Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 98470 times)

px4shooter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1200 on: May 18, 2018, 07:33:39 PM »

If this says what I think it does, this is exactly what I mean.  I do not automatically correlate the fact that there are a lot of guns to the fact that there are a lot of deaths.  Let's take Sweden as out base point.  They have 4.1 deaths and about 30 guns per 100 people (actually a bit more, like 31 or 32).  The US has less than 90, but for easy math let's say 90, 3 times as much as Sweden.  If the guns were the only, or even the main, problem, then we should have 3 times the homicides, or a little over 12, yet he have 2.5 times that number, which is exactly my point.  There is something else going on in our culture that drives Americans to attack with a gun, and we need to figure that out if we really want to address this.  We've banned guns in several of our cities for a time and while homicides dropped they did not come anywhere near 0, so limiting or banning is an easy panacea that is likely to be a lot of work for not the result you want.

What this chart does is highlight the violence problem that this country suffers. The homicide rate should directly correlate to the gun ownership percentage, but it doesn't. So, is the gun the problem or the people? If you want to actually analyze the data, look at the race disparity in violent crime. It is a social problem and way beyond the one weapon type.

Guns per 100 people-
United States of America 88.8
Switzerland 45.7
Finland 45.3
Sweden 31.6
Norway 31.3
France 31.2
Canada 30.8
Austria 30.4
Iceland 30.3
Germany 15 30.3


ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1201 on: May 18, 2018, 07:56:53 PM »
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns.

Or instead you prefer to run to your corner of gun control and ban guns and accuse GRA of not wanting to talk, while you just decided not to talk?  Sounds pretty fair and intelligent.

Yep, exactly.  I'm going to 'run to my corner and not talk'.  And then I'm going to vote for every gun regulation that comes my way, and do my damndest to convince my friends and family to do the same.  Why?  Because people like you want to pretend that somehow it's the kids that are the problem--that a significant percentage of our kids are so much worse, so mentally ill, so much more violent, so completely different from every other child on the planet--that there's no possible way that actually taking away the common denominator in mass shootings (which is--SURPRISE--the thing that does the shooting) could ever possibly make a difference.

It's stupid.  It's an argument in bad faith.  And trust me, I work with a lot of gun aficionadoes--this is not the first time I've had this debate.  I've been having this debate with different people for DECADES at this point, and the only thing that has changed over the years is that we now have less regulation and more shootings.

To quote Narcotics Anonymous:  "The price may seem higher for the addict who prostitutes for a fix than it is for the addict who merely lies to a doctor, but ultimately both pay with their lives. Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results."

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1202 on: May 19, 2018, 12:25:55 AM »
So much this. If anything, itís the parents who are to blame, not the kids. How about we arrest the father of that Texas kid? The one who didnít secure his weapons and probably taught his kid to shoot? Enough with this stupid cowboy ďgood guyĒ/ďcriminalsĒ kind of BS talk. No one is a ďgood guyĒ. We are all people who do stupid things sometimes. This father/ďresponsibleĒ gun owner sure fucked up.

I never, ever thought I would say this, but I want very much to see someone have the balls to kill the second amendment. No other country has something like that hobbling policy, law, and any discussion  at all when it comes to guns. Thereís your explanation. Banning guns in a couple cities means NOTHING when you can drive a few hours and have your pick.

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1203 on: May 19, 2018, 01:51:35 AM »
people like you want to pretend that somehow it's the kids that are the problem--that a significant percentage of our kids are so much worse, so mentally ill, so much more violent, so completely different from every other child on the planet--that there's no possible way that actually taking away the common denominator in mass shootings (which is--SURPRISE--the thing that does the shooting) could ever possibly make a difference.
Obviously taking away the common denominator will make a difference. But the US as a whole is more medicated than any other country on Earth, and that includes your children. It even varies by US state. In the US, you are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health issue, and more likely to receive medication for it. So either the US is overdiagnosing, or other countries are underdiagnosing, or the US is just crazier than other countries.  And in most mass shootings, the perpetrator has a history of interactions with mental health authorities.

Firearms or mental health? It's not either/or. Your country can have more than one problem.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1204 on: May 19, 2018, 05:54:09 AM »
@ministashy I'm not suggesting that the kids may be mentally unstable.  You once again are jumping to a corner.  It does not mean we have actual mental health diagnosable disorders.  If you'd honestly get off the soapbox and listen to things that are being said and be open to thinking about them you might understand what I am seeing.  @TrudgingAlong points to something I strongly believe as well, the parents are as much or more involved.  Where does a child learn how to think about the world?  From those around them, mainly their parents, then their peer group and also media.  We are a culture saturated with fascination with guns (where a discussion can go on for 24 pages just because it is fasctinating not because we got anywhere as you yourself pointed out) and it is everywhere and to ignore that difference from other countires and say it is just the thing doing the shooting is a little short sighted, I believe.

@Kyle Schuant  also brings up a terrific point.  We have more than one problem.  Why has the issue not been solved?  Because we take the lazy way out and focus on one thing and pontificate that "We must do something about guns?"  In my line of work I regularly find that stopping at the most obvious solution is almost always wrong, so I'll take you through the basics of root cause analysis, which begins with "5 whys".  I am not saying my answers or this path it THE right one, but it is one.  I'd ask you do the same.  At this point you are asking one why, and stopping.  A fatal flaw (pardon the pun).

Why do we have a lot of shooting?  Because we have guns
Why do we have a lot of guns? Because people like them
Why do people like them? Because it makes them feel something.  Safe, cool, exercising their freddoms, etc.
Why do they want to feel that way? Because it satisfies some desire in them
Why do they have that desire?  Because of the way they think about something

And now at that fifth why, you get to where I am.  Why do Americans think about these things leading all the way back to wanting a gun and using it in the way they do?  To argue that the answer does not lie in research on the mental patterns that get us there is poor analysis I believe.  Get to the root.  Guns are not the root.  They are a branch,  Again, I am not a gun advocate.  Far from it.  I'm with you at times where I'm just like take them away, makes no difference to me, but when I get off my pile of emotions of anger and frustration and sadness I realize that my being pissed off is not going to solve a damn thing.  We need to methodically and objectively work through the issue.  Nothing in root cause analysis says five is the magic number.  The rule is to ask AT LEAST 5 whys.  Only then have you got any chance that you might understand what the problem is.  Like it or not, it is not guns by themselves, so trying to solve that will not get us very far. 

There are several folks on this thread engaging in a conversation, but you've shut it down again with your angst and rage.  Listen to other people like @px4shooter who see the same thing in the data, it's not just a gun problem.  It's a social problem.  It hurts to admit that maybe our kids and maybe we are messed up.  We can be the proverbial ostrich in the sand with the voices of the little seagulls from Finding Nemo and stick out heads in the sand while we continue to shout, "Guns! Guns! Guns!" when asked what the problem is.  Or we can use those nice long necks on our ostrich bodies and stick our heads up high and look around and try to figure out WTF is really going on.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1205 on: May 19, 2018, 06:12:49 AM »
Quote from: caracarn
And now at that fifth why, you get to where I am.  Why do Americans think about these things leading all the way back to wanting a gun and using it in the way they do?
I'm reminded of the saying...

"To the man with a hammer, all problems look like a nail."

Maybe because guns are so common and easily accessible, many Americans see all problems as ones that can be resolved by the use of guns?

Just a thought and probably wrong.  It's much more likely to be something, anything, other than the easy access to firearms.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9259
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1206 on: May 19, 2018, 07:10:52 AM »
As an outsider, I keep coming back to this perceived need for guns, for protection.  Canadians are not the most peaceful society, when we look at those charts, but we are not looking to guns for protection.  We don't have hand guns except for restricted access (police, etc.) and criminals (smuggled guns from the US, mostly).  We do have long guns.  Most people have them because they target shoot, hunt, or are rural with predator problems (coyotes around here).  And we do have people who use them criminally1.  We also have two relatively recent cases of people using vehicles criminally2.  But we aren't doing the more visible acting out at the same rate as our neighbours.

So Caracarn has a point - why do Americans have so many guns, and why do they feel the need for these guns?

1 Parliament Hill shooting, 2014
2 Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu 2014, Toronto 2018

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1207 on: May 19, 2018, 07:12:55 AM »
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns.

I'll use a ^^^^ this :). Not that I agree with you, but that this is an example of why there's less compromise than you claim to want.

You make a statement that is completely false. You state that 24 pages of discussion (I doubt you've read it all, or if you have it's with rose colored glasses, ignoring what's in black and white) where there is "no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns." I don't have the time or inclination to go back and look up all the quotes, but I believe there may be 1 or 2 people MAYBE that haven't proposed any additional solutions/compromise. I know I have, and I've argued extensively on the rights side, so your statement is wrong on the face of it because it's an absolutist statement that is simply again, wrong.

What you're saying is that people aren't proposing the regulations or restrictions you are wanting. The fact of the matter is, people have commented that they would be up for different things. I've personally commented that universal background checks and larger gun magazine bans seem like stuff we should go at before other things that appear to be nonsensical like "assault weapons" bans (especially since I got push back when requests were made for what that actually means, which still makes me chuckle a bit at the silliness of it). GRA People have proposed looking at the prosecution of people who do straw purchases, for instance. There's discussion on whether or not this would be effective, but again, the GRA side is proposing things on this board. They're also discussing philosophy as you say and *gasp* nuance and effectiveness. It's what rational people do when they're discussing legislative issues of the day. I mean, I get it. It's human nature to jump in full tilt into something. This is a bad example, but I think there's a comparison here. It's why people like spy novels, zombie novels, end of the universe stuff - Avengers anyone? The end of the world or at least the end of the world is coming for a particular person or family. He realizes the zombie plague is coming and quits his job of 30 years, spends his whole savings on a boat to go to sea to escape it - darn the consequences because who cares, the issue is so important. Or the Avengers in the movie do whatever without worrying too much about the buildings that are destroyed...after all, the bad guys are wanting to do something so much worse, it's worth not worrying about the nuances. However, to continue the Avengers analogy *spoiler alert* guns aren't Thanos trying to kill literally half the universe *end spoiler alert*. It's not an epidemic wiping out 25% of the planet's population. It's a serious issue where people are getting hurt and killed that could be improved upon, but you're not going to get traction among people that disagree with you when you treat it like it's the former thing.

Yes, we can do something. Most people on here who have been discussing have been discussing things to do. Details do matter, and I'm not apologizing for that. Your statement implies that they don't. It leads to where GRA people make comments that gun control people are irrational and only think with their emotions, and quite frankly it's not just a perception. You're proving it out. To the person whose son died of a rare disease, they might think that 75% of all money for medical research should be devoted to that disease until it's cured. That's great, but we don't live in a world where doing one things doesn't have consequences for other things. Cancer and heart disease kills so many more people and requires attention too (not saying the first disease doesn't). Again, not the best analogy, but there are consequences to every action. What if we ban all guns and crime stays similar or violent crime goes up. Gun homicides go down because they're less guns but overall homicides go up. Your statement shows that your rigid and dare I say fanatical ideology overrides any other factor, which, to me, proves that I don't need to worry about what you think and makes me wonder if other people who support gun control think the same. Thanks carcarn for providing a foil to this.

These venting statements/rants simply do as caracarn says. They make people like me think there is no compromise with the "other side." I get it that at this point, you don't seem to care. That's fine too. Your perspective just has consequences.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1208 on: May 19, 2018, 08:30:49 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3135
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1209 on: May 19, 2018, 09:16:32 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1210 on: May 19, 2018, 09:26:30 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.

More kids have been shot and killed at school in 2018 than military service members.

Are school shootings a problem? Yes.
Are mass shootings a problem? Yes.
Are "every day" murders a problem? Yes.
Are suicides a problem? Yes.

Common denominator?  Unfettered access to guns.

calimom

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Location: Northern California
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1211 on: May 19, 2018, 09:35:16 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1212 on: May 19, 2018, 10:06:44 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1213 on: May 19, 2018, 10:34:26 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

No, it leads to the War on drugs.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1214 on: May 19, 2018, 10:53:45 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

The hypothetical is a good question for everyone to ask themselves.

The other point though, "Greater access to guns leads to more deaths", I don't disagree with the statement but saying the data supports it isn't entirely true. This is very much correlation and as others have pointed out the rate of ownership to death does not correlate as well in other countries. There are many other differences between the US and developed European countries and one in particular is indeed the war on drugs.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1215 on: May 19, 2018, 01:42:31 PM »
They also have socialized healthcare, which means better access to mental health services. Something a whole lot of the same people who love their guns donít want in America. Iíve always been an Independent who voted both sides of the aisle,  but I might register Democrat for the first time ever this year. At least until the Republicans get serious about guns AND increasing healthcare access.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1216 on: May 19, 2018, 10:17:00 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1217 on: May 19, 2018, 11:47:51 PM »
Wolfpack - I agree, we should radically reduce red tape around gun ownership by simply banning them.  Can't get simpler than that.

I'd also point out that my hypothetical results in lower deaths, your hypothetical results in less red tape.  That's telling.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1218 on: May 20, 2018, 12:46:46 AM »
Interesting choice of words. How does one prove they are ďresponsibly using gunsĒ? Look at the Vegas shooter as a great example. No one has a clue why he decided to go off and shoot as many people as he could with his arsenal. He totally fit the ďgood guyĒ profile (as a woman, Iíd still like to know why it must be a male thing to be ďgoodĒ, but whatever...), yet turned into a mass murderer. Red tape seems to be our only hope of forcing responsible behavior. Or, of course, banning guns so we can stop trying to figure out who is ďreally goodĒ and who is ďfake goodĒ.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1219 on: May 20, 2018, 06:10:41 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....

Wow!!! So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it? I bet you would feel differently if it was your child. "Sorry your child was shot and killed while going to school, but hey at least they weren't raped!" 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1220 on: May 20, 2018, 07:12:52 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....

Wow!!! So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it? I bet you would feel differently if it was your child. "Sorry your child was shot and killed while going to school, but hey at least they weren't raped!"

Again with the emotional rhetoric, especially the "at least my child wouldn't be raped comment" (really?)....again, this is why gun rights people think they cannot have rational conversations with gun control activests. What if my child was shot? I would be pretty unhappy. What if my brother was beaten to death? I wouldn't be very happy. What if my life savings were stolen by someone through some loophole in the law and got away with it? I might think everything should stop in legislation until we fix this loophole because it affected me. It's probably not a good idea to govern a country based on anecdotes. I truly don't see how you don't see this unless you are deliberately being obtuse.

Gun violence is not low on my priority list. I don't know how you got that out of what I said, again, except by being deliberately obtuse. The fact that you can't see or understand that we should be more concerned with overall violence than gun violence is very revealing as to how your focus on the issue has caused you to lose perspective. I don't care if every violent death in the country is caused by guns rather than by bats or by martial artists or whatever. If there were, whatever, we'll say 50,000 violent deaths in America, and we magically took all guns away, and violent deaths overall went up to 55,000, then we as a country lost. If we extended guns where more people had them or people were able to carry them in more places or whatever and overall deaths went from 50,000 to 45,000 but more of them were gun deaths, we as a country would win. I'm not saying these would certainly happen, so don't claim that I did. I'm just saying, your line of thinking that disregards that this is true is flawed. Note that you were not saying you didn't think this would happen but that I was wrong to think this mattered at all. I mentioned rape because maybe banning guns would reduce overall deaths by a small amount but other violent crimes like rapes skyrocketed because guns were actually a deterrent - that would actually matter and be worth considering? Again, I'm not saying that would happen, but in your world where there is absolutely no nuance to the issue at all, you're not considering any consequences to this action you want. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, right?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3304
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1221 on: May 20, 2018, 09:32:56 AM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1222 on: May 20, 2018, 11:34:21 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. Itís not. Itís due to urban gang violence.


Ö.which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....

Wow!!! So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it? I bet you would feel differently if it was your child. "Sorry your child was shot and killed while going to school, but hey at least they weren't raped!"

Again with the emotional rhetoric, especially the "at least my child wouldn't be raped comment" (really?)....again, this is why gun rights people think they cannot have rational conversations with gun control activests. What if my child was shot? I would be pretty unhappy. What if my brother was beaten to death? I wouldn't be very happy. What if my life savings were stolen by someone through some loophole in the law and got away with it? I might think everything should stop in legislation until we fix this loophole because it affected me. It's probably not a good idea to govern a country based on anecdotes. I truly don't see how you don't see this unless you are deliberately being obtuse.

Gun violence is not low on my priority list. I don't know how you got that out of what I said, again, except by being deliberately obtuse. The fact that you can't see or understand that we should be more concerned with overall violence than gun violence is very revealing as to how your focus on the issue has caused you to lose perspective. I don't care if every violent death in the country is caused by guns rather than by bats or by martial artists or whatever. If there were, whatever, we'll say 50,000 violent deaths in America, and we magically took all guns away, and violent deaths overall went up to 55,000, then we as a country lost. If we extended guns where more people had them or people were able to carry them in more places or whatever and overall deaths went from 50,000 to 45,000 but more of them were gun deaths, we as a country would win. I'm not saying these would certainly happen, so don't claim that I did. I'm just saying, your line of thinking that disregards that this is true is flawed. Note that you were not saying you didn't think this would happen but that I was wrong to think this mattered at all. I mentioned rape because maybe banning guns would reduce overall deaths by a small amount but other violent crimes like rapes skyrocketed because guns were actually a deterrent - that would actually matter and be worth considering? Again, I'm not saying that would happen, but in your world where there is absolutely no nuance to the issue at all, you're not considering any consequences to this action you want. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, right?

Everyone writes with emotion. It's part of what makes us human. We aren't devoid of thoughts and feelings. So I have no ideal what you mean by "emotional rhetoric." I responded to the bolded part where you claimed that you would not support a ban if it meant gun violence would cease. And your reasoning was because things like rape etc. are more important to you. Hence reducing gun violence is pretty low on your priority list. If someone gave me a choice of having or not having gun violence. I would prefer not to have it. Seems pretty simple.

Yes I am a gun control person. I support keeping guns out of peoples hands that shouldn't have one. Hopefully you do as well.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1223 on: May 20, 2018, 12:02:39 PM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.

That is an ironic thing to say on this piece of conversation with tyort. I wasn't the one that made a ridiculous statement about at least a child wasn't raped... I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so. Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1224 on: May 20, 2018, 12:30:07 PM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.



TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1225 on: May 20, 2018, 01:06:20 PM »
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we arenít likely to pull a gun on until itís far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1226 on: May 20, 2018, 02:23:56 PM »
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we arenít likely to pull a gun on until itís far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.

This is quite true.  One common thread I find in talking to GRA types is that they see the world as full of predators and that owning a gun is one of the few things that makes the world safe from these predators.  So GRA types react very negatively and very emotionally about any discussion around gun control because they feel literally unsafe without a weapon. 

I'm from Texas, my family all grew up as poor farmers in the hill country there.  I actually own guns because I inherited them from my grandparents.  I grew up around guns and am very comfortable with them.  So I'm not reacting emotionally, quite the opposite.  I just like to ask hard questions that make GRA types uncomfortable. 

For example, if eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence, it wouldn't actually matter to a GRA person.  Because their main concern is not about gun violence.  Their main concern is keeping themselves safe from 'predators'. 
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 02:28:21 PM by tyort1 »

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Location: MA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1227 on: May 20, 2018, 02:48:40 PM »
What is really sad is that the NRA has poisoned all the rhetoric surrounding the gun debate to the point that the opposite side has hardened to the point of wanting to ban guns entirely.  I really think there was a point in time where the NRA could have taken a leadership position and addressed our gun death problems with empathy and a push for better training and a better culture surrounding gun ownership, instead of what we have now.  Now we have the NRA attacking survivors of mass shootings, which is pretty much as low as one can go. 

However, empathy wonít sell guns, but promoting a culture of persecution and victimization will sell lots of guns. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1228 on: May 20, 2018, 04:19:10 PM »
Wolfpack - I agree, we should radically reduce red tape around gun ownership by simply banning them.  Can't get simpler than that.

I'd also point out that my hypothetical results in lower deaths, your hypothetical results in less red tape.  That's telling.

Before I started in on other comments, I want to acknowledge this one. It's a fair question and critique. However, I want to point out that your statement is not correct in light of what you actually said. Your hypothetical resulted in lower gun deaths. I was trying to get to that point but you don't seem to respond to that at all. My hypothetical, I'll admit, does seem more trivial. However, what I was specifically thinking of when I thought of it was gun control laws restricting concealed carry people who statistically commit such a small amount of crime with guns that it's virtually negligible but who do occasionally stop bad things from happening. Restrictions on them is red tape that could prevent lives from being saved, so yes, I am thinking about lives.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1229 on: May 20, 2018, 04:37:09 PM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1230 on: May 20, 2018, 04:46:36 PM »
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we arenít likely to pull a gun on until itís far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.

This is quite true.  One common thread I find in talking to GRA types is that they see the world as full of predators and that owning a gun is one of the few things that makes the world safe from these predators.  So GRA types react very negatively and very emotionally about any discussion around gun control because they feel literally unsafe without a weapon. 

I'm from Texas, my family all grew up as poor farmers in the hill country there.  I actually own guns because I inherited them from my grandparents.  I grew up around guns and am very comfortable with them.  So I'm not reacting emotionally, quite the opposite.  I just like to ask hard questions that make GRA types uncomfortable. 

For example, if eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence, it wouldn't actually matter to a GRA person.  Because their main concern is not about gun violence.  Their main concern is keeping themselves safe from 'predators'.

Again claiming we're acting emotionally.... The only emotion I'm having right now is frustration that I'm apparently not getting my point across. First, you're claiming to act non-emotionally, but I haven't seen you post any data to back up your clear statement that eliminating guns would reduce overall violence like I asked you for....so you know, you could do that....

Second, you claim to know what I'm thinking. Most gun control people do. I'm not afraid of predators or think they're under every door post. I have literally made the statement several times in this thread that:

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by someone in a violent crime.

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by guns, especially if you eliminate suicides which only physically injure yourself.

Neither side has a real clear and present danger. I'm admitting that, are you?

I'll reiterate my response to your statement one more time. You say:

If eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence that it wouldn't matter to me. I say it would. I also state that there's at least a possibility (because I don't claim proof unlike you do without putting it up) that guns can reduce violent crime. To TrudgingAlong's comment about rape, I'll freely admit I may be wrong on that specific one, so I'll take it off the table. That doesn't mean guns don't reduce overall violent crime or murders.

So I'll pose this hypothetical to you:

If we banned guns and gun related deaths dropped by 1,000 but overall murders increased by 2,000, would you consider it a success?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1231 on: May 20, 2018, 05:04:36 PM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1232 on: May 20, 2018, 05:12:22 PM »
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we arenít likely to pull a gun on until itís far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.

This is quite true.  One common thread I find in talking to GRA types is that they see the world as full of predators and that owning a gun is one of the few things that makes the world safe from these predators.  So GRA types react very negatively and very emotionally about any discussion around gun control because they feel literally unsafe without a weapon. 

I'm from Texas, my family all grew up as poor farmers in the hill country there.  I actually own guns because I inherited them from my grandparents.  I grew up around guns and am very comfortable with them.  So I'm not reacting emotionally, quite the opposite.  I just like to ask hard questions that make GRA types uncomfortable. 

For example, if eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence, it wouldn't actually matter to a GRA person.  Because their main concern is not about gun violence.  Their main concern is keeping themselves safe from 'predators'.
Again claiming we're acting emotionally.... The only emotion I'm having right now is frustration that I'm apparently not getting my point across. First, you're claiming to act non-emotionally, but I haven't seen you post any data to back up your clear statement that eliminating guns would reduce overall violence like I asked you for....so you know, you could do that....


Data was already posted - countries with less guns have less gun related deaths. 

Second, you claim to know what I'm thinking. Most gun control people do. I'm not afraid of predators or think they're under every door post. I have literally made the statement several times in this thread that:

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by someone in a violent crime.

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by guns, especially if you eliminate suicides which only physically injure yourself.

Neither side has a real clear and present danger. I'm admitting that, are you?
If you're claiming that you feel everyone is generally safe and unlikely to ever need a gun, then why do you feel anyone needs a gun?  This is almost non-sensical to me.  "Nobody really needs a gun, but we're all better off if we have one".?  Really?

I'll reiterate my response to your statement one more time. You say:

If eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence that it wouldn't matter to me. I say it would. I also state that there's at least a possibility (because I don't claim proof unlike you do without putting it up) that guns can reduce violent crime. To TrudgingAlong's comment about rape, I'll freely admit I may be wrong on that specific one, so I'll take it off the table. That doesn't mean guns don't reduce overall violent crime or murders.

So I'll pose this hypothetical to you:

If we banned guns and gun related deaths dropped by 1,000 but overall murders increased by 2,000, would you consider it a success?

What I want is a safer society.  If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.  I do know this - based on how it is now, it can't get much worse.  I mean, we're not "quite" as bad as Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we're close - #14 for top murder rates by country, in the world.  So yeah, maybe taking the highly efficient death machines out of the equation will help!   

GRA people always feel like a gun is good protection, but they forget that guns enable and embolden criminals.  Take away ALL guns and it's much harder for criminals to inflict death, and I'd argue much easier for regular people to defend themselves. 

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1233 on: May 20, 2018, 05:32:52 PM »
My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.
Might be interesting to have a look at the data to determine if nations with stricter gun control laws and fewer guns per capita have a correlating increase in violent crimes committed without a firearm.

A quick glance around the net would suggest not.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1234 on: May 20, 2018, 05:37:38 PM »
"Data was already posted - countries with less guns have less gun related deaths." Sigh....I guess you really aren't reading what I'm saying....I don't know how to be any clearer in saying data showing guns gone = OVERALL violent deaths down, not gun deaths. You obviously don't care enough to read my statements.

"If you're claiming that you feel everyone is generally safe and unlikely to ever need a gun, then why do you feel anyone needs a gun?  This is almost non-sensical to me.  "Nobody really needs a gun, but we're all better off if we have one".?  Really?"

I'm claiming that you're very unlikely to get hurt by a gun. You're very unlikely to use a gun in self defense. Some people take this to mean that they feel like they'd rather be prepared with a gun. Some people look at this and say guns don't really help a whole lot so why not take them away. Gun control people highly emphasize the unlikelihood that they'll be used but fail to mention the unlikelihood that you'll ever get hurt from them. I'm just honest enough to admit both sides are true whereas most gun control people breeze over one side of it.

"What I want is a safer society.  If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.  I do know this - based on how it is now, it can't get much worse.  I mean, we're not "quite" as bad as Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we're close - #14 for top murder rates by country, in the world.  So yeah, maybe taking the highly efficient death machines out of the equation will help!   

GRA people always feel like a gun is good protection, but they forget that guns enable and embolden criminals.  Take away ALL guns and it's much harder for criminals to inflict death, and I'd argue much easier for regular people to defend themselves."

Well, first, you didn't directly answer my hypothetical question for whatever reason although I directly answered yours even though it was a loaded question (which made mine easier to be taken out of context later but I did it to be up front), so thanks for that.  Second, yes, for our top tier nation status, we're very violent. You argue is it's much easier for regular people to defend themselves if criminals don't have guns. My response is that criminals typically don't need guns to do crazy things because they're crazy (on drugs, nothing to lose, etc.). Regular people typically have scruples/want to appease them to try to avoid harm, when criminals are desperate, maybe stronger, etc. Your hypothetical thought, my hypothetical thought.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 05:51:09 PM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1235 on: May 20, 2018, 05:56:32 PM »

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

It's only a strawman if I'm making up some viewpoint as if you had said it when you didn't so that I can knock it down and make you look bad. I said that I was concerned with overall violence stats and you said that I must therefore not care much at all about gun deaths (a really inflammatory statement that was not what I said at all). I know it was pretty clear because TrudgingAlong recognized the point I was trying to make, and they don't agree with me on the issue. I simply called you out on a non-productive statement designed to make me look bad that didn't reflect what I said.

But, we can argue about this all day long. I will review your data. I am curious.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1236 on: May 20, 2018, 06:10:03 PM »
It's only a strawman if I'm making up some viewpoint as if you had said it when you didn't so that I can knock it down and make you look bad.

Quote
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

I made no such implication or statement that what you stated was my viewpoint. Again, you even used the word "implied." Hence straw-man.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1237 on: May 20, 2018, 06:46:19 PM »

Well, first, you didn't directly answer my hypothetical question for whatever reason

If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.


I did, in fact, directly answer your question.  How is that not a direct answer?

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1238 on: May 21, 2018, 05:15:10 AM »
Quote
I don't know how to be any clearer in saying data showing guns gone = OVERALL violent deaths down, not gun deaths. You obviously don't care enough to read my statements.

In 2010 the USA had 4x the murder rate per capital than Australia (the country that went trough significant gun reform in 1996).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9259
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1239 on: May 21, 2018, 06:20:32 AM »
Question from above somewhere - if there are few guns to commit murder with, does the murder rate with other weapons go up?  Can't answer directly, but a UN study at https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-rates-by-country.html shows the US at #81 (4.88/100,000) (#1 is highest, 108.64/100,000), Canada at 140 (1.68), Finland at 141 (1.6), France at 144 (1.58), Sweden at 156 (1.15), Australia at 161 (0.98), UK at 165 (0.92), New Zealand at 167 (0.91), and so on.

So generally "first world" countries with strong gun control have low murder rates overall.

What do I get from this?  Canada is keeping bad company; when I look at countries that we are culturally similar to (Australia and NZ especially) our murder rate is high.

What can Americans get from this?  You are at the roughly same murder rate as Somalia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

Overall?  Civil unrest and lots of guns make murder easier. Also, to quote the Wikipedia article pulling from the same data "Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence." Considering the high level of American health care compared to its neighbours on the list, probably the American homicide rate is an underestimate of societal violence, because you are more likely to die if you are shot in Somalia, more likely to be seriously wounded but survive and not show up as a murder statistic if you are shot in the US.

Not that I expect this information to make any difference in the debate here, you understand, but the data does exist.

Historical footnote - the US had the shootout at the OK corral (reality or myth is irrelevant), Canada had the North-West Mounted Police.  We never had a wild wild west.  We did have American TV.  And an easy source for smuggled hand guns. As I said, bad neighbourhood influences.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1240 on: May 21, 2018, 06:37:32 AM »
The situation is, we are now at the point where white male entitlement is so high, and guns are so plentiful, it now one of my nightmares, that some guy is attracted to one of my daughters, she's not interested, that the guy retaliates with extreme violence. There has always been misogyny. Now the web and creepy men are promoting and providing a refuge for young men, to feel that if they do not get access to the women they want, that they are victims and are the aggrieved party. It is really scary.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/05/20/in-deadly-texas-school-shooting-a-confession-but-no-clear-motive/

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/25/17277496/incel-toronto-attack-alek-minassian
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 06:39:48 AM by partgypsy »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1241 on: May 21, 2018, 06:41:52 AM »
Quote
I don't know how to be any clearer in saying data showing guns gone = OVERALL violent deaths down, not gun deaths. You obviously don't care enough to read my statements.

In 2010 the USA had 4x the murder rate per capital than Australia (the country that went trough significant gun reform in 1996).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

In 1990 the USA had 4.5x the murder rate per capita than Australia (the country that went trough significant gun reform in 1996, which was 6 years after 1990).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1990s

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9259
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1242 on: May 21, 2018, 07:27:34 AM »
The situation is, we are now at the point where white male entitlement is so high, and guns are so plentiful, it now one of my nightmares, that some guy is attracted to one of my daughters, she's not interested, that the guy retaliates with extreme violence. There has always been misogyny. Now the web and creepy men are promoting and providing a refuge for young men, to feel that if they do not get access to the women they want, that they are victims and are the aggrieved party. It is really scary.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/05/20/in-deadly-texas-school-shooting-a-confession-but-no-clear-motive/

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/25/17277496/incel-toronto-attack-alek-minassian

There is nothing super new about this.  The difference is, the Toronto guy had to rent a van.  Just like the guy in St. Jean sur Richelieu used his car.  The really determined ones will find a way.  But it is easier if guns are handy.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1243 on: May 21, 2018, 07:59:02 AM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1244 on: May 21, 2018, 08:39:23 AM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 08:44:20 AM by MasterStache »

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1245 on: May 21, 2018, 09:09:59 AM »
A few posts back, I saw criminals described as ďcrazy peopleĒ. I keep cycling back to the ďgood guyĒ rhetoric because I wonder if itís a huge part of the problems with the NRA side of the debate. People who commit crime are not inherently ďcrazyĒ. Look at how hard it is to get a true criminally insane conviction. Most people who commit crimes are totally regular people who, through a series of bad choices, bad events in their lives, and/or friends, do something stupid. Or a series of stupid things.

Okay, okay, tv, but I really urge people to watch Orange is the New Black, as well as read the book it was based on. People in prison are NOT that different from the rest of us.

Is this also a reason why gun rights tend to be stronger in more religious areas of the country? I was raised VERY religious, and the black and white view of people fits this gun narrative very well. Now that I have left that behind, I see everything very differently.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1246 on: May 21, 2018, 10:05:28 AM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a


caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1247 on: May 21, 2018, 12:33:34 PM »
Continuing to try to foster useful discussion I thought it might be helpful to share this statement from Abigail Disney a liberal filmmaker who worked on "Armor of Light" a new documentary about gun control.  It sounded a lot like what I think we all need to do in this thread and others like it.

"We have to come out of our trenches, meet in the middle and mingle, and know each other," she said. "From that place you work things through."

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1248 on: May 21, 2018, 12:43:44 PM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1249 on: May 21, 2018, 12:52:32 PM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...

Of course I did... and it's why I wouldn't try to hard to tout the 3 million Defensive Gun use figure. The truth is that the reality of defensive gun uses lies between the FBIs simplistic and misleading comparison of justified to total homicides, and the CDCs figure of up to 3 million.