Mr. Rob said:
Nonetheless I still am pro gun rights mostly out of selfishness and don't really care about the overall death toll as long as I know I'm safe. Being a law abiding citizen these days I would feel endangered if I didn't have the choice to legally carry a gun around to protect myself if I did end up in a bad situation with someone who was not a law abiding citizen. In other words I don't want to put myself at a greater risk (not having a gun for protection) in an effort to put everyone else at a lesser risk of getting violently hurt (with adopted gun control).
Haha, I respect this opinion Rob! At least in this case, you're acknowledging the trade off of death toll vs. safety, so that's an argument that's purely based on preference rather than potential outcomes. To be fair, I was mostly pro-gun by default growing up because I lived in a conservative household, but I've also never owned a gun, and I had never really thought deeply about this topic until the last year or so. I've arrived at so many answers for other things in my life that I decided I wanted to arrive at an answer for this as well.
I've gathered plenty of information on this topic and spent a lot of introspective time reflecting on it (as well as future outcomes) based on keeping things the way they are or changing them. And this is the conclusion I've come to... unless of course someone on this thread can present some new information that would completely blow my mind and change my perspective!
Regal Tiger said:
Not necessarily, you can look up just about anything on the internet nowadays. If people didn't have access to guns how many would go for something else, like bombs?
This is a question where I always try to go back to where I was when I was in high school. I wanted to cause serious damage. Gun was easier to get, yes, but if it wasn't available I would have learned how to build a bomb.
This argument still falls within my "mitigation but not deterrence" argument scope. Technically, you could have just said to me, "well if I wanted to shoot people, I would just MAKE a gun." Well, okay! If you're so determined to shoot people that you're willing to spend hours learning how to manufacture your own gun in your own household (without being discovered by friends, family or police, mind you), then nothing is going to stop you from doing so. And maybe you'll get the job done and shoot up a high school.
But not every person who has owned a gun and killed someone has that kind of determination or intelligence. You're taking your individual determination and thoughts and overlaying them onto others. There are plenty of less-capable people out there who have killed a person with a gun, and had they not been able to purchase a gun in the first place, they wouldn't have the know-how to create a "bomb" or "gun" from scratch. If they were determined to do harm, they would likely do so in a route that would be more difficult to cause mass damage. So in that scenario, it's still a case of "mitigation" instead of "deterrence" since we have now prevented multiple extra deaths.
There's also the argument that guns have been around since the inception of the country and yet we didn't have as many mass shootings as we do today. That means that guns aren't the problem in my mind.
We also have a bigger population, more access to guns (many of which are automatic, which didn't exist many years ago), a much larger political divide, and plenty of internal conflict. Comparing certain aspects of the past to the present doesn't necessarily alleviate the problems of today. This was evident in my first example about the American Revolution: if you owned a musket back then, you were on equal footing with the military. Owning an assault rifle today does not put you on equal footing with a tank, or a missle, or a jet fighter.
Keep in mind though that I'm only talking about mass shootings as I believe that cracking down on guns will only help the organized/underground criminal world, which includes gangs. As I pointed out, I don't believe it's possible to stop people from smuggling guns into the country, which is where their guns come from. They're unmarked and already illegal. Stopping legal guns does nothing to them except create more possible victims. So again, I don't think they count in my arguments at all and aren't worth considering.
This is a reasonable argument. Gangs are already committing illegal activities regularly, so adding one more "illegal" activity to their list (purchasing illegal guns) isn't going to change much for them. That being said, outlawing guns in the United States would obviously hurt gun manufacturers and cause many of them to close down, lowering the amount of total guns available to the black market (which is where gangs are getting their guns from). So while gangs would still go for guns, there would be less of them in total, and it would reduce the number of gangs with access to guns.
Last note; I can't find that documentary about the guns. It was on Netflix and couldn't find anything about it. But one last Google did turn up this lovely little article:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/ ... t-scandal/
That article is about something I hadn't heard about before just a few minutes ago; Operation Fast and Furious. Apparently our Government had the beautiful idea to give guns to dangerous people so that they could track them. As usual they fucked it up gloriously. Our Government, the same government you want to round up all of our guns, is directly responsible for killing a lot of Mexican people.
This was just a terrible idea from the beginning, haha!
Bran D said:
A valid point especially when you look at the homicide by weapons statistics in the USA, however, it leads to an interesting point. Hand guns have a significantly higher rate of homicide than any other weapon, gun or not. For example, for the ~11,900 komicides in 2014 in he US, over 5,500 were committed by hand guns. Rifle of any kind, shotguns, and "other guns", were responsible for only ~600. Knives and blunt objects (the group "bats" fit into) on the other hand, were responsible for ~2,000. Personal weapons (hands, feet, knees, etc.) were responsible for 660. What we gain from this is 1) Hand guns are used most frequently, and 2) more people are being kneed to death than are being killed with other guns types, and way more people are being stabbed or bludgeoned. Hence, when considering actual statistics, your logic should read. "Less handguns is going to result in less overall deaths simply because knives and bats are not going to be able to do as much damage". From this we can gather that if the government removed all handguns, there would be less deaths. However, because handguns are no longer available, it is reasonable to believe that other guns homicide rates will increase to compensate. Hence, these should be banned as well. Thus far you argument seems reasonable, but you fail to into account that gun aren't killing more people because they are particularly deadly, but rather that people are using the most effective weapons to kill people enmass. This is sad, because your otherwise good point is undermined by the fact that cars are also a good weapon for killing embassies like you stated, which will lead to they're eventual ban, and since soap can easy be fashioned into a deadly bomb, that needs to go as well (there are tons of other examples of things as well). Hence, while I agree that regressing to an age where everyone had to walk around, and smelt really bad would reduce the risks, I personally am okay with living with the risks, and still have my car and soap.
Haha, this is obviously a good point and similar to the argument Regal Tiger made above saying, "if I didn't have a gun, I'd just make a bomb."
It's still a mitigation tactic to remove guns. Guns are built
specifically for the purpose of killing quickly and doing so accurately and efficiently. They serve no other purpose. Cars are for transportation. Soap is to wash your hands. Your ironer in your closet is for ironing your clothes.
Can all of these things be used to commit murder? Of course. But none of them can do it nearly as easily and effectively as a gun can. And most of the other methods require a degree of knowledge or skill as well as weak or unaware opponents to actually inflict any serious levels of harm.
I want to remove objects that make killing
easier. This is exactly what assault rifles do. This is exactly why a shooter was able to sit safely in a hotel room in Las Vegas and gun down 50+ people without any immediate way to prevent that level of damage.
Mitigation, mitigation, mitigation.
This is why the left-wing can never win their stance against the right-wing when it comes to weapons. Their stance is always, "if there's a death, then it's a problem." Logically, you cannot prevent all deaths from those who are out to seek violence and murder. But you
can lower the total death toll by giving citizens less access to the means by which they can commit more extreme crimes.
Yes, but those in favor of using the 2nd Amendment to support their views, come from the position that they would not fold as easily as you in the situation, and would either have to be forcibly capture and detained/killed, or the would die protecting the country from the authorian government. Personally, I think the majority are full of it, and I'm sure many would end up just submitting and living begrudgingly under the dictator's rule, however, until that time comes, if it comes, we will just have to take their word that they will live up to their spoken ideals. Hence, if they will continue to attack with such masses, the dictator would be force to either spend time and resources removing the threat slowly (unwise as this leaves him open to attacks from outside the US, thworting his plan) or use the weapons you mentioned. (Of course, in reality he would many more options, but without the specific detail, hence without it actually happening, any further conjecture into possible courses of action is futile at best)
This is all correct.
Unfortunately, I always fall on the side of "realism" over "idealism", and I have a very high understanding of people and how they act in given situations, so I don't trust the second amendment believers to actually do the "noble" thing and fight to the death with the military when their family members' lives are at stake. Most people will do what is necessary to protect their own life and the lives of their family members, including submitting to the rule of an authoritarian figure who obviously has complete power over them in a situation where resistance is ultimately futile.
I'm on my way to work now, and it took me ages to find it on google the first time (I, like yourself, had also investigated this question on gun control prior to this thread's creation) For now, I'll link you to the video that I first was made aware that this study existed:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ZAj7K3R_g , and I'll try to find the study again and post a link tomorrow morning. Although I agree with you logic, that the study is largely an exercise in conjecture, as defection is impossible to calculate accurately,
I'll take a look at this when I get a chance! I'm genuinely curious how this study was conducted and what results they came to. Thanks for sharing.
At the time of Hitler's reign, many Germans supported his cause, and yet it is only common sense that the Jews and other sects would see this as tyranny; in such a way as justifying treason and turning arms on Hilter and his men. The complete population being against the government ideals does not dictate if it is an authoritarian government at the time, nor the viablity of those examples. The fact is, should a dictator rise to power, especially in our current governmental system, a large group of the population would probably support him.
In this scenario, Hitler was only authoritarian to Jews, and he was a "leader" to Germans. Keep in mind authoritarian is ultimately a subjective term as there is no "factual" way to define a man as authoritarian other than by the opinion of others. So to Germans, there was no foul play here. To Jews, Hitler was as evil as it gets.
Now, if your suggesting that through popular opinion these actions were not morally wrong, then that is a point that can be discussed, but would detract from the purpose of this thread. (I won't join y'all on that one though, because debating on morals is generally useless, since morals are subjective)
Correct -- this would come down to the subject of morality, which is subjective in and of itself, and not worth discussing for this debate.
That is a wise goal, and one I wish more people would truly take. Seeming that we will never prevent all death (at least in the foreseeable future) I agree we should take action to mitigate it as much as we can. However, remember, only 11,208 homicides annually from guns? Well, 2,626,418 people die each year in the US alone, making violent guns crimes -mass shootings, premeditated homicide, all of it- responsible for 0.00426% of America's annual death toll. This means in a 1st world country where anti-biotics are not in short demand, more people are dying of septicemia than guns! Now, if you personally have a problem with guns for some emotional reason, I can at least understand why you would support their banishment.
This is an extremely valid point, and it's where I'll get to the most selfish part of my argument:
while you can argue that the death toll increase is relatively irrelevant in terms of total deaths, it's the randomness of which individuals that are involved that disturbs me the most.
I can walk outside in one of the safest places in San Diego, today, and one shooter could immediately end my life. Many other lives that would have otherwise been fine have also ended this way (i.e. the shooter in Santa Barbara).
While you are obviously taking a higher risk of being a victim of violence by living in poverty-stricken areas, I would like to think that my own personal safety isn't at risk when I choose to live somewhere where gun violence is almost non-existent. However, as has been shown by many of these shootings,
nowhere is really safe. And while I don't live in constant paranoia of getting shot, it does bother me that it's something I have to even worry about at all, and it bothers me that other people (and parents) have had to suffer simply because an individual had access to a gun for violence rather than some less extensive means. Had that individual not had access to a gun, maybe he would have done something else instead, and only 1 or 2 lives were lost instead of 10-20.
This still falls within mitigation. The left-wing's argument is that "every life matters" and the right-wing's argument is that "civil rights matter." I have already (relatively) proven here that "not every life can be saved" and that "civil rights don't guarantee a pleasant future." Both arguments have flaws, so I'm looking to address the flaws on both sides in a way that essentially results in best outcomes for everyone.
However, if you are taking this from a non-emotional, logical view point, the time, resources, and mental brainpower that is being used to protest current gun control is obviously not being wisely spent, if the true intitention is to mitigate the loss of human lifes. They could be spent elsewhere; to cure cancer, heart disease, even the common cold kills more people! Heck, if mitigation is truly something you value, I would suggest protesting legal abortion, as over 652,600 are preformed in the US annually. At the end of the day, while it is a pity those 11,208 go, it is foolish to fight among ourselves (I mean as a nation, not here where we are simply discussing views) over something so minimal when we could be preventing so much more lose of life!
This is fair to say! In terms of resource allocation, if "gun control" resource allocation is doing less to save lives than, say, "cancer cure" resource allocation, then obviously resources must be allocated appropriately. But I think the goal for "gun control" should remain the same as "cure cancer," which is to save lives.
Hekky,
Hector Castillo said:
but it's the freedom to have that protection which is important. Consequentialist paradigms are in direct violation of the Constitution's spirit. The constitution was created to protect "God-given rights," and we've decided on quite a few of those.
Right, but by making the claim that we need to remove guns from citizens, I'm already critiquing the Constitution anyway. Essentially, I am rejecting an aspect of the Constitution as being "da wae" (the right way) for things to be done. So while our
founding fathers decided on a few of those, they certainly weren't
my way of doing these things. I was simply born into the situation!
Even if having more guns DID increase violence, it won't change humanity's capacity violence and we would still kill each other by other means. Whether or not there's a net increase in safety if there are strict gun-laws is irrelevant.
Ok, but this is subjective, is it not? It's irrelevant to
you but it's not irrelevant to
me and it's
definitely not irrelevant to left-wingers, lol.
I see a future with a net increase in safety with near-zero drawbacks... so to me, that's extremely relevant. I'm always for optimizing systems, and I see a way to optimize the current system.
So, self-evident rights > any safety concerns.
Again, subjective, and also not taking things on a case-by-case basis. This is another thing right-wingers like to argue: if I'm against owning guns, somehow I'm against ALL civil rights. This is
not the case! I am simply against
this individual case of "rights" bestowed upon us by the Constitution. After much deliberation, I have decided that this particular right has done our population more harm than good, and I have also decided that this particular right will not serve the purpose that it was supposedly established for. In the United States of America version 2.0, I would remove this right from the Constitution 2.0.
As for protecting ourselves from a tyrranical government. Well, an assault rifle might help me defend myself against a squad of soldiers armed to the teeth, and even if I might lose, that resistance would cause concern for the oppressive government, if it ever came to it. We'd lose, sure, but it's still worth it to have the extra fight.
Again, subjective.
As I mentioned above, with most people, the lives of family members will matter more than the "noble fight" itself. So a man armed with a gun would be more likely to surrender to protect not only his own life but the lives of his loved ones. He might even be put under duress and forced to fight for the
opposing side to prevent their deaths, and in that scenario, we've just added another "gun wielder" to the enemy side.
My point behind this is that there's really no telling what circumstances would arise with the millions of variables at play, including the behavior of citizens with weapons. So the trade we are currently making is this:
guaranteed additional deaths of the lives of innocent people today for the (very large)
gamble that citizens owning firearms will somehow have a positive effect tomorrow should a tyrannical government arise.
I'm not taking that gamble. Protect more innocent lives today.
(EDIT: Also, don't build a "flawed" government and then attempt to band-aid it with things like, "well if our system fails, at least we have guns to fight it out!"
Instead, find the flaws in the system so that you can correct them and never end up in that situation in the first place. That was the initial goal of the founding fathers, was it not? Build the ideal government? Or at the very least, get as close to it as possible. So let's try to get closer to that.)
Also, improved technology doesn't secure the victory. Iraq and Afghanistan is a stalemate, even if we outgunned them. Urban warfare can cause trouble for the invader unless the invader is willing to MOAB an entire neighborhood. ISIS did get quickly wiped out when we loosened the terms of engagement, but an oppressive government wouldn't have a lot of people to oppress if they carpet bombed them. Mutually assured destruction...or in this case, mutually ensured lack of governance. We fight them, kill large amounts of soldiers, and they lose their sheep by murdering them all. Or, alternatively, "we the people" win.
A good point, and one that Bran D essentially made above.
The oppressive government would cause enough death and destruction to achieve their goal. If they aren't willing to kill anyone, then it doesn't sound like much of an oppressive government, right? I'm not scared of an "oppressive" government that apparently does not want to commit violence.
My guess, as I mentioned earlier, is that an oppressive government would kill enough people (both innocent and otherwise) to make the enemy surrender. If the citizens continue to fight back, then so will the oppressive government. So in either case, we either get a big "L" for "Loss" when we surrender, or we get something closer to mutually-assured destruction in which both sides suffer innumerable casualties. Neither sounds too good for me.
Thus, via the Constitution and my tyrannical government argument (if we lose so be it, but we still put up a good fight and probably deter a fight in the first place by being so willing to sacrifice everything), moar guns = moar guud.
Thus, via the argument of the Constitution being flawed and the tyrannical government still causing the same amount of harm, moar guns = moar deaths. =P
- Franco
:origin()/pre08/ae1a/th/pre/f/2010/238/4/0/not_nuff_dakka_by_revampednight.jpg)
