4 ms·

Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. For every pers

Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them forth as common, why not look at common events to start with? You'll get much better policy and understanding from that.

xienze 4y ago
> Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice. Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of people. No background check in the world would deny my purchase. What now?
- relaxing 4y ago
  That’s not realistic. People don’t “just snap.” In any case, your hypothetical model citizen wouldn’t be bothered by background checks and waiting periods, so there’s no harm in restrictions that prevent crimes that would be stopped by a mandatory cooling off period.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    The Vegas shooter had no priors and no discernable motive, so people definitely do "just snap." The Texas clocktower shooter also appears to have gone crazy over a relatively short period of time due to a brain tumor.
tristan957 4y ago
> For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. The CDC disagrees with you. In the study that is fairly well known at this point, the CDC estimates 500k defensive gun uses every year in the US. Note that I am giving you the lowest number in their range. However there are about 40k deaths due to gun usage every year. 75% of all deaths due to gun usage are suicides. In actuality, there are 10k deaths due to gun usage we need to look at during discussion of gun regulation in the United States.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  We completely need to look at suicides as well. At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire, which means interrupting the act without any other intervention will save a life. Making it harder to commit suicide with a gun could save 20k+ people a year. Which actually makes it (from a public health perspective) even more important than preventing all other forms of gun death. Also, since I've never heard of this CDC study, you should provide a link if you plan to cite it. I think it's more common in your social circle/internet bubble than with the general population.
  - carapace 4y ago
    I've heard this argument before and it seems off to me somehow, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. > At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire How do you know? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious. We obviously can't ask someone who was successful at committing suicide about their mental/emotional state, eh? For the sake of discussion let's assume the point. These suicides by gun due to "a fleeting desire" would be presumably among people who already had guns? How fleeting is the desire? Is the idea that if someone who has been struck by the "fleeting desire" to kill themself has to go get a gun first then there's time for the "fleeting desire" to wear off before they can act on it?
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Non-snarky answer: You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts. The point isn't that people buy a gun to commit suicide, it's that if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.
      - carapace 4y ago
        Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. FWIW the argument still seems weak to me. The methodology here is still unclear: > You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts You find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them (for how long?) to see if they try again? An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again (within some time frame)? Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? - - - - > if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way. Okay, but then what's the intervention here? Are you saying that we remove guns from everyone just in case someone has a really bad day and offs themself? (I do not mean to sound flippant, I hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson here, RIP, who arguably should not have had access to firearms in his condition.)
notch656a 4y ago
The most 'common' event for someone buying a gun is that the shoot it at the range a few times a year, maybe hunt with it occasionally or put it in their waistband as a means of self-defense. If you want common to the exclusion of the less common, there it is. If you're not involved in gang banging / drugs then in the extremely uncommon chance you die by firearm, it's most likely it was a choice of suicide. In Europe and many other developed nations with harsh firearm laws, suicide via physician is an option so a more comforting and society-approved solution rather than firearm becomes more favored for suicide.

xienze 4y ago

> Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice. Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of people. No background check in the world would deny my purchase. What now?

relaxing 4y ago
That’s not realistic. People don’t “just snap.” In any case, your hypothetical model citizen wouldn’t be bothered by background checks and waiting periods, so there’s no harm in restrictions that prevent crimes that would be stopped by a mandatory cooling off period.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  The Vegas shooter had no priors and no discernable motive, so people definitely do "just snap." The Texas clocktower shooter also appears to have gone crazy over a relatively short period of time due to a brain tumor.

tristan957 4y ago

> For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. The CDC disagrees with you. In the study that is fairly well known at this point, the CDC estimates 500k defensive gun uses every year in the US. Note that I am giving you the lowest number in their range. However there are about 40k deaths due to gun usage every year. 75% of all deaths due to gun usage are suicides. In actuality, there are 10k deaths due to gun usage we need to look at during discussion of gun regulation in the United States.

HWR_14 4y ago
We completely need to look at suicides as well. At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire, which means interrupting the act without any other intervention will save a life. Making it harder to commit suicide with a gun could save 20k+ people a year. Which actually makes it (from a public health perspective) even more important than preventing all other forms of gun death. Also, since I've never heard of this CDC study, you should provide a link if you plan to cite it. I think it's more common in your social circle/internet bubble than with the general population.
- carapace 4y ago
  I've heard this argument before and it seems off to me somehow, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. > At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire How do you know? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious. We obviously can't ask someone who was successful at committing suicide about their mental/emotional state, eh? For the sake of discussion let's assume the point. These suicides by gun due to "a fleeting desire" would be presumably among people who already had guns? How fleeting is the desire? Is the idea that if someone who has been struck by the "fleeting desire" to kill themself has to go get a gun first then there's time for the "fleeting desire" to wear off before they can act on it?
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Non-snarky answer: You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts. The point isn't that people buy a gun to commit suicide, it's that if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.
    - carapace 4y ago
      Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. FWIW the argument still seems weak to me. The methodology here is still unclear: > You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts You find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them (for how long?) to see if they try again? An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again (within some time frame)? Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? - - - - > if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way. Okay, but then what's the intervention here? Are you saying that we remove guns from everyone just in case someone has a really bad day and offs themself? (I do not mean to sound flippant, I hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson here, RIP, who arguably should not have had access to firearms in his condition.)

notch656a 4y ago

The most 'common' event for someone buying a gun is that the shoot it at the range a few times a year, maybe hunt with it occasionally or put it in their waistband as a means of self-defense. If you want common to the exclusion of the less common, there it is. If you're not involved in gang banging / drugs then in the extremely uncommon chance you die by firearm, it's most likely it was a choice of suicide. In Europe and many other developed nations with harsh firearm laws, suicide via physician is an option so a more comforting and society-approved solution rather than firearm becomes more favored for suicide.