more guns mean more homicide, more gun control mean less homicide

[Anomaly]

The point has always been America needed guns to build the nation.  UK has a different history.  

America isn't armed just because we forgot to say no.  We had reasons why they were necessary.  We also have an entirely did dent attitude about the relationship between government and the populous. 

Repeatedly saying it's just a matter of changing the law ignores all that.  This has been repeatedly explained.  Simply saying you disagree doesn't change reality and stymies fruitful discussion.  I guess the nicest thing I can say is you are just trolling.  My bad. 

[Anselm]

No, I'm not trolling, I'm not stupid and I'd like to think that I at least try not to be arrogant. I haven't said its 'just' a matter of changing the law, as though that would provide an instant remedy. You may remember that on Thursday I said that it would be the beginning of a long, hard process, but one that would ultimately be for the good of the country. How do you propose reducing the numbers of Americans shot each year if not through legislation?

[Anomaly]

15 hours ago, Anselm said:

No, I'm not trolling, I'm not stupid and I'd like to think that I at least try not to be arrogant. I haven't said its 'just' a matter of changing the law, as though that would provide an instant remedy. You may remember that on Thursday I said that it would be the beginning of a long, hard process, but one that would ultimately be for the good of the country. How do you propose reducing the numbers of Americans shot each year if not through legislation?

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Is being shot worse than dyng from any other preventable cause?  

Is it a greater priority to remove guns from society or save lives?

If you could eliminate reasons WHY people murder instead of a HOW to murder, which would you choose?

Edited August 9, 2016 by Anomaly

[Anselm]

1) No, of course not.

2) The former causes the latter.

3) Why is there a need to choose only one?

Now I've answered your questions, could you answer the one that I asked you before?

[Anomaly]

49 minutes ago, Anselm said:

1) No, of course not.

2) The former causes the latter.

3) Why is there a need to choose only one?

Now I've answered your questions, could you answer the one that I asked you before?

My questions helped identify your problem solving skills and critical thinking. 

It seems you can't prioritize or recognize the difference between treating the symptoms vs effecting a cure. 

#1.  I agree.  So why would we not want to do the most good for the greatest possible effect, regardless of the cause?

#2. There are many more things that cause more deaths than guns that we can have more effect.  

#3 Stubbornly over emphasizing a symptom to the detriment of  a cure is short sighted. If you can't understand that, what is the point of discussing the cure?

 

[Anselm]

Again you seem to be making snide insinuations about my intelligence rather than recognising that we have a genuine difference of opinion. I'd like to think that my education and employment (not that you know what they are, of course) would demonstrate that I'm not entirely stupid.

1) Of course we both want to do the most good, regardless of cause, but we disagree about what course of action would be the best to achieve that.

2) So what? Reducing deaths caused by guns would not stop us trying to eliminate other causes of death too.

3) Removing guns IS the cure. As I've said several times, I'm not claiming that it would be easy or quick, but you have yet to suggest an alternative. Unless, of course, you think that there's no need to reduce the number of gun deaths?

[Anomaly]

Reducing the number of guns is not simple, nor the most effective to reduce homicudes. If guns were simply the problem, thre would be a directly proportional correlation between the number of guns and gun deaths.   That isn't the case.  

Availability of guns is a factor, but not the most influential factor.   Guns have an unbalanced emotional association as a cause.  An important issue, such as preventing deaths, requires more thought and effort than superficial emotional response. Why are gun deaths more horrific than other deaths?

[Anselm]

I haven't said that gun deaths are more horrific than any other, and of course there are other ways to reduce the number of murders that are not mutually exclusive, but this is a discussion specifically about guns and murder, is it not?  

I would argue that the availability of guns is a huge factor. I'm not aware that the U.S. has a higher proportion of mental health than other comparable nations, but then why is the murder rate four times that of the UK?

[Anomaly]

Hint. Guns aren't the only reason.

Crime and drugs.

Poor police/law response to drug use.  Incarceration instead of treatment needs to be questioned and studied.

Community policing skills desperately need to be improved so people feel police are both safe and effective alternative.

Most mass shooters are mentally disturbed.  What can be done to provide effective and helpful intervention?  Mental health issues are under funded and under resourced. 

Poor conflict resolution skills. 

Tendency for media and society to polarize every disagreement into superficial emotional context.

Unemployment.  Hopelessness. All the things that contribute to crime. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Anomaly

[Anselm]

Yes? I'm not aware that I've said anywhere that the availability of guns is the only reason for crime. However, GUN crime cannot happen without GUNS. 

Now that you've mentioned policing problems, of course one of them is the number of people shot and killed by the police. If gun ownership wasn't so widespread in American society (criminal and otherwise) then the police wouldn't need to be armed, let alone so trigger-happy.

[Anomaly]

You are jumping to conclusions without real analysis.  If guns were the primary cause, there would be a proportional rise in homicides as number of guns rise.   That does not exist.  

Why is GUN crime worse than other crime?  It's a CRIME problem.

You can't unring a bell. There are already 300,000,000 guns, gun ownership has been a fundamental right pretty much since the first Europeans began to populate this continent. Gun ownership is why we have a participant and democratic government in this country. 

Gun ownership is a relatively minor factor in the big scheme of things. Prattling on with a stated goal of eliminating guns, or intimating that with unreasonableness, only begets mirrored stubbornness. 

People 25-34 are 68 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident than by a gun.  They are more likely to be hit by a car and killed while walking than be shot and killed.   Why fixate on gun deaths as being worse or more often unless your intent is to disarm all citizens (which can't be done as explained repeatedly)?

Your inordinate fear of guns is a by product of politicians and media using extremism and fear mongering  for profit and power. (As well as you having little or no experience with guns).

[Anselm]

Of course, many people are killed in car accidents, but they are accidents. Guns are designed to kill. That is the difference. I've not said that gun deaths are worse, in fact I've specifically answered your question by saying that they're not. What they are is preventable. Your selective memory is letting you down a little.

As to your statement that a rise in the number of guns would cause a rise in the number of murders but 'That does not exist'; I've already pointed out that the U.S. has a murder rate four times higher than that of the UK.

To specifically answer your question about why gun crime is worse than many other crimes, it's because it is more likely to result in death. That's why.

 

Again, you jump to extraordinary conclusions about me. You strongly hinted several times that you believe me to be stupid. I have a degree in Theology from the university of Oxford and now teach at one of the most famous schools in the UK. You now claim that I have 'little or no experience of guns'. I served for several years as an officer in the armed forces; I am trained and have experience of a wide variety of weapons as well as several friends who were killed by them.

[dairygirl4u2c]

would giving every citizen in england a gun change the murder rate? it's obvious to me that it would. according to many here, it wouldn't change anything, or it'd make it safer. 
how ridiculous can you get?

 

a woman is five times more likely to be murdered in domestic violence if her partner has a gun. that fact alone should tell you that people are more likely to kill when they have a gun. a sudden temper tantrum doesn't turn deadly with the ease and efficiency of gun deaths. so simple it's stupid. 

[Anomaly]

US is not the UK.   There are many fundamental cultual differences.   Statistics between the two countries are irrelevant because of significant sociological disparities, starting with how are governments and countries were formed. 

Although the sheer number of guns have increased for decades in US, the rate of gun deaths have declined.  That leads one to realize there are other factors that are at play.  Harping on guns as the primary cause is intellectually dishonest.  

Failing to acknowledge the circumstances to deal with isn't a reasonable course of action.  Simply wishing guns away is nice in theory, but ineffective in concrete effect.   Society and government are not omnipotent.  We have to choose the best course of action, what is possibly and likely in a democratic society.  Being honest and constructive instead of manipulating by emotion and hyberbolic assumptions will carry the day in the end. 

Guns are a tool used for offense, defense, sport, and hunting.  Free American citizens have the right to be burdened with using them wisely.  That right has worked well for us, albeit not without problems. Gun deaths are not the biggest problem or largest cause of death that our society Is capable of addressing. Given we are a participative government and society, we are obliged to address the greater good for the most possible.  

[Anselm]

Anomaly, you've referred many times to the historical need for guns in colonial America, but that really has very little real impact on this argument. Hunting is now a sport, not a matter of survival. Americans are no longer fighting the War of Independence. Guns are simply not necessary. Yes, they are a 'right', but one based on outdated requirements.

Of course there are many factors at play; I keep acknowledging that but you keep implying that I deny it. However, you are yourself over-simplifying the matter by arguing that the gun crime rate has fallen while ownership has risen, whereas the number of murders was consistently higher in the 80s and 90s and is now roughly at the level of the early 50s. The matter is therefore more complicated.

Nowhere have I been 'simply wishing guns away', nor am I 'manipulating by emotion and hyperbolic assumptions'. You point out that gun deaths are not the largest cause of death that could be addressed and AGAIN I will point out that I agree but that that is no reason not to address the problem.

Absolutely, any society is 'obliged to address the greater good for the most possible'. If you believe that the greater good is for individuals to have the right to own guns rather than to protect life then I'm amazed that you have any interest in being on a Christian website.