guns v murder rate

[hakutaku]

32 minutes ago, Luigi said:

Someone who wants to kill herself will find a way, whether there's a gun handy or not. 

There are tons of studies that show this is not true.  Having a gun available dramatically increases your risk of dying by suicide.  

https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/06/heres-why-guns-increase-the-risk-of-suicide-especially-in-stressful-times/

Quote

In a recent opinion column in the New York Times, Miller and his co-authors dispelled the myth that “people who really want to end their lives will find a way to do it.” Miller’s two decades of public health research have shown him that gun owners are not more suicidal than people who live in homes with no guns, but they are more likely to die by suicide because when they make an attempt they are far more likely to use a gun.

 

[Peace]

On 8/16/2021 at 11:52 PM, hakutaku said:

There are tons of studies that show this is not true.  Having a gun available dramatically increases your risk of dying by suicide.  

https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/06/heres-why-guns-increase-the-risk-of-suicide-especially-in-stressful-times/

 

Who cares? A person with a knife or a razor blade is more likely to die by suicide than a person with a spoon. Does that mean we should ban all knives and razor blades? Should we also ban all prescription pain killers because they are more effective at causing death than Tylenol?

[Peace]

On 8/11/2021 at 6:24 PM, debc said:

My friend from the UK points out to people someone with a knife going crazy on a bus or town square hurts a lot less than an automatic rifle many men think it's their right to own. (do they hunt with it??)

Laws don't curb many crimes, but lessening the chance of getting hold of weapons made for war helps a little. No one should be able to fire 50 rounds of bullets at children with a gun he bought last week.

Well the thing is, if there is a law-abiding citizen such as myself on the bus, who happens to be carrying a gun and is well-trained, he can kill the person with the knife or the automatic rifle, before anyone is hurt. There's studies on both sides that address the question of whether increased gun ownership in a society leads to more or less deaths and and other crimes, but they reach different conclusions.

[ardillacid]

On 8/14/2021 at 7:04 AM, debc said:

It's scary some people are always preparing for a war

 

We've been at a perpetual state of war my whole life. 

[Anomaly]

On 8/11/2021 at 6:24 PM, debc said:

My friend from the UK points out to people someone with a knife going crazy on a bus or town square hurts a lot less than an automatic rifle many men think it's their right to own. (do they hunt with it??)

Laws don't curb many crimes, but lessening the chance of getting hold of weapons made for war helps a little. No one should be able to fire 50 rounds of bullets at children with a gun he bought last week.

 

You are many times more likely to be hit by a bus than shot, much less shot or stabbed while in a bus. 
Thinking you need a gun, or should be protected from a gun, is simply fear mongering.  

[fides' Jack]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:29 AM, ardillacid said:

We've been at a perpetual state of war my whole life. 

Very soon it will be a war of unprecedented scale.

[Didacus]

On 8/14/2021 at 7:04 AM, debc said:

It's scary some people are always preparing for a war ...(snip).

If you want peace then prepare for war!!!

[Winchester]

Owning a weapon isn't a violent act.

The first violent act in gun control is committed by the enforcer.

Gun control is by definition the initiation of violence to achieve a political end.

Gun control is terrorism.
 

[little2add]

gun violence pales in significance compared to illicit drug use caused violent deaths...

• Nearly 841,000 people have died since 1999 from a drug overdose.1 In 2019, 70,630 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States. The age-adjusted rate of overdose deaths increased by over 4% from 2018 (20.7 per 100,000) to 2019 (21.6 per 100,000).

Only 3% (or <4,500 deaths , last year are related to firearm deaths and/or legal intervention, or from public mass shootings (0.2% of total firearm deaths).

• There were 39,707 deaths from firearms in the U.S. in 2019. Sixty percent of deaths from firearms in the U.S. are suicides. In 2019, 23,941 people in the U.S. died by firearm suicide.1 Firearms are the means in approximately half of suicides nationwide.

  In 2019, 14,861 people in the U.S. died from firearm homicide, accounting for 37% of total deaths from firearms. Firearms were the means for about 75% of homicides in 2018.

  The other 3% of firearm deaths are unintentional, undetermined, from legal intervention, or from public mass shootings (0.2% of total firearm deaths).

Edited September 12, 2021 by little2add

[hakutaku]

On 9/10/2021 at 8:28 PM, Winchester said:

Gun control is by definition the initiation of violence to achieve a political end.

Gun control is terrorism.

The State has a monopoly on violence, this is poli-sci 101

https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence

That's why things like "traffic stops" are not terrorism: The state has the right to use physical force in the enforcement of its rules.

[Winchester]

2 hours ago, hakutaku said:

The State has a monopoly on violence, this is poli-sci 101

https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence

That's why things like "traffic stops" are not terrorism: The state has the right to use physical force in the enforcement of its rules.

The state is inherently  terrorist. I don't accept that terrorism ceases to be terrorism because some terrorists gain political power and claim they're no longer terrorists.

I don't identify legality with lawfulness. I'm not a legal positivist. Bastiat has the best definition of law that I've seen. I agree with him.

I don't believe might makes right, which is the argument at the heart of state legitimacy.

I don't have to submit to someone's opinion because they have a fancy title and the means to overwhelm me with violence.

And neither do you.

3 hours ago, little2add said:

gun violence pales in significance compared to illicit drug use caused violent deaths...

• Nearly 841,000 people have died since 1999 from a drug overdose.1 In 2019, 70,630 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States. The age-adjusted rate of overdose deaths increased by over 4% from 2018 (20.7 per 100,000) to 2019 (21.6 per 100,000).

Only 3% (or <4,500 deaths , last year are related to firearm deaths and/or legal intervention, or from public mass shootings (0.2% of total firearm deaths).

• There were 39,707 deaths from firearms in the U.S. in 2019. Sixty percent of deaths from firearms in the U.S. are suicides. In 2019, 23,941 people in the U.S. died by firearm suicide.1 Firearms are the means in approximately half of suicides nationwide.

  In 2019, 14,861 people in the U.S. died from firearm homicide, accounting for 37% of total deaths from firearms. Firearms were the means for about 75% of homicides in 2018.

  The other 3% of firearm deaths are unintentional, undetermined, from legal intervention, or from public mass shootings (0.2% of total firearm deaths).

Want to reduce those deaths?

 

End the drug war.

[Ice_nine]

11 hours ago, Winchester said:

The state is inherently  terrorist. I don't accept that terrorism ceases to be terrorism because some terrorists gain political power and claim they're no longer terrorists.

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but how do you square away Catholic teaching on authority with rebellion against . . . I guess we'll call them "the authorities." ?

I've struggled a long time with this. I was fairly entrenched in libertarianism when I was younger (thanks a lot to you and the other anti-statist posters that were on here) but as I got older I felt that it conflicted with my faith. I no longer feel the need to follow a certain political  ideology.

But it just seems Catholics were always like "well we must follow the law of the land unless they're asking us to sin." That seems very tenuous. What if the government demands you wear grey everyday? That's not a sin, but it's petty and it's a clear overreach.

Another thing, what makes the US federal government a "legitimate authority"? No one has ever really answered why exactly the Third Reich and the Mafia are not legitimate authorities, but our government is. They were just like "eh come on, it's obvious. You're not in a gulag are you? You're life is pretty good eh?" That was never the point. It was a sort of lazy dismissal of a real problem of modern life.

I know this post is confused. I'm just worried about my country right now, and wondering if there's even a way we get to the other side of this thing.

Glad to see you back tho Winchester.

[little2add]

16 hours ago, Winchester said:

End the drug war.

How would that stop 100,000 people a year from overdosing?  If you mean Ending the drug war by decriminalizing drug abuse then I see your point,  but intolerance towards drug dealers is asinine  

Drug addiction is a complex but treatable disease that affects brain function and behavior.  

Drug abuse kills, 

 

[Winchester]

8 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but how do you square away Catholic teaching on authority with rebellion against . . . I guess we'll call them "the authorities." ?

I've struggled a long time with this. I was fairly entrenched in libertarianism when I was younger (thanks a lot to you and the other anti-statist posters that were on here) but as I got older I felt that it conflicted with my faith. I no longer feel the need to follow a certain political  ideology.

But it just seems Catholics were always like "well we must follow the law of the land unless they're asking us to sin." That seems very tenuous. What if the government demands you wear grey everyday? That's not a sin, but it's petty and it's a clear overreach.

Another thing, what makes the US federal government a "legitimate authority"? No one has ever really answered why exactly the Third Reich and the Mafia are not legitimate authorities, but our government is. They were just like "eh come on, it's obvious. You're not in a gulag are you? You're life is pretty good eh?" That was never the point. It was a sort of lazy dismissal of a real problem of modern life.

I know this post is confused. I'm just worried about my country right now, and wondering if there's even a way we get to the other side of this thing.

Glad to see you back tho Winchester.

I don't advocate rebellion, necessarily. I think it's arguable that selling alcohol during Prohibition would have been sinful for Catholics. But I would also argue that enforcing Prohibition would be sinful for Catholics.

I think we're in a weird spot.

I also don't think authority is some grant of power, but a burden of responsibility. I don't know exactly how to describe that.

I think Catholic teaching is less about justifying authority or political power and more about how Catholics relate to the powers that already hold sway. I'm still working that out.

 

We'll see if that lasts.

4 hours ago, little2add said:

How would that stop 100,000 people a year from overdosing?  If you mean Ending the drug war by decriminalizing drug abuse then I see your point,  but intolerance towards drug dealers is asinine  

Drug addiction is a complex but treatable disease that affects brain function and behavior.  

Drug abuse kills, 

 

Violence has completely failed to address drug abuse. 

Prohibition creates certain incentives. One of them is more potent drugs. Mark Thornton has a good book on the economics of prohibition.

Black markets will develop wherever there is prohibition, and they will tend to be much more violent. We see this with drugs, prostitution, and immigration. We will see it with guns if the psychopaths and the fools who follow them get their way.

[Peace]

On 9/10/2021 at 4:28 PM, Winchester said:

Owning a weapon isn't a violent act.

The first violent act in gun control is committed by the enforcer.

Gun control is by definition the initiation of violence to achieve a political end.

Gun control is terrorism.

This is nonsense. The Catholic Church condemns terrorism. She allows for government regulation of things like guns, drugs, etc. They are not the same thing.

13 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but how do you square away Catholic teaching on authority with rebellion against . . . I guess we'll call them "the authorities." ?

I've struggled a long time with this. I was fairly entrenched in libertarianism when I was younger (thanks a lot to you and the other anti-statist posters that were on here) but as I got older I felt that it conflicted with my faith. I no longer feel the need to follow a certain political  ideology.

But it just seems Catholics were always like "well we must follow the law of the land unless they're asking us to sin." That seems very tenuous. What if the government demands you wear grey everyday? That's not a sin, but it's petty and it's a clear overreach.

Another thing, what makes the US federal government a "legitimate authority"? No one has ever really answered why exactly the Third Reich and the Mafia are not legitimate authorities, but our government is. They were just like "eh come on, it's obvious. You're not in a gulag are you? You're life is pretty good eh?" That was never the point. It was a sort of lazy dismissal of a real problem of modern life.

I know this post is confused. I'm just worried about my country right now, and wondering if there's even a way we get to the other side of this thing.

Glad to see you back tho Winchester.

Yeah I don't think you can reconcile libertarianism with Catholic social teaching. If you read all of the economic encyclicals starting with Rerum Novarum you'll see how a pure libertarian philosophy is practically ruled out. For example:

https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

88. Attention must be given also to another matter that is closely connected with the foregoing. Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life - a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself. Loftier and nobler principles - social justice and social charity - must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully. Hence, the institutions themselves of peoples and, particularly those of all social life, ought to be penetrated with this justice, and it is most necessary that it be truly effective, that is, establish a juridical and social order which will, as it were, give form and shape to all economic life. Social charity, moreover, ought to be as the soul of this order, an order which public authority ought to be ever ready effectively to protect and defend. It will be able to do this the more easily as it rids itself of those burdens which, as We have stated above, are not properly its own.