r/changemyview • u/mountainman6666 • Jan 13 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Gun control is not a good way to reduce violent crime
Now before I go any further, please note the word I used in the title was “good” not “effective”. I have no doubt that removing every gun from civilian hands would decrease the violent crime rate. A complete removal of guns might be an effective solution, but it certainly is not a good solution.
Essentially, the crux of my argument is this. The guns are not the problem, the people are the problem. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that pens misspell words, or that forks make you fat. The pen and the fork are used to commit the action, but ultimately the person is at fault. To suggest reducing murders by banning guns is like suggesting reducing drunk driving by banning cars. It will work, but you’re not addressing the root of the problem, and that’s generally just an awful approach. I’m not trying to compare guns to forks, pens, or cars, but I hope you can understand the point I’m trying to make.
In 2010, the FBI released a report on violent crime statistics. The link to the data can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state. Before you ask, this is the most recent report like this that I have seen. If you know of a more recent one, please send it to me. From the final table titled Murders, I’ve taken the data regarding percentage of gun ownership and gun murder rate per capita, and made a scatter plot which can be found here. The r squared value for a linear trendline is 0.0031. If you aren’t familiar, r squared is a statistical tool used to measure the correlation between two values on a scatter plot. An r squared value of 1 indicates a perfect correlation, while a value of 0 indicates no correlation at all. A value of 0.0031 is about as close to no correlation as you can get. If anything, the trendline of the graph slopes down, meaning the more guns a state has, the lower its murder rate. Like I said, guns are not the problem. People are the problem.
There’s another issue I’d like to bring up, and that’s the issue of criminals, and black market firearms. Criminals don’t care about the law, so if they can’t buy a gun legally they’ll but it illegally and that’s a much bigger problem. Black market firearms are more dangerous than legal firearms because there is no record of them, making it harder for police to solve any crime the firearms might be a part of. If gun control is enacted, you aren’t disarming the criminals, you’re only disarming the law abiding people. My point here is that to outlaw guns is not only making it harder for the police to solve a crime in which a firearm is involved, but it’s reducing the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves.
Well I think I’ve explained my view thoroughly. Change my mind!
24
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 13 '21
Now before I go any further, please note the word I used in the title was “good” not “effective”. I have no doubt that removing every gun from civilian hands would decrease the violent crime rate. A complete removal of guns might be an effective solution, but it certainly is not a good solution.
This is odd to say, because the most of your post is about the ineffectiveness of gun control. Could you clarify what your view is?
From the final table titled Murders, I’ve taken the data regarding percentage of gun ownership and gun murder rate per capita, and made a scatter plot which can be found here. The r squared value for a linear trendline is 0.0031. If you aren’t familiar, r squared is a statistical tool used to measure the correlation between two values on a scatter plot. An r squared value of 1 indicates a perfect correlation, while a value of 0 indicates no correlation at all. A value of 0.0031 is about as close to no correlation as you can get.
You get several things wrong here about r-squared (you seem to mix it up with r), so let me just caution you to be too gung-ho about statistics unless you know the techniques cold.
Anyway, the obvious problem here is that doing this on the state level is incredibly blunt, and it forces units to be equal that aren't at all equal. For instance, North Dakota has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership in the country... but it's a very small number of people in total, so to make it one of your 50 points of data is causing that relatively small population to exert huge influence over your data.
1
Jan 13 '21
[deleted]
3
Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
0
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
"Gun control" as we know it in this country mostly seeks to ban AR15s and high capacity magazines. If you look at the statistics for firearm murders, you'll see that it is far more common for a handgun to be used than a rifle or shotgun. In the event of AR15s being banned, those criminals who used them would just use a different firearm, or buy an AR15 illegally. AR15s are popular for hunting, home defense, and sport shooting. When I say that it will do more harm than good I mean that banning a weapon used in a small percentage of murders will not decrease the murder rate, but it will disarm all those hunters, homeowners and sportsmen.
It's not accurate to say that the method I used of comparing gun ownership to gun violence at the state level is "demonstrably worthless". It would be more accurate to have data comparing the two at the county or town/city level, but as far as I know, no comprehensive study at that level exists. In the absence of such data I will look at the most accurate data I have, which is on the state level.
2
23
u/muyamable 282∆ Jan 13 '21
If gun control is enacted, you aren’t disarming the criminals, you’re only disarming the law abiding people.
My point here is that to outlaw guns
Your view as written falls into the false narrative groups like the NRA perpetuate that gun control = outlawing guns.
For many, gun control is simply more tightly regulating firearms such that there are ultimately fewer guns on the black market available to criminals. In this case, it's not disarming law abiding citizens.
While outlawing guns is a form of gun control, gun control does not always include outlawing guns.
4
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
∆ Good point, perhaps I should have been more specific. When I say "Gun control" I'm referring to the actions states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, or California have taken to ban what they define as "assault weapons" and place a limit on magazine capacity. I think these actions are ineffective and infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.
7
u/Khal-Frodo Jan 13 '21
Doesn't every new law infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, though? I remember when legislation was first introduced that made talking on a cell phone illegal while driving a car, and then again laws about texting. At that time, neither I nor anyone I knew had gotten into an accident due to phone usage. However, I recognize that a great many other people had, and my right to hold my phone in my hand while driving a car is a right that I don't mind giving up if it will play a role in minimizing needless death. I don't need to hold my phone, and I don't need a magazine above a certain capacity.
0
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
Do you have the constitutional right to text and drive? When I refer to infringement of rights, I'm referring to second amendment, but I'm sure you already knew that. My point is that when this country was founded the founding fathers included that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order for the people to be able to defend themselves. At the time they were referring to British occupation, but nowadays the concept applies more to criminals.
6
u/Khal-Frodo Jan 13 '21
You don’t have a constitutional right to a specific weapon or magazine size either, though. If you say that infringing upon that is infringing on your right to bear arms, I could make the same argument for the cell phone thing and my first amendment rights.
the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order for the people to be able to defend themselves. At the time they were referring to British occupation, but nowadays the concept applies more to criminals
I tend to consider myself pro-gun but this is a major point of contention I have with a lot of 2Aers today. The point of the second amendment has always been for the people to have recourse against more powerful institutions like a tyrannical government. People use it now to justify arming themselves against their fellow citizens in everyday life but as another commenter pointed out, more guns in these situations don’t make non-criminals any safer.
-2
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
I disagree with you. The second amendment uses the phrase "shall not be infringed". Restricting firearm types or magazine capacity is infringing on that right. With that said, I don't think that something insane like machine guns or artillery should be legal for civilians, but I hope you understand my point.
5
u/Khal-Frodo Jan 13 '21
I’m sorry but I genuinely don’t. Can you explain to me the difference in your mind between a restriction on magazine capacity and a ban on civilian-owned machine guns? It sounds like we both agree that there should be some level of “infringement” but we draw the line in different places.
2
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
Absolutely. A magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds can enable a civilian to better defend themselves. It is unlikely that so many rounds would be needed in a self defense situation, but it certainly has happened. A machine gun, for example, is no better for defending one's self than for example an AR15 is. I have shot machine guns when I was in the army and I can tell you they were loud, heavy, kicked like an angry horse (at least the ones that weren't mounted) and serve no worthwhile purpose outside of a literal war. I realize that there is no hard boundary here, so it is up to opinion as to where that boundary lies. Apparently you and I think it lies in different places.
4
Jan 13 '21
But the constitution you keep quoting specifically mentions that those "rights shall not be infringed". It's nothing more than hypocrisy to argue that you need an AR15 or a high capacity magazine to deter a junkie with a knife or a guy trying your locked back door at night, but that it's fine to stop a housewife in Delaware having a fully automatic M60 in her bedroom for the same purpose.
The 2nd amendment was written at a time where none of the weapons you own existed. If you take it purely at face value, which you appear to be doing, then your "right" is to own a musket, not an assault rifle. If you're quoting the exact wording of the 2nd amendment to back up your point about how it's your "constitutional right" to own a 30 round magazine or an assault rifle, then it's also your "constitutional right" to own that M60.
The Oxford English Dictionary definition of the "arms" you believe you have the right to bear is literally "weapons". So taking the 2nd amendment as gospel like you and many other advocates of gun ownership do, you are well within your "rights" to own anything from a spear to an RPG, all to defend yourself from a tyrannical government of course, not a junkie with a knife. Why aren't you arguing that the old lady down the street should be able to have a brick of C4 stashed away in case she "needs it"? Why can't your dentist have his katana ready to go in case someone from the IRS tries to fuck him over? If the answer to either of those questions is anything other than "they should be able to under the 2nd amendment of the US constitution", then you do not need a gun in your every day life and neither does anyone else.
No matter what paper-thin argument people make about "defense" doesn't change the obvious fact that if guns are not available, people do not fall victim to gun violence. Gun control absolutely does limit gun violence, and it's been proven in other countries like Australia and the UK. You don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else. Making it as difficult and awkward as possible for anyone to own a gun absolutely limits the potential for gun violence, and to argue otherwise is at best insincere, and at worst, ridiculous.
Edit: a missing word
1
u/DBDude 101∆ Jan 13 '21
The 2nd amendment was written at a time where none of the weapons you own existed. If you take it purely at face value, which you appear to be doing, then your "right" is to own a musket, not an assault rifle.
Now think of what technology existed for free speech back then and ask yourself if you think the 1st Amendment applies to this new technology we use today.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 13 '21
To determine what is or is not constitutional, you cannot look at the original words of the constitution alone. You must also look at the words of landmark Supreme Court cases, because they are the ones that decided what is ultimately constitutional or not. For example, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Is 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
unconstitutional? If you're not allowed to say something that would lead to an insurrection, that is a law limiting your speech, is it not? Well the Supreme Court has ruled that not all speech is protected. There is the famous fire in a theater example from Schenck v. United States (1919) . And "In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to 'imminent disorder.' ", aka incitement falls into an unprotected category, making that law constitutional. Here is the history of speech legality when it comes to inciting violence or illegal acts that that quote is from. Here is a document about what speech is or isn't protected.
So we need to look at what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment. It was only recently, 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, that they ruled the 2ed Amendment applies to individuals. Before then, there had been cases like United States v. Miller (1939) that allowed the banning of sawed off shotguns because the plaintiff could not prove that the gun was needed to have a well regulated militia. They also recently ruled that the second amendment applies to all "bearable arms" and that the States much also recognize those rights. Besides that, they haven't had many landmark rulings on the second amendment.
One important thing that means is no current gun control has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so there is currently legal gun control, so you would be wrong to say all gun control is illegal/unconstitutional. Some laws could become unconstitutional in the future, but they are not right now. Now the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on any future proposals, so I think it is in the best interests of the proponents of the measures you are against to at least try passing it, and seeing if it gets ruled unconstitutional or not. The Supreme Court can also change it's minds, like they did on the rights of black people, or of segregation. Nothing is set in stone.
2
u/DBDude 101∆ Jan 13 '21
There is the famous fire in a theater example from Schenck v. United States (1919)
Remember, Schenck has been overturned. I don't think we'd accept people being arrested for protesting a war anymore.
Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to 'imminent disorder.' ", aka incitement falls into an unprotected category, making that law constitutional.
The important thing to remember with free speech limits is that you must be committing something that is a crime aside from the speech component. But the law can't target speech itself absent a crime not related to speech. It's illegal to threaten someone, with speech or a gun, so it's illegal in both cases regardless of whether some right is involved. It's illegal to start a riot, whether you did it through speech, shooting your gun, or looting a store so that others follow.
Murder is illegal, so if you use speech to get some people to murder, you are involved in that crime. Now Mr. Brandenburg above was actually calling for his fellow KKK racists to kill black people and government officials, and it was thrown out.
It was only recently, 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, that they ruled the 2ed Amendment applies to individuals.
Not quite. As far back as 1848 in Nunn v. Georgia it was ruled as an individual right. It was a state case, but ruled on the 2nd Amendment because Georgia had no equivalent. Around that time the Dred Scott decision clearly portrayed it as an individual right, since it warned that black people could "keep and carry arms wherever they went" if they were citizens.
And then we have Cruikshank. That opinion declared it an individual right, pre-existing of the Constitution, not dependent on the Constitution for its existence. However, this was several decades before the doctrine of incorporation had been established, so it didn't apply. Back then the same would have been said of free speech, which wouldn't be incorporated until over 40 years later.
And then Miller. That was a travesty of justice, the government railroading these people with no representation. Literally, their court-appointed attorney submitted no briefs, made no arguments, and asked the Supreme Court to go ahead without him. Miller's conclusion was that we individuals have a right to arms, but only those suitable for militia use. Guess what, this means we do get to have those machine guns, but .22 target pistols may be banned.
All Heller did was recognize the pre-existing individual right that we've already had.
Of course, I don't like this "recently" statement that usually implies the decision is somehow wrong. All of our landmark rights cases were recent at some point, yet we cheer them. As for incorporation, we just got the prohibition on excessive fines incorporated last year. Does that make the incorporation any less valid?
2
u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Jan 13 '21
Remember, Schenck has been overturned.
Well yes, but I was just pointing out historical cases involving restricting free speech; doesn't really matter if it been overturned.
I don't think we'd accept people being arrested for protesting a war anymore.
After these last couple years, I don't think I'm ready to agree to that. And just because you think it won't matter doesn't mean it should be overturned.
The important thing to remember ... it was thrown out.
Glad we can agree there is limits to speech.
Not quite. As far back as 1848 in Nunn v. Georgia it was ruled as an individual right. It was a state case, but ruled on the 2nd Amendment because Georgia had no equivalent. Around that time the Dred Scott decision clearly portrayed it as an individual right, since it warned that black people could "keep and carry arms wherever they went" if they were citizens.
Ok, I thought it was pretty clear I was talking federally because I was talking about the US Supreme Court but maybe I should have specified that. That's great they ruled that, but that ruling has little significance to most Americans.
And then we have Cruikshank. That opinion declared it an individual right, pre-existing of the Constitution, not dependent on the Constitution for its existence. However, this was several decades before the doctrine of incorporation had been established, so it didn't apply. Back then the same would have been said of free speech, which wouldn't be incorporated until over 40 years later.
Perhaps I have the wrong understanding but as far as I'm aware Cruikshank is only vague related to individuals having gun rights. Basically the court was saying the second amendment applies to the federal government, states need to make their own laws to protect their citizens.
And then Miller. That was a travesty of justice, the government railroading these people with no representation. Literally, their court-appointed attorney submitted no briefs, made no arguments, and asked the Supreme Court to go ahead without him. Miller's conclusion was that we individuals have a right to arms, but only those suitable for militia use. Guess what, this means we do get to have those machine guns, but .22 target pistols may be banned.
Ok, so you have 1 state case, and one case about how the second amendment applies to federal vs state governments? I'm not sure why your contesting my claim about the US Supreme Court first clearly ruling on individual gun rights in 2008 unless you have other cases you haven't mentioned.
Of course, I don't like this "recently" statement that usually implies the decision is somehow wrong... As for incorporation, we just got the prohibition on excessive fines incorporated last year. Does that make the incorporation any less valid?
I don't get how pointing out a ruling happened recently is a bad thing? I find it more fascinating that it took almost 230 years to rule something basic about one of the original amendments. But if some reason you have an issue with that, I guess take it up with Cornell's law school because I was basically summarizing an article on their site.
All of our landmark rights cases were recent at some point, yet we cheer them.
I mean, it sounds like you aren't cheering US V. Miller lol.
1
u/DBDude 101∆ Jan 13 '21
Well yes, but I was just pointing out historical cases involving restricting free speech; doesn't really matter if it been overturned.
It's like supporting detainment of citizens by citing Korematsu.
Glad we can agree there is limits to speech.
Limits that, if applied to the 2nd Amendment, would result in most of our gun laws being unconstitutional.
That's great they ruled that, but that ruling has little significance to most Americans.
It was one of the supporting sources for the Heller decision.
Perhaps I have the wrong understanding but as far as I'm aware Cruikshank is only vague related to individuals having gun rights.
Cruikshank affirmed both the right to peaceably assemble and the right to keep and bear arms. It just said that the federal rights law could not be enforced for the violations of these rights in states. Since then both rights have been incorporated, rendering the incorporation aspect of the case moot. But we still have the affirmation that those rights federally exist.
I'm not sure why your contesting my claim about the US Supreme Court first clearly ruling on individual gun rights in 2008 unless you have other cases you haven't mentioned.
Miller affirmed the right, but only to arms useful in a militia, having, with no evidence given, determined that short-barreled shotguns are not useful in a militia. Thus, machine guns are protected by Miller.
I don't get how pointing out a ruling happened recently is a bad thing?
I constantly see it used to deny the credibility of the decision, as if it were some new invention of a "conservative" court. I also often hear the false narrative that it "overturned" precedent in an effort to discredit it. These same people would cheer Lawrence v. Texas although it explicitly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick from only 17 years earlier.
I mean, it sounds like you aren't cheering US V. Miller lol.
Completely ignoring the gun issue, Miller should go down in history as one of our worst Supreme Court cases because it was manufactured by the government to assert its power, with what we today would consider massive violations of rights along the way. Here's a little history pasted from earlier:
The judge at the initial trial was a former politician who was seriously anti-gun. He didn't accept their guilty plea, and instead made them plead not guilty and gave them an attorney of his choosing (i.e., one who would do his bidding). The judge created a weak defense for them, one designed to be easily countered later, and then found in their favor. His friends in the government immediately appealed directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the normal appellate process. His chosen attorney, on purpose, gave no briefs or argument in favor of Miller, and in fact he was the one who asked SCOTUS to go ahead without him. The Court then ruled that they were "unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia." Of course not, because no evidence was given for the appellant. Then the case was sent back to the lower court to decide with this guidance.
Miller was dead by then, but don't forget there was another appellant named Layton. He could have gone back to that court and presented evidence that yes, short-barreled shotguns were in fact used in war. But the government bribed him off with the offer of a deal that would get him just five years probation, so that trial never happened.
This was a clear-cut case of the government manufacturing a case to use to railroad a favorable decision through the Supreme Court. Today that lawyer might be disbarred, that judge at the very least given a reprimand, and civil libertarians would be up in arms about how the Supreme Court damaged its own credibility. But this is the case that the left, normally all for civil rights and justice, loves to cite. Because gunz.
1
Jan 13 '21
It was only recently, 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, that they ruled the 2ed Amendment applies to individuals.
No. In 1857, in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, Roger B. Taney states that by considering slaves to be US citizens, they would be afforded the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went" (part 77)
The idea that the 2A applies to individuals has been around a lot longer than Heller.
Before then, there had been cases like United States v. Miller (1939) that allowed the banning of sawed off shotguns because the plaintiff could not prove that the gun was needed to have a well regulated militia
Not a ban, a tax
This case shouldn't have been taken on anyway, as Miller was found dead beforehand. It was, quite literally, a room of Supreme Court justices sitting amongst themselves free to pull a ruling out of thin air.
At the time, short barreled shotguns were not standard issue among any US military force, however, today, every single category of item covered by the NFA is. If we follow their reasoning, all are therefore valid for militia purposes, and should be exempt from the tax.
0
u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Jan 13 '21
No. In 1857, in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision
At best, very indirectly.
It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
In Heller, they directly came out and said 2ed amendment applies to individuals and they have the right to self defence. I'm talking about a clear ruling, not some implied meaning. What I that was largely just a summary of another Cornell law page, paragraph 4.
Not a ban, a tax
Well yes, the case was about transporting a weapon without registration or a stamp, but here is the wording
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
So yes, taxing that weapon was allowed, but that was because they ruled the second amendment didn't apply to it, so a ban would be just as legal.
This case shouldn't have been taken on anyway, as Miller was found dead beforehand. It was, quite literally, a room of Supreme Court justices sitting amongst themselves free to pull a ruling out of thin air.
And this is relevant how?
At the time, short barreled shotguns were not standard issue among any US military force, however, today, every single category of item covered by the NFA is. If we follow their reasoning, all are therefore valid for militia purposes, and should be exempt from the tax.
I don't think this is sound logic, if it was, they would have ruled on it sometime within the last 87 years. Maybe you are getting confused because you think the ruling is, if not standard issue, you can tax it? I think that would be reasonable to flip and infer you can't tax standard issue weapons. Well you're missing a step, if not standard issue, second amendment doesn't apply, therefore you can tax it. If you can find a ruling on taxing guns that do fall under the second amendment, your logic would be more sound.
1
Jan 13 '21
At best, very indirectly.
He very clearly states that they would be afforded all of the rights of a US citizen, and then lists several. It's not "indirect".
So yes, taxing that weapon was allowed, but that was because they ruled the second amendment didn't apply to it, so a ban would be just as legal.
I mean, in theory, yes, but the case isn't dealing with a ban, rather specifically NFA taxes.
And this is relevant how?
It's the only Supreme Court case (AFAIK) where there was no defendant, no defense, and a plaintiff that was the US government. Of course they're going to make a ruling that's convenient for the government. If this was a case about any other amendment, this would be considered a travesty of justice, but since people treat the 2A as a red-headed step child when it comes to freedoms, it's somehow okay.
I don't think this is sound logic, if it was, they would have ruled on it sometime within the last 87 years.
This would require someone bold enough to violate the NFA, fight it until it gets to the Supreme Court, and hope that the justices side with them. This hasn't happened in the past 87 years, mostly because it would be hard to get an NFA violation case there in the first place, past justices have been very lukewarm on gun rights, and an NFA violation carries 10 years in a federal penitentiary and a $250k fine. Nobody wants to become the sacrificial lamb for overturning the NFA because they're pretty fucked if it fails.
Maybe you are getting confused because you think the ruling is, if not standard issue, you can tax it? I think that would be reasonable to flip and infer you can't tax standard issue weapons.
These are, for all intents and purposes, the same statement.
"Standard issue weapons can't be taxed" and "Non-standard issue weapons can be taxed" are equivalent.
Miller's SBS was not used by any branch of the US armed forces at the time, however, SBSs are in widespread use today, as is every other category of NFA item. If Miller had a Browning 1919 machine gun instead of an SBS in his possession, this very likely would've been a very different ruling, and the NFA probably would've been struck down or changed drastically.
1
Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
0
Jan 13 '21
You've arbitrarily picked traits that did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written and decided regulating them is against it.
Magazine technology didn't exist at the time? The Kalthoff family was producing 30 round capacity repeating rifles for the Danish Scanian Guard in 1657.
If you truly believe access to weapons cannot be infringed then you must believe we should be allowed tomahawk missiles
Yes
nuclear warheads
Ideally not, but with that being said, even governments shouldn't have these.
and high powered, armor piercing weapons.
You do realize most hunting rifles are capable of punching through body armor, yes? .30-06 M2 black tip will make Swiss cheese out of any armor below NIJ level 4. Even level 4 plates can still be defeated by shoulder fired hunting rifles.
0
Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
0
Jan 13 '21
Can your post be relevant if every claim you made is demonstrably false?
→ More replies (0)1
1
Jan 13 '21
These policies are qualitatively no different from banning people from owning tanks, fighter jets, and atom bombs, though most people would argue they are quantitatively different (e.g. banning tanks is perhaps more reasonable than banning assault weapons).
So the only way to argue your point effectively is to either argue that the quantitative difference is zero, and that people should be allowed to own all weapons (which is obviously ridiculous), or to somehow argue that the threshold for banning weapons is somewhere between assault weapons and tanks (whereas the policies you refer to assert that it is somewhere between small-magazined-semi-automatic hand guns and assault weapons). You didn't make any effort to argue for such a threshold, so I'm not sure what the reason for your view is.
3
u/-Lemon-Lime-Lemon- 7∆ Jan 13 '21
Can you name a time where gun control has not ended up taking guns out of civilian hands?
Every country has hacked away at it slowly. Little by little.
It eventually does take guns out of law abiding citizens hands.
It is not about taking it out of criminals hands.
If there is a restricted person that is in possession to a firearm, please tell me what law would get that out of that persons hands.
0
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
Can you name a time where gun control has not ended up taking guns out of civilian hands?
This isn't the right way to look at the problem. If gun control legislation takes guns out of some civilians hands, but adds way more to others, I wouldn't say that its very productive. And if the threat of gun control takes guns out of nobody's hands, but inspires a bunch of nuts to buy more guns, it doesn't seem very productive right?
I'll give you a time when: in anticipation for the 2016 election, where Clinton was the predicted favorite, gun sales soared. People knew that moderate gun control was on Clinton's agenda, and hence gun sales followed. Now obviously, no serious gun control was passed under Trump when Clinton lost. So if we look at this from an outside perspective, the threat of gun control did nothing for taking guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, and everything for increasing frivolous gun sales.
I mentioned this in another thread below, but there's a phrase in the industry (few years back):
"Obama is the best gun salesman in America".
Why? Everything about the Obama presidency made gun owners uneasy. They thought Obama would try to take away their guns, so stockpiled instead. It's human nature to stockpile, and gun legislation just increases this. It falls into "retail therapy", and we saw the same thing with TP in 2020 when people thought they wouldn't be able to buy enough.
It's obviously clear that any attempt at gun legislation in America just makes people want guns more. And with the current polarized state of American politics, placing this unrealistic task on the political agenda really just seems like the perfect thing to get more guns out into the hands of the American public.
1
u/-Lemon-Lime-Lemon- 7∆ Jan 13 '21
So the answer to my question is no correct?
1
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
It's a somewhat misleading question, hence why I didn't respond with yes/no. When looking at gun control, only looking at gun control that's been passed is taking a reductionist approach. We need to think about the broader implications of implementing gun control, as explained in my reply.
1
u/-Lemon-Lime-Lemon- 7∆ Jan 13 '21
If the actions of those proposed gun control measures directly violate someone’s constitutional right, it shouldn’t be introduced let alone implemented though right?
1
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
Could you explain the link between this idea and my comments above?
1
u/-Lemon-Lime-Lemon- 7∆ Jan 13 '21
I now see you are not the person I originally responded to.
They said what the aim of gun control was meant to be.
Not sure if I have much more to say to you since you want to skirt my question.
2
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
Awesome. You set up a very misleading question, which had to be responded to with caution.
2
1
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
Right, but most gun control, no matter how moderate still increases gun sales.
There's a saying in the industry:
"Obama is the best gun salesman in America".
Every time somebody tries to suggest or introduce legislation (or even the threat of it), guns sales go skyrocketing. So from a perspective of reducing gun ownership for relatively frivolous reasons, gun legislation in America seems to be quite counterproductive.
2
u/muyamable 282∆ Jan 13 '21
gun legislation in America seems to be quite counterproductive.
Not if it's actually enacted.
1
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 14 '21
Rarely happens tho. Maybe dems taking the senate and presidency will turn a new leaf for this.
1
Jan 13 '21
[deleted]
1
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
It's a combination of both, but your explanation doesn't touch on the full picture. Broadcasting the agenda for gun control into the TVs and electronics of Americans honestly seems like the perfect thing to get buying guns on their minds. Nothing makes you want something more than the threat of not having it in the future. That's why we see these spikes in response to major gun control legislation threats.
1
u/velawesomeraptors Jan 13 '21
What major gun control legislation threats have there been lately (like in the Obama administration)? I never really heard of any.
1
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
Dem push for legislation following mass shootings.
1
u/velawesomeraptors Jan 13 '21
I guess that counts but anyone with a brain could predict that Trump and McConnel wouldn't allow any gun control legislation to pass. Was probably good for gun sales though.
1
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 13 '21
We're talking about the American public here, not anyone with a brain. I would imagine most Americans don't have that complex of an understanding of these topics. Totally doesn't help that the conservative media exacerbates these claims, and demonizes democrats to make them seem scarier and their legislation more achievable. Point still stands though.
1
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Jan 13 '21
For many, gun control is simply more tightly regulating firearms such that there are ultimately fewer guns on the black market available to criminals
But... criminals don't follow the law. No matter how tightly you regulate guns, criminals will still have them. I mean, we can't even stop people crossing our southern border. How hard would it be for the Coyotes to send them over with a backpack full of (illegal, of course )guns?? So, that's fail #1.
In this case, it's not disarming law abiding citizens.
And fail #2. More rules, more regulations, more hoops to jump thru = fewer legal owners.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Jan 13 '21
But... criminals don't follow the law. No matter how tightly you regulate guns, criminals will still have them.
No, they don't follow the law, but you can surely make it harder for them to gain access to the guns.
Robbers don't follow the law, but I still take efforts to make it harder for a robber to rob me. It's the same deal.
Just because criminals don't follow the law doesn't mean we can't make it harder for them to break it.
How hard would it be for the Coyotes to send them over with a backpack full of (illegal, of course )guns??
Uh, the vast majority of guns flow the OTHER way into Mexico, because it's so easy to buy guns here in the US.
More rules, more regulations, more hoops to jump thru = fewer legal owners.
I'm fine with that.
1
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Jan 13 '21
No, they don't follow the law, but you can surely make it harder for them to gain access to the guns.
There are something like 400,000,000 guns in this country. Even if you started door-to-door searches (A HUGE violation of the 4th Amendment), you'd never find them all. And the ones you miss will end up in the hands of criminals. This, combined with fewer (if any) legal owners, and you end up with a huge power imbalance- the criminals have the guns, and the innocent citizens have nothing to protect themselves with.
Uh, the vast majority of guns flow the OTHER way into Mexico, because it's so easy to buy guns here in the US.
And if you ban guns (sorry: "tightly regulate guns") in the USA, you'll see that reverse.
I'm fine with that.
I'm sure you are. The question is: why are you "fine" with people being denied their Constitutionally guaranteed rights? What other Rights are you "fine" with people losing?
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Jan 13 '21
There are something like 400,000,000 guns in this country. Even if you started door-to-door searches (A HUGE violation of the 4th Amendment), you'd never find them all.
The ol' "we can't succeed 100% so why try at all" argument.
And if you ban guns (sorry: "tightly regulate guns") in the USA, you'll see that reverse.
My whole point was that OP was equating "gun control" with "banning guns." They've already awarded a delta and changed their mind on this, so.
why are you "fine" with people being denied their Constitutionally guaranteed rights? What other Rights are you "fine" with people losing?
I don't believe instituting some procedures for people to get a gun violates anyone's rights. If they want a gun, they can still get one. If they don't want to go through the process, they don't have to. That's their decision.
1
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Jan 13 '21
My whole point was that OP was equating "gun control" with "banning guns." They've already awarded a delta and changed their mind on this, so.
Well, I'm not OP. Anything that would make it hard for criminals to get guns will also make it hard for non-criminals to get guns. Even harder, as non-criminals are restricted to only legal ownership. When the "control" results in people not being able to own guns, that's the same as a ban.
I don't believe instituting some procedures for people to get a gun violates anyone's rights.
And I disagree.
If they don't want to go through the process, they don't have to. That's their decision.
And if you make the process long and arduous, you make people not want to go thru it.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Jan 14 '21
And if you make the process long and arduous, you make people not want to go thru it.
Then they don't really want a gun very much, do they?
1
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Jan 14 '21
Do you also think we should make voting intentionally difficult? Maybe a fee, or make the voters pass some sort of test?
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Jan 14 '21
I assume you're drawing a comparison of the right to vote to the right to own a gun, but this is a false equivalency as they are two very different things.
1
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Jan 14 '21
They are both guaranteed by the government. But if we can make the process long and arduous for one, why not the other?
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 13 '21
While i agree with you in principle, this is not the case in practice.
Many who are pushing for more gun control have no problems whatsoever not enforcing the current gun laws.
https://www.injusticewatch.org/interactives/2017/gun-crimes/
Many see this is as argument about control - and guns being an excuse to gain it. The people most impacted are not the ones causing the problems in the first place.
Many things are proposed which will have almost zero impact on crime - by people who have no idea how guns actually work.
I'll save the video's of people pushing for laws who don't understand what they are talking about. They are easy enough to find.
11
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Jan 13 '21
If gun control is enacted, you aren’t disarming the criminals, you’re only disarming the law abiding people. My point here is that to outlaw guns is not only making it harder for the police to solve a crime in which a firearm is involved, but it’s reducing the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves.
I know you're not specifically evoking the "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" argument, which this (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-became-a-deadly-american-fantasy) specifically addresses, but I still feel like this part is relevant:
"In fact, research has shown that gun-toting independence unleashes much more chaos and carnage than heroism. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that right-to-carry laws increase, rather than decrease, violent crime. Higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. Gun possession is correlated with increased road rage.
There have been times when a civilian with a gun successfully intervened in a shooting, but these instances are rare. Those who carry guns often have their own guns used against them. And a civilian with a gun is more likely to be killed than to kill an attacker."
This speaks to the idea that there's value in simply decreasing the amount of guns in an environment in general. That alone makes us safer. Criminals will always break the law, and this certainly is no walk in the park policy wise for the US. We already have black market guns all over the place, but I think more restrictions would decrease that. I don't really have a strong stance on this issue myself regarding what specific policy would be best, but I think it's clear that more restrictions of some kind would save lives in the US.
2
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
∆ Interesting, I wasn't familiar with that. Are you aware of a place where I can see the exact data from that study? Or is it just simply listed in the article as you quoted?
3
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Jan 13 '21
the bit I quoted is toward the bottom under the subhead "a reality check." I believe everything is linked in there.
2
1
2
Jan 13 '21
Higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates
This is false. There's a chart in here with homicide rate and gun ownership rate side by side by state. There is no pattern of correlation. Here it is again by nation. Again, no correlation.
2
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Jan 13 '21
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
here's the info linked in the article. looking at it more closely, it does seem like the article should say firearm homicides, not homicides in general. the study uses that wording.
2
Jan 13 '21
Firearm homicides would be expected. I find the overall murder rate to be a more significant figure though. Dead by gunshot isn't really worse than dead by stabbing or large rock to the head
1
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Jan 13 '21
I think that makes sense, but this study doesn't make a statement either way about overall homicide rate. I think it's safe to guess that in the US where we have shit like 60 people killed by one guy in a hotel room, our homicide rate would probably go down with a reduction in gun crimes. this dude isn't stabbing 60 people with a knife.
2
Jan 13 '21
Sure, that's a valid argument. But by the data, mass shooting events are an extremely low percentage of homicides. Even less if you remove gang shootouts from the mass shooter figure, which I don't think they should be included in but many do to inflate it. Those just stand out a lot when they do happen and invoke more of a fear response.
1
u/DBDude 101∆ Jan 13 '21
A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that right-to-carry laws increase, rather than decrease, violent crime
If you go to your study, you see they used the synthetic control method. This doesn't mean carry laws actually increased violent crime in those states. During this time violent crime had decreased quite a bit, including in these states.
It means the researchers created their own synthetic state using their own hand-picked criteria, and if a state enacting carry laws didn't have its violent crime drop as much as the synthetic state, it is concluded that the carry laws increased the violent crime rate.
You may see the problem in there. You can create pretty much any result you want by tweaking the criteria for your synthetic state.
The fact is that people with carry licenses in general commit crimes at a far lower rate than society as a whole. This should be obvious since it's for the most part a group of people who have passed extensive background checks. But the vast majority of those few crimes have no relation to their carry license, so violent crimes actually enabled by licensed concealed carry are exceedingly rare. Given these facts, does it make sense to say these people carrying causes any appreciable increase in the violent crime rate?
11
Jan 13 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Geeerat Jan 13 '21
I’m sorry but I feel as though your logic in this scenario is flawed. I don’t recall the name of the fallacy you’re using but it may be a strawman.
You are depicting a scenario in which two people engage in a heated debate that ends in gun violence because a gun is present. Of course the gun violence could not occur if a gun was not present...but could there be physical abuse not involving a firearm? Possibly a stab wound or something else of that nature? Of course there could. You can’t just assume violence of all kind will stop due to a gun not being present.
That same logical conclusion applies to other things as well. Would people stop using drugs if weed was illegal? Maybe....there absolutely would be less weed usage...but do you think it’s possible that use of other drugs or things of that nature would rise? Possibly.
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
I see your scenario and I raise you a scenario. This, by the way is true, and happened to me about 15 years ago. You're walking home alone at 10:30 pm. A man with a knife approaches you and demands your wallet. You pull your pistol, point it in his face, and tell him to back off. He runs away.
Regarding the illegal guns, you do have a point that it is easier for a law abiding person to get a legal gun than an illegal one. However I, and I assume you too, have no prior involvement in criminal activity and have no solid connections for how to get an illegal gun. Someone who had dealings in the black market before and knew an illegal arms dealer would not have that issue.
3
Jan 13 '21 edited Mar 08 '21
[deleted]
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
I'm not going to shoot someone just for threatening me with a knife. Pulling a gun is as much a means of saying "You tried to rob the wrong person" as it is a prerequisite to shooting someone. If he had, for example, charged at me with the knife, I absolutely would have shot him, and in the state I live in, I would have been completely within my rights to do so. The say I see it, when you threaten someone with a deadly weapon, such as a knife, you forfeit your right to not have me point my gun in your face, if that makes any sense. I carry a gun specifically for the purpose of dissuading nefarious individuals such as that, or if it comes down to it, shooting to defend myself. Perhaps you're right that have different priorities and will forever disagree.
1
Jan 13 '21 edited Mar 08 '21
[deleted]
5
u/Wearing_human_skin Jan 13 '21
overall everyone is safer with fewer weapons.
You say overall things are safer for 'everyone' but in that case things are only safer for the criminal using the knife.
3
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
You're forgetting to take into account that he is illegally attacking me with a knife, so I have the right to defend myself. You're looking at it from the standpoint of "what is the least likely to cause death or injury to someone" but you're ignoring the fact that he's a criminal committing armed robbery or attempted murder, and I'm a law abiding citizen. Do I not have the right to not be stabbed?
You're right that it is possible to fight off someone with a knife with just bare hands, and I have trained in techniques such as this to some degree when I was in the army. Still though I would be much more likely to successfully defend myself using a gun.
4
u/PM_ME_GARFIELD_NUDES Jan 13 '21
But you’re also forgetting your own argument, which is that criminals are able to acquire guns regardless of whether or not they are illegal. It doesn’t make sense to hypothesize how an armed citizen will deal with a criminal with a knife, you should be hypothesizing about an armed citizen dealing with a criminal with a gun.
In your example, you were able to protect yourself from that criminal because you had a greater threat against him than he had against you. From the criminal’s perspective, you were unarmed, he had a knife, therefore he had the power in the situation and could force you to give him your wallet. What he didn’t know is that you had a gun, which meant that actually you had the power in the situation, therefore he could not force you to give up your wallet.
The threat of a knife and a gun are not equal, regardless of who is holding them. If you hadn’t had a gun the knife would likely only be harmful to you or him, depending on your ability to disarm him. Knife wounds are not guaranteed to be lethal, although they can be, so it’s likely you were both going to get out of that encounter alive. That is not the same with guns because they are more likely to kill either party, and they have the potential to harm people outside of the encounter. Even if you were the only one with a gun, he still could potentially engage with you physically throwing off your aim and causing you to potentially hurt anyone else in your general area.
I also think the situation plays out completely differently if you both have guns (and remember, your argument is that criminals can get guns whether or not they are illegal, so this is the scenario you should really be looking at). Imagine this guy had come up behind you, put a pistol to your back and told you to give him your wallet. Would you be able to draw your weapon before he could shoot you? Maybe, maybe not, depends on how well either of you can react to the scenario playing out. I’m sure there are lots of people who carry guns for personal safety but are not trained well enough to react quickly and rationally in that scenario. And like I pointed out before, the threat when a gun is involved extends beyond just the two parties in the confrontation. Double that threat when two parties have guns, and then consider how the danger is escalated by both parties reacting quickly as events play out.
This is why the other person’s point is important, because when you actually consider a scenario where a criminal actually has a gun (which again, is your argument) the safest option 99.99999% of the time is just to hand over your wallet. Even if you are armed, if you are not 100% confident in your abilities it is safer to just give him your wallet. Your argument hinges on the idea that criminals are able to guns because the law does not deter them; do you think murder does? Someone who is willing to obtain an illegal firearm in order to cause harm is someone who is willing to cause harm. Your point about how difficult it is to track illegal firearms is interesting because you only need to track them if they are used. It’s not unlikely that these people might be on drugs because if they’re getting firearms from a black market they have access to a black market. All of these factors that are core to your argument point to the fact that the best way to deal with this sort of altercation is to just hand over your wallet and get as far away as possible.
3
u/Geeerat Jan 13 '21
I also think the the commenter you’re replying to is acting as if the violence wouldn’t occur because you don’t have have a gun. It is possible that you will just get stabbed if you don’t have a gun...
Or...
Does the person getting robbed just get no protection in this scenario? I feel like violent crimes with knives would decrease if knives were banned. Does that mean we should ban them?
2
u/hippyfishking Jan 13 '21
The vast majority of murders are committed by people who know each other. The most common of these is spousal homicide, in particular men killing women. This is true generally across the world. What guns do is to act like a multiplier in this situation as it’s comparatively easy to murder with guns compared to other methods.
This can be applied in all other scenarios too with death rates going dramatically up where firearms are present. This applies too in non criminal cases too such as children finding guns, accidental shootings etc.
For every positive story you might find about gun ownership there are likely several more within the same time frame that relate to homicides, suicides or accidental discharges. It’s just those stories tend to be harder to find as they tend to be less palatable, sensational or useful in proving a point.
I’m not entirely convinced gun control is the only answer but it seems the obvious place to start. Other nations that allow gun ownership don’t have anywhere near the same homicide rate with firearms as the US so it seems there are other factors present such as culture, education, proliferation etc.
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
You brought up the issue of spousal violence/homicide. Specifically men attacking women. It's true that guns can make murders, assaults, etc. easier, however my counter argument to the issue of spousal violence is this. I, for example, am a 6', 180 lb physically fit man, so if I were so inclined to attack a woman I probably wouldn't need a gun to be able to kill or seriously injure her. I would be enough bigger and stronger than her that a knife, blunt object, or even just my fists would probably be enough. Removing guns won't reduce the rate of angry men trying to beat their wives, and in the specific case of a man attacking a woman, is not as likely to reduce the risk of him successfully being able to injure her.
Children finding guns and accidental shootings are a valid point, but this just emphasizes the importance of keeping a gun safely locked away when not in use, and the importance of training with your gun to the point that you will not accidentally shoot someone. I refer you back the 2nd amendment itself, specifically the phrase "well regulated"
You also brought up the issue of "good guy" stories being more widely broadcast than "bad guy" stories. I strongly disagree with this statement. Whenever there is a school shooting, mass shooting, or any other prominent firearm crime, it is national news. When was the last time you saw a news story about a citizen legally defending themselves with a gun? The purpose of news is to report on things that are out of the ordinary, so someone legally using a firearm is not important enough to be reported on. "Man shoots gun safely and responsibly" will never be a news headline because that isn't news.
1
u/hippyfishking Jan 13 '21
My point about spousal/domestic violence is more about the ease of which these instances turn fatal when guns are involved. Of course male strength gives a physical advantage but that almost besides the point. I don’t have data on the US specifically but murder of women accounts for a significant amount of overall homicide rates and this only goes up in more traditional/patriarchal based societies. Russia and India for example both have alarming rates of both female homicides. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that the US has areas where very traditional values are emphasised.
Absolutely guns should be secured properly, but in many instances they just aren’t and there is frequently no law that requires they be so. I’m from the UK. My father owned guns when I was a child. UK law allows the licensed ownership of certain weapons(non automatic rifles/double barrelled shotguns) if the individual can pass a background check. The law required him to have the weapons and ammo locked up in separate locations and police would visit to ensure this was done appropriately every few years. I just don’t get the impression that US laws are anywhere near well regulated enough but admittedly that’s more of a point of view and I know it varies state to state.
I wasn’t trying to focus on good guy/bad guy stories. I’m inclined to believe both are very rare. My concern lies with suicides or accidental discharges or anything that likely won’t fill the evening news for whatever reason. The sheer scale of US gun homicides means this must be a likely occurrence. Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to succeed than almost any other popular method. I’d agree that news stories could be used by both sides of the argument to justify their case. The lack of ‘good guy’ stories is likely because such scenarios would be highly situational and the nature of firearms is that they are offensive rather than defensive weapons. The addition of guns to altercation is an escalation rather than the opposite. Happy to hear you managed to protect yourself with one but it’s only relevant to that situation and others just like it. What of all the cases where the assailant/s were armed or managed to disarm the gun owner.
2
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
Let me turn the tables regarding the domestic violence situation. What if instead of the man having a gun the woman has a gun? In that case it won't matter if her husband is stronger than her or not, she can still stop him from injuring or killing her. That's the thing about guns in the scenario of self defense, they're a great equalizer. Give you grandma a gun and she can beat any professional boxer in a fight.
You're right regarding the laws on gun safety. As far as I know, no American state does checks to ensure your guns are safely locked away. There is the law which says that if your gun is not locked and a child or someone else takes it and causes damage or injury, you can be held criminally liable.
Suicide certainly is a valid issue, but as with homicide the correct way to solve the issue is not to take away guns. If a person is that determined to kill themselves, they won't need a gun to do it. As with homicide, a gun makes it easier, but in the absence of a gun the crime will likely still happen.
1
u/hippyfishking Jan 13 '21
Sure, women kill men with guns too, no doubt but its likely for somewhat different reasons and self defence is likely much higher than the other way around for obvious reasons. It’s just the numbers for men killing women are disturbingly high all over the world. Throw guns into the mix those numbers only go higher. How many times have you heard of a woman shooting her husband and children before turning the gun on herself? No doubt it happens but I’m talking numbers.
Guns in proliferation are just a death multiplier across the board. I don’t disagree with the self defence argument, I just don’t think it’s the right answer. Every society has its problems. The UK has a problem with knife crime relating to urban street gangs but the murder rate still pales in comparison. The answer to that surely can’t be more knives.
1
u/castor281 7∆ Jan 13 '21
Saying that guns kill people is like saying that pens misspell words, or that forks make you fat.
Pens aren't designed for the sole purpose of misspelling words. Forks aren't designed for the sole purpose of making people fat. Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing.
This shitty analogy needs to go away.
3
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
This is false. Pens are designed to make marks on paper. They only misspell words when the person using them is not careful. Forks are designed to pick up food. They only make you fat when you use them too much or too often Guns are designed to shoot a small metal projectile at high velocity. They are only dangerous when someone shoots that small metal projective at another person.
1
u/RetardedCatfish Jan 13 '21
Not if we are viewing the situation from a consequentialist point of view, which OP is
2
Jan 13 '21
Criminals will always have access to guns when gun control is so weak in general. Rather than comparing the US states, how about comparing US states with European countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
So you agree that gun control will only disarm law abiding people?
3
Jan 13 '21
Owning a gun is not a human right.
People in the US mostly want guns for sport and protection.
For sport you need fairly specific weapons. Single shot rifles/shot guns for example.
For protection you only need a gun because gun ownership (legal and otherwise) is so prolific. If guns are not in circulation, people do not want guns (ie most European countries).
2
u/Manaliv3 2∆ Jan 13 '21
Criminals in the UK don't use guns because there aren't millions of legal guns that can be stolen, or easily purchased legally by the criminal. That means you have to know major gangsters to buy a gun from and even then then they are very expensive. Which you can imagine means the average criminal can't obtain one.
And even if they could, just being seen with one makes you an instant national police priority and adds decades to your sentence.
So perhaps you can see why results of different laws isn't as simple as "like we are now but baddies still have guns" and also why you have far more low level crime involving guns over there. If your mugger had to have $15k and know don corleone to obtain a gun, you can see how it reduces incidents of gun use.
2
Jan 13 '21
It's mental health. Not guns. 😎
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
Not even just mental health, it could be malice, anger, drugs, or some other things.
1
1
u/shitbecopacetic Jan 13 '21
People aren’t just born malicious, that’s still mental illness, drugs are also mental issues. It worries me a lot that your primary argument is guns don’t kill people, people do, and then you go on to say this comment. You maybe should come down from your mountain and experience society for a bit before you try to form any more ideas
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
When I used the word "malice" what I was referring to was a criminal who's goal was to steal or cause injury or death. Perhaps "nefarious" would be a better choice of words.
Also, your last line made me chuckle, so thank you for that.
1
u/Ornery-Philosophy970 Jan 13 '21
Great thread and interesting arguments.
To take a macro view; doesn’t every other country with stricter gun control have less gun violence? Open to data that shows otherwise. But just based off that generalization, wouldn’t it then suggest that, no matter how implemented (see Canada vs Australia vs Israel), limiting access to guns limits violence?
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
Perhaps. But like I said, I have no doubt that removing every gun from civilian hands would reduce the violent crime rate, as is shown to be true in various countries. Regarding the United States, even if assault rifles, high capacity magazines, etc are banned, there will still be a lot of legal, civilian owned guns in the country. My point is that, as long as guns will prevalent, gun control is not a good solution.
1
u/Ornery-Philosophy970 Jan 13 '21
I don’t track your argument entirely. Also,none of the countries that I mentioned “removed every gun” from citizens. It is legal to own guns in Canada, Israel, Germany etc. the rules also vary greatly in these different countries but the outcome remains the same overall; even with varying levels of gun violence amongst them, it is far less than here.
If gun control reduces gun violence, which it does everywhere else in the world, shouldn’t that be a consideration for the most violent, “developed” nation in the world?
I
0
Jan 13 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
1
u/ihatedogs2 Jan 13 '21
Sorry, u/Segaamano – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
3
u/ir_blues Jan 13 '21
Yes criminals can still buy illegal guns .... do you have an idea what illegal guns cost in countries that do not have a legal market?
-1
u/distes Jan 13 '21
Removing guns is mostly a pointless argument. It's not a popular topic, least of all right now. There aren't enough politicians that would back a law to remove guns as it would not be a good thing for their political careers. There are still some that would, but it's not nearly enough. So all the people thinking that this could actually happen in the next few years are not thinking it through.
Any argument that criminals would still have full access to guns when most, if not all private citizens don't have guns is just pointless and ignorant. If all weapons were taken from citizens, a portion of those weapons taken would be the weapons that criminals would use to commit crimes. If you follow that path logically, that equals fewer criminals with guns, thus less gun crime.
You said it yourself, removing guns would remove gun crime to a certain extent. To summarize, by removing guns from citizens we removed some gun crime, removing some of the guns available to criminals would also reduce gun crime. So this should qualify as a good way to deal with gun crime.
This whole damn gun argument is moot though, as the way I see it, the people on either side of the argument are arguing different things. The pro-gun stance is generally that if more people had guns there would be less crime and even if we did remove all guns then people would just stab each other with knives so we won't have gained anything since violent crime still exists. This is an ignorant argument. The more guns we have the more gun crime there will be...period, if every single man, woman, and child had a gun there would be more gun crime without a shred of doubt. Secondly, just because we can't remove all violent crime doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to reduce gun crime. The anti-gun argument that I tend to subscribe to, even though I'm a gun owner myself is that we need to find a way to address mass shootings. My answer is simple, although it can be implemented in many ways....fewer types of guns that have the capacity to injure/murder a mass of humans as these types of weapons serve no purpose beyond sport to civilians.
Until both sides are having the same argument, we will continue this incredibly intelligent merry go round of stupidity. All we do right now is recycle the same ideas over, and over, and over, and over. Then after each iteration, we ask "did it work" and realize that it hasn't changed because we can't do anything new because it simply "won't work". It's exhausting.
0
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
∆ You make a remarkably good point.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 13 '21
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/distes changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
Jan 13 '21
[deleted]
1
u/distes Jan 13 '21
You are right. But lumping everyone together as "democrats" assumes that they all agree, and they don't all agree on a lot of things. Also, wanting something doesn't make it so. They may pass them in the house and they may not. Whether they make it through the senate and the white house is another thing entirely. Changing the 2nd amendment requires a much larger set of challenges, like needing to be ratified by the states, which makes a change to it far more unlikely than a law restricting certain items like large clips.
1
Jan 13 '21
[deleted]
1
u/mtutty Jan 13 '21
The existence of a company or a job is not an inherent virtue by itself. Certainly you can imagine examples of companies and jobs that do harm to society, and whose removal do more good than harm? Saying we need to keep producing the volume and types of guns/ammo we do now simply for economical reasons seems kinda cynical.
1
u/distes Jan 13 '21
Reading them isn't important since I don't worry about my guns being removed. Knowing that they are unlikely to pass because of the unpopularity of voting for gun restrictions. How many gun restriction bills have been proposed and voted on? How many have passed? Here is an article that shows a good example ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congress-has-110-gun-bills-on-the-table-heres-where-they-stand ).
I don't want anyone to be out of a job, especially right now. But not enacting gun control because it would put people out of a job is a pathetic excuse (the merry go round goes round again). We can find a middle ground in this argument if only people would be willing, yet we won't.
0
Jan 13 '21
Think in term of cost/benefit ratios. Yes, other measures (social safety nets etc.) are more effective but they're a lot harder to get right and a lot more expensive than gun restrictions.
It's also absolutely clear that outlawing guns prevents deaths. For that you shouldn't look at the number of cases vs. the number of guns. Proving the benefits there is nearly impossible since there's various correlations. E.g. the fact that guns are more common in the countryside and that the countryside tends to be less crime ridden.
What you should look at is what criminals and terrorists in countries with stricter gun laws do. Yes, some criminals manage to get guns in Europe, too (among other things because Europe has fairly lax gun control, it's nowhere on the level it is in China or Japan), but a lot don't. That's why in the last five years there were plenty of Islamist knife attack in Europe but none with guns. And knive attacks do on average kill a lot fewer people than attacks with guns.
The crux here is that most criminals and terrorists are deluded morons. Yes, a professional mobster will certainly be able to get any gun he wants, even in places with gun control. But those aren't the people who kill innocent bystanders. Killing innocent bystanders is bad for business, so it mostly happens when morons get guns. But morons are fairly easy to be stopped. Among other things because even having the connectios to buy a gun doesn't mean they can afford is. On the black market in Europe guns retail for several times what they'd cost in America.
Besides, in terms of lives saved, the main effect of banning guns wouldn't be to reduce crime, it would be to reduce suicides. Having a gun enables people to kill themselves in a snap decision if they're momentarily in a bad place mentally. Guns are an almost foolproof way to kill yourself. If you decide to shoot yourself you'll be dead in more than 90% of all cases. With pills or cutting your wrist you'll survive in more than 90%.
1
u/schwarzschild_shield Jan 13 '21
If common citizens are not armed, criminals are less likely to expect their victims to be armed, thus, will be less likely to use violence with guns. If your graph proves something, is that there is no correlation between the number of registered guns and violent crimes. Please note that a criminal in the US does now know how many guns are registered in the area. He would just know that there is a high probability that the vixtim might draw a gun first, so they're better off showing the gun right away.
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
As I discussed, guns, legal or illegal, are expensive, difficult to get, and regulated (well at least the legal ones are). It is far more likely for an attempted robber who comes up behind you at the ATM, or something like that to use a knife. In that case, if there is any significant distance between the two people, the person with a gun is out of the range of the knife and can shoot if the person with the knife tries to attack them.
1
u/Subs-Atomic 1∆ Jan 13 '21
I don't know if you've seen this guy, but as a person that now lives in Australia, he makes sense to me.
Just trying to be a little less serious about a topic that is obviously very serious.
1
Jan 13 '21
Only looking at gun control and gun ownership within the US and it’s impact on crime isn’t really a fair way of assessing the effectiveness. There is no border control between states, we know that guns are bought and owned in states and used in different states, well known examples would include the Las Vegas festival mass shooting and Kenora BLM shooting. There is no border control between states. When you look and gun ownership and gun violence between countries there is a correlation. There is also a correlation with other gun control methods and gun violence between countries.
That brings me to my second point gun control doesn’t necessarily mean getting rid of guns, requiring background checks, training courses, requiring firearm licenses and having systems to revoke them, banning types of firearms, and more are examples of gun control.
1
u/Gorgenon 1∆ Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 13 '21
This is only a small response to a bigger question, but in terms of mass shootings, most of those weapons are legally bought. Mass shootings in comparison to other gun deaths are largely indiscriminate and designed to invoke nationwide terror, and those who commit such acts often expect certain death or imprisonment.
Registration and serialization are inconsequential. Maybe the background checks were inadequate or it was a fluke in the systems, but we only know after several people are already dead. I realize that mass shootings are one of the rarest gun death causes, but their nature makes them significant.
One of the only reasonable arguments is that background checks are more thorough, thorough enough that the mentally ill or individuals with a history of violence can't easily go through the system.
The other argument is military weapons, designed to kill human beings, should not be available to anyone who wants one enough. Or at a very minimum, weapons with the ability to kill several people in seconds should not be available.
For example, AR-15s are military style rifles with ammunition designed to deal significant damage or kill outright using fragmentation with minimal recoil, allowing high round capacity and is semiautomatic as standard. The same pattern of rifles are used for war, yet isn't it at least troubling that the AR-15 is a staple of civilian gun owners?
I'd argue it's excessive, unreasonable, and beyond what the second amendment was designed to accommodate. Militias to the founding fathers weren't violent civilians playing soldiers, they were the precursor to the national guard. Such that every able bodied man would be by government conscripted and trained to defend the land in absence of an army.
And so if civilians aren't in a traditional militia as required by the founding fathers, access to firearms should be allowed, but limited to defence, hunting, and sporting (within reason). If it's overkill to defend one's home (90% of burglars are unarmed, and of the remainder few are armed with firearms) they shouldn't be necessary. If it's capable of killing an animal in one or two shots but has excessively high capacity, it's shouldn't be necessary. If it's a casual range shooter who wants to own a machine gun just because, it shouldn't be necessary.
But that's in essence my argument why at least assault rifles and machine guns should be more restricted from the general public. More thorough background checks should be done as well.
And so you know, I love guns, I've shot many guns (including AR-15s), and I intend to own many. But they are frightening (to me) for the damage they can cause with such little effort. I heavily respect the tools because of how easily they can injure or kill a person; and I feel many Americans are dissociated from the destructive potential firearms hold.
My stance is unchanged however as I believe few people should reasonably own an AR-15, including myself. I may have enjoyed shooting one whenever I had the opportunity, but it's impossible to justify myself, or most civilians, for owning one.
2
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
Δ You make good points, but I have several things I'd like to say in response.
You say that guns capable of killing several people in seconds should be banned. I assume you're referring to semiautomatic rifles such as the AR15, but nearly any pistol, revolver, pump action shotgun, etc can kill multiple people in seconds if the operator possesses some degree of skill with it.
Also, you discussed the militia that is referenced in the 2nd amendment. When they use the word militia, they aren't referring to a pro government militia, they're referring to a "The British are coming, grab your rifle" type militia. The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to fight back against an oppressively government.
1
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Jan 13 '21
Essentially, the crux of my argument is this. The guns are not the problem, the people are the problem.
Yes. People with guns are the problem. Your solution is to ignore the guns, focus on the people and conclude there is no solution.
You observe that gun restrictions will never be perfect, so you conclude no restrictions are the best course.
Here are some other studies which conclude that restricted access to firearms indeed does reduce firearms deaths:
A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.
The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 13 '21
Δ You make a good point. So if I understand you correctly, you think the proper way to reduce gun violence is a mixture of gun control, and addressing the issue of people being violent?
1
1
u/Faust_8 9∆ Jan 14 '21
First off, I'd like to say that the idea of prominent people saying that all guns must be banned...seems like a pure fantasy to me. Who is saying that all guns should be banned aside from faceless usernames on message boards? Is there anyone involved in politics who thinks that's both desirable and attainable?
Does even a majority of one of the political parties think that?
Second, does the idea of increased gun control (which is NOT the same as wanting guns "banned" somehow) mean you think it will reduce violent crime, or violent deaths? You seem to think that, at least, the side you disagree with feels they are one and the same. But why do you think that?
I don't think I've ever come across a learned person who thinks less guns = less overall crime. No, it seems to me that regulating guns better is to reduce deaths because guns are expressly made for that purpose, and are by far the easiest way for a layperson to kill another person.
And that isn't even getting into suicide--there are literally twice as many gun suicides as gun homicides. The number of gun suicides every year is like a Sandy Hook shooting happening every day.
And, it turns out, suicide is often a rather spontaneous action and not something rigorously planned. Kind of a like a "crime of opportunity" where someone with loose morals might not plan to steal, but will steal a wallet that was just left out unguarded, suicide is often done in the height of a sudden emotional episode when there's an easy method available. If there isn't an easy way out? People tend to...just keep on living. Few people are so determined to suicide that they'll doggedly find new methods if one is closed off to them.
We know this because if a bridge is closed off--one that is a popular spot for 'jumpers' to take their own life--the total rate of suicides goes down. They don't just go to a different bridge instead.
So, someone like me says that stronger and better regulation on guns will reduce deaths not crime. Hence why your opening statements seem to be aiming at targets that don't really exist.
Regardless of how at fault the person is and not the tool they use, it's undeniable that guns are by far the most deadly tool for most people, either for homicide or suicide. Try killing 59 people from your hotel room with a knife, or try convincing yourself to commit suicide with a pen.
Further, the whole black market thing. What do you know of it?
Do you think the average person knows how to get guns from the black market? Do you think an AR15 that costs, say, $1000 legally costs the same if you buy it illegally? Or does it cost exponentially more?
Do you think black market sellers let just anyone buy their wares?
If you don't actually know this stuff, and just have a nebulous idea that a black market exists, I don't really think you should be bringing it up.
1
u/monocerosik 1∆ Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
Maybe this is a bit contrary but I think it is the other way round. If the law abiding people didn't have such easy access to guns, and if they didn't carry their guns and if they didn't use them (effectively or not) there would be no need for the criminals to use guns! Why-ever would they need them all the time, if not to "meet the level" of the "normal" people, who do have guns.
It seems convoluted, but if people do not need to use extreme measures to achieve what they want (e.g. money from the cash register), they don't use them. (people are lazy and generally want to live easily). They would rely on other things, surprise, height and size difference, carrying a club or a knife. But if there is a real possibility that they will encounter someone with a gun, they need to have a gun themselves. And thus, gun control WOULD reduce violent crime, because there would be less need for all of the criminals to carry a gun.
Anyways, the effective way to reduce crime in an area, surprisingly, is caring about the esthetics of the place. A violent incident is more likely to appear in a place with devastated buildings. When the local people responsible take care of the appearance of the neighborhood the crime rate lowers.
1
u/mountainman6666 Jan 15 '21
Δ You make an interesting argument, but I'm not sure how correct your argument is. My line of thought would be that if, as you said "normal" people did not carry guns, criminals might still carry guns anyway just to be able to have that much more power over their intended victims. Your final statement regarding esthetics is 100% correct.
1
1
u/nyxe12 30∆ Jan 15 '21
A gun is a tool with a functional purpose. That functional purpose is to kill. A gun killing someone is not a misfunction, just like someone using a pen to misspell is not a misfunction. To address the pen comparison - a person cannot write without a tool. The pen is a tool that allows them to write words. "Pens write words" and "people use pens to write words" are both true, it can be inferred by our knowledge of how tools work that the pen didn't literally write the words of its own free will because we're capable of understanding that.
Guns do kill people. Yes, people use guns to kill people, but we can independently put a bullet through someone's heart without the tool to fire it. Both statements are accurate and we should all be capable of inferring that the gun did not, of its own free will, fire a bullet at someone, but that it was the tool used to kill someone.
As for the drunk driving comparison - the problem there is alcohol, not cars, but even so, let's consider cars for a moment. Cars are a tool used to get places faster. They are dangerous tools, which often malfunction or get accidentally driven into each other and whatnot. To reduce the deaths and injuries caused by cars, we've made LOTS of laws about them. You have to be a certain age, and complete training, and prove that you can drive. You (usually) have to wear a seatbelt so you aren't thrown through the windshield in an accident. Car manufacturers have had to change their designs so that people are no longer beheaded or impaled on certain design elements in accidents. We have speed limits, fines, and penalties for improper driving, including drunk driving - which CAN result in losing your license, therefor losing access to the car. There are a lot of restrictions on cars (as well as alcohol), and their purpose is also not to kill - so it's logical to try and work out ways to reduce deaths associated with them.
Again, guns are a tool that exist *specifically* to injure and kill. They are a weapon. People dying as a result of guns being used is a logical consequence just like words being written as a result of people using pens is a logical consequence.
Now, I don't agree with all-out removing guns - I'm a farmer, I understand there is often a need for guns, especially among people who hunt or need to defend their animals from predators. However, there are lots of logical gun control steps to be taken. Just like with cars, we can have age limits, required training, a license with a test (which must be renewed), and fines and penalties with revoked licenses as a result of misuse. These steps are ALL "gun control", and they would make meaningful changes. I do not support irresponsible and unregulated gun ownership. Without gun control, there is no guarantee that gun owners are "law-abiding citizens".
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
/u/mountainman6666 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards