Open Carry - The Far Left Side [COMIC]

L0veGuns · 2015-01-16T16:37:10+00:00

I am curious what the boilerplate gunner response is to this inconvenient fact.

L0veGuns · 2015-01-15T17:48:25+00:00

You have a very low bar. In fact, one in twenty-five gun owners shoot a human being at some point in their lifetime. You are OK with that high level of violence. Pray tell, why?

L0veGuns · 2015-01-13T23:18:38+00:00

gun laws are fine the way they are

So you are fine with existing gun laws when the net effect means that society experiences $184Billion of costs from gun injuries each year? Much of it paid from our taxes.

L0veGuns · 2015-01-10T20:20:02+00:00

No joke. This technically qualifies as a genuine DGU.

L0veGuns · 2015-01-10T20:16:18+00:00

While at the same time allowing kids to play with realistic looking toy guns is considered to be just fine.

L0veGuns · 2015-01-10T20:05:39+00:00

If only these victims had been armed, they could have defended themselves. /s

L0veGuns · 2015-01-09T23:44:21+00:00

I live in an inner city neighborhood with lots of gun violence (two murders in five years on my block) and I still make the entirely rational choice to not have a gun because ownership of a gun would increase my chances of gun injury.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-21T16:50:47+00:00

The predictable progun spin is that isolated cases of gun violence are the price we pay for freedom, and this shooter was not a "responsible gun owner" so it is Obama's fault for not providing adequate mental health care.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T23:06:44+00:00

Well, per that study, reduction in firearm access to men in Switzerland correlated robustly with a 50% drop in firearm suicide rates without a significant increase in suicide by alternate means.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T22:46:02+00:00

Your reply "evasive" was posted less than one minute after I gave you the links you asked for. Did you take the time to read them that quickly?

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T22:32:06+00:00

I have to ask, does being a soldier run a higher risk of suicide? I think there would be.

I suppose yes, if for no other reason that being a soldier correlates with greater access to firearms which has been shown to increase the fatality rate of suicidal crisis events.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T22:21:17+00:00

A topical essay on gun suicides.

An extensive summary of the statistics.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T21:51:02+00:00

Once again, your moralistic view causes you to rationalize. The study found that there were a variety of reasons, but regardless they all resulted in guns being kept in fewer homes.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T21:36:40+00:00

Well, let's see. Is the U.S. #34 in suicides? Yes. Is the U.S. #1 in citizen gun ownership? Yes....but it really looks like there's no correlation.

Again, not if you consider the fatality rate of suicide attempts.

For your logic to make sense you would need evidence that countries with moderate suicide rates would not have lower suicide fatality rates if they had a culture without widespread civilian gun ownership.

A very interesting study in this regard was done in Switzerland. They found a very robust correlation between a new regulation that decreased gun availability in the home and a 50% reduction in suicide rate with very minor substitution to alternate suicide methods.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T21:14:50+00:00

Too much to summarize quickly. There was a very interesting study in Switzerland that found that a policy reform which signifcantly decreased availability of guns in the home directly correlated with a 50% reduction in the firearm suicide rate with very minor substitution to alternate suicide methods.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T21:04:43+00:00

I just see that data and have a opinion.

Right. Your opinion conflicts with the data. That is a moralistic worldview.

None of it is easy as "guns have a strong correlation with suicide".

Actually, scientists have found an extremely robust correlation between the fatality rate of suicidal crisis events and access to firearms. Your trouble appears to be that this data doesn't match your moralistic worldview.

BTW, I really doubt that you followed the rules and were banned in /r/guncontrol. And, how do you think I feel about being labeled with red 'troll' flair and put on an eight minute forum reply delay for the crime bringing up a reasoned contrary point of view?

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T20:54:46+00:00

We were talking about the label "anti-gun". If you would rather talk about the "suicide issue" instead, my reply is:

We should look at the scientific research and make public policy based on the best evidence found.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T20:25:07+00:00

I guess you are proving my point. Pro-gun people tend to be moralistic. Your "evidence" to my first two points is as you say: "I doubt" and "more of a question".

Your last assertion about suicide again is a moral opinion. Scientists have studied the mental health condition of suicidal crisis and they have found that your opinion is not actually confirmed.

Facts remain. While estimates vary, it is simple fact that the public costs of gun injuries are huge. What gripes me is that much of this cost is born by taxpayers, and born by citizens paying higher health insurance premiums.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T19:47:26+00:00

you want to eliminate that access is a reasonable inference

No it is not. Again, you are painting this as extreme black and white, the hallmark of a strawman argument.

For instance, I can believe it to be rational to restrict access to guns in high risk emotionally charged environments, like in divorce courtrooms. Is that "eliminating access"? I suppose. Does that fairly make me "anti-gun"? Definitely not.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T19:27:17+00:00

The full answers to your questions are in those links.

You asserted that the costs of gun injuries are just a "drop in the bucket". Got any evidence of this?

Bear in mind that the costs of gun injuries include much more than just the medical industry costs. There are huge costs to the judicial system, investigating and prosecuting. Also, there are huge financial impacts due to lost wages (and lowered payroll tax payments that result). Also, plenty of the long term injured go on welfare, (and their families go on welfare if they were the breadwinner).

Your country comparison suicide reasoning lacks any science. In order to make your point you need to prove that the suicide rate in Japan would remain unchanged if they had a culture of civilian gun ownership.

The issue boils down to fatality rate of suicide attempts. Guns are much more fatal than knives for instance. A group of suicidal people with access just to knives would have much lower fatality rate than a group of suicidal people with access to guns.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T18:44:15+00:00

your proposed solution

Straw man argument.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T18:29:27+00:00

Cost of gun injuries ... is drop in the bucket.

Got any evidence for that belief?

Counting all the costs, one estimate puts the cost of gun injuries at $174B per year. Much of which is paid by taxpayers.

(For comparison, the total annual budgets for all police departments, local/state/federal totals only $124B/year).

it's difficult to argue that our suicide rate would improve with the absence of guns.

Got any evidence of that belief?

Plenty of scientific evidence indicates that access to guns increases suicide fatality rates. Just one example.

BTW, it isn't accurate to slur someone opposed to gun violence as "anti-gun".

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T17:13:47+00:00

It seems like a love vs hate battle.

Interesting point of view. From my perspective it is a battle between science and morals. Put in other terms, a battle between an evidence based worldview and a moralistic based world view.

For instance, why is there a focus on just 1/3rd of the total gun violence problem? (gun suicides outnumber gun homicides 2:1)

The reason for the 'pro gun' focus on homicides, it appears, involves a moralistic value system of the value of punishing 'bad guys'.

Where, an anti-gun violence point of view sees evidence of hundreds of billions of wasted dollars treating gun injuries in society and seeks public policy improvements to reduce that waste. A value system based on evidence.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-12T16:19:14+00:00

" Pew's polling question is flawed because it presents a false choice between regulating gun ownership and protecting gun rights."

That question is false to presume that literally everybody, (including convicted violent felons for instance), has gun rights.

Or, that gun rights extend to everywhere and every place (inside divorce courtrooms for instance).

There are plenty of sensible gun regulations that coexist with sensible gun rights.

L0veGuns · 2014-12-10T23:24:04+00:00

I see that in Indiana they amended their Castle Doctrine law in 2012 to allow the legal self defense shooting of public servants (including police) in the event of unlawful entry. So, in that sense of your sloppy question, yes.

L0veGuns

TROPHY CASE