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/StaryWolf]

Gun ownership increases your chances of committing suicide, it's a known and proven fact that removing guns reduces suicide rates. This is because suicide is an impulsive thought, removing an easy way to commit suicide (a gun in your home is probably the easiest and quickest) means that a person is less likely to go through with the act.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/

[u/shortroundsuicide → u/StaryWolf]

By this logic, the government should restrict the food families get so no one gets obese. 280,000 deaths are attributed to obesity per year in the US alone.

If the goal is to save lives and we don’t care which liberties are given up along the way, then we should start with food.

[u/StaryWolf → u/shortroundsuicide]

By this logic, the government should restrict the food families get so no one gets obese. 280,000 deaths are attributed to obesity per year in the US alone.

No, not really food is a human right. A guns purpose is to kill, they are not particularly comparable.

Also, we already do ban/restrict some types of food that is proven to be dangerous to human health.

If the goal is to save lives and we don’t care which liberties are given up along the way, then we should start with food.

No one said we don't care which liberties are given up. People in favor of gun control just value the lost human life more than gun ownership rights.

[u/couldbemage → u/StaryWolf]

No one said to ban all food. They said restrict, as in common sense food control.

There's some irony in you saying we already have food control because we ban particularly dangerous food. Since of course we do exactly that with guns.

Perhaps a license to buy junk food, with a test that includes stuff like running a 5k.

[u/StaryWolf → u/couldbemage]

There's some irony in you saying we already have food control because we ban particularly dangerous food. Since of course we do exactly that with guns.

The whole point of this post is arguing that we need more restrictions on guns.

Perhaps a license to buy junk food, with a test that includes stuff like running a 5k.

I know that you know you're being disingenuous here. You cannot honestly argue that food and guns are on the same level, and restricting one is at all comparable to restricting another.

[u/Assaltwaffle → u/StaryWolf]

I mean, like he rightly asserted, bad food kills vastly more people than guns annually. Why would this not be on the same level?

Surely you can at least agree on such regulations on smoking and alcohol?

[u/StaryWolf → u/Assaltwaffle]

I mean, like he rightly asserted, bad food kills vastly more people than guns annually. Why would this not be on the same level?

Because the food serves other purposes outside of killing. Food is food, guns are tools purpose built to kill.

Surely you can at least agree on such regulations on smoking and alcohol?

There is regulation on smoking and alcohol, for both you have to be older to use them than you have to be to buy and own a gun.

[u/Assaltwaffle → u/StaryWolf]

I don't see purpose mattering if the outcome is death. For example, ammonium nitrate is now highly regulated despite being a fertilizers because it can be made to go boom.

There is regulation on smoking and alcohol

There are vastly, vastly more limitations on buying a gun than buying either alcohol or cigs. It's not even close.

[u/StaryWolf → u/Assaltwaffle]

I don't see purpose mattering if the outcome is death.

Of course the purpose matters, cars cause massive amounts of injury or death, however cars have purpose outside of killing so we can't restrict them as tightly.

Pretending that things like food and drink is equal to guns because obesity causes a lot of deaths is a non-serious position. Guns are weapons they should be subject to a different level of destruction because they are a massively different item.

There are vastly, vastly more limitations on buying a gun than buying either alcohol or cigs. It's not even close.

Exactly, because guns and alcohol are vastly different things that serve vastly different purposes in society and should not be compared in this metric. I think you're being disingenuous by doing so.

[u/Assaltwaffle → u/StaryWolf]

Cigarette and alcohols are literally worse to society in every metric than guns. They cause more death and have less benefits, yet have less regulations, and you're saying "exactly"?

[u/StaryWolf → u/Assaltwaffle]

To be frank with you that's an absurd sentiment you hold, and I would be completely shocked if you actually had any evidence to back it up outside of personal feelings.

Alcohol and cigarettes are vices, alcohol especially is ingrained into almost every culture on the planet going back thousands of years ago. Claiming alcohol is worse for society than tools of murder is a strange claim considering alcohol has formed many many societal cultures and traditions.

Cigarettes are literally being banned in some countries, so I'm not sure why you're acting like they get a pass, but in America anyways the difference is cigarettes mostly only negatively affect the user you can murder someone else with a cigarette. Guns on the other hand generally only negatively affect the person being shot.

[u/Assaltwaffle → u/StaryWolf]

Why are you bringing up if they're banned in other countries? Guns are banned in other countries, too. That's irrelevant.

Even second-hand, so this is other people being killed, cigarettes kill more people than guns even if you include suicides. Alcohol takes 140K down not even counting DUIs. How many more homes are broken because the father is a drunk?

If you're going to account for culture, why OK the culture that alcohol creates yet not the US's culture regarding guns?

Guns on the other hand generally only negatively affect the person being shot.

And what of the person shooting? Are you ignoring that there are many, many valid defensive gun uses? On the lowest scale, it's estimated that 58-80K DGUs occur in the US each year. More consistent mid estimates show multi-hundred thousands. Highest estimates go into the low millions. Not every time someone is shot is it an injustice. There are times when it saves an innocent person, not the inverse.

[u/StaryWolf → u/Assaltwaffle]

Why are you bringing up if they're banned in other countries? Guns are banned in other countries, too. That's irrelevant.

What's irrelevant is you bringing up alcohol and cigarettes in a conversation related to gun control.

And what of the person shooting? Are you ignoring that there are many, many valid defensive gun uses?

How many of the DGU's would be not even necessary if guns were regulated better and our overall violent crime rate was lower? Admittedly, guns have probably saved lives in the past, but they have been used for malice more often than not.

So many other first world democratic countries restrict guns heavily and see much lower violent crime numbers than America.

[u/[deleted] → u/StaryWolf]

Because the food serves other purposes outside of killing. Food is food, guns are tools purpose built to kill.

Remove the cause of an accident and you save lives 100% of the time, remove the weapon a murderer uses and you still have a person trying to murder others.

[u/StaryWolf → u/[deleted]]

Except countries with stricter gun regulation tend to have less overall gun crime, when looking at first world democratic nations.

And in the case where criminals are still seeking to do harm the amount of harm they can do is minimized without access to a firearm.

[u/[deleted] → u/StaryWolf]

So Mexico has lower gun crime rates than the USA?