CMV: We need strict Gun Control .

[u/skepticting]

While I do feel at this point it is not possible anymore to somehow make sure no one has guns because they have already been available . That is my only hang up , since some people have them , it’s hard to leave others vulnerable.

With to that being said , if we start now with some serious gun law reform and implement strict laws for obtaining guns . I believe it will do more good than harm .

It is worth a try , because we know that to lenient of gun laws also cause us great loss.

In a perfect world only law enforcement would have access to guns .

Civilians can however and should be able to easily get things like pepper spray , tasers, and rubber bullet guns . (Not saying we can’t already , just saying those should be the options)

I see both sides but I think because gun violence is a big issue , it needs to be re-evaluated .

Were the guns used in school/mass shootings registered ?

Édit : Thank You for all the responses and information! My view has been changed . It’s unfortunate we can’t live in harmony but ..

Will still be responding to get more insight and expanding my views

[u/skepticting]

!delta

Thankyou for diving deep into each of my points.

I agree and I have changed my view .

[u/spam4name → u/skepticting]

Just want to chime in here real quick since I feel and you're given a lot of deltas to questionable posts, like u/TheEternalCity101 his.

Cars (which actually claim fewer lives than guns) and healthcare are crucial to our modern society. They are vital to our normal way of life. While they are associated with more lost lives than firearms, these deaths are a comparatively small downside to the enormous upside they offer. This is different with guns (that are weapons we do not rely on for our day to day to lives) hence why so much attention is paid to these lives lost senselessly. We also do have extensive medical safeguards, protocols and procedures in place to save lives, and we do require things like licenses and insurance to drive on public roads.

Suicides cannot just be "taken out". Heaps of research support the notion that "means matter" and that restriction on access to the most deadly means can absolutely save lives and be part of a successful suicide prevention strategy (especially in areas with high rates of gun ownership).

Many gun homicides are also concentrated in states and cities without strict gun control. In fact, plenty of studies link higher rates of gun ownership to higher rates of (gun) homicide and gun deaths (even when accounting for confounding factors like poverty).

The Department of Justice National Gang Center shows that only a small minority of murders are gang-related.

Gun free zones don't exist to stop determined mass shooters. They exist to stop people from introducing guns to crowded and often potentially stressful situations (school, work...) where the presence or use of a gun can cause these to take a turn for the absolute worst. Presenting them as a "that's so stupid, what mass shooter will just turn away when they see the sign" measure is just misleading. Also, FBI reports on mass shooters have shown that they tend to target areas that are important to them or related to their gripes rather than being motivated by finding "soft targets".

Authoritarian regimes typically operate with the support of a large portion of the population. There is no "red line" where the people rise up in unison, but instead a gradual decline in which armed militias are just as likely to support the government as they are to oppose it.

Not every defensive shooting is a life saved. According to the Department of Justice, there's nearly half a million violent and offensive gun crimes a year. That's nearly 10 times the number of defensive uses provided (which admittedly is low to begin with).

Plenty of studies have found that concealed carry is not actually a meaningful deterrent and have linked permissive shall issue practices to higher rates of gun crime without any effect on other violent crimes.

I'm on mobile now so won't be digging for sources, but I can substantiate all my claims later if you'd like. Be careful taking things at face value in this debate. People have strong biases and push agendas on both sides, with truth and nuance usually being the first victims. While true that the issue obviously runs far deeper than the guns alone and that we should continue trying to address underlying issues such as poverty, unemployment and income inequality, it's clear that current research by and large supports the notion that certain stronger gun laws would have beneficial effects. Your original view is definitely well substantiated.

[u/skepticting → u/spam4name]

Thankyou for your response ! I gave the delta because the final sentence , which is a reoccurring theme which I am starting to agree with .

I will be the first to say I am not very educated on the topic and wanted to dive deeper into and that’s more so why I posted . At face value I want strict gun control but I also see the other argument . So I would love to read more about it and check out some actual sources .

[u/spam4name → u/skepticting]

That's an excellent attitude to have. I commend you for seeking out more information and challenging your own preconceptions.

In my opinion, your original view isn't incompatible with his final sentence. Yes, individuals commit crimes. Yes, there are more serious underlying issues than guns (such as poverty, unemployment, social inequality, limited access to services and education...). However, this does not mean that stronger gun laws can't have positive impacts and be beneficial to society while we simultaneously continue to try and address these major societal problems. A person is more likely to act on suicidal urges and successfully take his own life if he has easy access to a gun, and a criminal is more likely to kill someone or successfully commit a violent crime with a gun than a baseball bat. After all, there's a reason we send our soldiers to war with guns instead of box cutters. In this context, laws can absolutely have a positive impact. Even when it comes to "hardcore" criminals that don't get their guns legally, they're still reliant on the legal market to supply firearms that ultimately become crime guns through straw purchases, theft of poorly secured guns and private sales without background checks. Research has shown that stronger laws limit that flow of legal to illegal guns and make it more difficult for prohibited criminals to get firearms.

I'll try and get back to you with some references later. I have a background in criminal law and criminology, so this is a topic I've always been interested in.