lives are constantly threatened by radicals.
I’m a big fan of your site, and I’ve bought many products thanks to your recommendations. Keep up the great work!
I can appreciate the comment here, but I don’t think this is a matter of a violence-free utopian pipe dream. In reality it’s just the understanding that other countries simply don’t have the problems with gun violence we do. None of these deaths are necessary. Nobody ever said other countries were about “crafting a perfect world,” but if less people end up dead, it seems weird to fight against that. The system we have right now is one in which people can walk into a gun show and buy an assault rifle with no background check whatsoever. Criminals, the mentally ill, terrorists…anyone. Why fight in favor of that?
Although there are background checks on those who are purchasing the firearms, there are bound to be people that fall through the cracks. What about those that already owned a gun before the checking of backgrounds was implemented. I sure as hell do not want to live next to someone who have loads of guns and all people had to do is to break into the house then steal the guns and start mass shooting. I mean if a magician can make a safe full of guns disappear, why can’t we do that too?
We can just test the theory that people kill people as much as guns kill people by handing guns out to everyone. All we have to do is to wait for five minutes and the world would collapse in that instant.
If the thought of handing guns out for free just to test whether mass shootings would happen is absurd, then there is a (rather obvious) danger to have guns amongst us.
(I feel like I’m rambling and my English sucks)
I think you make an excellent point. Giving guns away to everyone would be a terrible idea…which is almost what we have now.
So I gotta ask, do you think that concealed carrying citizens could helped prevent some of the deaths in the Paris terrorist attack?
Think about how fast an assault rifle can discharge a magazine, and then think of how many dead people there would be before someone figured out what was happening, and dealt with it. If your answer is more than zero, then fewer assault rifles and universal background checks is a better plan.
So with that thought process 120+ people dead vs 30 dead is better? And any semi-automatic weapon (pistol, rifle, or shotgun) can be rapid fired. What is the factor when rapid firing a weapon is how accurate you can be at the speed you are pulling the trigger. I know from experience, rapid firing a weapon is inaccurate at best. So why do assault rifles get the blame when there are semi automatic weapons in every category?
High-capacity magazines are also a problem. Nobody needs fully-automatic firing and high-capacity magazines for home defense. You only need those for mass shootings.
Do you know the process of buying a fully automatic weapon is? It is a very time consuming and expensive thing to do legally. Even with the gun show loophole, most dealers at gun shows won’t even deal with the headache of trying to sell them. What I think is also missing from the article is the human element of gun shows. Having friends that run and deal at gun shows, 99.9% of all the people working a gun show knows the effects of what will happen if one of their weapons is used in a illegal activity. I think the bigger problem here is gun storage and transport. I have a gun safe with over 30 weapons in it, but it’s in a central part of my home, bolted to the floor behind a dead bolt door. And every gun in that safe has a lock on the trigger. And I keep all the keys off site so that the only way to get to these weapons is to break every lock is the process. This is what my parents thought me about reasonable gun ownership and to me this isn’t an extreme. Why not make that a legal requirement to owning a weapon, which would easier then trying to take products off the market
I would agree with that too, especially with something like smart guns, which detect the user’s fingerprints or other things like that. I have this on my phone, and it’s absolutely great. I’m the only one who can use my phone, unless I’m already unconscious and they poke my finger into the sensor. It’s incredibly simple, and it makes perfect sense to do something like this with guns. This would also make them impossible to transfer to other parties without approval of some sort, which would eliminate problems with gun theft, and therefore reduce black market purchases as well.
Guess who’s fighting against it? Gun advocacy groups. They don’t want responsible gun ownership. They just want sales.
And for the record I agree with the background checks just not banning of any currently available weapon
Glad to hear it. It’s just insane to me when people fight in favor of the status quo, which is that terrorists can get military-grade weapons with no problems at all. You’d think this country could at least agree on THAT, but nope.
On that note, you can google how to make a pipe bomb with stuff you can buy at Home Depot. Just saying
I can get a mil-spec rifle with, or without, the ability to legally purchase it. Drugs have been illegal to buy in the United States for over half a century yet, somehow, you can get just about anything you want if you look in the right places.
I know several people who have illegally imported cars. If you can smuggle a 3500lb 16ft long vehicle into the US, you could definitely smuggle in firearms – and people do every day.
Good point. I guess we should start treating chemical weapons and nuclear bombs the same way. As long as it’s possible to get it from somewhere, we should just let people sell it everywhere.
The problem with smart guns is 1) the sensors arnt able to withstand the shock of a gun shot to be reliable 2) where can you put the computer for the sensor, where it won’t effect the performance and 3) not everyone has the same size hand so a finger print would be logical because of the different style grips and hand sizes. Will there be a time where this can happen, sure but currently no. But this wouldn’t be needed if people store their weapons properly. So again, I think education is a big problem. At least in the home defense market.
Oh and on the topic of high capacity magizines. Here in Texas, we have a huge hog problem wreaking crops and fields for livestock. I have used a semi auto AR15 with a 30 round magazine, to help eliminate has many hogs that I can per hunt. Using a bolt action rifle is too slow to effectively thin a herd of pests (hogs are catorgized this way because of the damage they do to the land). And if you ever had a 400lb hog charge you, you’ll be glad you have that equipment. I speak from experience that sometimes 1 bullet isn’t enough and if I had to use a bolt action, I would have been in serious danger. Long story short, there is a tool for every application but any tool can be used for the wrong reasons. I wonder how many people were killed by a hammer last year? Or fireworks, or a bat, or a frying pan? We don’t try to restrict these objects in the retail market in terms of what they have done to people
Sure, we don’t restrict kitchen knives, but other countries restrict guns, and end up with fewer dead people. The fact that people in Texas need guns to thin hog herds is fine, but jumping to the current status quo of anyone being able to get a gun without a background check isn’t rational. It’s like with cars. Just because people use cars for legitimate purposes doesn’t mean we let anyone buy one at any time with no oversight whatsoever. We regulate plenty of stuff, because it’s safer that way. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation, which is what some gun advocates think when they hear “gun control.”
But I can go buy a car right now on Craigslist for $500 with no ID or insurance. Money can get you anything, at any time, if your willing to pay for it.
Again, I agree with the background checks. We both agree with that statement of background checks at every purchase of a firearm.
And what works for one country might not work for us. Look at drinking age in the UK vs the US. They can drink at 18 while we have to wait till 21. But the kids over there respect what alcohol can do to you more then our country’s kids do. It’s not an apples to apples comparison but it makes my point of what one country does, doesn’t mean it’s work for another.
Clearly Cody you have never been down any UK high street at 3.00am on a Sunday morning. Just because the kids in the UK (NZ, Australia etc) have access to booze at 18 does not make them respect alcohol. In recent years it has gotten worse and worse. The issue is liberation of this world, political correctness and the soft way we have all brought out kids up.
Please read
http://simplyarmed.com/dear-anti-gun-friend/
Please read
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-2015-6
Hey, great post along with a bunch of other awesome content. I, unlike a bunch of fools up there, love to see how you’re expanding into new and terrifying/thrillingly controversial territory. I’m also a freelance writer/travel blogger and trying to figure out how to navigate this crux myself. Let’s meet up for a beer if we’re ever in the same part of the world.
read and great responses to the muppet like “we have a right to bear arms” brigade.
Another potential solution to this PROBLEM, yes it is a problem if only the vast majority would open their eyes, would be the ‘razor blade’ approach let people have access to guns but dramitcally increase the cost of bullets. $1000 per bullet should do the trick. Then take the difference between todays’ cost and the inflated cost and do something about the terrible health system that only favours the privileged.
I’m currently staying in rural American for a few weeks, it’s a beautiful country with beautiful people but when I walk the country lanes to the sound of automatic gun fire I have to question where the BLOODY hell I am.
You guys are idots an ar 15 is not an assault rifle an m16 is! And further more gun ownership is in fact correlated with lower murders per capita in the us and the world. All gun right s advocates admit there will be higher GUN deaths but point out there will be less violent crimes overall. I often wonder why liberials find 14 gun deaths in one spot worse than thousands of knife murders done on unarmed people
Incorrect. The United States has a higher homicide rate than Canada and all of Western Europe, even though they have fewer guns per person. Read all about it here. And then think about how you’re actively contributing to that murder rate, by demanding we keep things the way they are.
I ran across Eytan’s site today. A quick scroll down all of his blog posts provided a good dozen I’ll be back to read as time permits. His review of DuoLingo seemed fair and informative.
But, as someone active in the area of (American) civil liberties for over 3 decades, I was drawn to this spirited sparring on the 2nd Amendment.
After scanning through this thread, I offer a few thoughts for all participants:
My compliments to all for your heartfelt espousal of your positions. Many good points were made, along with the usual boatload of bogus info and uninformed certainty.
This conversation recalled for me one of Mark Twain’s best cracks ever:
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
The problem with all of the above back-and-forth is that it plays into just about every false meme that’s been foisted on the American public. It is not your fault. The program to program our minds has a long and notorious history. These people have been at this a long, long time. It is also not a fair fight. Even the Internet won’t help you find the truth unless you know where to look and how to avoid all the lies and deception along the way.
Eytan wants to impose restrictions, of various types, on the tracking, selling and use of firearms. Why? Because, he says, of all the folks who die by same; as homicide or suicide victims (although it is questionable if the suicidee would ever think of her/himself as a ‘victim’). If anyone has the right to take your life, you do.
The fatality numbers presented in this thread, for either side, are mostly irrelevant. Estimates range from 225 to 250 million firearms of all kinds in America. In a population of 315 Million, the number of deaths by gun are minuscule once you discard all the police slayings, accidents and false-flag attacks on unarmed civilians in a public setting. Better you folks saddle up and ride out to apprehend the mass murders being inflicted by our alleged health care system; a real criminal operation.
All of the major mass shootings since 9-11 have been staged for your viewing enjoyment; mostly in the USA (that’s where the most guns are in private hands, eh?). These have all been followed quickly by a great ‘hue and cry’ to get the guns out of the hands of these crazy people (the ones who actually bump off a few innocent people are mind-control victims).
Among these badly-acted events are: Oklahoma City (Murrah); 9-11; Boston Marathon; Sandy Hook; Orlando Pulse Club (gay), and so on. They are all part of the Agenda to scare the bejeezus out of the American public and cause them to become so upset and fearful that they will gladly trade their liberties for a little safety that the government is more than happy to provide. The tactic here is P-R-S – Problem-Reaction-Solution. Look it up and educate yourselves on this long-practiced ploy to manipulate the masses.
The 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to defend themselves against an out-of-control government. As this is pretty much what you have now, you-all might not want to be in too much of a hurry to give Barry (your President) the excuse to snuff out this Constitutionally protected right with another one of his Stalinesque Executive Orders.
Lest you think my info is on a par with the (mostly) Argy-Bargy in this thread, I suggest you read a book; a free one. It’s authors didn’t start out with that intention but, once it was banned from Amazon (after the page being up for 3 weeks), they decided to make the pdf available to the public for nada.
Amazon has banned few books since its founding in the Mid-Nineties. On the other hand, it has ‘privished’ (look it up in Urban Dictionary) any number of books to restrict readership and circulation.
Do you wonder what caused Amazon to put the mark of Cain on this book? Why, its catchy title, of course (the only thing you can read without opening or buying it): .
“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”.
Don’t believe it? Read the free book. The courage of the writers who contributed to this volume is truly admirable. It gives us all hope for humanity.
Once you have read this compelling book, you should be asking yourself a number of questions, such as:
Why would anyone go to this much trouble? (confiscate guns so cute kids will never again be at risk?)
How many were involved in this plot to snooker the American public? 50? 100? 1,000?
Is Barry involved? After all, he held a ceremony, at the White House, for the grieving families. Did they fool him too, or was he in on it?
So, that’s my opinion and you’re entitled to have it ;) Take it easy NjW
I find your article to be extremely misleading, I agree on your self absorbed description of narcissism.
ONE have you even TRIED to purchase a firearm from Wal-Mart?
they do a NICS on the spot, if it doesn’t go through they don’t sell, PERIOD.
the gun show loophole you mention also provides insight into your lack of ACTUAL experience.
most gun shows contain booths displaying advances in firearm manufacturing or technology, or just a design change to cater to left handed people instead of right, either way these places require an FFL to manufacture, as a result, they MUST do a NICS check when selling. the private sellers are of course there, but their makeup is negligible.
next, you claim citizens can get ahold of military grade weaponry…. THIS is ALSO FALSE, the AR platform cannot be sold with military grade items, and the lowers are even made different and only come with 2 holes drilled for civilian lowers rather then 3 for military. the third hole in military applications is for the auto sear, which is a regulated and controlled item by the ATF. and while civilians CAN get the parts, like a drop in auto sear, or other such devices, it requires a class 3 FFL, and registering the device ( similar to your argument for licenses)
next, it is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE.
and even the car license argument can legally be made under the pretense of the right to freedom of movement. ( the mode of choice for exercising the right )
however, even requiring licenses didn’t seem to stop terrorists from taking a semi and bowling into I believe it was 300+ people in france.
another fact, car deaths are higher than firearm deaths.
and since we are twisting facts to fit personal ideology, remove Chicago, LA, NYC, and SFC from the stats, and we drastically drop in the “gun violence” numbers compared to other countries. FYI they already have draconian laws against firearm possession.
since you want to ban “deadly” things, lets ban cars, trucks, hammers and fists. they are more deadly individually.
and if you want another difference in your comparison photo. the bible has more pages, and less mentionings of violence then the Koran, also the bibles keystone prophet wasn’t a pedophiliac, egotistical genocidal maniac ( ie Mohammed). the religious values are much different.
also, with Australias gun ban, how did that terrorist get an M16 into the country and wound 25 people? surely the laws should have prevented that!
another thing, how much has domestic disturbances, rape and robbery gone up in your “civilized” country’s by comparison to pre armed populace? cause everything I’ve seen shows the rates went UP. wonder why that is.
but alas, to argue such things with such an impassioned, yet dreadfully wrong, in my opinion, individual is fruitless.
but hey it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it under the 1st amendment. and good on you for using it.
See, I am 100% on board with allowing people to own firearms. I am happy to be in complete agreement with you on that. And if I made a mistake on saying “military grade,” when it was in fact “nearly-military grade,” well, okay, but that’s still kind of horrifying when you think it can find its way into the hands of just about anyone.
It’s always odd to me, how gun owners don’t just want gun ownership, but EASY gun ownership. As a responsible gun owner, wouldn’t you be happy with a system that ensured tracking of weapons, and makes a note of when they might go missing, and so on? I think car ownership is a good model. It’s not like because of the license system nobody can get a car. Just about anyone can get a car. It’s just tracked slightly so that people with no license don’t get one. That seems quite reasonable to me in terms of firearms. It’s not like a single mom out there can’t own a car. So there wouldn’t be anything stopping her from getting a gun too, and that’s fine. She would just have to do the same sort of paperwork as car ownership, which seems fine.
you haven’t been to an FFL dealer LOL
the initial purchase, the S/N is tagged to the buyer, and which way it is registered, handgun, short barrel rifle, or long rifle.
this info is kept for I believe 20 years at the FFL dealers, in case an incident occurs, they can trace it back to the selling dealer, get the paperwork with a warrant, find out who purchased it, and procede with investigation from there.
it is not a constantly tracked system like licenses. but it is a system.
also in reality, the whole thing with cars and what you want with guns is a violation of both the 4th and 5th amendment in reality. and there are many instances where requiring a license hasn’t stopped people from driving, and you most certainly don’t need a license to purchase a car, just money or good credit. So even your proposed system with example is flawed.
and as for military grade. meh, put a wood stock on it, and a single bolt action barrel, but use the same 5.56 mm nato round, and the round is still just as dangerous, the cosmetic items do nothing to reduce or increase ballistics of the round, same with the .223 catridge the 5.56 chamber can fire.
the reality, a .243, .270, 308 and the 50 rifle rounds have much more muzzle energy due to weight, and some have higher muzzle exit velocity. in reality the AR-15 platform is a poor choice for these people commiting these crimes.
but the problem, they picked out easy target areas, areas with little to no armed and trained security, which allows, from a strategic standpoint, the ability to create a scenario with the most damage/impact.
most schools in the cities have officers from the local PD, shootings at these schools are low to non existent, and those that do occur are usually gang related and the targeted shootings generally occur actually OFF school grounds, but within 1000 feet. the point is the impact is minimal.
the theater in Colorado had no hired security, like the ones where I currently am do, ( usually off duty PD. or contracted directly with the PD) no shootings at theaters here, because they are not “soft” targets, or easy to get away with munitions unload with no to little resistance.
I am not arguing that people should be allowed to bring guns to a theater, just that these places should contract/hire security.
the funny thing about it all is though the nato 5.56 round wasn’t designed to kill, it was designed to maim under the Geneva convention act guidelines to engagement of war.
the idea is to injure a soldier and take out several others from the fight because they have to “rescue” them. which is counterintuitive to the “military weapon in civilian hands” argument.
as to why people refuse registration, I believe that question can be answered by history.
Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and the previous establishment of USSR during WW1, and many others over time.
history shows registration has always led to confiscation, or direct targeting of owners for termination so as to prevent the possibility of resistance. this historical repeat across several different cultures and several different historical time periods, always leading to the same thing has generated a fear for it, and I can’t say it isn’t a well placed fear due to how repetitive the end result is in history.
then you need to consider the countries founding history, it was accomplished by armed civilians, the militia, against the greatest army in the world at the time. the fact armed civilians toppled the best military might of the time is something stuck in the minds of Americans still, and has ingrained it into our culture.
to add another counter argument, if you do take things away, particularly the “scary black rifles” what type of black market do you think would open up in the void considering the American mentality?
Personally, I think the Mexican cartels would get a new revenue stream in the black market for ACTUAL military weapons, with selective full auto fire. but this is just my opinion
I also forgot to mention the class 3 FFL items to get actual military grade weaponry are cost prohibitive, and supply prohibitive, the items must be pre 1986 and a lot of components are in the thousands of dollars for the item alone, add in the 2 grand tax stamp and the majority cannot afford them.
So…if you’re defending the system that tracks firearm purchases, and describe it as a good thing, why not apply that everywhere, including private gun sellers? That’s really all people are saying when they say they want the gun show loophole closed. If there’s any gap in the system, it’s only going to cause trouble.
Snarky – First, I could pick a dozen different countries that have kower gun ownership and higher gun violence snd prove the opposite. Try Honduras, Somalia, Sudan, Syria – you get the idea. So the graph you posted proves nothing. On top of that it is completely irrelevant. Why? Because gun rights in the US were originslly put in place to give the people the power to overthrow the government should all other constitutional checks and balances fail. Check out the writings of guys like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. That being the case, and the completely ridiculous and unconstitutional social wastefare programs, the sickening and widespread government corruption, I see every reason why we need to hold onto that right.
On another subject, softshell pants are a non-optimal solution for ultralight travel. Ultralight hikers ditched the softshell tops and bottoms a while ago because in the function to weight game, they compare poorly to purpose built insulating midlayers and ultralight rain shells, for both upper body and legs. My set up thats good to -20F at least is capilene midweight bottoms, montbell thermawrap pants, a few pairs of mid weight nylon twill or nyco/polyco plain old regular pants, a pair of light rain shell pants. This layering set up gets me from -20 to 120 F wet or dry depending on what layers are deployed, and has an all-in cost and weight that is less than two pairs of relatively heavy softshell chinos or jeans, and when the bottom drops out of the thermometer, the wind starts howling and you head back to the hotel in your softshells to thaw your balls, I can keep on keeping on in total comfort. Likewise when it’s 115 in the shade and your softshell britches are giving you swamp butt, I’m cruising in comfort in my lightweight nyco trousers. I like your blog – lot of good thoughts. However, pitching $200 polyester jeans is a bit off base, just like your ideas on gun control.
Oooooh, I would’ve responded politely to the gun issues, but you’ve crossed the line with the soft shell claim. I’ll happily stand behind a soft shell pant being the best all-purpose choice for pants.
For upper layers, as you said, it makes sense to have a base layer, mid layer or two, and a rain shell, since you need excellent rain protection on the upper layers. Legs, however, aren’t quite as crucial. Think about how many people out there own rain jackets, just for walking around town, and how few people own rain pants. Practically zero, except for hikers and other people who have to be out in the rain all the time. And although there’s certainly no perfect weight for pants, a single soft shell pant will cover a broad range of activities, and weigh less than a pair of hiking pants, insulated pants, rain pants, and base layer combined together, while still covering maybe 80% of the temperature and weather conditions most people encounter, while also looking and feeling quite nice. For extreme cold, I’m happy to add a light base layer underneath. For extreme heat, I’ll just wear shorts. The soft shell handles everything else. And its ability to handle cold is enhanced by just walking around a bit, since it retains some warmth. For warmer weather, it’s true that certain weights can overheat, which is why I like somewhat lighter soft shells than certain popular options out there, although if the pants are too light, I find them kind of wispily uncomfortable anyway.
$200 is a lot, clearly, but that’s why I’m pushing the category, because sooner or later other brands will come in with mass-produced options at half the price.