6 ms·

This past week in the US there have been several stories about people who were shot after ringing a doorbell or pulling into someone's driveway. Reducing the nu

This past week in the US there have been several stories about people who were shot after ringing a doorbell or pulling into someone's driveway. Reducing the number of guns means that these people would not be able to enact this type of senseless violence. It would also certainly cut down on the numbers of toddlers shooting their siblings.

bheadmaster 4y ago
Does the number of people getting shot by their toddler siblings or after ringing a doorbell make up a significant percentage of total gun violence? If not, then banning guns would be, in software terms, a premature optimization.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  Why does it have to be a significant percentage of the total? It's still contributing to avoidable life-changing trauma for the people involved.
  - augment002 4y ago
    It has to be a significant part of the total because it’s being used as an argument against introducing new treatments for PTSD.
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      I read it to be less against pharmaceutical treatments and more in support of preventative social measures.
      - augment002 4y ago
        It’s not clear that the two aren’t one and the same. MDMA treatments for PTSD are not ongoing medications. Generally they are just 3 sessions of assisted therapy producing a huge reduction in symptoms. If we can reduce the level of trauma and fear in society, we can reduce associated behaviors.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Because all laws and bans are tradeoffs. By banning something that doesn't have a significant effect you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How many lives are saved and traumas avoided through people's ability to defend themselves with guns? If that number is higher than the number of toddler accidents, gun ban would effectively cause an increase in PTSD and deaths. P.S.: just to clarify, by "significant" I mean significant in a statistical sense of not being insignificant (very close to zero, noise-level), not "majority".
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      That's a fair point. I took the premise to be that there was already a higher trauma rate in the US based on the fact that there is so apparently so much medication given out for trauma related issues compared to other countries. This had been suggested above but I didn't look into it further. > How many lives are saved and traumas avoided through people's ability to defend themselves with guns Self defence with guns sounds pretty traumatising for all involved to be fair.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        I'm not a psychologist, but intuitively, most trauma seem to have an element of helplessness in them. Being able to defend yourself and your loved ones with guns would therefore cause less trauma than having to wait for police to come, or just being hurt/seeing a loved one hurt/murdered in front of you. Still, we're stepping deep into the speculation area here, so I won't stand behind this argument very strongly.
        AlecSchueler 4y ago
        Don't forget the community is the person who is being defended against. Using lethal force against someone has wide consequences.
        krapp 4y ago
        The act of committing violence against another person with a weapon itself is traumatic. Most people can't simply turn off their instinct for empathy and kill another person in cold blood simply because the other is an "enemy," and not suffer psychological consequences, possibly even PTSD. Even police officers, professional killers that they are, have to go through mandatory counseling and assessment after a shooting. Realistically, your argument isn't to lessen trauma, but to simply normalize it. Which is exactly what American culture already does.
notch898c 4y ago
How do I protect my toddler from all the criminals who keep their guns? Call the police and wait 15 minutes?
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  If I was having my toddler threatened by criminals on a regular basis, I'd have to question my life choices.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Living in an area with high crime rate does not necessarily reflect person's life choices.
  - notch898c 4y ago
    None of the above "gun violence"/"senseless violence" things given as reasons for gun control happen to my family on a regular basis either. By your logic I should question the choice of gun control .
Alupis 4y ago
The notion that taking away legal guns from legal gun owners will somehow reduce illegal violence is about as absurd as outlawing drugs. People who want to do illegal drugs have had zero problems acquiring them, despite near infinite resources plowed into stopping them by governments at all levels. Most people gleefully chant "The war on drugs has failed"...yet, "The war on guns" will somehow succeed?
- taeric 4y ago
  This does stand in contrast to other nations not having the problem to the degree that we do. And... really, any other evidence. It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city. Not shockingly, we have few incidents of this happening. Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns. Heck, just set realistic goals here. We make it illegal to drive without a seatbelt, and have largely succeeded in getting folks to wear a belt while in a car. Something far far easier to just not do than the active "seek out an illegal gun" idea that you posit would continue to be a thing. We control fireworks more readily than we do guns. Again, no surprise that we have far fewer counts of incidents with fireworks. And again, also no surprise it isn't zero.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city It is illegal to kill someone, even without a gun, under most circumstances. Perhaps we should make it double-illegal? > Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns This is false. Most gun violence does not occur from legal gun owners, or in places allowing concealed or overt carry. No, most gun violence occurs with illegal guns by people committing crimes. There is no realistic way for you or anyone to take away all of the illegal guns in America. Therefore, any proposed gun ban solely impacts legal gun owners - which statistically are not the problem. It sure sounds good though...
    - taeric 4y ago
      You really don't seem to be arguing in good faith. If it is already "illegal to kill someone" and we shouldn't "make it double-illegal", then we don't need vehicular manslaughter laws, either. For that matter, why have any of the regulations on safely operating anything. After all, it would be illegal for the worst case already? Why restrict sales of ingredients that can make meth? Why regulate anything? And how is it false that we have more random gun violence than bombing? I can list, this week, more than 1 place where a legal gun owner killed someone. It is famously in the news right now. When is the last time we had a random bomb in a city here? I haven't even proposed taking away all guns. Nobody gives a shit about most hunting weapons. Nor do they care about any properly held weapons with responsible care and protections.
SoftTalker 4y ago
Way more people are run down by cars while crossing the street, but the media has decided to get hysterical over a blue moon.
- QuercusMax 4y ago
  Top two causes of under-18 death in the US are guns and cars.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Those stats call “children” 19 years old and younger. So all those 18 and 19 year old “children” gang bangers are included in the statistic.
    - QuercusMax 4y ago
      And? Other countries don't have this problem.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Your response was irrelevant to my point, but ok.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    I was speaking specifically of people getting shot for something like knocking on the door of the wrong house. That's a tiny minority of gun-related deaths and not something anyone really needs to worry about any more than they worry about getting in their car or crossing the street every day.

bheadmaster 4y ago

Does the number of people getting shot by their toddler siblings or after ringing a doorbell make up a significant percentage of total gun violence? If not, then banning guns would be, in software terms, a premature optimization.

AlecSchueler 4y ago
Why does it have to be a significant percentage of the total? It's still contributing to avoidable life-changing trauma for the people involved.
- augment002 4y ago
  It has to be a significant part of the total because it’s being used as an argument against introducing new treatments for PTSD.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    I read it to be less against pharmaceutical treatments and more in support of preventative social measures.
    - augment002 4y ago
      It’s not clear that the two aren’t one and the same. MDMA treatments for PTSD are not ongoing medications. Generally they are just 3 sessions of assisted therapy producing a huge reduction in symptoms. If we can reduce the level of trauma and fear in society, we can reduce associated behaviors.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Because all laws and bans are tradeoffs. By banning something that doesn't have a significant effect you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How many lives are saved and traumas avoided through people's ability to defend themselves with guns? If that number is higher than the number of toddler accidents, gun ban would effectively cause an increase in PTSD and deaths. P.S.: just to clarify, by "significant" I mean significant in a statistical sense of not being insignificant (very close to zero, noise-level), not "majority".
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    That's a fair point. I took the premise to be that there was already a higher trauma rate in the US based on the fact that there is so apparently so much medication given out for trauma related issues compared to other countries. This had been suggested above but I didn't look into it further. > How many lives are saved and traumas avoided through people's ability to defend themselves with guns Self defence with guns sounds pretty traumatising for all involved to be fair.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      I'm not a psychologist, but intuitively, most trauma seem to have an element of helplessness in them. Being able to defend yourself and your loved ones with guns would therefore cause less trauma than having to wait for police to come, or just being hurt/seeing a loved one hurt/murdered in front of you. Still, we're stepping deep into the speculation area here, so I won't stand behind this argument very strongly.
      - AlecSchueler 4y ago
        Don't forget the community is the person who is being defended against. Using lethal force against someone has wide consequences.
      - krapp 4y ago
        The act of committing violence against another person with a weapon itself is traumatic. Most people can't simply turn off their instinct for empathy and kill another person in cold blood simply because the other is an "enemy," and not suffer psychological consequences, possibly even PTSD. Even police officers, professional killers that they are, have to go through mandatory counseling and assessment after a shooting. Realistically, your argument isn't to lessen trauma, but to simply normalize it. Which is exactly what American culture already does.

notch898c 4y ago

How do I protect my toddler from all the criminals who keep their guns? Call the police and wait 15 minutes?

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
If I was having my toddler threatened by criminals on a regular basis, I'd have to question my life choices.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Living in an area with high crime rate does not necessarily reflect person's life choices.
- notch898c 4y ago
  None of the above "gun violence"/"senseless violence" things given as reasons for gun control happen to my family on a regular basis either. By your logic I should question the choice of gun control .

Alupis 4y ago

The notion that taking away legal guns from legal gun owners will somehow reduce illegal violence is about as absurd as outlawing drugs. People who want to do illegal drugs have had zero problems acquiring them, despite near infinite resources plowed into stopping them by governments at all levels. Most people gleefully chant "The war on drugs has failed"...yet, "The war on guns" will somehow succeed?

taeric 4y ago
This does stand in contrast to other nations not having the problem to the degree that we do. And... really, any other evidence. It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city. Not shockingly, we have few incidents of this happening. Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns. Heck, just set realistic goals here. We make it illegal to drive without a seatbelt, and have largely succeeded in getting folks to wear a belt while in a car. Something far far easier to just not do than the active "seek out an illegal gun" idea that you posit would continue to be a thing. We control fireworks more readily than we do guns. Again, no surprise that we have far fewer counts of incidents with fireworks. And again, also no surprise it isn't zero.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city It is illegal to kill someone, even without a gun, under most circumstances. Perhaps we should make it double-illegal? > Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns This is false. Most gun violence does not occur from legal gun owners, or in places allowing concealed or overt carry. No, most gun violence occurs with illegal guns by people committing crimes. There is no realistic way for you or anyone to take away all of the illegal guns in America. Therefore, any proposed gun ban solely impacts legal gun owners - which statistically are not the problem. It sure sounds good though...
  - taeric 4y ago
    You really don't seem to be arguing in good faith. If it is already "illegal to kill someone" and we shouldn't "make it double-illegal", then we don't need vehicular manslaughter laws, either. For that matter, why have any of the regulations on safely operating anything. After all, it would be illegal for the worst case already? Why restrict sales of ingredients that can make meth? Why regulate anything? And how is it false that we have more random gun violence than bombing? I can list, this week, more than 1 place where a legal gun owner killed someone. It is famously in the news right now. When is the last time we had a random bomb in a city here? I haven't even proposed taking away all guns. Nobody gives a shit about most hunting weapons. Nor do they care about any properly held weapons with responsible care and protections.

SoftTalker 4y ago

Way more people are run down by cars while crossing the street, but the media has decided to get hysterical over a blue moon.

QuercusMax 4y ago
Top two causes of under-18 death in the US are guns and cars.
- refurb 4y ago
  Those stats call “children” 19 years old and younger. So all those 18 and 19 year old “children” gang bangers are included in the statistic.
  - QuercusMax 4y ago
    And? Other countries don't have this problem.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Your response was irrelevant to my point, but ok.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  I was speaking specifically of people getting shot for something like knocking on the door of the wrong house. That's a tiny minority of gun-related deaths and not something anyone really needs to worry about any more than they worry about getting in their car or crossing the street every day.