A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Darth Executor]

I get the same impression. Just the other day some of my pro-gun friends (who are on TWeb) were posting on Facebook publicizing a knife attack in Japan, making light of anti-gun folks arguing that banning guns solves violence. I doubted they would have cared about the incident other than to make a point. The implication seems to be that other methods of violence are just as effective as guns (sort of like the people in this thread jumping in to point out other methods of committing suicide). If the implication is that guns are no more effective at being violent than other items, then that cuts both ways - people could presumably defend themselves without guns, so this tack could easily work against gun advocates.

Can I be completely honest? It bothers me when somebody writes a thought out post and you respond with nothing but "wow". It strikes me as very dismissive and implying that the other person's post is so stupid and obviously wrong that they don't deserve a response. This has actually bothered me for awhile.

Guns are effective at both offense and defense. Knives are a lot less effective at defense than offense. with knives physical ability matters a lot more, and criminals are generally in very good shape (especially the ones who did prison time). young men (who commit the bulk of violent crimes) see a relative boost in their combat ability vs the average civilian. other methods of violence can be just as effective as guns at massacres, but not at self defense. a bomb is a great thing to have if you want to kill people. just set it up at an emergency exit, pull the fire alarm and detonate it mid scramble. guaranteed dozens of victims. what are you gonna do with a bomb if someone wants to shoot you in the face or slit your throat? a methodical killer could rack up a pretty large body count with an axe or a knife. They're not as lethal as a gun if you want to swing it into a crowd but once you fire the first bullet everyone is suddenly aware of you and unless you're on a secluded island (IE: Breivik) you have a limited time to act before you're caught.

[Teallaura]

I think you get that kind of impression because that's what you're looking for. You are entitled to be wrong.

He gets it from you deflecting with nonsense like 'but knives kill people too' as if guns weren't massive force multipliers. I can think of dozens of examples of mass killings with guns (defined as a number of people killed in the same incident) but only one with knives off hand - and that was way back in the 1960's when serial killers weren't widely known.


Personally, I find it disingenuous - you AREN'T anti-gun control - you're anti-gun abolition - but you can't argue them separately. Either you really don't understand the difference - which is not the case - or you refuse to acknowledge it.

The funny part - I'm actually on your side, not Adrift's, in this debate. You never even realized.

[Darth Executor]

And what's the import of this? Even if people bear full responsibility for committing suicide, reducing suicide rates is still a worthy goal.

The argument vs spree killers is that reducing weapon ownership will reduce the need for self defense. In the case of suicide you want to reduce someone's ability to defend themselves so you can potentially save someone who wants to die. No thanks. I have sympathy for suicidal people since I was depressed for nearly a decade but I'm not willing to trade a single life of someone who wants to live for theirs.

[ke7ejx]

No, he does that all the time - it's rude and dismissive. It's not cute or funny. I amended my post when I saw you'd chosen to take it that way when he did it to you, but I don't share that opinion.

Okay, is there a reason you're jumping down throats today? I'm seeing a ton of anger in your posts in these threads when CP, Jedidiah, and others are entitled to have opinions.

[Cow Poke]

He gets it from you deflecting with nonsense like 'but knives kill people too' as if guns weren't massive force multipliers.

I really wish you would provide my actual quotes instead of your misrepresentations. Where have I said "but knives kill people too", and where have I indicated that "guns weren't massive force multipliers"?

I just did an advanced search for me saying ANYTHING about knives for the past year -- all I can find is Adrift hounding me about me allegedly claiming guns aren't more 'effective' at killing than knives are. Perhaps you're picking up on his misrepresentations, and it wouldn't be the first time you were totally wrong about something you think I said.

Actual quotes, please.

[Teallaura]

Guns are effective at both offense and defense. Knives are a lot less effective at defense than offense. with knives physical ability matters a lot more, and criminals are generally in very good shape (especially the ones who did prison time). young men (who commit the bulk of violent crimes) see a relative boost in their combat ability vs the average civilian. other methods of violence can be just as effective as guns at massacres, but not at self defense. a bomb is a great thing to have if you want to kill people. just set it up at an emergency exit, pull the fire alarm and detonate it mid scramble. guaranteed dozens of victims. what are you gonna do with a bomb if someone wants to shoot you in the face or slit your throat? a methodical killer could rack up a pretty large body count with an axe or a knife. They're not as lethal as a gun if you want to swing it into a crowd but once you fire the first bullet everyone is suddenly aware of you and unless you're on a secluded island (IE: Breivik) you have a limited time to act before you're caught.

Okay, I pretty much agree - but did you really mean knives are better as defensive weapons?

[Jedidiah]

I don't believe I've distorted anything anyone said. I was sharing my impression based on how people compare the effectiveness of guns to things like knives, poison, cars, and the like. I'm glad to hear that impression is wrong.

No one suggested that guns were not effective, or even less effective. The only things I recall were statements that other means existed.

[Adrift]

Here's an article from 2015:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/...n-ban-conceit/

I was wrong to say that homicides did not decline. They did, "from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012". However, "according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.

I think 1.6 down to 1.1 is significant. My previous link was a later survey from the Australian Government (specifically the Australian Institute of Criminology). Their survey covers the periods of 1989-1990 through to 2013-2014. They recorded a record low on homicides from 1.8 to 1.1. So close to your numbers, which, as far as I can tell, is fantastic for a nation that had relatively low homicide rates to begin with (America has something like quadruple the number of homicides). They also recorded an 11% drop in homicides by gun. The Australian Bureau of Statistics also shows that crime in general has been decreasing in Australia since 2010. So if there was a peak, it appears to have been short lived, or it will be shortly.

"It’s even less impressive when again compared to America’s decrease in violent crime over the same period. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. Again, this happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate."

You're comparing homicides to violent crimes. Homicides have dropped nearly 50% not 72% (according to the Pew Research Center), which is still great, but it also corresponds to tighter gun restrictions since the early 90s. And while guns sales have climbed, including among newer users, many of those guns went to previous gun owners (we discussed this in another thread). Compared to every other industrialized Western nation, our gun crime still ranks the worse. Like developing nation abysmal.

And what about suicide? I've got bad news for you: "Lifeline Australia reports that overall suicides are at a ten-year high. The Australian suicide prevention organization claims suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians 15 to 44 years old. So, while Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often than before the ban."

Yeah, that's unfortunate. Thankfully they're still much lower than their 1997 rate, which saw 14.7 suicides per 100,000 people. According to data compiled by the World Health Organization in 2000 the rate was at 12.5 per 100,000; By 2015 that number dropped to 10.5 per 100,000, and it looks like there was a bump up to 11.7 per 100,000 in 2016. So, yeah, not great, but still lower than before the ban. The US on the other hand isn't so fortunate. The data compiles by the World Health Organization shows that in 2000 our rate was at 9.7 per 100,000, and by 2015 that rose to 12.6 per 100,000.

[Darth Executor]

Okay, I pretty much agree - but did you really mean knives are better as defensive weapons?

no, they are better as offensive weapons, on average, because most of the offenders have above average conditioning

[Teallaura]

Again. One of these incredibly easy to get things. All you have to do is... Nope. Not gonna tell ya

Not the point -

[Jedidiah]

What it is is your refusal to deal with the reality that the world changed. Society is worse - and you still bear full responsibility for your weapons. They're yours, you get to clean up after them.

And you're wrong - kids did all sorts of crap back then - it just didn't result in gun play like now.

There is a strong and increasing break with reality in the nation today. I recognize the reality, but I see the result as bad. Are you suggesting that just putting my guns in a safe is not enough to clear me of responsibility? Do I need another locked box inside the locked box inside my locked house? Where does the insanity end.

And you are wrong, I never suggested that kids were different in my day, just that the nation was not quite as insane as it is today.

[Teallaura]

I really wish you would provide my actual quotes instead of your misrepresentations. Where have I said "but knives kill people too", and where have I indicated that "guns weren't massive force multipliers"?

I just did an advanced search for me saying ANYTHING about knives for the past year -- all I can find is Adrift hounding me about me allegedly claiming guns aren't more 'effective' at killing than knives are. Perhaps you're picking up on his misrepresentations, and it wouldn't be the first time you were totally wrong about something you think I said.

Actual quotes, please.

Disingenuous again - you understood the simile perfectly well and most certainly have used that line of reasoning.

[Jedidiah]

He gets it from you deflecting with nonsense like 'but knives kill people too' as if guns weren't massive force multipliers. I can think of dozens of examples of mass killings with guns (defined as a number of people killed in the same incident) but only one with knives off hand - and that was way back in the 1960's when serial killers weren't widely known.


Personally, I find it disingenuous - you AREN'T anti-gun control - you're anti-gun abolition - but you can't argue them separately. Either you really don't understand the difference - which is not the case - or you refuse to acknowledge it.

The funny part - I'm actually on your side, not Adrift's, in this debate. You never even realized.

The funny part is you jumping all over people making sane comments even when they were not directed to you. CP was clearly responding to Adrift and not to you. Get control of yourself.

[Cow Poke]

Disingenuous again - you understood the simile perfectly well and most certainly have used that line of reasoning.

Actual quotes, please, not false allegations. If I said it, you should be able to quote it.

[Jedidiah]

This has become much less of a sane discussion and more like a nursery school. Teal and Adrift are the main guilty ones in this respect. I still love you guys though. Really I do.