@matrix not making it normal to have access to firearms would absolutely reduce the number of incidents. there's a reason why everybody drinks alcohol and only stoners smoke weed.
@lain @matrix True, it probably does change something, but the relation is a very complex one that's always boiled down to a single variable by the media and politicians, one whose link to the ills being discussed is very badly understood. Comparatively few people seem interested in discussing possible root causes, like mental illness, overmedication of mental illness, a broken familial model, a media environment that's more interested in heaping guilt on already fragile individuals for "collective sins"... These I bet have much MUCH stronger correlations with instances of people acting out (be it deaths or substance abuse) than the legality of the tool used.
@guizzy @lain @matrix Hmm. I do think that legalising something normalises it and makes it more accessible. But I'm not sure making it illegal is the answer.
The problem with a gun ban, for example, is that people who are law-abiding are less likely to own one. But criminals still will. The kinds of people who will shoot up schools are less likely impacted... they will find something else or find a way to do it. They have time to plan it out. People who are suicidal will find another method too, since suicide is still happening here. It might look good that there are less incidents with guns, but other methods go up. You are correct to tackle the root causes and go for preventative measures in childhood.
The problem with a gun ban, for example, is that people who are law-abiding are less likely to own one. But criminals still will. The kinds of people who will shoot up schools are less likely impacted... they will find something else or find a way to do it. They have time to plan it out. People who are suicidal will find another method too, since suicide is still happening here. It might look good that there are less incidents with guns, but other methods go up. You are correct to tackle the root causes and go for preventative measures in childhood.
@sim @lain @matrix Something can be legal and not normalized. Conflating the two is a mistake I see often being made. For the question of weed, for instance, is weed normalized because it's been legalized here, or was it legalized because it was pretty much already normalized in society? I'd argue that there's much more of the second than the first, social attitudes lead policy. Going the other way from weed, cigarettes lost a lot of ground in society here, and not because of laws; those laws were simply catching up to the shift in attitude.
@guizzy @sim @lain @matrix
> For the question of weed, for instance, is weed normalized because it's been legalized here, or was it legalized because it was pretty much already normalized in society? I'd argue that there's much more of the second than the first, social attitudes lead policy.
This is absolutely correct and hardly ever mentioned when this topic comes up. In the Anglophone world and much of Western Europe de facto decriminalisation of cannabis has been effect for more than four decades, you really need to try pretty hard to get arrested and prosecuted for possession, so to describe its current status as "illegal" is misleading. If you really want to see the usage statistics in countries where it is actually illegal and the law is enforced you would have to investigate the East Asian countries and various Muslim majority countries.
> For the question of weed, for instance, is weed normalized because it's been legalized here, or was it legalized because it was pretty much already normalized in society? I'd argue that there's much more of the second than the first, social attitudes lead policy.
This is absolutely correct and hardly ever mentioned when this topic comes up. In the Anglophone world and much of Western Europe de facto decriminalisation of cannabis has been effect for more than four decades, you really need to try pretty hard to get arrested and prosecuted for possession, so to describe its current status as "illegal" is misleading. If you really want to see the usage statistics in countries where it is actually illegal and the law is enforced you would have to investigate the East Asian countries and various Muslim majority countries.
@lain @matrix Perhaps, but in the US, due to the fact it's a republic, there are states with stricter laws and fewer civilian owned firearms, and states with lax laws and more civilian owned firearms.
The data does not support your assertion, quite the opposite in fact.
Other factors are in play; Stricter gun regulation, while ignoring everything else, will only lead to situations like the what's happening in the UK.
The data does not support your assertion, quite the opposite in fact.
Other factors are in play; Stricter gun regulation, while ignoring everything else, will only lead to situations like the what's happening in the UK.
@diresock @matrix comparing data across states won't give you much information because states aren't equal in everything else. This is a just logical deduction, if i'm depressed and crazy and can grab a gun lying readily available at my house, i'm more likely to use it than if i had to get it from someone illegally.
@lain @matrix Call me crazy, but I think governments should strive for their policies ððð to be inherently unjust.
As for causality, guns don't exist in a vacuum, and you're ignoring additional effects guns have.
Is the goal to reduce gun violence, or violence in general?
Is the goal to take away civilian owned firearms, or to allow people a higher standard of living?
Hypothetically, if ⶠcauses 40,000 deaths a year, would you allow its ownership in every household?
If â· is a substance that has a proven ððð®ð¬ðð¥ link to violence and rape, would you ban it?
Trick questions, ⶠis cars, ⷠis alcohol.
Banning civilian firearms, or even strongly restricting their use, won't necessarily make anything better.
Guns have additional effects, and to ignore them, is disingenuous:
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
As for causality, guns don't exist in a vacuum, and you're ignoring additional effects guns have.
Is the goal to reduce gun violence, or violence in general?
Is the goal to take away civilian owned firearms, or to allow people a higher standard of living?
Hypothetically, if ⶠcauses 40,000 deaths a year, would you allow its ownership in every household?
If â· is a substance that has a proven ððð®ð¬ðð¥ link to violence and rape, would you ban it?
Trick questions, ⶠis cars, ⷠis alcohol.
Banning civilian firearms, or even strongly restricting their use, won't necessarily make anything better.
Guns have additional effects, and to ignore them, is disingenuous:
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
