You’ll have to actually provide an example. The responses thus far have been handwaved as no true scotsman.
If you knew for a fact, 100%, that even though laws proposed are sincere attempts to limit gun violence, that they would have zero effect on gun violence, would you still support them?
Absolutely not. It’s my sincere belief–backed up subsequently by the success in Australia, and the statistics in countries with tighter gun restrictions–that tighter restrictions on guns will reduce the number of gun deaths in this country. Not overnight, and not without hiccups, of course. And not without scofflaws. But we either need to start somewhere, or throw up our hands and decide that there’s nothing to be done about it. The proposals from the gun lobby–which seem to boil down to “More guns will mean less gun violence”–seem patently absurd an illogical. So I guess I don’t expect we’ll see much progress until we start considering new perspectives.
Punishment is only a valid purpose for a law that punishes doing something morally wrong. A law against shooting someone may exist solely for the purpose of punishment, because shooting people is by default morally wrong - you are injuring or killing someone. A law against owning a gun may not exist solely for the purpose of punishment, because owning a gun is not by default morally wrong - it is an object which harms nobody unless it is used inappropriately.
Awww man! Did you just bring up Australia? Well, here we go again.
Why do we care about gun deaths? Why not care about knife deaths, bludgeoning deaths, strangulation deaths, explosive deaths, poisoning deaths, etc.? If reducing one just raises the others, what exactly was accomplished?
Personally, the only way in which I care how a person was killed is in determining how much pain the victim suffered. I’d punish someone for agonizingly stripping away someone’s flesh over the course of days, while the victim was still alive, far stiffer than someone who just went out and shot people. Or I might have to include damages and potential for bringing down a building - resulting in more deaths - in the case of a bomb.
Sure, if you state it like that, it is illogical. But if you state it like this:
Then we realize that you’re talking about point #1 and they’re talking about point #2, since those two points serve your prospective purposes.
^^^The wildest, fantastical speculation: you’re just spinning your imaginary fantasy about the “good man with a gun” fairy tale. When will this unsupported fantasy stop being taken seriously as a reason to flood the populace with deadly weapons?
Your fantasy suggests that a random civilian with a gun fetish will have the reflexes and presence of mind to take out a gun man without his gun just adding to the mayhem and the deadliness of such a situation. Which would suggest that trained law enforcement officials would never be overcome in such a situation; would never hit innocent bystanders; and would always stop such a criminal with speed and precision. Do you really suggest that random civilians firing their weapons in a situation would HELP the cop on the job trying to do the job he/she is trained for?
Further, this scenario suggests that by dint of merely acquiring a weapon, a civilian should be afforded the same authority in such a situation as a trained officer. Taken a step further, it suggests that mere gun ownership affords a civilian the RIGHT to be police, jury, and judge, and fully authorized to mete out capital punishment at his or her personal discretion, with no accountability (in the moment) or checks and balances. By promulgating universal gun ownership, you’re promulgating universal executioner status on any random untrained civilian.
There’s plenty of evidence for #1. Where’s the evidence for #2?
No, that’s not the argument. It’s not illegal to go into a bank “without government permission” in any country in the world that I’m aware of. Yet in a study of armed robberies comparing the US, Canada, and five other similar countries where robbery rates were comparable, the US was an outlier in which victims were twice as likely to be confronted with a weapon as anywhere else, and in the US, the weapon was twice as likely as in Canada to be a firearm. Why do suppose that is?
The same answer applies to gun death statistics in general: 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 in Japan, 0.25 in the UK, 1.06 in Australia, 1.45 in New Zealand, 2.38 in Canada, and 3.84 in Switzerland. Then we get into higher rates of violence in less developed nations: 6.28 in Costa Rica, 7.29 in Nicaragua, 8.16 in Paraguay, and 9.42 in the United States. But hey, it’s still better than the 11.17 gun deaths per 100,000 in Mexico!
The US has a rate of gun violence that is completely out of line with the civilized world. That is the first and most basic fact that gun advocates have to accept.
If the first idea is to ban guns to prevent gun violence, a similar car related analogy would be to make engines over a certain size illegal to prevent speeding.
It’s an equally silly proposition; while lots of people get killed in speeding-related accidents (my suspicion is more than by guns) there are plenty of uses of larger engines beyond already illegal speeding, just like there are more uses for guns beyond shooting people illegally.
And… FWIW, Mexico has pretty stringent gun control laws relative to the US, and we see how that’s working out for them. Fundamentally it’s a culture and income issue; if you look at the statistics for gun deaths in the US, they’re dominated by poor black men, which is a population already over represented in the penal systems of the various states. Most legal gun owners are law-abiding white people, so it seems like there’s a situation of punishing everyone for the sins of a small population that already has a problem obeying the law for whatever reason. I can see why that’s something that is odious to a lot of people.
I’m not supporting it, I’m just saying that that’s their argument and there is logic behind it. Whether the logic holds up, I’m not sure. I’ve seen studies which came out positive on both sides, so either the question is too politicized for a good answer or the difference is so minor that any one study could fall down on either side.
My guess would be that there’s probably no significant advantage/demerit to concealed carry laws.
Probably true, but I’ll note that you skipped by several much better points to rant about the one that didn’t really matter.
That is logically flawed on two points: it is not always morally wrong to shoot another person; and punishment is not an end, it is a means (which, sadly, almost never accomplishes anything).
Actually, if you are mentally incompetent, highly emotionally unstable or totally blind, one could possibly make a moral case against gun ownership. But the point is, a person in illegal possession of a weapon is almost never cited for that, per se, weapons violations are almost always a component of a larger issue.
No, fundamentally it’s a gun availability issue. You can’t make a lot of inferences about Mexico because it has a very high crime rate in general and a chronic inability to enforce the law. It’s not instructive to look at what is basically a lawless society and ask how their gun laws are working out for them. It’s a lot more instructive to compare the US with culturally similar countries like Australia and Canada, where general crime rates are in the same ballpark as in the US but the rates of gun deaths are dramatically lower. It’s also instructive to look at Switzerland, which has a relatively high rate of gun ownership because of their militia structure. They have a higher gun death rate than most European countries, but still in line with most of the first world and much, much lower than the US, and that’s because a high rate of gun ownership is accompanied by strict laws on the use, storage, and transportation of guns.
It’s a “cultural” issue only to the extent of the gun culture that exists in the US. There seems to have been some kind of “debate” in the media recently about whether or not it was appropriate for gun nuts to go into fast food outlets proudly festooned with semi-automatic weapons. Some thought it was fine, some didn’t. Try that in just about any other civilized country and you’d find yourself facing long jail time on about half a dozen weapons charges.
Not nearly a sufficient explanation, because US crime rates are not sufficiently higher than comparable countries to come anywhere close to accounting for the huge discrepancy in gun death rates. And just about every mass murder I can think of in recent years with a few exceptions was committed by a white male, just like the kind I see at rallies screeching about their Second Amendment rights.
It is not logically flawed, you just don’t understand what the phrase “by default” means. It is certainly possible to introduce other variables that make shooting someone no longer morally wrong, but that is not the default case.
No examples of the behavior in question?
But that’s not true at all: A shooter is pretty likely to be stopped by a law banning some types of guns, and would be extremely likely to be stopped by a law banning all guns. If you want to shoot someone, the first step is to get a gun. Right now, that’s really easy, because they’re available legally and openly, without even needing to pass a background check. No criminal is going to be stopped at step 1 right now, because it’s so easy. But if guns were illegal, then it would be a lot harder to get one: You’d have to steal one (from whom, and how did that person get it?), or have one smuggled in, or make one yourself, and those are all pretty hard. Very organized or determined criminals are still going to be able to get one, but most criminals won’t. And even if you really want to shoot someone, if you don’t have a gun, you can’t.
There are other options than shooting.
Who cares about mass murders? That’s a statistically insignificant blip on the radar, and worrying about that is about as dumb as banking on winning the lottery for retirement. Some 11,000 people (more or less) died in gun related homicides in the US in 2011 (the latest year I could find data on the CDC website for)… a liberal estimate would be 50 were killed by mass murderers, giving us what… a quarter of a percent? The other 99.75% were due to cultural factors- a willingness to use deadly force, a willingness to use guns in particular, and yes, a ready availability of guns.
However, that 11,000 number is roughly half that of gun-related suicides at 19,000 for suicides. And that’s out of roughly 2.5 million deaths, giving us 0.44% of total deaths in the US in 2011. Hardly a crazy number, and not even in the top 15 causes of death.
It seems like a solution in search of a problem, considering that SO many people own guns, and so few are actually used in crimes or to kill people.
You’ve seized on an irrelevant side issue I just mentioned in passing and ignored the entire substance of my post. I do imagine, however – and I also just mention this in passing – that everyone at Columbine or in Newtown or anyone else who’s been affected by a mass murder cares very much about it indeed, like the father whose son was killed by the California shooter and has become a fervent activist for reform. But as I say, that has nothing to do with what my post was about.
The suicide statistics are sometimes dismissed as irrelevant to discussing gun fatalities and gun control, but they’re not. Most suicides attempted with a gun succeed, but many attempted by other means do not, and the person gets help and treatment. As is so often the case, the presence of a gun is literally the difference between life and death, but not in a good way.
The only significant factor here is that US gun deaths are off the charts compared to other first-world nations. If you think that’s just peachy, or that all those thousands of deaths are somehow justifiable because it’s so much fun shooting beer cans off fence posts, I can’t help you. But the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical professionals who study and have to deal with the consequences of gun violence have described it as an epidemic.
You know what a useless solution in search of a non-existent problem is for the vast majority of citizens? A gun.
You’ve just described how and why gun control works in every first-world nation on earth.
I don’t buy this argument that the gun control debate has anything to do with keeping guns vs. confiscating them. Even the (now overturned) law in DC that effectively banned hand guns, while keeping long guns illegal, did not confiscate any guns from any legal gun owner.
No one is trying to take your guns away, people are just trying to make them slightly more difficult to buy.