Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ir8tg4f wrote



aristidedn t1_ir8wf7a wrote

> Yeah it's doing something- like punishing people who own them to protect their families,

A gun in the household makes a family less safe, not more safe.

> themselves,

Same goes for you. You are more likely to be injured or killed by your own firearm (whether by your own hand or someone else's) than you are to ever use it to successfully defend your life.

> hunt or for sport use.

Plenty of other countries have solved the private firearm ownership problem without banning hunting or sport shooting.

> People that are not out to hurt anyone.

Every gun owner is a responsible gun owner right up until the moment their gun injures or kills someone.

> It won't do anything about people who were going to break the law and be crazy people.

Yes, it will. We already have the evidence that it does.

> I think the solution does involve some of the things you said, like long working hours, poverty reduction, and healthcare access. These may have a real impact.

Who do you vote for? Do those people actively advocate for or support reducing working hours, reducing poverty, and expanding healthcare access?

> The problem is, when crazy people want to do something bad, they are going to do something bad.

A) That isn't true, and "crazy people" aren't the real problem, and B) If a "crazy person" does want to "do something bad", we'd all much prefer if they were forced to do it with, for example, a knife as opposed to an AR-15.

> They will run over crowds of people in a vehicle,

No, they won't. Vehicle ramming attacks are vanishingly rare, even in countries where private firearm ownership is heavily restricted.

> push people in front of trains,

No, they won't. Murder by train is vanishingly rare, even in countries where private firearm ownership is heavily restricted.

> beat them, use a different weapon.

Except they don't. Reducing the availability of firearms reduces the homicide rate.

Some small percentage of perpetrators will substitute another method, but most won't. The presence of a gun escalates situations towards homicide.

> We will never reach a perfectly safe society.

A perfectly safe society isn't the goal. A society that is at least as safe as, for example, every other developed country on the planet is the goal.

> I think the focus should be on things we can do to help people before they become that far gone.

I think the focus should be on listening to experts, rather than people like you.

You obviously have some very strong opinions on this, but very little actual background knowledge to support those opinions. Nearly every factual claim you just made is demonstrably false. I'm going to ask you to do a lot less talking, and start doing a lot more listening.


[deleted] t1_ir9nvrf wrote



aristidedn t1_ira9gvx wrote

> Very little knowledge?

That's correct.

> This is the problem about assuming someone's background on the internet.

I'm not making any assumptions. If you had an appropriate level of background in this area, your comment would have reflected that.

> Unless you also served in the infantry

Child, your comment history is right there. The fact that you have military experience wasn't a secret.

> please tell me more about how my own weapon makes me unsafe, and how I have no background or knowledge on this subject.

The presence of a weapon in the household makes those residing their less safe than if there were no weapon in the household.

And the fact that someone taught you to shoot a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. What is your background in criminology? Violence or suicide epidemiology? Stats? Research methodology?

You think that being in the army makes you qualified to discuss gun control? Are you out of your skull?

> Please tell me more about who these experts are I should listen to.

Well, you can certainly begin with the ten experts on this page.

> You clearly have a very strong opinion about this too.

I do! And, unlike you, my opinion was formed after I received a tremendous amount of education and experience in this exact area.

> The difference between you and I is- I'm not making any false assumptions about your background in my post, or insulting your 'level of knowledge' on the topic.

Good call. That definitely wouldn't be a winning strategy for you.

> This is because I don't know you, and you are a random on the internet to me. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

Fortunately, I don't need to do the same for you. You aren't shy about sharing your political beliefs or your personal background on reddit, and your comment history is public.

> Maybe I shouldn't give how hostile you are to me.

You're free to make whatever assumptions about me you'd like.

Just make sure they're correct.

> Should I assume you are scared of guns,

On the contrary, I think they're pretty rad. Unfortunately, the harm caused by their widespread availability is immense, so the ethical thing to do is to advocate for them to be tightly controlled, no matter how cool I think they are.

> don't have much experience (or at least formal training or professional with them),

Experience with firing guns? No, certainly nothing formal or professional. But experience on gun violence? Tons.

> that you're using statistics on suicide to pad your fake numbers about being 'less safe' because of a gun?

Nice! See, statements like this are a dead giveaway that you don't have any meaningful background here.

If you did, you'd already know that gun suicides aren't "padding." The availability of a firearm in the home actually increases the likelihood of suicide. Suicide by gun is gun violence, and is inextricably linked to gun control.

> You cited approximately 0 sources,

Sorry, I didn't realize that you would be convinced to change your beliefs by research proving you wrong.

But now that I know you will, I'm glad I provided you with those links to Harvard's resources on gun violence research!

(Of course, both of us know that if you do read that research, you'll be doing so with the goal of finding ways to discredit it, rather than aiming to learn from it. That's just how the radicalized brain works. Your closely-held beliefs are being challenged by actual evidence, and in order to avoid the physical discomfort associated with having to confront how intertwined your personal identity is with your unevidenced beliefs, you'll scramble to find excuses to reject any evidence you're given, no matter how credible that evidence is.)


[deleted] t1_irblifa wrote



aristidedn t1_irbpius wrote

> I have a graduate degree in Health Informatics.


Because two days ago (your comment was removed, but it's still visible in your comment history) you were claiming to be a current Master's student. I guess you just graduated yesterday, huh.

(Hilariously, one of my actual degrees - not in-progress - is in Informatics, though in my case the specialization is in HCI. But everyone in my program got plenty of exposure to Health Informatics as well, which is how I know that it has nothing to do with the study of gun violence and everything to do with designing shit like health information systems.)

> What's yours?

In addition to my degree in Informatics, I have a degree in criminology and the law from one of the top three programs in the country. I have work experience in a major metropolitan county statistician's office, and while there I studied and authored reports on links between localized violent crime and education outcomes. I currently work for Google on the company's efforts to combat and document, among other things, violent extremism/radicalization, hate, and threats of violence.

> Why are you trying to turn this in to some kind of measuring contest.

I'm not interested in measuring anything. I'm interested in highlighting that you have no background in this area, but have convinced yourself that your opinion is well-founded. When you encounter a topic of significant complexity that you are yourself not well-versed in, the correct approach is to defer to the consensus of experts in the field.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in this field - despite my experience, I don't even come close to that mark - but I have enough background in it to be able to identify who the experts are and to have a strong sense of what their consensus is. And it's essentially the exact opposite of the claims you've made here.

> Why are you attempting to talk down to people and calling them a 'child'.

Because you deserve to be talked down to. If you don't want to be condescended to, don't pretend at knowledge or understanding you flat-out don't have.

> Take yourself off the pedestal you're no better than anyone else on here.

On this topic, I'm better equipped to discuss it than you are. That doesn't make me "better", but it doesn't make our opinions equally valid.

> I feel if you were to have these conversations face to face and not online- you wouldn't act so immature and maybe have a little respect for your fellow human.

I have plenty of respect for people in general. But you lost mine very early on.

> I don't know if you see people who disagree with you on an issue not worthy of respect, but it's a very toxic way to have dialogue or engage in conversation.

We don't merely disagree on an issue. You believe in a set of fundamental precepts that are opposed to mine. You don't believe in intellectual honesty. You don't believe in deference to expert consensus. You form opinions first, then justify them post hoc.

If we simply disagreed on an issue, I'd have corrected you, you'd have acknowledged the correction, and that would have been that. But your fundamental beliefs prevent you from acknowledging that your position on this issue was unfounded (bordering on flat-out dishonest, to be frank).

> What are you talking about. I have a different view on gun control than you do. That doesn't make me some kind of mentally ill individual.

No one called you mentally ill. Being radicalized isn't an illness.

> It just means we have different opinions, and that's fine. People are going to disagree with you, and it would be wise to learn how to cope with the fact that not everyone has the same worldview as you do. It seems almost impossible to even have a conversation on the actual issue at hand with all of the personal insults here. You clearly don't have the capacity to have a decent conversation with someone who respectfully disagrees with you.

You might respectfully disagree with me, but I don't have the same respect for you. Why should I? I believe that you have arrived at your opinions in a cowardly, dishonest, self-centered way, that your beliefs contribute to and preserve a culture that causes tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths annually, and that you lack the empathy to recognize this.

> I have deeply personal life experience regarding suicide and people close to me.

Everyone does.

> Even with firearms access, that isn't always how people do it- and for certain, having a firearm isn't what drove them to do it.

Yes, it is. In many cases, the presence of a firearm in the home makes the difference between committing suicide and not committing suicide. In addition to the unique qualities of suicide-by-firearm (immediacy, no opportunity for regret, no opportunity for discovery, etc.), the fact that suicide-by-firearm requires no planning when a gun is available means that it takes advantage of what are known as suicidal crises - short periods on the order of minutes where suicidal ideation is most intense and the likelihood of carrying out a suicide attempt is strongest. Most methods of committing suicide either require more planning time than the crisis period allows for, or offer a window for regret or discovery (e.g., drug overdose) that is longer than the crisis period.

Again, if you knew anything at all about suicide as a phenomenon, you wouldn't have said the things you just said.

EDIT: Since KaserneX31 decided to block me immediately after responding (weird choice, buddy, since that prevents the user from reading the comment!) I'll go ahead and respond here.

> I'm 6 credits (2 electives) away, also from a top university. Didn't think it would matter, but I guess it does to you.

"My relevant experience is I hold a degree in X" vs. "My relevant experience is I'm literally still a student" is a pretty big difference to just about anyone, my dude.

You tried to pull a fast one and got caught.

> You have your mind made up based on your sources (which I would consider biased)

My sources are a veritable mountain of peer-reviewed, prominently published scholarly journal articles either published by or collated by actual Harvard University and written by some of the leading researchers in the field of violence epidemiology. There literally are no sources on the planet more objectively authoritative on the subject matter.

You consider them biased because they conclude things that make you uncomfortable.

> and personal life experiences,

What personal life experiences? Are you referring to my academic experience, my professional experience, or something else?

> I have mine made up based on my own personal life experience

What personal life experiences? Are you referring to your (still incomplete) academic experience, your professional experience as a person who got paid to shoot guns, or something else?

> and sources (which you would consider biased).

Maybe! It depends! Are your sources a gigantic collection of peer-reviewed academic research published by dozens of highly-qualified researchers operating at the forefront of their respective fields?

Or is your source a bunch of stuff written by John Lott for his gun nut Patreon subscribers?

> I would be careful to label people who disagree with you as radicals (I assume you're very different in person than online with Reddit).

I don't label people who merely disagree with me as radicalized. For example, there are a ton of people who think mayonnaise is great. I disagree! I think it's pretty bad. But I don't think mayo-lovers are radicalized for disagreeing with me.

But you? Yeah, buddy. You have all the hallmarks of a radicalized person.

And I'd know.


[deleted] t1_irats1b wrote



aristidedn t1_irb1bor wrote

> What is “the household”?

This is a research study; we're talking about the average household.

> Certainly not his household,

How would he know?

> and not my household either.

How would you know?

Again, every person can be described as a "responsible gun owner", right up until the moment they aren't.

You're free to believe that you'll beat the odds, but that isn't what most people would call a wise choice.

The belief that a person is more likely, statistically, to use a firearm in the household to successfully defend themselves or their family from harm is simply false. A person is more likely to be accidentally injured or killed by a firearm in the household, assaulted or murdered by another member of the household with a firearm in that household, assaulted or murdered by a non-member of the household with a firearm in that household, or to commit suicide with a firearm in that household than they are to heroically fend off a mortal threat.

You've allowed the power fantasy of the self-sufficient protector/killer to overwhelm your ability to think clearly. It's more important to you to maintain that fantasy than it is to actually ensure your safety or the safety of your loved ones.

If it makes you feel any better, there are literally millions of men just like you in America.


thecwestions t1_ir8zrj1 wrote

I lived in Japan for a number of years, and they have just as much mental illness as other countries. You know what they don't have? Mass shootings. Or any shootings for that matter. Sure there is the occasional suicide by train or wild person wielding a kitchen knife, but impact is severely limited by comparison.

Take away the guns, and you fix the gun problem. And before anyone flies off the handle about 'I have to protect my family!' Just remember that a staggering number of gun-related domestic violence and death (by suicide) in the US is also due to guns. You have a better chance of protecting your family by not having a gun in the home than you would fending off any would-be attackers.


cujobob t1_ir8u93a wrote

Access has proven to lead to an increase in certain gun crimes. The idea that criminals are just going to do criminal things is basically saying.. let’s not have laws, locks on our doors, or prisons at all. We do criminalize stupid things way too heavily and need action to prevent crimes from ever occurring, but still… access is a problem.

In other countries, they have occasional stabbings, but at least then you have a chance (and the volume is lower so risk is lower).

The only reason gun bans are ever mentioned is because people want solutions to problems and they’re sick of inaction. The longer it goes on, the greater the action they’ll want. If it was a new problem, people would accept minor gun regulation reform. The NRA used to be a huge proponent of gun safety and responsibility, now look at it. The dollar signs blinded everyone.