4 ms·

Why would you arbitrarily exclude suicide from gun violence? Guns are a distinct problem because they make serious injury/death incredibly easy and simple. That

Why would you arbitrarily exclude suicide from gun violence? Guns are a distinct problem because they make serious injury/death incredibly easy and simple. That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate.

whatshisface 7y ago
Taking guns away from mentally healthy people who like them under the justification that you'll also be taking them away from suicidal people will never fly. If you don't like guns then the issue is whether you'd rather have one group of people who aren't you enjoying guns, or another group of people who aren't you being saved from themselves. If you do like guns, then you'd be guaranteed to not vote for any politician who was going to take away something you liked under the assumption that you might be a loony. It's interesting how this falls in to the typically conservative "legislate the vice away" approach to social ills. Conservatives often want to take something that is causing harm to some people, and ban everyone from having it (drugs, alcohol prohibition, free love), under the argument that the light enjoyment of the many is not worth a few people having their lives ruined through lack of self-control. However because by a pure accident of history it's the rural voting block that is conservative and likes guns, it's typically-liberal people who want to legislate the vice away, arguing that the fun that a subculture is having is not worth the suicide deaths. I think this is because people only apply the utility calculation to other people, but treat themselves like they have free will. Everyone thinks that they should be treated as if they can be responsible, but nobody wants to treat other people like they can be responsible.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
briffle 7y ago
In my state, they keep trying to ban 'assault style weapons' even though almost all gun crime and suicides are handguns... The last time they tried to define what an assault style weapon was, my Ruger 10/22 would have counted as one...
- dixie_land 7y ago
  > "tried" Lucky you're not in WA where a 10/22 IS an "assault rifle"
- masonic 7y ago
  Even some 19th century rifles were banned in the Feinstein/Clinton ban of 1994-2004.
brokenkebab 7y ago
That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate. There are two logical mistakes in this reasoning: first, there's an implicit equation "prohibited guns"="no guns", and it's obviously not true, and explicit statement that less guns - less murders, and even less suicides, which is provably false. Right now, I live in a country where having just a knife in your pocket can land you in prison easily. Somehow, both murder, and suicide rates are still slightly above region's average. If you don't like my anonymous witnessing, you can arrange world countries by gun prohibition/severe restriction, then look at murder, and suicide rates - you'll find no correlation. Simple as that. And before tribal instinct pushes someone to downvote this, take into account: I'm not even a US citizen/resident, and have no stakes in your politics.
- phil248 7y ago
  The phrase "a world without guns" was a rhetorical shortcut to describe a nation where obtaining a firearm is significantly more difficult than in the United States. I was also not talking about rates of suicide or murder, but rather success rates based on the tool/method used.
  - brokenkebab 7y ago
    rather success rates based on the tool/method used. This interpretation doesn't lead us anywhere too. The most popular method to commit suicide world-wide (hanging) has near 100% effectiveness.
    - phil248 7y ago
      Wow, no, it does not. You're just making things up?
      - brokenkebab 7y ago
        I think showing your knowledge would be better then this ad hominem.
weberc2 7y ago
Because that’s what people mean by “gun violence” 99% of the time and the distinction is reflected in policy—you don’t ban large magazines and suppressors to reduce the suicide rate, after all.

whatshisface 7y ago

Taking guns away from mentally healthy people who like them under the justification that you'll also be taking them away from suicidal people will never fly. If you don't like guns then the issue is whether you'd rather have one group of people who aren't you enjoying guns, or another group of people who aren't you being saved from themselves. If you do like guns, then you'd be guaranteed to not vote for any politician who was going to take away something you liked under the assumption that you might be a loony. It's interesting how this falls in to the typically conservative "legislate the vice away" approach to social ills. Conservatives often want to take something that is causing harm to some people, and ban everyone from having it (drugs, alcohol prohibition, free love), under the argument that the light enjoyment of the many is not worth a few people having their lives ruined through lack of self-control. However because by a pure accident of history it's the rural voting block that is conservative and likes guns, it's typically-liberal people who want to legislate the vice away, arguing that the fun that a subculture is having is not worth the suicide deaths. I think this is because people only apply the utility calculation to other people, but treat themselves like they have free will. Everyone thinks that they should be treated as if they can be responsible, but nobody wants to treat other people like they can be responsible.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

briffle 7y ago

In my state, they keep trying to ban 'assault style weapons' even though almost all gun crime and suicides are handguns... The last time they tried to define what an assault style weapon was, my Ruger 10/22 would have counted as one...

dixie_land 7y ago
> "tried" Lucky you're not in WA where a 10/22 IS an "assault rifle"
masonic 7y ago
Even some 19th century rifles were banned in the Feinstein/Clinton ban of 1994-2004.

brokenkebab 7y ago

That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate. There are two logical mistakes in this reasoning: first, there's an implicit equation "prohibited guns"="no guns", and it's obviously not true, and explicit statement that less guns - less murders, and even less suicides, which is provably false. Right now, I live in a country where having just a knife in your pocket can land you in prison easily. Somehow, both murder, and suicide rates are still slightly above region's average. If you don't like my anonymous witnessing, you can arrange world countries by gun prohibition/severe restriction, then look at murder, and suicide rates - you'll find no correlation. Simple as that. And before tribal instinct pushes someone to downvote this, take into account: I'm not even a US citizen/resident, and have no stakes in your politics.

phil248 7y ago
The phrase "a world without guns" was a rhetorical shortcut to describe a nation where obtaining a firearm is significantly more difficult than in the United States. I was also not talking about rates of suicide or murder, but rather success rates based on the tool/method used.
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  rather success rates based on the tool/method used. This interpretation doesn't lead us anywhere too. The most popular method to commit suicide world-wide (hanging) has near 100% effectiveness.
  - phil248 7y ago
    Wow, no, it does not. You're just making things up?
    - brokenkebab 7y ago
      I think showing your knowledge would be better then this ad hominem.

weberc2 7y ago

Because that’s what people mean by “gun violence” 99% of the time and the distinction is reflected in policy—you don’t ban large magazines and suppressors to reduce the suicide rate, after all.