An honest unusual discussion about firearms

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

I'm not sure that is the right question.
Will reducing fire arms lower the death rate?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

Only if you can remove ALL guns which we know is impossible. Yes, it will lower death rates but at what expense?

It is like saying if we sterilize all men can we prevent rape?

This is the crux of the issue.


At what expense?


What is lost if we remove firearms from the equation?

Ask Australians.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Especially when suicides are included in the list.
Like using a gun was worse than using a razor blade.

Especially when the majority of those suicides are the result of our for profit wars breaking the minds of soldiers, then discarding them.

In my mind, you save a whole lot more lives from gun deaths by fixing the VA, than by looking at gun control measures.

It is clear that reducing deaths is not really the issue.... it is getting rid of guns.

A big problem with this debate is that one side wants to use facts, data, and logic while the other side wants to feel good and use emotion. It is oil and water....

You are right.

One side uses facts like America had 3x the homicide rate.

The other uses emotion that they really really like guns.

Stating 3x's the homicide rate without getting into the underlying data is lazy analytics as I have demonstrated to you several times. Try taking a statistics 101 course to understand why...

Have completed quite a bit beyond statics 101 so I will pass.

Homicide rate being that much higher is a very relevant figure particular when the majority of homicides involve a gun. Trying to claim easy access to firearms isn't a major factor is a remarkable stretch.

I posted this excerpt in the other thread, but I think it's relevant to this one as well

Did the Australian model at least reduce gun-related homicides? That is hotly disputed. University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.” “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.” A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

Link

This is not the study but does include a link to the paper.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?

Because in the US, gun violence is highly concentrated among the lower income, inner city black community. It cannot be ignored if the point is to have a factual and honest discussion.

For example, in Chicago (which mirrors most major urban areas), in 2017 there were 678 murders. 527 were black. 116 hispanic. Just 20 were white. Chicago is a city of almost 3 million people. The black population in Chicago is 32%.

So the demographic that is 32% of the population represents 80% of the murders. The vast majority of which committed with a handgun that was already ILLEGAL.

Demographics has EVERYTHING to do with it...

Well unless you think (and I assume you don't) that minorities are genetically more likely to shoot each other then clearly ethnicity isn't the cause.

Combination of poverty and easy access to guns maybe a better explanation?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

If that were the case, then you would see more violence in the surrounding areas which you don't. Guns are far easier to obtain in surrounding suburbs and states, yet they do not have the same level of violence. So logically, it isn't the access to the guns that is the problem. It is something else.

You can't argue that it is poverty... black people have more opportunity and wealth than we've ever had, yet we didn't exhibit as much violence even during the height of jim crow and segregation.

The major change is that 75% of the kids are being born out of wedlock which didn't start until the 70s which also coincides with the uptick in violence and social dysfunction. This was brought on by War on Poverty policies that kept men out of the home in order to receive welfare benefits.

Democratic Senator and sociologist, Daniel Moynihan warned about this occurring back in 1965 when the out of wedlock birth rate in the black community was just 24%....

a reply to: Flatcoat

You didn’t include a link in either post.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

Automobile accidents are not usually the result of someone trying to kill someone else, and you know that.

Whatever gun laws and precautions Australia has taken seems to have greatly reduced gun deaths. I’ll have what they’re having.

Gun deaths are a narrow swatch of deaths overall. Why do you devalue the deaths of other people so much by falsely elevating this one specific mode of killing?

.

Again with the whataboutism. This thread is about gun deaths, so I’m discussing how to reduce gun deaths. How is that out of line?

That isn't a whataboutism.

The premise of the thread is based on a logical error. You are not out of line to discuss this, even though you are participating in the logical error that precipitated the discussion.

Im trying to point out this logical error. Because its almost impossible for me to participate in the discussion when the starting point is illogical.

"Gun deaths" is a political term. Its has no value when trying to improve the day to day lives of a society because not only does it ignore the larger total of "killings" or "deaths", but it does so by employing politically charged rhetoric and fear. Its a snipe hunt....and we wonder why no snipes are ever caught.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?

Because in the US, gun violence is highly concentrated among the lower income, inner city black community. It cannot be ignored if the point is to have a factual and honest discussion.

For example, in Chicago (which mirrors most major urban areas), in 2017 there were 678 murders. 527 were black. 116 hispanic. Just 20 were white. Chicago is a city of almost 3 million people. The black population in Chicago is 32%.

So the demographic that is 32% of the population represents 80% of the murders. The vast majority of which committed with a handgun that was already ILLEGAL.

Demographics has EVERYTHING to do with it...

Well unless you think (and I assume you don't) that minorities are genetically more likely to shoot each other then clearly ethnicity isn't the cause.

Combination of poverty and easy access to guns maybe a better explanation?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

If poverty is the root cause, then all poor demographics should be shooting each other up.

It isn't the only issue but it certainly one of the main ones.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

Only if you can remove ALL guns which we know is impossible. Yes, it will lower death rates but at what expense?

It is like saying if we sterilize all men can we prevent rape?

This is the crux of the issue.


At what expense?


What is lost if we remove firearms from the equation?

Essentially nothing. Sport shooters and hunters would need to find a new sport. Gun collectors would have to find a new hobby.

But if all guns were to just *vanish* from existence.
Life would go on just as it is now.

We might get invaded by Canada though. There s always that risk.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

Automobile accidents are not usually the result of someone trying to kill someone else, and you know that.

Whatever gun laws and precautions Australia has taken seems to have greatly reduced gun deaths. I’ll have what they’re having.

Gun deaths are a narrow swatch of deaths overall. Why do you devalue the deaths of other people so much by falsely elevating this one specific mode of killing?

Maybe because in a logical world this is one that we can do something about.

What, exactly, can be done? Do you often think that the best way to solve societies problems is to strain up to the highest branches to pluck that fruit?

In a logical world, guns are seen as a mode of killing with killing being seen as the problem. In this bizarro world I live in, there are 2 ways to die: by gun, and any other way. And by God if you die any way other than a gun, it doesn't really matter. No one is looking for a solution to that. They are too busy crawling around on the carpet looking for that lost grain of sand.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Flatcoat

You didn’t include a link in either post.

Link added.

Folks?

Work called and I had to get all "sciency" and talk about enzymes and stuff.

So I have to disappear for a bit and pretend like I'm a boss and do serious things for a while.


Thank you all for participating. This was instructive.

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

Only if you can remove ALL guns which we know is impossible. Yes, it will lower death rates but at what expense?

It is like saying if we sterilize all men can we prevent rape?

This is the crux of the issue.


At what expense?


What is lost if we remove firearms from the equation?

Essentially nothing. Sport shooters and hunters would need to find a new sport. Gun collectors would have to find a new hobby.

But if all guns were to just *vanish* from existence.
Life would go on just as it is now.

We might get invaded by Canada though. There s always that risk.

What city do you live in?

Because out in the country, life would become exponentially more dangerous as months ticked by. It ain't like the mountain lions and bears are going to just call a truce. And it ain't like the law does a good job of keeping the meth cooks out of the forest.

I got in my truck yesterday morning to find all my stuff rifled through while i slept.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I look at the “black thug” problem as a much larger issue than guns. It requires so much more to solve. It deserves its own thread.

Mass shootings, to me, is a 2-pronged problem of mental illness and guns. I think it fits better in the discussion of gun control. Gang issues are just too big to fit, in my opinion.

Mass shootings, statistically, aren't even a problem. Next to zero (something like 0.0000026% chance). To attack mass shootings as an issue is, from the bigger picture, solving problems that just aren't there. Its like climbing past all the fruit on a tree to only take the ones on the top branch.

That isn’t what Australia thought. Since we’re comparing Australia and the U.S.

Australia thought it was ok to infringe on all citizens' rights to prevent a handful of deaths. Fortunately, we don't think like that here in the US.

That's worded strange..... I think it needs a comma after "citizens' rights" or it sounds like it's not right to prevent deaths....

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?

Because in the US, gun violence is highly concentrated among the lower income, inner city black community. It cannot be ignored if the point is to have a factual and honest discussion.

For example, in Chicago (which mirrors most major urban areas), in 2017 there were 678 murders. 527 were black. 116 hispanic. Just 20 were white. Chicago is a city of almost 3 million people. The black population in Chicago is 32%.

So the demographic that is 32% of the population represents 80% of the murders. The vast majority of which committed with a handgun that was already ILLEGAL.

Demographics has EVERYTHING to do with it...

Well unless you think (and I assume you don't) that minorities are genetically more likely to shoot each other then clearly ethnicity isn't the cause.

Combination of poverty and easy access to guns maybe a better explanation?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

If that were the case, then you would see more violence in the surrounding areas which you don't. Guns are far easier to obtain in surrounding suburbs and states, yet they do not have the same level of violence. So logically, it isn't the access to the guns that is the problem. It is something else.

You can't argue that it is poverty... black people have more opportunity and wealth than we've ever had, yet we didn't exhibit as much violence even during the height of jim crow and segregation.

The major change is that 75% of the kids are being born out of wedlock which didn't start until the 70s which also coincides with the uptick in violence and social dysfunction. This was brought on by War on Poverty policies that kept men out of the home in order to receive welfare benefits.

Democratic Senator and sociologist, Daniel Moynihan warned about this occurring back in 1965 when the out of wedlock birth rate in the black community was just 24%....

You are attempting to find a single simplistic cause for a complex issue. Poverty, access to firearms, population density and many more things contribute.

However many countries have high income equality, areas of high population density and gang cultures. They even have shock horror single mothers

What they don't have is the easy access to guns and gun deaths are far far lower.

Autralia has GUN CONTROL and NOT a gun ban.

There is a BIG difference.

Aussies are allowed to own certain types of guns for hunting/pest control etc as long as we apply for a license and go through a series of checks and tests.

This needs to be reiterated, if a proper comparison between Australian and American gun laws is to be made.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Comparable as In developed stable democracies.

Why would population size or ethnic demographics influence gun deaths?

Because in the US, gun violence is highly concentrated among the lower income, inner city black community. It cannot be ignored if the point is to have a factual and honest discussion.

For example, in Chicago (which mirrors most major urban areas), in 2017 there were 678 murders. 527 were black. 116 hispanic. Just 20 were white. Chicago is a city of almost 3 million people. The black population in Chicago is 32%.

So the demographic that is 32% of the population represents 80% of the murders. The vast majority of which committed with a handgun that was already ILLEGAL.

Demographics has EVERYTHING to do with it...

Well unless you think (and I assume you don't) that minorities are genetically more likely to shoot each other then clearly ethnicity isn't the cause.

Combination of poverty and easy access to guns maybe a better explanation?

In most of these cities, guns are hard to obtain LEGALLY. Chicago doesn't have a SINGLE GUN STORE. Sure, guns are easy to obtain ILLEGALLY. But nothing any of you has proposed affects illegal gun trafficking. All that has been proposed is stopping Jethro from buying an AR-15 at Cabellas in the suburbs which does nothing to prevent Tyshaun from shooting Jahiem over a Facebook beef with an illegal handgun he got from a crackhead who sold it for $20.

I am not arguing the violence has anything to do with genetics, but it most certainly has to do with culture and is highly concentrated within a very specific demographic. Facts are facts and they ain't racist.

Poverty is not the issue.

Since Chicago is bordered by areas where guns are easy to get its laws on using them are largely redundant.

The culture you refer to is firmly rooted in poverty and access to guns so yes that very much is the issue.

If that were the case, then you would see more violence in the surrounding areas which you don't. Guns are far easier to obtain in surrounding suburbs and states, yet they do not have the same level of violence. So logically, it isn't the access to the guns that is the problem. It is something else.

You can't argue that it is poverty... black people have more opportunity and wealth than we've ever had, yet we didn't exhibit as much violence even during the height of jim crow and segregation.

The major change is that 75% of the kids are being born out of wedlock which didn't start until the 70s which also coincides with the uptick in violence and social dysfunction. This was brought on by War on Poverty policies that kept men out of the home in order to receive welfare benefits.

Democratic Senator and sociologist, Daniel Moynihan warned about this occurring back in 1965 when the out of wedlock birth rate in the black community was just 24%....

You are attempting to find a single simplistic cause for a complex issue. Poverty, access to firearms, population density and many more things contribute.

However many countries have high income equality, areas of high population density and gang cultures. They even have shock horror single mothers

What they don't have is the easy access to guns and gun deaths are far far lower.

You are attempting to find a single simplistic cause for a complies issue. Poverty, access to firearms, population density and many more things contribute.

The irony... I'm not the one blaming an inanimate object.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?

Only if you can remove ALL guns which we know is impossible. Yes, it will lower death rates but at what expense?

It is like saying if we sterilize all men can we prevent rape?

This is the crux of the issue.


At what expense?


What is lost if we remove firearms from the equation?

Essentially nothing. Sport shooters and hunters would need to find a new sport. Gun collectors would have to find a new hobby.

But if all guns were to just *vanish* from existence.
Life would go on just as it is now.

We might get invaded by Canada though. There s always that risk.

What city do you live in?

Because out in the country, life would become exponentially more dangerous as months ticked by. It ain't like the mountain lions and bears are going to just call a truce. And it ain't like the law does a good job of keeping the meth cooks out of the forest.

I got in my truck yesterday morning to find all my stuff rifled through while i slept.

This is another aspect which is completely ignored when talking about Australian gun laws. Not all Aussies live in Sydney. I'm from a small town in the north and do a lot of camping and fishing. It's not pleasant waking up and finding a 6 foot Taipan lounging on your sleeping bag or a croc scrounging around the camp site. The gun laws made it illegal for me to carry a firearm for protection unless I was a licensed hunter ...which I'm not.

a reply to: Edumakated

You will have to show me where I blamed an inanimate object.

a reply to: Edumakated

You will have to show me where I blamed an inanimate object.