The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Aabraxan]

....There are those who would claim that an increase in homicide rates includes the ethical or 'proper' use of firearms to protect property or to defend against non-homicide crimes. That is, an attempted burglary that ends with the burglar shot to death, versus a successful burglary in which no one is killed, may be considered a positive outcome.....

Let me start by pointing out that I haven't read the studies linked above. I'm afraid I don't have time today. With that said, you (generic, everybody kind of 'you,' not you specifically, @EgonSpengler ) have to pay close attention to the definitions sections of pretty much any study. I read a study a few years back on "child deaths" related to gun ownership. Some things weren't sounding quite right, so I looked into the definitions and realized that the authors counted anyone up to 23 years old as a 'child' for purposes of the study.... Hmmmmm......

Another study I read went into great detail about 'gun deaths,' but made no distinction between homicides and suicides, self defense shootings and felony murders. While it's helpful to know the total numbers, it's also very helpful to now how many of which kind of 'gun death' something falls into.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Only in the most dire of circumstances. Like we are being invaded and we've already depleted our active military, National Guard and reserve forces and conscription is literally the only option left to defend the nation.

Beyond that, no I don't believe in conscription. While I think the military lifestyle can benefit people greatly, I also believe the vast majority of people aren't cut out to be soldiers and forcing them into service does more harm than good to both the individual and to our military.

Right, when you're talking policy I think you have to consider real, demonstrable effects and consequences and not just the ethical questions or the hypothetical effects. In the case of the draft, I think the fact that draftees have tended to not be as effective as volunteers needs to be part of the calculation. (And anyway, it could be argued, a war that cannot generate enough support from the populace to fight it might, by definition, be a war that a republic shouldn't be fighting.)

Let me start by pointing out that I haven't read the studies linked above. I'm afraid I don't have time today. With that said, you (generic, everybody kind of 'you,' not you specifically, @EgonSpengler ) have to pay close attention to the definitions sections of pretty much any study. I read a study a few years back on "child deaths" related to gun ownership. Some things weren't sounding quite right, so I looked into the definitions and realized that the authors counted anyone up to 23 years old as a 'child' for purposes of the study.... Hmmmmm......

Another study I read went into great detail about 'gun deaths,' but made no distinction between homicides and suicides, self defense shootings and felony murders. While it's helpful to know the total numbers, it's also very helpful to now how many of which kind of 'gun death' something falls into.

Yeah, no question. I haven't read the studies past the abstracts, either. That can be a chore. I chose the two citations above in part because they used the phrase "associated with", which seemed to suggest they were concluding a correlation and not a causal relationship.

---

On the subject of the individual's responsibility to others, I'm thinking about limitations on our freedom of speech, vis a vis our responsibility to not make our fellow citizens uncomfortable, and mask requirements in the age of COVID-19. For example, the concept of "fighting words" or "hate symbols": Do I have a responsibility to not "drop an N-Bomb" on a Black man, or to not fly a Swastika flag in public view? I think I do, because they're implicit threats. Not wearing a face mask in a public space during this pandemic would be an implicit threat to the health of everyone around me, and they're just as entitled to use the public space safely and comfortably as I am. Even if I knew that I'd been tested negative for the virus and I wasn't in actual danger of making them sick, they wouldn't know that, so the threat would still exist and I'd "only" be making them feel uncomfortable (also, the tests themselves aren't infallible and the role of asymptomatic carriers is still uncertain, so it might be reasonable to ask people who've tested negative to wear a mask as a precaution anyway).

 

[Aabraxan]

....I chose the two citations above in part because they used the phrase "associated with", which seemed to suggest they were concluding a correlation and not a causal relationship....

Well done, then, ES, and I mean that sincerely. I see frighteningly few people in this world who seem to understand that correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well done, then, ES, and I mean that sincerely. I see frighteningly few people in this world who seem to understand that correlation doesn't equal causation.

To be clear in the case of almost any social study, correlation cannot conclude causation. There are just way too many factors at play. Now in the case of gun deaths there is definitely overwhelming evidence that the massive amount of firearms in the US leads to way way way more gun deaths in the US then anywhere else in the world.

 

[Aabraxan]

To be clear in the case of almost any social study, correlation cannot conclude causation. There are just way too many factors at play.

True.

Now in the case of gun deaths there is definitely overwhelming evidence that the massive amount of firearms in the US leads to way way way more gun deaths in the US then anywhere else in the world.

So in this case, you think correlation can include causation? I've long been a little puzzled by the term 'gun deaths.' If my home is invaded and it's my time, I guess being shot is as good a way to die as any. I'm not sure being beaten to death or strangled is preferable. In any event, I did a little digging, not a great deal, and it looks like the US ranked somewhere around 28th in 'gun deaths' worldwide in the last couple of years. So in spite of a media that LOVES to tell us how bad guns are, there are ~27 other countries with higher rates of firearm homicides than the USA.

And if memory serves, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports indicate that ~33K gun deaths happen every year, and that about a third of those are suicides. I can't recall off the top of my head if the UCR distinguishes between gun deaths that happen during the commission of a crime, or whether the deceased on on the criminal side or the defending side.

As an aside, here's an interesting take on the idea of 'A World Without Guns."

 

[AmazonQueen]

True.

So in this case, you think correlation can include causation? I've long been a little puzzled by the term 'gun deaths.' If my home is invaded and it's my time, I guess being shot is as good a way to die as any. I'm not sure being beaten to death or strangled is preferable. In any event, I did a little digging, not a great deal, and it looks like the US ranked somewhere around 28th in 'gun deaths' worldwide in the last couple of years. So in spite of a media that LOVES to tell us how bad guns are, there are ~27 other countries with higher rates of firearm homicides than the USA.

And if memory serves, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports indicate that ~33K gun deaths happen every year, and that about a third of those are suicides. I can't recall off the top of my head if the UCR distinguishes between gun deaths that happen during the commission of a crime, or whether the deceased on on the criminal side or the defending side.

As an aside, here's an interesting take on the idea of 'A World Without Guns."

Sure, not so bad so long as you don't mind thinking the US isn't doing so bad compared to Jamaica or Guatamala is doing ok. Compare it to other developed countries and even quite a few 3rd world countries and it doesn't look so good.

 

[Aabraxan]

I'm pretty sure that Jamaica and Guatemala (1) qualify as 'developed countries;' and (2) have stricter firearms laws than the US. So if gun control is the topic, it seems reasonable to leave them (and other countries like them) on the table for comparison purposes.

That said, I'll play, but if we're going to limit the countries to which we compare the US, it seems like we should have some established criteria. What should those be?

 

[Estebonrober]

True.

So in this case, you think correlation can include causation?

What I am stating is the preponderance of evidence is clear about what is likely happening. Social studies and economics are not chemistry or physics, you are not going to be able to pin down causation.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm pretty sure that Jamaica and Guatemala (1) qualify as 'developed countries;' and (2) have stricter firearms laws than the US. So if gun control is the topic, it seems reasonable to leave them (and other countries like them) on the table for comparison purposes.

That said, I'll play, but if we're going to limit the countries to which we compare the US, it seems like we should have some established criteria. What should those be?

Per Capita Wealth.

Figures for killings by law enforcement wealth show the US in a similarly unflattering light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country

 

[Aabraxan]

What I am stating is the preponderance of evidence is clear about what is likely happening. Social studies and economics are not chemistry or physics, you are not going to be able to pin down causation.

Yes, social sciences are a bit 'squishier' than some other disciplines, and yes, causation will be very difficult to pin down. By the best estimates I have seen (and with the admission that I haven't gone looking for the statistics in a couple of years), there are some 300 million firearms in the US, spread out over roughly 100 million lawful gun owners, and some mostly-unknowable number of prohibited persons. (Felons, domestic abusers, those adjudicated mentally deficient, etc.). Taking the "33K gun deaths per year" figure to be accurate in light of those figures, it means that somewhere north of 99 million gun owners got through the year without killing anyone. I'd have to look at the studies that you have very, very closely before I could be convinced that there's a 'preponderance of evidence' about what is likely happening.

Per Capita Wealth.

Figures for killings by law enforcement wealth show the US in a similarly unflattering light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country

Sorry, I thought we were discussing gun control, not killings by law enforcement. IMHO, that's a different discussion. Anyway, I'd wager that a single parameter (Per Capita Wealth) may be handy, but I'd also say it's insufficient to get to the problems that gun control is supposed to solve. However, I did ask the question about parameters, so I'll put it this way: To which countries would you care to compare the USA?

 

[Estebonrober]

FWIW I think comparing them to all nations is fair enough. At 28th worst on the planet it gives a good idea of what America is on this wavelength.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes, social sciences are a bit 'squishier' than some other disciplines, and yes, causation will be very difficult to pin down. By the best estimates I have seen (and with the admission that I haven't gone looking for the statistics in a couple of years), there are some 300 million firearms in the US, spread out over roughly 100 million lawful gun owners, and some mostly-unknowable number of prohibited persons. (Felons, domestic abusers, those adjudicated mentally deficient, etc.). Taking the "33K gun deaths per year" figure to be accurate in light of those figures, it means that somewhere north of 99 million gun owners got through the year without killing anyone. I'd have to look at the studies that you have very, very closely before I could be convinced that there's a 'preponderance of evidence' about what is likely happening.


Sorry, I thought we were discussing gun control, not killings by law enforcement. IMHO, that's a different discussion. Anyway, I'd wager that a single parameter (Per Capita Wealth) may be handy, but I'd also say it's insufficient to get to the problems that gun control is supposed to solve. However, I did ask the question about parameters, so I'll put it this way: To which countries would you care to compare the USA?

Lets put it this way. Is there a single country doing worse than the US that the US would like to be compared to?

 

[Farm Boy]

How arrogant a ********* are we assuming is doing the wanting?

 

[Aabraxan]

Lets put it this way. Is there a single country doing worse than the US that the US would like to be compared to?

Well, let's take a couple of examples. Digging around to find their Per Capita Wealth hasn't proven to be my strong suit, so I'll apologize now if these seem like unfair comparisons.

Mexico -- According to this (the accuracy of which is unknown to me, to be fair), Mexico has a significantly lower "gun death rate per 100k" (7.64 vs. 12.21), but also a significantly higher murder rate (6.34 vs. 4.46). I'm not an expert on Mexican gun laws, but my understanding is that they are much stricter than the USA.

Venezuela -- I seem to recall reading (some years ago, maybe 10-15?) that Venezuela had the world's largest oil reserves & the 6th largest economy in the world. According to the same chart, Venezuela has a GDR/100K of 49.22, approximately 4 times that of the USA, and a murder rate of 26.48, appx 6 times that of the USA. I believe that private ownership of guns in Venezuela is highly restricted, if not outright banned.

So there are those.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, let's take a couple of examples. Digging around to find their Per Capita Wealth hasn't proven to be my strong suit, so I'll apologize now if these seem like unfair comparisons.

Mexico -- According to this (the accuracy of which is unknown to me, to be fair), Mexico has a significantly lower "gun death rate per 100k" (7.64 vs. 12.21), but also a significantly higher murder rate (6.34 vs. 4.46). I'm not an expert on Mexican gun laws, but my understanding is that they are much stricter than the USA.

Venezuela -- I seem to recall reading (some years ago, maybe 10-15?) that Venezuela had the world's largest oil reserves & the 6th largest economy in the world. According to the same chart, Venezuela has a GDR/100K of 49.22, approximately 4 times that of the USA, and a murder rate of 26.48, appx 6 times that of the USA. I believe that private ownership of guns in Venezuela is highly restricted, if not outright banned.

So there are those.

both are kind of narco states and their violence is driven by cartels right? This is why I say it is fair to compare the US to whoever. It does show who are company is.

 

[Aabraxan]

both are kind of narco states and their violence is driven by cartels right? This is why I say it is fair to compare the US to whoever. It does show who are company is.

I think that's a fair assessment of both places. If you really want to go down a rabbit hole, though, go read up on Operation Fast and Furious from a few years ago.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I feel it is better to compare gun control to driving license rather than comparing countries as there are many factors that can have influence on violence level. Like gun control in Sweden is roughly similar to how you get a driving license with both practical and theoretical test.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'll also say that this isn't just a mere belief either. It is an actual legal principle that the individual is absolutely not responsible for protecting the safety of others.

This is mostly correct with some major caveats. For one, if you have a "special relationship" with another person, parental, or guardianship relationship, for example, you are absolutely responsible for protecting their safety. Secondly, if you take it upon yourself to offer assistance, you then become responsible to some degree for any harm you negligently cause. It's generally referred to as the "Good Samaritan" rule/principle/law. However...

For example: If we are both out in public and I have a cold, it's not my responsibility to make sure you don't catch my cold. That's on you. Now obviously I can't actively try to give you my cold by intentionally coughing in your face, as that would be causing you harm intentionally. Same applies for guns. If we live in the same neighborhood, me owning a gun may make you feel less safe, but I shouldn't be forced to either give up my guns or be restricted in what types of guns I can purchase just because it makes you uncomfortable. And just with my cold example, I obviously can't go shooting up your house.

The point of all that being that while you cannot actively and intentionally cause harm to others for obvious reasons, you are not responsible for preserving or ensuring the safety of anyone other than yourself (and your children if you have any). For the state to impose that kind of burden on the individual is unreasonable.

this example you give isn't a good analogy. For one thing, a person cannot unilaterally choose to catch a cold. You can engage in behavior that makes it more likely to get a cold, you can in some circumstances even acquire live cold virus samples which you could hypothetically ingest. But even then, your body could still possibly fight them off without you developing any cold symptoms. Conversely, you are in most circumstances, in complete control of acquiring a gun. I say "most" because there are some limited circumstances where you could become a gun owner/possessor unknowingly or automatically, such as inheriting a house that has guns in it. But for the most part, you choose to own a gun, while you don't choose to catch a cold. So analogizing the two in terms of the responsibility of the owner does not make sense. I will add that for the same reason, the government would be unreasonable to ban people from catching colds, while they could reasonably ban types of firearms/weapons.

However, all of that doesn't matter, because your conclusion is sound for a different reason. Whether or not you owning a gun makes you and/or your neighbor less safe is subject to the reality that you have a Constitutional right to own guns. The government bans people from owning all kinds of products... cocaine for just one example, because they have determined that it poses certain societal risks. They can ban all kinds of things for public safety reasons. But since guns are a Constitutional right, they can only restrict access to them in a very specific, very limited set of circumstances. "Because the arsenal in my neighbor's basement makes me personally, subjectively, uncomfortable", isn't one of those circumstances.

 

[Aabraxan]

I feel it is better to compare gun control to driving license rather than comparing countries as there are many factors that can have influence on violence level. Like gun control in Sweden is roughly similar to how you get a driving license with both practical and theoretical test.

You may feel that way, but driving is a privilege. In the US, keeping and bearing arms is a right. And not just any right, but a constitutionally-enumerated one. Legally, that's a significant difference.

....Secondly, if you take it upon yourself to offer assistance, you then become responsible to some degree for any harm you negligently cause. It's generally referred to as the "Good Samaritan" rule/principle/law. However...

My (limited) understanding of Good Samaritan laws is different from what I get from this. (If I've misunderstood you, that's on me.) My understanding of Good Sam laws is not that they attach liability, but rather that they shield the GS from it, to greater or lesser degrees. As an example, if an 80-y.o. man has a heart attack and I do chest compressions to try to keep him alive until EMTs arrive, I might break a couple of his ribs. GS laws (as I understand them) give me some legal immunity from being sued for those broken ribs. But as I mentioned, my understanding of those laws is limited.

 

[El_Machinae]

As an aside, other than practicalities, I can't think of a good Coasian reason why we wouldn't ban the shedding of infectious particles in public. You're literally creating the risk, and nobody is consenting to that risk.

Your right to sling viruses into the airstream ends at my nose


I think you guys mean duty to rescue, not good samaritan. There's a good chance that you have duty to rescue in your region, especially with regards to a hazard that you are creating
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue