The Obama effect

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know if "lots of Iraqi's" are still dying every day, certainly a lot less than a few months ago, but, if so, is the reason "because AK-47s are everywhere"? And if the AK-47s are the reason, how come the number of deaths has dramatically gone down?

Firearms are without question a contributing factor to the murder rates wherever there is ease of accessibility; Iraq or Miami. Its quite simple, restrict the ease with which one can take a life and then less lives are loss. But again, like most social phenomena, there are lots of variables to control for. Is there a distinct cause and effect relationship that can be be isolated with regard to AK-47s specifically...now that I don't know. But with regards to firearms generally, I think we both know the answer to that question. Anybody can pull a trigger....now stabbing someone to death, now were playing with an entirely different set of balls.

The drop in the civilian death toll is without question a remarkable thing. I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but much has transpired in Iraq over the past few years including substantial uprooting and ethnic cleansing. Maybe there are just less people to kill or maybe US troops are better at protecting the civilian populace. Its a combination of all these things and more. Why does it have to be black and white?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Its quite simple, restrict the ease with which one can take a life and then less lives are loss.

Then why is it that states with fewer restrictive gun laws are safer.

The most dangerous cities have the most restrictive laws.

It would be easy for any of us to take a life. We choose not too.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

Then why is it that states with fewer restrictive gun laws are safer.

The most dangerous cities have the most restrictive laws.

It would be easy for any of us to take a life. We choose not too.

Which cities are you referring to. Houston, TX, Little Rock, AR, or Birmingham, AL

[buckman]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Which cities are you referring to. Houston, TX, Little Rock, AR, or Birmingham, AL

How about.. D.C., Chicago, and Boston. I think these cities have restrictive laws because of knee jerk reactions to gun violence.

I don't think you can be for gun control and against long manditory sentences for crimes commited with guns. I say, you commit a crime with a gun you get locked up and they throw away the key. Once the cowardly thugs are locked up, watch the crime rate drop.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Firearms are without question a contributing factor to the murder rates wherever there is ease of accessibility; Iraq or Miami. Its quite simple, restrict the ease with which one can take a life and then less lives are loss. But again, like most social phenomena, there are lots of variables to control for. Is there a distinct cause and effect relationship that can be be isolated with regard to AK-47s specifically...now that I don't know. But with regards to firearms generally, I think we both know the answer to that question. Anybody can pull a trigger....now stabbing someone to death, now were playing with an entirely different set of balls.

The drop in the civilian death toll is without question a remarkable thing. I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but much has transpired in Iraq over the past few years including substantial uprooting and ethnic cleansing. Maybe there are just less people to kill or maybe US troops are better at protecting the civilian populace. Its a combination of all these things and more. Why does it have to be black and white?

It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.

As far as "firearms are WITHOUT QUESTION a contributing factor to the murder rates . . ." there are unique contributing factors to every single case. To which order of importance firearms should be attributed, I don't know. I believe the prime factor in all but the most random or insane cases is MOTIVATION. If you're motivatedto kill, you may find it easier to use an AK, though that would be more expensive and noisier than a club. And, as far as MASSIVE killing, such as occured in Iraq, that phenomenon is almost exclusive to governments, revolutions, and religioius wars.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.

As far as "firearms are WITHOUT QUESTION a contributing factor to the murder rates . . ." there are unique contributing factors to every single case. To which order of importance firearms should be attributed, I don't know. I believe the prime factor in all but the most random or insane cases is MOTIVATION. If you're motivatedto kill, you may find it easier to use an AK, though that would be more expensive and noisier than a club. And, as far as MASSIVE killing, such as occured in Iraq, that phenomenon is almost exclusive to governments, revolutions, and religioius wars.

Well lets take suicide for example. That takes a lot of motivation does it not. Why do you think more people shoot themselves or overdose on pills than say cut their wrist or hang themselves. Because pulling a trigger is easier. Its that simple. Your not going to club your cranium till you die right, when you can shoot yourself. I see no reason to believe homicide is any different.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Well lets take suicide for example. That takes a lot of motivation does it not. Why do you think more people shoot themselves or overdose on pills than say cut their wrist or hang themselves. Because pulling a trigger is easier. Its that simple. Your not going to club your cranium till you die right, when you can shoot yourself. I see no reason to believe homicide is any different.

You are right. It takes a lot of motivation to commit suicide. If a gun is not handy, the deed will be done. The fact that a gun makes it easier doesn't mean that banning guns will significantly reduce suicides. And if there is no reason to believe that homicide is any different, then why should we believe that banning guns will make us significantly freer from homicide?

If it is about reducing numbers, about statistics, then the more draconian the government bans, the safer from homicide we are. Is it more important in a free society to reduce homicide rates by X?%? If so, at what number do we decide that it is "just right?"

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If a gun is not handy, the deed will be done.

If the person has the heart, the deed will be done. Shooting someone does not have the same intimacy that stabbing or beating someone to death does. It simplifies the procedure for the murderer, thus making murder more accessible.

Originally Posted by detbuch

The fact that a gun makes it easier doesn't mean that banning guns will significantly reduce suicides.

Research has confirmed that when suicide is more difficult, it reduces its incidence. For example, a study was done by a professor at UC Berkeley that showed that of 515 people who were prevented from committing suicide, 94% of them never lived another 2+ decades and died of natural causes. However, these persons did not intend on using a gun to take their own lives. For we both know there just aint no comin' back from that. Also, considering that a gun is involved 50% or more of suicides for men 20 or older, I suspect that limiting their accessibility might not be a bad place to start saving lives.

Originally Posted by detbuch

And if there is no reason to believe that homicide is any different, then why should we believe that banning guns will make us significantly freer from homicide?

75% of all homicides involving 17 year olds involve a gun. So maybe we should keep guns out of the hands of children....which has sort of been my contention all along.

Originally Posted by detbuch

If it is about reducing numbers, about statistics, then the more draconian the government bans, the safer from homicide we are. Is it more important in a free society to reduce homicide rates by X?%? If so, at what number do we decide that it is "just right?"

Statistics don't exist in a vacuum and of course, a handgun ban across the board is not politically feasible. But what is the problem if crime plagued cities enact handgun bans to protect teenagers from each other. The policy has to be measured and tailored and i'm sure their are lawyers that are bright enough to think up comprehensive legislation that can address youth handgun violence and maintain constitutional safeguards.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

If the person has the heart, the deed will be done. Shooting someone does not have the same intimacy that stabbing or beating someone to death does. It simplifies the procedure for the murderer, thus making murder more accessible.



Research has confirmed that when suicide is more difficult, it reduces its incidence. For example, a study was done by a professor at UC Berkeley that showed that of 515 people who were prevented from committing suicide, 94% of them never lived another 2+ decades and died of natural causes. However, these persons did not intend on using a gun to take their own lives. For we both know there just aint no comin' back from that. Also, considering that a gun is involved 50% or more of suicides for men 20 or older, I suspect that limiting their accessibility might not be a bad place to start saving lives.



75% of all homicides involving 17 year olds involve a gun. So maybe we should keep guns out of the hands of children....which has sort of been my contention all along.



Statistics don't exist in a vacuum and of course, a handgun ban across the board is not politically feasible. But what is the problem if crime plagued cities enact handgun bans to protect teenagers from each other. The policy has to be measured and tailored and i'm sure their are lawyers that are bright enough to think up comprehensive legislation that can address youth handgun violence and maintain constitutional safeguards.

I am, by no means, a gun advocate. I don't own, don't like guns. But I wouldn't mind if some bolder, righteous, gun owner saved my timid ass if I were mortally threatened by a bad guy. And the saver wouldn't have to be a cop since police usually aren't around at the critical time. And that one time in my life that such may happen would be far more important to my selfish soul than reducing suicides.

I absolutely agree with you that we should keep guns out of the hands of children.

[EarnedStripes44]

[QUOTE=detbuch;668127]It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.
QUOTE]

And spare be the semantics.... the AK's are the tool that make killing easier.