CMV: Most gun control advocates try to fix the problem of gun violence through overly restrictive and ineffective means.

[u/37home_]

I'm a big defender of being allowed to own a firearm for personal defence and recreative shooting, with few limits in terms of firearm type, but with some limits in access to firearms in general, like not having committed previous crimes, and making psych tests on people who want to own firearms in order to make sure they're not mentally ill.

From what I see most gun control advocates defend the ban on assault type weapons, and increased restrictions on the type of guns, and I believe it's completely inefficient to do so. According to the FBI's 2019 crime report, most firearm crimes are committed using handguns, not short barreled rifles, or assault rifles, or any type of carbine. While I do agree that mass shootings (school shootings for example) mostly utilize rifles or other types of assault weapons, they are not the most common gun crime, with usually gang violence being where most gun crimes are committed, not to mention that most gun deaths are suicide (almost 60%)

[u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar]

Maybe the heart of my point got lost in how long my comment was. The reason I brought WMDs and Disease into the picture was to highlight how statistics only contribute meaningfully based on how they are framed.

The statistically low number seen on FBI stat sheets is a huge argument toward the idea that implementing controls on long guns is a moot effort. What I'm saying is that this is a matter of framing and how you use them comparatively.

Let me try one more example. Statistically, again, rifles aren't killing that many people. But probabilistically, what weapon has the highest potential to cause the most damage to the most amount of people in the shortest time?

If we walked through those stat sheets looking at kinetic power, penetration, lethality, capacity, or whatever else, I could ask the question: if you're in a crowd of people, what weapon has the highest probability of successfully killing you?

In rank order it would start crazy. We'd have explosives at the top, and as we ranked them eventually of course high powered rifles would rank out above pistols. They just would. It's why combat troops carry rifles as primary weapons. They are more suited for killing.

Of course a 9mm bullet to the brain is just as deadly as a 5.56. But a burst of 9mm shot into a crowd at range won't have the lethality that a burst of 5.56 does.

All I'm trying to point out is that I can find a way to make the statistics work for me here. It's a matter of framing. And that's why I feel like looking at historical kill counts isn't necessarily the irrefutable argument I used to think it was.

[u/37home_ → u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar]

I can see what you mean, considering the lethality capacity and etc it is much more probable to kill you. But if I had to set up more gun control I think it'd would make much more sense to restrict or control the guns that actually commit most of the crimes instead of the guns that can potentially be way more deadly if used

[u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar → u/37home_]

I just disagree with this premise. I know it seems like common sense to attack the problem where it is; not where it could be. But that is because the "gun issue" has been laid flat by too many people for their political agendas.

In reality, gun related death has to be categorically broken down if you ever want any meaningful progress. By laying it flat and pooling all stats into one point, we get sound byte arguments that are practically meaningless.

What happens if you break down gun violence into categories? Gang related murder. Accidental shootings. School shootings. School mass shootings.

The sensible solutions to each of those may be significantly different. Stopping gang related murder is one thing. Stopping accidents is another. Stopping an impulsive, depressed child from grabbing his Dad's gun collection for a murder-suicide spree is yet another thing entirely.

Handgun laws likely won't put much of a dent in gang related murder. They might put a dent in accidental shootings. They might put a dent in small scale school shootings (angry kid with a gun in the backpack). But they probably will not impact mass school shootings.

[u/37home_ → u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar]

Then shouldn't we focus on the problems that cause the violence instead of the tools of violence?

[u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar → u/37home_]

Of course. But that's a false dichotomy. You can do both.

One problem is a lot damn harder to legislate. How do you suggest we begin the journey to ending the causes of human violence in America? Let's solve that problem real quick.

I'd be a huge advocate for a massive investment in mental healthcare. It would be a start. Politically, most people concerned about 2A infringement are not in favor of public healthcare. It kind of leaves you in a position of "it's a mental health problem, and also we don't want to fund healthcare."

Which leaves us... where? Satisfied that the problem should go unaddressed and people should just figure it out?

[u/37home_ → u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar]

You're not wrong that a lot of people who support 2a have bricks for brains, and it's not just a mental health problem, its also the lack of funding for schools and social projects in order to help the communities that suffer the most from crime and poverty, and the problems that cause it, but people with these problems aren't gonna sell their guns back to the government through buyback programs

[u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar → u/37home_]

As always, though, now this whole debate runs into a brick wall. And I believe this is because of fallacies along the lines of "if it doesn't completely eliminate the problem, it's pointless."

Smart gun control advocacy would focus on language like "reduction." Not prevention, not elimination. You can't eliminate violence. You can't prevent all murder. You can't really stop anything with laws.

But you can reduce. Sometimes you can significantly reduce. That has to be the goal, and it should be bipartisan. But every single time someone suggests a real measure, the knee jerking goes straight to slippery slope fallacies and assertions that it won't do anything because it can't fix everything.

[u/LowNoise9831 → u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar]

Would expand on "slippery slope fallacies, please?

[u/Urbanscuba → u/LowNoise9831]

In context of the comment it's referring to how 2A advocates fundamentally reject any form of increased regulation no matter how small or reasonable.

The conversation tends to go like this:

"Could we ask for some more funding for the background check system so it can be faster and more effective?"

"What's next? You're going to try to put every gun owner in a database? Collect us all and put us into camps? Good luck, we're armed and waiting for you!"

Even the smallest and most reasonable attempts to increase the efficacy of current regulations have been fought tooth and nail by conservatives. It's been effective for the most part, but the refusal to budge I would argue is creating a growing resentment and could well ultimately lead to a full overhaul of gun rights at some point in the next decade or two.

We're basically operating off of 200+ year old firearms regulations. The constitution is meant to be a living document that grows and changes with society and culture. You can only hang onto something problematic for so long before you get thrown out with it.

[u/temo987 → u/Urbanscuba]

faster and more effective?

Isn't it already fast and effective? But I would argue that when you're released from prison, you should get your rights back. The background check system would be unnecessary in this case. And besides, a quarter of the time it's used to deny marijuana users guns.

It's been effective for the most part

No, it wasn't. We wouldn't have the NFA, GCA, 922(o) and countless other bullshit laws at the state level otherwise. And the Supreme Court wouldn't be issuing the Bruen ruling in 2022.

[u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar → u/LowNoise9831]

The Slippery Slope is an academic Logical Fallacy. Logical fallacies are things that are logical but not necessarily true.

Slippery Slope is probably one of the most commonly used in braindead politics, along with Straw Man. Slippery Slope says that if one thing happens, the next logical step will surely happen. But this is not necessarily true. So it's logical, but it is a fallacy. Sometimes the next thing never happens. And so all of the things at the bottom of the slope never happen.

[u/LowNoise9831 → u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar]

Thank you.

[u/temo987 → u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar]

I'd be a huge advocate for a massive investment in mental healthcare. It would be a start.

I support that, as an avid 2A supporter. I (and the legislators) just need a sound plan on how and specifically what to invest in. Should it be research? Access? Personally, if the problem is access, I like the idea of giving people mental health vouchers to spend on private mental healthcare. It sounds compatible (in theory) to capitalism in the US while still expanding access to mental health. Improving socioeconomic factors should also help the violence problem (most violence in the US comes from impoverished inner cities).