How can we regulate guns ... ?

In the US (in Texas for example) can people carry around large knives (or even swords)? Are these considered legitimate methods of self defense? Do you think gun massacres are more of a problem in the US than other comparable countries? If someone decides they want to kill lots of people (in a school for example) do you agree that a machine-gun would be a rather effective method of doing that?In those recent instances where someone has decided they want to kill lots of people why didn't they use a machine gun, in your view?Did the regulation and thus relative unavailability of machine guns have anything to do with them not using this method of achieving their aim? I don't see how the effectiveness and availability of different weapons can be irrelevant when someone decides they want to kill lots of people. Can you explain why the effectiveness and availability of weapons is irrelevant?

quote:

---

Do you oppose an increase in gun legislation?

​

That would depend on the specific legislation.

​

Do you support a decrease in gun legislation?

​

Again, that depends on the specific legislation.

---

Could you be more specific? What legislation (for or against) would you suggest/support?

Other than looking ridiculous could one walk round a mall with a samurai sword strapped to one's back? Or would you be stopped for carrying some sort of dangerous weapon? How many would have to be killed before it did constitute a serious problem in your view? Discussion of machine guns is pertinent in this context for the same reason discussion of knives is. Because it acts as a comparison to the methods that were actually used in terms of both effectiveness and availability. In recent massacres why didn't the perpetrator use a knife? Why didn't they use a machine gun? Why did they use a gun?The answers that seem obvious to many are:1) They didn't use a knife because, whilst highly available, a knife is not the most effective way of achieving the aim of killing lots of people.2) The didn't use a machine gun because, whilst highly effective at killing lots of people, machine guns are not so readily available.3) They did use a gun because guns are both effective at killing lots of people and pretty readily available.Which part of the above analysis do you disagree with? They are relevant if they provide an effective and readily available means of killing people. No? Sure. But until we can figure that out and do something about it what we do know is that people do sometime behave in this way. So perhaps greatly limiting the availability of effective methods of killing people is something that should be done while we try and figure out how to bring about a utopian society where no-one ever wants to go on a killing spree.No?

Yes. That is why I included the word "comparable".The US has a homicide rate completely out of kilter with it's status as a first world Western democracy.There are probably numerous reasons for this. But the bewildering attitude to guns as some sort of symbol of freedom is almost certainly part of the issue.

I looked up Texas law and it seems that carrying any blade over 5 inches long in public is outright illegal. It is also similarly illegal to carry things like clubs, knuckle dusters and nunchuks.It seems very odd to make special provision for guns as a form of self defense whilst banning other weapons that could equally be argued as used to deter or defend doesn't it?Isn't this a form of special pleading for guns? Well how about any of the recent gun massacre incidents? Was the effectiveness and availability of weapon a factor when guns were used in any of those incidents?Or is it just co-incidence guns were used instead of knives or swords or machine guns or whatever else? Sure. But if there isn't a significant problem to solve why do anything at all? Other Western nations have sought to significantly restrict access to guns as part of this. Are they wrong and misguided in your opinion?Are there any other nations whose approach to these issues you would like to emulate in the US?

So if swords were specifically addressed in the constitution guns would probably be significantly more restricted in the US and everyone would be defending the right to carry a sword instead.....? Well they provided an effective and readily available method of mass killing. Which is after all what they were designed to do..... He didn't go round killing people with his bare hands though did he? He used an effective and available tool of mass killing. A tool designed for that function. Well that is a rather isolationist approach. Do you apply that to all your thinking in the areas of politics and sociology? Economics? Health? Are all case studies in all areas of social policy that don't involve the US to be completely disregarded as "irrelevant".....? Or just ones pertaining to guns specifically? This might come as a surprise but other nations have many of the same problems and have come up with ways of tackling them that might conceivably be instructive or educational (both in terms of what does work and what doesn't). In fact the best studies might (gasp!) examine many nations.Look past your own borders and you might see that human nature is pretty consistent in many ways.....

Well they are if you insist on treating them as a special case.If you guys were to decide that guns weren't a good idea you could change things in the same way you changed things regarding slavery and voting rights for all and suchlike.The clue is in the name "amendment".....: A change or addition to a legal or statutory document.But it's not gonna happen. The whole gun things seems psychologically interwoven on a near national level with some cowboy like notion of "freedom". It's absurd. But not gonna change any time soon. And others could make a case that most private gun carrying isn't......So what?

My initial aim in responding to you was to get past the 'jar-rut' of single sentence pointless replies insisting that you had already considered and answered everything put to you. Well since you ask...

No matter how relentlessly you assert otherwise the availability of tools designed to kill efficiently obviously is relevant to people's ability to kill efficiently when they decide to go on a killing spree. To suggest otherwise is just idiotic.

​

jar writes:

​

What other nations do and have done is really irrelevant.

​

The idea that the US is so unique as to make data from other nations completely irrelevant is again idiotic. I doubt you would dismiss data from other nations in other social policy areas (health, education, economics etc. etc) as completely irrelevant to evidence based decision making in the US so why do so for guns?

​

jar writes:

​

Guns are a special case, one that is specifically addressed in our Constitution.

​

I think we are all aware that it's in da constitution. But that has little bearing on evidence based consideration of whether it's a good social policy or not in modern times.

Do you think social policy should be based upon:A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.
B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago
C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers'
D) Evidence based research It is only a "special case" in the sense that you choose to make it so.

Well if I wanted to walk into a school and massacre a large number of people and I had the following choice of weapons which of the following would I be best served arming myself with in order to achieve my stated aim:A) Some cutting remarks
B) A pea shooter
C) A feather duster
D) A sharp pencil
E) My fists and nothing else
F) A swiss army knife
G) A baseball bat
E) The sort of gun used in recent massacres
F) A machine gunNow throw in the availability factor of the above on top of the 'deadliness' factor and 'voila'........ We seem to have identified why it is that guns are used when people want to go on killing rampages don't we?

Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research?If so - Do you also agree that this applies as much to the USA as anywhere else? They weren't questions. They were suggested answers to a single question. To me the answer to that question is obviously D) Evidence based research. To me this this is obviously applies to the US as much as anywhere else.But according to you the US is a "special case" so I included some other possibilities along other lines. If you have another answer feel free to reveal it.......(rather than going down the tiresome and tedious route of telling us what you didn't say)

Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research? Or not? Yes you did. See - There is you asserting that the US is a "special case".

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

---

LinkDo you dispute these findings? Do you think other nations have taken steps in the directions you outline (e.g. partial decriminilisation of drugs)? What can be learnt from those examples?Why not take both social measures and act on the prevalence of guns if both are factors?

Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research? Or not?Why is this such a difficult question for you? So in a discussion about gun regulation the US isn't a special case but the issue of guns in the US is a special case.....Well I am glad we cleared that up!! Then perhaps you aren't looking?

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

---

LinkDo you dispute these findings? Do you think other nations have taken steps in the directions you outline (e.g. partial decriminilisation of drugs)? What can be learnt from those examples?Why not take both social measures and act on the prevalence of guns if both are factors?

Well if you wanted to select a weapon to go on an effective killing rampage what would you select? Why did the perpetrators of recent massacres choose the weapons they did?If the term "efficiency" is causing you problem just pick another one. "Deadliness" maybe? "Effectiveness". Whatever dude. Take your pick. The English language is full of words that one could choose to make the same point. If you don't like the term "efficiency" pick one you do like. I really don't mind what term you use as long as the conceptual meaning is clear. You want to talk about ratios? FFS!!! You are a smart enough guy for this sort of ridiculous diversion tactic to be beneath you. Frankly it smacks of a losing argument on your part.

How about instead of removing the guns the same sort of restrictions that are applied in New York are applied across the board?Would that not be constitutional and thus a legitimate and demonstrated-to-be-effective form of regulation?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Poverty. Homelessness. Deep-seated inequality of opportunity. Disenfranchised people with little stake in adhering to the things that hold society together. Addiction. Gangs. Joblessness. Prejudice. Mental illness. Drugs. Anti-social behaviour. Crime. Community breakdown. Etc.Whatever the answers may or may not be to these social issues only an absolute lunatic would look at such a situation and conclude that what the situation needs is a citizenry armed with guns.