Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Admiral Yi]

I guess the way he should've stated it is that the idea that the net effect of gun ownership protects the gun owners is a laughably idiotic argument.  Technically, guns saving one life at the expense of taking 1000 other lives unnecessarily would still invalidate his original argument, though "technically" is the key word here.

A perfectly defensible way to make the point is that any increase in personal security derived by the individual gun owner is outweighed by the costs imposed on society.

As an aside, suicide by gun is a weak argument for gun control in this age of increasing legalization of assisted dying.

[crazy canuck]

It is a weak argument if you are a libertarian and don't understand the restrictions on assisted dying.

[Tonitrus]

I guess the way he should've stated it is that the idea that the net effect of gun ownership protects the gun owners is a laughably idiotic argument.  Technically, guns saving one life at the expense of taking 1000 other lives unnecessarily would still invalidate his original argument, though "technically" is the key word here.

A perfectly defensible way to make the point is that any increase in personal security derived by the individual gun owner is outweighed by the costs imposed on society.

As an aside, suicide by gun is a weak argument for gun control in this age of increasing legalization of assisted dying.

I get where you're coming from...but I doubt we'd be very sanguine about the idea of suicide pills being as easily available for sale as firearms are.

[DGuller]

As an aside, suicide by gun is a weak argument for gun control in this age of increasing legalization of assisted dying.

I don't think it's a weak argument if one understands how suicide works.  You're going to need more than a spur of the moment to go through with assisted suicide.  Having a gun lets you finish the job effectively before you have time to reevaluate your decision.

[Berkut]

I guess the way he should've stated it is that the idea that the net effect of gun ownership protects the gun owners is a laughably idiotic argument.  Technically, guns saving one life at the expense of taking 1000 other lives unnecessarily would still invalidate his original argument, though "technically" is the key word here.

A perfectly defensible way to make the point is that any increase in personal security derived by the individual gun owner is outweighed by the costs imposed on society.

This is another example of how the left sabotages their own arguments. They get so wokeraged that they take basically good ideas and radicalize their message, which just lets the other side trivially point out that the left is full of shit.

As an aside, suicide by gun is a weak argument for gun control in this age of increasing legalization of assisted dying.

....and now you make the exact same mistake. Those two things have nothing to do with one another. Comparing someone shooting themselves with a gun, which happens like 25,000 times a year in the US, with "increasing legalization of assisted dying" which happens....what, less then 100 times a year in the US?

WTF man. Some teen getting dumped and shooting themselves with dads gun in a moment of despair is not even remotely comparable, in any fucking way, with some cancer patient, after consultation with their doctors, deciding to end their suffering in a controlled manner.

So no, the use of guns in suicides is a damn strong argument for gun control, and "increasing" legalization of assisted dying has absolutely no bearing on it's strength.

[crazy canuck]

This is another example of how the left sabotages their own arguments. They get so wokeraged that they take basically good ideas and radicalize their message, which just lets the other side trivially point out that the left is full of shit.

OK, Yi's argument was silly and reductionist.  But why tar the left with what he said?

[Admiral Yi]

So no, the use of guns in suicides is a damn strong argument for gun control, and "increasing" legalization of assisted dying has absolutely no bearing on it's strength.

It does have bearing.  A generation ago assisted dying was anathema, informed, I would argue, in great part by the church's prohibition against suicide.  That attitude has evolved, obviously.  It is not unreasonable to assume that attitudes about suicide in general will similarly evolve.

[DGuller]

So no, the use of guns in suicides is a damn strong argument for gun control, and "increasing" legalization of assisted dying has absolutely no bearing on it's strength.

It does have bearing.  A generation ago assisted dying was anathema, informed, I would argue, in great part by the church's prohibition against suicide.  That attitude has evolved, obviously.  It is not unreasonable to assume that attitudes about suicide in general will similarly evolve.

The suicide-based arguments for gun control have nothing to do with suicide being a sin.  It has everything to do with the fact that additional suicides that come with gun ownership cost people their lives.  It makes an often temporary illness fatal.

[Berkut]

So no, the use of guns in suicides is a damn strong argument for gun control, and "increasing" legalization of assisted dying has absolutely no bearing on it's strength.

It does have bearing.  A generation ago assisted dying was anathema, informed, I would argue, in great part by the church's prohibition against suicide.  That attitude has evolved, obviously.  It is not unreasonable to assume that attitudes about suicide in general will similarly evolve.

You can assume whatever you like. But attitudes about suicide evolving theoretically in the future have nothing to do with current concerns over 25,000 people a year killing themselves with guns.

[Admiral Yi]

The suicide-based arguments for gun control have nothing to do with suicide being a sin.  It has everything to do with the fact that additional suicides that come with gun ownership cost people their lives.  It makes an often temporary illness fatal.

Except people who argue for gun control don't limit their argument only to those who would theoretically regret their choice.

Now it's ultimately an untestable proposition because there's no ironclad way of determining why people hold the opinions they do.  Although thinking out loud it might be interesting to examine the realtionship between a country's dominant religion, the pronouncements of that dominant religion about suicide, and general opinions. 

[Berkut]

Arguing that concerns about suicide by guns are not valid because legal assisted suicide exists is like arguing that concerns about restricting people to driving the speed limit are invalid because they drive way faster during Formula 1 races.

[grumbler]

Tyr's absolutist statement (and CC's ideologically-driven blindness to its absoluteness) aside - why does anyone even try to argue with them? -  it's pretty clear that everyone here is agreeing while picking nits about differences.

I think that it is entirely possible to do a cost-benefit analysis in terms of lives lost with various levels of access to firearms.  And I think it is pretty clear that the loss of life will be lowest in the scenarios with the least access.

That misses the fact that the gun debate isn't about cost-benefit.  It is about paranoids who sincerely believe that, without access to guns, they will be unable to defend themselves and "the American Way of Life" from socialists, foreigners, minorities, and other such unAmerican types.  They saw what happened in South Africa to their counterparts and want to be able to use force to stop that in the US.

The US gun fetish isn't about guns.  It's about the power to resist history through violence.

[Admiral Yi]

Arguing that concerns about suicide by guns are not valid because legal assisted suicide exists is like arguing that concerns about restricting people to driving the speed limit are invalid because they drive way faster during Formula 1 races.

You're right.  I overstated my case.

The gun control argument does work for those people who would theoretically regret their decision.  It does not work for those who wouldn't.

[Berkut]

Arguing that concerns about suicide by guns are not valid because legal assisted suicide exists is like arguing that concerns about restricting people to driving the speed limit are invalid because they drive way faster during Formula 1 races.

You're right.  I overstated my case.

The gun control argument does work for those people who would theoretically regret their decision.  It does not work for those who wouldn't.

It works for anyone who would not be approved by a doctor for an assisted suicide, but who kill themselves by using a gun.

I suspect, that out of 25,000 people per year who kill themselves with a gun, a very, very, very, very tiny fraction of those could find a doctor to sign off on assisting them in that suicide. The number probably is not zero, but I am confident it is under 1%.

[Eddie Teach]

A considerably larger fraction would find other methods, some of which pose a greater risk to bystanders.