Is it possible to have an honest discussion about guns?

[CountValentine]

Do you suggest banning all AR-style weapons, along with any gun that can be modified to mimic it? If so, do AR-style weapons serve no useful purpose at all?

I would personally ban AR type of weapons. There main purpose is to kill. Any legit purpose they have can be duplicated by other guns.

We hear the arguments about hunting and home self-defense. In both of those situations there are way better choices.

[CountValentine]

I am asking in a case where owning a gun makes the person and their family safer. Let's say a jeweler or someone in a risky business. Should they lose their right to a gun because the US has too many guns? Would it matter that US has X amount of guns if 90% are in the South and 0.1% are in my state? How does my purchase make my city, state, or country less safe?

No one should lose their right to own a gun for protection. When some buys 7 guns in 5 days it is not for personal protection. Mandatory training should be required to purchase and own a gun. It could even be offered for free.

[yuneeq]

No one should lose their right to own a gun for protection. When some buys 7 guns in 5 days it is not for personal protection. Mandatory training should be required to purchase and own a gun. It could even be offered for free.

This all sounds agreeable to me. My only concern is if the training is either costly and/or run solely through govt. agencies - we don't need another DMV. Independent professionals should be able to get certified to give training.

[CountValentine]

This all sounds agreeable to me. My only concern is if the training is either costly and/or run solely through govt. agencies - we don't need another DMV. Independent professionals should be able to get certified to give training.

Independent professionals paid by the state/fed. Don't want to hear this is a backdoor way to ban guns for the poor.

[Definitions]

I would personally ban AR type of weapons. There main purpose is to kill. Any legit purpose they have can be duplicated by other guns.

We hear the arguments about hunting and home self-defense. In both of those situations there are way better choices.

I lost the train of thought here. Ban ARs but leave other options open? Then the next best option will be best. like you said shotguns are likely better (at least I think you were saying that)

[yuneeq]

I lost the train of thought here. Ban ARs but leave other options open? Then the next best option will be best. like you said shotguns are likely better (at least I think you were saying that)

He was saying 2 different statements. Banning ARs would cause fewer/less deadly mass murders compared to the next easiest option. And that for personal protection, there are better guns such as shotguns.

[mlardi]

Reports of active shooter:
Active shooter reported at Joint Base Andrews

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N387MD

[S209]

Iinm, this is false and many don't end up finding another way. When you limit the "easy ways" you reduce suicide. When guard rails are put up or guns are removed, the suicide rate tends to drop, and not everyone finds another way.

Although it’s counterintuitive you are absolutely correct. Many studies have shown suicides decline as easier/better methods are taken away. This is one of the most fascinating sociological phenomenons I’m aware of. At one point the Golden Gates bridge finally erected a suicide net to catch jumpers, and researchers checked in on those jumpers who actually jumped but were saved by the net. Here are the results:

The 1978 Seiden study at the Golden Gate Bridge showed that 90 percent of those stopped from jumping did not later die by suicide or other violent means. A Harvard School of Public Health article reviewing numerous studies showed more broadly that “Nine out of ten people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die by suicide at a later date.”

https://www.goldengate.org/district/district-projects/suicide-deterrent-net/how-the-net-works/

[Euclid]

Although it’s counterintuitive you are absolutely correct. Many studies have shown suicides decline as easier/better methods are taken away. This is one of the most fascinating sociological phenomenons I’m aware of. At one point the Golden Gates bridge finally erected a suicide net to catch jumpers, and researchers checked in on those jumpers who actually jumped but were saved by the net. Here are the results:

https://www.goldengate.org/district/district-projects/suicide-deterrent-net/how-the-net-works/

Isn't this a halacha? That they have charata and can be buried in a bais hachaim

(Surprised it took this long until this thread got hijacked by halacha convo)

[S209]

Isn't this a halacha? That they have charata and can be buried in a bais hachaim

(Surprised it took this long until this thread got hijacked by halacha convo)

Shu"t Chasam Sofer Yoreh De'ah 326

[AsherO]

Although it’s counterintuitive you are absolutely correct. Many studies have shown suicides decline as easier/better methods are taken away. This is one of the most fascinating sociological phenomenons I’m aware of. At one point the Golden Gates bridge finally erected a suicide net to catch jumpers, and researchers checked in on those jumpers who actually jumped but were saved by the net. Here are the results:

https://www.goldengate.org/district/district-projects/suicide-deterrent-net/how-the-net-works/

I totally understand why the safety net deters people from trying again, the net is:

The Safety Net will be a hard metal platform located two stories below the sidewalk. Jumping into the Net will result in significant bruises, sprains and possibly broken bones.

People who commit suicide do so because they’re overwhelmed with (emotional) pain and just want it to stop. If attempting fails and causes “bruises, sprains and possibly broken bones” (read: more pain) then they won’t attempt again.

[CountValentine]

I totally understand why the safety net deters people from trying again, the net is:

Safety nets have nothing to do with it. Unsuccessful suicides rarely try again (maybe 1 in 10). Guns are pretty much fatal so no chance to rethink it. If you limit guns as a choice, it might not stop the first timer but will if they fail.

[AsherO]

Safety nets have nothing to do with it. Unsuccessful suicides rarely try again (maybe 1 in 10). Guns are pretty much fatal so no chance to rethink it. If you limit guns as a choice, it might not stop the first timer but will if they fail.

This statistic of 90% don’t try again sounds too high. Maybe the subsequent attempts are somehow not recorded in the same data?

[CountValentine]

This statistic of 90% don’t try again sounds too high. Maybe the subsequent attempts are somehow not recorded in the same data?

You are correct as I misstated it. It would be successful suicides.

[aygart]

Some of that may be that after an attempt people make sure they get intervention.

[David61]

Does anyone really believe the more guns in circulation makes everyone in the country safer?

Yes, some people rational believe that.

More guns does seem to increase certain risks (improper use, accidents, suicides, guns getting into hands of wrong people) but reduces risks in other situations (self defense, civil unrest, government led genocide . . . which does thankfully sounds very far fetched but it happened in Europe only 80 years ago . . .and think about how Ukraine would be faring today if there were no access to weapons). I think it's embedded in the constitution to address these latter types of risks.

Personally, I think more constraints over gun violence portrayed in entertainment/media would reduce the risks too, but that would constrain first amendment rights (and constraining those is more conducive for other problems, including higher levels of corruption).   

This is a challenging and important problem to discuss, but the complexities need to be appreciated.

[CountValentine]

This is a challenging and important problem to discuss, but the complexities need to be appreciated.

Absolutely but we need to get past "ban guns" and "2A".

Would you say that more guns overall have made the "country" safer over the past 20-30 years?

On the face of it the obvious answer would be no, but I can be missing something.

[AsherO]

You are correct as I misstated it. It would be successful suicides.

100% of successful suicides don’t try again, so I have no idea what you’re saying.

[CountValentine]

100% of successful suicides don’t try again, so I have no idea what you’re saying.

If guns are less accessible, they will choose a different method that is not as deadly. Less than 10% of those that fail on first attempt go on to die by suicide. So, the initial effect will be less people committing suicide.

[dm123]

How do suicides in countries "without" guns compare to the US? What factors might there be that would make it difficult to call it a fair comparison?