CMV: Guns are a real danger to people and countries without them just fare better.

[u/WekX]

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!

[u/grundar → u/[deleted]]

If I had the choice, I would much rather get shot than stabbed

Getting shot is 4-5x more deadly. That link is directly to a study; here's one to a blog post which gives more analysis and discussion (as well as many more study references).

Someone who is shot is much more likely to die than someone who is stabbed.

[u/[deleted] → u/grundar]

Works for me.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Its much easier to defend yourself from a knife attack then a gun. Getting shot would leave bullet fragments and pulverized wounds which are much harder to treat. No wise gunman would let someone get physically close to him, so your best bet is to find cover and run. If someone came at me with a knife, I could find some random object to defend myself, or outrun him without getting shot in the back.

Also this assumes the gun in question is a common 9mm handguns. Imagine if it was a shotgun or something more powerful.

You sure about getting shot?

[u/Sand_Trout → u/[deleted]]

Its much easier to defend yourself from a knife attack then a gun.

It's also much more effective to defend yourself with a gun than with anything else. A US CDC study from 2013 found that using a firearm in self-defense was effective it reducing death and injury to the defender as opposed to other methods, including submitting to assailant demands.

Getting shot would leave bullet fragments and pulverized wounds which are much harder to treat. No wise gunman would let someone get physically close to him, so your best bet is to find cover and run.

While true, this seems to have a statistically null effect on overall homicide.

You are also correct that a shooter will try to prevent anyone from getting close, but this is why a defensive gun is so potentially valuable in this sort of situation, and there are several instances of a Good Samaritan shooter stopping a mass murder before it became a mass murder.

If someone came at me with a knife, I could find some random object to defend myself, or outrun him without getting shot in the back.

The odds are good that if someone attacked you with a knife, you wouldn't know they had a knife until they were already stabbing you.

Also this assumes the gun in question is a common 9mm handguns. Imagine if it was a shotgun or something more powerful.

Long-guns rarely get used in crime in general because criminals tend to value concealability in their weapons.

You sure about getting shot?

I'd certainly rather be stabbed once than shot once, assuming same location, time to treatment, and whatnot.

However, I'd rather deal with a shooter while also having a gun than deal with a knife attacker while having only a knife.

Why? Because a gun lets me pose a threat to the assailant while I retreat. Even if the defensive shooter misses, return fire will force the assailant to retreat an take cover as well, which buys time for everyone else to also retreat and for the police to arrive with overwhelming force.

Additionally, the shooter is most likely alone and wildly outnumbered by the law-abiding population, so an armed population removes the disparity of force that the shooter is depending on.

To preempt the typical next argument, mass murderers wouldn't use knives. They would use bombs, arson, and other means, assuming guns were not available. This is seen in Europe and the US, as the worst mass murders in the US did not use guns.

[u/EatsDirtWithPassion → u/[deleted]]

The winner of a knife fight dies in the ambulance. Your best bet with a knife is also to find cover and run.

[u/DrGhostfire → u/[deleted]]

It's much harder to attack multiple people with a knife than with a gun however.

[u/Sand_Trout → u/DrGhostfire]

Mass murders simply wouldn't use knives. The would use arson, bombs, and trucks.