Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

If guns did not lead to violence and death in RL, I would not be so opposed to them. My opposition is a simple pragmatic response to the misery and devastation caused by guns.

The reason I ask is that gun related accidents happen almost exclusively to gun owners. Bad for them, but they presumably weighed the risks and benefits of gun ownership and made their choice. Very few non gun owners suffer from gun accidents.

Similarly, gun related suicides are exclusively among gun owners. Again, bad for them but minimal impact on the nongun owner society.

Homicides, of course is where guns become dangerous to non gun owners. However among homicides, most are restricted to certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods where legislators don't tend to live. The exception to this trend is mass shootings. Mass shootings, while miniscule in overall gun death numbers garner out of proportion media attention mainly because they commonly involve middle and upper class victims who 1) run the media and 2) don't live in areas that they would otherwise likely be a homicide victim. Thus why these incidents commonly bring calls for gun reform, while crazy high homicide numbers on the South side of Chicago (and similar neighborhoods) don't.

Bottom line, money talks, on both sides of this issue.

I don't disagree with any of this, but it only offers details to support the basic theme, that the existence of guns leads to gun deaths and injuries. Deaths and injuries that would not take place if there were no guns. I don't think these details have a significant effect on this discussion?

[LuckyR]

If guns did not lead to violence and death in RL, I would not be so opposed to them. My opposition is a simple pragmatic response to the misery and devastation caused by guns.

The reason I ask is that gun related accidents happen almost exclusively to gun owners. Bad for them, but they presumably weighed the risks and benefits of gun ownership and made their choice. Very few non gun owners suffer from gun accidents.

Similarly, gun related suicides are exclusively among gun owners. Again, bad for them but minimal impact on the nongun owner society.

Homicides, of course is where guns become dangerous to non gun owners. However among homicides, most are restricted to certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods where legislators don't tend to live. The exception to this trend is mass shootings. Mass shootings, while miniscule in overall gun death numbers garner out of proportion media attention mainly because they commonly involve middle and upper class victims who 1) run the media and 2) don't live in areas that they would otherwise likely be a homicide victim. Thus why these incidents commonly bring calls for gun reform, while crazy high homicide numbers on the South side of Chicago (and similar neighborhoods) don't.

Bottom line, money talks, on both sides of this issue.

I don't disagree with any of this, but it only offers details to support the basic theme, that the existence of guns leads to gun deaths and injuries. Deaths and injuries that would not take place if there were no guns. I don't think these details have a significant effect on this discussion?

Well, the reason I bring it up is because it reveals that the risk of guns to society as a whole is similar to that of smoking. That is, it is mainly borne by those who choose to partake in it by choice.

Of course second hand smoke hurts those physically close to smokers just as there are risks to non gun owners who reside in gun overrun areas.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't disagree with any of this, but it only offers details to support the basic theme, that the existence of guns leads to gun deaths and injuries. Deaths and injuries that would not take place if there were no guns. I don't think these details have a significant effect on this discussion?

Well, the reason I bring it up is because it reveals that the risk of guns to society as a whole is similar to that of smoking. That is, it is mainly borne by those who choose to partake in it by choice.

Of course second hand smoke hurts those physically close to smokers just as there are risks to non gun owners who reside in gun overrun areas.

None of this can change the fact that killings - accidental and deliberate - would not occur if there were no guns. And the killings are not just gun-owners, "those who choose to partake in it by choice", they're their children, or their neighbours and friends. Sometimes it's little Megan, who finds her Dad's surface-to-air missile , and accidentally sets it off; sometimes it's an argument with a neighbour that escalates to the point of murder. No guns = no gun-deaths.

[Robert66]

A really minor point: Aren't there too many F's in the second initialism in the topic's title?

Not for Frank Booth!

Nothing better than being understood! I was channelling Frank when I wrote the OP.

Years ago I re-watched Blue Velvet, but on commercial TV - channel 10 I think. Anyway they dubbed in the word 'freak' to replace every 'f___'. I tell you that was a lot of freakin' freaks!

[Sy Borg]

A really minor point: Aren't there too many F's in the second initialism in the topic's title?

Not for Frank Booth!

Nothing better than being understood! I was channelling Frank when I wrote the OP.

Years ago I re-watched Blue Velvet, but on commercial TV - channel 10 I think. Anyway they dubbed in the word 'freak' to replace every 'f___'. I tell you that was a lot of freakin' freaks!

Frank had the temperament of a man who painfully stubbed his toe every 30 seconds. I find that, in such situations, one f-word is not enough,

[Robert66]

Frank had the temperament of a man who painfully stubbed his toe every 30 seconds. I find that, in such situations, one f-word is not enough,

Ha ha yes I wonder if that is how Hopper got into character for the part? And yes, there seems to be therapy in f___ing repitition.

[LuckyR]

I don't disagree with any of this, but it only offers details to support the basic theme, that the existence of guns leads to gun deaths and injuries. Deaths and injuries that would not take place if there were no guns. I don't think these details have a significant effect on this discussion?

Well, the reason I bring it up is because it reveals that the risk of guns to society as a whole is similar to that of smoking. That is, it is mainly borne by those who choose to partake in it by choice.

Of course second hand smoke hurts those physically close to smokers just as there are risks to non gun owners who reside in gun overrun areas.

None of this can change the fact that killings - accidental and deliberate - would not occur if there were no guns. And the killings are not just gun-owners, "those who choose to partake in it by choice", they're their children, or their neighbours and friends. Sometimes it's little Megan, who finds her Dad's surface-to-air missile , and accidentally sets it off; sometimes it's an argument with a neighbour that escalates to the point of murder. No guns = no gun-deaths.

You are correct. It is equally correct that if cars were banned there'd be no car accident morbidity and mortality. If doctors were banned there'd be no medical malpractice. I think you're onto something big here.

Seriously though, like most things in life it is a question of balance, not bans. The reality is that a gun in certain hands is highly likely to not hurt anyone beyond the owner himself. True, in other hands the community at large is at significant risk.

Finland, for example has a very similar rate of gun ownership to the US (37% compared to 42%), but a much lower murder rate (1.4 per 100k compared to 5.3). What may surprise is that both countries are below the world average of 7.0

It's not just about guns.

[LuckyR]

Similarly, gun related suicides are exclusively among gun owners.

Not so. Many have shot themselves with another's gun, usually Dad's.

True, though just as pool related injuries and deaths are divided into those among residents of pool owning households and those outside of such households, parents who make the decision to own a gun do so taking into account legally the risk to those over which are within their legal purview. Adult children, of course can choose to live where they feel is best suited to their circumstances.

[Robert66]

Similarly, gun related suicides are exclusively among gun owners.

Not so. Many have shot themselves with another's gun, usually Dad's.

True, though just as pool related injuries and deaths are divided into those among residents of pool owning households and those outside of such households, parents who make the decision to own a gun do so taking into account legally the risk to those over which are within their legal purview. Adult children, of course can choose to live where they feel is best suited to their circumstances.

https://www.andrewleigh.com/america_lea ... _years_ago

Key points: 'As a result of the buyback, the share of gun-owning households nearly halved, from 15% to 8%.'

It is 'estimated that the National Firearms Agreement saved around 200 lives a year, for a total of nearly 5,000 lives since the agreement. Although the political focus of the reforms had been on homicide, a majority of the averted deaths have been suicides.'

You have framed this issue in a dismissive way - just a little more risk to take into account; adult children can move if they like - ignoring the slim chance of such a move being made by a young adult with suicidal thoughts brought on in large part due to their typically disadvantaged situation. What the linked article omits is the fact that the vast majority of the gun suicides prior to gun law reform and the gun buyback in 1997 happened in rural Australia eg a farmer blowing his brains out, unable to cope after 7 years of drought, or his son doing the same because he can see no alternative to ending up like his overworked and forever struggling parents. Many of the households which previously contained one gun and now have none were in rural Australia, where depression is still a major problem, but one which can be treated.

It is no minor point I am trying to make. The trend in some places is for more guns, and the corresponding trend is more gun deaths. So to reverse these trends something different needs to happen when people are deciding to buy a gun. The overwhelming emphasis on perceptions of risk needs to be countered with thinking about the real benefits of not having a gun.

[LuckyR]

Similarly, gun related suicides are exclusively among gun owners.

Not so. Many have shot themselves with another's gun, usually Dad's.

True, though just as pool related injuries and deaths are divided into those among residents of pool owning households and those outside of such households, parents who make the decision to own a gun do so taking into account legally the risk to those over which are within their legal purview. Adult children, of course can choose to live where they feel is best suited to their circumstances.

https://www.andrewleigh.com/america_lea ... _years_ago

Key points: 'As a result of the buyback, the share of gun-owning households nearly halved, from 15% to 8%.'

It is 'estimated that the National Firearms Agreement saved around 200 lives a year, for a total of nearly 5,000 lives since the agreement. Although the political focus of the reforms had been on homicide, a majority of the averted deaths have been suicides.'

You have framed this issue in a dismissive way - just a little more risk to take into account; adult children can move if they like - ignoring the slim chance of such a move being made by a young adult with suicidal thoughts brought on in large part due to their typically disadvantaged situation. What the linked article omits is the fact that the vast majority of the gun suicides prior to gun law reform and the gun buyback in 1997 happened in rural Australia eg a farmer blowing his brains out, unable to cope after 7 years of drought, or his son doing the same because he can see no alternative to ending up like his overworked and forever struggling parents. Many of the households which previously contained one gun and now have none were in rural Australia, where depression is still a major problem, but one which can be treated.

It is no minor point I am trying to make. The trend in some places is for more guns, and the corresponding trend is more gun deaths. So to reverse these trends something different needs to happen when people are deciding to buy a gun. The overwhelming emphasis on perceptions of risk needs to be countered with thinking about the real benefits of not having a gun.

We are in agreement that there is risk inherent in gun ownership. Any responsible parent of a depressed child should not acquire a gun and should give up any currently owned guns. I alluded to this previously.

I don't have a problem with the Australian laws as described in your article, (I am not an expert in the nuances of the law though).

[Pattern-chaser]

None of this can change the fact that killings - accidental and deliberate - would not occur if there were no guns. And the killings are not just gun-owners, "those who choose to partake in it by choice", they're their children, or their neighbours and friends. Sometimes it's little Megan, who finds her Dad's surface-to-air missile , and accidentally sets it off; sometimes it's an argument with a neighbour that escalates to the point of murder. No guns = no gun-deaths.

You are correct. It is equally correct that if cars were banned there'd be no car accident morbidity and mortality. If doctors were banned there'd be no medical malpractice. I think you're onto something big here.

The thing about that is that cars, and doctors, offer a useful service; guns are for killing things, or used as a threat of killing. I see little utility there.

[Sy Borg]

With 8 billion people and a natural environment that's rapidly degrading, guns are looking ever more useful.

[Pattern-chaser]

With 8 billion people and a natural environment that's rapidly degrading, guns are looking ever more useful.

That's a valid perspective, for sure. But I wonder how easy it would be for us to kill enough of our fellows to make a significant difference? The very manufacture of 7,900,000,000 bullets could cripple our environment?

[Sy Borg]

With 8 billion people and a natural environment that's rapidly degrading, guns are looking ever more useful.

That's a valid perspective, for sure. 🙂 But I wonder how easy it would be for us to kill enough of our fellows to make a significant difference? The very manufacture of 7,900,000,000 bullets could cripple our environment? 🤨

I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to go ;)

[Pattern-chaser]

With 8 billion people and a natural environment that's rapidly degrading, guns are looking ever more useful.

That's a valid perspective, for sure. But I wonder how easy it would be for us to kill enough of our fellows to make a significant difference? The very manufacture of 7,900,000,000 bullets could cripple our environment?

I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to go

Not everyone. I thought a remainder of 100,000,000 should be more than sufficient to keep the NRA going. Don't you agree?