"Where there are more guns, there is more gun violence"

'As a lawyer, I was trained to follow facts and evidence. I take that approach to my work in gun violence, too. In this case, the evidence is clear: Where there are more guns, there’s more gun violence."--Nina Vinik, gun violence lawyer.

During a recent flight, the author of the article (below), Nina Vinik, had a conversation with a man named Rick (also a lawyer), who expressed his enthusiasm for discussing guns. Rick, a government employee and self-proclaimed "2A fanatic" from Texas, owns over 40 firearms and considers himself a collector. He mainly focuses on antiques and does not have an interest in assault-style firearms. Furthermore, Rick even makes his own ammunition using recycled casings. Vinik, who leads a gun violence prevention organization, she was curious about Rick's perspectives on gun violence but doubted their ability to change his views, even if they talked for the entire flight.

Personally, and I think the article basically confirms this, I think the problem is the gun culture in America, and with many it's become a veritable fetish (such as posing children with assault rifles in photos) and, as Nina points out in the article, the degree to which it currently exists is a rather new phenomenon. I agree with this because I'm 72 and I never saw any of it while growing up. Guns were rarely discussed in school, in society in general. 2A just wasn't that big of a thing, not until the NRA, once an organization for stately gentlemen with shotguns who loved to hunt game, now comprises hoards of gun fanatics and military styled fire arms like they see in movies a lot, the NRA, now in cahoots with the fire arms manufacturers, was determined to boost sales.

I put that sentiment to BING AI, I asked it if there was any truth to that sentiment, and the following was what it reported back, with annotations/hotlinks to sources to back it up:

I think I have it right. Let's discuss.

I Sat Next To A Gun 'Fanatic' On A Plane. When I Told Him What My Job Is, Things Got Interesting.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sat-next-gun-fanatic-plane-123015361.html

"I doubt I could’ve changed Rick’s views, even if we’d talk for an entire international flight," the author writes.

On a recent flight, I found myself seated next to a man I’ll call Rick, who was keen for conversation.

We established that we are both lawyers. Rick works for the government, and I explained that I lead a gun violence prevention organization. Rick took that as an invitation to talk about guns.

A self-described “2A [Second Amendment] fanatic” from Texas, Rick grew up with guns and today owns more than 40 firearms. He considers himself a collector, and many of his guns are antiques — he’s not interested in assault-style firearms — and he makes his own ammunition from recycled casings. In short, Rick is a gun guy, and I was interested in his views on gun violence.
[...]
Researchers have found that the majority of gun owners do not lock up all of their weapons. And studies have shown that nearly 40% of parents in homes with guns believe their kids can’t access a gun, but the kids can. Suicide rates are four times higher for children and teens in homes with guns. Homicides and unintentional shootings are more likely in these homes, too.
[...]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/516891

The question is, what should be done about it?

Do something?

Do nothing?

 

Looks like we know the name of one of the anti-gun liars.

Do something? Sure...lock up more criminals.

 

Start a thread from the basis of a dishonest set of facts and see what happens... I mean it isn' like we've seen this movie before....

 

The majority of violence does not involve a firearm. The gullible will join the chant "do something", but will never work to "do something effective"

On accidental shootings, the current strategy of keeping kids ignorant does not appear to be effective. Even if you think your kid can't access your guns, they will go to a friend's house and likely give in to the strong curiosity shielding them creates. This reminds me of my neighbor who never let her 2 boys play with toy guns and forbid them from watching TV shows with guns. (Not even Elmer Fudd) When they came over and saw toy guns, they immediately grabbed them, aimed them at each other and pulled the trigger, saying "You're dead".

On suicides, misery does not come from a gun. Removing guns does not change ones thoughts. Of course, we are prescribing record levels of psychiatric drugs that list "suicidal thoughts or actions" as side effects.

I had unsupervised access to guns from age 9. The way I was raised, there was never any danger.

 

There is a town in Georgia that passed a law that every adult who can legally own a gun should have one as the head of a household.

Oddly enough their crime statistics are virtually zero. If you were a burglar do you think it would be a good idea to go around that town trying your luck?

 

You and me both. I grew up with unsupervised access to guns and I even used to take them out in the woods by myself shooting and never once did I shoot a friend or myself or any other person.

And your damn right about those psychiatric drugs..... Doctor says how do you feel?

Well doctor the good news is I no longer have heartburn and I've been feeling a little more energy but I can't find the will to live and I want to kill myself...

 

They don't care about the effect on crime. They only want to ban guns to make it easier to control the people.

 

My second thought on the thread is why do liberal folks always want to ignore the obvious question their gun grabbing leads to? Why do liberals never acknowledge that not being able to protect oneself is designed to make folks victims to the crime said gun grabbers enthusiastically support?

 

You'll never get them to be that honest.

 

show me where all the gun violence is on our military bases

 

There is a whole in the premise of your request big enough to drive an army tank through.

Your request assumes that military bases, which are known to have a high concentration of guns, should therefore have a high incidence of gun violence based on Vinik's statement. If they don't, you are reasoning, then the premise of this OP is incorrect.

However, this premise is flawed for a few reasons:

1. Controlled Environment: Military bases are highly controlled environments with strict rules and regulations about who can carry firearms and under what circumstances. This is not comparable to civilian areas where gun control laws may be less stringent or inconsistently enforced.
   
   
2. Training and Accountability: Military personnel undergo rigorous training in the use of firearms and are held to a high standard of accountability for their actions. This level of training and accountability is not always present in civilian contexts.
   
   
3. Access to Firearms: Despite the presence of firearms on a military base, not everyone has access to them. Firearms are typically secured and only issued to those who require them for their duties.
   
   
4. Mental Health Services: Military bases often have mental health services readily available, which can help prevent instances of gun violence.

So, comparing military bases to civilian areas in terms of gun violence is like comparing apples to oranges. The two environments are fundamentally different in many ways.

 

I'm against ANY guns laws. However, I live in a town where there is no law that every adult who can legally own a gun should have one as the head of a household and oddly enough our crime statistics are also virtually zero.

 

I'll address your points:

Gun Violence vs. Overall Violence: While it's true that not all violence involves firearms, the presence of a firearm can escalate a conflict to a fatal outcome. The main point here isn't to undermine other forms of violence but to recognize the particularly lethal role guns play when they are involved.

Educating Children: I completely agree that mere ignorance isn't the solution. Children, out of curiosity, may indeed access guns, especially when they're deemed 'forbidden'. However, while educating kids about the dangers of firearms is essential, it's equally crucial to ensure that guns are securely stored. The responsibility doesn't lie with just one side. Both proper education and secure storage need to go hand in hand.

Suicides: While it's true that the root cause of suicide isn't the presence of a gun, studies have shown that impulsiveness often plays a role in suicide attempts. A firearm, because of its lethal efficiency, leaves little room for second thoughts or interventions. Addressing mental health is imperative, but so is reducing access to lethal means during vulnerable times.

Personal Experiences: Your experience growing up with unsupervised access to guns is valid. Every individual has unique experiences, and while you were safe, that might not be the case for everyone. Our perspectives should be informed not just by personal experiences but also by broader societal patterns.

Lastly, the objective isn't to vilify guns or their owners but to find a balanced approach that respects rights while ensuring the safety of all community members.

 

The sale of assault weapons needs to be banned. But we also need to reduce the number of guns out on the street. They are TOO easy to get. Because there are so many. We've talked about red-flag laws, voluntary buy back programs (at fair prices), requiring a gun license and a "graduation" process(which must include a section on gun safety), declaring gun violence a preventable public health problem (a mental disease, if applicable), ... these are just some of the things that even most honest and proficient gun owners would be in favor of. These are the things the NRA was in favor of before they became the political arm of the gun industry. That's when they started pushing the "2nd A" excuse (which never had anything to do with individual gun ownership). And that's when gun violence started becoming an epidemic. Human life then took the backseat to gun industry profits. This is why the PLCAA needs to be repealed, and the relationship between the NRA and the gun industry investigated.

 

Where there is more gun control legislation there is more gun violence.

 

Ahh, Nelson GA. Well, with barely over 1000 residents, I would call that evidence anecdotal.

Nelson passed a law requiring its citizens to own a gun and ammunition. The law, known as the “Family Protection Ordinance”, requires the head of every household to own a gun and ammo to “provide for the emergency management of the city” and “provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants”.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...nership-so-did-the-founding-fathers-13744906/

However, it’s important to note that this law contains no penalties, has exemptions for felons and the mentally ill, and allows anyone to opt out.

As for the population, as of 2020, Nelson had a population of 1,145. The population in 2023 was projected to be 1,186.

Regarding gun violence in Georgia, in an average year, 1,603 people die and 4,492 are wounded by guns in Georgia. Georgia has the 9th-highest rate of gun violence in the US. However, it’s difficult to draw conclusions about Nelson specifically from these statistics. While it’s true that Nelson’s small size could make certain statistics anecdotal or less representative of larger trends, it’s also important to consider other factors such as socioeconomic conditions, law enforcement practices, community engagement, and many others when analyzing crime rates. Therefore, while Nelson’s law is certainly interesting and unique, its effectiveness in reducing gun violence would need to be evaluated within a broader context.

My recommendation is that when attempting to make argument premised on a simplistic conclusion, do your homework and thus be more robust and avoid the simplistic conclusion and your argument will either fade or be stronger.

 

A small town, perhaps? Thus proving my rebuttal to @FatBack that with such a small town, his evidence is anecdotal, as would be yours if it is a rather small town, and anecdotal evidence, though worthy of consideration, is not conclusive evidence, though it interesting that yours contradicts his, but it does confirm my point. If your town is a large city, say over 100k, then we must analyze the many factors why your town is doing so well in the gun violence department. However, since Nelson's law (the town that FatBack was referring to) it has a loophole so big that it effectively doesn't make it much different than any other town, the point is rather moot, I would think.

 

Looks like you haven't done your homework. Let's take a deeper dive into your claim.

Your claim that "Where there is more gun control legislation there is more gun violence" is a complex one, and conclusions may vary based on the context (whether we're discussing within a single country, comparing across countries, or looking at specific types of gun violence). Overall, I believe your claim can be debunked as follows: (data points/annotations link to sources)

1. Contradictory International Evidence:
   • Japan: Japan has extremely stringent gun control measures, and gun-related deaths are rare123.
   • Australia: After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia overhauled its gun laws and has since experienced a significant decrease in gun violence4.
   • Honduras and Venezuela: These countries do not have particularly strong gun control laws being effectively enforced5.
2. U.S. States with Stricter Gun Control and Their Rates of Gun Violence:
   • California and New York: These states have some of the strictest gun laws and yet have lower gun death rates than many states with laxer regulations67.
3. Types of Gun Violence:
   • Differentiating between homicides, suicides, and accidental discharges is crucial891011.
4. Gun Trafficking and Interstate Influence:
   • Some areas with strict gun laws might experience gun violence due to firearms trafficked from areas with laxer laws1251314.
5. Correlation Doesn’t Imply Causation:
   • Even if a superficial correlation was observed between strict gun laws and gun violence in certain areas, it doesn’t mean the gun laws caused the violence1516171819.
6. Efficacy of Implementation:
   • The efficacy of the laws depends on enforcement, public cooperation, border controls, and other factors20212223.
7. Historical Precedents:
   • The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the U.S., while controversial and debated in its effectiveness, was associated with a reduced incidence of mass shootings during its duration24252627.

While the relationship between gun control and gun violence is multifaceted and complex, the blanket claim that more gun control legislation invariably leads to more gun violence is not consistently supported by the evidence.

 

And the corollary to your argument is "where only the bad guys have guns, crime and murders sky rocket".

 

There is nothing anecdotal about the case that I stated. The crime statistics for that town before and after that law was passed are available for your perusal

 

There's one thing I know for a solid fact. Nothing stops a criminal faster than staring down the wrong end of a gun.

If you haven't noticed the police who often have to deal with criminals, are very fond of their service firearms for that very reason

 

Murders are down this year. If guns were the problem, murders wouldn't be on the decline.

 

So you just nuked your own premise that guns=more gun violence.

thanks. Dismissed

 

I don't know if that is a 'corollary' (whatever that means) but what it is not is a counter argument. You claim oversimplifies the relationship between gun availability and crime rates. Many countries with strict gun control laws and low gun ownership rates have much lower crime and murder rates than countries with higher gun ownership.

 

It doesn't, so it begs the question, 'do you understand English?'