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

Translation: I don't like what the study found so it must be dishonest.

 

When you have to substitute make believe analogies for factual refutation, that's when you know you've lost the argument.

 

First, limit press coverage to bare minimum. Second understand that gun deaths will never reach zero. Next, grasp that millions of honest, law-abiding gun owners are not that problem and focus law enforcement efforts at gangs and other members of the criminal class - and actively pursue then regardless of race. make financial bail a requirement in person on a person crimes, e.g. robbery, assault, thefts greater than $100. As a start.

 

I do. I was wondering if the folks trying to use suicide as justification for more restrictions know how to use a search engine. Not only would eliminating gun suicides hardly make a dent in overall suicides, but most gun suicide will just become suicides by drowning, hanging, poison gas, etc. Or perhaps by just moving to Canada and seeking long term medical care.

 

yup and false terms are used

first, guns are not violent thus there is no gun violence. Are knives violent? What about hammers, machetes, cars and trucks?

Next, none of my guns have assaulted anyone. They sit peacefully in their case bothering nobody

 

How do you explain Japan having a higher suicide rate with a lot fewer guns?

 

Google it.

 

Ok...

"Overall, age-adjusted mortality rates from suicide in Japan were almost twice as high for males and almost three times higher for females compared with the United States. The rates for males were about three times higher than females within Japan, and about four times higher within the United States. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...rtality rates,higher within the United States.

 

Enhanced gun control is meant to address the panoply of incidents involving gun violence. If proposals like mandatory trigger locks and longer wait times to purchase guns due to more thorough background checks means gun owners are inconvenienced the attitude is, or at least my attitude is, tough shyte since it saves lives.

 

Sounds like a cultural thing. Kinda like some American's love affair with guns that allows them to entertain the misguided belief possessing one makes them safer.

 

If those laws saved lives, the rates would be going down because there are states where those laws are already in place and have been for years.

2021
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

2005
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

 

Yeah, but don't have near the gun that United States citizens have. How can their suicide rate be so much higher?

 

You assert that once a right is "trodden upon" by legislation, it never reverts to its original state. While it's true that legislation can restrict rights, it's equally possible for laws to be revised, repealed, or struck down by the courts when deemed unconstitutional. The legislative process allows for adjustments based on societal needs and legal challenges. Just as rights have been limited at times, they've also been expanded or restored. Your 'once trodden upon' has the color of being a simple aphorism, and though aphorisms are nice, reality is often more nuanced.

Then we arrive at delineating the boundary of rights: Your comparison between the First Amendment and the Second Amendment is apt, emphasizing that rights end where they infringe upon another's. However, it's not just the act of using a gun that can infringe upon others' rights; the potential and risk also play a role. For example, unrestricted access to high-capacity magazines or lack of background checks could increase the risk to public safety, which in turn impacts others' rights to safety. Yes, I realize now we must live with the Bruen ruling. But, for the sake of argument simplicity, I'm ignoring it (mainly because I disagree adamantly with the ruling).

There is the issue of individual responsibility vs. collective impact: While I respect your individual stance on responsible gun ownership, legislation often addresses the collective. Laws aren't solely enacted because of responsible citizens but due to the potential harm irresponsible or malicious individuals might cause. Legislation that broadly targets a demographic isn't inherently about punishing responsible gun owners, but rather about mitigating risks for society at large. It's the same reason we have driver's licenses or building codes. They're not just for those who might drive recklessly or construct unsound buildings but to ensure a baseline of safety for everyone.

Regarding prevention and public safety: You've anticipated the prevention argument, emphasizing that you shouldn't be treated as a potential wrongdoer. However, most preventive measures in society, from vaccinations to safety inspections, are based on ensuring collective well-being, not implying guilt or wrongdoing. The challenge is striking a balance between individual rights and collective security.

On comparative laws: You mention environmental laws as non-equivalent to gun laws because one's actions (like dumping oil) can immediately affect others. While a responsible gun owner's possession might not harm anyone, the widespread and unchecked availability of firearms can indirectly lead to societal harm, making the comparison more analogous than it might seem on the surface.

So, let's address all points: You’ve indicated a desire to have all your points addressed individually. While I've aimed to cover the core arguments, I respect that you've segmented your views for clarity. Sometimes, however, broader themes can be identified and addressed as a collective for the sake of coherence and conciseness.

In conclusion I think that the crux of this debate seems to be where we draw the line between individual rights and collective safety. While you emphasize the individual's right to bear arms without restrictions, the counterargument is about finding a balance to ensure society's overall safety without unnecessarily infringing upon responsible gun owners. The challenge is navigating this delicate balance, and that requires a nuanced conversation, just like the one we're having.

 

Just admit it, y'all just want to ban guns so the government can have more control. You don't care about saving lives.

 

And if it doesn't? There's a host of gun control laws that have already been put into effect that havn't demonstrably saved any lives at all ...as those of us who actually undstand guns told you all it wouldn't. You might get a lot further with some of these 'reasonable restrictions' you want if you added them with sunset provisions that they automatically end if not proven to be effective. It would also send the message that you're actually interested in 'saving lives' and not making excuses to ban things you don't like. The original assault weapons ban, for example, failed to have its desired effect and so ended at its sunset date. Thats how all regulations should work, including gun regs.

 

I'll be interested in you trying.

 

Comment does not move the debate forward. Dismissed.

 

It's a false analogy for multiple reasons. To wit:

1. Purpose and Design: Cars are designed primarily for transportation, and any accidents or deaths resulting from their use are unintended consequences. Guns, especially certain types, are designed to inflict harm or lethally wound. Using the presence of an item and the accidents associated with it as an analogy doesn't work when the primary functions of the two items are inherently different.
   
   
2. Regulation and Training: To operate a car, one must undergo training, pass both written and practical tests, and obtain a license. Furthermore, this license can be revoked if the operator breaks certain laws. Cars also need to be registered, insured, and undergo regular inspections in many places. While there are regulations for gun ownership, they aren't as universally stringent or consistent as those for car ownership and operation.
   
   
3. Necessity vs. Choice: In many areas, especially urban ones, cars are a necessity for daily life — for commuting to work, getting groceries, etc. While guns can be tools for self-defense or hunting, in many urban environments, their possession is more of a choice rather than a daily necessity.
   
   
4. Public Space vs. Personal Space: Most car accidents happen in public spaces and often involve multiple parties. Many incidents of gun violence, especially those that involve domestic disputes or accidents at home, occur in private spaces.

By equating the prevalence of cars with car accidents to the prevalence of guns with gun violence, you're oversimplifying two very different issues. While both cars and guns can be dangerous in certain contexts, their primary functions, the regulations surrounding them, and the nature of the incidents associated with them differ significantly.

 

Thank you for your recommendations.

My view is that there are strengths, weaknesses, and possible misunderstandings of certain issues in play here, and I will address each, as follows:

So, regarding your policy recommendations in relation to the argument of 'where there are more guns, there is more gun violence', let's take a deeper dive on each of your points:

1. Limit press coverage to a bare minimum.
   • Strengths: The idea here might be that by reducing sensationalism or notoriety, you can deter potential perpetrators who might be seeking attention or fame.
   • Weaknesses: Limiting press freedom can infringe on First Amendment rights in the U.S. It's also debatable whether media coverage significantly impacts gun violence rates (though I am sympathetic to that view, but regulating 1A is a tricky affair, so it's a balance between 1A freedom and limitations on that freedom). Plus, it doesn't address the root causes of gun violence.
   • Misunderstandings: This doesn't directly address the issue of gun availability or the correlation between guns and gun violence.
2. Understand that gun deaths will never reach zero.
   • Strengths: This is a pragmatic recognition that no policy will completely eliminate gun deaths.
   • Weaknesses: While true, this doesn't propose any active solution. It can be seen as a somewhat defeatist or passive stance on the issue.
   • Misunderstandings: Acknowledging that eradication of an issue is impossible doesn't mean that significant reductions aren't possible or worthwhile.
3. Focus law enforcement efforts on gangs and members of the criminal class.
   • Strengths: Addressing organized crime and gangs, which are significant sources of gun violence, can make a big impact.
   • Weaknesses: It might unfairly target or stereotype certain communities. Also, not all gun violence stems from gangs or organized crime. Mass shootings, domestic violence, and accidents, for instance, won't be addressed with this focus.
   • Misunderstandings: The assumption that focusing on "the criminal class" will significantly reduce gun violence may oversimplify the complexities of the issue.
4. Actively pursue them regardless of race.
   • Strengths: It emphasizes equality and fairness in law enforcement.
   • Weaknesses: While a noble sentiment, racial biases in policing are deeply entrenched and require comprehensive reforms beyond just a directive to 'pursue regardless of race'.
   • Misunderstandings: The statement implies that current biases might be due to not actively pursuing criminals of a certain race, while systemic issues in law enforcement are more complicated than that.
5. Make financial bail a requirement in person-on-person crimes.
   • Strengths: It might deter some potential offenders if they know they can't easily get out of jail.
   • Weaknesses: This could exacerbate issues with the criminal justice system, where the wealthy can easily pay bail while the poor remain incarcerated. This might result in socio-economic inequalities in pretrial detentions.
   • Misunderstandings: This focuses more on the aftermath of a crime rather than preventing gun violence from occurring in the first place.

In summary, my view is that your recommendations seem to focus more on the consequences and reporting of gun violence rather than directly addressing gun control or the prevalence of guns. Some of the suggestions have merit in addressing certain types of gun violence but might not address the broader issue (noting that you did remark "As a start"), especially when considering the initial premise of the correlation between gun availability and gun violence.

I invite your rebuttal, critique, commentary, etc.

 

There's nothing to debate. You all want to ban all guns ownership, except for the ultra-rich and the politically connected and that's the long and short of it.

 

void.

Your bulleted list is. a pain to comment on point by point.
First off, I wasn't suggesting some legal restriction on the press. My idea a was "gentle" persuasion approach. I've seen several comments that suggest publicity is sometimes a controlling influence, e.g. the shooter what to MAKE A STATEMENT either from some perverted ideology or personal reasons.

second point: I was emphasizing that reality suggests that further attempts to lower the number of guns is a sysapisian task. There are hundreds of millions of guns in personal possession, and about 25k gun murders per year - so what level of gun possession reduction what have to occur to lower the death rating meaningfully?

third point: We need to get the woke garbage out of the discussion IF one or two subpopulations happen to be prominent
contributors to gun viol - ence = so what? Do you want to reduce gun violence or not?

Four point: Again the woke BS. Cops pursue criminals and suspects because THEY ARE CRIMINALS. And yeah, cops are human and can make mistakes.
Fifth point. Again with the wokeness. Bail should be required for certain crimes. I'm not talking million dollar bails for a parking ticket, but any crime against people involving assault or battery is a no brainer, IMHO. As are crimes against property (possibly with a cost limit)

Understand, I'm writing with a broad brush, there are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts that need to worked thorough, Even some of the "woke" points I highlighted above have a role to play.

 

How is that different from: The results support my beliefs so I accept it without question. ?

The thread title alone reveals the dishonesty behind the claim. Did you know that where there is more baseball bats, there is more baseball bat violence?

 

whatever

 

The flip side to that comment is a suggestion I made to friends, once upon a time, that, 'never fear to go out of your comfort zone, it's good for the soul' or something like that a got from a guru somewhere. That's a more positive spin on your comment.

Okay,. that makes sense.

You meant, "Sisyphean," referring to and endless and unavailing task (good to know you are up on Greek mythology).

Your statement seems to express the idea that trying to reduce the number of guns is an endless and potentially futile task.

However, whether the statement is true or not is a matter of debate. Many countries have successfully implemented gun control measures that have reduced the number of firearms in circulation and correlated with reduced gun violence. But, in some places, especially where guns are deeply embedded in the culture or where there's significant political resistance to gun control, efforts to reduce the number of firearms might indeed feel Sisyphean.

The premise of your question is, therefore, rooted in this pessimistic viewpoint about the efficacy of gun control efforts.

Now, let's address the data and the question itself:

The question seems to sarcastically imply that given the vast number of guns in circulation compared to the relatively small number of gun murders, it might be futile (or require a massive effort) to achieve a meaningful reduction in gun-related deaths by merely focusing on reducing gun possession. The sarcasm in the premise might suggest skepticism about the efficacy of gun control efforts or a belief that the problem of gun violence isn't primarily about the sheer number of guns.

While sarcasm can be a useful rhetorical device, it's essential to be cautious when discussing serious topics like gun violence. Reducing the number of guns might not be the only solution, but various studies have shown correlations between gun availability and gun violence. It's a nuanced issue, and while the number of guns is a factor, other aspects such as regulations, mental health support, socio-economic conditions, and law enforcement efficiency play crucial roles as well.

However, I will approach the question as being sincere:

If the question is sincere, it's seeking a correlation between the reduction of guns in personal possession and a decrease in the gun-related death rate. The relationship is complex, but let's break it down:

Given the high number of guns in personal possession and a specific number of gun murders per year, by how much would we need to reduce gun possession to meaningfully lower the gun-related death rate?

1. Direct Relationship: While there's evidence to suggest a correlation between gun availability and gun violence, the relationship isn't one-to-one or strictly linear. Many countries have high gun ownership but low gun violence due to strong regulations, cultural differences, or other factors.
   
   
2. Factors to Consider:
   • Type of Guns: All guns aren't the same. For instance, reducing the number of semi-automatic weapons might have a more significant impact on mass shootings than reducing the number of revolvers.
   • Storage and Access: A significant portion of gun deaths, especially among children, result from improperly stored firearms. Thus, reducing the number of improperly stored guns might have a meaningful impact.
   • Background Checks: Ensuring robust background checks can potentially prevent those with violent histories or mental health issues from accessing guns, which might reduce incidents.
   • Other Factors: Socio-economic conditions, mental health support, education, and law enforcement efficiency all play roles in gun violence.
3. The Answer: Given the complexity, providing a precise numerical answer is challenging. However, one could say:
   "To meaningfully lower the gun-related death rate, it's not just about reducing the sheer number of guns but also ensuring they're in the hands of responsible owners, stored safely, and that there's a robust system of background checks and regulations in place. While reducing the number of high-capacity firearms might have an impact on certain types of gun violence, addressing the broader factors contributing to gun violence would likely be more effective."

In other words, simply focusing on the sheer number of guns might not be the most effective solution, and note that I don't think the author of the article cited meant that, particularly (I just quoted that part of her article). To truly make a dent in gun-related deaths, a broad, comprehensive approach is necessary. This means not just reducing certain types of firearms but also ensuring responsible ownership, safe storage, robust background checks, and addressing socio-economic and mental health factors. Tackling the issue from all these angles offers a more promising path to meaningful change.

In essence, while reducing the sheer number of guns might play a role, a more holistic approach addressing various facets of the issue will likely be more effective in reducing gun-related deaths.

You bring forth strong opinions on "wokeness" and its perceived influence on discussions surrounding gun violence, law enforcement, and the justice system. Let's dive into each of your points:

Regarding your third point about addressing subpopulations in the gun violence discussion: Using the term "woke garbage" might come across as dismissive and could hinder productive dialogue. If certain subpopulations are contributing disproportionately to gun violence, it's essential to understand the nuances behind this. Simply brushing aside concerns about these subpopulations might overlook the underlying socio-economic, educational, and systemic issues that play a role. A comprehensive approach to gun violence should consider all factors, even those that might be uncomfortable or challenging to address.

In your fourth point about law enforcement: Your perspective that police pursue criminals due to their criminal activities is understandable. However, the term "woke BS" can be polarizing. While it's true that most officers perform their duties with integrity, there have been instances of racial profiling, excessive force, or other forms of misconduct. Recognizing these issues doesn't negate the commendable work many officers do; it's about ensuring the system is fair and just for everyone.

About your fifth point on bail: Your stance is clear, and you've provided specific examples, which helps in understanding your viewpoint. The idea of requiring bail for specific violent crimes or significant property crimes resonates with many. However, it's worth noting that the bail system has faced criticism for its potential to disproportionately impact those with lower incomes. This can lead to prolonged pre-trial detention for individuals who can't afford bail. While you acknowledge the complexity of the topic and even suggest there's room for "woke" perspectives in the discussion, the language used might be off-putting for some and could hinder open dialogue. I realize the term is a popular point of contention with the right, but I'm not real keen on the term, myself. I mean, I've, on a number occasions, asked a Republican or someone on the right what they thought the term mean, and no one has really given a clear answer. I'm not sure I even know what it means.

 

None of that has anything to do with the stupid comment in the article.

Where there is more of ANYTHING there will be instances of those things.