Debating mental illness and gun violence

[lewisnotmiller]

I have looked at plenty of studies and have yet to find any honest study that claims causation.

There are studies in the link that come to different conclusions, and no study could claim complete causation. That seems like a kindergarten argument. But the University of Sydney is very reputable.

I can understand the feeling of being over the discussion of gun control in the U.S. it is very hard to discuss things with people who seem to only want to view the issue from their narrow perspective, whatever that perspective may be.

Yes. There are also funny starting points for the discussion, commonly. The overall tenet is confusing to an outsider, even if predictable.

For what it is worth, I think that the other poster was specifically addressing claims about massacres. As an onlooker it appeared that the depth you are discussing is a want to delve into semantics and rationalization. While I agree that the nuances are very important the poster made clear he was discussing the overarching premises surrounding massacres.

I don't think that's reasonable though. Gun controls here weren't intended to ban guns. They were intended to limit the type and power of guns, and who could use them, etc.
Comparing a pre-gun massacre where 35 died and the shooter used an AR-15 to a post gun control 'massacre' where two people died and the shooter used handguns is only useful or relevant if you consider the details.

Saying 'Hey look, a massacre before gun controls and a massacre afterwards' is inane.

The other means argument is just a counterpoint to a simplistic assertion that blames guns instead of acknowledging the topic is more complex, IMO.

Then let me state clearly, the topic is much more complex than guns, and guns are not the single biggest impact factor. However I think there is a risk that statements like that are seized on as a 'weakening', or as saying gun controls aren't important.

How should they be influenced is a different discussion though.

The first step is agreeing they should be, surely?

Totally different instances as well. While I acknowledge there is a difference, engaging that difference is an invitation to speculation.

Each massacre is different. Each murder is different. Determining contributing factors is not reduced in importance because of that.

How unfortunate when we are arguing about the effectiveness of instruments used for killing. This is one of the reasons that these discussion get so exasperating. The stack of assumptions that one need make in order to put forth such arguments is exhausting in itself. What do we want to reduce. Why do we want to reduce it. What is the most effective way to do that. What are the consequences of following that path?

Yes, but (again) I only came into this thread due to comments made earlier about 'overseas' controls. Which we implemented in a matter of months, literally, and which have been effective. The world hasn't ended, and people are still free. I'm not trivializing your comments in that, you haven't made any such glib statements, but I do occasionally feel a little miffed at comments about second amendment freedoms as the only path to a free society.

These are the areas discussion should focus. Using instances of massacres is not helpful. Speculating on death tolls is not helpful. And Speculating on what could have happened if.. is not helpful. I see this as true regardless of the side on which one is.

What would have happened if...?

We're supposed to ignore massacres when talking about gun control? Why?
We're supposed to ignore the consequences of legislation that was put into place unless we can draw a 100% certain and direct causation? That seems ridiculous.

Let's face it, this is all just our best guess. We made our best guess here, and based on what has actually happened over the last 22 years it's entirely possible (if not definitive) to conclude that gun controls helped. It's not possible to conclude they hurt, by any measured argument or study I've ever seen.
Perhaps you think gun control had no impact on our society. I can see that. I don't personally agree, but I can see it. But to push it aside by arguing that other factors are more important seems strange. Again, this is not an either-or proposition.

 

[Curious George]

There are studies in the link that come to different conclusions, and no study could claim complete causation. That seems like a kindergarten argument. But the University of Sydney is very reputable.

It is not an argument that I make to refute whether gun regulations would make any difference. It is an argument that I use to challenge drawing the conclusions that assert gun regulations make a definitive difference. We see a correlation. That correlation is important. Jumping to conclusions that suggest input x and you will get y are problematic.

Yes. There are also funny starting points for the discussion, commonly. The overall tenet is confusing to an outsider, even if predictable.

I agree. We should be able to start on common ground and proceed from there, but people on both sides do not want to take the time to iron out actual problems. From my perspective people are content screaming there point of view. Perhaps it is cathartic in the face of emotion.

I don't think that's reasonable though. Gun controls here weren't intended to ban guns. They were intended to limit the type and power of guns, and who could use them, etc.
Comparing a pre-gun massacre where 35 died and the shooter used an AR-15 to a post gun control 'massacre' where two people died and the shooter used handguns is only useful or relevant if you consider the details.

So you would conclude that the situation would have necessarily been different?

Saying 'Hey look, a massacre before gun controls and a massacre afterwards' is inane.

I think the point was x many deaths before and x many deaths afterwards.

Then let me state clearly, the topic is much more complex than guns, and guns are not the single biggest impact factor. However I think there is a risk that statements like that are seized on as a 'weakening', or as saying gun controls aren't important.

Maybe both positions pro gun regulation and anti gun regulations should be weakened? I am not sure. But I do believe that honest discussion does acknowledge points that strengthen the other positions or weaken one's own position.

The first step is agreeing they should be, surely?

I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees that they should be.

Each massacre is different. Each murder is different. Determining contributing factors is not reduced in importance because of that.

Speculation invites more speculation. I think that in most of these conversation points of view need understanding.

Yes, but (again) I only came into this thread due to comments made earlier about 'overseas' controls. Which we implemented in a matter of months, literally, and which have been effective. The world hasn't ended, and people are still free. I'm not trivializing your comments in that, you haven't made any such glib statements, but I do occasionally feel a little miffed at comments about second amendment freedoms as the only path to a free society.

And that certainly is not the case. However, a limitation on freedom is just that. In the US there are plenty of limitations on freedoms that are probably not so limited in AUS. Limiting gun ownership will not turn a society into a society that is no longer free. This is hyperbole and emotional rhetoric from one side. But while you are irritated, sometimes, by the emotional rhetoric from one side, I wonder if the other sides equally outrageous rhetoric causes the same discomfort.

What would have happened if...?

We're supposed to ignore massacres when talking about gun control? Why?

We certainly should not ignore them. I am unsure where you think I suggested this. We should not fixate upon them and use them as the basis for our decision. Looking at the big picture includes these incidents, it does not exclude them.

We're supposed to ignore the consequences of legislation that was put into place unless we can draw a 100% certain and direct causation? That seems ridiculous.

No I did not say that either. But we are supposed to give it proper weight and not draw conclusions that are not present.

Let's face it, this is all just our best guess. We made our best guess here, and based on what has actually happened over the last 22 years it's entirely possible (if not definitive) to conclude that gun controls helped. It's not possible to conclude they hurt, by any measured argument or study I've ever seen.
Perhaps you think gun control had no impact on our society. I can see that. I don't personally agree, but I can see it. But to push it aside by arguing that other factors are more important seems strange. Again, this is not an either-or proposition.

I do not think that I am suggesting it is an either or. But I certainly think one need to assess the options given the current status. And I do not see any discussions about improving mental health access, education or poverty... just a whole lot of arguments about guns.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I am not hung up on it at all. I am noting the differences in definitions from what was posted to what I viewed.

I think you were clear in what you were saying. I personally believe deciding public policy based on highly publicized incidents. That said, I also acknowledge that the issue is more nuanced than guns or not guns.

I thought I was pretty clear. Of course I always think that. Perhaps my Australian is a little rusty.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is not an argument that I make to refute whether gun regulations would make any difference. It is an argument that I use to challenge drawing the conclusions that assert gun regulations make a definitive difference. We see a correlation. That correlation is important. Jumping to conclusions that suggest input x and you will get y are problematic.

Agreed.

I agree. We should be able to start on common ground and proceed from there, but people on both sides do not want to take the time to iron out actual problems. From my perspective people are content screaming there point of view. Perhaps it is cathartic in the face of emotion.

Yeah...people seem more interested in supporting their 'team' in many things, which seems to promote binary/simplistic arguments.

So you would conclude that the situation would have necessarily been different?

Necessarily? Life has very few absolutes. Let's just say I think the death count is higher if he had an AR-15, and it would have been higher still if those at the shooting site hadn't have been able to overpower him.

I think there's a good chance the gun laws and subsequent cultural impact was impactful.

I think the point was x many deaths before and x many deaths afterwards.

There were certainly assertions without evidence, yes. There was also reliance on a wiki page which defined 2 people shot dead as a massacre. Such arguments are easy to make, but in this case lacked credibility.

Arguing that the reduction in death's was due to other factors than gun control is a more credible approach. Having said that, simple assertion is pretty cheap.

Maybe both positions pro gun regulation and anti gun regulations should be weakened? I am not sure. But I do believe that honest discussion does acknowledge points that strengthen the other positions or weaken one's own position.

Maybe, but again, I've given up worrying about American gun laws. I'm not talking about a situation where laws should be instituted, but instead one where they were.

And that certainly is not the case. However, a limitation on freedom is just that. In the US there are plenty of limitations on freedoms that are probably not so limited in AUS. Limiting gun ownership will not turn a society into a society that is no longer free. This is hyperbole and emotional rhetoric from one side. But while you are irritated, sometimes, by the emotional rhetoric from one side, I wonder if the other sides equally outrageous rhetoric causes the same discomfort.

Of course. Any assertion from ignorance would cause irritation, I suspect, and both sides do plenty of that.
But people suggesting Australia isn't really free (something Ive seen here a few times) because of gun laws is pretty profound ignorance. Worse than people calling for gun control not understanding different sub categories of rifles, in my opinion.

We certainly should not ignore them. I am unsure where you think I suggested this. We should not fixate upon them and use them as the basis for our decision. Looking at the big picture includes these incidents, it does not exclude them.

Agreed

No I did not say that either. But we are supposed to give it proper weight and not draw conclusions that are not present.

Agreed again.

I do not think that I am suggesting it is an either or. But I certainly think one need to assess the options given the current status. And I do not see any discussions about improving mental health access, education or poverty... just a whole lot of arguments about guns.

Which I agree is ridiculous. My wife works with mentally ill people who've been through the criminal justice system here, and she would whole-heartedly agree with you. She still finds US gun laws (or lack thereof) completely bemusing though, although she's as likely to talk about it in terms of suicide and accident as mass murder.