In response to the bubling discussion over arms control perhaps this article will add a different perspective. Do read the article in full.

I don't agree with the title of this article but I agree with most of the content. It's the first time I've read an article that answers a few questions I've had and mentions recent reports that has information I've had a hard time getting my hands on.

The most interesting finding was that a prevalence of gun ownership does not only increase the rate of gun homicide in that state/county but that the overall rate of homicide also goes up. The idea that a murderer will murder anyway and will find some other way does not necessarily follow.

The second argument worth noting is that owning guns in general do not make you more safe and can make you less safe. An argument that I have heard repeated ad nauseum in the literature I've so far read.Must states and countries start to control arms more strictly? That's up to them. Should the debate focus more on stronger and clearer arguments with a grounded understanding of the benefits and dangers? Yes. Should we pay far more attention to statistics and empirical research. No brainer.

Views: 1241

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I like Jim Jefferies but gun crime and gun deaths are climbing again in Australia.

You can take weapons away from the good guys but that doesn't take the bad out of the bad guys.

He was talking about massacres. And there still hasn't been a gun massacre since.

Are gun massacres a huge problem, even here in the US? I bet if you looked at the statistics "death by gun massacre," allowing for statistical error, would be around 0%. Even when looking at gun deaths alone, setting aside all other causes of death, I think you'd find that "death by gun massacre" would be pretty much almost 0%.

Also, you didn't talk about how much violent crime has increased since the gun ban. 

"Pretty much almost 0%" is not the same as 0 deaths by gun massacre. If the number of deaths by gun massacre is insignificant, how many would be significant?

I'm trying to give you some perspective on how big/small a problem gun massacres are relative to statistically significant causes of death like lung cancer, accidents around the home, unsafe driving, all of which are likely far more amenable to solution than gun massacres.

You see, the person who just wants a gun around for defense of the home, should it be needed, is far more likely to comply with a law forbidding him having a gun than the person who's obsessing about conducting a massacre. That person is likely to get his hands on a gun no matter what the law says.

They are a huge problem especially if the person being massacred is your daughter, your son, your wife, your mom, your dad, your dear Uncle Ned.

Even if I'm not related to any of them I'll over react to the story of little children being systematically shot and killed with an assault rifle in the place that they should feel safest.

Yeah it's a huge problem.

If a member of your family dies unnecessarily, it will feel like a huge problem and make one lose perspective, but that doesn't make it a huge societal problem. Autos, tobacco, accidents around the house, bar fights, drug overdoses each kill orders of magnitude more people each year than gun massacres, and most of those would spare far more lives if we solved them than gun massacres. Devoting a lot of energy to ending gun massacres when there are far bigger causes of unnecessary death is an inexcusable waste of energy.

I don't know. Maybe the difference is a gun massacre is a deliberate act by another person using a tool specifically designed for that purpose. You mention autos. It's pretty rare that someone intentionally drives their car into a crowd in order to kill as many as possible. Even then it is an extreme misuse of a car. Some of those other causes of death (tobacco, bar fights) involve assumption of risk; you smoke, you might die, everyone knows this. If I send my kid to school do I assume the risk he will be gunned down along with 30 of his classmates?

I guess the question is whether you can get past your selfish desire to thwart intentionality and do something that actually saves more lives in the long run.

Is your argument that we should cure cancer and prevent all accidental deaths before addressing the things people do on purpose?


No, it's that being practical will save more lives.

Oh STOP IT you two, Don't make  me "Take OFF MY BELT!!!


© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service