What types of "gun control" would actually be effective? What sort of "gun control" would I actually support?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
That is like saying the measles vaccine failed because it did not prevent polio.
Click to expand...
The more common argument, which we will see shortly, is the measles vaccine failed because people still get measles.

Wait for it.
 
XndrK said:
The rate of death by infectious disease went down after the introduction of the measles vaccine, so it succeeded.

The rate of mass killing apparently did not go down after the introduction of gun bans in Australia, so it failed.
Click to expand...
The rate of measles went down. The rate of polio did not. So the measles vaccine failed under the same criterion you applied to gun restrictions.

As for mass killings, they do grab the spotlight, but they are not the only target of gun restrictions. Single shootings have far more dead. Both mass killings and single shootings were affected by gun restrictions in Australia, so it can work.
 
The total rate of disease fell (polio stays level, measles falls ∴ disease falls). The total rate of mass killing did not.

And Australia’s murder rate declined more slowly than America’s did after the Australian gun buyback, even though the United States got more swamped with guns in that time period. If you want to go into single killings, that is a fight I am totally willing to have.
 
Last edited:
XndrK said:
The total rate of disease fell (polio stays level, measles falls ∴ disease falls). The total rate of mass killing did not.
Click to expand...
So if the total rate of disease had not fallen because of some unrelated mechanism, would you then say that the measles vaccine failed? To say that gun restrictions failed just because killers relied on other means is to resign ourselves to the impossibility of stopping crime. Otherwise we would be glad that guns are no longer being used and then turn our attention to how to stop killings in their alternate forms.
 
anikins said:
Information in this recent NYT article may be relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Astonishing use of statistics! The amazing conclusion that rate of gun ownership correlates with the rate of the misuse of guns. Corollary: If a country has no gun ownership then there would be no gun misuse. Duh.

Adding to this farcical use of stats is their Switzerland comparison. The most likely method of mass murder with a gun in Switzerland is if the perpetrator uses his gun to club his victims to death. The Swiss citizens are not allowed to own ammunition.

The best gun control for me is the Tactical Cross Draw Holster.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
anikins:
Information in this recent NYT article may be relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Astonishing use of statistics! The amazing conclusion that rate of gun ownership correlates with the rate of the misuse of guns. Corollary: If a country has no gun ownership then there would be no gun misuse. Duh.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is pretty obvious, yet somehow the opponents of gun control still don’t accept that corollary.
 
Again, what is your goal, to stop killings or to stop the use of guns in those killings? Because if the first, then the buyback and restrictions failed at their job – mass killings did not go down as a result of the buyback. If the second, then … why? Sure, guns are designed for destroying things from a distance, but I don’t see how mass killers switching from guns to knives or trucks or IEDs or what have you is an improvement, just a change.
 
XndrK said:
Again, what is your goal, to stop killings or to stop the use of guns in those killings? Because if the first, then the buyback and restrictions failed at their job – mass killings did not go down as a result of the buyback. If the second, then … why? Sure, guns are designed for destroying things from a distance, but I don’t see how mass killers switching from guns to knives or trucks or IEDs or what have you is an improvement, just a change.
Click to expand...
The larger goal is to stop killings. But that problem can only be attacked in pieces, since the problem has so many different expressions. There is no one approach that can simultaneously address all forms of killing. By eliminating one particular form of the problem, there is one less form the problem can take. Do that one piece at a time and you will make an overall difference.
 
If the number of mass killings – and murders in general – has not decreased as a result of the action, then the method has failed. I don’t care if there are only three ways for some psycho to kill me; if I die, it’s a moot point.
 
XndrK said:
If the number of mass killings – and murders in general – has not decreased as a result of the action, then the method has failed. I don’t care if there are only three ways for some psycho to kill me; if I die, it’s a moot point.
Click to expand...
If there are three ways, and we eliminate one of them, then are only two. If we eliminate another one, then there is only one. If we eliminate that last one, you are now alive. But to get to that stage we had to go through stages 1 and 2 first.
 
If less people die because the method of killing was less efficient the law would be an improvement.
 
And you can let law-abiding citizens carry high-capacity magazines, “assault weapons”, etc to defend themselves and others against attackers to the extent that is possible.

Stephen Willeford used an assault rifle with a high-capacity magazine to mortally wound the Sutherland Springs shooter. That fact is well-documented. Had he had a pistol or fewer rounds, he would not have done that.
 
XndrK said:
And you can let law-abiding citizens carry high-capacity magazines, “assault weapons”, etc to defend themselves and others against attackers to the extent that is possible.

Stephen Willeford used an assault rifle with a high-capacity magazine to mortally wound the Sutherland Springs shooter. That fact is well-documented. Had he had a pistol or fewer rounds, he would not have done that.
Click to expand...
It is a bad idea to set policy based on isolated incidents.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If there are three ways, and we eliminate one of them, then are only two. If we eliminate another one, then there is only one. If we eliminate that last one, you are now alive. But to get to that stage we had to go through stages 1 and 2 first.
Click to expand...
This logic fails in its premise that only a limited means are possible to achieve an end inferring that if we just get rid of guns then fewer murders would occur.

For instance, Will wishes to kill Ken who has an affair with Will’s wife.

Will has a gun, a knife, a hammer and his bare hands.

Will’s wife takes away Will’s gun, knife and hammer and finds Ken strangled to death the next morning.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If there are three ways, and we eliminate one of them, then are only two. If we eliminate another one, then there is only one. If we eliminate that last one, you are now alive. But to get to that stage we had to go through stages 1 and 2 first.
Click to expand...
This logic fails in its premise that only a limited means are possible to achieve an end inferring that if we just get rid of guns then fewer murders would occur.
Click to expand...
To call it a success we don’t need to stop every single killing. Stopping some of them would suffice. Stopping gun violence may not discourage all killers, but it will limit their options.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
To call it a success we don’t need to stop every single killing. Stopping some of them would suffice. Stopping gun violence may not discourage all killers, but it will limit their options.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the fact that some gun control laws already passed are not enforced (therefore, encumbering only the law-abiding and ignored by criminals), we should only consider those new gun control laws that have convincing evidence that, if passed, some future murders would not occur by any means. Such a task for any statistician is impossible.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
To call it a success we don’t need to stop every single killing. Stopping some of them would suffice. Stopping gun violence may not discourage all killers, but it will limit their options.
Click to expand...
…we should only consider those new gun control laws that have convincing evidence that, if passed, some future murders would not occur by any means…
Click to expand...
Why should that be the standard? Why is it not enough to be able to prevent the use of a gun in a murder?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top