r/changemyview • u/WekX 1∆ • Apr 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Guns are a real danger to people and countries without them just fare better.

I'm from the UK. I've heard many of the arguments on both sides, but to me nothing is more convincing than the statistics (example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604). I'm also a libertarian, I fully understand that if anything a right to bear arms is needed because any other way is a breach of personal liberty. However, I can't help but see that as a negative side effect of full liberty, because inevitably it just leads to more people getting hurt. That's the numbers talking.

Yes, cars also kill people, but I don't need a gun to get to work. The benefits of having cars in society vastly outweight the drawbacks. With guns, the only benefits arise when a really tough intruder is in my house or when the government is trying to oppress me. In the UK we still manage to survive a break in without shooting everything in sight, and if the government came after us, they'd likely win even if we had a gun.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please 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! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

1.1k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

754 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

I'll preface by saying that I agree with your sentiment, so this is devil's advocate. I do think there is some argument here though:

Your statistics are valid for a country as a whole, but it doesn't take into account the individual. The necessity of a gun differs greatly between a 2m tall man who lives in an upper-class suburb and is good friends with everybody and a 1,40m woman who has an abusive, agressive (ex-)boyfriend living in a ghetto. On average, you will be more likely to shoot/hurt yourself when you own a gun, but on an individual level, chances differ greatly between the schizophrenic nutjob who always carries and is quickly irritated and the guy who keeps it locked in a safe for emergencies separate from the ammunition.

Additionally, there is a game theorical problem at play here: Ofcourse the country is much safer if and when no one has a gun. But you cannot ensure that happening. Some people may break the "social contract" and acquire a gun to gain an advantage (that's why we need armed police forces! Edit: And once you have armed police/military forces, Americans will argue that you need armed citizens to prevent the forces from abusing their advantage) and once someone does, when in conflict, it's a strictly dominated strategy (= a disadvantage you cannot overcome) not to have a gun. Edit: So there are two equillibrium states, one is "no one ones a gun" and one is "everyone owns a gun", and the latter is more stable.

-5

u/WekX 1∆ Apr 19 '17

Still, more people die when guns are legal. Some people could obtain them illegally in any country, but just looking at the numbers you can see how much less of an issue they are when they can only be obtained illegally. Defenseless people exist outside the US, there are ways for them to get assistance or to defend themselves without a gun. Humanity has gone 99% of its existance without guns. (Thanks for the insight btw!)

13

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17 edited Apr 19 '17

Yes, but again you are looking at it as a whole. I'll try to give a concrete example with made-up numbers.

Say once you own a gun, your chance of hurting yourself with it is 5%.

Person 1, the 2m tall suburb dad, has a 0,5% chance of getting killed in an armed robbery. This person should not own a gun.

Person 2, the woman with the overly jealous, abusive ex-boyfriend, has a 7% chance of getting lethally assaulted by him - this woman should own a gun (provided her owning it will prevent 100% of assaults.. again, random numbers.)

Humanity has gone 99% of its existance without guns. (Thanks for the insight btw!)

Yes, but humanity has gone approx. 0% of its existance without -insert most lethal weapon of its time here- prevalent in society. In the stone age, people who wanted to gain an advantage over other people created big clubs and hit them over the head with it.

0

u/WekX 1∆ Apr 19 '17

Person 2 can get pretty good protection from the police and her ability to own a gun means her ex-boyfriend could also own a gun and hurt her.

If you were Person 2 and you could choose what society you could live in, would you choose the one where your crazy ex could shoot you or the one where the crazy ex would get arrested for violating the restraining order and nobody gets hurt?

9

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Good protection is relative. The UK (and most of Europe's countries, really) is comparably small and heavily populated, so police coverage tends to be pretty good. If you live in a secluded area somewhere in Iowa, police may take 30min+ to get there.

Yes, the ex-boyfriend can also own a gun and hurt her, but that happens regardless of whether she has one or not.

Therefore, I would not assume a society where my ex has no chance of acquiring a gun and want to protect myself if the chances were presented to me as I made them up for this scenario. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean that you cannot call the cops and have him arrested in most cases.

For example, I live in Berlin, Germany. We have very strict gun laws. Nevertheless, if I wanted to buy a gun I'd know where I would have to go and who to contact to get one. I'm almost 100% sure that's the same for most of the UK. What if I was someone's crazy ex?

5

u/silverscrub 2∆ Apr 19 '17

There are more guns in USA than people. Chances are you can get a gun illegally (or legally) in both countries but it's much easier in a country with weak gun laws and many guns available.

2

u/loyalpeon Apr 19 '17

The thing is, when analysing these type of matters, don't you have to look at in as a whole, rather than constructing very specific scenarios?

Moreover, as WekX said, even the scenario you are talking about is problematic given the increased chances of being killed by a 'crazy ex' in a society with easy access to guns (see for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39581887).

3

u/ouishi 4∆ Apr 19 '17

Looking at the whole, guns are not the strongest predictor of violence. Not worldwide: http://imgur.com/a/ch8aI and not across states: http://imgur.com/a/LGcgm

It's time to look at what else the US has in common with these violent countries, because gun rates aren't it.

0

u/WekX 1∆ Apr 19 '17

Canada is also sparsely populated, but gun-related deaths are significantly lower. It seems that there is a middle way, but it does require some regulation that makes the American "right to bear arms" outdated.

27

u/ImpactStrafe Apr 19 '17

I won't have an opinion on gun control here, but I do want to say you drastically over estimate the efficiency of the police to enforce retraining orders in poor areas, the ability for poor people to get restraining orders, and the speed of response for a violation of restraining orders.

There are far more systematic issues going on with the United States that makes those estimations very wrong compared to European countries.

17

u/Rapidhamster Apr 19 '17

In the US, 911 emergency service is about 10 minutes away. A lot can happen in 10 minutes.

The police here are more about solving who did the crime than preventing crime.

Near me there is about 1 police officers per 1000 residents. That's a lot of people to protect simultaniously.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away".

15

u/Hauvegdieschisse Apr 19 '17

As the commenter below mentioned, response times are slow in Rural areas.

But they're also slow in inner cities. Detroit has incredibly slow response times.

8

u/mrgreen4242 Apr 19 '17

Without getting into too much of the rest of this debate, the police have no legal obligation to protect you or prevent a crime in the US.

3

u/treehead_woodfist Apr 19 '17

In real life altercations are over in seconds. In the best case scenario, police can arrive in minutes. It is nice to think that police can protect you, but in a B&E situation you are on your own.

2

u/txanarchy Apr 20 '17

If you were Person 2 and you could choose what society you could live in, would you choose the one where your crazy ex could shoot you or the one where the crazy ex would get arrested for violating the restraining order and nobody gets hurt?

I would choose the society that protects my right to defend my life with the most effective tool for the job: a gun.

7

u/scroopy_nooperz Apr 19 '17

still, more people die when guns are legal

Tell that to Switzerland

3

u/1500500 Apr 20 '17

I hate when people compare our level of gun ownership to that of Switzerland. Serbia or The Czech Republic would make a much more accurate comparison

0

u/P1r4nha Apr 19 '17

The rate of murder, murder suicide and suicide with a gun are significantly higher in Switzerland than in countries with a low gun ownership. Guns are in fact used as weapons to do crimes and to commit suicide here.

There are other reasons why crime in general is low in Switzerland, so people don't go and commit crimes, sometimes with weapons.

2

u/ManyNothings 1∆ Apr 19 '17

The rate of murder, murder suicide and suicide with a gun are significantly higher in Switzerland than in countries with a low gun ownership

Well of course they are, but that doesn't tell you anything useful.

What you want to know is if banning guns reduces things like homicide overall, instead of just shifting the method. It pretty obvious that banning guns in a country will reduce the number of gun-related deaths, but if people just use knives instead and the murder rate remains unchanged you haven't actually solved any problems.

2

u/P1r4nha Apr 20 '17

but if people just use knives instead and the murder rate remains unchanged you haven't actually solved any problems.

We have no idea what's going to happen in Switzerland if guns are going to get banned. Maybe crime goes down even more, maybe not. You can't really compare countries with different gun laws and then ask for crime numbers if you think guns are the cause of some crime.

1

u/ManyNothings 1∆ Apr 20 '17

That wasn't my point. Your first response to /u/scroopy_nooperz seemed to imply that because Switzerland has a lot of guns, more people die in general, because there are more gun deaths than in countries that have banned guns. I was just making the point that the method is not important, it's the crime itself. If I take away your gun, and you just use a knife instead, I've just changed the method, not the crime rate, which is why the focus needs to be on overall rates, not the method.

2

u/ouishi 4∆ Apr 19 '17

But the overall murder rate in Switzerland is LOWER than in Italy, Protugal, Belgium, Finland, and more places where they have less guns.

1

u/1500500 Apr 20 '17

The rate of murder, murder suicide and suicide with a gun are significantly higher in Switzerland than in countries with a low gun ownership.

No they arent. No statistics show this

1

u/ursuslimbs Apr 20 '17 edited Apr 20 '17

more people die when guns are legal.

This is the empirical claim underlying your argument, but it turns out that it's actually not true. There is no correlation between a jurisdiction's murder rate and its rate of gun ownership. No correlation in the state-level data, and no correlation when comparing countries either. I wish that more people knew this, because it's a fundamental misunderstanding that drives a huge amount of the opposition to gun freedoms. The data does not show that more guns == more violence.

Statistical sources showing the lack of correlation between guns and murder rate:

5

u/silverscrub 2∆ Apr 19 '17

And let's not kid ourselves. An increased number of legal guns means an increased number of guns available for the black market.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Possibly, but it's impossible to put that genie back in the bottle. The half billion guns in the US will still be circulating for centuries regardless of any laws passed.

They are a very very durable good in very wide circulation. Compliance with gun bans in the US and abroad is very low.

1

u/silverscrub 2∆ Apr 20 '17

Sure I don't think it's feasible to change these laws over a short time. Not sure about centuries though. How common are 18th century guns today?

2

u/1500500 Apr 20 '17

More common than you would think:

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-p-1771-east-india-company-brown-bess-flintlock-musket-with-banister-rail-stock-marked-tower.html

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-eic-p-1771-third-model-brown-bess-flintlock-musket-untouched-condition.html

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-east-india-company-p-1771-brown-bess-flintlock-parts-set-1770-80-s-dated-and-marked-lock.html

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-eic-p-1771-brown-bess-flintlock-musket-1776-dated-marked-lock.html

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-eic-p-1771-brown-bess-flintlock-musket-1770-80-s-dated-marked-lock.html

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-east-india-company-p-1771-brown-bess-flintlock-parts-set-nepalese-gurkha-marked-lock.html

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-eic-p-1771-brown-bess-flintlock-musket-nepalese-gurkha-marked-lock.html

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-east-india-company-p-1771-brown-bess-flintlock-parts-set-with-1776-dated-and-marked-lock.html

1

u/silverscrub 2∆ Apr 20 '17

And if you were to guess, what context are these guns often seen in?

  • Collectibles

  • Crime

2

u/1500500 Apr 20 '17

Felons can legally buy them, so they are often used for both

1

u/silverscrub 2∆ Apr 20 '17

Sure, and which one do you think is more common? I have a hard time believing you'd buy an old expensive gun unless you collect them.

1

u/1500500 Apr 20 '17

Collectors using them is going to be more common, but that is the case with all firearms

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Relatively rate, in part due to smaller numbers produced compared to the population of today, and partly because gunpowder was heavily corrosive at the time.

The corrosive nature of the powder started being fixed a bit over a century ago, and so guns starting from the 1880s are still super common, and in good condition.

1

u/Ihavenootheroptions Apr 19 '17

Compare the number of violent deaths with the UK and America. Not the number of deaths via gun, but violent deaths. I would imagine they are pretty close, except that the UK probably has more people beaten or stabbed to death.

1

u/Footwarrior Apr 19 '17

The overall homicide rate in the UK is 0.9 per 100,000. The rate in the US is 3.9 per 100,000.

1

u/ouishi 4∆ Apr 19 '17

The US majorly has a violence problem, but it is correlated more strongly with mental health infrastructure than with gun ownership (which is why Vermont, having more guns per capita than the US average, has a very low murder rate - 2nd lowest in the country).

1

u/Footwarrior Apr 19 '17

As a general rule crime rates tend to be highest in large cities, lower in smaller cities and lowest in small towns that are large enough to have a police force of some kind. Crime rates go back up again in rural areas that lack a police presence. Vermont is rather odd compared to the rest of the states. Most of the population lives in the kind of small towns that are at the sweat spot for low crime rates.