London murder rate rises higher than NY City

As to the 6 rounds thing….

But that isn’t a rational or reasonable argument – are you saying you don’t have a rational and reasonable argument?

 

No that wasn’t the argument as I’ve explained several times now – the gun lobby argument is that anything that can kill is as equally dangerous and as effect at killing as a gun.

That if gun was not available a person could kill just as easily and as many people with something else even a potato

 

It is interesting that someone brought up tobacco earlier in the thread because as many people have noted there are similarities between what the smoking lobby tried to do to stifle action and what the gun lobby are doing now.

Many doctors and researchers began to see a link between smoking and cancer in the late 40’s early 50’s the tobacco industry seeing the threat fought back lobbying to stifle research, getting ‘friendly’ researchers to produce reports to drown out unfriendly ones and claiming there was no link to ill-health from smoking and even promoting the idea that tobacco smoking was actually healthy for someone.

And one of the main propaganda tools employed by the smoking lobby was to deny there was any causational link between smoking and ill health. Over and over they would dispute reports that said there was a link between smoking and cancer with the familiar refrain that this did not prove a ‘causal relationship’.

They pointed to other factors one of the main being that it was not smoking but a genetic predisposition to cancer that was cause of people getting ill. There was even a theory that those strong willed enough not to smoke or to smoke little were mentally strong enough to ‘fight off’ cancer.

‘It is said that there is a correlation between the number of storks’ nests found on Danish houses and the number of children born in those houses. Could the old story about babies being delivered by storks really be true? No. Correlation is not causation. Storks do not deliver children but larger houses have more room both for children and for storks. This much-loved statistical anecdote seems less amusing when you consider how it was used in a US Senate committee hearing in 1965. The expert witness giving testimony was arguing that while smoking may be correlated with lung cancer, a causal relationship was unproven and implausible. Pressed on the statistical parallels between storks and cigarettes, he replied that they “seem to me the same”’ Financial Times[my bold]

Mark the date 1965 by then research had actually found the causal link between smoking and cancer BUT the smoking lobby continued to argue that there was no link and propagandising the public proved successful, that even by the late 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established.

Never underestimate the power of propaganda and lies. And the thing was that it was smokers with their addiction to smoking that were the ones most likely to accept the Smoking lobby’s lies and propaganda and be opposed to regulation.

But those that looked at it in a rational and reasonable way saw the correlation and saw the connection they didn’t need the absolute proof of causation because the connection was rational and reasonable to assume given the evidence.

*

And so we come to the gun lobbyists and the same cry is heard - while the high homicide rates may be correlated with ease of access to guns, a causal relationship is unproven and implausible.

Now traditionally it is the gun control advocates that have been the most vocal about wanting more thorough research and the gun lobby the ones trying to curtail such research while pointing to ‘friendly’ reports that claim that there is no link between homicide (and suicide) rates and guns and even promoting the idea that guns reduce crime.

“For decades, social scientists and other researchers have pointed to a profound, and purposeful, lack of federal funding for gun research and a lack of federal data-gathering on guns as enormous impediments to studying gun violence. The federal government has spent much less on research into gun violence than on similarly lethal issues, such as motor vehicle crashes, liver disease and sepsis.”

So what you get is lots of smaller reports with often conflicting results with people choosing ‘friendly’ studies to back up their case.

But those that looked at the gun issue as is in the US in a rational and reasonable way its possible to see the correlation and the connection that there is no need to have the absolute proof of causation to realise something need to be done or at least tried, because the connection is rational and reasonable to assume given what logic and the available evidence has already produced.

I mean what are the alternatives put forward by the gun lobby - the main one as far as I can see is again similar to the Smoking lobby idea of genetic predisposition that easy access to guns is not the cause of the larger homicide rates but that Americans (or at least some) are genetic predisposition to violence what I have called the Murderous American Theory that postulates that Americans are more murderous than other people and would kill just as many people with other weapons if gun were not available – to the point that it has been argued that a potato is as effective at killing someone as a fully loaded glock. That if someone chooses to commit murder, that person will just as easily kill with a potato than if they had their hands on a gun.

Another twist of the Murderous American Theory is that many gun lobbyists seem to imply that in their opinion that it is not all Americans who are more murderous but that black and brown Americans are inherently more violent, immoral and criminal than other (mainly white) Americans.

But remember the Smoking lobby and never underestimate the power of propaganda and lies and also remember that the Smoking lobby was still claiming there was no ‘causal relationship’ between smoking and ill health long after that causal relationship had been found.

 

It's not all of a sudden, Balbus. It just seems that way to you.

I said that you don't understand the difference between a defective device and a gun. And being a bit slow, you don't understand what that has to do with a defect in an automobile. So let's recap so that we can get you back up to speed. In your failed attempt to vilify guns, you likened them to faulty devices that need to be recalled. And before you think about denying it, here's what you said: "If a company sold a faulty devise at what point should there be regulation in place to protect people and get the product recalled?" You can choose any defective device you want in order to make your argument that guns and defective devices/products are the same thing, but such a comparison is deficient.

In fact, I corrected you by explaining that products are recalled when a defect in their mechanism causes harm to the user, and that a mechanical defect is not the issue with guns; the intent of the user is the issue with guns. But you're having trouble acknowledging the defect in your argument; specifically, comparing guns to faulty devices that need to be recalled.

And no, one murder every three and a half months per 100,000 people does not justify banning guns or mandating anything beyond a thorough background check. Even the proposal you mentioned earlier is unenforceable, as it would require surprise home inspections. You just failed to think it through.

 

You can throw away that potato, Balbus; everyone else has. Since no one is talking about banning shotguns, handguns, and knives, your repeated reference to a potato is looking foolish. As I've said before, knives, blunt objects, and fists and feet are used way more to murder people than shotguns and rifles combined. So you see how stupid your potato thing sounds?

 

No I didn’t I don’t see how you read it that way but that wasn’t what I was saying I was asking at what point does a death matter in replay to you implying that 3.5 deaths per 100,000 people was insignificant.

You still do seem to be saying that you don’t care about all those people deaths enough to do anything tangible about them.

Well first of all I’m not calling for a ban and second you counter argument isn’t rational or reasonable it’s basically you don’t like it so you don’t want it.

 

OK are you saying that you agree that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, blunt objects, fists and feet or a potato?

 

That is incorrect. His pointing out that the proposal is unjustifiable is a rational and reasonable argument.

No. There is very little correlation between homicide rates and ease of access to guns.

There is no need to worry about causation when there is no correlation to speak of.

 

The percentages for weapon types used in homicides throughout the U.S. were as follows:

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

 

If those gun victims were killed with knives instead, they'd be just as dead.

 

If those gun victims were killed with a potato instead, they'd be just as dead, so is a potato as good and efficient at killing people as a gun can be?

 

Not necessarily and at a much slower rate. If I stand on the balcony of my hotel room and throw knives at a concert can I kill 52 people? It's a classic pro-gun argument to say well if you can use someone else to kill a man why take away my gun? It's because the gun is the most efficient at killing it is the entire purpose it exists. Be it a deer or a burglar something is not going to be alive.

 

It seems like such an obvious point--one which I and others have stated so many times. And yet you can bet the pro-gun crew will be back to the knives, potatoes and ladders in no time, and won't be able to see why guns are any more dangerous than knives or ladders. The last mass murder with knives that I know of was by a gang of 8 Uighur terrorists on a train in Kunming China in 2014. Note it was a gang. The perpetrators were killed or captured. For the lone wolf mass murder, a knife attack would be more challenging. With knives, there's more risk of being overpowered, or the targets getting away. The dead are always just as dead, whether from a bomb, a gun, a knife, or a bathtub slip. For the living who desire to stay alive as long as possible, the challenges are different.

 

Listen more closely, Balbus. I said that thorough background checks are okay with me. Beyond that, you're going to have to ban guns. You're still not seeing the silliness of your proposal. Do you really think that you can invade the privacy of peoples' homes to make sure that their gun is in a safe? Is that our your conception of how things ought to be?

 

Storch: So let's recap so that we can get you back up to speed. In your failed attempt to vilify guns, you likened them to faulty devices that need to be recalled.

Balbus: No I didn’t.

Balbus earlier: If a company sold a faulty devise at what point should there be regulation in place to protect people and get the product recalled?

Storch presently: So, yes you did!
_______________________________________________________________

With defective products, the intent of the user is not the issue. With guns, the intent of the user is the issue. So you see, your comparison was ill conceived, as it doesn't apply.

 

Well your only alternative is background checks. Oh wait! That's already being done.

 

To repeat

Already covered why go round and around? [edit - and around]

So are you saying those lives don’t matter?

If a company sold a faulty devise at what point should there be regulation in place to protect people and get the product recalled? Should it be after one death, a hundred, a thousand, 1 per 100,000, 3 per 100,000? Again when does a preventable death become significant, worthy of something to be done?

In the beginning of the industrial period there was little to no health and safety regulations and many people (including children) died because of it, these preventable deaths were thought of as insignificant by those that owned the factories, sweatshops, mines etc who opposed attempts to bring in regulation - were those workers lives important?

At the time there was a view that since such people were poor and so of little importance then their lives were not important (a similar view was held about slaves).

I get the impression that some gun lobbyists have similar views about those that are die in gun related crime since many of them are criminals, poor and black.

As an aside - in a way the health and safety example is similar to the gun control one in that daily deaths from industrial accidents and conditions cost more lives that incidences where multiple people died at one time but it was the mass deaths that got attention and highlighted the general problem and calls for regulation, just as mass shootings do for the gun debate.

 

What the hell are you going on about - can you please explain your thinking?

 

No, you can bet that the pro-gun rights crew know the difference between a gun and a potato. But you can ride that potato until it rots. The problem with your thinking is that you don't understand that if your hysteria--and that of others like you--led to a ban on AR-15s, then you'll be out shaking your head at people with any semiautomatic rifle or handguns because they are more dangerous than a potato.

 

Once again you resort to silly comparisons. But now you're equating guns to dangerous working conditions and ill health. It's a failed argument, Balbus. Try another angle.