Comment by socializer
1 day ago
Eh. I don't like these bans, but I think there are at least two good-faith arguments you can make:
1. People who decide to go on murder sprees are usually not high-functioning individuals, so even modest barriers can improve outcomes.
2. Fewer weapons in homes means fewer heat-of-the-moment acts involving these weapons. For example, there are very few firearm suicides in the EU, compared to the US.
Naturally there are less suicides via firearms when firearms are verboten. Firearms may be more fatal than hanging (the most popular method in the EU), but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different (and in fact some EU countries like Hungary and Belgium outpace the US avg dramatically, Idk what is happening in Hungary but it’s comparable to our ‘Suicide Belt’). From what I read, hanging has a 70% mortality rate while firearms have a 90% rate, so when adjusted for failed attempts (since I cannot find the actual numbers of attempted suicides) we get 15.5 in USA vs 14.3 in EU per capita. As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.
As such, we see little raw change in human behavior. Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so (although, given the health complications of a failed hanging I question whether the ethics of this outcome are truly superior). So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that, when the method of suicide is independent of the reasons for suicide.
As for #1, cars are still widely accessible, and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
As parent stated, these bans do not meaningfully change human nature, they simply give an air of safety. In fact, I would further say they create bad habits within society that criminals can and do exploit. Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment. Does your place of residence not allow for self-defense? Then that is a flaw in governance that must be addressed.
> but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different
Its 40% more.
> As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.
It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not.
> Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so
They are also extremely convenient and instant.
> So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that
I don't think people are making that argument.
> As for #1, cars are still widely accessible,
Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.
> and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
"But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."
"It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them."
- https://portside.org/node/28842/printable/print
> Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment.
That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.
> Its 40% more.
Good job; you can do math. Care to interface with the rest of my argument that you ignored, discussing what that disparity actually means?
> It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes
That was my central point. There is nuance to the way gun legalization could take place in Europe that can help offset fatalities like this, rather than a blanket ban.
> They are also extremely convenient and instant.
Hence the “more fatal means to do so” that you quoted.
> I don't think people are making that argument.
That’s quite literally the entire discussion. “Good-faith” arguments for banning firearms. If you need a refresher of the context, I suggest starting here: > Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.
They are practical for killing whoever is in front of them, physics permitting. They are far more practical than firearms for killing tightly packed groups, but little stops a massive block of metal from killing say a lone cyclist. Everything is situational; it doesn’t make it any less of a threat.
> "But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."
Firstly, defensive gun use is defensive gun use regardless of owning a badge. Secondly, this is not accounting for gun-free zones (bars, school campuses) where most mass shooters will target because of that power disparity.
“…while 36% of active shooting attacks have occurred in places where guns are allowed, almost half (42.3%) of those were stopped by people who legally carry concealed handguns.”
1 reply →