3 laws that "solve" gun violence.

(1/1)

BoogieMonster (March 14, 2016, 14:13:01 PM):
Since we've come to (virtual) blows here before with some for and some against, what's better for a monday that kicking the hornet's nest once more: GUN LEGISLATION!

Quote from: Meta.com
The study, published in The Lancet, used a cross-sectional, state-level dataset relating to a host of topics associated with firearm mortality including gun ownership and even unemployment from across the U.S. to examine the relationship between recorded gun deaths and gun-control legislation. The study found that some laws, such as those that restrict gun access to children through locks and age restrictions, were simply ineffective while others, such as the stand-your-ground law that allows individuals to use deadly force in self-defense, actually increase gun-related deaths significantly. According to the study's model, a federal law expanding background checks for all gun purchases could reduce the national gun death rate by 57%, lowering it from 10.35 to 4.46 per 100,000 people while background checks for all ammunition purchases could lower the rate by 81% to 1.99 per 100,000 and firearm identification could reduce it by 83% to 1.81 per 100,000. If the federal government implemented all three laws, the scholars predict that the overall national rate of firearm deaths would drop by over 90% to 0.16 per 100,000.


Do you think, given these laws are implemented, that eventually 0.16 would start sounding like too much and become the new 100% figure that should be busted at all costs using some more stringent legislation? At what point does "beneficial" become "correct"? At what point does it become incorrect? Should the machines just lock us all up in individual cells for our own protection? :P

EDIT: Oh! And my favourite: Would other forms of violence (knives, beatings, rapes, etc) go up instead?

EDIT2: I am being a bit facetious.
Faerie (March 14, 2016, 14:44:44 PM):
Do you think, given these laws are implemented, that eventually 0.16 would start sounding like too much and become the new 100% figure that should be busted at all costs using some more stringent legislation? At what point does "beneficial" become "correct"? At what point does it become incorrect? Should the machines just lock us all up in individual cells for our own protection? :P

Which country are we using as background for the purpose of this discussion. Local or US?

EDIT2: I am being a bit facetious.

We love you anyway.
BoogieMonster (March 14, 2016, 14:52:05 PM):
Do you think, given these laws are implemented, that eventually 0.16 would start sounding like too much and become the new 100% figure that should be busted at all costs using some more stringent legislation? At what point does "beneficial" become "correct"? At what point does it become incorrect? Should the machines just lock us all up in individual cells for our own protection? :P

Which country are we using as background for the purpose of this discussion. Local or US?

The article is talking about the effects on the US, but I'm talking from the assumption that those laws would be effective elsewhere too and am mulling them over as a general principle.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page