Show newer

@pj @freemo @DutyBard Reliable data is hard to come by. Johns Hopkins Center on Gun Violence:

jhsph.edu/research/centers-and

and Adam Winkler:

law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-p

are the ones I would trust. The NRA got laws passed forbidding the federal government to keep statistics on gun violence. Which kind of makes the case that they are afraid of the data.

@DutyBard @freemo @pj None. Us has more guns per capita than anyone else. But, a fair comparison is life expectancy, see the graph in:

npr.org/sections/health-shots/

Guns, health care system, obesity, nutrition, criminalization of gynecology, all of that plays a role.

RRB boosted

@freemo @rrb @pj just looked up comparative gun death rates: USA is 51 times more than UK. That is a lot.

@freemo @Clementulus @pj But explaining risk factors to patients so that they can think ahead and avoid putting there lives at risk in the future would be something your previous statements lead me to believe you should support.

I am fine with euthanasia and personal freedom of choice regarding suicide. But, informing people so they can plan ahead to avoid spur of the moment irrevocable decisions seems like a good idea.

@DutyBard @freemo @pj Actually, this is not a reality but a perception. Having guns in the home greatly increases your chance of death by firearm. This is especially true for the women and children in the family.

2/3 of death by firearms in USA are suicides. The next largest reason for firearm injury is domestic dispute.

Knowledge that firearms are in the house does not deter incursions. It makes it more attractive. Firearm thefts are a large source of illegal guns. And the reason for most car break-ins.

There is an industry being fed by this disinformation.

@freemo @Clementulus @pj There is an epidemic of suicide among US veterans with PTSD. The issue is that usually there is never a second attempt and guns are more likely to make it be successful. Medical personnel try to advise people with PTSD to not have a firearm just to avoid the temptation. I would assume you are OK with people, on their own, removing the temptation, right? Congress has made it illegal for the VA to discuss firearms with patients.

RRB boosted

@freemo @rrb @pj An interesting discussion. As someone who works in policing in canada I have been exposed to a lot of information about gun use in crime and the pros/cons of gun ownership and use in general. One of the aspects I think that you overlook when arguing that people would be safer if everyone carried around guns is that the vast majority of altercations, whether physical or otherwise, come about when otherwise reasonable individuals become emotionally disturbed or incensed (drugs and alcohol often contribute to this), then they make decisions they otherwise would not. A huge percentage of assaults/suicides by guns occur in residences where they are not safely stored, because individuals in the midst of an emotional episode can grab them and use them without a chance for a second thought. Suicide is also a huge one, you are *far* more likely to successfully commit suicide if there is a gun in your home and seeing as how the rate of suicidality in most developed countries keeps on increasing, probably the best reason to not own a gun is to protect you from yourself! And I think the argument for America being a naturally more violent country than other developed nations is not adequately supported by evidence, people in canada get into altercations all the time, but so few of them involve firearms that they are less likely to turn deadly, in fact, the communities within Canada that have the most fatal altercations are the very ones with the highest prevalence of gun ownership! Not having easy access to guns is certainly helping to prevent a ton of needless gun deaths. While it is true that a dedicated individual can acquire the necessary firepower to commit an atrocity, like what happened a few years ago in Nova Scotia, that event took years of planning and preparation; what gun control helps to prevent are the deaths that occur from more temporary insanities.

@freemo @pj India comes to mind. East Berlin, too. Iran.

Yes.

@freemo @pj Maybe. I feel that way after hearing people in my area talking about keeping long rifles to take on the US Army. I keep telling them their pea shooters are not going to work against the US military.

@freemo @pj With modern militaries, civilian guns will not do it.

For that, you need insurgencies and stealth. Armaments are not the deciding factor.

@freemo @pj I like the idea of mandating insurance and letting the market work this out. If you maintain things well, cost should be low. Risky behavior would cause cost to be prohibitive.

@freemo @pj How about laws mandating safe storage?

Currently 1/3 of guns stolen are not secured in parked cars. Secure boxes for parked cars are inexpensive, as are trigger locks.

@freemo @pj Most gun sales are not record. Only 40% of sales are recorded:

aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advo

Most (60%) are not recorded with no background checks. This does not deal with 3-D printing of guns

@freemo @pj Registry would be useful for tracking guns used in crimes. Which I see as a positive use case.

@pj @freemo While I do not accept freemo's "slippery slope" argument, because that negates any government action, I think you are much too positive about history and governments.

Democracy and rule of law is the exception and short lived to date. Look around you, most governments are oppressive and are not going anywhere. Democracy is also in retreat most everywhere. In decline for the last 17 years:

freedomhouse.org/report/freedo

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.