The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

More...

Spoiler :

...but with less warm fuzzies and more "do the stuff I don't want to do."

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Allocated to everybody by merit of being to be deprived as determined as opposed to allowed by active consensus is deeper than simple balance of power.

Can you rephrase this a little better for me? There are at least 8 different interpretations I thought of, depending on where I put the pauses.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can't rephrase it better, no, but I can try and come to a more shared understanding.

>.>
<.<
>.>

Kidding.

Allocated to everybody, by merit of (their) being, to be deprived as determined (necessary) --- as opposed to allowed by active consensus (to the worthy instead), is deeper than (a) simple (difference in) balance of power. (It is instead a discussion about a right.) ?

 

[Berzerker]

Sit inside the tank?

Live in it and never get out? The wife and kids too? If someone wanted to kill you, sitting in a tank would make it easy for them.

If owning a gun is a natural right because it's an extension of your natural right to self defence, then how is being able to carry it around also not a right? You can't really defend yourself with it if you're not in posession of it. I guess the clue was in the "your society" bit, but how are you recognising the authority of any society to curtail a natural, immutable "god given" right?

Because you're on other people's property. "Your society" was in reference to El Mac's "my society".

This. Exactly this

I didn't make either argument

Well at least that's a somewhat good-faith argument that has some logical coherence that can be discussed on the merits... as opposed to...

You're a lawyer and you complain about bad faith arguments? You dont argue in good faith, not with me anyway.

Lol, it was you who suggested bomb vests and tanks should be illegal because they "kill the innocent". That was your position, not mine. I was simply pointing out that it would apply to guns as well.

I didn't say they should be illegal, there are tanks probably in private hands now. I said bomb vests kill indiscriminately and are therefore not weapons of self defense. The right of self defense is limited to the attacker, not innocent people in the way of bomb blasts.

Tanks are used all the time without killing innocent people too. How are you going to defend yourself against attackers who have a tank with only a gun? You can't. You need yourself some kind of powerful explosive or tank otherwise you are screwed. So I'll ask again, why should someone be denied the right defend themselves with a tank? So far your answers have been that they kill the innocent or kill indiscriminately, you do understand why that applies to guns too, right?

Tanks are used all the time? How many people used a tank or bomb vest in self defense last year?

But seriously guys, what you don't understand is bomb vests kill the innocent. That is what makes them so different from guns. Like, when has a gun ever killed the innocent? Just think about it.

Sommers is here, he can help you build those straw men. Bomb vests kill indiscriminately, that doesn't mean guns are never used to kill the innocent.

Yeah, I agree with this point. That is why I said before it's a difference of degree, not kind. Guns kill are more accurate, but they are still very dangerous and can be used to harm lots of people, both on purpose or accidentally.

Someone who is willing to concede that in the case of tanks or bomb vests public safety is more important than freedom, we can shift away from the argument about rights to an honest look at the evidence for guns.

We're not free to drive tanks or wear bomb vests around town, this is about home defense.

Devil's advocate for a moment: guns kill the innocent when they're misused. Explosive vests are indiscriminate so even when using them as intended they will kill bystanders or whatever.

"How are you going to defend yourself with a bomb vest?"

Dude. Statistics. I can find stories of people who were mugged and had their open-carry pistol stolen. Find me ONE story of a person wearing a bomb vest getting mugged.

I mean, I'm not just being silly (even though, obviously I am). A reasonable portion of deterrence is convincing your attacker you're willing to take him with you. If you think that bomb vests wouldn't have a deterrent effect, you're just ... wrong.

I wasn't equating self defense with a deterrent, the former is what happens when the latter doesn't work. The only stories we have are people blowing themselves up accidentally or to kill the innocent. Yes, wearing a bomb vest will clear the room so to speak, but you dont have a right to wear one to deter muggers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Undetermined intent?"

A few things come to mind. Someone who discharges a firearm while speaking in tongues, odd cases like children with a motive + previously stated intent claiming it was an accident, surprise visit by a family member/close friend at night that gets "panic fired" (maybe this story is true, maybe it isn't). I guess someone on drugs with a bizarre motive could fall into that category too. Probably lots of oddball scenarios I'm not imagining.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is the opposite of the truth. Availability of guns is the low-hanging fruit.

So you say, but given the political narrative over that and resistance it's not convincing. But maybe reducing suicide motivation is even harder.

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay, I don't think that I mentioned deterrence first, but that's fine. Although I do consider deterrence as a tool that you should be allowed to use in self-defense.

For example, I think I could beat brandishing charge with a self-defense claim. Probably beat charge of uttering threats as well.

But now we're only talking about tools within the home? Like Claymore mines?

Actually, don't worry about this. I changed the format of my post to highlight that I don't feel this is a good argument from me. It's not a bad-faith argument, but it's not really my argument to make. I think that there's a good case to not seize people's guns that they've already legally bought.

Doing so would be a variant of Eminent Domain that I just don't like. All I'm acknowledging here is that there's a higher burden to seize legally-gained gun, that it's a violating of property rights that were gained in good faith.

I see that we've already acknowledged that it requires privilege to transport a gun. This would mean that the acquisition of all new guns would be a privilege. It would be the same for claymore mines, even if we thought that claymore mines are fine to own in the house.

 

[cardgame]

This is the opposite of the truth. Availability of guns is the low-hanging fruit.

What makes people want to kill themselves? Availability of options to do so is not the answer.

 

[Lexicus]

What makes people want to kill themselves? Availability of options to do so is not the answer.

Okay, and? I'm not claiming that the availability of guns is making people want to kill themselves, I'm claiming it's making it easier for them to succeed in doing so.

 

[cardgame]

I'm just saying we should treat the root cause and not a branch-off.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Okay, and? I'm not claiming that the availability of guns is making people want to kill themselves, I'm claiming it's making it easier for them to succeed in doing so.

I'm just saying we should treat the root cause and not a branch-off.

I'm sure that both of you would agree that suicide is not per se wrong or immoral. But still we think of suicide necessarily as a tragedy and something which "could have been prevented" under "different circumstances". Well, what if it couldn't, and what if it shouldn't? This question has been bothering me recently.

Isn't it kinda wrong to think that suicide is necessarily a tragedy, can't it be a good thing depending on the situation? (*prepares to be crucified*). Or, formulated differently, is suicide always just a product of certain circumstances (which are preventable) or can suicide also be an entirely rational choice from an entirely healthy mind? I propose it's thinkable.

taking both utilitarianism and anti natalism to their extremes, wouldn't suicide be a benefit if (and only if) people around you will not be negatively affected by it? is our perception of someone's suicide not the most negative thing about suicide? if it was positive, "good for him!", wouldn't that turn the entire situation on its head?

guess I hijacked another thread, apologies. but my thoughts don't adhere to forum rules.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm sure that both of you would agree that suicide is not per se wrong or immoral. But still we think of suicide necessarily as a tragedy and something which "could have been prevented" under "different circumstances". Well, what if it couldn't, and what if it shouldn't? This question has been bothering me recently.

Isn't it kinda wrong to think that suicide is necessarily a tragedy, can't it be a good thing depending on the situation? (*prepares to be crucified*). Or, formulated differently, is suicide always just a product of certain circumstances (which are preventable) or can suicide also be an entirely rational choice from an entirely healthy mind? I propose it's thinkable.

taking both utilitarianism and anti natalism to their extremes, wouldn't suicide be a benefit if (and only if) people around you will not be negatively affected by it? is our perception of someone's suicide not the most negative thing about suicide? if it was positive, "good for him!", wouldn't that turn the entire situation on its head?

guess I hijacked another thread, apologies. but my thoughts don't adhere to forum rules.

FWIW, before the thread leaps back onto its designated tracks, I am not only not going to crucify you, I'm mostly in agreement with you.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Harvard School of Public Health: "Lethality of suicide methods"

Percentage of people who die in a suicide attempt, by method. Data collected from hospital emergency rooms and death certificates in 8 U.S. states, 1989-1997.

And before anyone even bothers to type "If someone really wants to die, they'll find a way to do it", just let me stop you before you embarrass yourself.

Harvard School of Public Health: "[Suicide] attempters' long-term survival"

Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% reattempted nonfatally, and 70% had no further attempts.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Jump is 30%? Damn, that's insane.

FWIW, before the thread leaps back onto its designated tracks, I am not only not going to crucify you, I'm mostly in agreement with you.

honestly Tim, you never cease to surprise me with the sheer width of your opinions. seems like you're impossible to pin down (aside from your dogs.. and.. nvm I'll stop here )

 

[Lexicus]

I'm just saying we should treat the root cause and not a branch-off.

There is no single "root cause" of suicide.

I'm sure that both of you would agree that suicide is not per se wrong or immoral. But still we think of suicide necessarily as a tragedy and something which "could have been prevented" under "different circumstances". Well, what if it couldn't, and what if it shouldn't? This question has been bothering me recently.

anecdotally, I've heard quite a few stories of people who attempt suicide and immediately regret it. IMO it's worth trying to prevent.

https://www.businessinsider.com/many-suicides-are-based-on-an-impulsive-decision-2014-8

empirically it seems mostly to be impulsive though this article does mention a subset that are not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

anecdotally, I've heard quite a few stories of people who attempt suicide and immediately regret it. IMO it's worth trying to prevent.

Prevent the attempt, or the success? There is immense value in that regret, or whatever you want to call the lessons learned in an unsuccessful suicide attempt...or at least there can be. Preventing the attempt may lock someone into being suicidal when the clarity that comes in the wake of an unsuccessful attempt may give them access to a far better life. Some people call a suicide attempt a cry for help from someone who has no other way to ask. Would you silence them?

This, of course, provides a tremendous incentive to remove access to guns. They are far too effective as a suicide method. That person who might have gotten a valuable lesson and access to a good life winds up dead instead.

They also have been elevated to almost mythic status as an access to power. Someone who may not really be able to bring themselves to making a suicide attempt using an inefficient method that appears to be painful might look at a gun as "easy and painless" enough to make seeking alternatives less attractive.

 

[Lexicus]

Prevent the attempt, or the success?

The theory behind taking the guns away to reduce suicide would be that it is preventing a particularly lethal kind of attempt. So it isn't preventing attempts but hoping to lead to fewer attempts being successful.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The theory behind taking the guns away to reduce suicide would be that it is preventing a particularly lethal kind of attempt. So it isn't preventing attempts but hoping to lead to fewer attempts being successful.

One of the factors that Harvard study I linked above hypothesizes is a factor in a method's degree of lethality is "ability to abort mid-attempt." That's partly why successful suicides by poison are so low; people change their minds, and poison is an especially slow means that often doesn't incapacitate the victim. I assume some of the low success rate with poison would also be from suicide attempts being discovered by a 3rd party before death, and also from people overestimating the lethality of whatever they're trying to overdose or poison themselves with. Still, some number of people have second thoughts almost instantly.

Unsurprisingly,

U.S. News & World Report, 17 Jan 2019 - "Youth Suicide Rates Higher in States With More Guns"

The share of households that have guns is the single strongest predictor of how many young people commit suicide in a state, a new study shows.

At the state level, the share of households that owned guns in 2004 was strongly linked to the youth suicide rate over the next decade, researchers found, even after controlling for other factors such as depression, suicide plans and previous suicide attempts.

Overall, the youth suicide rate rose about 27 percent with each 10 percentage-point increase in household gun ownership, according to the study, published Thursday in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

One of the factors that Harvard study I linked above hypothesizes is a factor in a method's degree of lethality is "ability to abort mid-attempt." That's partly why successful suicides by poison are so low; people change their minds, and poison is an especially slow means that often doesn't incapacitate the victim. I assume some of the low success rate with poison would also be from suicide attempts being discovered by a 3rd party before death, and also from people overestimating the lethality of whatever they're trying to overdose or poison themselves with. Still, some number of people have second thoughts almost instantly.

Another huge crackpot theory:

Do people actually have second thoughts about the suicide they plannet meticulously for months? Or is it rather a different phenomenon? No one can kill himself by trying not to breathe. Eventually, no matter how much willpower, you will breave instinctively. There is nothing you can about it. What if interrupting suicide is also more of an instinctive, bodily reaction, than one of regret, one of rationality, or one of changing your mind? What if the catharsis does not come during the suicide attempt, but is rather a product of reflecting on one's unsuccessful attempt?

Prevent the attempt, or the success? There is immense value in that regret, or whatever you want to call the lessons learned in an unsuccessful suicide attempt...or at least there can be. Preventing the attempt may lock someone into being suicidal when the clarity that comes in the wake of an unsuccessful attempt may give them access to a far better life. Some people call a suicide attempt a cry for help from someone who has no other way to ask. Would you silence them?

This, of course, provides a tremendous incentive to remove access to guns. They are far too effective as a suicide method. That person who might have gotten a valuable lesson and access to a good life winds up dead instead.

They also have been elevated to almost mythic status as an access to power. Someone who may not really be able to bring themselves to making a suicide attempt using an inefficient method that appears to be painful might look at a gun as "easy and painless" enough to make seeking alternatives less attractive.

This is a very good post.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There's an awful lot of not necessarily to go around.

Plenty of folks trust family members enough to ask them to do stuff, but still dislike them enough to never invite them over... you mentioned that whole bit about "usefulness" after all.

On a mildly related note...Ranchers don't bring the cows in the house do they?