# Since when have laws been for prevention and not punishment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286 "2014-07-16T17:28:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/41 "2014-07-17T11:39:36Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Passing a law against bank robbery is comparable to passing a law against murder. You ban the action, not the tool used to do it. > > Passing a law against guns in response to murder is like passing a law against cars in response to drunk driving. It’s indirect. And yet we do it all the time. Your drunk driving example: we pass laws against having an open bottle of alcohol in a car. That’s just an object, not an action, which can’t be at a certain situation. We pass all sorts of laws involving the manufacture of cars (they have to have tail lights, safety belts, etc) in response to car accidents: those are restrictions on the tool (the car) that can cause harm. Housebreaking is illegal, but we still have laws prohibiting the possession of lock-picking tools, Murder is illegal, and we have laws against mere possession of a (even small) thermo-nuclear devices (but I just wanted one to hunt rabbits!). USING heroin is illegal, but so is mere possession heroin. We regulate automobiles, planes, elevators, doors in public buildings, and on and on and on. But any hint at any teeny tiny bit of gun regulation produces vast and idiotic outcry. Enough, I’m off to hunt rabbits. If I can’t use nuclear weapons, maybe I can get a bazooka. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/42 "2014-07-17T13:05:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But that’s not true at all: A shooter is pretty likely to be stopped by a law banning some types of guns, and would be extremely likely to be stopped by a law banning all guns. If you want to shoot someone, the first step is to get a gun. Right now, that’s really easy, because they’re available legally and openly, without even needing to pass a background check. No criminal is going to be stopped at step 1 right now, because it’s so easy. But if guns were illegal, then it would be a lot harder to get one: You’d have to steal one (from whom, and how did that person get it?), or have one smuggled in, or make one yourself, and those are all pretty hard. Very organized or determined criminals are still going to be able to get one, but most criminals won’t. And even if you really want to shoot someone, if you don’t have a gun, you can’t. Do you have a cite for any of these interesting opinions? Rather than go point by point I’ll simply address what seems to be the core premise you are basing your logic on: It’s not possible to push a magic button and have the hundreds of millions of gun in the country vanish. It’s simply not possible. Even if we had that magic button and we pushed it they would immediately start flowing in with a black market. Two examples to prove my point: Mexico has stronger gun law than the US and the criminals there have no problem getting any guns they want. CT banned assault rifles recently and only a very small percentage turned them in. The rest of them are still in people’s hands, now illegally. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/43 "2014-07-17T13:09:07Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > And yet we do it all the time. Your drunk driving example: we pass laws against having an open bottle of alcohol in a car. That’s just an object, not an action, which can’t be at a certain situation. We pass all sorts of laws involving the manufacture of cars (they have to have tail lights, safety belts, etc) in response to car accidents: those are restrictions on the tool (the car) that can cause harm. > > Housebreaking is illegal, but we still have laws prohibiting the possession of lock-picking tools, Murder is illegal, and we have laws against mere possession of a (even small) thermo-nuclear devices (but I just wanted one to hunt rabbits!). USING heroin is illegal, but so is mere possession heroin. Are you serious with these analogies? Because they are really, really bad. Having an open container in a car basically IS drinking and driving. Saying that is an example of a double law is like saying attempted murder should be illegal and putting a loaded gun to someone’s head should be legal, since that’s not at all the same thing. The rest of your examples are more of the same. > [@](#): > > We regulate automobiles, planes, elevators, doors in public buildings, and on and on and on. But any hint at any teeny tiny bit of gun regulation produces vast and idiotic outcry. If there were a well funded machine in this country dedicated to banning automobiles, you can bet that car lovers would resist any efforts of that machine to restrict or limit their cars. That’s what makes guns different than other things that are regulated. There’s absolutely not trust by people that the regulations suggested have any other end goal than eliminating gun rights. This is for good reason. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/44 "2014-07-17T14:40:58Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > A school shooter who is already bent on murder will ignore a law about magazine capacity so why bother? --is insane logic in a lawful society. > > The question remains: why do we only take this kind of insane illogic seriously in gun debates, but not in any other aspect of criminal laws? “There are people who are likely to break this law if it’s passed so let’s just not pass it” is unique to gun laws. I’ve seen similar arguments used against drug laws. I’m in favor of legalization partly because despite our draconian law enforcement policies we have consistently failed to stymie the flow of drugs being imported into, produced, and distributed in the United States. But so far as gun laws go I think every time there’s a tragedy there’s a push for legislation, and, oddly enough, most of the suggested legislation wouldn’t have done a thing to prevent the latest tragedy in the first place. A 10 round magazine would not have prevented Sandy Hook. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/45 "2014-07-17T15:40:46Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > … But so far as gun laws go I think every time there’s a tragedy there’s a push for legislation, and, oddly enough, most of the suggested legislation wouldn’t have done a thing to prevent the latest tragedy in the first place. A 10 round magazine would not have prevented Sandy Hook. There’s a catch-22 happening here. The gun lobby is so strong and has so much control over Congress that only the weakest measures are ever proposed because they’re the only ones with even a hope of passing, and having established this state of affairs, the gun lobby then criticizes the weak measures to be basically useless, which they more or less are. The reality however is that there _ **are** _ measures that would very likely have prevented Sandy Hook, and for a whole host of reasons this kind of tragedy very very rarely occurs anywhere except in the US. Other countries have gun violence and even the rare mass shooting, but the rates of gun violence are very much lower and mass shootings are vanishingly rare. Guns like those used at Sandy Hook – specifically the Bushmaster and the two handguns – would typically be considered restricted weapons, restricted more tightly than already tightly regulated ordinary hunting rifles or unavailable at all; they wouldn’t be in the casual possession of an upscale suburban mother who I’m sure was your typical “law-abiding gun owner” that we hear so much about, and I’m sure imagined herself a very responsible person. Nor would you have a culture where a mother considered that taking her son out to a gun range was a beneficial form of parental bonding. Changing the laws in a meaningful way and changing the gun culture would be a long and almost impossibly difficult road, but if it’s to be done you have to start somewhere. The tragedy is that every time the first small baby step is proposed, the NRA and assorted lunatics come out of the woodwork and quash it. This has been going on for at least 80 years, when they killed meaningful reforms in the 1934 NFA. And they are far more powerful and determined today than they were then. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/46 "2014-07-17T15:44:11Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > If there were a well funded machine in this country dedicated to banning automobiles, you can bet that car lovers would resist any efforts of that machine to restrict or limit their cars. That’s what makes guns different than other things that are regulated. There’s absolutely not trust by people that the regulations suggested have any other end goal than eliminating gun rights. This is for good reason. Let’s say there WAS a well funded lobby dedicated to banning cars in the 1960s. Then requirements for burning unleaded gas and having seat belts were proposed. If car owners rebelled and said “HELL NO! THAT’S STEP ONE IN CONFISCATING ALL CARS!” then they would be just as batshit crazy as gun owners are today. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/47 "2014-07-17T15:45:36Z")
> [@bump](#): > > If the first idea is to ban guns to prevent gun violence, a similar car related analogy would be to make engines over a certain size illegal to prevent speeding. > > It’s an equally silly proposition; while lots of people get killed in speeding-related accidents (my suspicion is more than by guns) there are plenty of uses of larger engines beyond already illegal speeding, just like there are more uses for guns beyond shooting people illegally. > > And… FWIW, Mexico has pretty stringent gun control laws relative to the US, and we see how that’s working out for them. Fundamentally it’s a culture and income issue; if you look at the statistics for gun deaths in the US, they’re dominated by poor black men, which is a population already over represented in the penal systems of the various states. Most legal gun owners are law-abiding white people, so it seems like there’s a situation of punishing everyone for the sins of a small population that already has a problem obeying the law for whatever reason. I can see why that’s something that is odious to a lot of people. I think that’s wrong. Blacks are twice as likely to be shot to death as whites (age adjusted, whatever that means) but that doesn’t take income into account. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/) (but it look likes they are 5 times more likely to be murdered, are there are lot of non-gun murders in the black community or is it this “age adjusting” that does it?) I think blacks have 3 times the poverty rate of whites. So maybe poverty rates have something to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/48 "2014-07-17T15:48:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The reality however is that there _ **are** _ measures that would very likely have prevented Sandy Hook Name them, please. > [@](#): > > Guns like those used at Sandy Hook – specifically the Bushmaster and the two handguns – would typically be considered restricted weapons, restricted more tightly than already tightly regulated ordinary hunting rifles or unavailable at all; So what? Would it be better if he used a hunting rifle with a wood stock instead of a black rifle? > [@](#): > > Nor would you have a culture where a mother considered that taking her son out to a gun range was a beneficial form of parental bonding. The fact that going to the gun range is a fun family activity is a feature, not a bug. Do you want to close down gun ranges? Would that have stopped him? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/49 "2014-07-17T15:50:43Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let’s say there WAS a well funded lobby dedicated to banning cars in the 1960s. Then requirements for burning unleaded gas and having seat belts were proposed. Analogy fail. There aren’t any guns that are the equivalent of a car without seatbelts. There’s no magic safety feature, that only if we implemented would make guns safer. Unless you had something in mind? ---
**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:** [July 17, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/50 "2014-07-17T17:01:00Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There’s a catch-22 happening here. The gun lobby is so strong and has so much control over Congress that only the weakest measures are ever proposed because they’re the only ones with even a hope of passing, and having established this state of affairs, the gun lobby then criticizes the weak measures to be basically useless, which they more or less are. > > … > > Changing the laws in a meaningful way and changing the gun culture would be a long and almost impossibly difficult road, but if it’s to be done you have to start somewhere. This is a great example of incrementalist thinking. Another reason why no compromise should ever be made on gun laws and every single additional restriction should be opposed. And so far it has been successful. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/51 "2014-07-17T17:15:46Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Changing the laws in a meaningful way and changing the gun culture would be a long and almost impossibly difficult road, but if it’s to be done you have to start somewhere. The tragedy is that every time the first small baby step is proposed, the NRA and assorted lunatics come out of the woodwork and quash it. This has been going on for at least 80 years, when they killed meaningful reforms in the 1934 NFA. And they are far more powerful and determined today than they were then. Well I happen to like a lot of what the NRA does so I guess that would make me a lunatic in your book. And while it’s tough to have a conversation with someone who is calling you a lunatic I will do my best. What _is_ gun culture? I ask because it seems to me that gun culture can be radically different depending on where you’re coming from. Gun culture in rural Arkansas is probably a bit different than gun culture in South Central Los Angeles, the south side of Chicago, or rural Alaska. What do you think needs to be changed? You can blame the NRA but all they’re doing is protecting our Constitutional right to bear arms. Like it or not, per recent Supreme Court rulings, the right to own a firearm is an individual right. You can place some restrictions on those rights but they can’t be onerous. If you want to change that then we have a method by which you can amend the Constitution. > [@](#): > > Nor would you have a culture where a mother considered that taking her son out to a gun range was a beneficial form of parental bonding. I forgot to address this is specific. My father started taking me to the gun range when I was 12 years old. Shortly after that I started hunting with him. I have some very fond memories of spending time with my father and then later with my father and my sister at the gun range and hunting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a child how to use a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/52 "2014-07-17T17:23:05Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, fundamentally it’s a gun availability issue. You can’t make a lot of inferences about Mexico because it has a very high crime rate in general and a chronic inability to enforce the law. It’s not instructive to look at what is basically a lawless society and ask how their gun laws are working out for them. It’s a lot more instructive to compare the US with culturally similar countries like Australia and Canada, where general crime rates are in the same ballpark as in the US but the rates of gun deaths are dramatically lower. It’s also instructive to look at Switzerland, which has a relatively high rate of gun ownership because of their militia structure. They have a higher gun death rate than most European countries, but still in line with most of the first world and much, much lower than the US, and that’s because a high rate of gun ownership is accompanied by strict laws on the use, storage, and transportation of guns. Whoa! We can’t compare the effects of gun policy between the US and its immediate neighbors Mexico, but we can compare it to an island nation on the other side of the world? Sure, john oliver from the Daily Show might think its a good comparison but the fact that John Oliver thinks its a good comparison does not make it so. Here is a response I had to that notion in another thread. Some took exception to my description of the effect of the gun ban in Australian murders and suicides but judge for yourlsef and see if your Australia case is as slam dunk as you think it is. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17487523&postcount=348](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17487523&postcount=348) > [@](#): > > Try that in just about any other civilized country and you’d find yourself facing long jail time on about half a dozen weapons charges. Yeah, but its illegal in other countries. 😕 > [@](#): > > Not nearly a sufficient explanation, because US crime rates are not sufficiently higher than comparable countries to come anywhere close to accounting for the huge discrepancy in gun death rates. If you eliminated the gun death rate in Ameica our murder rate would be among the lowest in the world. Do you really think that would be the result of banning guns or do you think there would be more knife murders, etc? If so then why focus only on gun deaths rather than on all deaths? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/53 "2014-07-17T17:31:07Z")
Mexico is a VERY valid comparison for the purposes of this thread. It’s the problem in the US writ large in that the average law-abiding Mexican doesn’t own guns, but the cartels and gangs, who don’t obey the law in the first place, are the ones with all the illegal guns, and not coincidentally, doing all the murdering. Banning guns outright in Mexico wouldn’t stop that, just like more strict gun laws in the US wouldn’t put a dent in ours either for the same reasons. All you end up doing is beefing up the black market, hurting the legal market, and irritating a bunch of people who weren’t doing anything wrong or breaking the law in the first place. All the while, the criminal element goes on their merry murdering way. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/54 "2014-07-17T18:21:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There’s a catch-22 happening here. The gun lobby is so strong and has so much control over Congress that only the weakest measures are ever proposed because they’re the only ones with even a hope of passing, and having established this state of affairs, the gun lobby then criticizes the weak measures to be basically useless, which they more or less are. That is a load of crap. Have you forgotten that the anti-gun morons didn’t just propose but also passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban? Their efforts aren’t just useless because they are weak, but because they are fundamentally misguided. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/55 "2014-07-17T18:45:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Whoa! We can’t compare the effects of gun policy between the US and its immediate neighbors Mexico, but we can compare it to an island nation on the other side of the world? Setting aside the fact that Straya is not an island, it is really more culturally similar to the US than is Mexico. Most likely language plays a part in this, as that is a major cultural symbiont. Religion is probably another significant factor, Mexico being predominantly Catholic. Guns are not a thing unto themself, they affect culture and are affected by culture. The underlying social issues that make guns a problem do need to be addressed, but guns themselves also play a part in those issues. We simply cannot look at them as if they are individually not a significant element of the larger view, and seems to be that the ammosexuals and the “gun-grabbers” want to constrain us from a broader look at things, in favor of their particular agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/56 "2014-07-17T18:45:43Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Mexico is a VERY valid comparison for the purposes of this thread. It’s the problem in the US writ large in that the average law-abiding Mexican doesn’t own guns, but the cartels and gangs, who don’t obey the law in the first place, are the ones with all the illegal guns, and not coincidentally, doing all the murdering. > > Banning guns outright in Mexico wouldn’t stop that, just like more strict gun laws in the US wouldn’t put a dent in ours either for the same reasons. All you end up doing is beefing up the black market, hurting the legal market, and irritating a bunch of people who weren’t doing anything wrong or breaking the law in the first place. All the while, the criminal element goes on their merry murdering way. What is wrong with us Americans in your view that makes this inevitable for our society, but simply does not happen in other western democracies that have strict gun control. Why have your dire predictions not come to pass in all of the other countries that already have these laws? Why aren’t Brits afraid to leave their homes because they aren’t allowed to carry guns with them everywhere? What do you think is different about Americans that we wouldn’t be able to handle this? Are we fundamentally flawed or something? Or are British people just way more brave than Americans? Do you view Americans as inferior to members of other cultures that are able to handle going about their daily lives without packing heat everywhere they go? Your views seem to strongly suggest it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/57 "2014-07-18T14:10:35Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But that’s not true at all: A shooter is pretty likely to be stopped by a law banning some types of guns, and would be extremely likely to be stopped by a law banning all guns. If you want to shoot someone, the first step is to get a gun. Right now, that’s really easy, because they’re available legally and openly, without even needing to pass a background check. No criminal is going to be stopped at step 1 right now, because it’s so easy. But if guns were illegal, then it would be a lot harder to get one: You’d have to steal one (from whom, and how did that person get it?), or have one smuggled in, or make one yourself, and those are all pretty hard. Very organized or determined criminals are still going to be able to get one, but most criminals won’t. And even if you really want to shoot someone, if you don’t have a gun, you can’t. Then why didn’t banking guns in DC and Chicago make gun murders disappear? Coyld it have anything to do with the 300 million guns already in circulation. But I am not an unreasonable man. If you can get the second repealed, I suppose I would be willing to try out your theory. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/58 "2014-07-18T14:15:51Z")
> [@l0k1](#): > > I don’t buy this argument that the gun control debate has anything to do with keeping guns vs. confiscating them. Even the (now overturned) law in DC that effectively banned hand guns, while keeping long guns illegal, did not confiscate any guns from any legal gun owner. > > No one is trying to take your guns away, people are just trying to make them slightly more difficult to buy. YOU may not be trying to confiscate guns but it is not true that no one is trying to take away guns. It is the ultimate goal of some of the most vocal gun control advocates ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/59 "2014-07-18T19:50:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The suicide statistics are sometimes dismissed as irrelevant to discussing gun fatalities and gun control, but they’re not. Most suicides attempted with a gun succeed, but many attempted by other means do not, and the person gets help and treatment. As is so often the case, the presence of a gun is literally the difference between life and death, but not in a good way. And yet our suicide rate is average for wealthy industrialized nations. Hmmm. > [@](#): > > The only significant factor here is that US gun deaths are off the charts compared to other first-world nations. If you think that’s just peachy, or that all those thousands of deaths are somehow justifiable because it’s so much fun shooting beer cans off fence posts, I can’t help you. But the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical professionals who study and have to deal with the consequences of gun violence have described it as an epidemic. And if we ignored all gun deaths, our murder rate would be low relative to other wealthy developed nations. Are you saying that America’s resting state would be that low (I acknowledge that our murder rate is currently much higher than average). IOW why are you only focusing on gun murders and not murders generally? Or do you think there woudnt be a substitution effect. Do you think there are any benefits to having legal owmeship of guns in society? > [@](#): > > You know what a useless solution in search of a non-existent problem is for the vast majority of citizens? A gun. Would you change your mind if i showed you that guns are used defensively over 100, 000 times every year? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286/60 "2014-07-19T00:40:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And yet our suicide rate is average for wealthy industrialized nations. Hmmm. [There seem to be significant other factors driving that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_suicide_attempt), because: > [@](#): > > In the US, the NIMH reports there are 11 nonfatal suicide attempts for every suicide death. The American Association of Suicidology reports higher numbers, stating that there are 25 suicide attempts for every suicide completion. By these numbers, approximately 92-96% of suicide attempts end in survival. So depending on the stats you use, in anywhere between 90% to 96% of suicides in general the person survives. **The attempted suicide death rate is somewhere between 4% to 10%**. But from the same link: **The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time.** Hmmm. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you think there are any benefits to having legal owmeship of guns in society? Very, very few. A dangerous “solution” in search of a problem, indeed, as I said before. For example… > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Would you change your mind if i showed you that guns are used defensively over 100, 000 times every year? Would you change your mind if I showed you that (aside from those numbers being highly questionable) most of those incidents involved other people with guns (which argues for the long-term solution of having far fewer guns like in all other civilized countries) but, more importantly, [how about if I showed you](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full) that… > [@](#): > > **Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide** in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. **The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home** (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Funny thing. It turns out that guns kill people, and they do it very effectively, and when you have a lot of guns, a lot of people get killed. But maybe this is all some sort of statistical manipulation that the liberals have perpetrated. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-have-laws-been-for-prevention-and-not-punishment/693286.md?page=4)