What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[Aldebaran]

No. But I'm glad for it. I do plenty of other things based on the best evidence. I put solar on my house, I drive an electric car, etc.

I use statistics to do my job in Research and Development. I rely on understanding the data as it exists and trying to avoid anecdotal data to base my decisions on.

Good for you. I see myself as an individual that can make decisions based on my individual preferences and circumstances rather than a pure reliance on numbers and statistics.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But the actions of those who have actually used a firearm in defense, and the fact that they are still alive show something better than what any amount of numbers do.

So the fact that a small number of people have been able to successfully defend themselves is all we need to offset the massive negatives that correlate with higher gun ownership rates?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing.

The numbers show that on average the number of times people use the guns to harm family members or themselves is greater than the number of times someone uses the gun to defend themselves.

I'm not saying that the self-defense stuff is bad...I'm just saying that it seems that on average more guns leads to worse overall outcomes for society.

How many successful suicides that wouldn't have happened in the absence of a gun are offset by the cases where a Korean store owner was able to defend his or her store?

I ask that seriously because it IS a tough question. It isn't an easy calculus.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Good for you. I see myself as an individual that can make decisions based on my individual preferences and circumstances rather than a pure reliance on numbers and statistics.

A lot of people lack scientific training or discipline. It's a pretty common thing (even for me!) to not use statistics where I should. But I don't feel it is a virtue to avoid the statistics. I've seen lots of sloppy decisions made based on anecdotal data.

But it is definitely the easier route and doesn't require much education or knowledge.

 

[Aldebaran]

So the fact that a small number of people have been able to successfully defend themselves is all we need to offset the massive negatives that correlate with higher gun ownership rates?

That's up to each person to decide for themselves. According to the "numbers", I should be dead already.

The numbers show that on average the number of times people use the guns to harm family members or themselves is greater than the number of times someone uses the gun to defend themselves.

Yet every gun owner I've ever known is still alive today, regardless of how many guns he owns. Don't you think there's something other than numbers at work here?

 

[Obliquinaut]

That's up to each person to decide for themselves.

But we don't do that with many other things in life. We have mandatory actions regulated for us all the time. We don't allow anyone to own a critical mass of plutonium. We mandate vaccinations. We legislate against disposal of hazardous wastes.

The fact that you know a couple dozen (?) people who own guns but have not had anyone in their family die because of it doesn't change the fact that the presence of guns statistically increases the likelihood of those bad things happening.

Not everyone will catch smallpox and not everyone who does will die from it. But if we don't vaccinate everyone we will increase the risk for everyone that there will be higher death rates from smallpox.

 

[mark46]

I believe that this would be a felony in most jurisdictions. The suggestion is that the parent be charged with murder.

This is simple. You keep a gun unlocked in your home, make it a felony if discovered in the event of a death. Because it really is a foreseeable result with children in the home-it's happened time and time again, just like bank heists. What is so awful about being charged with a felony when a child dies from your gun? If that gun was something you purchased and placed unlocked near a child-you are for sure as culpable as a getaway driver if it results in a death. I keep my guns locked, and locked up, unless it's to take them to a range. And the key is nowhere a child can find it. It's easy, and it's the right and ethical thing to do, and people that don't, don't really respect the responsibility that comes with the right to own guns.

 

[Zoii]

None? Seriously?
Are you saying there are no controls over who can manufacture firearms, what their barrel lengths can be, or where they can be sold? Aren't there any background checks or waiting periods and fees that have to be paid to do them? Are there no restrictions on when and where firearms can be used, such as within city limits? Is there no age requirement that must be met to buy a firearm or ammunition? Are fully automatic guns available for people to buy at your local gun store? How about silencers? Are felons allowed to buy or own firearms?

Sure. No controls. Obviously.

No that's exactly it... You don't have control. That's why your engaged in a debate in your country. All those things you mentioned has done nothing to exert control over either the level of gun ownership or the rate of gun related deaths.

Look I can see it's an emotive thing for Americans and your e unlikely to change how things are. So I'm guessing your strategies will be more about rapid response, which btw, is already very good.

 

[Tanj]

Then you won't have children due to how the numbers tell you that it would add to overpopulation?

The numbers don't tell you that, which ironically reinforces Obliquinaut's point about how your worldview gets distorted when you use anecdotes rather than evidence.

Here once again are the actual numbers on population:
Gapminder: Unveiling the beauty of statistics for a fact based world view.

If I was Supreme leader of the Earth I would make the reading and understanding of that website a pre-requisite for living past age 18.

 

[dogs4thewin]

This is simple. You keep a gun unlocked in your home, make it a felony if discovered in the event of a death. Because it really is a foreseeable result with children in the home-it's happened time and time again, just like bank heists. What is so awful about being charged with a felony when a child dies from your gun? If that gun was something you purchased and placed unlocked near a child-you are for sure as culpable as a getaway driver if it results in a death. I keep my guns locked, and locked up, unless it's to take them to a range. And the key is nowhere a child can find it. It's easy, and it's the right and ethical thing to do, and people that don't, don't really respect the responsibility that comes with the right to own guns.

There is a difference in poor judgement and a felony. Also practically speaking the police would need a warrant (forth amendment you know, even IF you DID make it a felony which would be stupid a person could lock it up after the fact and the police would have no way of PROVING beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was NOT locked at the time of the shooting. If you can not prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt you lose your case. Moreover, where is the line? What if a fifteen year old grabs a loaded gun and shoots someone? Should the parents be held liable for murder when their darn near grown child shoots someone? ( This assumes that the 15 year old has the mind of a 15 year old and is not developmentally disabled.) Another example, what if a young child shoots and kills someone who DOES mean harm whether they meant too or not).

 

[dogs4thewin]

No that's exactly it... You don't have control. That's why your engaged in a debate in your country. All those things you mentioned has done nothing to exert control over either the level of gun ownership or the rate of gun related deaths.

Look I can see it's an emotive thing for Americans and your e unlikely to change how things are. So I'm guessing your strategies will be more about rapid response, which btw, is already very good.

I have stated we DO have controls; again some states have more than others, but there ARE controls on the federal level.

 

[dogs4thewin]

But we don't do that with many other things in life. We have mandatory actions regulated for us all the time. We don't allow anyone to own a critical mass of plutonium. We mandate vaccinations. We legislate against disposal of hazardous wastes.

The fact that you know a couple dozen (?) people who own guns but have not had anyone in their family die because of it doesn't change the fact that the presence of guns statistically increases the likelihood of those bad things happening.

Not everyone will catch smallpox and not everyone who does will die from it. But if we don't vaccinate everyone we will increase the risk for everyone that there will be higher death rates from smallpox.

It is about teaching gun safety, yes accidents still happen, but it is about teaching gun safety and be responsaible with your guns ( which includes more than JUST keeping them from young children, by the way.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I believe that this would be a felony in most jurisdictions. The suggestion is that the parent be charged with murder.

What is a felony in most jurisdictions? Leaving a gun on the table?

 

[RDKirk]

And Americans "live" by the sword. We have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world. Almost 1 gun for every single American (including infants).

And we also have among the highest rate of gun deaths per capita of any developed nation on earth.

But I'm sure Jesus wanted us to have MORE GUNS.

WWJD, though?

Would Jesus petition Caesar to prohibit swords?

This is a serious question.

What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

What would Jesus do to prevent another Las Vegas?

Well...what did Jesus do to prevent the crushing of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD? What was the Body of Christ--people who personally knew the Apostles-- doing when that happened?

 

[RDKirk]

Y

IMHO, the best way to find out what would reduce the number of deaths and injured is to ask law enforcement professionals and follow their advice.

You mean the ones that would shoot me in my own driveway and then claim they feared for their lives? Those guys?

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, I have seen some sheriffs say that they would NOT enforce certain gun regulations.

Sheriffs and police departments work for different people. It's like the difference between the US Marshalls and the FBI at the federal level.

 

[Tanj]

WWJD, though?

Would Jesus petition Caesar to prohibit swords?

Would he suggest all Christians carry one? (or suggest 25% of Christians carry an average of 4?)

 

[Zoii]

I have stated we DO have controls; again some states have more than others, but there ARE controls on the federal level.

Oh I understood that, I was only meaning that the measurements being used aren't controlling gun death rates.

Not to worry, I'll back out of this debate because it's an issue for your country to debate. I think you understand the views of outsiders so repeating it will be tantamount to flaming you good people.

 

[RDKirk]

Same way it works in the rest of the developed world. Not to mention mere posesion of a fire arm doesn't confer invulnerability against criminals.

It does provide an option to "Please don't kill me."

 

[RDKirk]

I agree with a lot of what you said however i would replace the word "need" with the word "want".

i've come full circle on this argument and am now thinking we need to ban guns or at the very least impose much more stricter gun control laws because.....

You realize, don't you, that would become a new war on black men. You realize that, right?

Because that's how America operates.

This is precisely how the war on drugs began.

 

[Armoured]

It does provide an option to "Please don't kill me."

It also provides the option of instant suicide, accidentally shooting the kids, and inadvertently arming thieves.

I'll go out on a limb and say I think more Americans die by suicide or gun accidents than at the hands of strangers breaking in to do harm.