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

did they do a similar studies for access to rope, sleeping pills or high bridges?

 

This seems to be a misunderstanding. The initial response provided was not an argument for or against gun control per se. Instead, it was a critique of the oversimplified argument presented by Wild Bill, offering a more nuanced perspective. Furthermore, the detailed explanation about correlation and causation was meant to provide a framework for critically assessing any claim based on correlational data, whether it supports gun control or opposes it. The framework is inherently neutral and applies to any correlation-based argument.

My intention was not to take a definitive stance on gun control in the comment, but to provide a detailed analysis of Wild Bill's assertion. The framework I provided for understanding correlation versus causation is neutral and can be applied to any argument, regardless of its position on gun control. I think it is essential to approach such complex topics with nuance and a critical mind, avoiding oversimplifications. I strive to make an argument that stands up to rigorous examination. I won't claim that I always succeed, if ever, but I try my best. Anyway, that's, I believe, is the essence of productive discourse and how we can move the debate forward.

 

So I take it you're in the 'do nothing' camp?

 

Can't we do both?

Since your last line appears to be the essence of your overall point, I will address it.

I understand where you're coming from, and it's crucial to address root causes. However, let's consider a few points:

Recognizing and respecting the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment doesn't preclude us from implementing common-sense regulations. Every right we enjoy comes with inherent responsibilities. For instance, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but it doesn't permit incitement to violence. Similarly, recognizing the importance of responsible gun ownership doesn't infringe upon the right itself but ensures that it's exercised safely for the benefit of all.

The objective I mentioned emphasizes a "balanced approach." This inherently acknowledges the need to address underlying causes of gun violence, such as socio-economic disparities, mental health issues, and systemic injustices. However, while long-term solutions are implemented to tackle these root causes, we cannot ignore the immediate threats that certain lax regulations pose. By having both immediate and long-term strategies, we can make our communities safer.

I think it's essential to recognize that while guns are tools, their potency, accessibility, and immediate lethality differentiate them from many other instruments. Ensuring that these tools are accessed and used responsibly isn't about vilifying them but about acknowledging their potential for harm.

I realize someone bent on doing you harm can pick up a bat just as easy as a gun, but if that were unfortunately to happen to you, well, I don't know about you, I'd take a fellow with a bat any day of the week over a guy with a gun. Something about the speed of bullets that puts firearms in a special class of weaponry. Right?

Many rights have seen adjustments and clarifications as society evolves. The very fact that we have amendments to the Constitution illustrates that rights can be refined based on the needs and insights of contemporary society.

So, by suggesting a balanced approach, we're inviting dialogue. It's an opportunity for gun owners, policymakers, and community members to come together and find solutions that respect rights while prioritizing safety. Dismissing this as merely focusing on the "tools" negates the possibility of a productive conversation where all concerns are addressed.

In essence, while addressing the root causes of violence is paramount, it doesn't negate the need to have sensible regulations in place for immediate safety. Both approaches can, and should, coexist in a comprehensive strategy to ensure public safety.

 

False analogy. I'll dive much deeper as to why, if you want.

 

When you say the "'do something' crowd wants to negatively impact the people who aren't part of the problem as a 'solution'", you're making a broad generalization about a diverse group of people who believe in some form of gun control or reform. Not everyone advocating for gun reform wants to negatively impact responsible gun owners. Many are seeking common-sense solutions that focus on preventing firearms from falling into the wrong hands while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

While you correctly point out that there isn't comprehensive data on how much violence is prevented by guns, the same argument can be made in the opposite direction. The absence of concrete data doesn't necessarily make guns a net positive for safety. Further research is undoubtedly needed, but until then, we can't make definitive claims in either direction based solely on the absence of data.

Your personal experience of living in a place with many guns but minimal gun violence is indeed noteworthy. However, making broad policy decisions based on anecdotal evidence can be problematic. For every anecdote like yours, there might be another from someone in a different area with a high prevalence of guns and a corresponding high rate of gun violence. Policies need to be based on comprehensive studies and data, not isolated incidents or personal experiences.

The incident you mentioned, involving someone from an hour away engaging in violence with an illegal gun, highlights the problem of illegal firearms, not the issue of gun prevalence in law-abiding communities. It's essential to differentiate between the two. Many advocates for gun reform are specifically concerned about the ease with which individuals can obtain illegal firearms or bypass current regulations

And you're conflating some issues. While you rightly highlight the distinction between legal and illegal gun ownership, the initial argument was about the correlation between gun prevalence and gun violence in general. By focusing solely on the actions of one individual with an illegal firearm, you're sidestepping the broader issue.

In essence, while your concerns are valid, it's crucial to approach this issue without broad generalizations and to differentiate between personal anecdotes and broader trends. The aim is to find solutions that balance individual rights with collective safety.

 

Nope, just not in the repeat worn out cliches camp.

 

I never claimed authority. But,. if you can't provide an counter argument, then, your comment is dismissed.

What that means is this: please pester someone else. Thank you. I'm interested in serious debate.

I addressed your point 'vapid slogan' in a prior comment, and to that rebuttal you haven't responded.

You could have, and that would have moved the debate forward, but you chose not to.

I'll reiterate the 'slogan' rebuttal I made, for your convenience: No, it's not a slogan, it's conclusion based on studies made by "Project Unloaded" an organization of which the author is founder/director of.

https://projectunloaded.org/get-the-facts/

You may challenge their results, but calling it a 'slogan' doesn't cut that particular mustard.

 

It seems we agree on much.

Presuming you are in the 'do something' group, do you suggest any reforms that would increase the difficulty for criminals to get/use guns without increasing the difficulty for noncriminals to get/use guns?

 

Except that once a Right is trodden upon via legislation it never gets untrodden. That is why you cannot "do both". Not to mention that no legislation, except a full ban will actually be of any help in reducing "gun violence". Which is why leftists keep demanding more legislation even after achieving a goal. Because "if only...".

Now, you speak of inherent responsibilities to exercising Rights. I agree. You use Speech as an example and list incitement as an example. Like ALL Rights...they end where another persons Rights begin. That is why the only acceptable legislation to limit those Rights is legislation based on that vein. Ex: Murdering someone is a violation of their Rights. However, me simply owning a gun does not in any way shape or form violate another persons Rights. As such it would be a violation of my Right to own a gun if you attempt to limit that ability in any way shape or form. It doesn't matter the gun I have. A gun is a gun. In my hands there would be no chance of a murder happening by my hand.

There are of course people who would murder others. As such, and because of such, it is acceptable to limit their ability to own a gun. They violated another persons Rights. Making legislation that targets such individuals is acceptable. Making blanket legislation that affects me in the vain hope that it will also affect such an individual however is not acceptable as you are violating my Rights based on someone else's misdeeds. I am not responsible in any way shape or form for that individuals misdeeds. Don't treat me like a criminal.

Now you'll bring up something along the lines of "prevention". Or... "its not about you, its about preventing criminals from committing crimes in the first place". Or something along those lines (suicide, accidental etc etc). All this is is an excuse to justify the limitation on my Rights. Again, I'm not responsible for other peoples actions. Don't treat me as if I am. Whether you like it or not, by making legislation that affects me...you're making it about me. Next you'll probably bring up some other law designed to prevent "X". As if its some equivalent. Ex: Eco laws. I'll use an example that others have used on me before. "Well, there are laws that prevent you from dumping oil on your property to prevent it affecting other people!". The key words there being "affecting other people". Which brings us back to the old saying "Your Rights and at the tip of my nose". By doing something (such as dumping oil on my property, contaminating the water supply) that affects others I'm violating their Rights. But again, my simply owning a gun does not violate anyone's Rights as my gun in my hands will never be used against another. So its not an equal comparison.

Note: My use of talking about myself was simply an easier way to express what needed to be expressed. Apply that "me" or "my" to the rest of responsible innocent civilians. Additionally the "you" and "you're" parts are not necessarily directed at you personally per se. Again, done just to simplify rather than having to always put entire phrases such as "gun control advocates".

Lastly, I had several core points in that post. Each individualized to each quoted part of the text of your post. I break up and separately quote each point for a reason. If I had only one point I would not break up and quote each section of your post. I would like to see a response to those also.

 

What you were trying to do or not do is utterly irrelevant to my point.which is simply that your critique of his argument is in fact equally applicable if not more so to antigun arguments.

 

Well, if you are in the 'do something' camp, what do you recommend?

 

I gather you are suggesting that access to other means of suicide such as ropes, sleeping pills, or high bridges could also lead to increased suicide rates, similar to the correlation between firearm access and suicide rates.

Research does suggest that the accessibility and lethality of the means used for a suicide attempt are crucial factors in determining whether the attempt results in death*1. For instance, firearms have a high case fatality rate1. Similarly, certain methods like hanging or jumping from high places are often deadly12.

However, the accessibility of these means can vary. For example, a lethal dose of pills in the nightstand poses a greater danger than a prescription that must be hoarded over months to accumulate a lethal dose (claim needs qualifying--I will qualify this on request). Similarly, a gun in the closet poses a greater risk than a very high bridge five miles away, even if both methods have equal lethality if used1.

I think it’s important to note that while access to various means can influence suicide rates, the discussion should not detract from the well-documented correlation between firearm access and increased suicide risk. The focus on firearms is particularly relevant given their high lethality and the impulsive nature of many suicide attempts. Reducing access to lethal means is a key component of comprehensive strategies to prevent suicide.

*annotations link to sources.

 

There is research conducted with results, please refute the data, not her 'credentials'. Many advocates are various causes are not science or statistical analysis experts, but they enlist experts to their cause.

 

The art of regulation is always walking a fine line between the needs of public safety versus individual freedom. As with any regulation, freedoms are going to be limited somewhat. The question is, is the modest inconvenience of a given regulation, i.e., by a vote of the electorate, deemed a worthwhile inconvenience for the public safety benefit the regulation affords, as a whole?

One (meaning a lawmaker, and/or a regulatory body) cannot look at regulations anecdotally. In the end, democracy decides and we all must abide by the law. Almost all laws displease someone, which is to say, laws cannot be enacted to satisfy single individuals. And, in this democracy, you can always sue which will force the court to scrutinize the constitutionality of the regulations, laws, etc.

As a side note, now gun advocates have a gun friendly Supreme Court, which was evident with Heller and subsequent cases that followed from it (such as Bruen, which, in the case of firearms, it shifted the focus away from public safety to historical analogue, which, in my view, the court erred immensely. My reasoning would be that the needs of a nation in 1787, in many respects (but not all respects, of course, for each must be considered on a case-by-case basis), cannot necessarily nor should not necessarily be the basis for the needs of a more complex, more advanced, nation of 2023).

 

its bogus and I will tell you why. If you own guns and someone comes to your home and shoots you with a gun they brought, they count your shooting as one where guns in the home were present. They count suicides as "gun violence". they count 17 -20 year old gang bangers as "children". They slant everything possible to make gun ownership look more dangerous than it is. They don't factor in alcohol or drug abuse or domestic violence. They don't admit that hundreds of thousands of crimes are prevented by armed citizens. It's like those silly linguistic experts other posters pretend matter.

 

what we really had were founding fathers who didn't want the federal or state governments to have a monopoly on firepower. Those who want more and more gun regulations are invariably big government fan boys who want the government to have that monopoly

 

tell us why I should see my rights eroded because someone wants to commit suicide. What happened to the well known leftist mantra of your body your choice?

 

If that were true, then Japan's suicide rate would be a fraction of that in The United States.

 

More dishonest studies?

 

They also dont seem to care that gun homicides are just as common as drunk driving deaths and alcohol related illness kills more people than suicide. Drink yourself to death or drive drunk into a family's car, no one calls to ban liquor. But shoot yourself or someone else- 'not one more!!'

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

You do know how to use a search engine, right?

 

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

 

if the left-wingers thought most drinkers voted GOP and that the national distillery manufacturing group mainly supported GOP candidates, democrats would sound like Carrie Nation

 

when a study is created to justify an outcome, it generally is dishonest. Gun banners start with the premise that guns are bad and work backwards to justify their hostility. and the really sad point-most of them really don't care about public safety