First of all: I am aware the current version of Imtg, and it's commentary, states gun control to be illegal. However, the article I've seen sheds some light on the reduction of fatalities, among which self-inflicted fatalities, when gun control is used as a tool.
Seeing as how logic is the ultimate law, and everything else is commentary, would we not be neglecting our law if we were to not evaluate the commentary based on scientific studies?
The study I refer to is this one:
.SEO LINK REMOVED ;].
I'd like for Piotr to give his ok on this discussion before we continue, since as mentioned, the current commentary of the Imtg law to which we agreed states the topic of this discussion (gun control) is illegal by said law.
My statement, however, would be that this commentary is up for review due to these facts.
The logic is this:
Gun control decreases the number of deaths by reducing the number of accidents. It is a real effect which is difficult to quantify in real life studies.
Gun control increases the number of deaths because it makes population unable to defend themselves without providing any substitution whatsoever, and without disarming criminals. This effect is stronger than decreasing the number of accidental deaths effect caused by removing self defence tools from law obeying part of the population.
Gun control increases the number of deaths because it does not prevent the Emperor of Japan from invading mainland of the country he is at war with. This is a long term effect, think of it this way: drinking water increases your risk of death by drowning but decreases the risk of death by dehydration. Short term risk vs. long term gain.
TODO list more effects.
All effects are real but the first is weak. Mathematical analogy: -1 +4 +3 +- effects unaccounted for = gun control increases the amount of deaths in the population.
Clear enough?
Links to scientific observations by sophomore students are strongly frowned upon here in this section, as 99% of statistical peer reviewed 'studies' on gun crime is pure fraud, as far as scientific method is concerned. The link you posted is not of Wikipedia quality, posting it is doing what I do not want to be done to this section of the forum.
Of course if you post again a link by two paid external consultants with zero credibility, and claim the study was done by Harvard, you will find yourself banned for 10 day minimum, redwolf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Quote from: Taysby on June 14, 2016, 06:48:20 PM
My thoughts are just because taking away guns lessens gun crimes, it does not necessarily reduce the number of crimes. Ie in England (I think) subway knifeings are a huge problem with lots of deaths
It is called tube not subway, and no we do not have huge problem with that, in comparison to other problems such as medical mistakes in NHS, which kill 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more people than murderers.
The link I posted was an extract of the peer review study. Also, I find you calling me Redwolf something I cannot appreciate.
Could you define your idea of acceptable media to quote from, so I shall not again use study extracts while such is not viewed as a valid source?
Quote from: Kaylesh on June 16, 2016, 10:57:53 AM
The link I posted was an extract of the peer review study. Also, I find you calling me Redwolf something I cannot appreciate.
Could you define your idea of acceptable media to quote from, so I shall not again use study extracts while such is not viewed as a valid source?
I had posted something else but it was removed. For obvious reasons.
Quote from: redwolv on June 16, 2016, 11:19:03 AM
Quote from: Kaylesh on June 16, 2016, 10:57:53 AM
The link I posted was an extract of the peer review study. Also, I find you calling me Redwolf something I cannot appreciate.
Could you define your idea of acceptable media to quote from, so I shall not again use study extracts while such is not viewed as a valid source?
I had posted something else but it was removed. For obvious reasons.
Ok. Clear.
Piotr: as to your logic. Would you agree, that if there is a degree of control on who gets a gun and who is not, the numbers would be different.
If we would have only criminals have guns, the honest populace would not be able to defend itself adequately, causing an increase in deaths.
However, if the need to defend yourself from guns where to decrease, the negative factor would be smaller, while reducing the instances of "crime passionels" in which guns are and can be involved.
If only criminals have guns and therefore job of a criminal is easy and safe, number of criminals will increase over time.
If population is able to defend themselves and thus the job of a criminal is difficult and risky, number of applications for the job will decrease.
Piotr, just curios. Would you say that if all guns suddenly disappeared, from civilians. That includes criminals and non-criminals, would the genreal population be safer or not! (I understand this scenario is impossible lol)
Ratio of criminals vs honest people in a population is indirectly linked to objective quality of life of the honest people in the population.
Ratio of criminals power vs honest people toughness in a population is directly linked to objective quality of life of the honest people in the population.
I would agree with both of those statements, but most honest people don't cause mass murders, and some criminals do. So even though overall there is a small percentage of criminals to honost people, they have much more power proprtianly, because of the damage they can cause scocity. So wouldn't respecting curtain type of guns m, i.e. Semi-Automatic weapons, be more beneficial to the honost people than harmful?
Quote from: Rothsteine on June 17, 2016, 03:07:27 AM
If all guns suddenly disappeared, from civilians. That includes criminals and non-criminals, would the genreal population be safer or not! (I understand this scenario is impossible lol)
To understand why this scenario is impossible, one must realise that change is inevitable. Therefore, what is important in reality are trends. As soon as your impossible scenario happened, important question would become: who would have easier access to weapons and thus would arm themselves quicker and better?
We could spend our resources discussing impossible matters such as time travel, but I find the exercise to be futile.
Quote from: Piotr on June 17, 2016, 03:14:36 AM
Quote from: Rothsteine on June 17, 2016, 03:07:27 AM
If all guns suddenly disappeared, from civilians. That includes criminals and non-criminals, would the genreal population be safer or not! (I understand this scenario is impossible lol)
To understand why this scenario is impossible, one must realise that change is inevitable. Therefore, what is important in reality are trends. As soon as your impossible scenario happened, important question would become: who would have easier access to weapons and thus would arm themselves quicker and better?
We could spend our resources discussing impossible matters such as time travel, but I find the exercise to be futile.
fair enough.
Quote from: Kaylesh on June 16, 2016, 10:57:53 AM
The link I posted was an extract of the peer review study.
Of sophomore quality pseudo science, so no. Correlation is not causation and we will not insult scientific method with the .poo. you linked, sorry. Please do not take it personally, it is not personal.
Quote from: Kaylesh on June 16, 2016, 10:57:53 AM
Could you define your idea of acceptable media to quote from, so I shall not again use study extracts while such is not viewed as a valid source?
I think we can all limit ourselves to links from Wikipedia, but I also appreciate links to eye openers such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsixsRI-Sz4 where Elon Musk explains his vision for the future of self defense tools, law on Mars and more. I value opinions of people with real achievements in their CVs over 'peer reviewed science'.
Peer reviewed science differs extremely little from mutual admiration society. In practice, it is the same, and is not to be trusted.
Logic is what I believe in.
Peer reviewed science wanted to kill Copernicus and Galileo, and others.
Peer reviewed science is just a tool, and not a very efficient one at what it does.
BTW, I could not help but notice the great feeling of joy I experienced while deleting a post by one of the mutual admiration society members of this forum just a moment ago.