quote: Of course it doesn't matter. The point is that it is more dangerous to go out to supper on Saturday night than it is to skip supper on Saturday night. People still go out to supper. And society's response isn't to shout at people daring to risk life and limb for good steak, but instead to make cars safer, intersections safer, improve driver education, etc.
Aside from the specific problems with that analogy there is one very basic difference that is being ignored. The purpose of owning and using a car is very different from the purpose of owning a gun. Buying a gun to protect your life and your families lives has - on average - the opposite effect. The car does what it is meant to do but the gun does not.
A better analogy might be skipping vaccinations to protect your child's health. Due to scaremongering there are people who believe that is a good idea, but it isn't. Are you really saying that we should try to make things safer for those who mistakenly refuse to vaccinate instead of countering the misinformation and encouraging vaccination ?
quote: The primary reason that guns tend to harm the people they are bought to protect more often than protect them is because the safety measures required are never seriously discussed.
That may or may not be true. But if, say, the equivalent of a driving test were introduced before you were permitted to own a gun, who do you think would scream loudest against it?
quote: No. I am saying there is a cost-benefit associated with going out for supper vs. not going out for supper and a cost-benefit associated with owning a gun vs. not owning a gun.
Except you don't seem to consider the benefits that people seek in going out for supper - or offer any benefits other than "protection" in the case of the gun.
quote: Your chance of dying is greater if you get in your car and go out for supper instead of staying home and not eating a meal that night. Much like your chance of dying is greater if you buy a gun instead of hope no one tries to break into your house and kill you.
I think you will find that very people go out for supper with the sole intention of finding sufficient nourishment to survive.
quote: The 'purpose' of each thing has no relevancy whatsoever.
You can't do a cost-benefit analysis without considering the benefits that are actually being sought. So purpose is very relevant. The benefits of owning a gun for protection are more likely to be achieved by not owning a gun. The desired benefits of going out for supper are rather less likely to be achieved by staying in. Thus there is no analogy.
But you can bet that the screams will come from the gun lobby
quote: For simplicity's sake. But forgoing all the benefits from going out to supper is the cost of not going out, and none of those things has a risk above zero of killing you. It's still riskier going out to supper.
I guess that it's simpler to ignore facts that eviscerate your argument, but it isn't honest.
quote: And that's irrelevant because forgoing a night of socializing has risk of death of exactly zero
And that is obviously untrue. It is relevant because it shows that your comparison is highly misleading and dishonest.
Your argument merely shows that people who go out for supper - and drive to do so - for the sole purpose of survival are making a mistake comparable to buying a gun for protection. To which the obvious reaction is "so what?" Because nobody does that. It would be a silly thing to do.
quote: You're trying too hard to miss the point, which is that people often engage in risky behavior—even when the risks are well known.
That is a nice example of projection. The bare fact of the risks of gun ownership is not the point. The point that owning a gun for protection increases the risks it is meant to reduce is the point. And you know it - that is why you try to "simplify" going out for supper into a question of survival ignoring the expected benefits, the real reasons for going out to supper. So you do not have even the excuse of an honest failure to understand.
quote: Even if they go out for other purposes like socializing they are making that mistake because not socializing isn't going to kill them
Since they will more likely fulfil those purposes by going out than staying in they are NOT making that mistake. An action that has the opposite of the desired effect is very different from one that happens to carry a very small risk of death. The nurses and doctors who went out to treat Ebola patients in Africa took a larger risk, but their action is not a mistake because of that.
quote: And some of those people who buy guns involved in accidental shooting buy those guns for more reasons than just protection
So? It doesn't change the fact that those who do buy guns for protection are doing the wrong thing.
quote: If there have been any artificial limitations in the analogies, it's because they were introduced in the original argument about buying guns for protection. If you want to address the other probabilities in, then you'll have to look at all the other benefits people give up by not buying a gun, like the feeling of safety, the love of something shiny, etc.—which they give up with 100% certainty if they do not buy a gun.
Really this level of dishonesty isn't helping your case. Even if the restriction was artificial (and it arguably is not) you didn't point that out. You just went ahead and added your own silly restrictions. If you post stupid bullshit that is your fault. Not anybody else's.
But in reality those points can be addressed. The feeling of safety is false. There are other shiny things. Maybe, for some people, the other things do justify buying a gun. But knowing that would require a real cost-benefit analysis.
quote: But this makes everything a total fucking mess; and since policies usually aren't directed at nonsense like improving satisfaction from owning shiny things or socializing but instead at meaningful stuff like keeping people safe, it just makes sense to ignore these other 'benefits' as everyone else, besides you, has been doing.
Funny how you suddenly switch from individual decisions to government policies. And funny how you consider freedom to lack meaning. Or recognise that, far from simplifying things this move complicates them more.
A lot of women who buy hand guns are just waiting desperately for that moment when they find themselves under a rapist and can pull that gun from their nearby purse to shoot him?
That isn't what I said. In fact I think that it is seen more like insurance - something that you hope not to need, but are glad to have if you do need it.
quote: Are you aware that you're more likely to spend more money, over all, on insurance than what you will ever receive in a payout?
Is buying insurance wrong?
Yes, I am aware of that. But then I understand the concept of insurance. The point of a good insurance policy is to cushion serious blows, turn them into something that is at least financially survivable. People buy insurance policies to reduce the risk of things going REALLY bad, not to make a profit. Fraud excepted.
quote: There's nothing to explain. The assumption that I was talking only about 'government' policies was your assumption.
Of course there is something to explain,. What "policies" were you talking about ? Here's the text again:
...since policies usually aren't directed at nonsense like improving satisfaction from owning shiny things or socializing but instead at meaningful stuff like keeping people safe...
quote: If that's what you wanted, why didn't you just ask that from the beginning instead of trying to get me to explain why I didn't mean 'government policies' when I didn't say 'government policies'?
I did ask that as soon as you told me that - despite the context suggesting otherwise - you didn't mean government policies. You evaded the issue.
But OK. I'm satisfied now that you did mean government policies.
It's funnier than that,in a very sad way, if you know the history of China in the first half of the 20th Century.
Suffice to say that the Chinese government establishing gun control in 1935 would be a bit of a joke - at least when it's held to affect the availability of weapons in 1948 - and the Chinese government of 1935 did not have much to do with the Chinese government of 1948.
Reading that I have to ask if the guy is even a real forensic psychiatrist. It looks like a nasty attempt to forestall any call for restrictions on gun ownership, and suppress criticism of the far right. Even a veiled threat that verges on terrorism.
I doubt he bothered to gather much information at all.
I would add that those who kill to publicise a cause generally advertise their cause. He didn't. He may have intended to kill people at an earlier musical event, too, so I don't think we can assume that he particularly cared who he killed.
Notoriety seems a more likely motivation since he would get that just by killing enough people. It may not be his actual motive, but it seems likelier than killing for a cause.