5 ms·

> in determining how many people get shot The argument is that legal guns increase gun deaths but reduce other types of crime, either by substitution (e.g. red

> in determining how many people get shot The argument is that legal guns increase gun deaths but reduce other types of crime, either by substitution (e.g. reducing knife crime) or by deterrence (e.g. reducing home burglaries). That claim has its own burden of proof that it needs to meet before it can be accepted, but looking at other countries and saying "More guns means more shootings" isn't addressing the actual argument.

newacct583 6y ago
What is the "actual argument" then? Gun deaths are... pretty bad. Lumping them in with burglaries on a 1:1 basis seems like poor moral calculus, no? The point is that perspective matters. You want to treat "crime" as a single thing because it seems like "the actual argument" to you, and when I see that same argument it looks like senseless spin because it's trying to dilute the US's outrageous homicide rate in an analysis by comparing it to burglaries in Amsterdam or whatever.
- hntrader 6y ago
  > Lumping them in with burglaries on a 1:1 basis seems like poor moral calculus, no Yes, and I'm not advocating for that. My only point is that "less gun deaths in countries without legal guns" isn't addressing the original claim that other crimes have decreased as a consequence of legal guns. I'm not taking a position on whether that claim is true, or what exactly they mean by that, which are both questions I also would like to be answered.
- flyingfences 6y ago
  I think one part of the moral calculus that's missing here is who the "victim" is in each case. A substitution of somebody being shot for somebody being burled is obviously not a good outcome; on the other hand, a substitution of a burgler being shot for an innocent average joe being burgled is... still not great, but you must admit it shifts the scales.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Effectively zero gun violence is deployed in defense, either of person or property. No "burglers" are being shot, statistically. Guns are deployed in anger, or in escalation of existing violence.
austincheney 6y ago
The argument that more common access to firearms more frequently results in more gun deaths is misleading when considering many of those deaths are self inflicted injuries, such as suicide attempts. Obama correctly addressed this when he pushed for gun reform near the end of his tenure. In other words if disqualifying access to firearms on the basis of mental health concerns you simultaneously increase lawful access to firearms and reduce gun deaths related to those new purchases.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > The argument that more common access to firearms more frequently results in more gun deaths is misleading when considering many of those deaths are self inflicted injuries, such as suicide attempts. Suicides don't count? For the record: I'm 100% in favor of public policy that results in large decreases in the suicide rate.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    It’s not that suicides don’t count. The argument is misleading because suicides absolutely do count, but for many people the the subject of gun deaths incorrectly implies homicides.
  - zepto 6y ago
    They count, but they aren’t murders. They also don’t count 1 for 1. It’s much easier to substitute something else for a gun when committing suicide than when murdering someone.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > It’s much easier to substitute something else for a gun when committing suicide than when murdering someone. That idea seems to be belied by the upthread assertion that gun deaths disproportionately represent suicides.
      - LorenPechtel 6y ago

newacct583 6y ago

What is the "actual argument" then? Gun deaths are... pretty bad. Lumping them in with burglaries on a 1:1 basis seems like poor moral calculus, no? The point is that perspective matters. You want to treat "crime" as a single thing because it seems like "the actual argument" to you, and when I see that same argument it looks like senseless spin because it's trying to dilute the US's outrageous homicide rate in an analysis by comparing it to burglaries in Amsterdam or whatever.

hntrader 6y ago
> Lumping them in with burglaries on a 1:1 basis seems like poor moral calculus, no Yes, and I'm not advocating for that. My only point is that "less gun deaths in countries without legal guns" isn't addressing the original claim that other crimes have decreased as a consequence of legal guns. I'm not taking a position on whether that claim is true, or what exactly they mean by that, which are both questions I also would like to be answered.
flyingfences 6y ago
I think one part of the moral calculus that's missing here is who the "victim" is in each case. A substitution of somebody being shot for somebody being burled is obviously not a good outcome; on the other hand, a substitution of a burgler being shot for an innocent average joe being burgled is... still not great, but you must admit it shifts the scales.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Effectively zero gun violence is deployed in defense, either of person or property. No "burglers" are being shot, statistically. Guns are deployed in anger, or in escalation of existing violence.

austincheney 6y ago

The argument that more common access to firearms more frequently results in more gun deaths is misleading when considering many of those deaths are self inflicted injuries, such as suicide attempts. Obama correctly addressed this when he pushed for gun reform near the end of his tenure. In other words if disqualifying access to firearms on the basis of mental health concerns you simultaneously increase lawful access to firearms and reduce gun deaths related to those new purchases.

newacct583 6y ago
> The argument that more common access to firearms more frequently results in more gun deaths is misleading when considering many of those deaths are self inflicted injuries, such as suicide attempts. Suicides don't count? For the record: I'm 100% in favor of public policy that results in large decreases in the suicide rate.
- austincheney 6y ago
  It’s not that suicides don’t count. The argument is misleading because suicides absolutely do count, but for many people the the subject of gun deaths incorrectly implies homicides.
- zepto 6y ago
  They count, but they aren’t murders. They also don’t count 1 for 1. It’s much easier to substitute something else for a gun when committing suicide than when murdering someone.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > It’s much easier to substitute something else for a gun when committing suicide than when murdering someone. That idea seems to be belied by the upthread assertion that gun deaths disproportionately represent suicides.
    - LorenPechtel 6y ago