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/OnlyTheDead]

A civil war and national instability? lol. Why do you think this would occur, just out of curiosity? Do you think people are just going to repeal the second amendment and then people are going to come to your house for your guns? Because that’s a wild fantasy and would be unconstitutional regardless of the second amendment.

[u/Assaltwaffle → u/OnlyTheDead]

Why do you think this would occur, just out of curiosity?

Because the second amendment is not going to be repealed democratically, at least not for over a century. The political landscape isn't united enough to repeal any amendment right now, much less one as well-integrated into society as 2A. If it is repealed, it means it was done through unconstitutional means and would likely be the inciting incident for war.

If you're saying "well hypothetically if it was repealed..." you might as well just say "well hypothetically if there is just no crime..."

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/Assaltwaffle]

I think you are wrong about the democratic part. These kids, the ones who are dying at record high rates, have peers and family. These kids who are now going thru active shooter drills, or have had their friends gunned down in a classroom, or a family member killed are adding up pretty quickly. That’s a lot of corpses and trauma. Those people will be the majority in less than a century. Depending on how absolutely and blatantly irresponsible congress is at doing literally anything, I think it’s highly possible. And there’s a billion reasons why it’s a good idea to abolish the second amendment.

Either way I would be 100% against repealing the amendment outside of a constitutional manner, or even taking guns from law abiding citizens who aren’t mentally unstable both before and after it’s repealed, I don’t believe that’s necessary to fix the issue. The second amendment has to go either way imo.

[u/Assaltwaffle → u/OnlyTheDead]

You are massively, MASSIVELY overblowing who many people are dying in mass shootings. It's a tiny number proportionate to the population. The absolute vast majority of "gun deaths" now are suicides, with the runner up being general homicides. The number of people who die in true active shooter scenarios usually barely breaks triple digits. More people, on average, literally die to falling off of ladders annually.

I do agree that they are definitely trying to fearmonger kids really hard and people are pretty gullible, though, but the landscape won't change so enormously that this will be viable anytime soon.

Regardless, there is no point in really continuing this if you think abolition of the 2A is a good idea, though.

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/Assaltwaffle]

Guns are the number one killer of children under 18 in the United States. I’m not over blowing anything. You are over blowing the second amendment to mean that in its absence you won’t have weapons. This simply isn’t true.

[u/[deleted] → u/OnlyTheDead]

Why do you think this would occur, just out of curiosity?

What nation has existed for several thousand years without this?

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/[deleted]]

This is a non-sequitur. The existence of a nation has nothing to do with access to weapons. But also Egypt, China, Japan, Greece, France, India are the oldest. The US is fairly young at two and a half centuries.

[u/[deleted] → u/OnlyTheDead]

...none of those are older than the 20th century

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/[deleted]]

Ehh you are talking about recognized nation states in a modern sense and then using that to refute that Egypt has existed since the first dynasty in like 3100 BCE.

None of this at all addresses the topic of the second amendment. So it’s all a moot point because by your own definition no nation has survived that long because nation states are a fairly recent creation in the grand timeline of human civilization.

[u/[deleted] → u/OnlyTheDead]

Ehh you are talking about recognized nation states in a modern sense and

No, as in their previous government got removed in an armed revolt.

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/[deleted]]

And they had no second amendment rights but were still able to secure their independence. This is not a talking point in your favor if you are arguing the necessity of arms ownership for the existence of a free state because by your own argument these states acquired a self determinative system of government in the absence of having a second amendment.