Now isn't gun control ALSO about "punishment" for misusing them" ? Doesn't do much good to the victim though.
No americans defend 100% gunless america from what I understand... but less guns and more regulations might help make it harder for people bent on killling getting guns. The NRA doesn't permit even good and productive gun control.True, which is why protection using a gun is an issue for many Americans - so they can do some good for themselves without being killed.
They might, if they worked. Of course, the thousands of regulations currently in place don’t seem to work terribly well, and so it is going to be difficult to show that 20,000 regulations won’t work, but 20,001 will do the trick.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
And violent things get solved the simple way. Bang bang! 
The NRA supports lots of gun control in the form of supporting many current regulations. Some gun owners don’t have anything to do with them because they do. Some gun owners do in spite of it. And some gun owners actually agree with them.
I would point out that gun control is a civil rights violation so that even good gun control (if there is such a thing) is essentially a violation of inherent human right.
To cainxinth:
I rather seriously doubt that there are many places, if any, in the United States where “almost everyone” carries a gun. Unless, of course, it’s an inner-city crack house, in which case they can hardly be described as crime free. Is this sentence of your own hypebolic construction, or are you quoting it verbatim? If it’s verbatim, then your interlocutors are misleading you. If it’s your paraphrase, then you are constructing a strawman.
Ah yes, the old Wild West comparison. You are aware that the “Wild West” as portrayed in the many movies and books never actually existed, aren’t you? Oh, the guns were there all right, but Dodge City is largely a myth. So, yeah, some gun owners do advocate a return to the “wild west,” since that was a time when people were free to legally carry their firearms, concealed or unconcealed, and there was little, if any, documentable crime and violence attributable to that.
Have you not already stipulated that the cure—a fully armed populace—has no negative effects on society? Why are you now trying to change the argument?
And frankly, your cheap shots at gun owners and gun rights advocates are most unwelcome in a GD thread. You have made several references to their mental stability. These are ad hominem attacks and have no place here.
To Rashak Mani:
Then you understand mistakenly. Many of the “gun control” proponents in the forefront of the debate have said explicitly that they wish to completely disarm the general populace. They wish only the police and the military to possess guns.
In a way the reason doensn’t make any difference. the BOR could and should be reason enough. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
as for crime prevention, put yourself in the shoes of the criminal - house A has an NRA sticker up, house B doesn’t.
i always have a gun either at my property. if i were in japan i would have my sword, if i were in starwars i’d have my lightsaber - it’s just common sense to me.
as for the question
probably not many people, but this is our world and we have to deal with it. no, there aren’t guns in heaven, that doesn’t mean they don’t serve a purpose on earth.
we can’t uninvent things.
(sorry for the double post)
Ah, I thought so. No, if you follow your own hypothetical you said that crime would actually go down. If that happens, why would anyone “fear for their life and property”? Wouldn’t those things still be crimes? Did you mean to add a qualifier that crime would only go down for people who carry guns? Or did you mean to add a qualifier that gun violence would increase while crime decreased?
Cainxinth: by the logical constraints that you have placed on the debate, that:
A. Universal (or near universal) carry (concealed or open?) was permissable, and that
B. such conditions led to a drastic reduction in violent crimes (I’m assuming rapes, muggings, B & E, etc,.) then I would suppose that most people would be content.
There will always be hoplophobes who do not like guns under any circumstance, who I imagine will decry your “armed populace” society regardless of the benefits you postulate.
I would guess that even if near universal carry (concealed or open) were allowed, there would still be those who did not carry due to “personal comfort levels” with firearms, even if they have no specific or general reservations about other people carrying them prevalently. I do not see a problem with these people in this construct. A “right,” or perhaps a very expansive privelege (which universal concealed or open carry would likely be) does not by definition have to be exercised by everyone. Do you have to vote? Do you have to exercise free speech?
In that regard, your construct may already closely model some places with liberalized concealed or open carry laws.
Since most of those places are exceedingly rural, and had very low violent crime rates to begin with, I would say (educated guess) that the connection between concealed carry and reduced crime rates in those areas is dubious, at best.
When the cure causes more problems than it solves. Isn’t that obvious? Your hypothetical posits that crime would go down. However, you do not propose what problems would be caused by people carring guns. Are you trying to say that people would be afraid for their lives simply because other had guns? Even though the rates of murder and robbery would drastically fall? Seriously, can you cite a few things which would be bad in your hypothetical? I’m haveing a bit of a problem working in it because it is your hypothetical.
But this is clearly an example where more people would be dying or in fear of their lives from such a policy. Your hypothetical said to ignore the possiblity that crime might not be reduced?
But you are doing so without even a hint at what you think would be worse. Are you saying that you are afraid of guns in the abstract to the point that their mere presence is worse than crime?
Well I agree with this. However, to be fair, you did not ask for this sort of information. You specifically asked for this part of the debate to be considered solved.
Well, I suppose some do. But I’m not sure there is any evidence of that in this thread.
It occured to me a soon as I hit “Submit Reply” that my post is U.S.-centric, and my response was geared towards a near-universally armed United States. Cultural consideration in other countries may very well lead to different outcomes which I could only guess at less accurately than for the U.S.A.
This is sort of a hijack, but didn’t (the actual) Dodge City have some pretty draconian gun control laws?
You mean all we have to do is eliminate poverty, educate everyone and eliminate people’s desire to abuse drugs? Gee, if the gun advocates knew it was that easy to eliminate crime, I’m sure they’d change their minds.
Captain Amazing:
From what I’ve read of the “Wild West,” the real “hot spots” were boom-towns; that is, mining towns and “cow towns,” which would include Dodge City during the cattle drives.
Dodge didn’t have a large full-time police force; they hired extra peace officers (Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Frank McClain, etc.,) during the cattle drives when prairie-crazed cowboys with pockets full of money and guns on their hips hit civilization for the first time in months. Similar towns could be found across the west here-and-there, but were hardly representative of the “normal western town” of the 19th century.
Places like Lincoln County, New Mexico, are another example of a pre-eminient, notable place that was hardly typical of the west. These places have elevated places in our cultural consciousness precisely because they were the aberration, not the norm. Which is why mass-shooting like Charles Whitman in Austin, TX, and Colombine are indelibly etched upon our minds: they are aberrations.
The “draconian” gun control laws instituted in such places were, in my opinion, an extreme measure undertaken to get a handle on a situation that was verging upon “out-of-control.” I doubt (but cannot say for certain) that these harsh measures were applied to the normal, good citizens of Dodge City in the interem between cattle drives, or to people who were merely “passing through” during the down times.
You’ve actually proven my point. Some solutions aren’t IDEAL or even particularly palatable. The second paragraph of your response is complete subjective pablum.
You immediately equated some security and surveillance laws with a 1984-ish hell. That’s even worse than the Second Amendment advocates who fear a compelte gun ban in the US. (Why worse? Because, IMHO, because there are far more gun control advocates who want to completely ban guns than there are proponents of increased “anti-crime” or “anti-terrorist” laws that actually want mind control or a thought police.)
The other potential solutions (education, et al) could also be used to reduce unacceptable gun violence. If you find civilian gun ownership repugnant or icky in any way, shape or form, there’s no point in trying to argue logically about it. I’m not checking this thread again. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s someone who isn’t willing to consider ALL the options, if only briefly.
What is more effective than making the criminals fear their potential victims? Cops are ineffective because no matter how many you put on the beat, they can’t be everywhere at once. Gun control is ineffective because it removes guns from law-abiding citizens who legally procure firearms, not criminals who by them off the street from the back of an unmarked van.
Having some dumb banger think twice about knocking over someone on the subway because several people could be carrying several large handguns seems to be the only way to combat random street crime.
Jess
I also said that if we screened people for dissention and killed anyone who blinked at the screener crime would go down. I suppose the point you have missed is that a world where crime is held at bay by proliferation of guns would be A. bloody, and B. barbarous.
Oh that’s a good one. What part of “cold, dead hand,” don’t you understand?
Stripey: Welcome to The Straight Dope! You’re the kind of person who gives intelligent opponents of gun control a bad name.
Uhm…reducing the number of people who view criminal pursuits as a viable source of income through education and viable economic opportunities?
Fair enough.
Still with you.
And the guns in the back of the unmarked van appear there…how? Magic? Invisible Pink Unicorns? The Gun Faerie?
No, it is not the only way. But until a better way (or ways) is thunk up by the politicians, it is certainly viewed by many as a viable way. But by no means the only way.
Us pro-gunners need to wise up to the fact that there are some viable “loopholes” in the American gun system through which the wrong people are getting guns (and I ain’t talking about “gun shows”).
Gun controllers need to wise up to the fact that individual gun ownership is a right separate from any “sporting purpose” and stop with the lamebrained incremental gun control schemes aimed at total bans.
Two mistakes here. Each of them equally fatal to your position.
First, if people are shooting each other at a rate where the appelations “bloody” & “barbarous” would apply, I would think it obvious that crime isn’t being held at bay. Surely you don’t intend that along with arming the majority of the populace, shooting people over random disputes would also become legal. That’s the corner you’ve painted yourself into with that quoted statement.
Second, you have committed yet another logical fallacy, this one is called “begging the question,” or in the Latin, petitio principii. You have taken to be true something that is yet to be proven. That being, that the scenario you describe would indeed be bloody and barbarous. This is not proven and cannot be taken as a given. You have presented it as a fact, and it cannot be considered such yet—especially in the light of your previous stipulation.
In fact, this entire thread, right from the OP seems to be predicated on, or at least edging towards, that unproven assumption. And once again I ask, did you not stipulate, for the purposes of this debate, that there would be no unpleasant social fallout or overly much violent crime falling from a largely armed populace? I’m very certain you did exactly that with your second post in this thread. If it means something other than what it appears to mean, please explain. Here’s the stipulation I’m speaking of:
Why then, are you arguing things outside of the parameters that you specified at the outset? Are the boundaries you drew now inoperative? Why are you changing the debate?
cainxinth’s OP goes a long way to explain the mentality of many gun control folks.
He/she is still rabidly anti-gun, even when using a scenario where there is no crime because of the guns everyone is carrying.
Some people just don’t like guns for purely emotional reasons. I really can’t explain the mentality.
Most gun control debates rage around the concepts of are guns the cause of crime or are they preventers of crime. Are we safer as a society with more or less gun laws?
However, cainxinth’s post clearly shows us that there are anti-gunners out there who don’t care about these facts at all. Even if we assume that all crime is stopped due to guns, they are still against it for some reason.