@snder More guns arent the solution, neither are less guns.

One anecdotal interesting fact (not a real point here).. the only time ive been anywhere near a mass shooting was int he Netherlands. In my 30+ years in america one never happened in my town before.

But to answer your question it really depends on how we frame the question. But there are many reasons why, at least in theory, more guns could be better, and many reasons why it could be worse. The real question we should be asking ourselves is: what does the data say?

@freemo I see.. How often do we have shooting here in the Netherlands compared with the US for example..

And I know the size of the countries are very different but still. If someone steps into a bar for example with a gun it draws attention if the person is not a police officer.

@snder Well let me answer your question by copy and pasting a post I made 2 hours ago. I dont normally do this but it responds perfectly to your question of "how often does the netherlands have mass shootings":

After the country made vaccines illegal vaccine related death declined. In fact if you compare all countries where vaccines are illegal you will find vaccine related death is almost non existent. But in other countries where vaccines are legal vaccine related death is in the hundreds every year. I think this clearly shows why vaccines kill and should be made illegal.

This is what people who are anti-gun sound like. Do they even realize how absurd and how much lack of understanding they have when it comes to interpreting data and statistics?

@freemo @snder
In the USA there were 40.000 (about 50% suicide) deaths caused by fire arms in 2017, compared to 900 (almost 100% suicide) in Germany in the same year. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa-schusswaffen-tote-101.html

@honigdachse
The right to suicide is a natural and illaniable right as far as I'm concerned. While I do think we should strive to provide mental health facilities and other means to help encourage people not to choose suicide, in the end that is their right, as is everyones right to self determination. As such I see this as an argument FOR guns not against it. If it provides a more effective means of suicide than drinking bleech and perhaps a means that is less traumatic to the person attempting it then by all means, they have that right, as sad as i t might be.

@snder

@freemo @snder Sure, I'm not against that. What about the 20.000 dead people that were not involved in a suicide or mass shooting?
Also, the suicides may have been prevented with proper treatment and that's not killing yourself with a gun. Which won't work all the time either...

@honigdachse @snder Yea the suicide could have been prevented in some cases. But ultimately having the right to self determination also means having the right to choose if you wish to seek therapy first or skip right to suicide. While I think it is foolish to skip right to suicide it is still their right.

As for the other people who died from guns for other reasons. That is very tragic. What about them exactly? Are you asking me if its sad people died or something more specific. It is most certainly sad.

@freemo

But to come back to my question 👼 Why do you have an AR-15? Where do you use it for?

@freemo @snder There are better and safer ways to kill yourself. I think overdosing on heroine or some other drug will make it way more comfortable.
Killing yourself with a gun or in another drastical and violent way is often a very sudden decision that is not planned beforehand and could be prevented.

Yeah, and the other 10.000 humans died because of stupid accidents with guns or just "normal" violence.

@honigdachse

Exactly! And what if some people have a bad day or their relation just ended and in the moment they feel lost and hopeless?

You can only shoot yourself once (if you do it right :P) there's no turning back..

That's why we do have such trajects here in the Netherlands! It takes a few years but at the end you are sure or not..!

@freemo

@honigdachse
Well ifyou want to talk accidents instead od suicides, sure. Again if someone buys a gun they know the risks. They are making that choice and have ever right to work with dangerous things that put their life at risk if they want. That is hardly an argument agains tit any more than its an argument against making scuba diving illegal (a dangerous sport).

Now i would agree there is a concern if someone has a gun and is irresponsible putting OTHER people at risk. But thats simple, make such behavior illegal (as it already is. If someone, for example, points a gun at someone in a joking way (prone to accident) this is illegal and would cause someone to go to jail most likely.

Point is NONE of this is a valid argument against guns or anything else that causes accidents often.

@snder

@freemo @snder Turns out: Most irresponsible persons start out responsible.
But that's certainly checked for if you buy a gun! And then every year again if you own a gun. That would be resonsible, wouldn't it?

@honigdachse
We dont check to see if people are responsible with most things (though i do agree in non-reverse searchable gun licenses that can not be denied to anyone who passes).

Whart it means is once someone starts to show signs that they are becoming irresponsible, as in they act irresponsibly with a gun, then we arrest them. Thats what I said. If you go around town acting irresponsible with a gun, you immediately get arrested (if people are doing their job) and any actual injury would be prevented in many caases.

Same thing we do with knives. Anyone can buy a knife, but if you start walking around outside with it and brandishing it in peoples faces you will get arrested and loose the right to hold it.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable way to treat it.

@snder

@freemo @snder Of course, that's one way of doing it.
I, and some other people, like to prevent things like these before they happen at all because the reason to own a fire arm or a big knife will disappear at the same time.

@honigdachse
As well you should. Sadly most attempts at doing so resulted in more deaths not less. But yea if you ever actually figure out a way that prevents the problem without causing more damage than good by all means, lets implement it.

@snder

@freemo @snder The way that works is implemented in many countries for a long time and causes way less deaths.

@honigdachse Im a professional statistician who has delved pretty deep into this topic. Not sure what your talking about. Most countries who have attempted to implement anti-gun laws have had some pretty severe ramifications from that.

Worked in what way exactly, you have to be specific if i am to consider your point.

@freemo Please show your studies that prove that we have more deaths caused by guns in Germany than in the USA. I won't argue with that again if you can prove that.

@honigdachse I never made that claim so why would i show a study to prove it.. im not saying the claim is wrong either. I asked you a question, I am seeking to understand YOUR claim before i articulate any response to it.

@freemo I quote you: "Most countries who have attempted to implement anti-gun laws have had some pretty severe ramifications from that."
So, why is that and how do you know that?

@honigdachse

I refer you to this thread. It accomplished two things. 1) It shows why the argument "germany made guns illegal and now we have no gun deaths" is an absurdist argument that makes no sense 2) It analyzes the situation using the sort of real logic me and other Data Scientists use to actually analyze these sorts of problems.

It directly answers your question. It also provides a ton of graphs and data sourced from peer-reviewed sources to back up my claim.

https://qoto.org/@freemo/102564542332014831

@freemo These very scientific screenshots from somewhere prove everything. I was wrong all the time!

@honigdachse So before i respond am i being clear, your argument is basically "In germany guns are illegal, we have very few deaths by guns, this demonstrates that guns kill".. would that about sum it up?

@honigdachse

"In germany guns are illegal, we have very few deaths by guns, this demonstrates that guns kill"

I'm a data scientist by profession. Lets take a look at this assertion shall we.

As a technique for drawing a conclusion based on data its usually best to apply the same techniques to other areas you don't have a cognitive bias in. Then consider if the logic still works or if it reveals some absurdity in the logic. Lets do that shall we....

After the country made vaccines illegal vaccine related death declined. In fact if you compare all countries where vaccines are illegal you will find vaccine related death is almost non existent. But in other countries where vaccines are legal vaccine related death is in the hundreds every year. I think this clearly shows why vaccines kill and should be made illegal.

I think this becomes very clear how absurd that particular approach to data analysis looks. But why? Well that's obvious. If we are considering a tool which has both the ability to save lives and take it then we will always get a fraudulent and bias answer when we apply this logic. Of COURSE deaths by tool X will be near 0 in a society that outlaws tool X. But it is naive to the broader picture. Namely how does the absence or presence of said tool effect ALL deaths, not just gun related deaths, and not just vaccine related deaths.Only then can you get a useful picture.

@freemo @honigdachse you'll have to bounce this over as mastsoc blocks spc but
image - 2019-08-05T151353.317.p…

@freemo

We have programs for that here in the Netherlands ;-)

And it's maybe a long road but better to be sure then make a one time mistake!

@honigdachse

@snder What wouldnt have happened? People have been murdering each other en masse for many thousands of years before guns were even evented.

@freemo Very true but it far too easy over there. I think most people can't handle such power.

If you want to get a gun here it's very hard for a reason, they are illegal!

@snder The issue is only partly related to "how easy" it is to get. While i do agree america should have some mandatory non-reverse search licensing system thats only a small part of the puzzle.

@snder by the way sorry for the last paragraph it is a bit insulting. I wouldnt have worded it that way if it wasnt originally a general post. To you specifically i would have worded it more respectfully.

@freemo Thanks ;-) But I see your point and it's indeed a very complicated situation!

It's just very hard to see so many reports on deaths by guns and stuff 😢 To be honest I've never even held a gun in my hands..

Btw, I totally agree on the point that the checks should be a lot more strict!

@snder I own an AR-15 at my american home. So I obviously have made my decision on the issue already. But only after a great deal of research and soul searching ont he topic.

@freemo Have you had any training in how to use it safely?

And where do you use it for? Don't get me wrong I like BB guns but with the thought they are pracrly harmless

@snder I took some basic gun safety courses and read up on it. It wasnt mandatory though. but most shops that sell it to you even though it isnt required make it a point to walk you through all the safety concerns if its your first gun. Not as good as a roper course, but it does help.

I use it mostly for sport, sharp shooting and the like. If i ever would need it I would use it for self defense but I dont particularly feel like I need a gun for that that 99% of the time.

@snder
Same arguments could be made to make the internet unencrypted with real Id to protect the children from the rapist.
@freemo

@snder I'm not saying the checks should be more strict. In fact im against stricter checks in terms of background checks. The idea of licensing would be such that ANYONE capable of passing the course would be allowed a license and under no circumstances should someone be denied it if they take the course and pass.

@freemo Yeah that's what I meant! Some sorts of training in how to use it safely and when not to use for example!

@snder YeaI agree that would be a huge leap forward for sure. As long as any licensing is not reverse searchable I see no reason to be against it.

I could think of one exception where it may cause an issue. A woman who is a rape risk due to an ex abusive or otherwise. She may be in immediate danger and may not have the time to get licensed first. Sadly we dont have a police force that we could rely on to actually stay at the womans house with her so what other option would there be?

@snder I love the netherlands and its people. But there are american ideals I also agree with. PErsonally I'd love a country that was a hybrid of the two. but that doesnt exist

@freemo Hmm.. That's hard for me since I'm not an american (yet!)

@snder
How do you kill corrupt officers, military or politicians with out guns?
@freemo

@a7 @snder @freemo swords, duh

@a7

Why should we kill them? That's not the way we deal with people. We aren't barbarics are we?

@freemo

@snder

I think you meant this as a reply? It looks like a regular post. I cant see what your responding to.

@a7

@freemo

Ahh It's a reply but maybe quoto has blocked the instance? ;o

@a7

@snder
We dont block any instances and im able to see a7's toots in general. Weird.

@a7

@snder
That's why we have the right to bear arms, incase we have to fight our government like we did in 1776. I meaning people are putting you in camps and stealing your money I'd hope you have the balls to shoot them.
@freemo

@a7

It's not 1700 anymore!

@freemo

@snder
Guns are still used in wars and still kill people, Vietnam did pretty good against the us with just guns.
@freemo

@a7

True but that's in war.. And we are a developed country. We can talk to each other right? 🙂

@freemo

@snder
The point is "what if we cant"
Jews didnt talk it out with hitler and live.
@freemo

@a7 @snder @freemo almost all of them lived and moved to Israel