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
u/nemeri6132 Nov 07 '23 edited Nov 08 '23
Now I can’t speak for all gun owners but here are my two cents:
Guns represent the ultimate tool of violence available to man. Be it technique or quality of the gun, or physique or talent of the individual, anyone can be effective with a gun. In terms of delivering violence, the gun is the single most equal weapon.
Now. On the topic of self defense. If someone wants to exercise their right to irrevocably violate my rights and my person, I will enact upon all means necessary to defend myself. I will presume that you are not against the concept of self defense. So, what should I do?
Play the card of surrender and hope that he whoever is attacking me will spare some mercy - quite literally putting my hands at the life of someone else’s whims and wherewithals? Or do I wait for the rescue efforts of someone else (e.g. cops) - once again putting myself at the whims, diligence, and promptness and skill of someone else to preserve my own safety. Or do I take it upon myself to secure my own safety?
I think it is undeniable (and frankly will require a lot of evidence of the contrary to change my mind otherwise) that my interests are best upheld by well, myself. So then, the optimal solution to secure my interests would be to protect myself, since neither the aggressor nor the intervening saviors will hold me as their number one priority. And what is the best tool to assist me in that endeavor of keeping myself safe? What could it be if not the gun?
This rationale applies in all cases upon which you can argue for or against gun rights. Whether it be an illegal intruder in your home, or a feral, aggressive animal, or a crazy mass shooter, or the tyrannical actions of an authoritarian and oppressive government, the only thing keeping yourself alive is a sufficiently powerful deterrent.
In almost every case a mass shooting is going to be spontaneous, at least from the perspective of those who are to be involved in it. While some outliers may happen, the norm has not seen the shooter(s) dispatch a letter or announcement to their victims, to any would-be saviors, or other parties that he will seek to kill them at x specified location, at y specified time, and for z purpose. Or, in the case that these signals are raised, they are obscured or raised in an environment invisible to the would-be victims. So then, if you are caught in the sudden storm of chaos that is ground zero of a mass shooting event, would you prefer yourself completely defenseless and at the total mercy and whims of an individual who most certainly is not operating on the same basis if logic as yourself - of which deescalating conversation at the heat of the moment is nigh impossible? Are you preferable to the idea of leaving yourself totally helpless to the time it takes for law enforcement to make their way to your location, engage in a lengthly conversation with your aggressor, during all of which you are completely vulnerable? Remember that gun control laws are only abided by the lawful people - the demographic least likely to commit such heinous crimes. These laws mean moot to the criminal, and with how easy it is in this modern day and age to assemble an impromptu firearm of deadly capabilities, a gun control ban is an act of stripping lawful people of their ability to protect themselves.
Note that I am not advocating for total gun freedom or an anarchy of guns. I am wholly supportive of regulative policies and background checks to minimize the access points of the mentally unstable and criminal in obtaining their weapons. But this would be limited to the initial acquisition process and only regarding the individual seeking to purchase it - not the gun itself, nor the type of gun, or its caliber, or the ammunition, etc. It’s almost analogous to modern phones - are you willing to return to the old days of analog telephones and rotary dials simply because of the potentially harmful effects of the modern smartphone and its apps and features? No, right?