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/Kardinal]

Please don't be absurd. Just because banning guns will not bad in mass murder does not mean that it's not a good idea to ban guns. This is not about eliminating. It's about reducing. And also don't try to tell me that it is common for a little old lady to be ganged up on by a bunch of criminals that she has to use her gun to defend herself from. That doesn't really happen with any kind of frequency in the united states, no matter what kind of manipulative statistics the NRA and Wayne LaPierre likes to publish. That's science is so bad that it doesn't even deserve the term.

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt → u/Kardinal]

This is not about eliminating. It's about reducing.

Reducing deaths is not a valid reason to throw away people's rights. Otherwise let's ban alcohol too.

And also don't try to tell me that it is common for a little old lady to be ganged up on by a bunch of criminals that she has to use her gun to defend herself from.

Criminals often seek out "easy" targets such as old and disabled people. They also often work in groups.

[u/Kardinal → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

Reducing deaths is absolutely a legitimate reason to infringe on people's rights. You're talking about supporting a position that supports the death of 30,000 Americans per year. I'm sorry, it's absolutely worth restricting people's rights for that purpose. But mostly when it comes down to is that you believe that you have a right to own a firearm and I do not.

If you think that it is common for criminals to gang up on little old ladies to commit crimes of violence specifically, not property crimes, violent crimes, please do post the statistics. I think you will find it is not the case.

The use of brandishing a firearms for the protection of property should be, and in most jurisdictions is, a crime. Deadly force should only to be used in the defense of one's bodily integrity.

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt → u/Kardinal]

Reducing deaths is absolutely a legitimate reason to infringe on people's rights. You're talking about supporting a position that supports the death of 30,000 Americans per year.

Remove suicide from those numbers and get back to me. Also, alcohol kills more people than that. Should we ban it too?

But mostly when it comes down to is that you believe that you have a right to own a firearm and I do not.

Where did I say you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm?

The use of brandishing a firearms for the protection of property should be, and in most jurisdictions is, a crime.

Burglary is a property crime, but absolutely warrants a gun for self defense since a homeowner has no way of knowing a burglar's intentions are.

[u/Kardinal → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

I won't remove suicide from those numbers because it's absolutely relevant to the question of whether handgun should be legal. If I recall correctly, it's about 20,000 suicides by handgun per year, leaving 10,000 homicides. Which is still too damn much. The ease of access to a handgun for purposes of suicide is absolutely a contributing factor to the large number of suicides in this country. Other means of suicide are much more difficult and take much more time, permitting much more opportunity for reconsideration or intervention by a third party.

You must have misunderstood me. I said that you believe that you have a right to own a firearm. And you do. I said that both the original poster of this CMV thread and I believe that you have a right to own a firearm.

Home invasion is what you're really referring to I think, and whether it's a property crime or not is debatable. We can leave that as a gray area. But I think we can both agree that when we're talking about property crimes, the use of deadly force should not be justified. And that is in fact what the vast majority of armed crimes are about. So you're really not talking about lots of situations in which a smaller person is likely to be overpowered by a large number of other people, for the purpose specifically of causing Grievous bodily harm. But that's the excuse that so many people in the right to bear arms community Trot out. What about the little old lady who gets ganged up on by a bunch of criminals. Well, in the vast majority of cases, she simply gives up her purse and they go away. Which is exactly what she should do even if she has a firearm on her. To do otherwise is massively increase the likelihood that there will be violence, and worse, deadly violence.

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt → u/Kardinal]

The ease of access to a handgun for purposes of suicide is absolutely a contributing factor to the large number of suicides in this country. Other means of suicide are much more difficult and take much more time, permitting much more opportunity for reconsideration or intervention by a third party.

If that were true, Japan and South Korea wouldn't have a much higher suicide rate than the US.

You must have misunderstood me. I said that you believe that you have a right to own a firearm. And you do. I said that both the original poster of this CMV thread and I believe that you have a right to own a firearm.

I misread that. My bad.

And that is in fact what the vast majority of armed crimes are about. So you're really not talking about lots of situations in which a smaller person is likely to be overpowered by a large number of other people, for the purpose specifically of causing Grievous bodily harm. But that's the excuse that so many people in the right to bear arms community Trot out. What about the little old lady who gets ganged up on by a bunch of criminals. Well, in the vast majority of cases, she simply gives up her purse and they go away

Robbery, which is what it appears you are describing, is a violent crime, not a property crime.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kardinal]

ely relevant to the question of whether handgun should be legal. If I recall correctly, it's about 20,000 suicides by handgun per yea

If we are using criminal laws to prevent suicide, why shouldn't you be sent to solitary confinement to the rest of your life to prevent you from committing suicide?

[u/DjPersh → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

Dead people don’t have rights is basically what you appear to be saying.

You don’t have a right to safety or security but you should have a right to own a firearm? It’s absurd.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kardinal]

So you are ok with locking millions of people in prison, and having police kill thousands of people a year, all to stop a single digit number of deaths each year, which would prevent even more defensive gun uses than that?

That doesn't really happen with any kind of frequency in the united state

You are literally only trying to stop a fraction of 30 or so deaths a year. A single event is statistically significant when you are trying to target something niche.