Decline of the West???

[Maia]

Mass gun ownership leads to mass death.

Historically speaking - that's not true.

There was a time in history before guns.
And a time in hustory with lots of guns.

If I had to choose which period in history to live in (based on this one correlation) - I am going with the guns.

It's probably better to compare one modern society with another that's extremely similar in most other ways, e.g. the USA and UK.

[Maia]

The Pax Romana, incidentally, included a strict ban on civilians carrying swords.

And the Barbarians took good advantage of that.

I'm not sure that the ban still held in the fourth and fifth centuries, though admittedly, I don't know, off hand.

[Wizard22]

If you cannot defend yourself, then you have no autonomy.

I refuse any ideology that disarms a Citizen. A large part of this Decline, I believe, is removal of individual autonomy. Westerners no longer believe themselves the Authors of their lives, or the Quality of their lives. This is a big part of the problem.

[Skepdick]

It's probably better to compare one modern society with another that's extremely similar in most other ways, e.g. the USA and UK.

I am attacking your premise here trivially on the grounds of scientific falsifiability.

Correlation is not causation. But correlation is mandatory for causation.

If your premise were true then It would be impossible to have a society with more guns but less dying.

Indeed, the fact that Switzerland has more gun-deaths than the UK; and yet Switzerland is a much safer country than the UK is a piece of information most non-statisticians have a problem reconciling.

[Skepdick]

I'm not sure that the ban still held in the fourth and fifth centuries, though admittedly, I don't know, off hand.

Well, yeah. The first thing Ukraine did when Russia invaded them was to give away AK-47s to their citizens.

For free.

[Maia]

It's probably better to compare one modern society with another that's extremely similar in most other ways, e.g. the USA and UK.

I am attacking your premise here trivially on the grounds of scientific falsifiability.

Correlation is not causation. But correlation is mandatory for causation.

If your premise were true then It would be impossible to have a society with more guns but less dying.

Indeed, the fact that Switzerland has more gun-deaths than the UK; and yet Switzerland is a much safer country than the UK is a piece of information most non-statisticians have a problem reconciling.

I suppose that the existence of sophisticated guns implies the existence of sophisticated technology in general, such as medicine. So in that sense, yes, we're better off.

[Maia]

I'm not sure that the ban still held in the fourth and fifth centuries, though admittedly, I don't know, off hand.

Well, yeah. The first thing Ukraine did when Russia invaded them was to give away AK-47s to their citizens.

For free.

And they were right to do so. The situated demanded it.

[Wizard22]

There's a good reason why murder rates in the USA are so much higher than the UK, even though ours are nothing to boast about any more. I for one would think twice about ever visiting America for this reason alone, though I've been to Canada three times and really liked it.

Yeah...the reason is black gang-bangers and their gun homicide rate, which American MSM doesn't even report on. If you negate their statistic, USA is equivalent to UK and other European countries per capita.

You're about 20 years too late, to visit America. You've missed our Golden Age, I suspect, sadly...

[Skepdick]

I suppose that the existence of sophisticated guns implies the existence of sophisticated technology in general, such as medicine. So in that sense, yes, we're better off.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that it's a preventive measure overall.

The rest is just a silly tautology.

More guns == more gun-deaths (but less dying overall)
More doctors == more doctor-deaths (but less dying overall)
More seat-belts == more seatbelt-deaths (but less dying overall)
More vaccines == more vaccine deaths (but less dying overall)

[Maia]

There's a good reason why murder rates in the USA are so much higher than the UK, even though ours are nothing to boast about any more. I for one would think twice about ever visiting America for this reason alone, though I've been to Canada three times and really liked it.

Yeah...the reason is black gang-bangers and their gun homicide rate, which American MSM doesn't even report on. If you negate their statistic, USA is equivalent to UK and other European countries per capita.

You're about 20 years too late, to visit America. You've missed our Golden Age, I suspect, sadly...

Some parts of it are nice, I'm sure.

[Maia]

I suppose that the existence of sophisticated guns implies the existence of sophisticated technology in general, such as medicine. So in that sense, yes, we're better off.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that preventing my own murder is better than society lamenting it.

A good way of preventing murder is to make it more difficult for murderers to get hold of the means to do it easily.

[Skepdick]

A good way of preventing murder is to make it more difficult for murderers to get hold of the means to do it easily.

How did that work out for Cain and Abel?

Abel killed Cain with a rock.
David killed Goliath with a rock.

It's not about the rock.

Another good way of preventing murder is to make it easier for potential murder victims to prevent their own murders.

[Maia]

A good way of preventing murder is to make it more difficult for murderers to get hold of the means to do it easily.

How did that work out for Cain and Abel?

Abel killed Cain with a rock.
David killed Goliath with a rock.

It's not about the rock.

It's a question of ease of use. Knife crime, sadly, is a big problem in the UK. But it's far more difficult to kill people with knives than with guns, even at close range.

[Skepdick]

It's a question of ease of use. Knife crime, sadly, is a big problem in the UK. But it's far more difficult to kill people with knives than with guns, even at close range.

It is a question of ease of use.

What's easier to defend your life with? A rock; a knife or a gun?

In a society without guns a woman vs 3 men always loses.
In a society with guns the stakes are much higher for the men when the woman is armed.

[Maia]

It's a question of ease of use. Knife crime, sadly, is a big problem in the UK. But it's far more difficult to kill people with knives than with guns, even at close range.

It is a question of ease of use.

What's easier to defend your life with? A rock or a gun?

If your murderer has a gun, then obviously, it's better if you do, too. If your murderer doesn't have a gun, though, you may not even get murdered in the first place.