Gun Control is About Control, Not About Saving Lives

[Cascade Kid]

Something to consider Gil during your research. Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Regarding saving lives ... I posted this in another thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7949&start=20. I don't think anyone responded to the evidence presented. The Scientific American article is from May 2022. I'll emphasize that I really like what the article said about modeling gun safety research on highway safety research. Assume guns will be around (just like assuming cars and trucks will be around). But work on reducing deaths and serious injuries without simply sticking to a pre-conceived political agenda.

***

What do people think of this Scientific American article? ("The Science is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives")

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ves-lives/

I feel that "laws will prevent a mass shooting" is a ridiculous statement, but "laws will reduce the probability of mass shootings" is a testable hypothesis.

In the Scientific American article, the Editors argue for more research into safety from gun violence. They say the model is research into highway and vehicle safety, which has resulting in driving and roads being much safer than ever. But in fact, federal support for such gun research was non existent for 20 years (due to the Dickey Amendment).

Some of the research the Scientific American article cites has found:

1. "states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26091930/ ("As we previously reported, in 2015, assaults with a firearm were 6.8 times more common in states that had the most guns, compared to the least")

2. "More than a dozen studies have revealed that if you had a gun at home, you were twice as likely to be killed as someone who didn’t" https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326 ... id=1814426

3. "When Missouri repealed its permit law, gun-related killings increased by 25 percent." https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers- ... licensing/

4. Regarding "a ban [on] people who are convicted of violent crime from buying a gun. In California, before the state passed such a law, people convicted of crimes were almost 30 percent more likely to be arrested again for a gun or violent crime than those who, after the law, couldn’t buy a gun." https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... shootings/

I'm an empirical person, and I believe in figuring out cause and effect relationships. Protecting 9 year olds shouldn't be the subject of partisan grandstanding and repeating the same old talking points.

The best part about your article is that great quote we have heard so many times over the last 3 years.....:
"The science is abundantly clear"

That is of course equal to the mating call of the criminally stupid.

I did my own google search and uncovered this:
Researchers with the University of Michigan Injury Prevention Center analyzed 2016 death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine the leading causes of death for American children and adolescents ages 1 to 19. Of the 20,360 deaths among children and teens that year, motor vehicle crashes accounted for 4,074 lives lost and one-fifth of all deaths, while firearm-related injuries resulted in 3,143 deaths, or about 15 percent of total fatalities.

Gil, your article is written that clearly shows this persons OPINION. They are very good at their job. They talk about science, then cherry pick bullshit stats to support it.

[auroraave]

Not to mention the utter absurdity that "science" would conclude "gun control saves lives." That is so beyond the pale of utter bullshit that it hurts me to think that anyone would fall for this "conclusion". How about "human self control" saves lives? Trying to pry away the responsibility of humans to act in a socially acceptable - so as to blame it on an inanimate object so "the authorities" can conveniently use that narrative to weld greater control over the masses - is just hilarious theater. I'm not even in to gun culture - but how about we arm everyone and see how it goes. As if some law will magically prevent guns from getting into criminals hands. Just like drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving.

Seriously - who falls for this shit? Do we need common sense laws? Of course! States should dictate their own laws. What is the last instance of the US government using a common sense approach on literally ANYTHING? Anyone? Bueller?

"Gun control" is a completely arbitrary opinion - it is 100% dependant on the individual - so saying "gun control saves lives" is quite literally the opposite of science. For it to be a fact there would have to be a universally accepted definition of it - and there isn't - everyone has a different opinion. Therefore, drawing a scientific conclusion on an "idea" is so silly.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Not to mention the utter absurdity that "science" would conclude "gun control saves lives." That is so beyond the pale of utter bullshit that it hurts me to think that anyone would fall for this "conclusion". How about "human self control" saves lives? Trying to pry away the responsibility of humans to act in a socially acceptable - so as to blame it on an inanimate object so "the authorities" can conveniently use that narrative to weld greater control over the masses - is just hilarious theater. I'm not even in to gun culture - but how about we arm everyone and see how it goes. As if some law will magically prevent guns from getting into criminals hands. Just like drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving.

Seriously - who falls for this shit? Do we need common sense laws? Of course! States should dictate their own laws. What is the last instance of the US government using a common sense approach on literally ANYTHING? Anyone? Bueller?

"Gun control" is a completely arbitrary opinion - it is 100% dependant on the individual - so saying "gun control saves lives" is quite literally the opposite of science. For it to be a fact there would have to be a universally accepted definition of it - and there isn't - everyone has a different opinion. Therefore, drawing a scientific conclusion on an "idea" is so silly.

Well said, but I tend to disagree with you on your comment that the states should make their own laws. I agree the states have their rights and need to make laws for their own states, but if the law they are trying to pass is in opposition to anything in the Bill of Rights, it needs to immediately fail.....I.E.: states DO NOT have the rights to pass any lay in opposition to the United States Constitution or Bill of Rights.

[auroraave]

Not to mention the utter absurdity that "science" would conclude "gun control saves lives." That is so beyond the pale of utter bullshit that it hurts me to think that anyone would fall for this "conclusion". How about "human self control" saves lives? Trying to pry away the responsibility of humans to act in a socially acceptable - so as to blame it on an inanimate object so "the authorities" can conveniently use that narrative to weld greater control over the masses - is just hilarious theater. I'm not even in to gun culture - but how about we arm everyone and see how it goes. As if some law will magically prevent guns from getting into criminals hands. Just like drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving.

Seriously - who falls for this shit? Do we need common sense laws? Of course! States should dictate their own laws. What is the last instance of the US government using a common sense approach on literally ANYTHING? Anyone? Bueller?

"Gun control" is a completely arbitrary opinion - it is 100% dependant on the individual - so saying "gun control saves lives" is quite literally the opposite of science. For it to be a fact there would have to be a universally accepted definition of it - and there isn't - everyone has a different opinion. Therefore, drawing a scientific conclusion on an "idea" is so silly.

Well said, but I tend to disagree with you on your comment that the states should make their own laws. I agree the states have their rights and need to make laws for their own states, but if the law they are trying to pass is in opposition to anything in the Bill of Rights, it needs to immediately fail.....I.E.: states DO NOT have the rights to pass any lay in opposition to the United States Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Totally agree. However, we now have a fed that may try to make insane policies and changes to the constitution - nothing is beyond these people. You start taking away the guns - states will start pushing back - and you very well may trigger a civil war - states will begin to want to secede - that the mob, er, gov't wants their tax money so it'll get ugly.

[DavidGee24]

Am I the only person in this country who thinks that both guns AND people are the problem? We have a lot of guns in circulation and we have a lot of criminals, gangsters, and nut jobs.

Honestly, I don't think there's anything we can do. Our gun culture is going to stay the same, and modifying gun laws, outlawing AR-15s, etc. isn't going to change a damn thing. The murder rate is going to stay right where it is. The only thing the libs could possibly get out of it is maybe a slightly lower score in mass shootings.

Speaking of mass shootings, it's become so glamorized that it's going to remain a draw. But funny thing, mass shootings make up an incredibly low number of murders, it's only the sheer sensationalism that puts them in the public consciousness. In fact, where mass shootings in schools (high school and below) are concerned, there have been 27 students murdered in mass shootings in the 2020s, out of about 50 million students. That's a 1-in-1.6 million chance. Not exactly an epidemic.

[ddraig]

The best part about your article is that great quote we have heard so many times over the last 3 years.....:
"The science is abundantly clear"

Tell that to Galileo. Seems "science" was abundantly clear when he wanted the world to know the Earth was NOT the center of the universe! Science is never "settled." Otherwise the medical community would be sitting back 160 years ago during the Civil War. Or even further back. In fact, no steel, only bronze. Can't grow crops or domesticate cattle. And what about no light bulbs or automobiles. No steam engines, too.

[Grandma Lynn]

It's not the guns you should control!

[Cascade Kid]

Wade Gaughran, the owner of Wade’s Eastside Guns, said the store has seen a 400% increase in gun sales this month.

Wade said he’s had people waiting in line before their store even opens because so many people are interested in buying a gun right now. “In all my years of selling military style rifles, again what the other side would call assault weapons we’ve never had one traced back that was used in a serious crime and I’ve sold thousands and thousands of them over the past 35 years," said Gaughran.

https://komonews.com/news/local/washing ... on-senate#

[douche]

Am I the only person in this country who thinks that both guns AND people are the problem? We have a lot of guns in circulation and we have a lot of criminals, gangsters, and nut jobs.

People are definitely the problem. Guns don't pull their own triggers. Same with alcohol or drugs. Nobody forces people to use them. It's voluntary. Some people don't own a gun, and many are responsible firearm owners.

Some people can drink socially, smoke some weed, etc. and it's never a problem.

And for many others, it's nothing but.