Good point. It looks like gun violence is down ~30% since the mid 1990's.
Also, how do they define "gun violence"? Does that include accidental shootings? Suicides? From what I remember, suicides account for almost half of all deaths due to guns.
Also, how do they define "gun violence"? Does that include accidental shootings? Suicides? From what I remember, suicides account for almost half of all deaths due to guns.
The argument of the article is that consistent government regulation has helped curve motor vehicle deaths downwards and that consistent gun regulation might be able to do the same.
The article says "Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths."
Also, prior to enacting gun control, Australia's non-firearm suicide rate doubled (1980-1996) while firearm suicide was cut in half.
Not sure there is any correlation.
And for the US - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/1...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Measurin...
"The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[61]"
"The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[60]"
I wouldn't assume that it's settled.
The table I'm looking at says firearm suicides dropped by 50% prior to the gun buyback.
I'd argue the decrease in overall suicides is a general trend happened to coincide with the gun buyback.
To test if people are actually free, you study how the unpopular people and unwelcome ideas are handled. If they are restricted "for their own good", then any claim of being "free" are jut marketing.
The solution is better education and more communication (and better healthcare, including a lot more funding/availability for mental health services). Going after guns doesn't address the actual problem.
Oh, and "take some pills"? That really depends. You may survive, but hours of hypoxia from an overdose of respiratory depressants can be incredibly damaging, especially to the brain. If the overdose wasn't strong enough to cause that kind of damage, it may not even be a fatal dose. There is going to be a lot of variation, and "backing out" only apples some of the time.
[1] As someone who strongly supports the right to die, suicide is a complicated subject, and is not "stupid" in some cases. However, for the purposes of this thread, that is really off-topic. The "stupid" subset certainly exists and they would be the people who would benefit form the "backing out" you mention.
When you include external costs guns are massively subsidized. EX: Homeowners insurance generally does not ask about gun ownership even if it increases risks.
PS: The 18th may have allowed the sale of beer, but that does not mean the government can't discourage use though taxation.
*=http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/wa... There are closer to 3,500 accidental drownings per year.
Note, discourage != prohibit. Regular PSA's about the dangers of pool ownership higher taxes, and or required fencing could all save lives.
Probably ladders as well...
Mandating they all be panted in iridescent reflective coatings would discourage ownership, but not actual use.
PS: Ladders are covered in safety warnings (which may be ridiculous). Guns, not so much.
You've reminded me: The CPSC introduced stop-sale regulation on magnets (remember Buckyballs?) for even fewer deaths than that, and where most of the non-fatal injuries were the result of poor decisions by adolescents. Worse, in my opinion, the relatively small number of deaths that occurred were almost all traceable to irresponsible adults leaving magnets in places where toddlers could pick them up and swallow them.
That's still a sore point for me.