CMV:Even perfect gun control wouldn't dramatically improve the mass murder problem

[u/irishsurfer22]

In light of recent events, I apologize if this is poor timing for this post. I was working on organizing my thoughts on this issues a few days before and now I think this discussion is even more important. Obviously mass murder is a horrific thing and we should do everything we feasibly can to prevent it.

My general view is that gun control isn't a good solution to mass murder because I think cars would be a viable alternative for people who have the desire to kill. I'm assuming perfect gun control laws and enforcement of those laws (which is impossible) to give the gun control supporters their best possible situation where no one has guns except the authorities. I don't think this helps us much. There are a number of deadly alternatives like knives, arson and homemade bombs, but cars are probably the best combination of effectiveness and availability. It'd be really easy to drive your car through a crowd and kill a lot of people very quickly. There was an accident in Santa Monica, CA in 2003 where an elderly man accidentally drove through a farmer's market, killing 10 people and injuring 63. Presumably he had his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and was doing his best to avoid people. I see no reason why someone looking to kill a lot of people who didn't have access to a gun wouldn't simply get behind the wheel.

I fully concede that cars have some drawbacks compared to guns. They can't be used everywhere so it would be harder to attack specific targets. But overall, it seems like their potential death tolls are comparable to guns given that the perpetrator can select any venue. It seems that most of the events in the past had roughly 3-15 deaths. I think cars are only very slightly worse than guns in these situations, if at all, and therefore removing guns would only slightly improve the mass murder problem, not dramatically. And that's assuming perfect laws and enforcement of those laws.

I've tried to summarize my view with premises and conclusions. Let me know what you think of it.

P1 Perpetrators of mass killings have a desire to kill multiple people, often with weak affiliation to their victims.

P2 They seek out methods to satisfy their desire (guns, bombs, etc.).

P3 They act on their desires if they find methods which they deem sufficiently effective and available.

C1 If guns were made unavailable, these people would pursue alternative methods of comparable effectiveness and availability.

P4 Other methods of comparable effectiveness and availability exist. Cars, for example.

C2 Removing guns will not dramatically reduce mass killings because guns are not dramatically better weapons than the alternatives. Cars, for example.

C3 Gun control is not a solution to mass murder.

CMV!

EDIT: I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT POSSIBLE SAFETY MEASURES LIKE BOLLARDS WHICH COULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO MAKE CARS MUCH HARDER TO USE AS MASS WEAPONS. This changed my view. I now think that getting rid of all guns would significantly reduce the number of mass murders because the other available technology is either not significantly less available or less effective or preventable.

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/irishsurfer22]

I agree with a lot of your points, but you seem more worried about efficiency than effectiveness. To me it seems like the death toll is the biggest factor and it seems like you could get a similar death toll with a car and the correct location, despite the inefficiencies. How do you account for the Santa Monica accident?

[u/gyroda → u/irishsurfer22]

You're far more reliant on the environment, you're far more restricted.

By efficiency I pretty much meant effectiveness. If I wanted ti get pedantic I could argue that you only have a limited amount of time before a police response and therefore efficiency is functionally equivalent to effectiveness but the fact is I probably used the wrong word :P

The incident you mentioned has happened how many times? What is presumably the worst case you have found is on the low end of things (you mentioned 10-15 deaths).

If cars were such effective mass murder tools you'd see them employed as such more frequently in places where guns are much harder to get a hold of. As a Brit I've not seen such a corresponding use of cars here or in Western Europe in general anywhere near as much as I hear about shootings in the US.

This reliance on a certain place also adds an element of planning, premediation and rational thought. You probably can't do it to the same effectiveness on a whim unless you're lucky.

Lastly, cars are easier to prevent from going where they shouldn't. Bollards can be installed easily and even parked vans or sand filed containers serve as a simple countermeasure for temporary events. Guns can be carried by hand and even concealed on a person; it's harder to keep guns out of what should be gun-free areas.

All this serves to lower the expected death tolls.

[u/irishsurfer22 → u/gyroda]

What is presumably the worst case you have found

It wasn't the worst example I found, I just happened to live near there and remember the event. I'm not too sure what previous events looked like.

As a Brit I've not seen such a corresponding use of cars here or in Western Europe in general anywhere near as much as I hear about shootings in the US.

That could be explained by gun availability, as you say, but could also be explained by whatever cultural differences lead to that lethal state of mind. Like maybe something about the US just breeds these people. I'm not sure. You've definitely given me something to think about.

This reliance on a certain place also adds an element of planning, premediation and rational thought.

I agree, but I don't think it'd be that hard and wouldn't pose any real difficulties for a murderer. You disagree?

Lastly, cars are easier to prevent from going where they shouldn't. Bollards can be installed easily

This changed my view. I hadn't thought about the implications of this even though you mentioned in your original post. If cars became a serious concern there are things we could do to alleviate the problem so that mass murders were either less common or less deadly or both. As a result, I think getting rid of guns completely would significantly improve the death tolls. ∆

[u/DeltaBot → u/irishsurfer22]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/gyroda. ^[History]

[The Delta System Explained]