some people are more likely to kill if they have a gun

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 39
Topic's author
#31
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Buddamoose

on the 'defensive gun use' point, there are many more studies that low ball the number

it looks like you are just ignoring the study in the OP. look at all the other metrics that illustrate that people are more likely to kill with a gun around.

stop ignoring science. use common sense. some people with guns are more likely to kill someone. 

#32
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
This also is applicable to your oft use of utility aka harm reduction in arguing for gun control, more specifically the component of lives lost v lives saved therein. Ignoring that lives lost v lives saved is just one component of utility, and therefore highly specious to be exclusively using, you come upon another absurd implication that highlights also in the same breadth, total inconsistency in rationale. 

This inconsistency is created because of the necessary highly severe risk of a civil war(i would posit its pretty much guaranteed) if an attempt at banning guns wholesale, or majoritively is made.

Deaths from firearms not counting suicides is in the realm of around 10k per year, 30k if you include suicides. A civil war exacts a death toll far beyond that. For example, the most prevalent example is Syria, in which an estimated 510,000 died between 2012 and 2017. 

Now, I'm no genius when it comes to math, but 10k lives yearly is far less than 100k lives yearly. This ignoring that the US has a larger population, and more guns in the hands of citizens than Syria. That death toll likely rises even higher. 

Basically, you are mainly using harm reduction, but again, are only examining the surface and not examining the underlying implications and consequences of your position, and any increases to harm that are severely likely to result in the event of attempting to undertake your proposed policy. 
Basically, you are using lives lost v lives saved, all the while ignoring, just like you are ignoring non lethal harm reduction, many highly potential harms. 

To illustrate, I'll use another criticism of utility, lets say you have a black man accussed of rape decades ago. Now, you are the police officer, and you know very well this man didn't do it, he has an airtight alibi. However, the angry mob thats formed outside your station is demanding you turn him over, or they will riot and turn their attention to the black community as a whole. 

Harm reduction would have one hold that one turns over the innocent man to be lynched, to spare the harm of a riot and the damage that will cause to scores of innocents. That is, if one carried out utility its logical end. What you are doing here, would equate to stopping your thought process at, "he's innocent, and that mob is going to assuredly kill him, therefore it is reducing harm by not turning him over to the mob."

Except, just like here, that's not actually reducing total harm, like here, its acting in a manner that will actually increase total harm by far. So its not even consistent to the rational metric being used. It facially appears as such if you don't carry out that process to its logical end. And that is precisely what you often do. 

Another common example of this in everyday politics:

Saying Communism is not evil because it advocates for collective and communitarian equal distribution of wealth. All the while ignoring achieving that necessarily means genocide to eliminate anyone who would operate in a different manner, which is outright stated in the manifesto for the ideology itself. 🤔
#33
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@linate
on the 'defensive gun use' point, there are many more studies that low ball the number

From the linked wikipedia article,

Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million per year. Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[2][3][4]

In that same article it cites one study for the low end estimate of 55k-80k, it cites two, independent of the one by Kleck and the CDC, which put it at at least over 1million. 

Now even if we assume the low ball estimate backed up by one study instead of the four studies cited both within the article and by me in this thread, which btw makes the following nonsensical

there are many more studies that low ball the number

More? How is 4 less than 1 again? 🤔

But digressing, even if we use the lowball estimate of the minimal 55k, the average deaths to a firearm in any given year is around the 30k mark(in 2017 it was a little above that). 

55k is greater than 30k 🤔. So to remain consistent with harm reduction, you still have to hold its better that guns are around. As stated, solely the metric of lives lost v lives saved, is wholly specious to the scope of utility/harm reduction 

stop ignoring science. use common sense. 

I'm not the one ignoring science here lol. Nor am I the one not using "common sense". First of all, "common sense" is a red herring, you might as well just say, "i cant rationally substantiate this, so im appealing to the fallacious concept of common sense. I would hold understanding that 55 is greater than 30, and 100k+ is greater than 30k is common sense. But apparently its not, because you are operating as if the opposite is true. 

 some people with guns are more likely to kill someone. 
Yes, and this is because these people have a higher prevalency inherently to committing violence, not because the gun itself makes them more prone to violent actions. As stated in the study, the most prevalent indicator to partner homicide is a past history of IPV. As in, these individuals are already displaying a proclivity to acting violently, independent of guns. This proclivity is taken to extreme levels with a gun present, as its logical to posit that in a fit of rage, a person is liable to grab whatever is around that will cause the most damage possible. 

This doesnt however, operate as justification for banning all guns, this operates as justification for making it illegal for individuals with a past history of severe violence, to own a gun. 

I'll state again, just because something is more probable, does not mean that increased likelihood is actually relevant to policy proposals. As said, your odds of drowning in your backyard skyrocket upon putting a pool in your backyard. This increased risk is wholly irrelevant and rather meaningless to the overall picture. Why? Because risk can be reduced through individual preventative measures. 

Ex: A person is more likely to drown in the aforementioned, but that risk is vastly minimized if they dont consume alcohol and swim, avoid leaving things lying around that can result in falling into the pool(like for example a rake. Pre-pool you step on that rake and it whaps you in the face and knocks you out, no serious harm done. Have that happen next to a pool though, and whoops, looks like you just drowned to death. 

Again, you are predominantly and near exclusively using utility as a metric. But are speciously ignoring necessary components to utility such as non-lethal harm reduction, individual preventative measures, necessary consequences of the advocated course, and grossly inconsistent applications of harm reduction that wholly ignore necessary implications that result in greater harm than would otherwise happen. 

I'm not the one being inconsistent in applying the rational metrics of analysis here, thats you 🤔
Topic's author
#34
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Buddamoose

do you agree that criminals are more likely to kill if they have a gun? a lot of conservatives would say that it's true, yet try to say non-criminals never are more likely. but the world isn't magically split between criminals and not. normal people become criminals. not saying this as a reason to ban guns, but as the point that we have to remember that people are more likely to kill if they have a gun, when we are considering who shouldn't be allowed to have them. 

also, if people will just find another means to kill, or will run out and get guns illegally, why bother at all to ban criminals from having guns?

what do you think about the stat that if you compare the usa to at least other english countries, if you remove guns homicides, our homicide rate is almost the same? this stat is hard to get around. guns make our country less safe. 

i think a person could argue people who are violent or in high crime areas are more likely to get a gun, and thus are more liklely to use it. but this techncially would still mean that people with guns are more likley to kill, yet people try to argue that that's not the case. 
#35
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
This not to mention, that you claim science, but you are presenting something that accounts for only 6.5million deaths out of about 1.3 billion between 1990 and 2016. That is .05%. Last time i checked, its not all scientific or common sense to present something that accounts for a fraction of a fraction of a single percent, as a serious issue. 

This not to mention, that those ratios are set to seamatically decrease even further. See, starting back in the 50's we had a population explosion globally. It was in part due to increased birth ratea, but also because life expectancy skyrocketed with the advent of modernized medicine. This means not only were more people being born, but the people who were dying dropped dramatically. 

But that dramatic drop is only temporary, as life expectancies are stalling out in increasing, and in certain areas, starting to decrease. So the average of 50m(its at 55m a year now btw) deaths a  year between 1990 and 2016 has been increasing due to people who have been blessed to have lived far longer than at any point in history, are starting to die off because now they're hitting their 70's and 80's. Basically, that .05% is going to continue to drop to lower and lower percentages, as even the absurdly low percentage it is currently at, has been artificially bolstered and raised by there being a rapid drop in total death rates that came as a result of large increases to life expectancy 🤔. 

In other words, this serious issue, that isnt all too serious, is only going to appear less and less serious as the rates balance out again as we globally are starting to exit the phase of population booms 🤔



#36
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
do you agree that criminals are more likely to kill if they have a gun? 

I dont disagree, never did, what im pointing out is that you are using harm reduction speciously as you are only factoring in lives lost, when that is but one of many components to the metric of utility.

As well as your conclusions being wholly inconsistent to that metric. To make this clear, i dont care about your stat regurgitation, I'm attacking your underlying thought processes and predicates because they are largely irrational 😰

#37
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
I mean, what you are doing here in advocacy is equivalent to wanting to scrap a 96 Toyota Supra Twin Turbo for parts, because the 02 censor occassionally malfunction. This is accurate because you are trying to scrap gun ownership(the supra) because people sometimes use those guns to commit crimes(the malfunctioning 02 sensor). 


#38
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
Howeveer plausible that sounds, that is precisely what the statistic mentioned in the OP says is not the case.
I imagine it is the same as suicide. Where one willing to kill them self is usually going to get the job done with a gun. Therefore, the statistics would should that using a gun is more likely than pills or other means of death. However, taking away the gun will do nothing to help the symptom which is depression leading to self harm. Yes... guns get the job done better than any other method, so of course the statistics would look in favor of guns being the best tool... bc they are the best tool.

Plus, right now there is an option to use guns to kill others. So... they will be used most often, again, skewing the statistics. Whatever stats he used doesn't factor a reality with no guns. If there are no guns, i am sure people will start using the next best weapon to get the job done. Again, you are doing nothing for the actual causes of this kind of violence focusing on the tool. Whatever statistics he mentioned are likely fractions of a percent different if there are no guns. Yes, it might save 1 person out of 10... but 9 will still fall victim to this violence if we don't do something that actually addresses the issue and not focus on the tool. Bc again... the tool is going to stay around for years to come... so how is it productive focusing on it? 

How will you save children, victims of abuse, gang violence, etc. focusing on the tool which is not going away anytime soon? You aren't saving anyone debating the tool. It is laws that have nothing to do with guns that will be the most effective in putting a dent into violence. But we keep focusing away from actually doing something that will have an impact. 

#39
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@linate
Alcoholics are more likely to drink if their is alcohol around them.

Kleptomaniacs are more likely to steal if they are in a department store.



A wife beater is most likely to gravely injure their significant other, and odds are they would use whatever is around them.  This is a worthless study.