# Likeliest effect of Kavanaugh? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 7, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608 "2018-10-07T14:33:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/41 "2018-10-08T22:51:54Z")
Now that Clarence Thomas will have a buddy on the court, I suspect we’ll see more keggers with 70’s porn being shown in meetings, along with the appropriate number of cans of Coca-Cola with pubic hairs on them. With the regimented weight lifting breaks. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/42 "2018-10-08T23:54:55Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > I still think the most dangerous thing they could do is outlaw the union shop. It is clear they thing the working man/woman should have no rights. As for social security, the Reps have been trying to get rid of since the early days of W. They have given up on the legislative side but if someone with standing sued over it, they could rule the entire thing unconstitutional. I think Roberts would resist, but I am not sure. This is what worries me; I could not care less about the other nonsense surrounding the appointment. ---
**Author:** ![BrickBat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac91a4/32.png) [@BrickBat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrickBat)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/43 "2018-10-09T02:20:39Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > This is what worries me; I could not care less about the other nonsense surrounding the appointment. I tend to agree. IMO, the biggest war being fought, despite the social issue smokescreens/red-herrings, is economic war against the working class. Plutocracy being installed…lubricated by god/guns/abortion/“freedumb”. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/44 "2018-10-09T03:24:50Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This is about the right of it. A lot of people are talking about Kavanaugh being on the bench as if it dramatically changes things in the immediate sense. It does not. > > Anthony Kennedy was a conservative justice. Liberals are highly focused on social issues and particularly Roe v. Wade, to a lesser degree Obergefell v. Hodges. Kennedy was an “ally” on those issues. But on most of the consequential supreme court decisions of his time on the court, Kennedy actually ruled as a predictable conservative jurist. He was generally very much in lock step with the other conservatives when it came to matters relating to economic regulation, corporate regulation, law & order, etc. > > It seems like many people think because the GOP has 5 “movement conservatives” on the court, suddenly they’re going to just blatantly issue a huge glut of decisions that basically turn America into a fascist country. They’ll strike down all voting rights protections, they’ll let poll taxes come back, they’ll make Trump able to pardon everyone, they’ll reverse the outcomes of elections, they’ll impose gerrymandering on un-gerrymandered states, they’ll cover up Republican crimes… > > The reality is if five conservatives on the court is all it took for **that** to happen, it’d have happened years ago, it didn’t. In theory the Supreme Court could go crazy and rule all kinds of crazy things, but that would so implode the legitimacy of the court that the first time you had Democrats controlling government again (and simple knowledge of history predicts this will happen) the court would basically be gutted, because the legislature and the executive have power they can actually enforce. The Supreme Court’s power is entirely based on it being a respected deliberative body. Without that respect, it has no power. That is what’s been on my mind too - SCOTUS is ultimately just 9 people wearing robes on a bench. If they make too outrageous a ruling, everyone can just say F\*\*\* it. They have no true enforcing power. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/45 "2018-10-09T10:04:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I do hope that they’d strike down the ATF’s torturing of the english language in their attempt to reclassify bump stocks as “machine guns”. I’m furious that Trump is on board with this after the NRA and GOA worked hard to get him elected. The absurdness of these bans is that with practice one does not even need a special stock to [bump fire](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8SMttjjo). Hence the stock bans will not prevent bump firing a semi auto in the least. Another important issue is right to carry. Places like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and most of California leave their law abiding citizens completely defenseless in public while the criminal element is still armed to the teeth. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/46 "2018-10-09T10:48:49Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > I’m furious that Trump is on board with this after the NRA and GOA worked hard to get him elected. > > The absurdness of these bans is that with practice one does not even need a special stock to [bump fire](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8SMttjjo). Hence the stock bans will not prevent bump firing a semi auto in the least. Why does anyone need a bump stock? Seriously, it’s pretty much good for exactly one purpose - indescriminately firing into a crowd. > [@](#): > > Another important issue is right to carry. Places like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and most of California leave their law abiding citizens completely defenseless in public while the criminal element is still armed to the teeth. > **[States with strict gun laws have fewer firearms deaths. Here's how your state...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html)** > > States with stricter gun regulation have fewer firearms deaths, in some cases dramatically fewer, than those that don't. All four of those states listed have among the bottom 10 firearm deaths in the nation. Also up there: Rhode Island, which despite the low number of laws is [actually extremely strict](https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2016/jan/10/nicholas-mattiello/ri-among-states-strongest-gun-control-laws/), Connecticut, which the Washington Post calls the strictest after California, and Massachusetts, which also has strict regulations. Rounding out the top 10, we have Maine, Minnesota, and Washington. So 8 of the top 10 states for gun safety are liberal strongholds with very strong gun control regulation. Yes, I’m sure that people in NY, NJ, HI, and CA are just _begging_ to be able to protect themselves from criminals. :rolleyes: How armed to the teeth are those criminals, anyways? Well, according to a short look through [this chart](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state), there were no armed robberies or assaults in Hawaii for the time frame given. Connecticut, California, New York, and New Jersey are not near the top of the list. So basically everything you just said was really really wrong. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/47 "2018-10-09T10:56:57Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Why does anyone need a bump stock? Seriously, it’s pretty much good for exactly one purpose - indescriminately firing into a crowd. > > [States with strict gun laws have fewer firearms deaths. Here's how your state stacks up](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html) > > All four of those states listed have among the bottom 10 firearm deaths in the nation. Also up there: Rhode Island, which despite the low number of laws is [actually extremely strict](https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2016/jan/10/nicholas-mattiello/ri-among-states-strongest-gun-control-laws/), Connecticut, which the Washington Post calls the strictest after California, and Massachusetts, which also has strict regulations. Rounding out the top 10, we have Maine, Minnesota, and Washington. So 8 of the top 10 states for gun safety are liberal strongholds with very strong gun control regulation. > > Yes, I’m sure that people in NY, NJ, HI, and CA are just _begging_ to be able to protect themselves from criminals. :rolleyes: How armed to the teeth are those criminals, anyways? Well, according to a short look through [this chart](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state), there were no armed robberies or assaults in Hawaii for the time frame given. Connecticut, California, New York, and New Jersey are not near the top of the list. > > So basically everything you just said was really really wrong. Your post doesn’t have a thing to do with what some of the likeliest effects of Kavanaugh on the court. Kavanaugh is believed to be a strong supporter of individual gun rights. Me mentioning that some states have very limited to non-existent carry laws is related to his effect on the court. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/48 "2018-10-09T11:04:55Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Kavanaugh is believed to be a strong supporter of individual gun rights. Me mentioning that some states have very limited to non-existent carry laws is related to his effect on the court. You said a fair bit more than that… Or, at the absolute minimum, implied a fair bit more than that. Did you not mean to imply that these gun laws make people invthose states less safe or more likely to be the victim of gun crime? ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/49 "2018-10-09T11:17:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You said a fair bit more than that… Or, at the absolute minimum, implied a fair bit more than that. Did you not mean to imply that these gun laws make people invthose states less safe or more likely to be the victim of gun crime? These are the positions someone of his political bend are going take. Justice Thomas also seems to be of that mind. None of this is relevant if the court doesn’t take a 2nd Amendment case. They have been skirting the issue for almost a decade now. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/50 "2018-10-09T11:31:22Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > These are the positions someone of his political bend are going take. …So you don’t think that, you just think that Kavanaugh does? 🤔 ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/51 "2018-10-09T11:58:24Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …So you don’t think that, you just think that Kavanaugh does? 🤔 Yeah, I’m not going to engage you. It’s not appropriate in this thread and your signature says more than enough about your attitude towards anyone who might disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/52 "2018-10-09T12:24:22Z")
Translation: “I do, in fact, believe that, but I’d rather not defend my position or admit that what I said was wrong so I’ll just dodge.” If you didn’t believe that, you would have just said so. And that’s fine man, you do you. But this forum is all about fighting ignorance. And when you post a howler like that, I’m gonna point out how wrong it is. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/53 "2018-10-09T12:35:38Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Translation: “I do, in fact, believe that, but I’d rather not defend my position or admit that what I said was wrong so I’ll just dodge.” If you didn’t believe that, you would have just said so. > > And that’s fine man, you do you. But this forum is all about fighting ignorance. And when you post a howler like that, I’m gonna point out how wrong it is. 🙂 Your signature really is out of line. You are in Germany. You should know where your line of reasoning might lead. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/54 "2018-10-09T12:52:51Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Your signature really is out of line. You are in Germany. You should know where your line of reasoning might lead. Speaking of hijacks… Um… No? It’s ironic you mention Germany, because there’s a certain group of historic German voters I guarantee nearly everyone applies this claim to. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/55 "2018-10-09T14:13:23Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Speaking of hijacks… Um… No? It’s ironic you mention Germany, because there’s a certain group of historic German voters I guarantee nearly everyone applies this claim to. I didn’t know you had Republicans in Germany. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/56 "2018-10-09T15:56:38Z")
A gun rights case takes four to vote for cert. Thomas and Gorsuch routinely dissent from denials of cert for gun rights cases, so they are a given. I think Alito would go for it, if he thought he could get to five. My hope is that Kennedy was the hold out so the court declined to take any. We’ll see. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes, I’m sure that people in NY, NJ, HI, and CA are just _begging_ to be able to protect themselves from criminals. :rolleyes: How armed to the teeth are those criminals, anyways? Well, according to a short look through [this chart](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state), there were no armed robberies or assaults in Hawaii for the time frame given. Connecticut, California, New York, and New Jersey are not near the top of the list. > > So basically everything you just said was really really wrong. Given your cite mixes together suicide and homicide which is incredibly misleading, and it mischaracterizes other key facts regarding the Dickey amendment, I think your conclusions are questionable. I’m in CA. I am someone who is prohibited from getting a carry permit and as long as that’s the case, gun rights are my #1 issue. Once that issue is resolved, then and only then are other things going to take prominence. I was never really jazzed with Kavanaugh - he’s serviceable. After the allegations, I was hoping he’d be replaced with someone more aggressive on gun rights. We’ll have to wait and see I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/57 "2018-10-09T19:03:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Given your cite mixes together suicide and homicide which is incredibly misleading, Both are absolutely gun safety issues. If we’re talking about how guns make you more or less safe, neglecting that simply having a gun in your house doubles to triples your risk of dying of suicide seems iffy. That alone is a reason I will NEVER own a gun. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120) And if we’re talking about gun crime victimization, the second chart is a direct apples-to-apples comparison - it turns out, states with stricter gun laws simply do not have particularly high rates of gun assault or gun robbery. I’m not sure what’s misleading about that. > [@](#): > > and it mischaracterizes other key facts regarding the Dickey amendment All I’m citing is the chart, plus some very preliminary background research to make sure that, for the 10 bottom gun death states, the number of laws is at least borderline reflect the state of gun control in those states (i.e. “is California actually strict? Yeah? Ok, moving on”). I’m not sure how any of this is misleading. My point is twofold: - Strict gun control laws make people less likely to die as a result of gun crime - Strict gun control laws do not lead to increased gun crime I think this is absolutely well-supported by the data. > [@](#): > > I’m in CA. I am someone who is prohibited from getting a carry permit and as long as that’s the case, gun rights are my #1 issue. Can you maybe explain this? I can think of a lot of very important things that really should matter more to just about anyone, but before I go off on that tangent, can you help me understand why this is so incredibly important to you? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/58 "2018-10-09T19:53:26Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Both are absolutely gun safety issues. If we’re talking about how guns make you more or less safe, neglecting that simply having a gun in your house doubles to triples your risk of dying of suicide seems iffy. That alone is a reason I will NEVER own a gun. Both suicide and homicide with firearms are related because they employ firearms, but the causes and solutions to each are so vastly different that conflating these two things is at best, misleading, and that’s me being generous to the author. It’s like young kids being left in the backseat of cars and dying and pedestrians killed during high speed chases both involve cars, so they should be added together when looking at car safety. It’s silly. And that double/triple figure is also pretty much without merit so there’s that too. But if you don’t want to own a firearm, that should be a choice that everyone gets to make. I got you covered 🙂 > [@](#): > > And if we’re talking about gun crime victimization, the second chart is a direct apples-to-apples comparison - it turns out, states with stricter gun laws simply do not have particularly high rates of gun assault or gun robbery. I’m not sure what’s misleading about that. I think the fact that you are referring to assaults or robberies, and the 2nd chart is referring to homicides and suicides together, is incongruous. But even still, simply using a raw count of number of laws isn’t very informative either. Basically, the entire article doesn’t seem very well assembled. On top of that as I said before, they mischaracterize the Dickey amendment multiple times so that makes me more skeptical of the factual nature of the article. > [@](#): > > … I’m not sure how any of this is misleading. My point is twofold: > > - Strict gun control laws make people less likely to die as a result of gun crime > - Strict gun control laws do not lead to increased gun crime > > I think this is absolutely well-supported by the data. The article mixes homicide and suicide, but in your first bullet you are only referring to homicide. That’s misleading because approximately 2/3 of the total firearm deaths are suicide. Second, your first bullet states there is a causal connection between gun laws and people dying from gun crime, but that is misleading as well because that’s not supported by the data. For example, this is from the article you linked: > [@](#): > > But while the researchers confirmed that states with tougher gun laws have lower gun-related death rates, the study did not explain whether gun laws were the reason for the difference. > > “As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association,” they wrote. * * * > [@](#): > > Can you maybe explain this? I can think of a lot of very important things that really should matter more to just about anyone, but before I go off on that tangent, can you help me understand why this is so incredibly important to you? A few reasons - I’m a big proponent of individual liberty and the government saying I can’t carry a firearm goes against that. I’m responsible for protecting my family and prohibiting me from carrying restricts my ability to do so in the most effective way possible. I also think it’s a pretty serious violation of the constitution, but that part is just my personal opinion that happens to align with some but not all or most federal appellate court decisions. And that is where Kavanaugh may come into play. But ultimately, I’m thinking any of the other potential ills that you can conceive of, I have other means to address them. I have no other means to address self defense when someone is intent on killing me or my family. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/59 "2018-10-09T21:25:34Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Both suicide and homicide with firearms are related because they employ firearms, but the causes and solutions to each are so vastly different that conflating these two things is at best, misleading, and that’s me being generous to the author. Actually, the argument is that stricter gun control helps with both. Therefore, when talking about gun control, it’s valid to look at both individually as well as in aggregate. But what happens when we take that chart and break it down, suicide vs. homicide? Do you think the correlation disappears on either end? It’s not _quite_ as clear as when looked at together (which I will admit is a bit of a knock against my argument), but it’s still _there_. > **[Gun prevalence and suicide rank by state](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/)** > > Mapping the Overlap As these maps show, the correlation between guns and suicide is strong but inexact, since both are influenced by poverty, population density, and crime. The nine states that ran… > **[Gun death and violence in the United States by state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state)** > > This is a list of US states by gun deaths and rates of violence. In 2021, there were 26,000 gun suicides and 21,000 gun homicides, together making up a sixth of deaths from external causes. Gun deaths make up about half of all suicides, but over 80% of homicides. > Gun deaths in 2021 rose to levels not seen since the 1990s, but remained below rates of the 1970s. > A 2022 study found that guns were the cause of more years lost than any other source of traumatic injury, including motor vehicles. > [@](#): > > It’s like young kids being left in the backseat of cars and dying and pedestrians killed during high speed chases both involve cars, so they should be added together when looking at car safety. It’s silly. Really? If we’re looking on making more stringent general regulations (or, contrarily, _less_ stringent general regulations), I’d say lumping those two things together is quite reasonable - both will go down significantly if it’s harder to own a car. > [@](#): > > And that double/triple figure is also pretty much without merit so there’s that too. _Really_? Of all the figures to contest, this one seems like a poor choice. The link between owning a gun and being at risk of suicide is extremely well-established, and also very easy to understand - suicide is often driven by convenience, and suicide by gun is both extremely convenient and extremely lethal compared to other methods. You press one button in your own home with a tool you know well and it’s over and nobody can stop you, and it’s _extremely_ hard to survive. > [@](#): > > I think the fact that you are referring to assaults or robberies, and the 2nd chart is referring to homicides and suicides together, is incongruous. It’s two separate arguments - total gun deaths as a proxy for safety, and specifically gun assaults and robberies to examine armed crime specifically. > [@](#): > > But even still, simply using a raw count of number of laws isn’t very informative either. I know - this is why I actually went through the states on the list to see if they really _did_ have strict gun laws. And of the top 10, 8 absolutely do - Maine and Minnesota being the outliers here. > [@](#): > > The article mixes homicide and suicide, but in your first bullet you are only referring to homicide. This was me misspeaking, I meant total gun deaths, not gun homicide. Mea culpa. > [@](#): > > Second, your first bullet states there is a causal connection between gun laws and people dying from gun crime, but that is misleading as well because that’s not supported by the data. For example, this is from the article you linked: No, this is fair. That isn’t enough to prove causation. [This](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence) is some useful evidence, though. > [@](#): > > A few reasons - I’m a big proponent of individual liberty and the government saying I can’t carry a firearm goes against that. So does the government saying that you can’t own vials of anthrax. Personally, it’d never occur to me that this is a liberty that I’m sorely lacking, because… well… okay, I _could_, but why in god’s name would I want to? > [@](#): > > I’m responsible for protecting my family and prohibiting me from carrying restricts my ability to do so in the most effective way possible. This is just demonstrably false. Morbidity goes up, not down, with gun ownership. There’s been a lot of research into this. Here’s one such study: > **[The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Stranger and Nonstranger Firearm...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167105/)** > > Objectives. We examined the relationship between gun ownership and stranger versus nonstranger homicide rates.Methods. Using data from the Supplemental Homicide Reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports for all 50 ... “We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm homicide rates. The incidence rate ratio for nonstranger firearm homicide rate associated with gun ownership was 1.014 (95% confidence interval = 1.009, 1.019).” It doesn’t make you safer. It may make you slightly less safe in the case of homicide, and it definitely makes you _considerably_ less safe in the case of suicide, but it does not make you or your family more safe. Really, all I need to put the lie to this statement is [this chart](https://assets.weforum.org/editor/j7ORHMj_4T0GZLY_K2iZ1l4ApsoPJpwSbUR4Dc6uwS8.png). More guns means more people dying from guns, be it from homicide, suicide, or accident. Sure, suicide might be the dominant correlation there, but that still doesn’t mean that owning a gun makes your family more safe. [Here’s another study on the subject](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955). > [@](#): > > But ultimately, I’m thinking any of the other potential ills that you can conceive of, I have other means to address them. I have no other means to address self defense when someone is intent on killing me or my family. I didn’t say this before, but I kinda wanted to. Every time I tried to get into this headspace, I couldn’t do it without at least one of the following two things: 1. Being vastly misinformed about whether or not guns make me safer 2. Being _dangerously paranoid_ I realize this is a harsh thing to say, but… Dude. The _most important thing_ to you is ensuring that you have a gun so that you can protect your family. You consider it the _number one issue_, above anything else, that you be allowed to carry a tool which exists solely for the killing of other human beings so that in case you get attacked (or your family gets attacked and you’re around) you can kill the person attacking you. …In California. I could maybe understand this attitude if crime rates where you live were along the lines of, I dunno, Caracas. Or if you lived somewhere where you had to constantly worry about civil war breaking out. But in _Cali_? Even in the most dangerous cities in Cali, your odds of being the victim of some form of violent crime are maybe 1/100 every year. Even if you live in Oakland, your odds of being the victim of any kind of violent crime is vanishingly small. I keep trying to get into that headspace, and it is a scary place to be, with hypothetical danger lurking around every corner. How terrified do you have to be to see such a desperate need to have constant access to lethal force?! How dangerously paranoid? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608/60 "2018-10-09T22:05:14Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > … This is just demonstrably false. Morbidity goes up, not down, with gun ownership. There’s been a lot of research into this. Here’s one such study: > > [The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Stranger and Nonstranger Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010 - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167105/) > > “We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm homicide rates. The incidence rate ratio for nonstranger firearm homicide rate associated with gun ownership was 1.014 (95% confidence interval = 1.009, 1.019).” > > It doesn’t make you safer. It may make you slightly less safe in the case of homicide … > … so that in case you get attacked (or your family gets attacked and you’re around) you can kill the person attacking you. … I’m sure Bone can speak for himself, and probably will, but I believe you’re confusing two separate issues here. Bone wants the gun to keep his family safe. Whether the criminal dies in the process of keeping oneself safe is a secondary concern for most gun owners. It’s not “so that … you can kill the person”, but “so that you can stop the attack”. If the criminal is merely wounded, or frightened off, or otherwise deterred, that’s sufficient to have a successful defensive gun use. In fact, _almost all_ DGUs don’t end up with a dead criminal, so comparing “stranger firearm homicide rates” isn’t a very accurate measure of a firearms utility in self defense or crime prevention. No one _needs_ to die for a gun to have done it’s self-defense job successfully. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/likeliest-effect-of-kavanaugh/822608.md?page=4)