Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

[RF667799]

"Trends in Mortality and Morbidity: The Influence of Advances in Medical Care."
British Medical Journal, 1(5856), 55–58.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.1.5856.55
This article explains how medical advances, such as the development of antibiotics and vaccines, were key drivers of the increase in life expectancy in the post-war period, despite the continued rise in smoking.

But did people die specifically of smoking less often?

That's the claim you're trying to support in the case of guns. That people specifically die of gunshot more often despite gun numbers going up, up, up.

So as people inhaled more smoke, did they die of smoking less often?

 

[CLAX1911]

Because of GUNS? AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

Well I wouldn't say that. All you can say is there hasn't been an increase in crime while there has been an increase in gun ownership.

 

[ataraxia]

Associated with, associated with, correlation. And of course, the old "gun deaths" conflation. Meh.

You could probably find those same associations between homicides and ice cream consumption.

Next time, read my question more thoroughly.

I totally get why someone might bring up the "correlation doesn’t equal causation" argument, and you're right—Correlation does not always equal causation. But the difference with guns and gun deaths is that there's a pretty clear, logical reason why the more guns there are, the more violence tends to happen. Guns are tools made to kill, and when they’re more widely available, they increase the chances of deadly encounters, whether it’s homicides, suicides, or accidents. So it’s not just a random correlation—it’s a pattern backed by evidence showing that higher gun ownership means more gun-related deaths. It's like seeing there is a correlation between a burning sensation on your fingers and when they are close to a flame, and dismissing it as just a correlation.

The ice cream analogy is a bit of a stretch, honestly. There’s no plausible reason why ice cream consumption would lead to violence, but with guns, there’s a direct link. And additionally, not only is there no logical causation, but even a correlation has not been found.

It's a fact that countries with stricter gun laws, like Japan or the UK, have way fewer gun deaths, even though homicide rates might be similar in some cases. Ditto for localities in the US. The difference is the guns themselves—more guns = more opportunities for harm. So, while "correlation" isn’t the final word, the body of research here is pretty strong, and the argument for a connection between guns and violence holds up across multiple studies on different cities, states, and countries.

 

[CLAX1911]

And sometimes when gun ownership is going up but crime is coming down doesn't mean more guns are not dangerous.

Agreed. I do lots of things that are way more dangerous than owning a gun. I drive a car in traffic for example.

 

[rahl]

Guns are the number one killer of children.

No it isn’t. Motor vehicles is.

Not even arguable.

I know. Motor vehicles are the leading clause.

You need to peruse the threads down here. All of the stupidity you are posting has been refuted in a few dozen other threads. It will save you time and embarrassment.

 

[ataraxia]

But did people die specifically of smoking less often?

That's the claim you're trying to support in the case of guns. That people specifically die of gunshot more often despite gun numbers going up, up, up.

So as people inhaled more smoke, did they die of smoking less often?

Who says smoking kills you? There is only an observed correlation.

 

[rahl]

So smoking up, deaths down must also mean smoking is good for you. Math, right?

Non sequitur.

"Trends in Mortality and Morbidity: The Influence of Advances in Medical Care."
British Medical Journal, 1(5856), 55–58.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.1.5856.55
This article explains how medical advances, such as the development of antibiotics and vaccines, were key drivers of the increase in life expectancy in the post-war period, despite the continued rise in smoking.

Math doesn’t care about your ideology. Guns went up, homicides went down. The claim “more guns = more homicides” is provably false.

 

[CLAX1911]

Who says smoking kills you? There is only an observed correlation.

No there is causation.

 

[rahl]

This has been shown to you repeatedly. Why do you not understand?

20,000 murders compared to 1.7 million defensive uses. Looks like you are wrong again

 

[ataraxia]

Agreed. I do lots of things that are way more dangerous than owning a gun. I drive a car in traffic for example.

The gun violence situation in the U.S. is absolutely staggering. In 2020 alone, there were around 45,000 gun-related deaths. The numbers are so high that the U.S. has one of the highest gun homicide rates among developed nations—about 25 times higher than peer nations like the UK or Canada. And it’s not just about homicides; mass shootings are a daily occurrence. In 2020, the U.S. had 693 mass shootings—that’s nearly two per day. This doesn't happen in any other developed nation. Even more shocking, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in America, surpassing car accidents and cancer.

The U.S. has more guns than people—about 400 million firearms in civilian hands. Research shows that more guns in circulation directly correlate with higher gun deaths, especially in cases of domestic violence. Women are five times more likely to be killed by their partner if there’s a gun in the home, and nearly 40% of mass shootings are rooted in domestic violence. The economic cost of all this? A whopping $280 billion annually, factoring in healthcare, lost productivity, and law enforcement.

And the studies are increasingly and consistently showing that this is directly related to poor regulation of this class of hazardous equipment. Hazardous equipment of all types is all heavily regulated, and I think you would agree for good reason. So it seems odd that you would think leaving this particular class of potentially hazardous equipment poorly regulated and "free" would not have some serious consequences.

It’s mind-boggling how deeply entrenched the issue is, and it’s not just a few isolated incidents—it’s a public health crisis.

 

[ataraxia]

No there is causation.

Prove it.

 

[ataraxia]

20,000 murders compared to 1.7 million defensive uses. Looks like you are wrong again

There is more defensive uses in Ukraine. Does that make Ukraine a safer place to live?

 

[RF667799]

By your thinking a gun would be equivalent to an aspirin. Comparisons should be tested for reasonable similarity in other aspects beyond the narrow false equivalence condition.

The use of aspirin can't result in injury? Why the child-proof caps?

Come back when you have something less retarded.

 

[rahl]

There is more defensive uses in Ukraine.

Irrelevant

Does that make Ukraine a safer place to live?

Non sequitur

 

[RF667799]

There is more defensive uses in Ukraine. Does that make Ukraine a safer place to live?

I would much rather have a gun in Ukraine, than not have a gun in Ukraine. YMMV.

 

[ataraxia]

Math doesn’t care about your ideology. Guns went up, homicides went down. The claim “more guns = more homicides” is provably false.

Smoking went up, deaths went down. So the claim that smoking is dangerous is provably false.

 

[ataraxia]

Irrelevant

Non sequitur

Why irrelevant? You are making the claim defensive uses=more safety.

Apparently not.

A society with a gun culture has been shown to be far more dangerous place to live.

 

[RF667799]

I totally get why someone might bring up the "correlation doesn’t equal causation" argument, and you're right—Correlation does not always equal causation. But the difference with guns and gun deaths is that there's a pretty clear, logical reason why the more guns there are, the more violence tends to happen. Guns are tools made to kill, and when they’re more widely available, they increase the chances of deadly encounters, whether it’s homicides, suicides, or accidents. So it’s not just a random correlation—it’s a pattern backed by evidence showing that higher gun ownership means more gun-related deaths. It's like seeing there is a correlation between a burning sensation on your fingers and when they are close to a flame, and dismissing it as just a correlation.

The ice cream analogy is a bit of a stretch, honestly. There’s no plausible reason why ice cream consumption would lead to violence, but with guns, there’s a direct link. And additionally, not only is there no logical causation, but even a correlation has not been found.

It's a fact that countries with stricter gun laws, like Japan or the UK, have way fewer gun deaths, even though homicide rates might be similar in some cases. Ditto for localities in the US. The difference is the guns themselves—more guns = more opportunities for harm. So, while "correlation" isn’t the final word, the body of research here is pretty strong, and the argument for a connection between guns and violence holds up across multiple studies on different cities, states, and countries.

Gish gallop.

I'll just go ahead and ask you to support your categorical claim that "guns are tools made to kill". The rest of your post seems to hinge there.

 

[RF667799]

Why irrelevant? You are making the claim defensive uses=more safety.

Apparently not.

A society with a gun culture has been shown to be far more dangerous place to live.

Like rural Illinois compared to urban Illinois?

 

[CLAX1911]

This has been shown to you repeatedly.

I will agree that you've attempted to show this repeatedly but you've just failed immediately

Why do you not understand?

Because I won't accept falsehoods as true

 

[ataraxia]

I would much rather have a gun in Ukraine, than not have a gun in Ukraine. YMMV.

But would you rather live in Ukraine with lots of defensive uses or a place like this without lots of defensive uses?

 

[RF667799]

The gun violence situation in the U.S. is absolutely staggering. In 2020 alone, there were around 45,000 gun-related deaths. The numbers are so high that the U.S. has one of the highest gun homicide rates among developed nations—about 25 times higher than peer nations like the UK or Canada. And it’s not just about homicides; mass shootings are a daily occurrence. In 2020, the U.S. had 693 mass shootings—that’s nearly two per day. This doesn't happen in any other developed nation. Even more shocking, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in America, surpassing car accidents and cancer.

The U.S. has more guns than people—about 400 million firearms in civilian hands. Research shows that more guns in circulation directly correlate with higher gun deaths, especially in cases of domestic violence. Women are five times more likely to be killed by their partner if there’s a gun in the home, and nearly 40% of mass shootings are rooted in domestic violence. The economic cost of all this? A whopping $280 billion annually, factoring in healthcare, lost productivity, and law enforcement.

And the studies are increasingly and consistently showing that this is directly related to poor regulation of this class of hazardous equipment. Hazardous equipment of all types is all heavily regulated, and I think you would agree for good reason. So it seems odd that you would think leaving this particular class of potentially hazardous equipment poorly regulated and "free" would not have some serious consequences.

It’s mind-boggling how deeply entrenched the issue is, and it’s not just a few isolated incidents—it’s a public health crisis.

You're trying to conflate suicide and homicide. It's like trying to say that lynchings and suicides by hanging can both be attributed to the easy access to ropes.

The rest of your post is composed of Gun Control Industry agit-prop.

 

[ataraxia]

You're trying to conflate suicide and homicide. It's like trying to say that lynchings and suicides by hanging can both be attributed to the easy access to ropes.

No, it's not just about suicide, although that's a critical issue and not to be dismissed so readily.

But even putting aside suicide, this is what is observed in the real world:

1) "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010."
American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 2098–2105.
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
This study analyzed the relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the U.S. from 1981 to 2010. The authors found a strong positive correlation: higher levels of gun ownership were associated with significantly higher rates of firearm-related homicides. The study showed that an increase in the percentage of households with guns correlated directly with an increase in firearm homicides across different states.


2) "Gun ownership and gun violence in the United States: A cross-sectional, ecological analysis of 50 states."
American Journal of Public Health, 106(7), 1319–1325.
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303112
This paper provides a detailed analysis of gun ownership rates across U.S. states and their relationship with both gun violence and overall violence rates. The authors found that states with higher levels of gun ownership experienced significantly higher levels of gun violence, including homicides and assaults. The study also found that the relationship between gun ownership and violence remained strong even after controlling for socioeconomic factors.


3) "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature."
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 377–390.
DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2003.10.002
This review analyzes multiple studies that examine the link between firearm availability and homicide rates. It concludes that increased firearm availability is associated with higher homicide rates, particularly with gun-related homicides. The review synthesizes evidence across different studies, showing that countries and regions with higher gun ownership tend to experience higher rates of violence, including homicides.

4) "The Benefits of Reducing Gun Violence: Evidence from the United States."
The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), 573–592.
DOI: 10.1002/1520-6688(200023)19:4<573::AID-PAM6>3.0.CO;2-L
This study focuses on how reducing gun violence can have wide-reaching benefits. It highlights that areas with more guns in circulation tend to have more gun-related homicides, and it discusses the economic and social benefits of reducing firearm availability to decrease violence.


5) "More Guns, More Crime."
The Journal of Political Economy, 109(5), 1086–1114.
DOI: 10.1086/322814
This study examined the relationship between gun prevalence and crime rates in U.S. cities. Duggan found a strong link between increases in gun availability and higher rates of violent crime, including homicides. The study suggests that more guns in a community can make violent encounters more lethal, thus leading to higher rates of gun homicides.


These studies consistently find that higher gun ownership and greater gun prevalence correlate with higher rates of homicides and other types of violent crime. While correlation doesn’t always imply causation, the consistent pattern in these studies strongly supports the conclusion that increased access to firearms leads to more gun violence and deaths.

The rest of your post is composed of Gun Control Industry agit-prop.

Consistently reproducible observations and results from carefully designed peer reviewed studies are not agit-prop.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You need to peruse the threads down here. All of the stupidity you are posting has been refuted in a few dozen other threads. It will save you time and embarrassment.

Translation: you’ve had your ass kicked on this issue multiple times. I don’t need to seek out your failed arguments, you bring them to me, and quickly.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Well I wouldn't say that. All you can say is there hasn't been an increase in crime while there has been an increase in gun ownership.

Except mass shootings, gun violence. We’d be a safer and saner country if we didn’t interpret 2A incorrectly.