|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports 
That's the crux of the issue though. Yes, more guns means more gun-related violence. But only in the same vein that more cars means more car accidents. Instead of looking at gun-violence rates compared to gun-prevalence rates you have to look at general violence rates compared to gun-prevalence. Of course gun-violence rates go up as gun-prevalence increases, guns being more common means they'll likely be chosen more often. What isn't clear though, is that gun-prevalence increases the general violence rate.
I personally don't care about how the statistics turn out either way. I'm partial to A Priori reasoning, not A Posteriori.
|
On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports
When I get off work, and manage to find some time I'll get the materials together. It's not specifically papers which advocate "responsible" gun control, but the raw data which demonstrates that gun control is irrelevant to crime stats.
Right off the bat, before I even grab any sources, it's obvious that more firearms would increase firearm injuries. Similarly more kitchen stools increase kitchen stool related injuries, so that's crap.
Homicide, probably. But that stat says nothing about the frequency of violent acts.
As for suicide, that one's a stretch, but I'll check. I have a bunch of sources saved on a .doc on my home computer.
|
On May 08 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports That's the crux of the issue though. Yes, more guns means more gun-related violence. But only in the same vein that more cars means more car accidents. Instead of looking at gun-violence rates compared to gun-prevalence rates you have to look at general violence rates compared to gun-prevalence. Of course gun-violence rates go up as gun-prevalence increases, guns being more common means they'll likely be chosen more often. What isn't clear though, is that gun-prevalence increases the general violence rate. I personally don't care about how the statistics turn out either way. I'm partial to A Priori reasoning, not A Posteriori.
I don't see why guns vs general violence rate matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that the existence of guns makes people who are otherwise pacifists into violent psychopaths. What should matter, and what has been brought up in this thread multiple times, is that the choice to use a gun over, say, a knife, represents a rather dramatic shift in the chance of a fatality. Since you admit that gun-legality means they'll be chosen more often, then you tacitly admit that granting access to guns will have a measurable effect on violence insofar as it will affect fatalities/injuries/etc.
I mean, your point seems to miss the mark as far as I can tell. The reason we don't allow citizens to handle dangerous biological agents isn't that it would increase the "general violence rate," but that it would make violence a hell of a lot more disastrous.
|
On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait...
I... think this is a bit rash to assume. Instructions/knowledge for making explosives exist everywhere on the internet and they don't require a 3d printer, yet you don't see everyone and their grandma building them.
On May 08 2013 03:50 Shiori wrote:I don't see why guns vs general violence rate matters
You don't? Here's an example:
Condition: Increase gun prevalence
Result: Increases gun violence, reduces all-cause violence
vs.
Condition: Reduce gun prevalence
Result: Reduces gun violence, increases all-cause violence
Isn't it more important to reduce ALL violence as opposed to increasing all violence just to reduce a subcategory?
|
@Kim
You can have the opinion that it's not worthwhile to view the problem from a public health perspective, but I think it's sort of naive and maybe a bit offensive to dismiss it as "crap" based on your own opinion and perhaps limited understanding. To know whether the public health perspective on gun prevalence is actually "crap" requires implementation and analysis of the effects of that implementation I think.
|
On May 08 2013 03:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports That's the crux of the issue though. Yes, more guns means more gun-related violence. But only in the same vein that more cars means more car accidents. Instead of looking at gun-violence rates compared to gun-prevalence rates you have to look at general violence rates compared to gun-prevalence. Of course gun-violence rates go up as gun-prevalence increases, guns being more common means they'll likely be chosen more often. What isn't clear though, is that gun-prevalence increases the general violence rate. I personally don't care about how the statistics turn out either way. I'm partial to A Priori reasoning, not A Posteriori. I don't see why guns vs general violence rate matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that the existence of guns makes people who are otherwise pacifists into violent psychopaths. What should matter, and what has been brought up in this thread multiple times, is that the choice to use a gun over, say, a knife, represents a rather dramatic shift in the chance of a fatality. Since you admit that gun-legality means they'll be chosen more often, then you tacitly admit that granting access to guns will have a measurable effect on violence insofar as it will affect fatalities/injuries/etc. I mean, your point seems to miss the mark as far as I can tell. The reason we don't allow citizens to handle dangerous biological agents isn't that it would increase the "general violence rate," but that it would make violence a hell of a lot more disastrous.
It matters because the general violence rate might be significantly lower. So while some of the violence might be worse, there may be much less violence in general. It may even save lives in the end specifically because of the increase in threat. Fewer instances of violence means fewer chances for one side or the other to take it too far and kill someone.
|
On May 08 2013 03:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 03:50 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports That's the crux of the issue though. Yes, more guns means more gun-related violence. But only in the same vein that more cars means more car accidents. Instead of looking at gun-violence rates compared to gun-prevalence rates you have to look at general violence rates compared to gun-prevalence. Of course gun-violence rates go up as gun-prevalence increases, guns being more common means they'll likely be chosen more often. What isn't clear though, is that gun-prevalence increases the general violence rate. I personally don't care about how the statistics turn out either way. I'm partial to A Priori reasoning, not A Posteriori. I don't see why guns vs general violence rate matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that the existence of guns makes people who are otherwise pacifists into violent psychopaths. What should matter, and what has been brought up in this thread multiple times, is that the choice to use a gun over, say, a knife, represents a rather dramatic shift in the chance of a fatality. Since you admit that gun-legality means they'll be chosen more often, then you tacitly admit that granting access to guns will have a measurable effect on violence insofar as it will affect fatalities/injuries/etc. I mean, your point seems to miss the mark as far as I can tell. The reason we don't allow citizens to handle dangerous biological agents isn't that it would increase the "general violence rate," but that it would make violence a hell of a lot more disastrous. It matters because the general violence rate might be significantly lower. So while some of the violence might be worse, there may be much less violence in general. It may even save lives in the end specifically because of the increase in threat. Fewer instances of violence means fewer chances for one side or the other to take it too far and kill someone.
I think that the general violence rate has more to do with socioecnomic factors than with gun control. It seems very difficult to isolate for that variable, frankly.
|
On May 08 2013 04:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 03:59 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 03:50 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports That's the crux of the issue though. Yes, more guns means more gun-related violence. But only in the same vein that more cars means more car accidents. Instead of looking at gun-violence rates compared to gun-prevalence rates you have to look at general violence rates compared to gun-prevalence. Of course gun-violence rates go up as gun-prevalence increases, guns being more common means they'll likely be chosen more often. What isn't clear though, is that gun-prevalence increases the general violence rate. I personally don't care about how the statistics turn out either way. I'm partial to A Priori reasoning, not A Posteriori. I don't see why guns vs general violence rate matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that the existence of guns makes people who are otherwise pacifists into violent psychopaths. What should matter, and what has been brought up in this thread multiple times, is that the choice to use a gun over, say, a knife, represents a rather dramatic shift in the chance of a fatality. Since you admit that gun-legality means they'll be chosen more often, then you tacitly admit that granting access to guns will have a measurable effect on violence insofar as it will affect fatalities/injuries/etc. I mean, your point seems to miss the mark as far as I can tell. The reason we don't allow citizens to handle dangerous biological agents isn't that it would increase the "general violence rate," but that it would make violence a hell of a lot more disastrous. It matters because the general violence rate might be significantly lower. So while some of the violence might be worse, there may be much less violence in general. It may even save lives in the end specifically because of the increase in threat. Fewer instances of violence means fewer chances for one side or the other to take it too far and kill someone. I think that the general violence rate has more to do with socioecnomic factors than with gun control. It seems very difficult to isolate for that variable, frankly.
Then that's also true of the gun violence rate.
|
On May 08 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:00 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 03:59 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 03:50 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports That's the crux of the issue though. Yes, more guns means more gun-related violence. But only in the same vein that more cars means more car accidents. Instead of looking at gun-violence rates compared to gun-prevalence rates you have to look at general violence rates compared to gun-prevalence. Of course gun-violence rates go up as gun-prevalence increases, guns being more common means they'll likely be chosen more often. What isn't clear though, is that gun-prevalence increases the general violence rate. I personally don't care about how the statistics turn out either way. I'm partial to A Priori reasoning, not A Posteriori. I don't see why guns vs general violence rate matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that the existence of guns makes people who are otherwise pacifists into violent psychopaths. What should matter, and what has been brought up in this thread multiple times, is that the choice to use a gun over, say, a knife, represents a rather dramatic shift in the chance of a fatality. Since you admit that gun-legality means they'll be chosen more often, then you tacitly admit that granting access to guns will have a measurable effect on violence insofar as it will affect fatalities/injuries/etc. I mean, your point seems to miss the mark as far as I can tell. The reason we don't allow citizens to handle dangerous biological agents isn't that it would increase the "general violence rate," but that it would make violence a hell of a lot more disastrous. It matters because the general violence rate might be significantly lower. So while some of the violence might be worse, there may be much less violence in general. It may even save lives in the end specifically because of the increase in threat. Fewer instances of violence means fewer chances for one side or the other to take it too far and kill someone. I think that the general violence rate has more to do with socioecnomic factors than with gun control. It seems very difficult to isolate for that variable, frankly. Then that's also true of the gun violence rate.
Didn't you just admit that easier access to guns = more gun usage in crimes? That actually seems pretty easy to measure because it's concerned with the same fundamental issue of gun possession. The reason gun access vs overall violence rate is hard to measure draw conclusions about is because the two could ostensibly be unrelated and because the overall violence rate doesn't depend directly on gun control but is affected by many other factors. Gun usage in crimes is directly related to ease of gun access because, as you admitted, if it's easier to acquire a particularly potent sort of weapon, then someone interested in committing a crime will opt to use the most potent weapon they can access (i.e. a gun rather than a knife).
I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily an argument against gun usage per se, but only that there's a pretty clear difference in comparing gun access vs gun usage in crimes and gun access vs overall violence. The former two both concern themselves essentially with gun possession and it's easy to see how they're related; there are also fewer variables to eliminate. The latter could be due to any number of things.
|
On May 08 2013 04:37 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 04:00 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 03:59 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 03:50 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports That's the crux of the issue though. Yes, more guns means more gun-related violence. But only in the same vein that more cars means more car accidents. Instead of looking at gun-violence rates compared to gun-prevalence rates you have to look at general violence rates compared to gun-prevalence. Of course gun-violence rates go up as gun-prevalence increases, guns being more common means they'll likely be chosen more often. What isn't clear though, is that gun-prevalence increases the general violence rate. I personally don't care about how the statistics turn out either way. I'm partial to A Priori reasoning, not A Posteriori. I don't see why guns vs general violence rate matters. I don't think anyone is arguing that the existence of guns makes people who are otherwise pacifists into violent psychopaths. What should matter, and what has been brought up in this thread multiple times, is that the choice to use a gun over, say, a knife, represents a rather dramatic shift in the chance of a fatality. Since you admit that gun-legality means they'll be chosen more often, then you tacitly admit that granting access to guns will have a measurable effect on violence insofar as it will affect fatalities/injuries/etc. I mean, your point seems to miss the mark as far as I can tell. The reason we don't allow citizens to handle dangerous biological agents isn't that it would increase the "general violence rate," but that it would make violence a hell of a lot more disastrous. It matters because the general violence rate might be significantly lower. So while some of the violence might be worse, there may be much less violence in general. It may even save lives in the end specifically because of the increase in threat. Fewer instances of violence means fewer chances for one side or the other to take it too far and kill someone. I think that the general violence rate has more to do with socioecnomic factors than with gun control. It seems very difficult to isolate for that variable, frankly. Then that's also true of the gun violence rate. Didn't you just admit that easier access to guns = more gun usage in crimes? That actually seems pretty easy to measure because it's concerned with the same fundamental issue of gun possession. The reason gun access vs overall violence rate is hard to measure draw conclusions about is because the two could ostensibly be unrelated and because the overall violence rate doesn't depend directly on gun control but is affected by many other factors. Gun usage in crimes is directly related to ease of gun access because, as you admitted, if it's easier to acquire a particularly potent sort of weapon, then someone interested in committing a crime will opt to use the most potent weapon they can access (i.e. a gun rather than a knife). I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily an argument against gun usage per se, but only that there's a pretty clear difference in comparing gun access vs gun usage in crimes and gun access vs overall violence. The former two both concern themselves essentially with gun possession and it's easy to see how they're related; there are also fewer variables to eliminate. The latter could be due to any number of things.
Ah, see this is a misunderstanding. I admitted guns would be used more often not because they're particularly more potent, but because they're more common. More crimes involving baseball bats and other blunt weapons occur than crimes involving guns, because blunt objects are extremely common.
And even so, gun-crime still would be affected by socioeconomic patterns because socioeconomics affect all crime rates.
Edit: fixed a typo
|
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally.
|
On May 08 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh. In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports
Unfortunately, there's no really great way to measure the level of gun control. For example, who has tighter gun control: Australia or Canada? East Timor or China? Hungary or the Czech Republic? Most interstate and international comparisons use # of guns owned per capita as a proxy which can be misleading. I can think of many highly controlled systems with lots of guns per capita and the opposite is also possible.
The studies that need to be done require a better measure or assessing longitudinal impacts as gun control tightens and loosens in various places, but even qualifying that is difficult. It would be ideal if you could also use logistic or linear regression to pull out the other factors but the impact on gun violence of socioeconomic factors maps poorly to either one.
|
On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally.
It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade.
Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself?
|
On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself?
This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade?
Just curious.
|
On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious.
I think he means hunting and protection from muggings/break ins.
|
On May 08 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I think he means hunting and protection from muggings/break ins.
I can extrapolate that much, but I guess my question then is weighing the body count against muggings and break ins, because I'd assume those things can be improved with targeted social and economic policy.
|
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96'
|
On May 08 2013 08:03 Oaky wrote:
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96'
Read the last few pages.
Only NRA evidence is real evidence.
Scientists, Doctors, and Non-American countries don't count as valid sources of information according to pro-gun people on this thread.
|
On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious.
At least be fair in your comparisons. Where did you come up with one million? The numbers I found were closer to 325,000. A third of the number you threw out there.
Source.
|
On May 08 2013 08:03 Oaky wrote:
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96'
You may want to check the Wikipedia page on that actually. I've linked it here. The relevant section is quoted below:
"+ Show Spoiler +Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
