Gun Control

[Stoked]

You always have to weigh costs and benefits as a part of your decision process (repeat, part of). When I worked in a restaurant, I was in favor of laws that required me to wash my hands after using the restroom, even though it trampled on my right to have dirty hands. If you really want, I can name a dozen other ways I have accepted that the trampling of my rights was appropriate. Among them, I might even find one or two where you would agree. For example, do you think butchers should have the right to sell contaminated meat?

Now, with respect to gun laws, the harms to others tend to be less frequent, and the benefits to the individual somewhat larger, than having dirty hands. So, I think there's a real case to be made for some level of individuals carrying guns and discussion over when it's best to be able to carry. However, that case is not going to be made by saying "It's my right" or using loaded language like "trampled".

Perhaps. But the case to restrict it is not made based on "what ifs" and "maybes".

 

[Stoked]

We do that in a variety of other areas, by such means as passing skills tests, requiring specific storage, safety equipment, and/or insurance, etc.

I disagree on requiring insurance. Just becasue a bad idea passed before is not a good excuse to pass another.

 

[Stoked]

Why do you assume deterrence is a primary goal?

So it is an attempt to deter non criminals?

 

[franklin]

You always have to weigh costs and benefits as a part of your decision process (repeat, part of). When I worked in a restaurant, I was in favor of laws that required me to wash my hands after using the restroom, even though it trampled on my right to have dirty hands. If you really want, I can name a dozen other ways I have accepted that the trampling of my rights was appropriate. Among them, I might even find one or two where you would agree. For example, do you think butchers should have the right to sell contaminated meat?

We already have agreed upon laws protecting us from gun retailers selling us harmful products just as we have them for restaurants and beef processers.. Are any of your dozen or so ideas analogous to gun ownership?

 

[Stoked]

We already have agreed upon laws protecting us from gun retailers selling us harmful products just as we have them for restaurants and beef processers.. Are any of your dozen or so ideas analogous to gun ownership?

No but you were speaking rhetorically.

 

[One Brow]

What works according to current convention, which may or may not be wrong and definitely includes a blatant disregard for the other side of the equation.

What do you feel I am overlooking. Since you asked me for evidence below, where is yours?

Presumptuous and unsupported. Prove to us that these murders would not have resulted in higher collateral damage death tolls due to a lack of an efficient killing mechanism.

Let's look into the data here:
https://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

From what I can tell, they are dividing up the results of an attack with a weapon into four categories, and only latter three are used on many of the tables (homicide, serious injury, minor injury, and no injury). On the tables using the latter three, in the 8,896,460 crimes where the victims survived, firearms are used in 9.5% of the assaults, while sharp objects 6.4% (Table 2), yet attack from sharper objects have a much higher percentage of injuries (Table 8), at 27.7%, versus 15.0% from a gun. By contrast, when it comes to homicides, guns account for 70.1% of the 17,822 deaths, sharp objects 13.5%.

Combining the counts into 8,914,282 attacks, guns account for 9.48% of the crimes, and death by gunshot occurs in 1.477% of the crimes where a gun is used. By contrast, sharp objects occur in 6.4% of the crimes, and death occurs in 0.423% of the crimes. That means a crime with a gun is about 2.5 more times likely to end with a death than a crime with a sharp weapon. By contrast, the percentage of non-lethal injuries are much higher for attacks with sharp weapons (this also holds for blunt objects and other types of assaults).

Now, I'm not claiming the results go strictly across to suicide, nor I have not been able to find similar statistics for suicide. However, given the far greater lethality of guns during crimes, I think the mere even split (half of the gun suicides would have been unsuccessful if another means was used) I put into my estimate was more than fair.

 

[One Brow]

Perhaps. But the case to restrict it is not made based on "what ifs" and "maybes".

I agree. It needs to be based on actual, aggregate data.

 

[One Brow]

I disagree on requiring insurance. Just becasue a bad idea passed before is not a good excuse to pass another.

You don't think drivers should be required to carry car insurance?

 

[One Brow]

So it is an attempt to deter non criminals?

My question was designed to indicate deterrence was not a goal (at least, for me, not a realistic goal in any gun control policy). That applies to both groups.

 

[One Brow]

We already have agreed upon laws protecting us from gun retailers selling us harmful products just as we have them for restaurants and beef processers.. Are any of your dozen or so ideas analogous to gun ownership?

Depends upon the idea being discussed, wouldn't you say? For example, if the idea under discussion is "I have a right to behave however I want as long as no immediate or intentional harm results", then the analogy works fairly well. It works less well for other ideas.

 

[Bronco70]

I'm just too stupid or to narrow-minded to understand its marvelous explanatory value. Is that what you meant?

Not at all. Have I ever called you stupid? To the contrary, I have commented (numerous times) that I consider you one of the smartest people on the board. I stand by that, but you have a habit of over-thinking other people's comments. You need to settle for face value sometimes.

I don't know why you would take a discussion as to whether to count a successful suicide as being attributable to the presence of a gun as a judgment on how "unacceptable" it is. I hope we can both agree that every irrationally undertaken suicide is unacceptable (and not delve into a discussion on whether there are rational suicides, or whether they are acceptable). Guns make irrationally undertaken suicides more likely to be successful. Is that in dispute?

Isn't it annoying when someone twists your words?

 

[Stoked]

I agree. It needs to be based on actual, aggregate data.

Which overall to my eyes, from what I have seen does not support things like an AWB.