Agree completely. I’m suggesting that the “guns are effective deterrents” crowd buys that argument: that a crook aware of an armed populace is a more cautious crook. Nothing more than that.
I personally see a teeny amount of value in that argument. But the overall downsides of an armed populace far outweigh that teeny value.
This thread really ought not devolve into yet another gun control debate. We’ve kept the lid on so far, but I think we all, me included, have probably said close to all that can be said in-scope of the OP. And then some.
Not really. They encourage the criminal to attack, both because it’s safer to kill the target and because of the possibility of getting a free gun. They also make it more likely that the target will make themselves vulnerable; one of the oldest pieces of self defense advice I can recall is to avoid carrying a gun, they make you act stupid.
I think the problem here is your premise isn’t correct. i.e. I don’t believe criminals will shift tactics and start shooting people in the back because they think they’re armed. At least not thieves and muggers. This was one of the arguments I heard in the 1990s when many states started to liberalize their concealed carry laws. Criminals would become more violent because they feared armed citizens, but as best as I can tell this isn’t what happened.
I don’t even think a firearm is the best defense in these situations. Just being aware of your surroundings and exuding an air of confidence will cause a lot of would be muggers to simply choose someone else they think is less trouble.
I feel that the topic of individuals using force is intrinsic in a discussion on the topic of a state monopoly of force; they’re essentially the two sides of the debate. But I agree that we’ve pretty much staked out our views on the subject by this point.
Exactly. I agree that the premise @Little_Nemo has presented is incorrect.
A mugger wants your wallet or other valuables. Most muggers are not murderers, because that brings all kinds of heat on them that they would rather avoid. Police will put far more effort into solving murders then they do muggings—and the penalties are far more severe for convicted murderers than muggers.
So if I’m a mugger in a mostly law-abiding society with potential witnesses and/police who can be called, I’m not just going to shoot a person in the back. That makes a lot of noise, which attracts attention, while I then have to rifle through the dead or dying person’s clothes trying to find their wallet.
So the alternative is to instead threaten the victim with violence or by showing a gun. At that point, if one lives in a society where a large proportion of people are typically armed, the calculus changes. The mugger doesn’t know if the potential victim is going to pull out a gun instead of their wallet and shoot them first. Even if in that moment the mugger gets off a shot first and hits the victim, people don’t typically die instantly…they may well return fire before becoming incapacitated in the melee.
So a potential mugger who is aware of this may thereby be deterred from mugging people.
And that is one of the self-defense arguments for law-abiding citizens being legally permitted to carry concealed weapons.
With that said, I think it also can lead to problems. Minor scuffles, like a road rage incident or a bar fight, can easily turn into lethal confrontations when everyone (or a significant fraction of people) is armed.
That’s why, while I do actually have a pistol permit that permits me to carry a concealed weapon in my state, I have never done so.
Once you get past misguided 2FA absolutism, the fundamental dispute in America is about which of those two issues is more common, and / or which is more horrible and needs to be prevented at the expense of exacerbating the other.
Yes, it changes to “kill as a first resort” - something we see from the police right now. Assuming that everyone is armed encourages people to attack to kill first, mugger or not, criminal or not. Because it’s the rational decision.
FWIW, opponents of “Shall Issue”– the gun permit regimen that mandates that any person who passes the qualifications for a carry permit must be allowed one– insisted that a tsunami of violence would be the inevitable result of loosening restrictions on permitted carry. They evidently believed that the majority of Americans have the impulse control of 14-year old crack addicts. Only, it simply didn’t happen. In fact some states have dropped requiring carry permits altogether, and have not seen a rise in impulse shootings. So the extreme Hobbesian predictions would appear to be incorrect.
Or, it doesn’t matter since guns are already pervasive in our society, anyone who wants to carry a gun will do so anyway, and we already have a permanent “tsunami of violence”.
No that’s exactly the point of monopoly of violence, it’s the most extreme example of why it’s a good idea
Whether or not you think states should have nuclear weapons its definitely a good thing that only states do not individual citizens. You don’t want your neighbor setting of a nuke because he was mugged
But in a less extreme way the same is true of other forms of violence. A gun only stops a mugging if the mugger stands in front of you and challenges you to quick draw. That doesn’t really happen in real life. A gun for the most part only offers a way to enact retribution after an act of violence. And you really want that “retribution” only carried out by the state, as heavily regulated and restricted as possible by the rule of law, not left up to private individuals.
That’s why, even in America which has a much more lax attitude to such things than other countries, the right of self defense only covers preventing an immediate physical threat to yourself or people near you, if you use violence in any other way the state will punish you. That’s a good thing.
Well clearly the law precludes privately seeking vengeance, and that’s been the case ever since English law made manslaughter an offense against the King’s Peace. But it simply isn’t true that carried firearms are completely useless to prevent being assaulted; there are plenty of reports of self-defense involving firearms, there are probably more that go unreported, and the general deterrent effect is unmeasurable but undoubtedly significant.
As for the nukes shibboleth, I believe a case could be made that private possession of nuclear weapons– even if a billionaire could buy them or make their own– would infringe on the government’s constitutional monopoly to declare war and negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Clearly a treaty would be worthless if the US government had to add “but we can’t say what any of our nuclear-armed citizens might do”. So I believe a legitimate exception arises for weapons of mass destruction.
There are plenty of reports of dogs saving children from house fires. That doesn’t mean we should, as a society, encourage dog ownership over smoke alarms
And again speaking to the OP the fact the US has more lax controls on gun ownership doesn’t mean the American state has a weaker monopoly on violence. It still only allows people to use violence in very narrow, rare circumstances, and keeps almost all uses of violence as the perogative of the state.
For the most part your right to self defense is the same in the US as other countries. And unlike those other countries the US state (even if the bit of the US state we are talking about is the government of a tiny regional town) has far more means to enforce its monopoly violence than other countries.
But nuclear weapons are not the only weapons to be covered by international treaties. The same could be said for any military equipment, including rifles.
To quote a great man, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Constitutionally, it would be very problematic for the US federal government to sign away in a treaty the possession of small arms. In fact the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, even though it was (most probably) innocuous, garnered suspicion from pro-gun advocates who feared that it was laying the groundwork for eventually declaring the entire non-state possession of firearms to be illicit. In any case declaring rifles to be “weapons of mass destruction” would be an ad hoc legal fiction.
A better analogy would be calling for banning dog ownership because, you know, it only gives people a false sense of security.
No, they’d just have to acknowledge the “well regulated militia” part of the Second Amendment again.
According to you; I don’t buy it, however. Gun ownership encourages violence, it doesn’t discourage it. IMHO promoting violence is one of the main reasons guns are pushed so hard by the Right in the first place.
Is it credible* that there would be fewer acts of violence and aggression if guns– but only guns– simply by magic couldn’t exist; that every time someone tried to make one, Q would snap his fingers and the gun would vanish?
What do you consider a “high” rate of violence, out of a continent-sized nation of 330 million people– three? Am I allowed to discount African-Americans since they form a unique demographic in that respect?
*I started to ask “do you really believe…”; but of course you do.
