A really simple question for opponents of gun control

Great Debates
41

I’m from the UK, and i fiercely support gun control here. Indeed if i had my way i would probably outright ban all guns altogether, and institute punitive custodial sentences for gun possession.

My reasoning is 1) makes it less likely that non crime incidents (arguments etc) will lead to death or serious injury and 2) makes it less likely that criminals will own guns, and even if they are armed it makes acts of crime less likely to result in death or serious injury (although the likelihood of that crime being successful is raised).

However i don’t think gun control can work in the US. Its just too late for you guys, simply because they are so many guns in circulation already. Even if you banned guns tomorrow there are so many around that any criminal who wanted one could have one. Given that law abiding citizens aren’t armed, crime would be very easy. Given that, that would be a lot of criminals and a lot of crime. This would just totally overwhelm the police, making crime even easier, leading to more crime in a terrible downward spiral. The benefits (lower % of crimes resulting in injury) would be completely outweighed by the increase in crime.

So unless you can wave a magic wand and make almost every gun in the US disappear, there’s probably not much point banning guns.

42

I think this thread is displaying something quite revealing about the opponents of gun control as well. I’ve offered that there are other ways to fight crime other than just increasing gun ownership, but apparently it has fallen on deaf ears. You would prefer if everyone carried a deadly weapon on them at all times rather than pursue alternative courses? I am repulsed by a tool of death and you are infatuated with it, and I’m the foolish one?

Even if guns stopped all crime, which they most certainly wouldn’t, I would still oppose them, because I wouldn’t want to live in a constant state of interpersonal détente in self imposed police state.

43

I’m following the premise of your thread. You set up the premise, and now you object to it?

I’ve posted nothing here which would indicate I’m infatuate by “tools of death”. Are you referring to something I said elsewhere or are you just making things up about me?

I’d love it if you could explain this statement so that it makes any sense.

First of all, forget about arguing that guns wouldn’t stop all crime. You already set up the premise, now you’re stuck with it. That argument isn’t the point anymore.

What is a a constant state of interpersonal détente in self imposed police state.? Can you rephrase this?

Your position that even if guns stopped all crime, you would still oppose them is absurd. It proves that you don’t care about actual facts and are simply opposed to guns (or “tools of death” as you call them) for emotional reasons.

44

The crux of my premise was merely that a fully armed society would be devoid of crime; it was a premise that I don’t personally agree with, but which I stated in the OP was told to me by a gun lover, and which I repeated to point out the absurdity of living contentedly in a world where everyone has a gun, and a sword of damocles is hanging over our heads at all times. I never precluded means of fighting crime without guns, and in fact, very early on in this thread I pointed out several far more desirable options. The gun lovers chose to discount them, and go for Guntown, USA instead. Due, I presume, to some sort of emotional infatuation, the yang to my yin.

As for the interpersonal détente remark, I think it’s rather apt allusion to cold war nuclear policy. The superpowers had their “guns” pointed at each other at all times. Their populations lived under constant threat to ensure their safety.

45

cainxinth, if I may help for a minute, you have not articluated very clearly why you would object to a society where many people carried guns and the crime rate fell to nill. Look at it another way. If the crime rate truly was nil, that is, if your children could grow up in a world where they were virtually guranteed not to be the victims of any crime, what exactly is your objection to people carring a certian piece of hardware on them?

I suspect that you have some ideas of how guns would have to be used to reduce crime. People shooting criminals or that sort of thing. But I’m not sure. All you have said is that you don’t like guns, and an armed society would be the worst possible sort of society.

Remember for a moment:

  1. being shot by someone other than in demonstrable self defence would still be a crime. So, if there is no crime you would not have to worry about being randomly shot. Nor would you have to worry about being shot for a frivilous reason.

  2. Being threatened by someone with deadly force (again, other than in demonstrably self defence situation) would also be a crime. While it would not be a crime (perhaps) to simply have a gun, it would most certainly be a crime to wave it around, or to threaten other with it. So, in your hypothetical you would not have to worry about being threatened with a gun either.

Given that you don’t have to worry about being shot nor about being threatened with a gun, what exactly about the presence of a gun do you find rises to the level of “dystopian”. <Thanks for the word, BTW>

On another note you said:

You seem to be confusing different definitions of the word crime. In your first sentence you referenced a scenario where people would be killed for minor infractions of some obscure code. Assuming that the laws enacting such a system were passed legally, such people would certainly be criminal, and so their execution would not be “illegal” in a strict sense of the word. However, you have to change the whole meaning of crime to get there. You have to add a whole new group of crimes and be willing to punish them with death. However, in your second sentence, you seem to suggest that arming the populace would suddenly make murder and mayhem perfectly legal. You then go on to complain that these systems are comparable and equally henious.

Again, I ask the question, what precisely about an armed population (besides the possibility of increased crime which the OP specifically asked us to ignore) bothers you? It seems to be the mere presence of guns. Is that the case? Or do you have some conception of how an armed but peaceful society would work that you have not shared with us.

Finally, nobody has dismissed your ideas of alternative crime prevention schemes. Mostly we have been trying to fathom the part of your hypothetical which you have not explained. Especially no one has suggested that they would rather be armed even if there were an alternative. Which attitude you seem to have attributed to some.

Perhaps you could repose the OP like this:

"would you rather live in

a world where there were no guns but lots of crime

A world where was almost universal gun packing and no crime

A world where guns were present but not universally carried without crime (more education and less poverty)

A world were guns were present but not universally carried with crime (perhaps our world today?)"

I hope this helps.

46

I still don’t see how lots of guns = police state.

It’s really not a valid comparison to individuals owning guns and superpowers having nuclear weapons.

However, do you think it would have been a good idea for the US to dismantle all of it’s WMD’s during the peak of the cold war?

Lets examine your position again:

It’s this statement that I’m having trouble with…

Your only reason given is this…

When asked for an explination you talk about the cold war.

Look, I really just don’t get it. You need to spell it out for me. What makes guns so inherently evil and bad that you wouldn’t tolerate them even if it meant an end to all crime?

I like guns, but I would be willing to give them up if it meant an end to all crime. (As long as you still have that magic wand, which is the only way such a thing would be possible.)

Hell, I think as a society we would be willing to make great sacrifices if it meant ending all crime. Why wouldn’t you just be willing to live with these guns that you have an irrational fear and hatred of?

47

Clearly we’re at loggerheads here, so I’ll close with this.

What you be willing to sacrifice in exchange for a world free of crime? Some of you seem willing to endure just about anything. Is life worth living with a gun pointed at your head?

48

Taking away a person’s ability to defend herself naturally leads to relying on the police or someone else to do it for you. American culture has always had a self-reliance streak in it.

I’m a big guy, so I’m not much of a target for muggers and rapists, but one of my friends is a small, petite woman. I couldn’t imagine taking her gun away, especially since she’s been attacked in the past. Her only recourse would be to move in with a man, and that would cause trouble for the both of them. :frowning: (She’s the personality that likes her independence.)

I don’t understand why gun-control people think destroying her feeling of personal safety is an acceptable cost in trying to ban small pistols.

-k

49

wow what a jump! you went from everyone having the option to carry to living with a gun pointed at your head. as for cold war nuc policy… it worked! just becuase you’re scared of it doesn’t invalidate it.

i think your emotions are in too much control. we aren’t living in a utopia theory novel. there are evil people here and people need to protect themselves. /rant

you’re a granola-eating peacenik

50

This statement just doesn’t make any sense. If you’re in a world without crime, how can there be a gun pointed at your head (which is a crime)?

I will ask you a question that makes about as much sense:

cainxinth, would you be willing to live a life free of any and all violence if it meant being punched in the face by Mike Tyson every morning?

Do you get what our objection is to this absurd flaw in your logic? How about pervert’s post?

51

Perhaps gun-control people can’t view a firearm as anything but an offesive weapon, instead of a tool which can be both defensive and offensive.

I tend to think that when most people buy guns it is more for defense than for being a vigilante.

-k

52

I agree, some folks I know hate the thought of guns period, they don’t think anyone ( except the police, military) should have one period.

I think the problem with gun control, as mentioned above already, is that the type of people that are going to use guns for nefarious purposes don’t give a hoot about any laws in the first place. What we need to do is enforce the laws already on the books, not come up with more and more restrictive ones that limit law abiding citizens.

I do think protection is the overwhelming reason people buy guns, that is mine anyway.
At one of our owner’s meetings the police told us that essentially if you dial 911, it could be potentially 30 mins before anyone got here. If someone breaks into my house and is trying to do me or mine harm, what am I supposed to do, argue with them until the police show up?

I also, of course, think that gun owenership is a serious business and that everyone that has or wants one should be properly schooled in its operation as well.

53

Here is my point- if it could be shown that gun control (in the USA) made a significant redcution in violent crime, I 'd consider it. But it doesn’t. On the other hand- there is some evidence that having more guns reduces violent crime (well, since it seems to “just move away”, maybe the reduction is false, but…).

In other words- Gun Control doesn’t make us safer. And, I have friends who love to collect & shoot guns (they do “Cowboy action shooting”). Thus, since Gun Controls laws do nothing but clutter up the lawbooks, and make my freinds into either criminals or unhappy campers- why bother?

Finally-as a sorta-kinda libertarian, I can’t be in favour of more laws unless you can show me a solid proof I’ll benefit from said laws.

54

It’s ironic. On one thread, someone insists on seeing swords as noble or spiritual. And in another one, one insists on seeing guns as evil incarnate.

55

I suggest that it’s too late in the game to debate whether or not one is safer from crime when armed (in America) because the outlaws DO have arms already and are perfectly prepared to use them even for the most tragic and ridiculous of reasons. Last I heard flying a plane into a scryscraper was still illegal in every state, but that did NOT deter the act. Ideally, human interaction would be crime free, requiring no weaponry to protect one’s self from loss of property or life and limb. It just isn’t that way anywhere, and through the varying arguments over the years the proliferation of illegal firearms has simply increased. Illegality simply causes an increase in price, which historically in turn causes those who want illegal guns to commit more crimes to get them

I think there is a critical difference between outlawing guns and simple registration however. I realize historically that registration has sometimes led to banishment, and also banishment has sometimes led to a population unable to defend itself, even if needs be from it’s own government, should that government choose to enact a military action against members of it’s own population for national security reasons (read Civil War) or worse in an act of outright armed repression. Hey, that happens too, throughout history, and the Constitution included the right of Americans to bear arms for a number of reasons, including (I think) enemies both foreign and domestic.

I feel that a truly responsible and law-abiding citizen would have no reasonable grounds of privacy or otherwise to NOT divulge to ANYONE that he has a weapon. Seizure is a wholly different matter legally and morally. I see proper registration as a positive impact on gun trading and theft much the same as the impact that car registration had on car theft.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of an unarmed population being unable to overthrow a seized or corrupted government should the need arise to protect the country from disasters of treachery or outright military dictatorship. They had recently forged a nation from a group of ordinary people who had to fight with their lives for freedom and escape from treacherous government tyranny, and they were damn glad they had enough guns to throw off the military of the government that they had broken away from. They had enough foresight to include the right of self-defence as an inalienable part of the American identity simply because they realized that you must sometimes have protection against government as well as against criminals and military attack. It is simple survival, as plainly demonstrated by ANY of the past and current dictatorships on the planet. The less armed a population is , the more likely it is to be agressively controlled through non-democratic means. I would state that as a pure fact.

I think there’s no way the people of the 18th century could have imagined the proliferation of firearms amongst the shattered souls of the 21st century, or the scope of the violence of the drug trade, or the spread of a combat-based social mentality prevalent in millions of youth. They did what they felt was appropriate at the time, given their concrete knowledge of the need to band together as an armed PEOPLE.
They believed, as I still believe, that the inherent right to bear arms AND live with the social consequences can be reconciled in America. Statistically guns cause a lot less human suffering than many other things, even at a time when it is still usually the victim of aggression that is underarmed.

I maintain that it is too late to stop the use of guns by violent criminals AND insurgent military forces AND accidents AND psycopaths. These things will happen regardless of the sheer number of legal weapons amongst the population. Get over it. Consider them an unavoidable fact of modern day life, and stop imagining that there will ever be complete rule of law or a humane anti-weapon morality anywhere on the planet anytime soon. There are enough guns today that stopping manufacturing wouldn’t do anything for years, and outlawing them completely would by definition create more outlaws and totally ignore the fact that the real outlaws, well… they’re outlaws , dammit!! They don’t really care if they break the law… Hence the term… ahem…

At this stage of the game, much like what I percieve to be one of the post 9/11 attitudes in America as a whole, it’s clearly WAY too late to play nice, or you may very well end up a totally defenceless victim. No, it isn’t ideal, it sucks wholeheartedly, and it’s far from a pastoral meadow in springtime, and there’s IMHO a reasonable need for the government to know who IS packing, foreign and domestic, but the statistics of real national death from domestic firearms, again IMHO, bear less scrutiny than do the deaths from driving, smoking, and drinking. The dangers of being utterly defenceless completely outweigh any statistics that can be attributable to the weapon’s legality rather than the motives or mental state of the user. .

56

A car is not a weapon, and situations where a car can be used as self-defense are rare. There are already enough unregistered guns loose in the criminal population to keep them amply armed for years to come, and more are being manufactured and imported into America every day. The only persons affected by registration laws are the lawful.

Reasonable grounds? The Second Amendment was written by men who had very little faith in any form of government they had experienced. Close reading in the context of history makes it apparent that the right to keep and bear arms was defined primarily to protect American citizens from the very institution now demanding tighter and tighter gun control … the government itself.

The only positive side to gun registration that I have perceived in a lifetime of owning and using guns is this: When one of my guns was stolen, I was able to report it to the police and say “yes” when they asked if the gun was registered, thus saving myself additional hassle, intrusion and investigation.

The Second Amendment ensures the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Registering a weapon gives the very people the Founding Fathers were concerned about (a despotic government) a clear handle on who to take out first, and where to find us. I comply with the law because I must; because I am a “law-abiding citizen.” Does the registration of my weapons provide any benefit to me? Only what I mentioned above.

Registration of my guns does not protect me from being hassled by local police who know I am a respectable, trustworthy citizen of my small community … and a gun-owner. It does not protect me from arrest and prosecution if I should have to use a gun in self-defense. Any pro-gun website can provide you with multiple examples of registered, lawful gun owners who fired in self-defense and are now serving time or paying fines far in excess of the time/fines given to the “outlaw” who was preying on their property, family or person. Gun registration is only one head of the gun control hydra, but it is, perhaps, the one with the most innocent look and the most potent poison.

Would I “shoot to kill” in defense of my property? No, I would not. I don’t perceive any possession as being more important than the life of any human, even a low-life human predator. I would shoot to stop, however. Through training and experience, I have been able to acquire the skill and the judgment to understand and react appropriately to the differences between these two situations … and to aim for non-vital but disabling body parts. Were it not for the “gun nuts” in our society and protective associations like the NRA, the training I received would not have been available.

IMHO, any law which contravenes or restricts rights which we are guaranteed in the Constitution and its Amendments is a BAD law. We must protect our freedoms, or we may find ourselves with no freedoms to protect.