Summations Only

Well we've seen that the more guns there are, the more people get killed by them.We've also seen that there's roughly a straight line relationship between gun ownership and deaths by shooting (with the USA being an above the line outlier - ie more deaths than the international trend)I think we can also rule out international terrorism from this discussion and keep it on topic - which is about gun control in the US. The mass killings in Colorado were caused by guns, not aeroplanes and it seems to me that the relevant questions are whether this was made more possible or more likely or more devastating because of his access to guns? I assume we agree that he could not have done what he did using a knife or a club.The second, and more general issue, is whether the prevalence of guns in a society increases the number of deaths - by murder, defence, accident [ABE] or suicide - above what it would have been without that prevalence.It seems to me that it's impossibly unlikely that the availability of guns has no effect on death rate ie that if guns didn't exist, the USA would have exactly the same murder rate (and I've given some of the possible reasons.) Is that your position?Edited by Tangle, : Incorporated dronester's suggestion.

quote:

---

Unless of course, someone were to make the claim that gun restrictions don't prevent gun crime as criminals will still have guns - or similar claims.

---

If you aren't sure what part of that is not relevant to a gun control topic I'm not sure I have the capacity to help you. Hint: Gun restrictions is another way of saying 'gun control'. And the argument 'gun control does not prevent gun crime as criminals would still have guns' is an argument against gun controls. It would be relevant in that case to point out that gun crime does in fact go up as proliferation rises.

Unfortunately, its difficult/unethical to test what would happen specifically in the USA if guns were suddenly highly restricted or in the UK if there was sudden proliferation. And its also unethical to run individual trials that induce murderous rage.The thing with the gun debate, is that there is actually supporting datum on both sides. Take these studies: Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988—1997

quote:

---

n region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.

​

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

---

The Social Cost of Gun Ownership

quote:

---

Our empirical analysis of county- and state-level data finds that gun prevalence is positively related to overall homicide rates.

---

State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001—2003

quote:

---

. Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

---

You clearly misunderstand my point.I agree that purchasing a knife is easier than purchasing a gun in the US, and probably everywhere. Much cheaper too, I'd wager.What I was saying was easier was the pulling of the trigger versus the plunging a blade into a body. Obviously trying to purchase a firearm or a knife, while in a murderous rage is difficult. It is easier to go to where your gun is and point and click a few times than it is to go to where your knife is and swing it with sufficient force several times. Are you disputing the claim that guns can kill people in circumstances where a knife cannot?You also neglected to quote the bit where I accepted it was speculation being employed as a means to explain to crash what kinds of things people are talking about when they postulate that more guns leads to more deaths.I'm deliberately not staking a particular position in this debate because it is my experience that people have a tendency to argue this matter unpleasantly or disrespectfully - as you have done with this attempt at clever snide or as you did earlier with your pointless gainsaying.

Shouldn't your list also include by "accident". I would guess there are a lot more accidental deaths by guns versus knives or ropes or unlit stairwells. The prevalence of guns would effect that number, yes?There are about 100-500 child deaths a year due to accidental shootings, yes? Umm, . . . hooray for living in a gun society, . . . hooray, hooray, hooray.

Well as long as folks are walking around armed, I too want to be armed.If some asshole pulls his pistol I much rather have a firearm than a list of all the things wrong with gun violence and proliferation to counter.

Thanks, added

Isn't he more likely to fire his weapon if you draw yours?

And an irrelevant one at that.Any ensuing discussion is also irrelevant.

Not sure. If I hit what I aim at he wont be doing nothing but running, bleeding or dying.Edited by 1.61803, : corrected

Sure, but who, once they've decided to kill - or lost their mind in the heat of the moment - decides not to do so because it would be too much effort?

Well, yes. I was on board with that a dozen posts ago.But merely shifting murder modalities from firearms to knives or clubs doesn't seem like an improvement. In what sense was the mass killing Colorado "caused by guns"? Guns didn't make James Holmes storm a theater and start shooting. No mechanism by which guns cause murders has been put forward, even though I've asked several times. James Holmes caused James Holmes to do that, and we may yet go back further and discover that, somehow, James Holmes was exposed to something in the course of his research that turned him into a killer. Why would I agree with that? In the Philippines in 1956, Domingo Salazar was able to murder 15 people - more than in Aurora - with nothing more than a spear and a bolo knife. Is it my position that the proximity of a firearm doesn't magically mind-control people into suicides or murders that they wouldn't otherwise try to commit? Yes, that's my position. It's insufficient for you to defend the opposite view with nothing more than "I find it impossibly unlikely." I find it very likely, in fact, that guns don't have the power to control the minds of human beings.

You're pretty sure of yourself there, Quickdraw. If his weapon was already drawn, like you said, I wouldn't be too eager to provoke him into using it.If I have a weapon, I'm not likely to get a chance to use it. If I don't have one, he gets to feel like a big man with his and he might not feel the need to use it.

Does it make any sense at all to trust your safety to the care of someone who has already endangered it by pointing a loaded weapon at you?

Well passion in the heat of the moment probably exists on a spectrum. It may well be the case that for some people the point at which they'd shoot someone is lower than the point at which they'd bash their brains in with a brick. The point at which they'll stab someone comes before being able to bash their heads in with a brick.If I'm holding a gun and I'm angry, all that my body needs make me do is squeeze a trigger. If I'm holding a knife, I have to get close and drive a blade into their flesh. If I want them dead, then that fact will probably not stop me - but if I'm just very angry and I think I want to kill them or I want to frighten them into thinking I want to kill them, it's much easier for them to end up dead if I have a gun.Rationally it might make no sense, killing someone is killing them. But I think psychologically there's a big difference between stabbing and shooting someone. It's like The Trolley Problem vs The Trolley Problem with the fat man. The outcome is the same (a man dies), but most people think that pushing a fat guy to his death is problematic where directing a trolley to hit someone else is fine.And of course - drive-by shooting. The ultimate in lazy murder. There aren't a great deal of drive-by stabbings are there?

What is it irrelevant to? I've already showed what it was relevant to (a discussion about gun control). If you're going to bother replying at least, you know, construct an argument or something. If you don't, you aren't participating in either a debate or a discussion. So what's it going to be? Another content-free and/or vague assertion? Or are you going to try this time?