Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
REQUIRE everyone to carry a firearm at all times.

Some places have done this and gun crime has plummeted.
 
pnewton regarding good, honest, law-abiding citizens you said:
I am more concerned with shaky temperament than I am shake thinking.
Click to expand...
Are you advocating we disarm ALL the police because a few of them have a “shaky temperament”?

Or are you ONLY concerned with disarming the good citizens pnewton based on a few of them that you think have a “shaky temperament”?
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
REQUIRE everyone to carry a firearm at all times.

Some places have done this and gun crime has plummeted.
Click to expand...
If you can raise the odds to 1 in five are concealed carry, gun crimes would plummet. It just needs to be a credible threat.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
MonteRCMS:
REQUIRE everyone to carry a firearm at all times.

Some places have done this and gun crime has plummeted.
Click to expand...
If you can raise the odds to 1 in five are concealed carry, gun crimes would plummet. It just needs to be a credible threat.
Click to expand...
If gun ownership went up enough to make criminals think twice before trying to mug someone, that may indeed make the total number of muggings by strangers and home invasions fall dramatically. Well done! But let’s look at the price to be paid for that benefit. With so many guns in circulation, irrational passion-driven domestic killings of people who know each other well will probably go up. So will accidental shootings. So will suicides. I think you may very well lose more lives from these three cause than you save from muggings and home invasions and all other instances of strangers killing people.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
If gun ownership went up enough to make criminals think twice before trying to mug someone, that may indeed make the total number of muggings by strangers and home invasions fall dramatically. Well done! But let’s look at the price to be paid for that benefit. With so many guns in circulation, irrational passion-driven domestic killings of people who know each other well will probably go up. So will accidental shootings. So will suicides. I think you may very well lose more lives from these three cause than you save from muggings and home invasions and all other instances of strangers killing people.
Click to expand...
Yes, there might be an increase in accidents, but there is no evidence the suicide rate would change.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Are you advocating we disarm ALL the police because a few of them have a “shaky temperament”?

Or are you ONLY concerned with disarming the good citizens pnewton based on a few of them that you think have a “shaky temperament”?
Click to expand...
No on both. 🌘
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If gun ownership went up enough to make criminals think twice before trying to mug someone, that may indeed make the total number of muggings by strangers and home invasions fall dramatically. Well done! But let’s look at the price to be paid for that benefit. With so many guns in circulation, irrational passion-driven domestic killings of people who know each other well will probably go up. So will accidental shootings. So will suicides. I think you may very well lose more lives from these three cause than you save from muggings and home invasions and all other instances of strangers killing people.
Click to expand...
Yes, there might be an increase in accidents, but there is no evidence the suicide rate would change.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. And you did not address passion-driven domestic disputes. These deaths are the price that strategy has to pay.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes there is. And you did not address passion-driven domestic disputes. These deaths are the price that strategy has to pay.
Click to expand...
Nobody disputes that a gun is an effective choice of method, but rope is equally effective and rope is also available in most homes or from your local big box store.

The suicide rate is higher in Wyoming because many factors that have more to do with the weather, geography, economy, and sparse population. The hypothesis is easily disproved by looking at a more controlled experiment where they had guns and then they were removed, like in the UK and Australia. People just selected other methods to do the deed.

Wy is also an outlier for suicides, using them in an isolated manner is cherry picking your data. There are many states with higher populations and equal levels of gun ownership, but with suicide rates within the national norm.

Guns may play a minor role but are far from a driving factor of causation.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Yes there is. And you did not address passion-driven domestic disputes. These deaths are the price that strategy has to pay.
Click to expand...
Nobody disputes that a gun is an effective choice of method, but rope is equally effective and rope is also available in most homes or from your local big box store.
Click to expand...
Rope is not equally effective. It takes time to tie is up properly, and it holds out the risk of prolonged suffering during the dying process. By contrast a bullet to the head is quick and easier to imagine as painless. Did you follow my link that explained why suicides are affected by availability of guns?
The suicide rate is higher in Wyoming because many factors that have more to do with the weather, geography, economy, and sparse population. The hypothesis is easily disproved by looking at a more controlled experiment where they had guns and then they were removed, like in the UK and Australia. People just selected other methods to do the deed.
Click to expand...
Re: Australia, False. (The acceleration of the fall in the suicide rate was the biggest effect of the ban.)
 
Last edited:
Your link to Australia didn’t work, and a change would need to be replicated for the UK if it was a driving factor. Also, the rate would need to drop immediately with removal of the guns, not gradually as part of a broader trend. A gradual rather than step change confirms guns were not the driver. Remember, the guns were removed over a fairly short period of time, not gradually.

Increasing availability of guns in the US in recent decades also doesn’t correlate with a similar increase in suicides or passion shootings. In so many cases we just lack correlation, let alone proving causation.

Nope, rope is very lethal, not the deterrent you think. Not as good a jumping from a height but very good and available.

This is a morbid link but it has data
However, it should be noted that different studies produce different results of the fatality of different methods. For instance, JJ Card2 estimated the lethality of suicide by guns as only 91.6% effective, and Farberow and Shneidman3 had it as low as 84.7%. The Hawaii Department of Health (1990) had it even lower at 73%. The same studies showed the effectiveness of hanging to vary between 77% and 88%. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Your link to Australia didn’t work
Click to expand...
I fixed the link now.
and a change would need to be replicated for the UK if it was a driving factor.
Click to expand...
All I was refuting was the claim that there was no evidence than reducing guns reduces suicide. I gave some evidence.
Also, the rate would need to drop immediately with removal of the guns, not gradually as part of a broader trend.
A gradual rather than step change confirms guns were not the driver. Remember, the guns were removed over a fairly short period of time, not gradually.
Click to expand...
Read my link, now that I have fixed it and see if that addresses your concern.
Increasing availability of guns in the US in recent decades also doesn’t correlate with a similar increase in suicides or passion shootings.
Click to expand...
That’s because the number of people owning guns has actually been decreasing. The rise in total number of guns is due mostly to existing gun owner buying more guns.
Nope, rope is very lethal, not the deterrent you think. Not as good a jumping from a height but very good and available.

This is a morbid link but it has data
However, it should be noted that different studies produce different results of the fatality of different methods. For instance, JJ Card2 estimated the lethality of suicide by guns as only 91.6% effective, and Farberow and Shneidman3 had it as low as 84.7%. The Hawaii Department of Health (1990) had it even lower at 73%. The same studies showed the effectiveness of hanging to vary between 77% and 88%. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, it is not the lethality but the extra time it takes and the scare factor of having to endure prolonged suffering. Even though it is possible to snap the neck instantly, there are plenty of instances where this did not happen and death occurred by strangulation. People contemplating suicide are aware of this.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Re: Australia, False. (The acceleration of the fall in the suicide rate was the biggest effect of the ban.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for fixing the link, but it doesn’t prove what you implied. One only needs to read the objective to see they didn’t study impact on the overall suicide rate, they just targeted use of guns and ignored whether other methods simply replaced guns.
Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don’t know that I’d use this as an example against gun control. After crashing into the bus, the guy emerged with a pellet gun and a paintball gun. If gun laws were looser and he had emerged from the truck with a couple of assault rifles instead, the body count might have been even higher.
 
If the gun were more strict, you mean.

Or do you think a man who is dedicated to die for his cause who believe gun control arguments even though he was going to kill as many innocents as possible in a blaze of glory?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top