Since you don't consolidate all your thoughts into one post and apparently can't summarize them shortly, I missed this while I was responding. So even without admitting it, you pretty much agree that they are killing themselves not because they have access to guns. Whether it is in Japan or in our own country, the primary cause of suicide are not the guns. It's the person who unfortunately got to the point to his/her life that he/she no longer thinks it is necessary to live. At that point it doesn't matter if they pull a trigger or hang themselves. I recommend you take your own advice and try harder with another fluff filled winded response. Thanks for playing.
I've commented numerous times that I believe in the merits of the Opportunity Theory of Crime - that every crime requires a motivation and an opportunity. When you say "cause" you're talking about the motivation. I'm talking about means/opportunity reduction. The motivations for suicide vary by individual and it is difficult to address that on public policy grounds. I agree with you that working to address the motivations for suicide is a worthy policy goal. I however also believe - as the evidence clearly shows - that means reduction can work.
Various types of means/opportunity reduction has been shown to successfully reduce the incidence of suicide among those motivated to do so - leaving more opportunity for more specified intervention. Moderating firearm access and ownership would reduce the incidence of suicide among motivated individuals. Whether this positive result justifies incidental burdens on the liberty to own firearms is different than whether we know it will work.
The OC cannot exist without ad revenue.
Please consider turning off your adblocker for the site
so we can keep the lights on.
Indeed. Prohibition Precludes Moderation. Maybe it will serve as a means to get the left to permanently move away from prohibition toward licensing and moderation.
For fucks suck dude we are on a forum. You don't need to go into lawyer/otrap mode every post. Going thru the fluff of your argument.
1. No it definitely is not. I would be much more concerned about an under aged or young "snowflake" getting his hands on a gun via an easily accessible 3D printer than him going thru daddy's cabinet. One option has multiple barriers, the other is one machine that will at some point be accessible to the average household.
2. Yes, this is so easy. Why didn't I think about that! Just like how drugs have been heavily regulated, just like pressure cooker have been regulated to prevent pressure cooker bombers, just like alcohol has been regulated to prevent under age drinking, just like guns have been regulated to prevent underage users, just like....... You can brush it aside as nihilism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact it is very easy to poke holes into your danger free utopia.
3. We already have laws in place that have easily been broken and laws that were previously in place proven to not work, yet you propose more laws and regulations. All this when we are living in the safest time this world has ever seen. As an adult I grew a pair. I stand by my recommendation.
4. Passing more laws to regulate or even ban weapons that the majority of gun owners already follow is the exact definition of a punishment. You're literally proposing to chip away at the 2nd amendment and somehow you don't think that is punishing every US citizen from his or her basic rights. Don't give me bullshit that you never proposed banning any guns. You just tried to delegitimize the purpose of the 2nd amendment by tying it to suicides and your next point is precisely about banning weapons LOL.
5. What does this have to do with modern day gun crime and what I had to say? It still doesn't change the fact the majority of gun crime has decreased, despite an increase in ownership. It also doesn't change the fact that certain weapons were banned for a period (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) and there was more gun crime during the ban than after. Despite the data continuously proving you wrong, you still want to fixate on type of guns and the type of murder (MASS MURDERS!) to move the goal posts in your favor. In 2018, it is not the gun anymore, sorry to break it to you. The majority of gun deaths come from gang related activity and suicides. You still can't tell me why Japan's suicide rate (not to mention other countries with strict gun laws and high suicide rates) is so high, despite banning guns. You still can't prove to me out of all of these laws in place and your proposed laws, why they haven't stopped gangs from obtaining them illegally and killing each other.
OMG NIHILISM though!
1. "At Some Point"
2. The categories of drugs generally and alcohol for minors in my view would fall under the category of "prohibition" and in my view prohibition precludes moderation.
3. Indeed we're living in the safest time in history as the administrative and regulatory state has grown and grown and grown helping make things like automobiles, controlled substances, securities markets and any number of life's pleasures much safer over time. Your acknowledgement that we're in the safest period of history undermines your own philosophy that working to moderate the perils of life is a wasted pursuit.
Resorting to talking about balls? Eek reminds me of when Gut was drunk ranting about S&L. Not a good look IMHO.
4. I'll let the "punish" one go because this is a language game. When Justin creates rules for this forum based on the behavior of Trolls that is not a "punishment" for me - a poster who follows the rules. Moderation and the creation of rules is not itself a "punishment" on the virtuous who don't need rules.
5. The National Firearms Act is relevant because it is a clearly example of regulation being effective at all but eliminating the targeted social ill when anti-government nihilists always resort to saying "laws can't/won't possibly work" instead of making the moral argument as to why the proposed law or regulation might be unjust or unwise.
True. School Buses provide aggregate utility to society at large that outweigh the risk that my kid might get run over by one. The aggregate utility of mass firearm ownership is negative.
The aggregate utility of firearm ownership is not negative, that is your opinion based on no factual information.
Alyssa Milano had an op-ed somewhere freaking out over this. We discussed this a while back here, and I was trying to research this one day. Milano claims you can "probably" get a decent printer for a few hundred bucks and crank out reliable guns. From what I understand, such 3D printers that can make reliable metal guns still costs tens of thousands of dollars. I guess you can make a reliable receiver(?) fairly cheaply, but you'd still have to buy the other components.
Milano isn't wrong, her article is probably just 10-20 years early.
Such a stupid debate. Just look at the war on drugs. There is literally no way the govt can keep a criminal that really wants a gun from getting one.
The aggregate utility of firearm ownership is not negative, that is your opinion based on no factual information.
Gun Related Violence - not even including non-fatal firearm injuries was estimated to cost the United States $100 billion annually in 2000 & is around $300 billion annually today - more than the cost of Medicaid.
See Gun Violence: The Real Costs by Duke Sociology professor Phillip Cooke
On a pure utility standpoint this should,not even be controversial. The harms clearly outweigh the pleasures & value derived from firearm ownership in the aggregate.
The argument in favor of mass firearm ownership is that the social costs are nevertheless justified & bearable because we,must respect the natural,right to self defense/general liberty etc.
It's like the Peter Singer point about meat eating. Can't really deny the pain caused by killing animals to eat them,outweighs any value derived from the same - but nevertheless I deserve to be free to eat a delicious steak I want, etc.
Alyssa Milano had an op-ed somewhere freaking out over this. We discussed this a while back here, and I was trying to research this one day. Milano claims you can "probably" get a decent printer for a few hundred bucks and crank out reliable guns. From what I understand, such 3D printers that can make reliable metal guns still costs tens of thousands of dollars. I guess you can make a reliable receiver(?) fairly cheaply, but you'd still have to buy the other components.
Milano isn't wrong, her article is probably just 10-20 years early.
Such a stupid debate. Just look at the war on drugs. There is literally no way the govt can keep a criminal that really wants a gun from getting one.
I agree the most motivated criminals will permanently seek an,opportunity for a gun at all,costs. The,overwhelming majority of motivated criminals will look to another,opportunity that requires less exertion - hopefully a,means that is less efficient and that is a good,policy outcome.
I also agree that the mass printing is a ways a way and in any case I am not sure it will turn,out precisely they way some of,the fanboys believe. Reminds me of bitcoin.
Gun Related Violence - not even including non-fatal firearm injuries was estimated to cost the United States $100 billion annually in 2000 & is around $300 billion annually today - more than the cost of Medicaid.
See Gun Violence: The Real Costs by Duke Sociology professor Phillip Cooke
On a pure utility standpoint this should,not even be controversial. The harms clearly outweigh the pleasures & value derived from firearm ownership in the aggregate.
The argument in favor of mass firearm ownership is that the social costs are nevertheless justified & bearable because we,must respect the natural,right to self defense/general liberty etc.
It's like the Peter Singer point about meat eating. Can't really deny the pain caused by killing animals to eat them,outweighs any value derived from the same - but nevertheless I deserve to be free to eat a delicious steak I want, etc.
Let's see the estimated costs of:
Crimes prevented
Hunting for food rather than buying it
Reduced cost of military need. No one has invaded the US mainland mainly for fear that there is a gun behind every door. The Japanese said so explicitly in WW2.
Let's see an estimated cost of how much of those negative costs you mentioned ONLY happen because of guns vs if they would still happen if guns were eliminated (suicide attempts would not go down as shown in other countries, violent attacks with other weapons would still happen maybe at a lower cost, etc).
You present 1 biased (only showing the negative side) without any of the other side to see if it is really a negative.
True. School Buses provide aggregate utility to society at large that outweigh the risk that my kid might get run over by one. The aggregate utility of mass firearm ownership is negative.
proof? Mass gun ownership is what has kept our republic from being North Korea.
Reduced cost of military need. No one has invaded the US mainland mainly for fear that there is a gun behind every door. The Japanese said so explicitly in WW2.
Let's see an estimated cost of how much of those negative costs you mentioned ONLY happen because of guns vs if they would still happen if guns were eliminated (suicide attempts would not go down as shown in other countries, violent attacks with other weapons would still happen maybe at a lower cost, etc).
You present 1 biased (only showing the negative side) without any of the other side to see if it is really a negative.
Not to mention the cost of government being the only legal gun owners. This cost is infinity dollars.
School Buses provide aggregate utility to society at large that outweigh the risk that my kid might get run over by one.
I'm curious. How does one quantify the risk of kicking off a la death-by-bus in comparison to the social utility of busing? In order to suggest that one outweighs the other with any real honesty, you'd need to be able to do that.
Reduced cost of military need. No one has invaded the US mainland mainly for fear that there is a gun behind every door. The Japanese said so explicitly in WW2.
I know this is a mere anecdote, but I have an old business acquaintance who said the same of the Russians during the Cold War. He was in the Soviet military during that era.
On that note, however, if we're going to look at the reduced cost of military need, we should probably see a reduced spend on the military. That shit is out of control.
I know this is a mere anecdote, but I have an old business acquaintance who said the same of the Russians during the Cold War. He was in the Soviet military during that era.
On that note, however, if we're going to look at the reduced cost of military need, we should probably see a reduced spend on the military. That shit is out of control.
1. I agree, another anecdote, but a colleague of mine fled Russia almost immediately after Communism fell and immigrated to Canada (lives in Ohio now). He said the same thing, the biggest fear among the Russia military was a ground war inside the US boarders due to their fear that "everyone had guns).
2. I agree, military spending is out of control, but with the US "gun ho" mentality it would be even worse during WW2 if the US had been invaded. Also, the cost of rebuilding parts of the US would have been huge (look at the restoration of Europe).
Reduced cost of military need. No one has invaded the US mainland mainly for fear that there is a gun behind every door. The Japanese said so explicitly in WW2.
Let's see an estimated cost of how much of those negative costs you mentioned ONLY happen because of guns vs if they would still happen if guns were eliminated (suicide attempts would not go down as shown in other countries, violent attacks with other weapons would still happen maybe at a lower cost, etc).
You present 1 biased (only showing the negative side) without any of the other side to see if it is really a negative.
So let's show some of the other side. This was quite fun for me on this rainy day at the office.
1. Crimes Prevented:
My understanding is that the author takes into account estimates of hypothetical crimes deterred & prevented - I agree we could use a lot more research in this area. Maybe if firearm advocates would let the CDC study it, etc. we could get better data. As it stands the surveys done in the 90's that suggests there's all kinds of defensive gun use that is often parroted by firearm rights advocates makes climate change research look like undeniable logic by comparison.
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
Conclusions
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
So - this study suggests no evidence of a crime reduction benefit. Let's consider this video:
Merely brandishing his firearm wouldn't have reduced any further harm to his person from the guy defending his girlfriend than simply walking away. The firearm made a lesser social harm - two minor crimes - escalate into a death & prosecutors with a tough case.
Find some research that adheres to your very high standard of acceptability for climate science with regard to guns and I'll listen. But please, let's do more research. I'm all for it.
2. Hunting:
I'll give you the general past time of hunting overall and not just "hunting for food versus buying it" - a pro-hunting web site I found points to studies showing a $38.9 Billion direct impact from Hunting - a rough idea of its utility. http://protecttheharvest.com/2014/11/14/hunting-america-economy/
3. "Reduced Cost of Military 'Need'" - The U.S. Military budget is $550 Billion Dollars. I.E. Mass firearm ownership is not reducing our military budget. Indeed, it's increased the need for police forces to militarize and to have to mobilize the National Guard domestically. For example, The Federal Government began providing military firearms to police officers after the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout when ordinary patrol officers were badly outgunned. As such, mass firearm ownership in reality has contributed to bigger government and the militarization of law enforcement. As you would say "that's your opinion, not a fact" and the evidence seems to support the opposite conclusion.
4. Had to quote this one directly "No one has invaded the US mainland mainly for fear that there is a gun behind every door. The Japanese said so explicitly in WW2."
Nothing screams engineer like propagating folklore.
You're referring to this:
But it's made up!
Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.
How do we know? We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."
In an exchange of e-mails he said:
Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.
We included this in an update to an Ask FactCheck item we posted May 10, debunking an error-filled "gun history lesson" circulating by e-mail.
We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.
A University of Indianapolis study has found that a law allowing authorities to temporarily remove guns from those considered a risk to others or themselves has helped reduce Indiana's firearm-related suicides.
Suicide is a serious public health concern that is responsible for almost 1 million deaths each year worldwide. It is commonly an impulsive act by a vulnerable individual. The impulsivity of suicide provides opportunities to reduce the risk of suicide by restricting access to lethal means.
In the United States, firearms, particularly handguns, are the most common means of suicide. Despite strong empirical evidence that restriction of access to firearms reduces suicides, access to firearms in the United States is generally subject to few restrictions.
Implementation and evaluation of measures such as waiting periods and permit requirements that restrict access to handguns should be a top priority for reducing deaths from impulsive suicide in the United States
A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and ManagementMatthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.
The lesson? Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms, kept them locked away, or stored them outside the home. Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”
There is much more empirical evidence that reducing access to firearms can reduce suicide. (Way more than there is that there were dinosaurs walking the earth with humans but hey what are you gonna believe!) "Again the argument to me is not that it can't work - it's that I have the liberty to own my guns and I don't care if a consequence is that more people will kill themselves" (And I'm ok with that - let's just find a way for the people who demand this market and all of its social costs to exist to bear those costs as they should in a truly free and transparent marketplace).
6. "Violent Attacks Would Still Happen"
I agree and it is desirable for motivated criminals to use less effective instruments of harm.
7. "You're giving one biased view"
Please - let's have the funding from Congress to the CDC, Department of Justice, National Institutes of Health, ATF and whoever else to study this matter. Why do firearm lobbyists block it when they're so confident firearms save millions of lives per year, etc? (Because they know it's bullshit. The argument for mass firearm ownership is that none of the vast negative consequences outweigh my individual liberty).
In any case I'll summarize what I've found. Looks like the evidence is not in your favor on most of your assertions but that the hunting economy reduces the $300 billion in negative social costs by about $40 Billion. Okey Dokey - that's how much we'll reduce the bill.
proof? Mass gun ownership is what has kept our republic from being North Korea.
Lol this a great post haha. South Korea does not have mass gun ownership and has not become North Korea - same goes for numerous countries lol. It couldn't possibly be the case that there are other variables involved!
I'm curious. How does one quantify the risk of kicking off a la death-by-bus in comparison to the social utility of busing? In order to suggest that one outweighs the other with any real honesty, you'd need to be able to do that.
The economic utility of school buses clearly outweighs the risk that my kid would die on a school bus
So it's funny - while I tacitly agreed with Gut. Looks like his snarky reply was wrong (what a surprise lol!) - My daughter is more likely to die in a school shooting than a school bus (even if both are exceedingly rare). Not to mention about 1,300 kids die in accidental gun deaths every year.
