:rofl:

Mass shootings aren't a real problem. Well, not compared to all the other shootings. If you wave a magic wand and end all mass shootings in the US once and for all, you will hardly make a dent in the gun death statistics. — SophistiCat

Sure.

But the "magic wand" I'm pointing to is abolishing the 2nd amendment, which would take care of those other things if it were done in accord with the Australian model.

"Mass shootings" are what persuaded me, however -- not that just because people could, but would continue to perpetrate such madness is what persuaded me that it's worth giving up a right to weapons like firearms, at least as we do it in the states.

It's a curious calculation. Other policies that would save that many lives would be quickly adopted. Yet this policy is resisted so ardently in the US, and not elsewhere.

That is a discord that is worth following up on.

Just because you can't accept anything but applause at attacks on gun ownership doesn't make the analysis dull or or dense. — Hanover

See, this gets down to the root of the issue, perhaps unintentionally. It's an "attack". Point blank. Not a debate, not an attempt to better humanity by considering all things to be considered, simply, as you stated, an attack. Attacks are hostile. And hostility is not only non-productive, but has no place in creating a better future for humanity. Agree or disagree.

It just makes the point that there is not a meaningful risk of loss of life to being shot by a gun in the US if you take the simple precaution of not choosing to have a gun nearby. — Hanover

Well of course that's like saying if all criminals vanished into thin air right now, no one would be attacked, harmed, or robbed by criminals. That's not the debate. It's the human nature to use something, whether it was made for such or not, as a weapon. A car, a rock, a knife, a motolov cocktail, your own bare hands, it doesn't matter what it is. Not really when it's all said and done and a person who was alive is now no longer. Does it?

Obviously control of anything dangerous is not the issue. Everyone agrees on that. Kids shouldn't be able to drive 2-ton SUVs because they want to hang out with their friends, nor should teenagers be able to buy a bottle of vodka because they want to do the same. Control is fine, but total elimination, per your hypothetical, is not just unrealistic, but dismissive of the true causes and reasons why we have such guidelines, limitations, and restrictions in the first place.

The math doesn't support widespread efforts at gun control to reduce the negligible risk guns pose to those who, like me, have never owned, nor will ever own a gun. — Hanover

Well maybe you should. You make alot of money, I'm sure. Put a lot of people (I'm sure most who deserved it) away into places they don't want to be. That means you have enemies, whether you know it or not. If a criminal right now, were to God forbid, attempt to trespass onto your home with violent intentions, one larger than you, what would you do? Call the police? That takes time. What about your goats? Or whatever. It's good to have faith. And I hope it leads you to everything you desire. But for some of us, we need concrete solutions when it comes to protection of life and property. Do you really think that is not a permanent part of human existence in the modern (or any) age that won't go away regardless of what laws are passed or not?

If a criminal right now, were to God forbid, attempt to trespass onto your home with violent intentions, one larger than you, what would you do? Call the police? — Outlander

The likelihood that I be able to produce a gun and use it effectively is lower than that gun being used otherwise to cause me harm. That's my point. You're not safer owning a gun all things considered. The gun in your nightstand drawer is a false sense of security and a greater danger than if it weren't there.

Life is about reducing risks. I'm not immune from gun death, but it's a risk remote enough to navigate without having to eliminate it by force of law or to change much in my day to day life.

The likelihood that I be able to produce a gun and use it effectively is lower than that gun being used otherwise to cause me harm. — Hanover

And whose fault is that? Rather, why is that? Because of your own inability to accept that these things exist, bad people have them, will use them. and if you are not able to do the same, you of all people, you willingly leave you and those you care about vulnerable. It's like technology or germ warfare in the modern age: "if you don't do it, somebody else less virtuous will just do it anyway." Are you a gatekeeper or the one being kept? It's a fine opinion you hold, just one a bit out of touch in the modern age if rubber were to ever meet the road. In short, the bad guys are armed. So why aren't you? Of all people!

I'm trying to intimately and personally imagine this world you wish to (or seem to think we) live in. Are knives allowed? Or do we just break apart meats and fruits with our fingers instead? Do we shave? Or do we just go to government centers with highly trained and certified professionals to shave for us? Should we even drive? Or do we just take self-driving cars and public transport whenever we need to be somewhere? I'm curious. Please. Enlighten me.

That's my point. You're not safer owning a gun all things considered. — Hanover

At least in our very contingent historical moment. But when an argument is based in a very contingent historical moment, it tends to lack depth. After all, if everyone took your advice then we would have a whole society of people who are at the whim of gun-wielders, the allure of guns would increase due to their burgeoning coercive force, and then more people would buy guns to defend themselves (or else hire people with guns to protect them, either in a private capacity or else with taxes in a public capacity). Australia has merely outsourced their gun-protection to the government. When things go south the Australian calls the people with guns: same as anyone else. It just so happens that the people with guns in Australia are most often the military.

So the advice to not own a gun has a lot in common with the advice to sell this or that stock. It is highly time-dependent advice. The advice will become outdated once a few contingencies change.

Life is about reducing risks. — Hanover

Is it, though? Or is this another part/whole conflation?

No doubt, owning a gun decreases the average life expectancy of the owner. Mostly because gun ownership makes suicide attempts much more likely to result in death. And of course most gun deaths in the US are suicides (not murders). In addition, this effect is increased when gun related accidents (an admittedly small number) are added to the huge suicide number, since they are almost always situations where the gun owner and their family are the victims. The home defense benefit of guns is laughably tiny, statistically and plays essentially no relative role in increasing the life expectancy of gun owners, like myself. Basically, if you are at high risk of victimhood, whereby you "need" a gun for that purpose, you're likely going to benefit more from moving to a different location or modifying who you interact with and/or how you interact with them.

To me gun ownership makes sense if you're at very low risk of suicide and you get something positive out of the gun. Say hunting, target shooting, collecting, skeet etc.

and hope that the government never turns them on you. — Leontiskos

The one liberal democracy that is under real threat from its own government is the US, and no amount of gun ownership is going to change that.

The likelihood that I be able to produce a gun and use it effectively is lower than that gun being used otherwise to cause me harm. — Hanover

That is down to practice. If you live in a safe area then there indeed seems little reason to invest time in familiarizing yourself with a firearm. But not everyone is so fortunate.

I think anyone who has had practical experience with violent criminals will understand the human need to have a means of protecting oneself (and the mental cost of not having one), and that law enforcement is not going to suffice.

So the advice to not own a gun has a lot in common with the advice to sell this or that stock. It is highly time-dependent advice. The advice will become outdated once a few contingencies change. — Leontiskos

But this is consistent with what I've said. Mine isn't an ideological position. It's a practical one, The data shows a gun currently provides 4 times more danger than protection. I therefore should have a buy order in with my broker to buy when that number shows it will offer me safety. Because I seriously doubt it ever will, I don't expect the purchase will happen.

The data shows as gun ownership increases, so does your risk of death. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178924000776?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Do you have data that shows that trend spikes and dips like the S&P so that I should be watching and waiting to buy?

To me gun ownership makes sense if you're at very low risk of suicide and you get something positive out of the gun. Say hunting, target shooting, collecting, skeet etc. — LuckyR

That'd I agree with. That's not for protection fantasy, but for other use.

If you live in a safe area then there indeed seems little reason to invest time in familiarizing yourself with a firearm. But not everyone is so fortunate. — Tzeentch

I could find no data suggesting that gun ownership increased one"s safety in more dangerous areas. What i found was the opposite, although I could not find anything that didn't require significant interpretation. Typically as socioeconomic conditions drop, things get worse in every regard, including accidental shootings or failed attempts to thwart attackers.

Typically as socioeconomic conditions drop, things get worse in every regard, including accidental shootings or failed attempts to thwart attackers. — Hanover

So on top of being poor, I'm more likely to accidentally shoot myself. :confused:

I could find no data suggesting that gun ownership increased one"s safety in more dangerous areas. — Hanover

It is common sense. When I am unarmed and someone is coming for my life, I have virtually zero chance of survival. With a firearm it will be significantly higher.

I don't need data or statistics to tell me that, since it is self-evident.

Whether it works out that way for every gun owner is another story, but also none of my concern.

It is common sense. When I am unarmed and someone is coming for my life, I have virtually zero chance of survival. With a firearm it will be significantly higher. — Tzeentch

Common sense also tells you that you're not going to have someone coming at you with a gun, and that if you do that you will have the gun handy when the coming at you occurs, and that if you do produce the gun timely that you'll beat him to to the trigger.

What the data shows is that your gun will more likely cause you more damage than had you not had it.

Again, I don't care if you buy a gun. I'm just telling you you have no reason to feel safer because of it. You can feel like you're protecting yourself and family with a gun, but you're just endangering them. Why can't you let the stats speak for themselves and just say you're comfortable with the increased risks but you want the gun?

The data shows a gun currently provides 4 times more danger than protection. — Hanover

But there's going to be a set of people for whom that's not true. If I'm a single male in a high-crime area, I don't see how keeping a gun in the apartment will put me in more danger. In the aggregate, my chance of suicide goes up, but what if I'm not suicidal and never will be? There's a chance I'll shoot myself cleaning it, but what if I'm not a moron when it comes to guns? The only one that would give me pause is I might brandish it if the police are executing a no-knock warrant at my place and I get killed by them, but the number of people who die that way is very very small, so it's not a real concern.

So on top of being poor, I'm more likely to accidentally shoot myself. — frank

Yep. There's no positives to being poor. People are even more likely to steal your stuff, even though you've got less to steal.

The probability calculus you're citing is going to depend on how often guns are used defensively. I asked ChatGPT this, and it's the first time it ever swore in a response to me, where I hadn't also cursed.



But anyway, the probability of a gun making you safer is going to depend on how often gun owners use guns to save themselves. If you think there are 50,000 DGU's a year, you'll get one result. If you plug in 500,000 DGU's a year, you'll get a much different result.

But there's going to be a set of people for whom that's not true. If I'm a single male in a high-crime area, I don't see how keeping a gun in the apartment will put me in more danger. In the aggregate, — RogueAI

I agree that stats cannot account for every variable, but the data doesn't generally support the proposition that gun ownership offers greater safety than not owning a gun. You can drive accidental shootings down with taking greater precaution and getting better training, but it's just not being intellectually honest to insist you're safer with a gun than without when the numbers point that you're much less safe.

The anecdotes unfortunately dictate the debate, where someone will describe averting disaster by brandishing a gun and heroically protecting their family, but that's not the typical result.

Fortunately, owning a gun as a single predictor of being the victim of gun violence is low enough that it'd be wrong to suggest it's irresponsible to own a gun, so I have no irrational belief no one should own guns, but I do think you fool yourself if you think that gun is making you safer

I read those studies and the Wiki article as well. That data (defensive gun use) is far from clear based upon varying methodologies, so I didn't cite it. My reference was specifically to gun ownership and the increased liklihood of gun injury.

Why can't you let the stats speak for themselves and just say you're comfortable with the increased risks but you want the gun? — Hanover

Statistics without context do not "speak for themselves", nor are the words of someone who has (I assume) never had a run-in with violent criminals particularly valuable.

I have, and there's not a doubt in my mind that a firearm would have made me safer.

And quite honestly, I can understand your attitude. It's easy to make comments about other people's safety when you're sitting high and dry. This is what intellectuals and politcians love to do. These things are "uncommon" until they're happening to you, and you're at the complete mercy of some deranged idiots because your government is too incompetent to protect you, and doesn't allow you to protect yourself.

Statistics without context do not "speak for themselves", nor are the words of someone who has (I assume) never had a run-in with violent criminals particularly valuable. — Tzeentch

Oh please, save me the nonsense about how you've seen pain I can't understand.

I have, and there's not a doubt in my mind that a firearm would have made me safer. — Tzeentch

Of course if you'd have had a gun when you were accosted, the outcome would have been different. I don't know if you owned a gun at the time, but having it at the ready isn't all that common. The data (again the confounded data) shows that gun won't make you safer. You act like I'm opposed to guns ideologically. If owning a gun would make me safer, why wouldn't I go buy one?. You already determined I'm a rich white guy. Why wouldn't I just go buy me an arsenal, get cool sights, laser beams, the whole works?

You're certainly right in my case. I don't live in a high crime area and I have been suicidal in the past. I just really don't want to be unarmed if that black swan event happens, and I'm upstairs and someone has broken in and is coming upstairs...

Oh please, save me the nonsense about how you've seen pain I can't understand. — Hanover

I mean, you clearly have no idea. You might tell yourself you have any idea what it's like based on "data" and "statistics", but you'd just be fooling yourself.

Of course if you'd have had a gun when you were accosted, the outcome would have been different. — Hanover

You're talking about people trying to steal your wallet. I'm talking about people trying to ruin your life over trivial nonsense - death threats, harassment, vandalism etc., and the implicit suggestion that they're willing and low IQ enough to do extreme things.

Why wouldn't I just go buy me an arsenal, get cool sights, laser beams, the whole works? — Hanover

Presumably because there's no reason for you to do so. Good for you. If I had no need for a gun, I wouldn't want one either.

The one liberal democracy that is under real threat from its own government is the US, and no amount of gun ownership is going to change that. — Wayfarer

Spoken like someone who is adamantly opposed to argument. I.e., like Banno.

I think you are placing too much faith in contextless statistics and relying on implausible premises such as this:

Life is about reducing risks. — Hanover

On an individualistic and historically contingent assessment, owning a gun may well increase your risk of death. It doesn't follow from this that it is societally beneficial to place all of the guns into the hands of one set of people. Looking only at what affects you in the short term is a form of selfishness, is it not?

---

Speaking now more generally, I think the anti-gun crowd in this thread has been consistently myopic. They consistently mention one thing, or cite one stat, hope that ends the whole debate, and then ice the cake with unsupported, apodictic statements (and one of them even provides psychiatric diagnoses for anyone who dares to disagree with him). Hanover is doing that a fair bit less than the others, but he still wants to limit the scope of the discussion and draw conclusions from that limited scope.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does have a "give me liberty or give me death" ring to it. Folks who are deeply afraid of death and value their own life far above all else obviously fear a right to arms. Their motto is, "Do whatever you want to me, so long as you don't kill me." I think that's actually where the disagreement lies. Security vs. freedom.

I don't think it's so much a fear of death.

Rather, the average person in a western country lives such a safe and sheltered life that they cannot even fathom the need to protect themselves, or understand what it is like to have one's life threatened, and what it does to a person.

I think any anti-gun person would make a 180 if they were ever to experience how thinly protected they actually are. How easily criminals are able to circumvent the law, and how malicious and petty some people are. When your life is in danger and the police can only shrug their shoulders - that's a reality check.

Rather, the average person in a western country lives such a safe and sheltered life that they cannot even fathom the need to protect themselves, or understand what it is like to have one's life threatened, and what it does to a person. — Tzeentch

There's a decent chance the average American woman will have experienced some kind of violence or attempted violence in her lifetime (often sexual). And if she hasn't she will certainly have close friends who have, so I don't know where you're getting this.

- I agree in large part, but note that 's whole argument revolves around a homicide chart, and 's whole argument revolves around a statistic about death.

So although they may not be viscerally afraid of death, their own arguments are based on an intellectual or statistical fear of death.

Debating gun safety along the axes of murder victimhood vs murder prevention, while ignoring the reality that most US gun deaths are suicides, is missing the point.

All firearms are for Superiority by someone suffering from Inferiority.