If the Parkland shooter had been the Parkland knifer, people could have been victims - perhaps several brave souls, adult and teen, who tried to stop him. Most if not all would have survived their wounds. Meanwhile, their friends and colleagues would have escaped. Even if everyone ran, the sheriff on duty would have been much more likely to step up.
This is just another mindless deflection.
My concern is that it just isn’t possible to put this toothpaste back in the tube. There are too many guns already out there. The type of people buying AR-15s aren’t the type of people who are going to hand them over to the government if they ask nicely, and every time we make noises in that direction people buy more of them. Sorry to be defeatist, but I’m just not seeing a good solution to this issue.
I am assuming he’s talking to you. My guess is that he thinks that because less guns equals less gun suicides without any increase in non-gun suicides we can assume the same for homocides. That’s not exactly obvious so maybe he means something else. I have no idea why he thought it was so obvious that that he didn’t have to even bother explaining his reasoning.
Maybe he’ll come back and flesh out whatever it is he meant. I certainly agree that less guns would be less gun suicides, but I’m unsure if that will translate into less suicides, just like I’m unsure that less guns will mean less overall murders, as opposed to less gun murders. Even if we could get all the guns (or some large percentage of them) my WAG is that folks would simply use other means to kill and for suicide. I think, maybe, we will end up with less overall murders and, perhaps, less suicides, but not that much less. Like I said, of the 11k murders using guns I could still see 2000-4000 of those (again, WAG based on the US can do spirit :p) still happening, just with something other than a gun (or with guns that are totally illegal…I don’t think murderers would be that put off by murdering using an illegal weapon). The sad truth is that even if you take away all the gun murders, the US has a very high murder rate compared to most western nations, even considering our large population relative to the smaller countries we are usually compared too. A quick Google search shows me that the UK, which has a higher murder rate than a lot of other European nations had less than 600 murdered in 2016. That’s all murders, even those using guns. Compared to the nearly 5000 US non-gun related murders says that, even adjusting for population we are a lot higher.
No, that’s almost exactly what chart 11 shows. The “non-gun suicides” in high and low gun ownership states is about the same but “gun suicides” is higher in high ownership states. Therefore there’s more suicides in high ownership states.
Eta: though that may be partially explained by how guns are just more reliable in suicide. Happily pointed out in chart 12.
I’m responding to Magiver in this thread so as not to continue the hijack in the other one.
Random people? Are you kidding? The shooter had previously attended that same school!
And further, I never said it would have “prevented” the attack. I talked about body count. Without a gun, it would have been harder for him to kill as many of the people he wanted to kill as he did.
Do you actually believe what you’re saying – that without guns, it’s just as easy to kill lots of people in a particular school? If that’s true, is it just as easy to hunt deer without guns? Defend one’s home? Is it just as easy to win wars? Are guns the best tool for any situation, or are they always easily replaceable?
See the logic there?
If you take away guns from people who want to kill, they’ll just find another way to do it.
If you take away guns from a person who wants them to defend themselves, they’ll have no way to defend themselves.
Granted, it doesn’t follow, but with one caveat. If you take away the guns then people will find a way to kill…that’s a fact, since they already do this. They will also figure out ways to kill themselves…again, this is a fact, since in countries without guns such as Japan they find a way. WRT defense, certainly some people will find a way to defend themselves, but the thing you are perhaps missing is that violent people are better at doing violence, with or without a gun than non-violent people are. Men are better at violence, generally speaking than women are. They are also, generally, bigger and stronger. Young people are generally more fit and able to do violence or defend themselves than older people. This stuff is obviously subject to variation, but as a general rule it holds up. And a gun is a great equalizer as well as a tool for mass violence. An older person is able to defend themselves from a younger person with a gun. A women is able to defend herself from a man intent on harm with a gun. And a weaker person is able to defend themselves from a stronger one with a gun.
This is just in response to what you are implying btw…I’m not advocating that folks necessarily need a gun, just that it’s not as silly as you are implying there. The flip side is, some weaker kid can walk into a school with a gun and do a hell of a lot more damage than that same kid without a gun (generally speaking, though there are some caveats to this as well as we’ve seen with bombs and using vehicles to do mayhem). Where the balance point is remains debatable, IMHO. It’s something our society needs to come to grips with at some point…are we, as a society prepared to accept that a number of people will die if we allow the average citizen the right to keep and bear arms? And what is the acceptable number? And if we are so willing, what can be done to the greatest extent to mitigate those deaths? We do this with many other things in our society…tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs, even car safety and the various speed limits. And we’ve done some wrt guns as well…but I think the time is coming where we need to have another discussion wrt guns and what can (and can’t), should (and shouldn’t) be done from the perspective of our citizens. And I think the pro-gun people need to be pushing this, because if they take a business as usual attitude they might find it pushes them and our society to places they don’t want it to go. JMHO FWIW.
Are you still unsure if less guns would mean less suicides?
Here’s the thing, XT: your well-reasoned and nuanced response isn’t the phrasing that’s being delivered to public day in and day out by the people who want to keep lots of guns. What I wrote was exactly what they say, and it’s a bunch of bullshit.
People without guns are not defenseless, is the most important thing. No one denies that there are ways to kill without a gun, but some people deny that there is a way to defend themselves without a gun.
ETA: For example:
Missed the edit window by that much:
EATA: Gun-free zones leave Americans defenseless
Should I post more examples? Okay, a few:
Gun Restrictions Leave People Vulnerable and Helpless at US News & World Report
Let’s Not Be Defenseless from US Concealed Carry Association
Oregon: State Employees Left Defenseless by New “No Firearms” Policy from the NRA.
Depends on what you mean by that. Less than today? Perhaps (probably). But more than the current non-gun related suicides, IMHO. I sense you disagree with that, and I did look at the indicated sections (though I didn’t mention suicides before so still not sure how it related to my post) and I don’t see anything that changes my mind. I think that a new balance would emerge that would be somewhere between the suicides today that don’t use guns and the overall suicides with guns included.
Well, throughout human history people haven’t been defenseless without weapons, but weapons definitely are personal force multipliers, and guns are pretty much the ultimate personal force multiplier. Like I said, that’s a double edge sword though…they also multiply the amount of damage someone can do, if they are so inclined. You can’t deny that a 6 foot 6 guy that weighs 250 lbs and is 35 is going to have an advantage over a 5 foot nothing guy weighing 120 lbs soaking wet and who is 70 (or some other mismatch…take your pick).
The thing is, realistically, how often does that 120 lb guy really need a gun to defend himself in today’s day and age? What is the actual probability of that guy needing that weapon to defend himself? And what is the cost to benefit to our society in allowing the average citizen the choice of whether or not he or she ‘needs’ a weapon? To me, the people saying they can’t defend themselves without a gun are wrong, but for a different reason than I think what you are saying…I think they are wrong because they are bad at risk assessment and judging the real cost to benefit of a low probability event.
ETA: And my apologies if I’m hijacking the discussion…wasn’t my intention.
Well I don’t see how you can look at that chart and not see anything that might change your mind. It’s literally flat out saying that less guns means less suicides.
And the next chart shows guns are about 80-90% more succesful at completing a suicide compared to other common methods. But you’re still taking a “who knows?” stance. Shouldn’t you be at least doubting those chart’s numbers to continue with that position?
Which has nothing to do with the fact that gun proponents routinely tell the same lie about being defenseless without a gun.
The only thing I’m pointing out is the fact that gun proponents routinely tell the same lie about being defenseless without a gun.
They use propaganda techniques to equate “gun”=“defense”; “no gun=no defense” and it’s a lie.
I don’t think “lie” is the right label here, but you seem to like that word. I can certainly defend myself better with a gun in most situations than I can without a gun, but that doesn’t mean that all defenses undertaken without a gun are doomed to fail, or that every defense undertaken with a gun is destined to succeed.
I read the (2005) article that the chart was based on. In addition, a moment of thought would show you that less guns doesn’t necessarily mean less suicides, since if this were true the US would be leading the world in per capita suicides, instead of being basically in the middle of the road. Japan, with one of the most restrictive gun regulations and a very low number of guns per capita is the world leader in suicides per capita, so there is something else going on. Also, I DID agree it would (probably) be less deaths with more restrictive gun access in the US, especially initially, I just think that it would be more than the current number of non-gun related suicide…IMHO it would balance somewhere between the non-gun related suicides and the total number of suicides. I seriously doubt anyone would disagree with that, as it would entail thinking that everyone who, today (or in 2005 based on that chart) who committed suicide by gun would not have committed suicide by any other means. That seem unlikely. Do you disagree?
I think they believe (by and large) the statement/assertion, so I don’t think it’s a lie…that is different from being wrong. YMMV, but I try not to accuse others of lying when it’s probable they are just mistaken in their belief. Certainly, I agree with your over all theme, that humans can defend themselves without a gun, though it is certainly easier to do so if one has a gun, and even more so if one is at some great disadvantage physically or otherwise.
No, I don’t doubt the charts numbers wrt the data in 2005…I don’t even doubt that it’s accurate today. If one is attempting suicide one is more likely to succeed if one uses a gun than some other methods. Suicide is usually impulsive so access to a gun would enable that. Etc. I’m not disagreeing with that stuff. I don’t think we DO know, exactly, what the results would be, but I think I’m pretty safe in asserting that a non-zero number of people who would have used a gun would use something else and be successful. While a gun is pretty effective, so is jumping from a high building or standing in front of a train. Less so would be taking a whole bottle of pills. But some folks will find a way, even without guns, and we know this because this happens in a lot of countries with highly restricted access to guns.