# Future of guns and mass killings in the US **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411 "2015-10-03T21:17:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/221 "2015-10-29T04:06:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And if you could pass a law that would make the criminals give up their guns, then you would have a point but they won’t. Any law you pass will only affect those who are inclined to obey the law. Then why don’t ALL criminals in Australia, New Zealand and the UK carry guns? This is an old canard - the less guns there are in society, the greater the responsibility on the individual to “take proper care” of a gun, the less access a criminal will have to said gun, and the less likely he will be to carry one. The “rarer” it is to have loaded weapons lying around the house, or for people to be carrying guns in public, the more likely it is for the gun toting criminal to be caught for carrying a gun and taken off the streets - or to have the gun taken off him. It’s really not that hard to understand ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/222 "2015-10-29T14:35:03Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > I think as far as pro-gun arguments go this is the best one you can make. Like access to alcohol or to tobacco access to firearms is something you \*want \*to have, and you are willing to pay a price for it. A free nation should be allowed to make that choice. I am not an American. My nation has made a different choice and - fortunately for me - it happens to be a choice that I agree with. For my tastes the price America is paying for the right to bear arms is too high. But this is really for the Americans to decide, and if the majority feel that the price is not too high, I have no issues with that. It seems like you see gun ownership as a dangerous hobby that society tolerates because enough of us want it. It is more than that. There are significant benefits to private ownership of guns. > [@](#): > > What I do have issues with - at least as far as debates on the topic go - is the claim that _there is no price to pay_. That there even is a net benefit. That line of argument (which you hear often) is never brought forward when it comes to alcohol or tobacco. It seems to be exclusive to gun rights and it is usually backed up with either weak evidence or not backed up at all. I don’t think anyone has said that there is no cost to legal ownership of guns. Several people argue that the costs are outweighed by the benefits. What is the benefit in the cost benefit analysis of tobacco or alcohol? There are clearly cases where the legal right to own guns has been beneficial. Its not like you can outlaw guns and the guns just disappear. Criminals will keep their guns and the law abiding citizens will turn them in and the vast majority of gun homicides will continue to occur. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/223 "2015-10-29T14:43:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > We keep being told that Obama and the Democrats are causing runs on gun stores, spiking sales. Gun advocates love to claim people are clamoring for more guns because of gun control advocates. > > So, how could there be the same number of guns? Of course there are more guns, the rate of gun sales vastly exceeds the rate of guns being destroyed or breaking even in normal times. The claim that gun sales increased due to fears of gun control are not just claims. The price of a $1200 AR-15 more than doubled the month after Sandy Hook. This was over fears of an AWB. The price of a 30 round magazine went from under $10 to $100 over fears of a high capacity magazine ban. The store shelves were empty and the only things still left for sale were overpriced junk guns that were cobbled together from spare parts. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/224 "2015-10-29T14:48:26Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > The gun issue is dead for the foreseeable future. But hey, maybe some of these arguments can be recycled against military armament programs. Focusing on new planes, new tanks, etc. is misleading. It’s not so much about the tool as what’s in the person’s heart. Planes and tanks don’t kill people, people kill people. You can kill someone with a shovel or knife if you really want to. I think there is a growing level of background radiation on the gun issue. People are becoming more aware of the issue and while the gun control side controls very few votes (how many single issue gun control voters do you know? I know more than a handful of single issue gun rights voters) but that can change if the gun rights side overplays its hand. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/225 "2015-10-29T14:50:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What percentage of people that own handguns use these firing ranges? Regularly? Probably less than 50%. I go to the range regularly and I probably fire my pistol once a month, if that. At 21 feet you can hit the center target fairly well with very little practice. Trying to get really tight groups takes a lot of consistent effort to maintain. Many people get “good enough” then put their gun away for an emergency. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/226 "2015-10-29T14:53:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And if the vast majority of guns are used recreationally, how can Obama be the cause of the spike in sales? If Obama tried to ban Pokémon cards, there would be a spike in sales of pokemon cards. If Obama tried to ban classic coke and replace it with New Coke, there would be a spike in sales of classic coke. Sure Obama didn’t try to ban assault weapons but he supported it and people blame Obama for anything stupid that any Democrat does. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/227 "2015-10-29T15:01:41Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Well I’d say it is inevitable that a country with plentiful guns, easy access and little restriction will see a lot of deaths due to guns. I can’t imagine that anyone can disagree with that. > But you are suggesting there was a time when there were less guns but more violence. is that correct? if so can you point me to those stats please? There was a time when there was a higher rate of gun ownership and a lower rate of mass shootings. The NRA would like you to believe that the lower rate of mass shootings was the result of the higher rate of ownership. ISTM that Lumpy is trying to say that the current higher rate of mass shootings is the result of something other than gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/228 "2015-10-29T15:19:58Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Just for your own edification? For the benefit of the thread? Why? You said you don’t contest my assertion, so, having now cited a source, I’m trying to figure out how else I can contribute. What, if anything, did I conclude or say that you disagree with? To some extent he is just being argumentative. But what he really seems to be trying to do is say that the gun rights side is just making shit up (and only being correct by happenstance) and imply that there is some sort of conclusive science on his side of the argument. Gun control folks have been trying to capitalize on the increasingly partisan nature of the gun control debate and portray the gun control debate like its the climate change debate for years and it doesn’t work because it isn’t true. The gun control side do not have the facts or the science to support stupid ideas like an assault weapons ban. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/229 "2015-10-29T15:54:26Z")
> [@DtypeJag](#): > > I think this discussion of firearm deaths can get bogged down in talking about mass shootings. They account for a mere blip in the # of deaths from firearms every year but receive 90% of the attention. The real problem is firearm deaths from all causes including suicides, homicides and accidents. All of these are far higher/capita than in other civilized countries. > It is hard to imagine that all of these would not be decreased by a decreased access to guns. > > Somewhere around half of these deaths are suicides. My 1st reaction is probably how most people would react and say that if I’m going to kill myself and don’t have a gun I’ll find some other way. A moments thought about method makes it apparent this is not as easy as one would think. Without going into all that here, psychiatrists will tell you that thoughts of suicide is usually a momentary thing - a low for bipolars for instance. If a loaded gun is not immediately available they frequently don’t go through with it. When you say momentary, you don’t mean a fleeting moment lasting seconds, you mean a moment that lasts hours and days or at least a few minutes, don’t you? That’s long enough to jump off a roof, isn’t it? You are making it sound like there is some large number of suicides that would be avoided if people had to take the elevator to the roof or tie a noose with bed sheets rather than reach into a safe and pull out a gun. Can you explain why Americans commit suicide at about the same rates as other industrialized countries if guns are such an effective facilitator of suicides that might not otherwise happen? Why are the suicide rates in countries like Israel and Switzerland so low despite their relatively high rates of access to guns? I think these are things that you have to address before you can claim that guns are such a driving force behind our totally average suicide rate. > [@](#): > > As for homicides and mass shootings, every other country has its proportional share of scofflaws and assorted lunatics yet only a fraction of the gun deaths from violence. > Accidental deaths are very common and we all have seen the repeated news of an 8 yr old shooting his 4 yr old sister with his fathers loaded pistol. What good is a gun unless its loaded? - says the father. I don’t know any statistics on this but I’d be willing to bet my last dollar its much higher here than in any other western country. There are ~500 accidental gun deaths every year, I don’t know if you would call that “very” common, more people get struck by lightning every year. Accidental deaths are going to track gun ownership pretty well, just like car accidents are going to track the number of cars on the road and are a clearly avoidable cost of legal gun ownership. Mass shootings are likewise a tiny tail that is wagging the dog. The murder rate in this country is clearly above average for a wealthy industrialized nation. The majority of those murders are being committed with handguns. The bulk of those murders are committed by people who are not legally allowed to possess a gun, so gun control laws would not affect their behavior. There is some portion of gun murders that are committed by people whoa re legally permitted to purchase a gun; these are the only murders you can reasonably expect to reduce with stricter gun control laws. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/230 "2015-10-29T15:56:32Z")
> [@DtypeJag](#): > > Quite right on the first point. I should have said civilized western country. The same holds true for much of Latin America. What makes Mexico uncivilized? > [@](#): > > On the second there are roughly 25k /yr ± 15 or 20% total. Roughly half or a little more are suicides most of the rest are homicides. As I stated I don’t know # accidentals. I thought suicides were between 3/5ths and 2/3rds of all gun deaths. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/231 "2015-10-29T16:02:32Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Then why don’t ALL criminals in Australia, New Zealand and the UK carry guns?.. > > …It’s really not that hard to understand What was the gun ownership rate BEFORE the gun ban? These criminals didn’t have guns to begin with. We’ve tried gun bans at the local and state level and it doesn’t reduce the level of gun ownership among criminals. It’s really not that hard to understand. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/232 "2015-10-29T16:13:47Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You make it sound like there are no benefits of gun ownership other than recreational enjoyment. > > See LA riots. The way I see it recreational enjoyment is the one \*undisputed \*benefit of gun ownership. A very large number of US citizens enjoy using guns for recreational purposes. The other claimed benefit of private gun ownership - an increase in public safety - can hardly be called undisputed. Personally if find arguments that claim guns increase public safety to be unconvincing. As for the LA riots - I am not sure what you are trying to tell me by mentioning them. Do you believe they would have been a safer affair, if everyone involved had brought a gun? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What is the benefit in the cost benefit analysis of tobacco or alcohol? Pretty much the same: recreational enjoyment. Isn’t that obvious? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There are clearly cases where the legal right to own guns has been beneficial. Individual cases? I am sure there are. But what does that tell us? If I could find a situation where a gun in the hands of a ten year old has prevented a crime, would you advocate arming kids? The question is not whether guns have brought safety in individual cases but whether they are bringing a net-benefit in safety overall. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its not like you can outlaw guns and the guns just disappear. Criminals will keep their guns and the law abiding citizens will turn them in and the vast majority of gun homicides will continue to occur. That is true. Any kind of gun ban in the US would probably have a small effect in the short term. It might even cause problems, because some of today’s law abiding citizens might not want to be as law abiding any more, if that meant giving up their guns. And handling that would draw police capacity that could better be used elsewhere. On the pro-side: If law abiding citizens do not carry guns and criminals do, the police might find it easier to lock away the latter. But again - I am not trying to talk you into gun control. Just saying that as pro-gun arguments go I find the “Guns are fun” argument more convincing than the “Guns make the world safer” one. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/233 "2015-10-29T20:08:31Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > The way I see it recreational enjoyment is the one \*undisputed \*benefit of gun ownership. A very large number of US citizens enjoy using guns for recreational purposes. > > The other claimed benefit of private gun ownership - an increase in public safety - can hardly be called undisputed. Personally if find arguments that claim guns increase public safety to be unconvincing. > > As for the LA riots - I am not sure what you are trying to tell me by mentioning them. Do you believe they would have been a safer affair, if everyone involved had brought a gun? The LA riots were violent riots that took place over several days. The police were sent to protect wealthy neighborhoods like Beverly Hills and Bel Air on the principal that the riots were occurring in largely commercial areas (of course there were as many people living in those largely commercial areas as there were in wealthy areas like Beverly hills and Bel Air) and everyone else was left to fend for themselves. You literally saw police driving through crowds of rioters and looters on thyeir way to richer neighborhoods telling storeowners to go home and wait it out while their livelihoods were stolen and burned to the ground. On the first night of the riots, the rioters looted and burned down half of koreatown. On the second day the Korean storeowners armed themselves and there was no more rioting or arson in koreatown. It is clear that the presence of armed resistance is what deterred rioters and looters from burning down the rest of koreatown. So in this case, the Korean store owners were much better off for having guns. A clear benefit that goes beyond recreation. Now you can weigh it against the costs of legal private gun ownership but you can’t say its recreational enjoyment versus a lot of dead people > [@](#): > > Pretty much the same: recreational enjoyment. Isn’t that obvious? You are ignoring a lot of other benefits. > [@](#): > > Individual cases? I am sure there are. But what does that tell us? If I could find a situation where a gun in the hands of a ten year old has prevented a crime, would you advocate arming kids? The question is not whether guns have brought safety in individual cases but whether they are bringing a net-benefit in safety overall. And when you only count the individual cases where a legal gun ownership imposes a cost and ignore the individual cases where there is a benefit from legal gun ownership it is easy to reach the conclusion that the costs of legal gun ownership outweigh the benefits of legal gun ownership. > [@](#): > > That is true. Any kind of gun ban in the US would probably have a small effect in the short term. It might even cause problems, because some of today’s law abiding citizens might not want to be as law abiding any more, if that meant giving up their guns. And handling that would draw police capacity that could better be used elsewhere. > On the pro-side: If law abiding citizens do not carry guns and criminals do, the police might find it easier to lock away the latter. How so? Only criminals carry guns in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and plenty of other places and it doesn’t seem to provide police with much of an advantage at finding and locking away criminals. > [@](#): > > But again - I am not trying to talk you into gun control. Just saying that as pro-gun arguments go I find the “Guns are fun” argument more convincing than the “Guns make the world safer” one. Of course. It is MUCH more controversial to say that guns provide a net safety benefit than to say that recreational hunting and target shooting are fun. But it doesn’t mean that legal guns are not a net safety benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/234 "2015-10-30T08:59:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The LA riots were violent riots that took place over several days. The police were sent to protect wealthy neighborhoods like Beverly Hills and Bel Air on the principal that the riots were occurring in largely commercial areas (of course there were as many people living in those largely commercial areas as there were in wealthy areas like Beverly hills and Bel Air) and everyone else was left to fend for themselves. You literally saw police driving through crowds of rioters and looters on thyeir way to richer neighborhoods telling storeowners to go home and wait it out while their livelihoods were stolen and burned to the ground. > > On the first night of the riots, the rioters looted and burned down half of koreatown. On the second day the Korean storeowners armed themselves and there was no more rioting or arson in koreatown. It is clear that the presence of armed resistance is what deterred rioters and looters from burning down the rest of koreatown. > > So in this case, the Korean store owners were much better off for having guns. A clear benefit that goes beyond recreation. Now you can weigh it against the costs of legal private gun ownership but you can’t say its recreational enjoyment versus a lot of dead people I have not followed the news on the LA riots. If your account of events is accurate, LA police have - for whatever reason - entirely failed to do what would have been their duty, which is to protect citizens and uphold the law. Should it not be the first order of business to find ways to get them to do their job, instead of arming civilians to do it for them? As for the effect of the Koreatown armament there may be a few questions left: Did the riots continue elsewehere? If so, could it be that the armament simply deflected the violence to easier targets instead of actually \*reducing \*violence? Also you seem to be describing a situation where the lawful citizens are armed and the criminals are not. Is that the norm? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You are ignoring a lot of other benefits. Not sure if this is relevant to a gun thread, but what are the benefits of tobacco and alcohol I am ignoring? Are these benefits relevant to keeping the two legal? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And when you only count the individual cases where a legal gun ownership imposes a cost and ignore the individual cases where there is a benefit from legal gun ownership it is easy to reach the conclusion that the costs of legal gun ownership outweigh the benefits of legal gun ownership. True. Both sides of the discussion can point to long lists of incidents that support their position. If you want to establish whether or not guns provide a net benefit to public safety, looking at these individual incidents will not contribute much. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How so? Only criminals carry guns in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and plenty of other places and it doesn’t seem to provide police with much of an advantage at finding and locking away criminals. I admit to not knowing all that much about US policework. Today a criminal who commits a gun-related crime can only be apprehended by the police after the fact. In countries with tight gun control the process of acquiring the weapon already constitutes a crime. Criminals can be apprehended for arming themselves even before they actually use their weapons. That \*should \*provide the police with some leverage. To what extent it actually does that in the US I do not know. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Of course. It is MUCH more controversial to say that guns provide a net safety benefit than to say that recreational hunting and target shooting are fun. But it doesn’t mean that legal guns are not a net safety benefit. No, it does not mean that. The point I was making when I replied to XT earlier is that a nation might decide to allow guns for the (undisputed) recreational benefit, even if there is no added safety benefit of even a safety hazard. Living with the hazard would then be the price to pay for the freedom to enjoy the benefit. Your own approach is to claim that there simply is no price to pay in terms of public safety. Of that I am not convinced. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/235 "2015-10-30T19:24:58Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > I have not followed the news on the LA riots. If your account of events is accurate, LA police have - for whatever reason - entirely failed to do what would have been their duty, which is to protect citizens and uphold the law. Should it not be the first order of business to find ways to get them to do their job, instead of arming civilians to do it for them? Frankly, the police couldn’t have stopped the riots. There simply aren’t enough of them, there never are. They had bring in the military. We had armored vehicles rolling down the street to reinstate peace. I think you have a misconception about what a policeman’s duty is and what their aspirational goals are. This is just a guess but I suspect you have never lived in a high crime neighborhood. Police are mostly there to catch criminals AFTER a crime has been committed. They are not likely to be there as a crime is being committed. So a cop might be able to catch your rapist but they are highly unlikely to stop that rapist from raping you. > [@](#): > > As for the effect of the Koreatown armament there may be a few questions left: > Did the riots continue elsewehere? If so, could it be that the armament simply deflected the violence to easier targets instead of actually \*reducing \*violence? > Also you seem to be describing a situation where the lawful citizens are armed and the criminals are not. Is that the norm? It is entirely possible that the rioters went somewhere else and burned down the stores of unarmed storeowners. So? The rioters were not unarmed, they just didn’t want to get shot at. But to be fair the majority of rioters were unarmed and they avoided looting and burning down stores that had armed defenders. > [@](#): > > Not sure if this is relevant to a gun thread, but what are the benefits of tobacco and alcohol I am ignoring? Are these benefits relevant to keeping the two legal? People just want them. > [@](#): > > True. Both sides of the discussion can point to long lists of incidents that support their position. If you want to establish whether or not guns provide a net benefit to public safety, looking at these individual incidents will not contribute much. I have not found comprehensive information that breaks down how many gun crimes and gun murders are committed by people who are legally allowed to purchase firearms (IOW the universe of crimes and murders that MIGHT be avoided in the absence of a legal right to private gun ownership). There is a LOT of disagreement over how frequently guns are used defensively, the numbers range from about 100,000 times a year to over 2 million times a year. > [@](#): > > I admit to not knowing all that much about US policework. > Today a criminal who commits a gun-related crime can only be apprehended by the police after the fact. In countries with tight gun control the process of acquiring the weapon already constitutes a crime. Criminals can be apprehended for arming themselves even before they actually use their weapons. That \*should \*provide the police with some leverage. To what extent it actually does that in the US I do not know. Prohibited persons (which includes among other things: felons, wifebeaters, and the adjudicated mentally ill) are not allowed to own a gun. In places like NYC, virtually no civilian is allowed to own or carry a gun at any time. If you are caught with a gun in NYC, you are subject to a minimum of a year in jail. It doesn’t seem to make that much of a difference. YMMV. > [@](#): > > No, it does not mean that. The point I was making when I replied to XT earlier is that a nation might decide to allow guns for the (undisputed) recreational benefit, even if there is no added safety benefit of even a safety hazard. Living with the hazard would then be the price to pay for the freedom to enjoy the benefit. > > Your own approach is to claim that there simply is no price to pay in terms of public safety. Of that I am not convinced. Where do I say there is no price to pay? Are you sure you are not caricaturizing my position? Every gun rights proponent I know will say that gun accidents harm and kill people and that these deaths would not occur but for the legal right to own guns, they acknowledge that legal gun owners can commit crimes that are exacerbated by their gun. The gun rights argument is that the benefits of legal private gun ownership outweigh these costs. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/236 "2015-11-03T08:59:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Where do I say there is no price to pay? Are you sure you are not caricaturizing my position? Every gun rights proponent I know will say that gun accidents harm and kill people and that these deaths would not occur but for the legal right to own guns, they acknowledge that legal gun owners can commit crimes that are exacerbated by their gun. The gun rights argument is that the benefits of legal private gun ownership outweigh these costs. It was not my intention to misrepresent your position. Guns are a precondition for gun violence and gun accidents, and I know that you are not blind to that. But you are saying that the positive effects on public safety outweigh the negative ones. So if I say that a net-negative effect on public safety is the price society pays for the freedom to own them, your position is that that price does not exist. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Frankly, the police couldn’t have stopped the riots. There simply aren’t enough of them, there never are. They had bring in the military. We had armored vehicles rolling down the street to reinstate peace. I think you have a misconception about what a policeman’s duty is and what their aspirational goals are. > > This is just a guess but I suspect you have never lived in a high crime neighborhood. Police are mostly there to catch criminals AFTER a crime has been committed. They are not likely to be there as a crime is being committed. So a cop might be able to catch your rapist but they are highly unlikely to stop that rapist from raping you. You are right in your assumption: I have never lived in a high crime neighborhood. Moreover I live in Central Europe, a region where violent crime is generally less prevalent than in the US. My perception of what police work is or should be about has certainly been shaped by this. Over here most countries have police units that specialise in riot control. Of course that does not mean that these units are capable of preventing all riots, but backing away from violent riots, basically leaving citizens to fend for themselves is never an option. Neither is deploying the military internally to fight civilians - that would be illegal under most circumstances over here. But even though crime rates may be lower, crime of course does exist and European police would agree that it is much harder to catch a criminal before the crime is committed than after. But that is not the same as saying that crime prevention is not an important part of the job. And in the US? I seem to remember that L.A. police aspire “to protect and to serve”. With an attitude that amounts to “can’t do anything about it anyway” they would be aiming quite low. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411/237 "2015-11-03T20:01:26Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > It was not my intention to misrepresent your position. Guns are a precondition for gun violence and gun accidents, and I know that you are not blind to that. But you are saying that the positive effects on public safety outweigh the negative ones. So if I say that a net-negative effect on public safety is the price society pays for the freedom to own them, your position is that that price does not exist. I don’t know if it does or not. Neither does the gun control side. Perhaps the negative effect of guns in society is greater than the positive effects but we can’t get rid of all guns only the ones owned by people who would obey the law. I do think that there is currently no NET cost to the continued legal private ownership of guns. > [@](#): > > You are right in your assumption: I have never lived in a high crime neighborhood. Moreover I live in Central Europe, a region where violent crime is generally less prevalent than in the US. My perception of what police work is or should be about has certainly been shaped by this. > > Over here most countries have police units that specialise in riot control. Of course that does not mean that these units are capable of preventing all riots, but backing away from violent riots, basically leaving citizens to fend for themselves is never an option. Neither is deploying the military internally to fight civilians - that would be illegal under most circumstances over here. Deploying the military is generally unacceptable here as well but there is a hybrid entity here called the national guard that can be deployed to Iraq and the streets of LA. > [@](#): > > But even though crime rates may be lower, crime of course does exist and European police would agree that it is much harder to catch a criminal before the crime is committed than after. But that is not the same as saying that crime prevention is not an important part of the job. And in the US? I seem to remember that L.A. police aspire “to protect and to serve”. With an attitude that amounts to “can’t do anything about it anyway” they would be aiming quite low. That is not their attitude so much as it is the reality. What can a cop do when you are being raped in the underground garage? They can’t be everywhere. The LA riots were a real eye-opener for me. Any argument about gun control, in my eyes has to address the LA riots and the aftermath 9where they confiscated many of the guns that the shopkeepers used to defend themselves and their property. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/future-of-guns-and-mass-killings-in-the-us/733411.md?page=11)