David:
President Obama recently jumped up on his soap box and said that he has no qualms about politicizing the deaths of innocent people, just to gain some support for banning all guns. I say "ban" because not one of the ideas he has ever put forth would have prevented this, or any of the recent shootings that have occurred. The only thing that might have made a difference would be a total ban on guns, and since the Supreme court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment states that every individual has the right to own guns, that is not going to happen. So, the President's tactic seems to be a shallow gesture to stir people up without actually addressing the real issue, which is violence in the culture, and a lack of true mental health services.
Doug:
Translation: "How dare the President use a tragedy to talk about how to prevent tragedies! How dare he use the deaths of innocent victims to try to prevent further deaths of innocent victims! There is no solution around 'gun safety', but only the banning of all guns! He can't do that! He should realize that there is nothing to do but blame it on people with mental health issues! They are the ones committing all of this gun violence!"
Why is it then that we are the only developed country on earth that has this problem? Why are we such an outlier in gun deaths?
David:
Such outrage. Especially when all you've said is false. Most of the gun violence in this country is not caused by people with mental illness, but by young black men. I don't see the President making any push at all to address this fact. However, the mass shootings that the President is ranting about were caused by people who appear to have significant mental illness. The President has not proposed an answer for either of these real problems. And we are not an outlier, but actually commit far fewer gun deaths for the number of guns we have than dozens of other countries.
Doug:
I don't know anyone who is claiming that this data is "false." Do you have any evidence that suggests what you claim? I only see that we are outliers (when compared to our peers) on all measures in terms of gun ownership and deaths.
David:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Interesting that to find a graph that appears to show some huge discrepancy, you had one that limits the study to "high-income" countries and indicates deaths in children and teens. The reason you had to do that is there are many other countries that have a much higher gun-related death rate per 100,000 than the US, including Mexico and almost all of the other Central and Southern American Countries. Many African nations also have a much higher rate. This is true even though the US has much higher gun ownership than any of those countries.
So, your graph helps to show that limiting guns does not have an impact in the rate of gun violence. Thanks.
Doug:
Wait, what is your point? That Brazil and many African countries are worse than we are at gun-related deaths? What do you aspire to?
David:
You've already claimed twice in this blog that we are worse than any other country on the planet on all measures related to gun deaths. That is patently false. Just admit you're wrong, and leave poor Brazil alone.
Doug:
I'm comparing the US to other "high income" or "developed" countries. I never said we are the worst. If I said that we are "among the worst", would that then make my claim go from "patently false" to "patently true"? I don't understand what you are arguing. My point is simple: we have way, way, way, too many gun deaths in this country, and it can't be explained away by looking at other countries similar to ours.
David:
I agree that there is too much violence in our society, but again, the data shows that there are countries that have much more limited gun ownership, and yet have much greater gun-related crime. Limiting guns does not have an impact in the rate of gun violence.
Doug:
What? How do you come to that conclusion? That, really, we should be killing many more people, if we were to keep up with gun ownership percentage? No, there is a correlation between having a lot of guns, and having a lot of deaths. That is pretty clear.
David:
No. There is no clear correlation. But there are many other variables at play. Somalia has fewer guns, and yet they are perpetually at war, with themselves and everyone else. So, they have a high percentage of gun-related deaths. Sometimes, the answers are not so simple, and statistics can be deceiving.
Doug:
Seriously, you want to say: "Nah nah, we are better than Somalia!"
David:
We are considerably better than Somalia. But no, I'm just providing some insight that there are variables other than guns that contribute to a violent society. Guns are the means, but violent people intent on committing murder will find other means. We need to focus on the reasons for violence in our society. It's the only way to find real solutions.
Let's bring it a little closer to home. Indiana has some of the least intrusive gun laws in the country. Illinois has some of the strictest, and at one point, even banned handguns. And yet, Indiana has a much lower violent crime rate than Illinois. In fact, I believe Indiana, as a state, has a lower gun-crime rate than the city of Chicago. It's not the number of guns, or gun access.
Doug:
No, you can't claim that by searching for a single instance of such a situation! That is not how science works. You have to compare all states' gun ownership and violence.
David:
A true fact is just that, a true fact. Science is a collection of facts to prove or disprove any theory. Your previous graph also indicates deaths in a group that cannot even buy guns legally (teens and children). It also indicates that the problem is not the guns, but violence in society, and a lack of values.
Doug:
You going to legislate values? No, how about some tougher gun laws.
David:
You're looking for a quick fix. Unfortunately, none of the legislation being proposed would likely change anything. There are already plenty of laws on the books (that are followed by law-abiding citizens, not criminals) that have made it more difficult for an average citizen to purchase a gun, but with no effect on crime.
Doug:
Guns have changed a lot since the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps it is time to look at the issue (and the amendment) carefully to see if there is something that can be done. This video makes the point in a direct way:
David:
The 2nd Amendment was put in place specifically because England did not permit gun ownership by the people. Neither did France under her kings. It was a means to keep the general population under control. With the birth of a new nation, conceived in individual liberty, the idea that government could take that liberty away by force is prevented by an armed populace. We have some regulations in place. For instance, you can't own an operational army tank or a nuclear bomb. But the idea is that you should be able to be armed to the same degree as a soldier in your own military.
Again, none of the "solutions" being proposed would have any effect on preventing the man in this video from obtaining any gun (if he isn't a criminal, or has a history of mental health issues). A musket will still kill someone, just as it did in the revolutionary war. We need to provide a larger net for the mentally unstable to prevent an episode like the one this video dramatizes. As we've seen across the world, in places where they have no access to guns, they turn to bombs that kill dozens, and wound hundreds, in an instant. I'd make a video to illustrate that, but you can just turn on the news...
Doug:
You can't keep up with the US Department of Defense. If you think that you can, we don't need to spend money on defense. They have drones and robots! If you think you and your neighborhood vigilantes can defend against an assault from our DoD, then you are sadly delusional. That is a ridiculous argument for having so many guns that will do nothing in a battle with the US DoD.
David:
You should be able to have both a drone and a robot. And a flying car. At a minimum, you should be able to defend yourself against someone breaking into your home.
Doug:
Why? Because violent crime is up? No, it is down. Way down. The lowest it has ever been on record. You can't tell this from the news, though. They make it seem like we live in scary times, but the opposite is true.
David:
That is absolutely correct! And you know what? Gun ownership has skyrocketed in the past fifteen years! More guns, and yet less violent crime. Thanks again for your help in proving my point.
Doug:
Unfortunately, even though the overall violent crime rate is down, the rate of homicides with firearms is increasing. So, more guns has lead to more firearm homicides.
David:
As your FBI graph points out (if you follow the actual plotted points), the firearm homicide rate is stable since1995, and has actually decreased since its peak in the early 1990s. If you remove the data points from 1965 and 1985, the numbers have been stable since 1970. All, while gun ownership has risen considerably:
Now, lets get back on track to the real issues with the discussion of mass shootings: access to mental health care. The President has not put forward any plan to deal with this true crisis, and doesn't seem interested. Neither does Hillary.
Doug:
"Fewer than 5 percent of gun crimes are committed by people with mental illness; fewer than 5 percent of people with mental illnesses commit violent crimes," according to Myth of the Autistic Shooter. To most people it is pretty clear what the problem is, and it doesn't have much to do with mental health care. It has to do with too many guns.
David:
The President is talking about mass shootings. Hillary is talking about preventing mass shootings. All of the mass shootings they are referring to have been caused by people with mental illness. You seem a bit disconnected from the President and his message. Unfortunately, The President and Mrs. Clinton are disconnected from reality. Their quips are not solutions.
https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/07/hillary-clintons-simple-minded-gun-contr
Doug:
I agree! Quips are not solutions. Let's get tough on gun ownership, and seriously reduce the number of guns in this country.
David:
Finally we agree. Getting tough on gun ownership will likely reduce the number of legally-owned guns. But it won't accomplish anything else, like ending violence or the reasons for it.
President Obama recently jumped up on his soap box and said that he has no qualms about politicizing the deaths of innocent people, just to gain some support for banning all guns. I say "ban" because not one of the ideas he has ever put forth would have prevented this, or any of the recent shootings that have occurred. The only thing that might have made a difference would be a total ban on guns, and since the Supreme court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment states that every individual has the right to own guns, that is not going to happen. So, the President's tactic seems to be a shallow gesture to stir people up without actually addressing the real issue, which is violence in the culture, and a lack of true mental health services.
Doug:
Translation: "How dare the President use a tragedy to talk about how to prevent tragedies! How dare he use the deaths of innocent victims to try to prevent further deaths of innocent victims! There is no solution around 'gun safety', but only the banning of all guns! He can't do that! He should realize that there is nothing to do but blame it on people with mental health issues! They are the ones committing all of this gun violence!"
Why is it then that we are the only developed country on earth that has this problem? Why are we such an outlier in gun deaths?
David:
Such outrage. Especially when all you've said is false. Most of the gun violence in this country is not caused by people with mental illness, but by young black men. I don't see the President making any push at all to address this fact. However, the mass shootings that the President is ranting about were caused by people who appear to have significant mental illness. The President has not proposed an answer for either of these real problems. And we are not an outlier, but actually commit far fewer gun deaths for the number of guns we have than dozens of other countries.
Doug:
I don't know anyone who is claiming that this data is "false." Do you have any evidence that suggests what you claim? I only see that we are outliers (when compared to our peers) on all measures in terms of gun ownership and deaths.
David:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Interesting that to find a graph that appears to show some huge discrepancy, you had one that limits the study to "high-income" countries and indicates deaths in children and teens. The reason you had to do that is there are many other countries that have a much higher gun-related death rate per 100,000 than the US, including Mexico and almost all of the other Central and Southern American Countries. Many African nations also have a much higher rate. This is true even though the US has much higher gun ownership than any of those countries.
So, your graph helps to show that limiting guns does not have an impact in the rate of gun violence. Thanks.
Doug:
Wait, what is your point? That Brazil and many African countries are worse than we are at gun-related deaths? What do you aspire to?
David:
You've already claimed twice in this blog that we are worse than any other country on the planet on all measures related to gun deaths. That is patently false. Just admit you're wrong, and leave poor Brazil alone.
Doug:
I'm comparing the US to other "high income" or "developed" countries. I never said we are the worst. If I said that we are "among the worst", would that then make my claim go from "patently false" to "patently true"? I don't understand what you are arguing. My point is simple: we have way, way, way, too many gun deaths in this country, and it can't be explained away by looking at other countries similar to ours.
David:
I agree that there is too much violence in our society, but again, the data shows that there are countries that have much more limited gun ownership, and yet have much greater gun-related crime. Limiting guns does not have an impact in the rate of gun violence.
Doug:
What? How do you come to that conclusion? That, really, we should be killing many more people, if we were to keep up with gun ownership percentage? No, there is a correlation between having a lot of guns, and having a lot of deaths. That is pretty clear.
David:
No. There is no clear correlation. But there are many other variables at play. Somalia has fewer guns, and yet they are perpetually at war, with themselves and everyone else. So, they have a high percentage of gun-related deaths. Sometimes, the answers are not so simple, and statistics can be deceiving.
Doug:
Seriously, you want to say: "Nah nah, we are better than Somalia!"
David:
We are considerably better than Somalia. But no, I'm just providing some insight that there are variables other than guns that contribute to a violent society. Guns are the means, but violent people intent on committing murder will find other means. We need to focus on the reasons for violence in our society. It's the only way to find real solutions.
Let's bring it a little closer to home. Indiana has some of the least intrusive gun laws in the country. Illinois has some of the strictest, and at one point, even banned handguns. And yet, Indiana has a much lower violent crime rate than Illinois. In fact, I believe Indiana, as a state, has a lower gun-crime rate than the city of Chicago. It's not the number of guns, or gun access.
Doug:
No, you can't claim that by searching for a single instance of such a situation! That is not how science works. You have to compare all states' gun ownership and violence.
David:
A true fact is just that, a true fact. Science is a collection of facts to prove or disprove any theory. Your previous graph also indicates deaths in a group that cannot even buy guns legally (teens and children). It also indicates that the problem is not the guns, but violence in society, and a lack of values.
Doug:
You going to legislate values? No, how about some tougher gun laws.
David:
You're looking for a quick fix. Unfortunately, none of the legislation being proposed would likely change anything. There are already plenty of laws on the books (that are followed by law-abiding citizens, not criminals) that have made it more difficult for an average citizen to purchase a gun, but with no effect on crime.
Doug:
Guns have changed a lot since the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps it is time to look at the issue (and the amendment) carefully to see if there is something that can be done. This video makes the point in a direct way:
David:
The 2nd Amendment was put in place specifically because England did not permit gun ownership by the people. Neither did France under her kings. It was a means to keep the general population under control. With the birth of a new nation, conceived in individual liberty, the idea that government could take that liberty away by force is prevented by an armed populace. We have some regulations in place. For instance, you can't own an operational army tank or a nuclear bomb. But the idea is that you should be able to be armed to the same degree as a soldier in your own military.
Again, none of the "solutions" being proposed would have any effect on preventing the man in this video from obtaining any gun (if he isn't a criminal, or has a history of mental health issues). A musket will still kill someone, just as it did in the revolutionary war. We need to provide a larger net for the mentally unstable to prevent an episode like the one this video dramatizes. As we've seen across the world, in places where they have no access to guns, they turn to bombs that kill dozens, and wound hundreds, in an instant. I'd make a video to illustrate that, but you can just turn on the news...
Doug:
You can't keep up with the US Department of Defense. If you think that you can, we don't need to spend money on defense. They have drones and robots! If you think you and your neighborhood vigilantes can defend against an assault from our DoD, then you are sadly delusional. That is a ridiculous argument for having so many guns that will do nothing in a battle with the US DoD.
David:
You should be able to have both a drone and a robot. And a flying car. At a minimum, you should be able to defend yourself against someone breaking into your home.
Doug:
Why? Because violent crime is up? No, it is down. Way down. The lowest it has ever been on record. You can't tell this from the news, though. They make it seem like we live in scary times, but the opposite is true.
David:
That is absolutely correct! And you know what? Gun ownership has skyrocketed in the past fifteen years! More guns, and yet less violent crime. Thanks again for your help in proving my point.
Doug:
Unfortunately, even though the overall violent crime rate is down, the rate of homicides with firearms is increasing. So, more guns has lead to more firearm homicides.
David:
As your FBI graph points out (if you follow the actual plotted points), the firearm homicide rate is stable since1995, and has actually decreased since its peak in the early 1990s. If you remove the data points from 1965 and 1985, the numbers have been stable since 1970. All, while gun ownership has risen considerably:
Now, lets get back on track to the real issues with the discussion of mass shootings: access to mental health care. The President has not put forward any plan to deal with this true crisis, and doesn't seem interested. Neither does Hillary.
Doug:
"Fewer than 5 percent of gun crimes are committed by people with mental illness; fewer than 5 percent of people with mental illnesses commit violent crimes," according to Myth of the Autistic Shooter. To most people it is pretty clear what the problem is, and it doesn't have much to do with mental health care. It has to do with too many guns.
David:
The President is talking about mass shootings. Hillary is talking about preventing mass shootings. All of the mass shootings they are referring to have been caused by people with mental illness. You seem a bit disconnected from the President and his message. Unfortunately, The President and Mrs. Clinton are disconnected from reality. Their quips are not solutions.
https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/07/hillary-clintons-simple-minded-gun-contr
Doug:
I agree! Quips are not solutions. Let's get tough on gun ownership, and seriously reduce the number of guns in this country.
David:
Finally we agree. Getting tough on gun ownership will likely reduce the number of legally-owned guns. But it won't accomplish anything else, like ending violence or the reasons for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!