Does Increasing Terrorism Justify Loosening or Tightening Gun Control? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Does Increasing Terrorism Justify Loosening or Tightening Gun Control?

1. Increasing terrorism or violent crime justifies loosening gun control
8
35%
2. Increasing terrorism or violent crime justifies tightening gun control
8
35%
3. Other
7
30%
#14994799
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why is it justifiable?

If the professional security services can reasonably guarantee the safety of law abiding people then it is not unfair for those law abiding people to be expected to disarm to some extent or submit to some scrutiny and oversight in their possession of weapons, if only to make the job of providing security easier for the professionals.

Though one would think that NZ of all places could probably pull off such a compact it is notable that for those muslims in NZ who were slaughtered actually they were not reasonably protected by the security services. In hindsight they probably wish they were taking charge of their own security rather than leaving it up to the security services. So there is that.
#14994807
B0ycey wrote:Did I mention 40000 deaths in shootings per annum in America?



Ter wrote:Yes, but I read that a third or close to half of those were suicides



2/3 are suicides and when you compare the US suicide rate to the UK suicide rate you find that access to firearms doesn't make much of a difference. The high rate of homicides can't really be completely blamed on gun laws either because when you break gun ownership and gun homicides down by class and race you find that affluent whites own more guns but have less than 1/14th the homicide rate.
#14994818
Sivad wrote:2/3 are suicides and when you compare the US suicide rate to the UK suicide rate you find that access to firearms doesn't make much of a difference.


The figure is just above half and not 2/3. Nonetheless 17000 homicides by guns is still a far greater figure than terrorism deaths in the US. And as such retaining liberal guns laws as a means of reducing terrorism is indeed pyrrhic. Although I would suggest that giving terrorists easy access to guns only enhances the chances of their attacks and when comparing guns to other terrorism acts (excluding airline) the death figures are much higher.

The high rate of homicides can't really be completely blamed on gun laws either because when you break gun ownership and gun homicides down by class and race you find that affluent whites own more guns but have less than 1/14th the homicide rate.


You want me to bang the drum that the extreme Capitalism mentality has created a wealth divide in America that is unhealthy? Sure. BANG, BANG, BANG. Read my many posts. I am fully aware that the wealth divide is fucking over the poor over the pond and that would make suicide events more frequent. And as guns kill, this no doubt will be many peoples choice of weapon to kill themselves in a society awash with guns. But so what? This thread is on terrorism prevention. And restricting guns in society has an effect. We in the UK have not had a school shooting (or a mass shooting that I am aware of) since Dunblane when the UK government enacted stronger gun controls. Can you say the same about Columbine?
#14994820
B0ycey wrote:The figure is just above half and not 2/3.


No, it's definitely 2/3. Guns are the method in half of all suicides but 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.

Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ma ... -violence/


I am fully aware that the wealth divide is fucking over the poor over the pond and that would make suicide events more frequent.


The suicide rate is about the same. The UK is like 11 per 100,000 and the US is 13 per 100,000.

And restricting guns in society has an effect. We in the UK have not had a school shooting (or a mass shooting that I am aware of) since Dunblane when the UK government enacted stronger gun controls. Can you say the same about Columbine?


You can't attribute the number of mass shootings in the US solely to the gun laws. There are any number of factors that could be contributing to our high rate of mass shootings, the accessibility of guns is just one and certainly not the predominant factor.
#14994822
Sivad wrote:No, it's definitely 2/3. Guns are the method in half of all suicides but 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.


Your percentage doesn't correlate with figures. :lol:

The suicide rate is about the same. The UK is like 11 per 100,000 and the US is 13 per 100,000.


So less? Great. Thanks for that as the UK also have a wealth divide by capitalism (but at least we has suitable welfare).

Now lets get back on topic. How many of these suicides are by guns? Although I will point out that this is not something I have commented on until now as I tend to stick to the topic which is terrorism prevention methods by restricting gun controls and not suicide prevention FYI.

You can't attribute the number of mass shootings in the US solely to the gun laws. There are any number of factors that could be contributing to our high rate of mass shootings, the accessibility of guns is just one and certainly not the predominant factor.


I am just comparing two similar events in two different countries and the impact of gun restrictions (or lack of) had in those countries. You know, the topic. It is almost embarrassing to read your strawmen responses whilst shilling for the NRA when it isn't even a debate that having restrictions on guns also has an effect on the rates of deaths by guns. Whether that is by terrorism, suicides or homicides. :roll:
#14994823
B0ycey wrote:Your percentage doesn't correlate with figures. :lol:


What the fuck does that even mean? total pofo. :knife:

Anyway, it's an absolute fact that 2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicides.


So less? Great.


I guess if you want to claim victory on that marginal difference then by all means... :lol:


How many of these suicides are by guns?


Half. I just explained it. :lol:

It is almost embarrassing to read your strawmen responses whilst shilling for the NRA when it isn't even a debate that having restrictions on guns also has an effect on the rates of deaths by guns.


I didn't make any straw man argument, you're deeply confused ...about everything. :lol:
#14994825
Sivad wrote:I guess if you want to claim victory on that marginal difference then by all means... :lol:


If 15% is marginal. :lol:

Half. I just explained it. :lol:


Your link please (although off topic)

https://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/publications/168345

I didn't make any straw man argument, you're deeply confused ...about everything. :lol:


Being I never mentioned suicide figures until you did to something I wrote about terrorism is evidence enough you made a strawman. But I see you didn't respond to the point I made about the topic FYI.

But sure, ignore gun prevention also prevents death by guns. It is what an NRA shill would do.
#14994827
Sivad wrote:It is absolutely marginal compared to the disparity in gun ownership. :knife:

You should just put the stats down and slowly back away so you don't hurt yourself.


Just for kicks before work, shall we look at a league table?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Doesn't seem the UK and the US are that close after all. Not that any of this matters. It is completely off topic anyway. And I don't want to hurt myself. :lol:
#14994828
B0ycey wrote:Being I never mentioned suicide figures until you did to something I wrote about terrorism is evidence enough you made a strawman. But I see you didn't respond to the point I made about the topic FYI.

But sure, ignore gun prevention also prevents death by guns. It is what an NRA shill would do.



My argument against gun control as a preventive is the same whether we're considering terrorism, or mass shootings, or homicide, or suicide: we should stop worrying about the guns and start addressing the underlying problems that are engendering all this violence and death. Gun control will prevent gun deaths but it will not stop the violence. Gun control is a liberal solution which, like all liberal solutions, does not address the actual problem. I'm not giving up my liberty just because a bunch of liberals don't want to stop being assholes.

If we want to curb the violence then we need to being doing things like ending the drug war, abolishing the industrial education system, ending predatory economics and predatory foreign policy, providing people with healthcare and effective mental health services(rather than just medicating everyone and their mother), cleaning up our degenerate nihilistic consumer culture, expanding and deepening democracy so people aren't so marginalized and voiceless that they feel violence is the only way they can be heard, all the things we should be doing anyway even if we didn't have a major problem with violence and killing.

There are always a million and one non-asshole ways to address any problem but liberals are never interested in any of those because they don't actually give a fuck about these problems, their only interest is increasing their own power and control over society. Liberals are always just king shitbirds about everything.
#14994858
SolarCross wrote:If the professional security services can reasonably guarantee the safety of law abiding people then it is not unfair for those law abiding people to be expected to disarm to some extent or submit to some scrutiny and oversight in their possession of weapons, if only to make the job of providing security easier for the professionals.


If the government could domthat, the government would be able to protect them from increasing terrorism, but your hypothetical situation suggests the government cannot protect the citizens from that.

Though one would think that NZ of all places could probably pull off such a compact it is notable that for those muslims in NZ who were slaughtered actually they were not reasonably protected by the security services. In hindsight they probably wish they were taking charge of their own security rather than leaving it up to the security services. So there is that.


So it is justified even though Muslims were killed because they did not have guns?
#14994867
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the government could domthat, the government would be able to protect them from increasing terrorism, but your hypothetical situation suggests the government cannot protect the citizens from that.

Therefore the govs shouldn't attempt to prevent law abiding citizens from providing for their protection, I agree.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So it is justified even though Muslims were killed because they did not have guns?

Well arguably not even in NZ given that NZ is probably as safe as anywhere in the world yet it still happened.
#14994877
SolarCross wrote:Therefore the govs shouldn't attempt to prevent law abiding citizens from providing for their protection, I agree.


What about potential terrorists? Should they be allowed to have guns?

Well arguably not even in NZ given that NZ is probably as safe as anywhere in the world yet it still happened.


Nowhere in the world are you safe from white supremacists.
#14994880
Pants-of-dog wrote:What about potential terrorists? Should they be allowed to have guns?

It would be nice if it was possible to keep any dangerous object out of their hands but anyone willing to break the law by committing terrorism is probably not fussed about breaking possession of firearm ordinances.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Nowhere in the world are you safe from white supremacists.

Or commies, muslims etc.
Last edited by SolarCross on 20 Mar 2019 01:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14994882
SolarCross wrote:It would be nice if was possible to keep any dangerous object out of their hands but anyone willing to break the law by committing terrorism is probably not fussed about breaking possession of firearm ordinances.


That is not what I asked.

What about potential terrorists? Should they be allowed to have guns?
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]