4 ms·

Perhaps a better title would have been "Science versus gun violence research: why would we expect meaningful answers?" Given someone with critical thinking ski

by dwc 14y ago

Perhaps a better title would have been "Science versus gun violence research: why would we expect meaningful answers?" Given someone with critical thinking skills who is well versed in scientific methods, they would quickly move to asking why violence is a problem. Why are there so many violent crimes in the U.S. compared to Canada? With a huge number of guns in Canada, why aren't their gun violence stats similar to the U.S.? But very few people seem interested in that line of questioning. Instead, we get pro-gun vs. anti-gun arguments. And of course the media and the public feed into this as well. It's just so easy to think something as symbolic as guns must be the problem and/or solution. But this is a much deeper problem, and one that is in desperate need of more attention.

scarmig 14y ago
Even though the contemporary Michael Moore (rightly, IMO) gets a bad rep, Bowling for Columbine is fundamentally all about the US's culture of violence, specifically comparing how it approaches violence compared to Canada. Guns are surely an important symbol of that culture in the movie and society, but the documentary is a genuinely thoughtful take on the broader and more salient issue.
- 1123581321 14y ago
  You would say that Moore has a bad reputation or has gotten a bad reputation. "Bad rep" is a derivation of "bad rap" or "bum rap" which both mean to be falsely charged with something - no one rightly gets one. I do agree that those interested in gun rights and gun violence will find BfC is worth watching.
jarrett 14y ago
True, and yet given that gun control is an important political battle of our time, data pertaining specifically to guns, not just violence in general, is important. (At least to the extent that data ever influences these kinds of public decisions.) Granted there are knee-jerk partisans on both sides of the issue. But thinking people would benefit from solid data. There are intelligent people who believe that defensive gun use almost never occurs, and then there are intelligent people who believe it's far more common than criminal gun use. They cannot both be right, but I believe intelligent people could be persuaded to the truth, if science could establish what the truth was. That being said, gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. So it is not just a scientific question, but also one of constitutional law.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.
  - jarrett 14y ago
    The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said: "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.
reader5000 14y ago
A concept that gun culture consistently fails to grasp is that a) technology is an enabler and b) humans, even the homicidal, are lazy. It's true guns don't kill people; but it's also true guns as an independent factor increase the probability of people killing people. The size of this effect is very much in need of empirical analysis. However the nra has behaved in bad faith on this issue. Also Canada has less than half the per capita rate of firearm ownership compared to US.
- nazgulnarsil 14y ago
  so you need empirical evidence but are comfortable asserting what the outcome will be.

by dwc 14y ago

scarmig 14y ago

Even though the contemporary Michael Moore (rightly, IMO) gets a bad rep, Bowling for Columbine is fundamentally all about the US's culture of violence, specifically comparing how it approaches violence compared to Canada. Guns are surely an important symbol of that culture in the movie and society, but the documentary is a genuinely thoughtful take on the broader and more salient issue.

1123581321 14y ago
You would say that Moore has a bad reputation or has gotten a bad reputation. "Bad rep" is a derivation of "bad rap" or "bum rap" which both mean to be falsely charged with something - no one rightly gets one. I do agree that those interested in gun rights and gun violence will find BfC is worth watching.

jarrett 14y ago

True, and yet given that gun control is an important political battle of our time, data pertaining specifically to guns, not just violence in general, is important. (At least to the extent that data ever influences these kinds of public decisions.) Granted there are knee-jerk partisans on both sides of the issue. But thinking people would benefit from solid data. There are intelligent people who believe that defensive gun use almost never occurs, and then there are intelligent people who believe it's far more common than criminal gun use. They cannot both be right, but I believe intelligent people could be persuaded to the truth, if science could establish what the truth was. That being said, gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. So it is not just a scientific question, but also one of constitutional law.

MichaelSalib 14y ago
gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.
- jarrett 14y ago
  The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said: "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.

reader5000 14y ago

A concept that gun culture consistently fails to grasp is that a) technology is an enabler and b) humans, even the homicidal, are lazy. It's true guns don't kill people; but it's also true guns as an independent factor increase the probability of people killing people. The size of this effect is very much in need of empirical analysis. However the nra has behaved in bad faith on this issue. Also Canada has less than half the per capita rate of firearm ownership compared to US.

nazgulnarsil 14y ago
so you need empirical evidence but are comfortable asserting what the outcome will be.