Five Thirty Eight discusses gun control

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,871
Reaction score
2,441
Points
113
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.4ce544e1993c

The writer's conclusion:
A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.


hmmm- it turns out to be a people problem.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
Start by legalizing assisted suicide. That's the biggest part of the puzzle.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,158
Reaction score
809
Points
113
What a poorly written opinion piece. That conclusion is a substance absent word salad.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
160
Points
63
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.4ce544e1993c

The writer's conclusion:
A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.


hmmm- it turns out to be a people problem.
So after a year of saying everything the Washington Post publishes is fake news, you are now citing them?

Hmmmm.....
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,533
Reaction score
1,320
Points
113
The article discusses big, simply-described programs. She says as much, "As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference."

But it ignores the fact that Connecticut implemented a broad range of changes and found that they were effective, even when accounting for other factors:

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-estimated-to-have-cut-fatal-shootings-by-40/

And then it also makes really silly constrictions on what it's analyzing: "Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them."

When in fact studies have shown that having fewer guns available makes suicide less likely:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

Here's my bottom line for all gun debates: until the CDC is allowed to study gun violence, it's pretty clear that gun rights activists are not actually interested in reducing gun violence.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
We to be more strategic; gun lobbies enjoy quoting the 2nd amendment on guns. Let's see them defend bump gun accessories, silencers and large capacity magazines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,852
Reaction score
428
Points
83
Here's my bottom line for all gun debates: until the CDC is allowed to study gun violence, it's pretty clear that gun rights activists are not actually interested in reducing gun violence.
They aren’t. They’d rather do nothing - or pray - than try to figure out how to reduce this epidemic unique to our country in the first world.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,992
Reaction score
147
Points
63
I agree we need to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and street drug users. People like you, bass, cin, jtf, bump fire stocker, etc should never ever have access to weapons. This is much more serious that yelling fire in a theater.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
The article discusses big, simply-described programs. She says as much, "As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference."

But it ignores the fact that Connecticut implemented a broad range of changes and found that they were effective, even when accounting for other factors:

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-estimated-to-have-cut-fatal-shootings-by-40/

And then it also makes really silly constrictions on what it's analyzing: "Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them."

When in fact studies have shown that having fewer guns available makes suicide less likely:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

Here's my bottom line for all gun debates: until the CDC is allowed to study gun violence, it's pretty clear that gun rights activists are not actually interested in reducing gun violence.
How do you explain the nearly identical suicide rates of the UK and US in most years, with the UK citizens not having access to guns? Or Japan where the suicide rate is routinely higher than the US?

Here's my bottom line. Until the gun control lobby admits the real issue is not legal gun owners, they're not interested in reducing gun violence. The data is right there in front of us, the problems are suicides & illegal gotten guns in urban cores. The solutions seem pretty obvious. We need to legalize assisted suicide & have stricter policing of high gun crime neighborhoods.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
They aren’t. They’d rather do nothing - or pray - than try to figure out how to reduce this epidemic unique to our country in the first world.
How is proposing a ban on silencers or bump stocks any more pragmatic in reducing suicides & urban gun violence than praying?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
Straw man.
Weak sauce. What realistic solutions are the left proposing to reduce this "epidemic"? I'm all ears, if they'd actually work. Going after silencers is pointless. Roughly 0.5% of killings involve a silencer. How is that going to have any real impact? Or banning assault rifles? About 1% of gun deaths come from those. 65% of all gun deaths are suicides, why isn't the left demanding legislation to legalize assisted suicide? That would have a real impact.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,533
Reaction score
1,320
Points
113
How do you explain the nearly identical suicide rates of the UK and US in most years, with the UK citizens not having access to guns? Or Japan where the suicide rate is routinely higher than the US?

Here's my bottom line. Until the gun control lobby admits the real issue is not legal gun owners, they're not interested in reducing gun violence. The data is right there in front of us, the problems are suicides & illegal gotten guns in urban cores. The solutions seem pretty obvious. We need to legalize assisted suicide & have stricter policing of high gun crime neighborhoods.
In general comparing the base rate in any country vs another and pretending that tells us all we need to know is silly. The environmental and cultural conditions need to be controlled for. That's where state-by-state comparisons are much easier because one US state is much closer to another state in terms of those variables than the US is to Japan. And many of the studies linked above control for other factors.

No one is arguing that suicide attempts would go down, only that the rate of success would decrease.

As for the UK, it's interesting you say "most years." I wonder if that's a clever way of getting around the fact that the UK rate is much lower now (12.6 per 100k vs 7.4) than that of the US because the US rate has been increasing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

I'm not sure what you mean by "admits the real issue is not legal gun owners." How can you argue that while at the same time saying suicide is the real problem. Are most suicides not by legally owned guns? As for the illegally obtained guns, it's even harder to obtain a gun illegally if there are fewer guns available in general.

I'm all for legalizing assisted suicide, but I think it misses the point of all of this. I actually DON'T want people to commit suicide, whereas you seem to think people care what method they choose. Substituting one highly effective method for another isn't helpful. People are more likely to commit suicide if they have an immediate and effective way to do it.
“It is often said that people would kill themselves anyway, even if they didn’t have access to guns,” Nestadt says. “There is an entire body of research that tells us that is simply not true.”
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2017/higher-rural-suicide-rates-driven-by-use-of-guns.html

The ultimate fact remains: more guns available results in more gun violence. I don't care what we label the real issue as, multiple studies show that fewer guns reduce gun deaths.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,533
Reaction score
1,320
Points
113
Weak sauce. What realistic solutions are the left proposing to reduce this "epidemic"? I'm all ears, if they'd actually work. Going after silencers is pointless. Roughly 0.5% of killings involve a silencer. How is that going to have any real impact? Or banning assault rifles? About 1% of gun deaths come from those. 65% of all gun deaths are suicides, why isn't the left demanding legislation to legalize assisted suicide? That would have a real impact.
I agree with you (with the exception of the assisted suicide point, see above), but come to a different conclusion. These tiny, corner-case solutions are being proposed because national legislators know that broader reforms, like what happened in Australia and Connecticut, are politically impossible.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,852
Reaction score
428
Points
83
Weak sauce. What realistic solutions are the left proposing to reduce this "epidemic"? I'm all ears, if they'd actually work. Going after silencers is pointless. Roughly 0.5% of killings involve a silencer. How is that going to have any real impact? Or banning assault rifles? About 1% of gun deaths come from those. 65% of all gun deaths are suicides, why isn't the left demanding legislation to legalize assisted suicide? That would have a real impact.
Straw man means you refuted an argument that I didn't make as if you refuted my argument.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
I agree we need to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and street drug users. People like you, bass, cin, jtf, bump fire stocker, etc should never ever have access to weapons. This is much more serious that yelling fire in a theater.
WTH dude I'm a responsible gun owner! Don't take my guns. Take the idiots guns! I spent 2 hours at the range just this morning!
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
In general comparing the base rate in any country vs another and pretending that tells us all we need to know is silly. The environmental and cultural conditions need to be controlled for. That's where state-by-state comparisons are much easier because one US state is much closer to another state in terms of those variables than the US is to Japan. And many of the studies linked above control for other factors.

No one is arguing that suicide attempts would go down, only that the rate of success would decrease.

As for the UK, it's interesting you say "most years." I wonder if that's a clever way of getting around the fact that the UK rate is much lower now (12.6 per 100k vs 7.4) than that of the US because the US rate has been increasing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

I'm not sure what you mean by "admits the real issue is not legal gun owners." How can you argue that while at the same time saying suicide is the real problem. Are most suicides not by legally owned guns? As for the illegally obtained guns, it's even harder to obtain a gun illegally if there are fewer guns available in general.

I'm all for legalizing assisted suicide, but I think it misses the point of all of this. I actually DON'T want people to commit suicide, whereas you seem to think people care what method they choose. Substituting one highly effective method for another isn't helpful. People are more likely to commit suicide if they have an immediate and effective way to do it.


https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2017/higher-rural-suicide-rates-driven-by-use-of-guns.html

The ultimate fact remains: more guns available results in more gun violence. I don't care what we label the real issue as, multiple studies show that fewer guns reduce gun deaths.
The majority of suicides are the elderly and terminally ill. I support letting people with Alzheimers for example, who may have 20 years to live, go out on their own terms, with dignity and spare their souses the emotional pain of having to attend to them & go bankrupt.

Again, what I'd like to know is what is the actual goal here? No one can or wants to, answer that simple question. If it's to lower gun deaths, then why waste time with assault rifles, extended magazines, silencers etc? Just legalize assisted suicide. 65% of all gun deaths are suicides. Let's say half are elderly & the terminally ill (although I believe it's more than half). If those people can see a health care professional and be euthanized in a painless way, then we've reduced gun deaths by 35%. That would be the single biggest win in the history of gun control. That's pragmatic. That would have an actual impact on gun deaths, unlike the ideas being floated around by the left. Then there's the issue of minorities (mostly Blacks) in the inner cities killing each other with stolen guns. If the actual goal of gun control is to reduce gun deaths, you'd target the people who're doing the killings. Stricter policing, stop n frisk, maybe house-to-house confiscations in the worst neighborhoods? That would have an immediate impact on gun deaths and gun violence. Since the left refuses to even consider the two easiest ways to reduce gun violence, I can only conclude they don't really care about lowering gun deaths and the real objective is something else.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
I agree with you (with the exception of the assisted suicide point, see above), but come to a different conclusion. These tiny, corner-case solutions are being proposed because national legislators know that broader reforms, like what happened in Australia and Connecticut, are politically impossible.
Why not target 90% of the problem? Suicides and inner city criminals with stolen hand guns. You wouldn't find a lot of Republicans balking at those measures & even the NRA would get on board.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Why not target 90% of the problem? Suicides and inner city criminals with stolen hand guns. You wouldn't find a lot of Republicans balking at those measures & even the NRA would get on board.
Inner city criminals are already targeted. The jails are full of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
Inner city criminals are already targeted. The jails are full of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes and if you want to further reduce gun violence we need more profiling, more stop 'n' frisk, more policing. Or we ignore gun violence and let them continue to kill each other. I remember seeing an interview with Corey Booker when he was Mayor of Newark. He said point blank that he couldn't understand why his party was so focused on assault rifles or or restricting licensed gun owners. He said in all his years as Mayor of that violent city that he had never once heard of an assault rifle being used and had never once had a case of a licensed gun owners using it to murder someone. He said it's hand guns that need to be banned. I didn't agree with his ideas on prohibition, but was impressed with his pragmatism. He was actually trying to reduce gun violence.
 

Gopherguy0723

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
4,119
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Stop and frisk is a violation of the Constitution. It is a very poor policy.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,992
Reaction score
147
Points
63
Just make killing people illegal. Cures all of it! Shooting oneself is such an ugly way to ugly. Just save up a bunch of pain medication from bottle bass and go to sleep. How many people get prosecuted for suicide?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,284
Reaction score
1,136
Points
113
Reduced gun violence isn't the point at all. Maybe sometimes they forget that a little though.
I honestly think they do forget. I don't believe most liberals want to ban all guns, they just don't think this through. They see a tragedy, they hear the political dog whistles, they feel like they should "do something" and only when you explain that the measures they want to take don't actually address the problem, does it give them pause.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,992
Reaction score
147
Points
63
It is far darker than that at its origins.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Yes and if you want to further reduce gun violence we need more profiling, more stop 'n' frisk, more policing. Or we ignore gun violence and let them continue to kill each other. I remember seeing an interview with Corey Booker when he was Mayor of Newark. He said point blank that he couldn't understand why his party was so focused on assault rifles or or restricting licensed gun owners. He said in all his years as Mayor of that violent city that he had never once heard of an assault rifle being used and had never once had a case of a licensed gun owners using it to murder someone. He said it's hand guns that need to be banned. I didn't agree with his ideas on prohibition, but was impressed with his pragmatism. He was actually trying to reduce gun violence.
Use the same logic; we already have profiling and jails full of inner city criminals. Yet, you want MORE of the same? The same thing you already acknowledge isn’t working?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom