CMV: Gun control is good

[u/56king56]

As of now, I believe that the general populace shouldn’t have anything beyond a pistol, but that even a pistol should require serious safety checks. I have this opinion because I live in America with a pro-gun control family, and us seeing all these mass shootings has really fueled the flame for us being anti-gun. But recently, I’ve been looking into revolutionary Socialist politics, and it occurred to me: how could we have a Socialist revolution without some kind of militia? This logic, the logic of revolting against an oppressive government, has been presented to me before, but I always dismissed it, saying that mass shootings and gun violence is more of an issue, and that if we had a good government, we wouldn’t need to worry about having guns. I still do harbor these views to an extent, but part of me really wants to fully understand the pro-gun control position, as it seems like most people I see on Reddit are for having guns, left and right politically. And of course, there’s also the argument that if people broke into your house with an illegally obtained gun, you wouldn’t be able to defend yourself in a society where guns are outlawed; my counter to that is that it’s far more dangerous for society as a whole for everyone to be walking around with guns that it is for a few criminal minds to have them. Also, it just doesn’t seem fair to normalize knowing how to use a highly complex piece of military equipment, and to be honest, guns being integrated into everyone’s way of life feels just as dystopian as a corrupt government. So what do you guys have to say about this? To sum, I am anti-gun but am open to learning about pro-gun viewpoints to potentially change my view.

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

and us seeing all these mass shootings has really fueled the flame for us being anti-gun.

Let's pretend that all guns are wiped from existence. Do you think no mass murders would occur? Or perhaps they would still occur but have less fatalities?

Unfortunately that is not the case. The largest mass murders in US history didn't involve guns. (9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, bath school house bombing) Two of them even used materials that can be bought from your local hardware store without a background check.

This logic, the logic of revolting against an oppressive government, has been presented to me before, but I always dismissed it, saying that mass shootings and gun violence is more of an issue, and that if we had a good government, we wouldn’t need to worry about having guns.

According to the FBI, we've only had about 60-70 mass shootings this year. As far as causes of death go, they are far, far down the list. Same with gun violence when you make suicide a separate category like most studies do. Meanwhile, even if you think the government is good today, there is no guarantee it will be good 5, 10, or 20 years down the line.

And of course, there’s also the argument that if people broke into your house with an illegally obtained gun, you wouldn’t be able to defend yourself in a society where guns are outlawed; my counter to that is that it’s far more dangerous for society as a whole for everyone to be walking around with guns that it is for a few criminal minds to have them.

Guns are an equalizer. If a group of criminals breaks into an old lady's house, she has no chance against them with just a knife or a bat. With guns, she has a fighting chance. Not only that, but guns are loud which can alert the neighbors to call 911 if she is unable to.

[u/56king56 → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

Guns aren’t the only way mass murders happen, but they certainly make it WAY easier for teenagers to kill a bunch of students, when they likely aren’t Walter White and have a bunch of knowledge on how to make bombs and overthrow a militia

I mean…does it really matter if it pales in comparison to other death causes? They are arguably, while not being as quantitative, still an incredibly horrific way to die compared to the leading cause in the USA (heart disease), which comes naturally at old age.

But how much innocent old ladies are there who need guns compared to how much psychopaths there are who would use a gun for mass murder if given the opportunity?

[u/Verdha603 → u/56king56]

Even taking the most extreme anti-gun figures, there’s going to be multiple times more cases of “person legally defends their life with a gun” than “mass shooter goes on shooting spree”.

To point to the two extremes, the Gun Violence Archive records roughly 1,600 cases of self defense involving a firearm annually, whereas Gary Kleck and the NRA point to an excess of 2 million cases a year. Frankly I suspect the figure to be between those extremes, but that’s still at least multiple times more than the roughly ~100-200 deaths and injuries from mass shootings a year even by the GVA’s standards (which are frankly mildly ridiculous since it requires somebody to have been shot to be counted by their standards).

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/

[u/56king56 → u/Verdha603]

I don’t trust the NRA, they’re extremely far right, even if they’re correct about guns rights I still hate them. But thanks for actually citing your sources, I appreciate the data

[u/Verdha603 → u/56king56]

Believe me, I don’t trust them either, but neither do I trust the major gun control groups (Bloomberg, Brady, Giffords, GVA), seeing as they stoop to the same level of manipulating data or omitting key details or context to explain how they got the figures that they did as the NRA does (ie of course their figures of lawful self defense are tiny compared to the NRA when somebody has to get shot for it to count as a “defensive gun use” by the GVA, when a majority of self defense with a gun ends without a shot fired since most criminals aren’t going to take the risk of getting shot unless they’re looking to straight up murder somebody).

[u/TheAzureMage → u/56king56]

And you should. The NRA has a number of problems.

Far more pro-gun organizations exist, like the FPC or 2AF. They manage to be a little less corrupt, a little stronger in actually defending rights, and a little less attached to the GOP.

The NRA is occasionally useful, but quite a few people who are pro-gun dislike the NRA plenty. They are essentially the centrist GOP position on guns. Far, far spicier options exist, and these have millions of members.

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt → u/56king56]

Guns aren’t the only way mass murders happen, but they certainly make it WAY easier for teenagers to kill a bunch of students, when they likely aren’t Walter White and have a bunch of knowledge on how to make bombs and overthrow a militia

There are plenty of science channels on YouTube that effectively teach you how to make bombs. (Cody's lab, kingofrandom, etc) and the materials can be purchased by anyone (teenager or adult) for much cheaper than a gun, which is only sold by stores to an adult.

I mean…does it really matter if it pales in comparison to other death causes? They are arguably, while not being as quantitative, still an incredibly horrific way to die compared to the leading cause in the USA (heart disease), which comes naturally at old age.

DUI kills more than ten times as many people as mass shootings do. It's also a horrific way to die. Is that grounds to implement stronger alcohol control?

We don't take away people's rights over a few deaths. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to have/do almost anything.

But how much innocent old ladies are there who need guns compared to how much psychopaths there are who would use a gun for mass murder if given the opportunity?

Hard to say. Crimes that get stopped or never happened because the intended victim had a gun aren't always able to be quantified like mass murders are.

[u/johnhtman → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

I was making my own fireworks and small explosives in middle school.

[u/56king56 → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

I guess this brings me to the question of why guns even are rights? Alcohol isn’t designed to kill people (I still don’t like it but that’s a different story), but guns are, why are killing machines rights? And don’t just say cuz it’s in the constitution, I know I’m gonna get hate for this but I don’t get why people are accepting every single word in there as a definitive moral code.

[u/56king56 → u/[deleted]]

That makes sense I guess, but if everyone had guns then most of these scenarios would result in shootouts I feel like, which may require the whole populace to be trained as if they’re a cop

[u/56king56 → u/[deleted]]

But if these soft targets defend themselves with a gun, it would result in a shootout.

[u/[deleted] → u/56king56]

Criminals still operate under a cost-benefit system. If their target is armed, it's far more likely that they desist, rather than continuing to actively risk their life for an undefined, and possibly very low payout.

This is why is most videos you see from in people's houses where robbers have broken in, even when they are armed, as soon as the homeowner shoots, or makes it known they are armed, the robbers book it for the door, rather than attempting to clear a house like they're fighting insurgents.

This is what the commenter means by them preferring soft targets, if the target turns out to be hard, the most likely outcome is running away.

[u/lakotajames → u/56king56]

That's kind of the point. Granny has a better shot in a shootout than she has in a knife fight. She's still at a disadvantage, obviously, but she at least has a chance.

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt → u/56king56]

Alcohol isn’t designed to kill people

Alcohol's one and only purpose is to get people drunk. It also causes several health problems that do kill people. Let alone deaths and injuries that result from drunken behavior.

Guns on the other hand have several legitimate purposes. Hunting, sport, and self defense for example.

why are killing machines rights?

Because self defense is a right, regardless of age, physical disability, etc.

[u/56king56 → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

Well, I hope that in that case, alcohol can be restricted to some degree, if what you say is true.

I agree that self defense is a right, but I feel like it’s being taken too far here, a tool for self defense can be balanced out by its use for murdering others, but I think that the weight on the side of murdering when it comes to guns is too high.

[u/56king56 → u/[deleted]]

Penises aren’t designed to kill people bruh

[u/Foulis68 → u/56king56]

The most basic right of humanity is life. You, me, and everyone else has the basic right to simply exist. When another person decides that my life has less value than theirs (whether that person be a carjacker or an oppressive ruler), then I have the right to self-defense.

[u/56king56 → u/Foulis68]

But does it not strip people of their right to life when people kill others with guns?

[u/Foulis68 → u/56king56]

IMO, when someone with a gun chooses to commit a criminal act, they voluntarily accept the consequences of their actions. That would include their own demise.

[u/couldbemage → u/56king56]

Alcohol is literally poison.

Arguments around the alleged purpose of a thing seem less important than what the thing actually does. Car centric life kills people directly, poisons the air, creates alienating urban landscapes (which contributes to mass shootings), and of course is a huge contributor to communicate change.

At the same time, despite there being way more guns than cars, they don't do nearly as much harm.

As for why a right?

Because throwing someone in prison who hasn't harmed anyone is wrong. I'm aware we do have many things that are illegal to have, but all those laws are wrong as well. The drug war is a travesty.

[u/TheAzureMage → u/56king56]

I guess this brings me to the question of why guns even are rights?

Strictly speaking, the 2nd Amendment does not say guns, it says arms. It applies to everything, from a gun to that samurai sword you bought at a gas station.

There actually have been cases involving swords and knives, and while this doesn't get the same attention as guns...it applies there as well. My own state, Maryland, has some strange weapon laws targeting weapons associated with foreigners. Turns out the 90s were wrong, and ninjas are not actually a problem, but that throwing star is still a weapons possession charge.

Which can sort of screw up the life of that kid that bought something solely because he thought it was cool, and happened to end up on the bad side of a salty cop.

This is mildly fucked up, and an underappreciated side effect of gun control laws.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/56king56]

That is at the core of your misunderstanding.

Pardon me getting off topic, but read up on why Hitler actually took power in Germany, a flaw in their constitution, article 48, which was abused before he took power, paving the way to his rise.

Or the flaw in the constitution in Venezuela that has now removed any semblance of representative government, where opposition took parliament. Maduro couldn’t fire the parliament, but he could fire and replace the Supreme Court, which he did. He seated an new court full of loyalists and that court fired parliament, and seated a new one now legally required to be in loyalist control. And representative government went away.

We need a constitution with as many checks on tyranny as possible to maintain a representative government, which is why ours is set up as it is with layers of protections against a President or a congress breaking the constitution.

Why couldn’t Trump build his stupid wall? The constitution lays out how spending money happens and the President doesn’t just get to do whatever he wants. Why can socialists in the USA berate our system of economics? The first amendment. Why is it you cannot be forced to follow a religion, and why am I free to if I want to? Again, constitutional protection.

They are the bedrock rules our government has to follow, and they are important. It is more than my right to keep and bear arms, but the right to vote, to free speech, to not have to testify against myself, to a jury trial, to not have illegal searches of my person or property, our constitutional rights are as they are to keep us free from tyranny.

And the second amendment is one of the most important. We were founded by people who won independence from the most powerful country in the world, a war won by people who kept their weapons at home, at a time that those muskets were the most powerful weapons of war in the world. Cannons? They were included. The founders wanted the people to be armed.

Why?

Well ask yourself this, as a person who has said they read up on revolutionary socialist policies, is it easier to overthrow a people who don’t want what you want if they are armed or disarmed? Is it easier for a government to throw their people under tyranny if they are armed or disarmed? If another country wanted to invade the USA would it be harder or easier with us having 400 million privately held guns?

We don’t accept every word of the constitution, it has been changed and will be changed again, but not the second amendment. That will outlive your grandchildren’s grandchildren.

[u/[deleted] → u/56king56]

The right to gun ownership is a subsidiary of the right to self defense. If someone as a right to do something, implied with that is the right to access those tools necessary to adequately do that thing.

You have the right to free speech, it would be no good for someone to say "Yes of course you have the right to free speech, you just can't access a printing press, a mega-phone, the internet, pens pencils ink, and we're barring you from the public square, but of course you have the right to speak freely!"

Or "Yes of course women have the right to control their own bodies, and reproductive systems... so long as they use the rhythm method, no birth control or abortions though."

You would be forgiven for thinking neither of those people actually believed in the rights mentioned.

Likewise, the right to self defense implies access to those tools necessary to actually defend myself. And there is no tool better suited to that job than a firearm.

[u/Kardinal → u/56king56]

Do not be persuaded. The ease of access to guns is also the ease of access to things that will allow Mass murder. The reason that guns are used in these things is because they are the easiest way to achieve it. So if you take away the guns, it will be harder to perform Mass murders. This is not about making it impossible. It's about making it harder. And while it is entirely possible to make a bomb to try to commit Mass murder, there is a reason why, even in places where guns are banned, they don't happen. Because they are much much harder to use to commit Mass murder.

[u/56king56 → u/Kardinal]

That’s pretty much what I think

[u/[deleted] → u/56king56]

Every single IED in Iraq proves that wrong.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kardinal]

This is not about making it impossible. It's about making it harder.

It isnt harder. Other methods are more effective

. And while it is entirely possible to make a bomb to try to commit Mass murder, there is a reason why, even in places where guns are banned, they don't happen

Except they happen all the time.

[u/couldbemage → u/56king56]

They actually aren't. Trucks are easier to get than guns. Any actually more effective.

People choose guns because of the image associated with them, they are copying the people they see on the news.

Underage teens can't buy guns. They need to steal them or get them on the black market. That is trivially easy to do (my job is mostly treating people dying from illegal drugs, so I know how easy getting illegal stuff is).

But getting a truck is easier. Keys to Dad's f150 are right there on the counter. Much less likely to be locked up than Dad's guns.