News & Current Events
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-04T13:07:14-04:00 — #1
Very interesting read about actual data regarding possible gun control:
bill_coley — 2017-10-04T14:18:44-04:00 — #2
The "actual data" as to the per capita murder rate by gun between 2010 and 2015 in several of the developed nations of the world ("apples to apples") are as follows:
United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Australia: 0.1/100,000 population
France, Netherlands, Switzerland: 0.2/100,000 population
Italy: 0.4/100,000 population
Greece, Canada: 0.5/100,000 population
United States: 2.7/100,000 population
According to THESE DATA, the only areas of the world that experience higher murder by gun rates than the U.S. are the nations of Central America and northern South America, all ravaged by illicit drug trafficking.
We know from long experience that we're not going to do anything to reduce gun violence in this country (though there might be a developing consensus that bump stock modifiers, which all more rapid firing of weapons, should not be widely sold). Gun ownership is simply too ingrained in the American fabric to make any significant changes, no matter how many die from gunfire.
Donald Trump predicted - correctly, I think - that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave in New York and his supporters would still support him. The same is true about this nation's gun supporters. Right now about 11,000 people die per year because other people shoot them, and about 22,000 or so die because they shoot themselves. Those numbers could quadruple or quintuple, I think, and gun supporters would still object to additional gun laws.
We're becoming more and more accustomed to the reality that among the costs of living in this great country are enduring more mass shootings than residents of other countries endure, and living with the knowledge that when it comes to guns, your nation is among the most violent nations on earth.
For most gun supporters, all available evidence suggests, those are costs well worth paying.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-04T14:22:40-04:00 — #3
2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. Do you think that if people want to end their lives so badly that gun control will stop them?
Because the gun laws don't work Bill. That's the whole point.
Does that have to do with the guns or the culture of the people?
And what about the 2nd Amendment Bill? What is your interpretation of it? What was/is its purpose? Is it important to you at all?
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-04T14:54:48-04:00 — #4
Here is another piece on the OpEd
Also @bill_coley you didn't actually address what the article said. Is that because it doesn't fit with your narrative that we need gun control? I know it must be a big blow since the author of the OpEd was actually a liberal like yourself....
bill_coley — 2017-10-04T15:48:08-04:00 — #5
People kill themselves using methods available to them. In this country of 300 million guns, guns are often available to them. But even reducing the supply of and public access to guns wouldn't reduce the suicide rate much.
Do we then do nothing about the supply of and access to guns? Well, we should do something - just as parents keep poisons out of the reach of their kids even though there are lots of other ways in the house for their kids to injure themselves - but we won't. We won't do anything.
We've each made our points about this issue, David. As have the people of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Australia, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, and Canada - all developed nations whose per capita murder rates by gun are five to 27 times smaller than ours.
Then there's Japan, another developed nation, which in 2008 had 11 homicides by gun, while we experienced 12,000. Japan's per capita gun murder rate that year was 0.009/100,000 population. Ours was 3.947/100,000 population, 439 times greater than Japan's.
I think it's the culture. In my view, it's unwise - make that wrong - to arm a culture that's predisposed to violence, in the same way authorities keep certain items out of the hands of people who are under suicide watch.
I take the text of the second amendment literally, from which reading I conclude that "the right to keep and bear arms" is related to the need for "a well regulated militia," a militia that is necessary "to the security of a free state." From the amendment's text as I read it, there is no stated or implied right to keep and bear arms for personal use. Obviously, the Supreme Court has held differently, and their rulings are the law of the land, not my judgments. Hence, I accept that owning guns is a right in the U.S.
Now as to which arms, I agree with former chief justice Warren Burger - not a liberal - who believed that if the framers believed militia were to be "well regulated," so could be the ownership of the arms kept and borne to maintain those militia.
But again, my views are not the deciding views on this matter. Our culture has decided that gun violence and the concomitant high murder rates are acceptable prices to pay for our second amendment rights. I believe that were our country's most passionate second amendment defenders given the fairy tale choice between continuing to own their guns or removing all guns from the world, and saving 11,000 lives per year in the U.S. most would choose their guns.
I don't think there is ANY price too high to pay for the community of Americans committed to their guns. To me that's sad... and constitutional.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-04T16:03:31-04:00 — #6
Actually we do the same types of things with guns Bill. The exact things actually. Try again.
The whole point was for everyday citizens to be able to take up arms to fight a war if need be.
I would love to know how he got that from the framers. Nothing to suggest that. In fact, it is still a law on the books in South Carolina (granted not enforced) that boys over 16 are supposed to bring a rifle to church on Sundays.
It wouldn't save 11,000 lives. The data proves that. It doesn't change anything. That just means there will be illegal guns in the country.
bill_coley — 2017-10-04T16:18:59-04:00 — #7
Actually, the meaning of my previous post was to ask whether we ought to do anything else - in addition to what we're already doing - about the supply of and access to guns. And when I concluded "We won't do anything," I meant we won't do anything else - in addition to what we're already doing. I thought that was clear. It obviously wasn't. Sorry for the miscommunication.... I'm not going to "try again."
Arms to fight wars: That's the way I read the amendment, too. But I don't read it to permit arms to fight those wars against other Americans, which in my view is what we do now.
In what my previous post called a "fairy tale choice," in fact it would save 11,000 lives. And in my "fairy tale," recall, all guns were "remov(ed) from the world," meaning there would be no "illegal guns in the country."
But that was all a fairy tale, not reality. Just as is the thought that we will ever do anything else - in addition to what we're already doing - to regulate the supply of or access to guns.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-04T16:52:52-04:00 — #8
Agreed, which is why there are laws against murder that are punishable by death in many cases if you break them. The control is already there.
What is it exactly you suggest that we do that we are not currently doing Bill? Something that hasn't already been disproven to work...
And you still have yet to address the article itself...
bill_coley — 2017-10-04T17:34:31-04:00 — #9
Here you address laws. I addressed the constitution.
If the text of the second amendment exists to permit the militia's keeping and bearing of arms to fight wars, but ONLY wars against foreign enemies and others who threaten the "security of a free State," then private ownership of arms, for uses OTHER than militia's fighting wars against enemies, is not defensible using the second amendment!
But again, that's an argument the Supreme Court has rejected, so it's moot.
Start with universal background checks, which haven't been tried (so they haven't "been disproven to work") and which a panel of 29 experts widely agree would deter some illegal purchases. Then close the gun show loophole, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
I have other ideas, but think it a waste of time to share them because none of them will ever gain traction in our gun-forsaken culture.
I take issue with numerous points the author makes, for example with her conclusions about the effects of British and Australian gun laws on gun crime in those countries. But again, it doesn't matter. We're not going to do anything even if that writer concludes that gun laws help.
Her solutions - targeted, micro-interventions - can help on case-by-case bases, but do nothing about the problem writ large, the problem we're never going to do anything more about than we're doing now: the wrong inherent in arming a violent culture.
David, you claim the answer is the Gospel. Since SO MANY other developed nations of the world have dramatically lower gun violence rates than we do, does that mean you believe the Gospel has transformed those countries more than it has ours? that when it comes to gun violence, those nations are, in effect, more "Christian" than we are?
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-04T18:26:18-04:00 — #10
I dont think a repeal, revision or removal of the 2nd amendment would disarm America.
Too many illegal Guns exist supplied by the Govt.
If there weren't any guns, man is creative enough to find other ways to destroy each other.
I like my guns. I am a Texan. Law or Not, ya' ain't getten' em'. I stay in the country, How am I gonna kill the possums?
gao_lu — 2017-10-04T21:19:21-04:00 — #11
It would be useless. I know how things are in other countries where they are outlawed.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-04T21:30:31-04:00 — #12
Who said foreign enemies? The Constitution definitely did not say that.
What mass shooting would that have stopped? The man in Las Vegas went through background checks and cleared. Proven they do not work.
But the fact is she concluded that they don't work based on actual data.
Dramatically lower gun violence, I don't think that is the case.
bill_coley — 2017-10-04T22:23:43-04:00 — #13
In a previous post, you claimed that the point of the second amendment was to equip "citizens to be able to take up arms to fight a war if need be." My assumption is that most (but not all) wars are fought against foreign states, hence my reference to "foreign enemies and others who threaten the "security of a free State."
Recall my point was that the second amendment's intention to equip Americans for wars was not - at least not according to my reading of the amendment - also an intention to equip Americans for among themselves, which is what happens on American streets everyday now.
As you know from reading the story to which I linked, background checks ranked highest among the 29 experts queried for the Times' story as an action that could "(reduce) firearm homicide deaths." The story did not focus on mass shootings.
It's possible to disagree with the conclusions people draw from their work with "actual data."
In 2008, the per capita gun homicide rate in the U.S. was 439 times greater than the per capita rate in Japan. If Japan's rate was not "dramatically lower" in your view, what would be? How many hundreds or thousands of times greater than another nation's homicide rate would the American rate have to be before you'd deem it "dramatically" greater than that other nation's?
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-05T08:03:12-04:00 — #14
Their original frame of reference was from their own government as well as foreign enemies. That being said it also gives them the right to keep arms. It does not say war is the only reason to use the weapons.
Again, that is why we have laws that punish people who do that.
29 self-proclaimed experts and not actual data. The fact is that the actual data shows most gun violence would not be stopped by more background checks.
I think you miss the point here by focusing on gun violence. You need to look at the actual crime rate. Crime in general is higher in the United States than these other countries. What does that tell us? Guns are not the issue. People and culture are the issue.
A lot of the problem, in my opinion, in the United States is the media and the "victimization" of classes of people. They believe they are owed something and above the law. That means they will do what they want to counter this great injustice. Therefore, crime goes up.
Also, as far as mass killings, places like the UK and Germany are having mass killings and injuries much more frequently than the United States, they just do not use guns. They are using vehicles, knives, bombs, etc.
bill_coley — 2017-10-05T11:26:23-04:00 — #15
YOU'RE the one who said "the whole point" of the second amendment was to equip citizens "to take up arms to fight a war if need be."
I then agreed with you, offered my rewording of your response, and added an application...
That was a response with which you then expressed agreement....
In my view, if "people who do that" have less access to guns, then those people won't "do that" with guns as much as they do now.
As you know from reading the article to which I linked, David, the 29 experts with whom the Times conferred were not "self-proclaimed." It is the Times which classified the academics on its panel as "many of the country’s best empirical researchers on gun policy," a strong suggestion that those people work with actual data.
And I return to the question I have raised before, but to which you have not responded: You claim the Gospel, not additional gun laws, is the answer to this set of problems. In your view, does the fact that other nations have much lower crime and gun violence rates (see below) mean that the Gospel has transformed those nations more than it has the U.S.? That on the matter of crime and gun violence, those nations are, in effect, more "Christian" than we?
Those attacks would be terrorist attacks, yes? Not sure how to classify those, but SURELY the number of people, per capita, who die in the U.S. by gun violence is higher than the number who die in Britain or Germany from vehicles, knives, bombs, etc.
According to the latest statistics, in 2016, there were 17,250 murders in the U.S. (about 12,000 via guns, and the rest from knives, vehicles, and other means) That's a rate of 5.34 murders per 100,000 population.
- In Great Britain, there were 697 murders in 2016, or a per capita rate of 1.06 per 100,000 population. [In the year ending with March 2016, 26 (5%) of the nation's homicides were committed by guns.]
SO, in the U.S. the per capita murder rate - which includes, but is not limited to, guns - is five times higher than in Britain, and the percentage of murders committed with guns is around 14 times greater than in Britain. Given those facts, how does it not make sense that Britain's tighter gun laws contribute to a) their lower per capita murder rate, and b) the lower percentage of their murders committed by guns?
justin_gatlin — 2017-10-05T12:28:52-04:00 — #16
To address a very narrow point, making guns less accessible WOULD reduce the suicide rate. Harvard did a study where a staggering 90% of people who were not able to get access to a gun for a suicide attempt never killed themselves at all. Someone in a crisis is not thinking rationally to go to plan B, so the common arguments about them finding another way are false. The suicide rate is also strongly correlated to the firearm rate, but there are lots of confounding factors that make that much more difficult to talk about.
bill_coley — 2017-10-05T12:51:04-04:00 — #17
I didn't know about the strong correlation between gun accessibility and suicide prevention, Justin. It makes sense! But I didn't know. Thank you.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-05T13:20:16-04:00 — #18
Then they will do it with a car, a bomb, what have you....
I didn't say it had. But there is something different in the culture in other countries, what is it? Are you saying the Gospel can't fix it?
I was talking about mass killings specifically.
We have a murder problem, not a gun problem.
That's a flawed study, and a flawed premise.
Suicide is rarely a "spur of the moment" event. If you want to kill yourself you will find a way to do it.
justin_gatlin — 2017-10-05T13:39:06-04:00 — #19
That is a pretty broad claim about the study. Care to elaborate?
It also sounds like your counseling experience with people in suicidal crisis has been very different than mine.
bill_coley — 2017-10-05T14:16:21-04:00 — #20
In an earlier post, you asserted that the Gospel is the "answer" to the problem of mass shootings. Since most, if not all, other developed nations of the world have fewer mass shootings/casualties than we do, I assumed you'd conclude that the Gospel had transformed those nations more than it had transformed us.
But from your latest response, I'm not sure what role you think the Gospel plays in other countries' mass shooting (and murder rate) experience. Are you now saying that you believe there is more than one answer to the problem of mass shootings? That the Gospel would work, but other nations might have found other solutions? Or are you saying the Gospel is the reason for other countries' lower numbers?
When 12,000 murders (out of 17,250) are committed by guns, it seems to me we have a gun problem as well as a murder problem.
And why is our "murder problem" so much greater than other nations'? (e.g. Britain and Japan) Why is our per capita murder rate five times Britain's and more than 400 times Japan's? Why is the percentage of murders committed by guns in the U.S. 14 times that in Britain?
Do you contend that Britain's tighter gun laws play no role in their lower per capita murder rate? No role in their lower percentage of murders committed by guns?
next page →