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.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2...
Tags:
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.
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.
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 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!!!
Started by maruli marulaki in Ethics & Morals May 14, 2020. 0 Replies 1 Like
Started by Andrew Guthrie in Religion and the Religious, Atheism and Atheists. Last reply by 34u0tmz9oc778 Apr 16, 2020. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Started by D L in Small Talk. Last reply by 34u0tmz9oc778 Apr 21, 2020. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Started by rudrappa agadi in Pseudoscience, The Paranormal, and Conspiracy Theories. Last reply by 34u0tmz9oc778 Apr 9, 2020. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Started by D L in Small Talk. Last reply by D L Aug 8, 2020. 6 Replies 1 Like
Posted by James C Rocks on November 12, 2020 at 10:49am 5 Comments 0 Likes
Posted by ETRON on September 6, 2019 at 12:44pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
© 2023 Created by Rebel.
Powered by