Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[The Conez Imperium]

My contribution to this thread would be two things, that gun murders did not go down in Australia or the UK after strict gun bans, and that countries with more guns tends to have less murders. These are just statistical correlations but pro-gun control advocates tend to get them wrong all the time. Furthermore, correlation does not imply causation, so even if gun murders went down, this would not mean gun control is responsible for it although, gun murders did not go down so it's a moot point anyways. Just my 2 cents.

Why would you compare murders (stabbed to death) to gun ownership rates? It makes more sense to compare murders by guns.

[Manokan Republic]

My contribution to this thread would be two things, that gun murders did not go down in Australia or the UK after strict gun bans, and that countries with more guns tends to have less murders. These are just statistical correlations but pro-gun control advocates tend to get them wrong all the time. Furthermore, correlation does not imply causation, so even if gun murders went down, this would not mean gun control is responsible for it although, gun murders did not go down so it's a moot point anyways. Just my 2 cents.

Why would you compare murders (stabbed to death) to gun ownership rates? It makes more sense to compare murders by guns.

Because the total murder rate is more important than murders by guns. Even if murders by guns go up, if all murders go down, than it's a net positive for society that our murder rate has dropped, even if the rate by one method of murder has gone up. Owning guns for self defense for example might allow for criminals to own guns, but if there is a net positive on society for murders going down, than we all benefit. Gun murders are but one subset of murder, and if all murders go down as a whole (including knife and other forms of crimes), than gun murders consequently go down as well as an aggregate, even if the proportion of gun murders in relation to non-gun murders go up.

In other words, if gun murders are higher but all murders are lower in the long run, than guns are a net benefit to society. Reducing gun murders at the expense of increasing regular murders is a problem. So for instance, if gun murders went down by 1000 for banning guns, but all murders went up by 2000 (say by knives or trucks), than we'd have a net gain of 1000 murders, which would obviously be a bad thing. The total murder rate is more important than one specific type of murder going down or up. A gun can be used to defend yourself against knives, trucks and so on, so if it lowers the murder rate as a whole, than it's a greater good for society, even if in some cases guns fall in to the wrong hands. It's better to have more guns murders but less of all types of murders, so how many gun murders there are is irrelevant.

[Tule]

The thing about the Australian and UK gun buybacks though is that they were meant to tackle a specific and rare kind of gun violence, mass shootings.

Handguns were always rare in Britain and concentrated in the hands of few gun owners, there was never going to be a noticeable difference in the number of gun murders with them gone.

In the case of Australia, only rapid fire long-guns were banned. Mostly pump-action and semi-auto shotguns and rimfire semi-auto rifles. These weapons made up only about 20% of the gun stock and most of those who gave up their firearms presumably already had non-prohibited firearms as well.

Most gun deaths in Australia by far are suicides, which don't necessitate multiple shots. So the gun death rate was never going to plummet with the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement.
What did plummet however was the number of mass shootings. From 13 in the 20 years prior down to 1 in the 20 years since.

[Telconi]

The thing about the Australian and UK gun buybacks though is that they were meant to tackle a specific and rare kind of gun violence, mass shootings.

Handguns were always rare in Britain and concentrated in the hands of few gun owners, there was never going to be a noticeable difference in the number of gun murders with them gone.

In the case of Australia, only rapid fire long-guns were banned. Mostly pump-action and semi-auto shotguns and rimfire semi-auto rifles. These weapons made up only about 20% of the gun stock and most of those who gave up their firearms presumably already had non-prohibited firearms as well.

Most gun deaths in Australia by far are suicides, which don't necessitate multiple shots. So the gun death rate was never going to plummet with the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement.
What did plummet however was the number of mass shootings. From 13 in the 20 years prior down to 1 in the 20 years since.

That level of control is rediculous overkill to address a remarkably rare occurance, many given person''s chances of being a victim of a mass shooting are astronomically low. I would be more likely to die from lightning striking me while i was getting eaten by a shark.

[Manokan Republic]

The thing about the Australian and UK gun buybacks though is that they were meant to tackle a specific and rare kind of gun violence, mass shootings.

Handguns were always rare in Britain and concentrated in the hands of few gun owners, there was never going to be a noticeable difference in the number of gun murders with them gone.

In the case of Australia, only rapid fire long-guns were banned. Mostly pump-action and semi-auto shotguns and rimfire semi-auto rifles. These weapons made up only about 20% of the gun stock and most of those who gave up their firearms presumably already had non-prohibited firearms as well.

Most gun deaths in Australia by far are suicides, which don't necessitate multiple shots. So the gun death rate was never going to plummet with the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement.
What did plummet however was the number of mass shootings. From 13 in the 20 years prior down to 1 in the 20 years since.

Well that depends on the definition of mass shooting, with 3 or more injured often being used in the U.S., compared to 5 or more killed being used now. However given that mass murders are unusually rare and that self defense with firearms is more common, or at least was, we have to consider the impact stopping a handful of mass shootings has vs. the benefit of having guns for self defense. Even if mass murders go down, this is an incredibly small type of murder that's extremely rare and thus is less important than the day-to-day murders. If you consider how many mass shootings in America kill over 4 people, or just 78 from 1982 to 2012, we get that per capita (which America is 16 times larger than Australia), there's not all that much difference. Page 11). That is there has been 1 in Australia since 1996, while America would have the equivalent of 2-3 in America in the same time frame, if it had the same population (or about 40 in America).

That being said, other forms of mass murder have happened, such as by arson, truck attacks and others, killing equal to or more than 5 people. Strangely there is no complete list I can find and some of these attacks are hard to define the death tolls of, but, this is a decent enough source for some examples. For example the Black Saturday Bushfire ultimately killed 173 people and injured over 400, however only 11 of the deaths were ever actually considered to be by mass murder, despite the initial fires being started by an arsonists. This makes the actual death toll difficult to define as it was partially a downed power line, and partially arson which killed this many people. Then smoke inhalation has caused lung problems for thousands of people, and many have died from that, an unknown number, which would add to the number and further cause us to question, how much of it was from the arson? These are hard to define specifically so instead I'll stick to the more obvious incidents. After 1996 there was the Peter Shoobridge shooting (5), Childer's palace hostel fire (15), Lin Family blunt instrument mruders (5), Hunt Family Shootings (5), Cairns Child stabbing (8), Melbourne Car attack (6), Churchill fire (10), and likely more. So while not with guns, there were still many mass murders. There's also the fact that mass murders may have gone down as a whole (depending on which arsons you count), but nonetheless mass murder is dropping in most countries anyways so that would be expected, if it did drop.


While it hasn't happened this severely in Australia yet (although there have been truck attacks), a truck attack in France killed 87 people and injured over 400, which is decidedly deadlier than the worst mass shooting which killed 67 people. That was with a truck, and big trucks are not regulated in Australia, so it's only a matter of time before one is used to devastating effect. Even without guns, trucks, poison, arson, and even bombs (which are actually pretty easy to make although, many people don't know that) are widely available, so you're never really safe. Even knives or blunt instruments can be used to kill over 5 people, more often than guns in Australia. And considering that small pocket pistols have been used in most of the worst mass shootings in the world, they can still easily happen.

That also being said, in the U.S. for example there are roughly as many cases of self defense as violent crimes by guns. So, guns are used in defense, almost as commonly as violent crimes with guns are committed. So we'd have a doubling of the violent crime rate if guns were removed, or some fraction of that if heavily restricted. [1]."Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). " We have to consider if the good outweighs the bad with this types of laws and, at least in America right now, it does not.

[Tule]

Defensive gun use that saves the life of the gun owner is not nearly as common as often claimed. If it was then the number of murders in the US among non-gun owners would be drastically higher than it actually is since only gun owners can defend themselves with guns.

The reality is opposite, gun owners are actually far more likely to be killed than non-gun owners, usually by their own gun.

You would have to have really pissed some powerful people off to make it worth owning a gun for self-defence. Otherwise you're just arming the people most likely to kill you.

There is little evidence that gun massacres and gun violence in general is substituted with other forms of violence when guns are made less accessible, most studies find no substitution effect.

[Telconi]

Defensive gun use that saves the life of the gun owner is not nearly as common as often claimed. If it was then the number of murders in the US among non-gun owners would be drastically higher than it actually is since only gun owners can defend themselves with guns.

The reality is opposite, gun owners are actually far more likely to be killed than non-gun owners, usually by their own gun.

You would have to have really pissed some powerful people off to make it worth owning a gun for self-defence. Otherwise you're just arming the people most likely to kill you.

There is little evidence that gun massacres and gun violence in general is substituted with other forms of violence when guns are made less accessible, most studies find no substitution effect.

Source on the 'mll"more likely to kill yourself than use a gun defensively" thing.

[Tule]

Defensive gun use that saves the life of the gun owner is not nearly as common as often claimed. If it was then the number of murders in the US among non-gun owners would be drastically higher than it actually is since only gun owners can defend themselves with guns.

The reality is opposite, gun owners are actually far more likely to be killed than non-gun owners, usually by their own gun.

You would have to have really pissed some powerful people off to make it worth owning a gun for self-defence. Otherwise you're just arming the people most likely to kill you.

There is little evidence that gun massacres and gun violence in general is substituted with other forms of violence when guns are made less accessible, most studies find no substitution effect.

Source on the 'mll"more likely to kill yourself than use a gun defensively" thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849

If defensive gun use saves lives then the expected outcome would have been the opposite of the study.

[Manokan Republic]

Defensive gun use that saves the life of the gun owner is not nearly as common as often claimed. If it was then the number of murders in the US among non-gun owners would be drastically higher than it actually is since only gun owners can defend themselves with guns.

The reality is opposite, gun owners are actually far more likely to be killed than non-gun owners, usually by their own gun.

You would have to have really pissed some powerful people off to make it worth owning a gun for self-defence. Otherwise you're just arming the people most likely to kill you.

There is little evidence that gun massacres and gun violence in general is substituted with other forms of violence when guns are made less accessible, most studies find no substitution effect.

Which studies? Further there is almost always a substitution effect, which is just common sense. The mental disorders of a person or their desire to kill someone doesn't go away just because they don't have a gun. If someone really hates someone, they aren't going to go "man, I want to kill a bunch of people! Ahh, but I can't get a gun! Rats, guess I'll just go back to living my old boring life...". Whatever mental disorders is wrong with these people doesn't just go away because guns are taken away. They'll find another way to kill their ex-wife, or their old classmates or whatever. The argument that substitution is rare is basically unsubstantiated.

And we just discussed how the total murder rate didn't go down in Australia despite the gun ban.



Furthermore the study comes from the CDC, a major health organization. There might be studies that say otherwise but, national CDC data in my opinion trumps it given it's authority on science and medicine in general. Honestly the chance of a criminal breaking in to your house and being such a Kung Fu master he can disarm you and take your gun and shoot you is so infinitesimally rare it's an asinine thing to bring up. The number one cause of gun death is suicides, with roughly twice as many as murders so, this makes since that most gun deaths are self inflicted. A study in Australia found that hangings went up proportionately to how many gun suicides dropped, meaning that gun suicides were substituted with hanging. In essence, suicides didn't go down after a gun ban, only the method changed. Another problem could be that gangs are more likely to be killed by other gang members, and more likely to own guns, so gun ownership may result in a higher chance of being shot, but what isn't being enumerated are the other factors involved. For instance roughly 48% of crime in the U.S. is from organized crime, and most victims of homicides are other gang members or career criminals.

[Manokan Republic]

Source on the 'mll"more likely to kill yourself than use a gun defensively" thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849

If defensive gun use saves lives then the expected outcome would have been the opposite of the study.

And yet CDC data contradicts this study. Not all studies are equal, and this study is likely to have flaws, on top the fact that it doesn't distinguish if the gun was legally owned, or who was the gun owner (I.E. career criminals or gang members are more likely to be killed by homicide than most people). What I'd like to know is, what is the chance that a person dies if they are a normal person and own a gun, not the very nebulous "does the person have a gun at all".

Furthermore, all of the data was from a relatively small area of the country, from about 600 people, and in a very specific time frame, and most of the information was obtained via phone calls which is sketchy, at best. On top of this, this doesn't imply whether or not a gun could be used to stop homicides, it only shows that people who own guns are more likely to be killed. This could also be that many of these people live in bad neighborhoods so they feel the need to own a gun, and thus are more likely to be murdered. It doesn't mean that owning a gun is more likely to cause you to be murdered, which is completely random as guns are obviously not magnets that attract criminals like some sort of magic talisman. There's a difference between causation and correlation and, even if the data is completely accurate, it doesn't prove that owning a gun is more likely to get criminals to break in to your home and try and kill you. A good study would be, what percentage of law abiding gun owners could successfully fight off intruders, rather than just "what is your chance of being a victim if you own a gun?". People who smoke marijuana are also more likely to be murdered, given that they have to buy it from gangs and drug dealers, but marijuana does not cause murderers to be attracted to you like a magnet. There needs to be an evaluation of the data itself, what the cause actually is, and this sample size is in a very specific area, at a very specific time. Again you have to be careful in interpreting data, and interpreting the results from a study to mean one thing or another.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

So apparently the NRA was founded and is chartered by Congress in 1871

Discuss?

[Manokan Republic]

So apparently the NRA was founded and is chartered by Congress

Discuss?

What is the implication here?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

So apparently the NRA was founded and is chartered by Congress

Discuss?

What is the implication here?

Well, folks like Keshi seemed to believe the NRA was a special interest group founded by the gun manufacturers. While in reality it's often the other way around with many gun manufacturing industries being built, propped-up and promoted by the government.

[Tule]

The Australian substitution effect was an exceptionally strong one. Most of the time, the substitution effect is minimal and numerous lives are saved.

In Switzerland after a military reserve reduction the substitution effect was 22% of the gun suicide drop.

A change in Israeli army gun storage requirements caused a 40% drop in suicides through a reduction in gun suicides only.

Decline in CO content in British gas mains resulted in a permanent decrease in the British overall suicide rate as a result of a drop in gassing suicides. Non-gas suicide rates increased but only partially compensated for the drop.

Despite virtually identical rates of depression, heavy episodic drinking, psychiatric admissions and nongun suicide rates, Northern Finland has a considerably higher rate of gun suicides than Southern Finland... and more guns.

Banning of highly lethal pesticides caused a dramatic drop in Sri Lankan pesticide suicides, a small increase in hangings only slightly compensated for the drop.


There is a strong link between rates of gun ownership and gun suicides among US states, but no such link between gun ownership and nongun suicides.




There is a strong scientific consensus in psychiatry that reducing access to highly lethal means of suicide is an effective way of preventing suicides, not just delaying them.

[Kernen]

We shouldn't be trying to stop suicide. It's your life, do with it what you will.

[Tule]

We shouldn't be trying to stop suicide. It's your life, do with it what you will.

Most gun suicides aren't committed by people who make a rational decision to do so. They are generally committed by people who have no history of mental illness, but rather by people who have had a recent setback in life or in a state of drunken sorrow. They are senseless and preventable deaths.

[Telconi]

We shouldn't be trying to stop suicide. It's your life, do with it what you will.

Most gun suicides aren't committed by people who make a rational decision to do so. They are generally committed by people who have no history of mental illness, but rather by people who have had a recent setback in life or in a state of drunken sorrow. They are senseless and preventable deaths.

So ban drinking then? -shrug-

[Hurtful Thoughts]

We shouldn't be trying to stop suicide. It's your life, do with it what you will.

Most gun suicides aren't committed by people who make a rational decision to do so. They are generally committed by people who have no history of mental illness, but rather by people who have had a recent setback in life or in a state of drunken sorrow. They are senseless and preventable deaths.

So now we have guns in the hands of irrational people?

There used to be a time when talking people out of doing senseless and self-destructive activities was a bit of a common-sense way of keeping people you like around a bit longer. Reporting them wasn't a huge thing because nobody wants to get their friends in trouble...

Although there is a point at which you have to realize the ship has set sail in the harbor and it's time to torpedo those destructive plans before anyone comes to harm. We call this "tough love".

It used to be so commonly well known that even the autistic kid (myself) could talk a person down from doing something incredibly violent in school on a semi-regular basis.
-Although I'm not going to even try talking Keshi down from his anger-trips... That boat sailed. Load the torpedoes and get ready for another broadside this Christmas.

[Manokan Republic]

We shouldn't be trying to stop suicide. It's your life, do with it what you will.

Most gun suicides aren't committed by people who make a rational decision to do so. They are generally committed by people who have no history of mental illness, but rather by people who have had a recent setback in life or in a state of drunken sorrow. They are senseless and preventable deaths.

That's not particularly accurate. Roughly 90% of all suicides are done by mentally ill people, and given that roughly 2/3rds of all suicides are done with guns, the statistic overwhelmingly applies to gun suicides as well. Most suicides are from mental illness, gun suicides included. Suicide isn't just something you do because you are angry or sad, it's caused by deeply seeded psychological issues, and the idea that guns or poison is somehow unique in that it allows it to happen faster or more easily ignores that most suicides, like murders, are not committed out of a temporary emotion. People don't just get "stabby" or want to kill themselves, they typically have years of psychological issues. Even those without severe psychological issues often experienced trauma, and thus have recurring memories that makes them sad over mental illnesses.

[Manokan Republic]

The Australian substitution effect was an exceptionally strong one. Most of the time, the substitution effect is minimal and numerous lives are saved.

In Switzerland after a military reserve reduction the substitution effect was 22% of the gun suicide drop.

The problem is that suicide rates are dropping all the time, just like murder rates. From the 90's for instance, the murder rate in america fell 250%, and likewise many countries suicide rate have fallen, without guncontrol. To have dropped slightly from 1995 to 2008, over 13 years, is to be expected. In fact, minimal. Initially there was substitution the article said, but then it eventually decreased. Again, suicide rates are naturally going down in most countries, so it's to be expected for it to fall. However, if this can be associated with gun control is another matter entirely. Without major sudden changes, it just seems like progress as usual, rather than specifically from gun control.

A change in Israeli army gun storage requirements caused a 40% drop in suicides through a reduction in gun suicides only.

This study showed that people started committing suicides on the week days, instead of weekends. The total suicide rate stayed about the same?

Decline in CO content in British gas mains resulted in a permanent decrease in the British overall suicide rate as a result of a drop in gassing suicides. Non-gas suicide rates increased but only partially compensated for the drop.

Not guns, figures dropped a small amount over time.

Despite virtually identical rates of depression, heavy episodic drinking, psychiatric admissions and nongun suicide rates, Northern Finland has a considerably higher rate of gun suicides than Southern Finland... and more guns.

Gun suicides are not the same as, all suicides. Methodology changes due to availability, but a person can just as easily use other methods, like jumping off of a tall building or slitting their wrists and so on.

Banning of highly lethal pesticides caused a dramatic drop in Sri Lankan pesticide suicides, a small increase in hangings only slightly compensated for the drop.

This isn't about guns, and suicide rates are expected to go down slightly over time.

There is a strong link between rates of gun ownership and gun suicides among US states, but no such link between gun ownership and nongun suicides.

(Image)


There is a strong scientific consensus in psychiatry that reducing access to highly lethal means of suicide is an effective way of preventing suicides, not just delaying them.

The suicide rate is actually lower in states with high gun ownership. People will use guns if they have them, but not use guns if they don't have them. That's a pretty obvious distinction to make. And there is no such correlation worldwide. The basic distinction needs to be made that over many years, the suicide rate and murder rates are expected to drop, so gauging the effectiveness of policy is not a gradual decrease over time, but rather massive changes in a short period of time. If it drops by a small amount, say 20-40% over a decade, that's to be expected generally. What needs to be taken in to account is if gun control caused the drop, which is not only undetermined by the studies but, very easily likely due to general trends.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Defensive gun use that saves the life of the gun owner is not nearly as common as often claimed. If it was then the number of murders in the US among non-gun owners would be drastically higher than it actually is since only gun owners can defend themselves with guns.

The reality is opposite, gun owners are actually far more likely to be killed than non-gun owners, usually by their own gun.

You would have to have really pissed some powerful people off to make it worth owning a gun for self-defence. Otherwise you're just arming the people most likely to kill you.

There is little evidence that gun massacres and gun violence in general is substituted with other forms of violence when guns are made less accessible, most studies find no substitution effect.

Daily reminder that you don't have to kill someone to use a gun defensively.

[Telconi]

Defensive gun use that saves the life of the gun owner is not nearly as common as often claimed. If it was then the number of murders in the US among non-gun owners would be drastically higher than it actually is since only gun owners can defend themselves with guns.

The reality is opposite, gun owners are actually far more likely to be killed than non-gun owners, usually by their own gun.

You would have to have really pissed some powerful people off to make it worth owning a gun for self-defence. Otherwise you're just arming the people most likely to kill you.

There is little evidence that gun massacres and gun violence in general is substituted with other forms of violence when guns are made less accessible, most studies find no substitution effect.

Daily reminder that you don't have to kill someone to use a gun defensively.

Can confirm, have done.

[The Conez Imperium]

Why would you compare murders (stabbed to death) to gun ownership rates? It makes more sense to compare murders by guns.

Because the total murder rate is more important than murders by guns. Even if murders by guns go up, if all murders go down, than it's a net positive for society that our murder rate has dropped, even if the rate by one method of murder has gone up. Owning guns for self defense for example might allow for criminals to own guns, but if there is a net positive on society for murders going down, than we all benefit. Gun murders are but one subset of murder, and if all murders go down as a whole (including knife and other forms of crimes), than gun murders consequently go down as well as an aggregate, even if the proportion of gun murders in relation to non-gun murders go up.

In other words, if gun murders are higher but all murders are lower in the long run, than guns are a net benefit to society. Reducing gun murders at the expense of increasing regular murders is a problem. So for instance, if gun murders went down by 1000 for banning guns, but all murders went up by 2000 (say by knives or trucks), than we'd have a net gain of 1000 murders, which would obviously be a bad thing. The total murder rate is more important than one specific type of murder going down or up. A gun can be used to defend yourself against knives, trucks and so on, so if it lowers the murder rate as a whole, than it's a greater good for society, even if in some cases guns fall in to the wrong hands. It's better to have more guns murders but less of all types of murders, so how many gun murders there are is irrelevant.

I feel like there are too many variables to make any judgement between banning guns and lowered murder rates.

[Kernen]

We shouldn't be trying to stop suicide. It's your life, do with it what you will.

Most gun suicides aren't committed by people who make a rational decision to do so. They are generally committed by people who have no history of mental illness, but rather by people who have had a recent setback in life or in a state of drunken sorrow. They are senseless and preventable deaths.

Irrelevant. Their life, their call.

[Tule]

Most gun suicides aren't committed by people who make a rational decision to do so. They are generally committed by people who have no history of mental illness, but rather by people who have had a recent setback in life or in a state of drunken sorrow. They are senseless and preventable deaths.

That's not particularly accurate. Roughly 90% of all suicides are done by mentally ill people, and given that roughly 2/3rds of all suicides are done with guns, the statistic overwhelmingly applies to gun suicides as well. Most suicides are from mental illness, gun suicides included. Suicide isn't just something you do because you are angry or sad, it's caused by deeply seeded psychological issues, and the idea that guns or poison is somehow unique in that it allows it to happen faster or more easily ignores that most suicides, like murders, are not committed out of a temporary emotion. People don't just get "stabby" or want to kill themselves, they typically have years of psychological issues. Even those without severe psychological issues often experienced trauma, and thus have recurring memories that makes them sad over mental illnesses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8007865

RESULTS:

In the sample most survivors of self-shooting were young men who did not suffer from major depression or psychosis. Most shootings occurred in the context of interpersonal disputes with sexual partners or family members.

A study in Eastern Iceland in 2001 revealed that among gun suicide victims, none had been depressed and none had a history of psychiatric treatment. Suicides were usually preceded by an episode of heavy drinking. Source in Icelandic

In Eastern Finland, only 2% of gun suicide victims had been to a psychiatric consultation in the preceding 3 months.