5 ms·

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, th

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.
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        > Realistically, your argument isn't to lessen trauma, but to simply normalize it. Which is exactly what American culture already does No, actually, my argument is that killing or injuring a person in self-defense is less traumatic than being helpless while getting assaulted. Besides, trauma is relative - "normalizing" trauma is another way of saying "being desensitised" - which is exactly the process therapy itself employs to help people relieve the effects of it.

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.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        > Realistically, your argument isn't to lessen trauma, but to simply normalize it. Which is exactly what American culture already does No, actually, my argument is that killing or injuring a person in self-defense is less traumatic than being helpless while getting assaulted. Besides, trauma is relative - "normalizing" trauma is another way of saying "being desensitised" - which is exactly the process therapy itself employs to help people relieve the effects of it.