From today’s Daily Herald:
OK, I see this headline and assumed it would be a conservative hit piece - more of the “Chiraq” crap. First comparison in the article:
I know nothing about the Commonwealth Fund, so I don’t know if they are truly independent. I will admit that I was shocked at the results. Who would think that Mississippi would be the first state called out!
@Dr.Winston_OBoogie, as I don’t see any debate, do you want this in In My Humble Opinion or The BBQ Pit? Please let us know.
For now moved from Great Debates to In My Humble Opinion
OK, I was thinking about the general “gun debate” and how it is normally shown, but I don’t know it matter too much which forum it’s in.
I mean, I’m not sure how meaningful it is to simply single out ‘firearm deaths’ like that. Of course, those will increase with the number of firearms existing within the population. If they would serve to greatly decrease other forms of violence, perhaps as a deterrent, then it might be worth it—if everywhere else, people end up stabbing one another more often than they shoot each other, guns might be the preferable option, even if ‘firearm deaths’ on their own increase.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case. In this list of countries by homicide rate, the USA only makes the 57th place, out of a total of 204—but of course, with nearly six times the homicide rate as peer countries, such as the UK or France. Just looking at the G7 countries makes that even more obvious: true to its exceptional status, the US occupies the top spot by a large distance.
So no, contrary to what one might believe, it doesn’t seem that widespread access to convenient point-and-click murder devices makes for a safer country.
I do wish that they had an actual link to the study involved, not just a few paragraph summary of the points. But even then, a line leaps out:
Researchers defined firearm mortality in the study as an aggregate of physical violence by firearm, self-harm by firearm and unintentional firearm injuries.
Now, to be clear, I’m not going to downplay our love of firearm based homicide, especially mass shootings. But that’s ONE of the three categories they used.
Self harm via firearm is a troublesome subject for me, and for the board in general. IMHO, I do think a person should have a right to end a life they find burdensome BUT often that’s caused by a moment of despair, a hugely different thing than a careful evaluation of your expectations, health, and quality of life. And a firearm makes that moment of despair unrecoverable with the sheer ease of ending your life. But yeah, in nations where guns AREN’T available for a quick, impulsive suicide, that’s going to be a comparison of MANY vs NONE.
And the second is at least similar, although I’m a lot less conflicted about it. IMHO again, if you have an accidental discharge (and permit me to doubt at least SOME of the reporting of such) then you should be heavily fined, your firearms confiscated at a minimum range of 6+ months to years, and jail time and permanent revocation of such rights if it’s more than once (and if your first offense hurts others not just yourself, we can jump straight to probable jail time for the first offense). And don’t get me started on “accidental discharges” by a minor in your household. With the Right should come a great deal of Responsibility.
Sorry. Rant off.
Anyway, while they are an “independent research group” that’s highly different from an “unbiased/agenda-free research group”. No, they don’t appear to have any links to a specific lobby or governmental party - but my little dispute above isn’t what I would consider an effort to make an apples to apples comparison.
AGAIN, before the flames begin - We Americans absolutely have an issue with gun violence. Even with my digression about suicides, and my major concerns about firearm “accidents” [ a word I hate in this context, sure, not intentional but it’s not an “accident” but an abrogation of care and responsibility] the number of gun based homicides is NOT an acceptable loss to secure our current firearm rights, even if it’s legal by rights of the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
I fully endorse ongoing efforts for a Federal review of such under the “well regulated” clause, or an eventual review by society and the voting public of the need for such, and that’s AS a firearm owner with a CCW permit.
But I would consider the Commonweath Fund’s summary (and again, this is all it is, we don’t have the source) a biased evaluation, although almost certainly a well-intentioned one. Sometimes people won’t think about the problem until you slap them in the face with an unflattering comparison. Unfair? Sure, probably, but if it gets people to take notice, and actually look at the problem, I don’t have a huge problem with it as a call to action - even if as 'Dopers we can and should call out the slanted research.