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

[Frost]

Actually, the number of homicides in the US has been declining for the last 20 years or so. Over the same period the number of guns produced and sold increased significantly.

https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

This is a very common misconception caused my NRA hate propaganda (specifically its 2nd-lead slogan, 'more guns, less crime'. Other issues on that aside:) HOMICIDES are falling, but all other forms of firearm casualty are rising, including VIOLENT INJURIES. It would be nice to know some more about the violent injuries, as they outnumber all other forms of firearm casualty combined, the NRA also blocked funding for the CDC to report anything more about them. As a consequence, it is definitely an error to claim what you are saying. But its not even possible to have an argument about what the truth is unless we can get more information.

What's the source on this? I would be interested to find out the details of these statistics.

For example, homicide rates can drop while violent injury can increase if more victims shoot perpetrators. In other words, there are less homicides because victims aren't killed because they are able to repel an attacker. Alternatively, they may also receive violent injuries in repelling the attacker but not be murdered. This could include violent injuries for both the perpetrator and the victim, rather than simply having one homicide, which would be a good thing.

Not saying that this is the case, but I would like to see how these are defined to see what could be drawn from it.

[Sy Borg]

A few of us are merely pointing out some fairly obvious stuff - like guns are more dangerous than knives - but you appear to be in denial about them.

No, I haven't denied that. I dismissed it, because it is not relevant to the question of whether gun restrictions are constitutional or effective.

You have just effectively claimed that the dangerousness of equipment is of no import when it comes to the need for regulation. You know in your heart of hearts that removal of the more extreme weapons from the community will provide long term benefits in reducing school massacres. You know this because there is no other possible result of such regulation in the medium and long terms.

[Sy Borg]

What it would do is reduce mass shootings in schools.

Why do you think so? What evidence do you have for that belief? Which regs do you think would accomplish that? Banning AR-15s? I posted this chart before:

You think short term. If results aren't instant you immediately throw up your hands and say 'too hard". Consider a generation or two with an ever dwindling supply of high powered / rapid fire weapons and see how many massacres there are.

I also note that you avoided bringing up the fact that the work of regulating states are undermined by non-regulating neighbours. Why didn't you mention this as a proviso?

Australia gained immediate results because it was less afflicted by the US with what is effectively an overactive "societal immune system", so the US is well behind other OECD countries in this area.

[ernestm]

This is a very common misconception caused my NRA hate propaganda (specifically its 2nd-lead slogan, 'more guns, less crime'. Other issues on that aside:) HOMICIDES are falling, but all other forms of firearm casualty are rising, including VIOLENT INJURIES. It would be nice to know some more about the violent injuries, as they outnumber all other forms of firearm casualty combined, the NRA also blocked funding for the CDC to report anything more about them. As a consequence, it is definitely an error to claim what you are saying. But its not even possible to have an argument about what the truth is unless we can get more information.

What's the source on this? I would be interested to find out the details of these statistics.

For example, homicide rates can drop while violent injury can increase if more victims shoot perpetrators. In other words, there are less homicides because victims aren't killed because they are able to repel an attacker. Alternatively, they may also receive violent injuries in repelling the attacker but not be murdered. This could include violent injuries for both the perpetrator and the victim, rather than simply having one homicide, which would be a good thing.

Not saying that this is the case, but I would like to see how these are defined to see what could be drawn from it.

I drew this with the free spreadsheet here:

https://www.yofiel.com/downloads/docume ... preadsheet

[Frost]

I drew this with the free spreadsheet here:

https://www.yofiel.com/downloads/docume ... preadsheet

Lots of stuff there. Any idea how it would account for the examples I gave? More violent injuries and less homicides may actually be a good thing, but we have to know more detail to determine.

And what about the link with fatherless homes and psychiatric medications? I think banning guns is a band-aid solution at best when there are more fundamental problems.

Guns used to be way more accessible to kids in the past and there were no school shootings. The AR-15 has been available to the public since the 1950s in the U.S. Clearly the problem isn't accessibility to guns. Why ban guns and eliminate a way for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves? This would harm women, minorities, the elderly, and immigrants disproportionately.

The real reason for the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Constitution is defense against tyrannical government. Self-defense is important, but we must never forget that personal self-defense was not the reason it was enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. I bet those in Venezuela would love to have guns to defend themselves from their government that is increasing their militarized militias...

Even if there is more violence with guns, I think people are getting caught up in the empathy bias wanting to ban guns and not seeing the bigger picture. This sort of empathy bias leads to bad policy. Liberty has consequences, but I'd rather have liberty than a police state that claims it will protect me I guess they will shoot themselves when they become tyrannical, right?? Right??

[GE Morton]

This is a very common misconception caused my NRA hate propaganda (specifically its 2nd-lead slogan, 'more guns, less crime'. Other issues on that aside:) HOMICIDES are falling, but all other forms of firearm casualty are rising, including VIOLENT INJURIES. It would be nice to know some more about the violent injuries . . .

That is interesting, and a bit suspicious. Usually injuries and deaths track together. Are attempted suicides included? What is the source?

[GE Morton]

[

. . . the fact that some accidental deaths may be the result of lack of training supports my point that it is a sensible requirement . . .

Suppose the number of accidental firearms deaths could be halved by compulsory training (an optimistic estimate). You consider imposing a training requirement on 2 million people per year to prevent ~250 accidental deaths "sensible"? I ask again: Would you also require training for everyone buying anything with a potential to cause accidental death?

It matters because a well designed Skil saw is intentionally designed to minimize injury, the same cannot be said of guns. The accidental death or injury caused by a Skil saw is usually limited to the user, the same cannot be said of guns.

Most firearms are also designed to minimize accidental injuries. They have safeties. Designing the equipment to be safe without reducing its utility is fine. Requiring training/licensing for every user of every dangerous tool or technology is an entirely different matter. And of course, many other tools pose dangers to bystanders as well, even a Skil saw (they can throw nails).

I wrongly assumed that when you said "things that could be done" you meant changes to what is already being done - the institution of an adequate background check. I wrongly assumed you realized that an instantaneous check system is inadequate.

Yes, it is inadequate, but not because it is instantaneous. It is inadquate because 1) it does not cover all firearms transfers, and 2) because the disqualifying data must be forwarded to NICS by the States, not all of which are diligent about doing so. We need a system which transmits disqualifying events, such as convictions, issuance of restraining orders, etc., to NICS instantly, electronically.

Keep in mind, though, that even if the background check system worked perfectly it would have little effect on gun crime. As I pointed out earlier, 90% of criminals obtain their guns illegally. The background check system is irrelevant to them.

That was exactly my point! The objection you made against training can be turned back against you. If you object to training laws because they do not keep firearms away from criminals, then you should also reject licencing laws for the same reason.

I do reject licensing laws for the same reason. What makes you think otherwise? (There may be some sort of misunderstanding going on here).

No group that stockpiles weapons that can legally be purchased can stand against the force and power of the United States government.

You're mistaken there. They could indeed stand against the government, though it is doubtful that they could prevail against a determined effort to subdue them. However, the mere possibility that such an uprising might occur is itself a deterrent to unconstitutional government excesses --- such as an attempt to confiscate personal firearms.

I think you are being disingenuous. If anti-American extremist groups moved into your neighborhood with stockpiles of weapons you would not be concerned?

Anti-American, or anti-government? I would consider the former a risk, but not the latter.

A great deal would have to change for the government to become despotic, it remains a remote possibility.

I agree. But my question remains: If government were to forbid or severely restrict the private ownership of firearms it would undercut the right of the people to resist despotism, would it not? Would that not increase its likelihood?

[Frost]

You're mistaken there. They could indeed stand against the government, though it is doubtful that they could prevail against a determined effort to subdue them. However, the mere possibility that such an uprising might occur is itself a deterrent to unconstitutional government excesses --- such as an attempt to confiscate personal firearms.

I would imagine if the hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Venezuela had guns that they would put up a heck of a fight against their government. And while it was a long shot, the U.S. team of ragtag militias did beat the world power. Besides, many would rather die trying than, well in the case of Venezuela, starve to death, or say, be sent to the gulag. It seems people all too easily forget that governments are the biggest threat to humanity. The 20th century saw a conservative estimate of 100 million people killed by their own government (i.e. not from war). We forget this while the Western world heads into decline and the EU is setting itself up for civil wars while becoming increasingly totalitarian.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

Suppose the number of accidental firearms deaths could be halved by compulsory training (an optimistic estimate). You consider imposing a training requirement on 2 million people per year to prevent ~250 accidental deaths "sensible"?

Here we see the danger of reducing human life to a number. If 250 lives don’t matter then 2 times 250 lives does not matter. When does it matter? How many lives would be lost if such a requirement was imposed?

I ask again: Would you also require training for everyone buying anything with a potential to cause accidental death?

You dismiss the fact that guns are different because they are designed and intended to be used to injure or kill. Other consumer items, thanks to “Nanny-statism”, have become increasingly safer to use.

Most firearms are also designed to minimize accidental injuries.

An accidental gun death means the person who died was not a target. Otherwise, there is no difference between an accidental and intentional gun death. With any other consumer product safety features reduce death for all involved. A gun that was designed to reduce death or injury would, in your words, be reducing its utility.

Keep in mind, though, that even if the background check system worked perfectly it would have little effect on gun crime.

So why do you advocate a background check system?

I do reject licensing laws for the same reason. What makes you think otherwise? (There may be some sort of misunderstanding going on here).

I meant background checks, not licensing. If you object to training laws because they do not keep firearms away from criminals, then you should also reject background checks for the same reason.

You're mistaken there. They could indeed stand against the government, though it is doubtful that they could prevail against a determined effort to subdue them.

Yes, they could make a stand, but if they could not prevail then they would not stand.

Anti-American, or anti-government? I would consider the former a risk, but not the latter.

So, you do consider anti-American extremist groups with stockpiles of weapons to be a danger after all.

If government were to forbid or severely restrict the private ownership of firearms it would undercut the right of the people to resist despotism, would it not?

The government already forbids private ownership of the kinds of weapons that would be effective at resisting despotism. The key term here is ‘effective’. As you say, they would not prevail. If that is true then the argument that the people have a legitimate right to guns to resist despotism is weak. Such an argument may have been persuasive in an age of muskets but certainly not now. And once again we see why technology makes a difference. If the people have a right to arms in order to resist despotism then they have a right to arms that would be effective. The logic of such an argument leads inevitably to an escalating arms race. Fortunately, at least for now, even the Scalia court recognized the wisdom of limiting the arms that would be legally available to individuals.

[Frost]

The government already forbids private ownership of the kinds of weapons that would be effective at resisting despotism. The key term here is ‘effective’. As you say, they would not prevail. If that is true then the argument that the people have a legitimate right to guns to resist despotism is weak. Such an argument may have been persuasive in an age of muskets but certainly not now. And once again we see why technology makes a difference. If the people have a right to arms in order to resist despotism then they have a right to arms that would be effective. The logic of such an argument leads inevitably to an escalating arms race. Fortunately, at least for now, even the Scalia court recognized the wisdom of limiting the arms that would be legally available to individuals.

This is precisely why many restrictions on weapons should be eliminated. The problem is that government no longer fears its citizens.

[GE Morton]

No, I haven't denied that. I dismissed it, because it is not relevant to the question of whether gun restrictions are constitutional or effective.

You have just effectively claimed that the dangerousness of equipment is of no import when it comes to the need for regulation.

Greta, you need to cease saying I "effectively" said X when I actually said Y, and Y has no bearing on X.

Yes, the danger posed by a tool creates a need for regulations. But whether a proposed regulation will be effective, counterproductive, or unconstitutional are different questions. And the dangerousness of the tool has no bearing on those questions.

And of course, I support some regulations on firearms, even some that are only minimally effective, as long as they are not counterproductive or unconstitutional.

You know in your heart of hearts that removal of the more extreme weapons from the community will provide long term benefits in reducing school massacres. You know this because there is no other possible result of such regulation in the medium and long terms.

No, it wouldn't. Of course, removal of all firearms from the community would reduce school shootings to zero. Removal of all automobiles would reduce traffic fatalities to zero, and removal of certain prescription drugs would reduce fatal overdoses to zero. But there is no possibility of that occurring, and the attempt would be counterproductive (as well as unconstitutional).

But you qualified by mentioning "extreme weapons." ALL firearms are "extreme weapons." Automatic pistols are just as "extreme" as AR-15s; they fire just as fast and kill you just as dead. Most mass shootings were committed with handguns, not rifles of any kind. Removal of only certain weapons arbitrarily dubbed "extreme" would only cause shooters to choose some other weapon just as deadly.

You think short term. If results aren't instant you immediately throw up your hands and say 'too hard". Consider a generation or two with an ever dwindling supply of high powered / rapid fire weapons and see how many massacres there are.

See comment above.

Australia gained immediate results because it was less afflicted by the US with what is effectively an overactive "societal immune system" . . .

No, it did not. I gave you the figures earlier. In the 5 years after the ban and buyback was launched in 1996 Oz averaged 358 homicides per year, a bit higher than in 1996 (354).

[Sy Borg]

You have just effectively claimed that the dangerousness of equipment is of no import when it comes to the need for regulation.

Greta, you need to cease saying I "effectively" said X when I actually said Y, and Y has no bearing on X.

Yes, the danger posed by a tool creates a need for regulations. But whether a proposed regulation will be effective, counterproductive, or unconstitutional are different questions. And the dangerousness of the tool has no bearing on those questions.

And of course, I support some regulations on firearms, even some that are only minimally effective, as long as they are not counterproductive or unconstitutional.

Then you need to give up this persistent denial and just admit the obvious!

Guns have been regulated around the western world successfully. Regulation appears to only be too difficult in the US, despite being proven again and again in numerous different settings to be thoroughly successful - certainly compared to the US's chaotic incompetence. Do you know why that is?

You know in your heart of hearts that removal of the more extreme weapons from the community will provide long term benefits in reducing school massacres. You know this because there is no other possible result of such regulation in the medium and long terms.

... But you qualified by mentioning "extreme weapons." ALL firearms are "extreme weapons."

:lol: Oh come on. Are you really going to just play word games with me? If this is your intent, let me know, and I'll leave you alone to play games with others.

You think short term. If results aren't instant you immediately throw up your hands and say 'too hard". Consider a generation or two with an ever dwindling supply of high powered / rapid fire weapons and see how many massacres there are.

See comment above.

Australia gained immediate results because it was less afflicted by the US with what is effectively an overactive "societal immune system" . . .

No, it did not. I gave you the figures earlier. In the 5 years after the ban and buyback was launched in 1996 Oz averaged 358 homicides per year, a bit higher than in 1996 (354).

And due to the rate of immigration, a proportional reduction.

I think it's time for you to stop playing with stats - I worked in statistics for years too. I love bald, unvarnished fact and always refused to play games with them as you did above (sometimes to my former bosses' chagrin).

This is not about numbers of deaths but numbers of massacres. If crims are popping each other off one by one, American's don't mind. However, the damage caused by massacres - and especially of children and youths - extends far beyond "numbers of murders". If you cannot concede this, then I will also move on. I find these gun debates to be dull because the broad answers are so obvious.

[GE Morton]

Guns have been regulated around the western world successfully.

"Successfully" --- by what criteria? Do you mean that regulations have reduced the homicide rates, or merely that the government has successfully passed the regulations? If you mean the former, the evidence doesn't support you. I've already shown you the correlation between gun laws and homicide rates among US states --- there is none. Internationally,

"The international experience is no less complex. Justice Breyer cited one study finding, in the justice’s words, 'that strict gun laws are correlated with more murders, not fewer.' According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weeki ... wanted=all

... But you qualified by mentioning "extreme weapons." ALL firearms are "extreme weapons."

Oh come on. Are you really going to just play word games with me? If this is your intent, let me know, and I'll leave you alone to play games with others.

I'm asking you to define an "extreme" weapon and explain what makes it so. The only weapon you've cited that I assume qualifies is the AR-15 rifle, and perhaps its look-alikes. But rifles of all type have been used in only about 1/3 of mass shootings; handguns and shotguns in the rest. AR-15-type weapons were used in 10% of mass shootings. You need to explain, why, if that type of weapon were banned, shooters would not simply use a different weapon.

Greta, your arguments consist of undefined terms and vague proposals for "regulations." Please specify just what regulations you would recommend and provide some evidence that they would be effective in reducing the homicide rate or mass shootings. "Common sense," "gut feelings," and popular opinion are neither evidence nor sound arguments.

No, it did not. I gave you the figures earlier. In the 5 years after the ban and buyback was launched in 1996 Oz averaged 358 homicides per year, a bit higher than in 1996 (354).

And due to the rate of immigration, a proportional reduction.

Fair enough. Between 1996 and 2002 the Oz per 100,000 homicide rate fell from 1.93 to 1.82, a 6% decline. Do you count that a big success for Australia's 1996 firearms law? Over the same period the rate in the US declined from 7.4 to 5.6, a 24% decline, while the number of firearms owned increased.

I think it's time for you to stop playing with stats - I worked in statistics for years too. I love bald, unvarnished fact and always refused to play games with them as you did above (sometimes to my former bosses' chagrin).

Statistics ARE facts.

This is not about numbers of deaths but numbers of massacres. If crims are popping each other off one by one, American's don't mind. However, the damage caused by massacres - and especially of children and youths - extends far beyond "numbers of murders".

I asked you earlier for your reasons for thinking mass shootings would decline if more (unspecified) regulations were adopted. You haven't given one. You've suggested that banning "extreme" weapons would do it, but have not responded to the fact that AR-15-type rifles were used in only 10% of mass shootings, nor explained why, if those weapons were banned, shooters would not just choose a different one.

[Sy Borg]

Guns have been regulated around the western world successfully.

"Successfully" --- by what criteria? Do you mean that regulations have reduced the homicide rates, or merely that the government has successfully passed the regulations? If you mean the former, the evidence doesn't support you. I've already shown you the correlation between gun laws and homicide rates among US states --- there is none. Internationally,

You can spin it any way you like but the US is in deep trouble with its gun laws that are exacerbating divisions. I look forward to your denial. Other nations don't have that problem because they successfully dealt with the issue while the US failed.

Greta, your arguments consist of undefined terms and vague proposals for "regulations." Please specify just what regulations you would recommend and provide some evidence that they would be effective in reducing the homicide rate or mass shootings. "Common sense," "gut feelings," and popular opinion are neither evidence nor sound arguments.

In the US, given the resistance against regulation like your own? Nothing. Nothing at all can be done so there's no point suggesting policies. Plenty of other nations have successful gun regulations (ie. "successful" as in not a disaster like the US's) so they could act as models in an ideal world where Americans didn't have a violence fetish.

Thus, all one can recommend that Americans keep of sending each other their thoughts and prayers.

I think it's time for you to stop playing with stats - I worked in statistics for years too. I love bald, unvarnished fact and always refused to play games with them as you did above (sometimes to my former bosses' chagrin).

Statistics ARE facts.

If one confuses the model for reality and ignores possible variant influences, yes. You are just spinning like any other politician.

This is not about numbers of deaths but numbers of massacres. If crims are popping each other off one by one, American's don't mind. However, the damage caused by massacres - and especially of children and youths - extends far beyond "numbers of murders".

I asked you earlier for your reasons for thinking mass shootings would decline if more (unspecified) regulations were adopted. You haven't given one. You've suggested that banning "extreme" weapons would do it, but have not responded to the fact that AR-15-type rifles were used in only 10% of mass shootings, nor explained why, if those weapons were banned, shooters would not just choose a different one.

Numerous other developed nations have successful gun regulations ("successful" as in not a regular stream of mass murders of children as per the US) on which US gun regulation could be based. However, you keep demanding that I devise national firearm policies on the fly. That's just playing games - again.

You see, dreams don't come true and miracles do not happen. Thus, a nation in deep social trouble like the US cannot expect a magic bullet policy (pun intended) to be perfect in the first instance. Once a policy is in place it is reviewed after a period and steering controls implemented.

The alternative is the approach employed by the US for decades - to either deny that there is a problem or declare the situation hopeless and keep sending periodic thoughts and prayers after each massacre.

[GE Morton]

You can spin it any way you like but the US is in deep trouble with its gun laws that are exacerbating divisions. I look forward to your denial. Other nations don't have that problem because they successfully dealt with the issue while the US failed.

Hmmm. Now you seem to be arguing that the US should adopt more gun laws in order not to "exacerbate divisions," rather than to reduce homicides. Is that now your rationale? Many pandering pols will, of course, support such laws for just that reason --- not because they think they will do any good, but to appease constituencies demanding that they "do something."

I asked you earlier for your reasons for thinking mass shootings would decline if more (unspecified) regulations were adopted. You haven't given one. You've suggested that banning "extreme" weapons would do it, but have not responded to the fact that AR-15-type rifles were used in only 10% of mass shootings, nor explained why, if those weapons were banned, shooters would not just choose a different one.

Numerous other developed nations have successful gun regulations ("successful" as in not a regular stream of mass murders of children as per the US) on which US gun regulation could be based.

Ah. Sorry, Greta, but there are no nations with gun laws "successful" in that sense. Nations with restrictive gun laws had negligible rates of "mass murders of children" before they adopted their gun laws, and they remained negligible afterward. They have lower rates than the US for cultural, demographic, and economic reasons, not because of their gun laws.