Politics

[TheCrazyChemist]

First, check out this East-Approved neutral, mainly stat based article
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aps-charts
And also, Texas has a somewhat different culture than places like Chicago - however, things like the El Paso shooting have still occurred (ironically after one of the residents said that they would stop a shooter with their own guns before the shooter could kill anyway), and my school alone has received 2 shooting threats already, not to mention the others in the area.

You can tell that's slanted just by looking at #5. The reason articles use "gun deaths" instead of "homicides" is because it conveniently includes suicides.

I think the point is that more gun violence happens in states with more guns. A death is a death after all.

[DatSciolyBoi]

First, check out this East-Approved neutral, mainly stat based article
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aps-charts
And also, Texas has a somewhat different culture than places like Chicago - however, things like the El Paso shooting have still occurred (ironically after one of the residents said that they would stop a shooter with their own guns before the shooter could kill anyway), and my school alone has received 2 shooting threats already, not to mention the others in the area.

You can tell that's slanted just by looking at #5. The reason articles use "gun deaths" instead of "homicides" is because it conveniently includes suicides.

It is worth looking into how guns and suicides are related. Firearms are utilized in less than 10% of all suicide attempts, however firearms account for more than half of all suicide deaths. This is simply because firearms allow for a quick, easy, and highly lethal means of someone carrying out a suicide. However, if guns were restricted then yes, it is likely that someone will still try to commit suicide, as they can substitute for another method but he or she is far more likely to survive an attempt from this different method than from the use of a firearm.

And again with the Chicago statistic, it has been found that less than 40% of the guns there actually originate from inside of Illinois. Chicago is very close to the Indiana border, and this makes sense considering how Indiana has considerably lax gun laws, and Indiana also allows people from neighboring states to purchase guns with a very similar ease.

Yet, when people refer to other methods, they endure MUCH more pain and suffering and may do multiple attempts before they actually succeed. Suicides shouldn't be counted against guns because even if they take the gun away, people can just jump off a building.

[DatSciolyBoi]

First, check out this East-Approved neutral, mainly stat based article
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aps-charts
And also, Texas has a somewhat different culture than places like Chicago - however, things like the El Paso shooting have still occurred (ironically after one of the residents said that they would stop a shooter with their own guns before the shooter could kill anyway), and my school alone has received 2 shooting threats already, not to mention the others in the area.

You can tell that's slanted just by looking at #5. The reason articles use "gun deaths" instead of "homicides" is because it conveniently includes suicides.

I think the point is that more gun violence happens in states with more guns. A death is a death after all.

Only homicides should be counted, even if guns are gone, suicide by other methods would be a viable strategy.

[TheCrazyChemist]

Yet, when people refer to other methods, they endure MUCH more pain and suffering and may do multiple attempts before they actually succeed. Suicides shouldn't be counted against guns because even if they take the gun away, people can just jump off a building.

Again, guns enable a much easier to commit suicide. And suicide isn't okay, so imo it should still count as a death because the gun enabled a much easier way to commit the act and in the end there was a death.

[JoeyC]

First, check out this East-Approved neutral, mainly stat based article
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aps-charts
And also, Texas has a somewhat different culture than places like Chicago - however, things like the El Paso shooting have still occurred (ironically after one of the residents said that they would stop a shooter with their own guns before the shooter could kill anyway), and my school alone has received 2 shooting threats already, not to mention the others in the area.

You can tell that's slanted just by looking at #5. The reason articles use "gun deaths" instead of "homicides" is because it conveniently includes suicides.

It does address that later on in 9 and 10 as well as 7 (though in a lesser extent).

[Fridaychimp]

I think one thing a lot of people miss in the discussion over gun violence is the perceptual impact of gun control legislation. Sure, well-designed gun control policy, including measures likes UBCs, closing the boyfriend loophole, and expanding CDC research, would save many lives, but it has to be passed in a timely fashion. When people think that the government might "take away their guns" (to quote every NRA ad ever), they impulsively buy more guns before such measures are implemented. That's supported by a lot of empirical evidence; in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, sales skyrocketed because gun owners feared that Obama would pass effective policies (see this article or this study).

[DatSciolyBoi]

Gun owners have over 8 trillion rounds and 393 million guns. If they were the problem, you'd know it.

[TheCrazyChemist]

Gun owners have over 8 trillion rounds and 393 million guns. If they were the problem, you'd know it.

I don't think amk578 is necessarily saying that all gun owners are the problem, but actually that some x% of those guns bought in that rush end up killing people. But I do think that it's a valid point of his/her's that gum owners are also a big problem. And if gun owners haven't done anything wrong, then why would the gov.t take away their guns? And if they're innocent and are perfectly law abiding citizens, then why are they even nervous about having their guns taken away? It shouldn't be a problem if they are extremely responsible and law abiding.

[Things2do]

Gun owners have over 8 trillion rounds and 393 million guns. If they were the problem, you'd know it.

I don't think amk578 is necessarily saying that all gin owners are the problem...

You had enough to drink?

Again, guns enable a much easier to commit suicide. And suicide isn't okay, so imo it should still count as a death because the gun enabled a much easier way to commit the act and in the end there was a death.

On that logic, why ain't pencils illegal?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16078497/
I know that's only one, but I've got a book of odd death statistics somewhere that has more instances, such as several through the nose. I'll give the figures if I can find that book.

[JoeyC]

As stated before, overdosing and cutting, along with most other forms only have about a 5% kill rate, compared to guns with a 95% - they make it so much easier. There is fear in cutting and hanging and overdosing. With a gun there is less fear and, if done properly, no pain; along with only needing a quick burst of suicidal passion.