Gun laws and gun violence--the reality

[RavenSky]

Same with domestic homicide. In a fit of irrational, emotional passion, the convenience of a gun to act out with means people die, where, without a gun, they would not. Basically, it’s the difference between with gun=morgue; without gun=hospital at worst.

Here I must disagree. While a gun might turn a specific event into a homicide domestic homicides do not show up out of the blue. A domestic homicide is normally the culmination in a long series of violent incidents--and domestic murders are considerably less likely to involve guns than other murders.

You can disagree all you want, but as usual your unsupported assumptions a completely wrong.

The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/

Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

 

[Jarhyn]

Same with domestic homicide. In a fit of irrational, emotional passion, the convenience of a gun to act out with means people die, where, without a gun, they would not. Basically, it’s the difference between with gun=morgue; without gun=hospital at worst.

Here I must disagree. While a gun might turn a specific event into a homicide domestic homicides do not show up out of the blue. A domestic homicide is normally the culmination in a long series of violent incidents--and domestic murders are considerably less likely to involve guns than other murders.

You can disagree all you want, but as usual your unsupported assumptions a completely wrong.

The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/

Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

I keep pointing out that above all else, violence is generally a crime of impulse. Every time I've ever felt the urge to be violent, it has been transient and intense.

Getting shot is worse than getting stabbed is worse than getting punched, for the victim, and the difference is generally a function of how the assailant is armed, which itself is a function of how necessary the assailant finds it to be particularly armed, vs how much of a liability being armed presents.

It co tinues to be ridiculous to think that literal killing machines in the hands of everyday Impulsive humans will lead to *less* violence resulting in death.

 

[Gun Nut]

is it your false contention that we shouldn't bother doing anything about gun violence deaths as long as there is death by any other means?

I'm not supporting "doing nothing", but if there are "other means" for death, then what is the objective? Is a gun death somehow intrinsically "worse" than another kind of death?

 

[Gun Nut]

It [continues] to be ridiculous to think that literal killing machines in the hands of everyday Impulsive humans will lead to *less* violence resulting in death.

.

Yes... and the military has done extensive research into the phenomena they call "Weapon-pull". Basically it says that the "styling" of the weapon influences the tactical behavior of those who wield it. Soldiers given rifles with identical functionality, but one styled more "aggressively" than the other, demonstrate predictably different tactics with the weapon. Give a soldier an assault-style weapon, and they will assault... give a soldier a defensive-style weapon, and they will act more defensively...

there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"... just like there is no picture format that is "porn". You just know it when you see it. Prohibiting "military-style" weapons (whether the military uses it for assault, defense, or whatever) for non-military people makes sense and is based on actual studies... you know... science and shit.

If gun manufacturers were only allowed to sell military weapons to the military, and non-military weapons to non-military, there would be a marked difference in the behavior of less-stable enthusiasts with those weapons.

also, related to another aspect of this conversation (that reducing one death makes anything justifiable), I ask this....
Lets say that the argument holds water... if we ban all guns there will be at least one less death which makes it worth doing... OK, then what?
If the argument is that we must rid ourselves of all means of dying, what would be the next victim of unbounded regulation? Cars, right? Ban all cars. Since we have eliminated all the gun-related deaths in the country. 0, nada... problem gone... the next project will be what? Ban all knives.... eventually, ban all buckets for the number of drownings in 5 gallon buckets per year is not zero.
Or (As I suspect) are guns the special pleading case for something that must be banned because someone got hurt, but nothing else that can hurt people are included on that radar screen?

For those that think the best solution to gun violence is to ban all guns, I would be interested to know what is next on their agenda once all guns are banned and magically no one has any illegal guns... what's a gun?, your grandchildren ask.

does your list look like this?
1. Guns
2. Cars
3. Knives
4. poisons
...

...for example


Or is just like this?

1. guns
2. guns
3. guns

just get rid of guns! because they kill... but I only care about those deaths.

 

[RavenSky]

is it your false contention that we shouldn't bother doing anything about gun violence deaths as long as there is death by any other means?

I'm not supporting "doing nothing", but if there are "other means" for death, then what is the objective? Is a gun death somehow intrinsically "worse" than another kind of death?

1. I was speaking to Loren
2. No one anywhere has suggested ignoring other kinds of death. No one anywhere has suggested ending the search for a cure for cancer in order to pursue a reduction in gun violence. But while researchers hunt for a cure for cancer, how about we also try to reduce gun violence.

 

[Jarhyn]

It [continues] to be ridiculous to think that literal killing machines in the hands of everyday Impulsive humans will lead to *less* violence resulting in death.

.

Yes... and the military has done extensive research into the phenomena they call "Weapon-pull". Basically it says that the "styling" of the weapon influences the tactical behavior of those who wield it. Soldiers given rifles with identical functionality, but one styled more "aggressively" than the other, demonstrate predictably different tactics with the weapon. Give a soldier an assault-style weapon, and they will assault... give a soldier a defensive-style weapon, and they will act more defensively...

there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"... just like there is no picture format that is "porn". You just know it when you see it. Prohibiting "military-style" weapons (whether the military uses it for assault, defense, or whatever) for non-military people makes sense and is based on actual studies... you know... science and shit.

If gun manufacturers were only allowed to sell military weapons to the military, and non-military weapons to non-military, there would be a marked difference in the behavior of less-stable enthusiasts with those weapons.

also, related to another aspect of this conversation (that reducing one death makes anything justifiable), I ask this....
Lets say that the argument holds water... if we ban all guns there will be at least one less death which makes it worth doing... OK, then what?
If the argument is that we must rid ourselves of all means of dying, what would be the next victim of unbounded regulation? Cars, right? Ban all cars. Since we have eliminated all the gun-related deaths in the country. 0, nada... problem gone... the next project will be what? Ban all knives.... eventually, ban all buckets for the number of drownings in 5 gallon buckets per year is not zero.
Or (As I suspect) are guns the special pleading case for something that must be banned because someone got hurt, but nothing else that can hurt people are included on that radar screen?

For those that think the best solution to gun violence is to ban all guns, I would be interested to know what is next on their agenda once all guns are banned and magically no one has any illegal guns... what's a gun?, your grandchildren ask.

does your list look like this?
1. Guns
2. Cars
3. Knives
4. poisons
...

...for example


Or is just like this?

1. guns
2. guns
3. guns

just get rid of guns! because they kill... but I only care about those deaths.

Gun Nuts and their Car analogies...

Drop it. Weve had this discussion before. Its bullshit. Cars and Guns are not comparable. Even if cars were anything like a gun in terms of the ability to reliably and arbitrarily kill someone at range, which they are not, people need them to travel in a modern society. They have specific utility outside of being functional as a killing machine; purpose-built weapons do not. And your own argument contains a fairly important admission: form and perception of a tool influences its application, and cars are distinctly not weaponesque; someone doesnt weild a car and see it as a weapon, even in many cases where they probably should (ie, someone gets out of their car armed with a heavy blunt object to attack you).

And further, as if I really need to bring this up again since I already did (I think even in this thread), we are already as a species moving away from human-controlled cars and I DO look forward to the day when manual driving is outlawed.

From there, it's just knives on your list, and knives are already regulated more than I think reasonable, as they are not useful at range, and 98+% of accidental knife injuries are extremely minor. Even intentional knifings are minor compared to a GSW, and the violence I.pulse has a MUCH higher threshold to do the series of actions that end in a knifing.

As to the 'magical' part, people will always have some illegal guns. I get that. And thats why we have things like the Minneapolis Shot Caller for locating gun uses and investigating them.

Immagine that everything has a lethality value, as per your own post. Now imagine that it also has a non-lethal utility function. If the goal is to be utility-complete, while being lethality-minimal, the one thing we can absolutely do to move towards that goal is to remove and regulate objects which have no utility function, and high lethality values.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes... and the military has done extensive research into the phenomena they call "Weapon-pull". Basically it says that the "styling" of the weapon influences the tactical behavior of those who wield it. Soldiers given rifles with identical functionality, but one styled more "aggressively" than the other, demonstrate predictably different tactics with the weapon. Give a soldier an assault-style weapon, and they will assault... give a soldier a defensive-style weapon, and they will act more defensively...
...
If gun manufacturers were only allowed to sell military weapons to the military, and non-military weapons to non-military, there would be a marked difference in the behavior of less-stable enthusiasts with those weapons.

And your own argument contains a fairly important admission: form and perception of a tool influences its application

Yep. Gun Nut's own petard; hoisted by.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

is it your false contention that we shouldn't bother doing anything about gun violence deaths as long as there is death by any other means?

I'm not supporting "doing nothing", but if there are "other means" for death, then what is the objective? Is a gun death somehow intrinsically "worse easier" than another kind of death?

fify