Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: It's not the guns -- some damning statistics

  1. Top | #121
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,886
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    This is painfully simple.
    Koy, I think this may be the core of your difficulty communicating with others here.. Things are often far more complicated than the first article you read about something suggests.
    I think you should read about the Dunning Kruger effect and take it to heart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

  2. Top | #122
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,886
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post

    So how did the war on drugs turn out? Because you are just following that same old proven-useless method of guaranteed-to-fail prohibition.
    "if I can block 10 out of 15,000 ways to get a gun, then I have done something". Unfortunately, what you have not done is stop criminals from acquiring guns the countless other ways than you listed.
    Almost all criminal guns in the US come from the ways I listed, b/c no other pathway is capable of supplying a fraction of the number of guns that legal gun buyers can supply via resales. International smuggling and 3D printing cannot possibly get as many guns into the US black market as the current legal US gun market can, precisely b/c the unrestricted legal market gives the cover to that trafficking and makes it impossible to catch the guns before they wind up in the hands of the violent criminal end user. Most of the people who handled current crime guns from the manufacturer to dealers and original buyers did so legally. The only thing that currently makes a legal dealer or owner a criminal is whether they know the person they are selling to has criminal intent. Since that is impossible to prove, it's impossible to stop the guns before violent end user have them. But with International smuggling and 3D printing, every person involved with handling those guns is a criminal, making it much easier to enforce laws to that stop the flow before it reaches the end user, plus international borders are far easier to police than within country trafficking.

    There is no valid analogy to drugs. Drug end users don't want to be criminals, and are only made into criminals by making drug use illegal. Drugs are not used to commit violent crime. They only have an association with violent crime b/c they are made illegal to use. In contrast, a large % of gun users want to be criminals and their whole goal in using a gun is to make it easier to kill, rob, and rape people. The association with violent crime is inherent to the physical properties of guns themselves and their intentional design to make killing people as easy as possible. Thus, by restricting drugs access you create an association with violent crime where none otherwise exists, but by restricting gun access you reduce the ease with which already violent criminals can use guns to commit more violent crime.
    The analogy I was trying to make was about prohibition, not drugs per say.
    All I meant to say is that American society has proven that if there is a demand for something, simply adding a law prohibiting it does very little.
    In the specific case of guns, I think it could actually do more harm as it would result in the need to engage in illegal activity to gain access to one. So therefore mostly criminals would have possession of them.
    Who ran the Speak Easy of the day? The Mob. Who runs drugs in and out of countries? the Cartels.
    Prohibition in America does not stop the thing, it just makes criminals profit off of the thing even more.

  3. Top | #123
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,640
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,583
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    The limits of your imagination are staggering.
    I am not the one injecting the irrelevancy of fairness into the discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    It's common sense to you that of there are 100 ways to get a gun, and stop 1 of them, then you will have reduced the number of guns? You realize that the OTHER 99 ways to get illegal guns are not limited to those that current use those ways, right?
    All living things, including people, adapt to changes in their environment. So, changing the availability of guns and changing who has them is a change in the environment. Changing the need for firearms is changing the environment. Denying the possibility that people will adapt is foolish. And, as we all ought to realize, that it is not only criminals who cause gun deaths.

    Common sense indicates that the effect on gun deaths of reducing gun availability is an empirical issue due the reality that human behavior will adapt to that altered environment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    You also apply a little bit of logic in the methods of criminals... in that logically, they might think to use guns less because of current trends in defensive techniques. I'm glad you obviously never met a criminal before. Lets just say that if we are applying logic to the behavior of criminals, we can simply dismiss all crime as simply illogical and therefore will cease to exist by its own failure to be rational. which, of course, is nonsense.
    I cannot divine a point to your word salad.

  4. Top | #124
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    5,005
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post

    So how did the war on drugs turn out? Because you are just following that same old proven-useless method of guaranteed-to-fail prohibition.
    "if I can block 10 out of 15,000 ways to get a gun, then I have done something". Unfortunately, what you have not done is stop criminals from acquiring guns the countless other ways than you listed.
    Almost all criminal guns in the US come from the ways I listed, b/c no other pathway is capable of supplying a fraction of the number of guns that legal gun buyers can supply via resales. International smuggling and 3D printing cannot possibly get as many guns into the US black market as the current legal US gun market can, precisely b/c the unrestricted legal market gives the cover to that trafficking and makes it impossible to catch the guns before they wind up in the hands of the violent criminal end user. Most of the people who handled current crime guns from the manufacturer to dealers and original buyers did so legally. The only thing that currently makes a legal dealer or owner a criminal is whether they know the person they are selling to has criminal intent. Since that is impossible to prove, it's impossible to stop the guns before violent end user have them. But with International smuggling and 3D printing, every person involved with handling those guns is a criminal, making it much easier to enforce laws to that stop the flow before it reaches the end user, plus international borders are far easier to police than within country trafficking.

    There is no valid analogy to drugs. Drug end users don't want to be criminals, and are only made into criminals by making drug use illegal. Drugs are not used to commit violent crime. They only have an association with violent crime b/c they are made illegal to use. In contrast, a large % of gun users want to be criminals and their whole goal in using a gun is to make it easier to kill, rob, and rape people. The association with violent crime is inherent to the physical properties of guns themselves and their intentional design to make killing people as easy as possible. Thus, by restricting drugs access you create an association with violent crime where none otherwise exists, but by restricting gun access you reduce the ease with which already violent criminals can use guns to commit more violent crime.
    The analogy I was trying to make was about prohibition, not drugs per say.
    All I meant to say is that American society has proven that if there is a demand for something, simply adding a law prohibiting it does very little.
    In the specific case of guns, I think it could actually do more harm as it would result in the need to engage in illegal activity to gain access to one. So therefore mostly criminals would have possession of them.
    Who ran the Speak Easy of the day? The Mob. Who runs drugs in and out of countries? the Cartels.
    Prohibition in America does not stop the thing, it just makes criminals profit off of the thing even more.
    The restrictions I proposed do nothing to affect a legal supply for demand that is for non-criminal use of guns. The only people whose demand won't be satisfied are those seeking to use guns for violent crime and those seeking to profit off providing those guns to violent criminals. While that latter group are current legal gun owners and buyers, they are a small subset of gun owners.

  5. Top | #125
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,886
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    I am not the one injecting the irrelevancy of fairness into the discussion.
    the flow of guns is not like the flow of water through multiple faucets in your house... whereby if you close one faucet the amount of water flowing is reduced.
    All living things, including people, adapt to changes in their environment. So, changing the availability of guns and changing who has them is a change in the environment. Changing the need for firearms is changing the environment. Denying the possibility that people will adapt is foolish. And, as we all ought to realize, that it is not only criminals who cause gun deaths.
    Unlike water flowing out of your faucets, the flow of guns will simply adapt to the environmental change and flow more heavily through other means
    Common sense indicates that the effect on gun deaths of reducing gun availability is an empirical issue due the reality that human behavior will adapt to that altered environment.
    I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that we can eliminate skin cancer by eliminating the sun? um...ok. forget about more practicable solutions like applying sunblock to your exposed skin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    You also apply a little bit of logic in the methods of criminals... in that logically, they might think to use guns less because of current trends in defensive techniques. I'm glad you obviously never met a criminal before. Lets just say that if we are applying logic to the behavior of criminals, we can simply dismiss all crime as simply illogical and therefore will cease to exist by its own failure to be rational. which, of course, is nonsense.
    I cannot divine a point to your word salad.
    a "word salad" is when you try to use big fancy words to confuse people into thinking you sound like you know what you are talking about, despite being incoherent. Which of the quoted words were too big for you? The least common words in those two sentences were "logically" and "techniques". Which do you need help with?

    What I was saying was in response to you claiming that criminals will likely (according to you) be less inclined to use guns to commit crimes if fewer people have guns. My comment was that it is pretty fucking ridiculous to think that violent criminals that would-be murderers with guns would give the tiniest shit what kind of gun you don't have as they shoot you and take your stuff.

  6. Top | #126
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,728
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,480
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    This is painfully simple. The impulse to kill yourself can overcome any one of us at literally any moment. It is not always a permanent one. It can come in a wave or it can settle in like a puddle.

    If we have access in particular to a gun--which we all know is one of the most definitive ways to kill ourselves, thus feeding into and actually strengthening the resolve that is part of the nature of the impulse--when that impulse comes over us, statistics prove that there is a four-fold increase in risk that we will act on that impulse and attempt to kill ourselves if we know we have easy access to a gun.

    Due to the nature of a gun, that attempt will more than likely be successful.

    No easy access to the gun, however, and the resolve of the impulse gets replaced with seeking a method of death, which in turn gives us time to doubt and let the impulse subside and we either decide not to try to kill ourselves, or we end up finding a less lethal method which can therefore more easily malfunction, and we survive.

    For the vast majority of people that go through an episode like that--where they find themselves on that precipice actually looking for the most efficient way to kill themselves and then have that impulse subside or that attempt fail--there is no second attempt. It was a one time trip to the edge of the abyss and--HOLY SHIT I ALMOST DID IT--and then life lessons.

    For a smaller percentage deeper down the abyss, not so lucky. For an even smaller percentage, won't stop until death.

    But for the larger portion, it is the combination of ease of access and belief in the surety of death that drives so many successful suicides that otherwise would not have succeeded had it not been so easy and/or definitive at a crucial point in the impulse.

    Wishing to commit suicide is rarely a permanent, ongoing, unwavering condition where the person simply will not stop picking up anything within reach to try to kill themselves with until they succeed.

    For many, it is simply the fact that there is no easy out available to them that stops them from even attempting it.

    It's not a proposition from Wittgenstein and it is abundantly documented accounting for literally all variables. Literally anything Loren posts has been fully and completely accounted for in dozens upon dozens of studies that ALL come to the exact same conclusions.
    Which still doesn't explain the observation that we don't see those suicides in high crime areas.

  7. Top | #127
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,192
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,103
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    This is painfully simple. The impulse to kill yourself can overcome any one of us at literally any moment. It is not always a permanent one. It can come in a wave or it can settle in like a puddle.

    If we have access in particular to a gun--which we all know is one of the most definitive ways to kill ourselves, thus feeding into and actually strengthening the resolve that is part of the nature of the impulse--when that impulse comes over us, statistics prove that there is a four-fold increase in risk that we will act on that impulse and attempt to kill ourselves if we know we have easy access to a gun.

    Due to the nature of a gun, that attempt will more than likely be successful.

    No easy access to the gun, however, and the resolve of the impulse gets replaced with seeking a method of death, which in turn gives us time to doubt and let the impulse subside and we either decide not to try to kill ourselves, or we end up finding a less lethal method which can therefore more easily malfunction, and we survive.

    For the vast majority of people that go through an episode like that--where they find themselves on that precipice actually looking for the most efficient way to kill themselves and then have that impulse subside or that attempt fail--there is no second attempt. It was a one time trip to the edge of the abyss and--HOLY SHIT I ALMOST DID IT--and then life lessons.

    For a smaller percentage deeper down the abyss, not so lucky. For an even smaller percentage, won't stop until death.

    But for the larger portion, it is the combination of ease of access and belief in the surety of death that drives so many successful suicides that otherwise would not have succeeded had it not been so easy and/or definitive at a crucial point in the impulse.

    Wishing to commit suicide is rarely a permanent, ongoing, unwavering condition where the person simply will not stop picking up anything within reach to try to kill themselves with until they succeed.

    For many, it is simply the fact that there is no easy out available to them that stops them from even attempting it.

    It's not a proposition from Wittgenstein and it is abundantly documented accounting for literally all variables. Literally anything Loren posts has been fully and completely accounted for in dozens upon dozens of studies that ALL come to the exact same conclusions.
    Which still doesn't explain the observation that we don't see those suicides in high crime areas.
    Because the factors that contribute to crime (high population density, significant income inequality, educational differences, high social contact frequency) are different than those that contribute to suicide (isolation, lack of educational opportunities, repetitive living, lack of "adventure", culture of alcohol abuse, erc.)

    We don't see higher city suicides because rural living is the underlying driver of that suicide. People blame their surroundings for their problems: if they see isolation, they blame the isolation and remove themselves from it, because they can't escape it. If they see a hoard of people, they blame the people, which can be removed through violent ends.

    Both ends are facilitated with guns.

    I mean shit, kids bully each other on the playground, you wouldn't go giving THEM guns in addition to red rubber ballls, would you? It's not the gun, right, it's the children, the CHILDREN should be better.

    Maybe we can just admit that when humans have the means for violence available, we handle that power badly: we use it.

  8. Top | #128
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    5,005
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    This is painfully simple. The impulse to kill yourself can overcome any one of us at literally any moment. It is not always a permanent one. It can come in a wave or it can settle in like a puddle.

    If we have access in particular to a gun--which we all know is one of the most definitive ways to kill ourselves, thus feeding into and actually strengthening the resolve that is part of the nature of the impulse--when that impulse comes over us, statistics prove that there is a four-fold increase in risk that we will act on that impulse and attempt to kill ourselves if we know we have easy access to a gun.

    Due to the nature of a gun, that attempt will more than likely be successful.

    No easy access to the gun, however, and the resolve of the impulse gets replaced with seeking a method of death, which in turn gives us time to doubt and let the impulse subside and we either decide not to try to kill ourselves, or we end up finding a less lethal method which can therefore more easily malfunction, and we survive.

    For the vast majority of people that go through an episode like that--where they find themselves on that precipice actually looking for the most efficient way to kill themselves and then have that impulse subside or that attempt fail--there is no second attempt. It was a one time trip to the edge of the abyss and--HOLY SHIT I ALMOST DID IT--and then life lessons.

    For a smaller percentage deeper down the abyss, not so lucky. For an even smaller percentage, won't stop until death.

    But for the larger portion, it is the combination of ease of access and belief in the surety of death that drives so many successful suicides that otherwise would not have succeeded had it not been so easy and/or definitive at a crucial point in the impulse.

    Wishing to commit suicide is rarely a permanent, ongoing, unwavering condition where the person simply will not stop picking up anything within reach to try to kill themselves with until they succeed.

    For many, it is simply the fact that there is no easy out available to them that stops them from even attempting it.

    It's not a proposition from Wittgenstein and it is abundantly documented accounting for literally all variables. Literally anything Loren posts has been fully and completely accounted for in dozens upon dozens of studies that ALL come to the exact same conclusions.
    Which still doesn't explain the observation that we don't see those suicides in high crime areas.
    That has been explained to you numerous times and you're actively ignoring it. Living in densely populated areas makes people more likely to kill others but less likely to kill themselves. So, even though gun access is a major shared causal factor that increases the odds of both types of intentional deaths, the opposing causal influence of other factors like pop density means that regional variations in suicide and homicide rates are not positively correlated with each other.

  9. Top | #129
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,886
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    This is painfully simple. The impulse to kill yourself can overcome any one of us at literally any moment. It is not always a permanent one. It can come in a wave or it can settle in like a puddle.

    If we have access in particular to a gun--which we all know is one of the most definitive ways to kill ourselves, thus feeding into and actually strengthening the resolve that is part of the nature of the impulse--when that impulse comes over us, statistics prove that there is a four-fold increase in risk that we will act on that impulse and attempt to kill ourselves if we know we have easy access to a gun.

    Due to the nature of a gun, that attempt will more than likely be successful.

    No easy access to the gun, however, and the resolve of the impulse gets replaced with seeking a method of death, which in turn gives us time to doubt and let the impulse subside and we either decide not to try to kill ourselves, or we end up finding a less lethal method which can therefore more easily malfunction, and we survive.

    For the vast majority of people that go through an episode like that--where they find themselves on that precipice actually looking for the most efficient way to kill themselves and then have that impulse subside or that attempt fail--there is no second attempt. It was a one time trip to the edge of the abyss and--HOLY SHIT I ALMOST DID IT--and then life lessons.

    For a smaller percentage deeper down the abyss, not so lucky. For an even smaller percentage, won't stop until death.

    But for the larger portion, it is the combination of ease of access and belief in the surety of death that drives so many successful suicides that otherwise would not have succeeded had it not been so easy and/or definitive at a crucial point in the impulse.

    Wishing to commit suicide is rarely a permanent, ongoing, unwavering condition where the person simply will not stop picking up anything within reach to try to kill themselves with until they succeed.

    For many, it is simply the fact that there is no easy out available to them that stops them from even attempting it.

    It's not a proposition from Wittgenstein and it is abundantly documented accounting for literally all variables. Literally anything Loren posts has been fully and completely accounted for in dozens upon dozens of studies that ALL come to the exact same conclusions.
    Which still doesn't explain the observation that we don't see those suicides in high crime areas.
    That has been explained to you numerous times and you're actively ignoring it. Living in densely populated areas makes people more likely to kill others but less likely to kill themselves. So, even though gun access is a major shared causal factor that increases the odds of both types of intentional deaths, the opposing causal influence of other factors like pop density means that regional variations in suicide and homicide rates are not positively correlated with each other.
    The correlation between population density and suicide was only observed for people ages 15 to 19 that move from a city to rural environments. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/...-suicide/6197/
    The "more likely to kill others" is not evidenced at all.

  10. Top | #130
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    5,005
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post

    That has been explained to you numerous times and you're actively ignoring it. Living in densely populated areas makes people more likely to kill others but less likely to kill themselves. So, even though gun access is a major shared causal factor that increases the odds of both types of intentional deaths, the opposing causal influence of other factors like pop density means that regional variations in suicide and homicide rates are not positively correlated with each other.
    The correlation between population density and suicide was only observed for people ages 15 to 19 that move from a city to rural environments. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/...-suicide/6197/
    No, you've completely misread that article. First, the part of about those who move from cities to rural areas is not part of the data. That was merely a speculation about one factor that might contribute the relationship. The result for 15 to 19 was the relationship with overall death rate (deaths of every type including accidents). There is no strong relationship with overall death rates and pop density, precisely because density is strongly positively related to homicides but strongly negatively related to suicides. The relationship specifically with suicide was negative for all ages (more suicide with lower density), just more pronounced for teenagers.

    Also, CDC data shows that between 2001 and 2015, suicide rates across age levels in rural counties were almost 50% higher than in large metro counties, with small metro counties falling in the middle. . In case you don't know it, "rural" vs "metro" is defined by pop density.


    "Overall, suicide death rates for rural counties (17.32 per 100,000 people) were higher than medium/small metropolitan counties (14.86) and large metropolitan counties (11.92)."



    The "more likely to kill others" is not evidenced at all.
    Wrong again. Stats from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service show that homicide rates (aka "killing others) are almost 60% higher in metro than rural counties. IOW, greater pop density heavily decreases suicide rates while increasing homicide rates, which creates a negative relation between the two rates that works to mask that role that other factors like gun access have in increasing both.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •