3 ms·

The tool itself is dangerous and provides very small benefit. Cars are also dangerous but are too useful to consider banning or restricting. Guns don’t provide

by TimPC 4y ago

The tool itself is dangerous and provides very small benefit. Cars are also dangerous but are too useful to consider banning or restricting. Guns don’t provide nearly enough benefit to justify the harms they cause. I’d like to see the US get a handle on its gun problem because most gun crimes in Canada are now committed with guns smuggled across the border. So your barbaric policies have real world consequences for my country.

philk10 4y ago
and for Mexico
scottLobster 4y ago
You may be interested in the National Crime Victimization Report, published by the US BJS and DOJ. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf "Victims used a firearm to threaten or attack the offender in 2% (166,900) of all nonfatal violent victimizations" That's from 2014 to 2018, so divide by 4 for a yearly number. Either way tens of thousands of people successfully defend themselves with a firearm every year. I'd wager they'd argue our "barbaric" policies have some benefits.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  Conter-argument: * https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gu... And while defensive gun use (DGU) has been recorded as happening, what other things happen when a gun is around? At least one study found you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively: * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ And that doesn't count things awful things happening to kids: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-acce... Having a gun around has a 'cost' that may not be worth the purported benefits.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    The politico article is about debunking the claim that "millions of defensive gun uses happen every year" (which I'm not claiming) from a couple of debunked surveys, and provides some anecdotes of failed defensive gun uses and accidents. The Philadelphia study is interesting, but I'd note that the discussion and study limitations sections somewhat undermines the attention-grabbing headline, as well as the Conceptual Frameworks and Variables Section: "Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property. Case participants with at least some chance to resist were in contrast to those that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between victim and shooter (e.g., an otherwise uninvolved victim shot in his living room from a gun fired during a fight down the street)" So yeah, if you knowingly engage in violent, armed confrontation or an armed attacker has the jump on you and you escalate because you have a firearm, you're more likely to get shot. That's just common sense, a gun a not a force-field. Also 82.21% of the assaults with a chance to resist took place outdoors, so this data is bias against incidents that happen in the home. I'd say this study doesn't really support the broad assertion that "you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively". The devil is as always in the details of the situation. Many of these statistical studies fall into the trap of being technically correct but broadly inapplicable. Technically speaking you're more likely to drive drunk if you keep alcohol in the house and own a car. But on an individual level one can keep alcohol in the house, own a car and have near-zero chance of driving drunk. As for the third article, I'm all for safe ownership requirements. Quick access gun safes are readily available and even the cheap, easiest to break-open ones will do the job of keeping clueless children away. As a gun owner with a young child myself all my guns are locked up, and the only loaded gun is in a quick-access safe and cable-locked to furniture. If you can afford a $100+ handgun, there's no excuse for not affording a $50+ quick access safe.
jaywalk 4y ago
Our "barbaric policies" do not allow Canadian citizens to purchase firearms. So it's already guaranteed that US laws have been broken.

by TimPC 4y ago

philk10 4y ago

and for Mexico

scottLobster 4y ago

You may be interested in the National Crime Victimization Report, published by the US BJS and DOJ. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf "Victims used a firearm to threaten or attack the offender in 2% (166,900) of all nonfatal violent victimizations" That's from 2014 to 2018, so divide by 4 for a yearly number. Either way tens of thousands of people successfully defend themselves with a firearm every year. I'd wager they'd argue our "barbaric" policies have some benefits.

throw0101a 4y ago
Conter-argument: * https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gu... And while defensive gun use (DGU) has been recorded as happening, what other things happen when a gun is around? At least one study found you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively: * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ And that doesn't count things awful things happening to kids: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-acce... Having a gun around has a 'cost' that may not be worth the purported benefits.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  The politico article is about debunking the claim that "millions of defensive gun uses happen every year" (which I'm not claiming) from a couple of debunked surveys, and provides some anecdotes of failed defensive gun uses and accidents. The Philadelphia study is interesting, but I'd note that the discussion and study limitations sections somewhat undermines the attention-grabbing headline, as well as the Conceptual Frameworks and Variables Section: "Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property. Case participants with at least some chance to resist were in contrast to those that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between victim and shooter (e.g., an otherwise uninvolved victim shot in his living room from a gun fired during a fight down the street)" So yeah, if you knowingly engage in violent, armed confrontation or an armed attacker has the jump on you and you escalate because you have a firearm, you're more likely to get shot. That's just common sense, a gun a not a force-field. Also 82.21% of the assaults with a chance to resist took place outdoors, so this data is bias against incidents that happen in the home. I'd say this study doesn't really support the broad assertion that "you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively". The devil is as always in the details of the situation. Many of these statistical studies fall into the trap of being technically correct but broadly inapplicable. Technically speaking you're more likely to drive drunk if you keep alcohol in the house and own a car. But on an individual level one can keep alcohol in the house, own a car and have near-zero chance of driving drunk. As for the third article, I'm all for safe ownership requirements. Quick access gun safes are readily available and even the cheap, easiest to break-open ones will do the job of keeping clueless children away. As a gun owner with a young child myself all my guns are locked up, and the only loaded gun is in a quick-access safe and cable-locked to furniture. If you can afford a $100+ handgun, there's no excuse for not affording a $50+ quick access safe.

jaywalk 4y ago

Our "barbaric policies" do not allow Canadian citizens to purchase firearms. So it's already guaranteed that US laws have been broken.