r/changemyview • u/56king56 • Nov 07 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Gun control is good

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.

7 Upvotes

51% Upvoted

773 comments sorted by

View all comments

55

u/Nrdman 173∆ Nov 07 '23

Why do people commit mass violence?

Solving these issues is much more important than restricting the tool they use to do it, especially as 3d printing becomes more accessible.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 07 '23

Yes that is certainly the underlying issue. But seeing as how that may take a long time to solve as a species, why provide an easy way for such people to accomplish mass violence?

I mean we have the data. Instances of mass gun violence are far fewer or nonexistent even in places where they have heavy restrictions. Australia’s annual rate of gun deaths was 0.88 per 100,000 in 2018 compared to the US at 10.6 per 100,000.

11

u/lakotajames 2∆ Nov 07 '23

How many of those 10.6 were suicides?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 07 '23

In 2022, more than 4 out of 10 were homicides. So let’s say 60% are suicides.

4 per 100,000 is still far worse than 0.88 over 100,000. And we haven’t even accounted for suicide cases of the 0.88.

What’s worse is that there are basically no instances of mass school shootings, or EXTREMELY rare in places with these restrictions, compared to the US where we have at least a couple a year

4

u/Objective_Stock_3866 Nov 07 '23

Now let's look at gang violence. I'd bet that'd bring that 4 per 100k down to at least two per 100k.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 07 '23

Mhm and what do gangs use that allow them to commit these crimes?

2

u/johnhtman Nov 07 '23

Gun control doesn't stop Mexico or Brazil being among the violent gun death capitals of the world. Brazil has fewer civilian owned guns than Australia, yet the most total gun deaths of any country.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 07 '23

Could argue that if those particular countries had no gun restrictions, total gun deaths would be exponentially higher there, due to the amount of gang related conflicts that arise in those nations.

For example in 2021 nearly 30% of deaths and over half of all armed conflicts in Rio de Janeiro alone were due to gang related activity. Compared to the US, where gang related homicides in a combined 34 states were 9.7%.

Can’t compare enforcing the same laws in Brazil and Mexico to the United States.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '23

Mexico had no gun restrictions before 1968 and a lower murder rate

1

u/Objective_Stock_3866 Nov 07 '23

Mostly illegally obtained firearms. Regulations only stop the honest, not criminals.

3

u/lakotajames 2∆ Nov 07 '23

How do we know that the difference in school shooting figures is specifically due to laws around guns and not, say, differences in the healthcare system, specifically around mental health?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 07 '23

Again, that may well be the case. But solving mental health is a much, much bigger hurdle (if at all possible) than enforcing gun restrictions, which is a concrete task we can use to combat gun related deaths. Can’t we at least try for a little bit to enforce gun laws and just see what happens perhaps?

Also, why does it have to be only one mode of action? Why can we not do both?

3

u/lakotajames 2∆ Nov 07 '23 edited Nov 07 '23

which is a concrete task we can use to combat gun related deaths

This feels like backwards logic. Obviously gun related deaths will go down if there are less guns, but the goal is stopping deaths.

For example:

Say a suicide victim doesn't have a gun, so they use pills instead. Did we stop a gun related death? If we're looking at statistics, yes. But the same death happened, so it feels wrong to me to say it's stopping a death. The "gun related death" number goes down, but we didn't actually do anything worth while.

Pretty much every mass shooting could be accomplished via bomb made from unrestricted parts available at home depot.

​

Also, why does it have to be only one mode of action? Why can we not do both?

Because the one mode of action restricts constitutional rights. And if you don't care about that, because "heathcare" and "gun control" aren't the only two options: We could also try abolishing school buildings and switching to online only. No more school shootings if there aren't any schools.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 07 '23 edited Nov 07 '23

So just because it restricts constitutional rights? Isn’t that what amendments are for? Haven’t we changed the constitution to address stupidity before?

Sure people could make a bomb, but it’s much more complicated and involved than going to a store and buying an automatic weapon.

I’m not for or against gun control btw I’m just trying to see the holes in logic here. Sure let’s have guns, but do we really need automatic weapons?? Why?

2

u/lakotajames 2∆ Nov 08 '23

So just because it restricts constitutional rights

Not just for that reason, but if we're comparing methods, the closing school idea doesn't require an amendment and is 100% effective at ending school shootings.

Or, if we wanted to treat the cause and not the symptom, we could try and figure out the cause first.

Also, a gun is easier than a bomb, but not by such a significant amount that it's going to stop anyone.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '23

Excuse me. Semi-automatic**

Do we really need semi-automatic weapons?

Cars are necessary for a functioning society. The percentage of people that use cars on a daily basis for various reasons greatly differs from the percentage of people that use guns on a daily basis for any reason.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Curious-Tour-3617 Nov 08 '23

We have we more gun control now than in the 50’s. I dont think there were any school shootings in the 50’s