CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Pro/Anti Gun
I am a pro gun, no gun control person. I am willing to debate as long as we remain kind and calm. NO RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, SEXISM, TRANS-PHOBIA IS ALLOWED.
This is not a simplistic, black and white issue, no pun intended.
Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the I.R.A., atrocity at the La Mon House Hotel near Belfast when twelve people were killed by the terrorist's incendiary bomb.
They had included sugar and napalm in their device so the burning material would cling to the victims more efficiently, and that it most certainly did, causing terrible life changing injuries.
Where there is a major psychotic hatred people will always find a way to slaughter their fellow human beings.
The I.R.A., bomb of 1972 killed two and caused horrific injuries to 130 innocent diners and shoppers at the Abercorn Cafe and surrounding area in Belfast.
In July 1972 nine people were murdered ( 7 civilians & two soldiers) and injured some 150 men women and children when the I.R.A., planted 19 bombs at and around Oxford Street Bus Station in Belfast.
Australia banned guns in 1997, or thereabouts, but since then there have been numerous murders and countless injuries caused by arson and gun and blunt instrument attacks.
Despite these figures I think it's best to be realistic about the issue and recognize that the banning, or much stricter control of guns would significantly reduce the carnage.
The implementation of any such firearm crackdown would be nigh impossible to fully enforce fairly and even Handedly.
In a buyback amnesty most honest, law abiding citizens would surrender their weapons whereas there would be 10s of 1000s of bad asses who wouldn't and we would have the situation whereby only the bad guys have guns.
Anyone who asserts that they have the answer to the gun issue in their back pocket is living in 'cloud cuckoo land.
Where there is a major psychotic hatred people will always find a way to slaughter their fellow human beings.
Yep,Frankly, we are VERY lucky people are mostly just using firearms. In my house are the makings for at least three extremely nasty weapons that would do far worse to many more people in a closed building than an AR-15 and several magazines.
In a buyback amnesty most honest, law abiding citizens would surrender their weapons whereas there would be 10s of 1000s of bad asses who wouldn't and we would have the situation whereby only the bad guys have guns.
Only the bad asses in my country have guns and guess who they kill with those guns , fellow criminals
Our police force are mostly unarmed except for senior detectives and the special branch , criminals do not shoot cops or the ordinary citizen over here
we are VERY lucky people are mostly just using firearms. In my house are the makings for at least three extremely nasty weapons that would do far worse to many more people in a closed building than an AR-15 and several magazines.
Could you elaborate here? It seems (to me) you may be alluding to the construction of bombs (of some sort)?
we are VERY lucky people are mostly just using firearms. In my house are the makings for at least three extremely nasty weapons that would do far worse to many more people in a closed building than an AR-15 and several magazines.
Yes, be sure to write to all the countless mothers whose children have been shot dead and explain to them how lucky they are. Instead of being dead from a gunshot wound they could easily be dead from something far worse.
and....uh....you conveniently neglected to mention that gun deaths have plummeted since the Aussies banned guns twenty years ago. And that they have not had One mass shooting.
I think we should not have gun control because guns are one of the few things that we have that make us feel safe to go anywhere. You never know what you might run into when you go somewhere. If they took our guns away, all that would keep us safe from other people such as robbers or murderers would be our instincts.
Before I start, I just want to address that while our forefathers did give us the second amendment, I am aware that that can change. I do not believe it should be changed, but I also believe that reasoning that we should have guns solely because of the second amendment is absurd. I am pro gun because it keeps people safe. Guns are always going to be a thing, and limiting the ways to get guns LEGALLY will only put good people at risk. As an example, Chicago has strict gun laws but still a high amount of crime.
As an example, Chicago has strict gun laws but still a high amount of crime.
That is because Chicago is sitting in the middle of a country where everybody else is allowed to own a gun. Obtaining a gun in Chicago is as easy as driving to Rockford.
limiting the ways to get guns LEGALLY will only put good people at risk
Contrary to the ridiculously stupid fantasy sold to most American idiots, life is not as simple as good guy versus bad guy. When people shoot you, most of the time they feel they have a good reason.
To be honest I just find your generic arguments to be an affront to both intelligence and reason.
Chicago is the gang capital of the United States. According to the Chicago Crime Commission, a 2012 Chicago Police Department gang audit found there are more than 600 gang factions in the city, with a minimum combined membership of 70,000. As the number of gangs in the city increase, it's difficult for gangs to control large areas. Instead, gangs cling to streets. Territory disputes mean increased rivalry and as a result, more shootings.
Number 2 you have no argument just your lack of reality !
In fairness and it’s too your credit , you’re one of few Americans who admit that its absurd to say Americans should have guns because the second amendment says so .
You also say ............I am pro gun because it keeps people safe......
Keeps you safe from who or what ?
Why is it Americans need guns to keep and feel safe ?
Is America that dysfunctional that you really need a gun to feel safe , how come I or fellow citizens in my country ( Republic of Ireland ) do not need to carry a weapon to feel safe ?
Why is America so much more violent as a society that its citizens only feel safe by carrying a gun ?
Is the U S such a brutally violent place that the only way you feel safe is but carrying a weapon , I would hate to live that way .
LMMFAO Number 2 says everyone is walking around with the ability to take down a city block but the fool you are you can't back up your insane comment with any fact.
Number 2 let me ask you a question okay ?
What Progressive common sense gun law is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals ?
You think people are safe in a country where everybody is walking around with the ability to take down half a city block?
I assume by the stuff you are writing that you have never been to the US.
It is obvious you know few, if any gun owners. True, I am one of three people at my workplace who does not own a gun. Only three of the sixty people I work with have concealed carry gun permits, and only one of them routinely goes out armed.
Jesus Christ. Are you mad? Look at your violent crime statistics. Look at the sheer amount of school shootings.
School shootings (during hours when kids are present) are extremely rare. The CDC stats indicate 14-34 school related homicides yearly in the US. Given the rate of traffic deaths (37,000 people in 2016) vice gun homicides (11,800 in 2016), it is clear that kids are safer at school than when being driven to school.
"Guns don't kill people, people WITH guns kill people."
Assault weapons don't kill people, people with assault weapons kill a LOT of people! But, Americans, like no other people on Earth, MUST have the "biggest, baddest toys ... because they have RIGHTS". Any "right" can be abused, and when a CHILD abuses his rights s/he gets punished. The biggest, baddest children should have their toys taken away if they abuse them. The biggest baddest children shouldn't even be allowed to play with KNIVES, let alone assault weapons. Protect our children, take the most dangerous toys away from these "children".
Authorities have identified the suspect who opened fire on the Republican congressional baseball team practice early Wednesday morning in Alexandria, Virginia, as James T. Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Illinois. More details about Hodgkinson, who died after being shot by heroic Capitol Hill Police officers, have begun to emerge, presenting a picture of a man with a violent past who was virulently anti-Republican and anti-Donald Trump and a passionate supporter of Bernie Sanders.
In response to reports that Hodgkinson had volunteered on his Democratic presidential primary campaign, Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a statement a few hours after the attack decrying the suspect's "despicable act" and disavowing all violence.
"I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act," Sanders said in the statement. "Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms; Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values."
Hodgkinson broadcast his political opinions on multiple Facebook accounts and appears to have been a member of several anti-Republican and anti-Trump groups, including, "Terminate the Republican Party," "The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans," "Illinois Berners United to Resist Trump," and "Donald Trump is not my President."
The paper from Hodgkinson's hometown in Illinois, The Belleville News-Democrat, has provided one of the most thorough portraits of the suspect yet, including several quotes from neighbors. The paper confirmed that he took a Democratic ballot in the 2016 primary and was part of a left-wing "99%" protest in 2012. His neighbors knew him as a "hardcore" Democrat, but seemed shocked that he would act violently.
Crazy Al i didn't hear anything about gun control from Progressives when the above incident took place.
“I have long advocated — this is not what today is about — but there are too many guns on the streets,” he said to reporters. He added, "I have long talked about this --- background checks and shutting down gun show loopholes. And that’s not for today’s discussion, but it’s not just about politicians. We worry about this every day for all of our citizens.”
"I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.
"My hopes and prayers are that Representative Scalise, congressional staff and the Capitol Police Officers who were wounded make a quick and full recovery. I also want to thank the Capitol Police for their heroic actions to prevent further harm."
The response then was the same as it has been for all the shootings since - everybody sent thoughts and prayers, Dems talked about gun control, Republicans said the answer was more guns and, in the end, nothing happened - again.
Mao Zedong: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
While in previous ages it was the sword this fundamental truth of power has not changed. All political power comes ultimately from the ability to utilize force. The balance of power between the state and the citizen has and presumably always will lean on the side of the state, however the degree of this imbalance is of great import. In western liberal democracies we have a better balance of power than in North Korea and this is part of why our people are treated so well relative to these nations. By making those who wield force somewhat accountable to the people, we thereby create a better balance of power between state and citizen. The ability of the citizenry to utilize force themselves grants further power to the citizenry, resulting in a more equitable balance of power. As aforementioned, this balance of power results in better conditions for the citizenry.
There is also the fact that in the U.S. there are more guns than people and this would make things incredibly difficult for any tyrannical government that may emerge from within or invade from without. The civilian resistance would inspire and enable a multitude of military turncoats; if no civilian resistance existed then military desertion wouldn't happen at anywhere near the same rate. This is both because resistance wouldn't seem as futile and there would be an existing force to join. As for a fear of a government becoming oppressive being unfounded, I would point simply to the fact that over a long enough time frame an oppressive government is inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that advances in technology mean that progressively smaller numbers of people can control increasingly large populations.
There is also the issue that to defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after the crime has taken place. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible.
You say ....There is also the issue that to defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after the crime has taken place. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible.........
Is the U S so incredibly dysfunctional that one needs a gun to defend ones family from attackers , rapists and thieves ? I lived in L A and was never once thereatened , attacked or my wife raped , how it really got so dysfunctional since I last lived there ?
Is the U S so incredibly dysfunctional that one needs a gun to defend ones family from attackers , rapists and thieves ? I lived in L A and was never once thereatened , attacked or my wife raped , how it really got so dysfunctional since I last lived there ?
Nope, it functions pretty well for a nation of 330,000,000 people. Part of that is gun ownership.
One set of stats I came across is that (depending on the state) between 2% and 5% of the people in public are legally carrying a gun. That means that in a restaurant with 100 customers in California, possibly 2 people are armed, or in Texas, possibly 5. Neither you nor a criminal can look around and tell who has a gun.
There are indications that this confers a level of safety on members of society who do not have guns, such as the other 95 people in the Texas Restaurant. One such indication is that we generally see mass shootings only in gun-free zones, places where the homicidal dickhead knows he will be the only person with a gun.
It is not unreasonable to propose that one reason your wife was not raped, and you were not robbed is that the criminals could not tell if either of you were carrying a firearm.
"Is the U S so incredibly dysfunctional that one needs a gun to defend ones family from attackers , rapists and thieves ? I lived in L A and was never once thereatened , attacked or my wife raped , how it really got so dysfunctional since I last lived there ?"
Wherever you go, there is the risk that you will be attacked, raped or robbed. Statistically, these things aren't amazingly common, however they do happen often enough to be a concern. My home has never been robbed, yet I still take the precaution of having a security system.
"if you’re attacked and you have a gun do you not think the attacker will also have a gun ?"
Possibly, though if the attacker has a legally owned gun the bullet casings will be traceable to the owner. If I get attacked by someone who has a gun and I don't have one I can only run or hide, but if I have a gun I can defend myself when running or hiding aren't sufficient.
You say .....if I get attacked by someone who has a gun and I don't have one I can only run or hide, but if I have a gun I can defend myself when running or hiding aren't sufficient.........
And that the likehood of being attacked by someone with a gun would be a rarity it if you lived in a society that was gun free
Pro gun. Anyone who brings up the stupid argument on how guns have killed many people I.e. school shootings. Is dumb. It’s not the gun killing, the gun is simply the tool. The thing killing is the person.
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill , Americans collectively bury their heads in the sand every time another shooting happens and repeat tired nauseous mantras as in “ guns don’t kill people , people kill people “
Over 1 million people have died since the 60’s in America from gun deaths and thats not counting gun injuries , and still Americans say it’s not a problem , the love of the gun is cultural and how dare anyone interfere with this “ right “ to carry
Is the U S such a dreadful place that its citizens feel so utterly helpless unless they can carry a gun , what a dreadful way to live and if that’s what makes a civilized society count me out
Over 1 million people have died since the 60’s in America from gun deaths and thats not counting gun injuries , and still Americans say it’s not a problem
People dying is not a problem, strictly speaking. It is a basic condition of life.
"No one gets out of here alive." (Jim Morrison)
Our Reactions
Truly I understand the emotional reaction to the fact that death is a basic fact of life, a law of nature. Stephen Crane wrote,
When it occurs to a man that nature does not regard him as important, and that she feels she would not maim the universe by disposing of him, he at first wishes to throw bricks at the temple, and he hates deeply the fact that there are no bricks and no temples. Any visible expression of nature would surely be pelleted with his jeers.
Then, if there be no tangible thing to hoot he feels, perhaps, the desire to confront a personification and indulge in pleas, bowed to one knee, and with hands supplicant, saying: “Yes, but I love myself.”
In our love for ourselves, we tend to want to discount the complexity of reality in our outrage, and dish our blame out unevenly, and out of perspective with statistical realities.
We lump our unhappiness into categories by proximate causes categorized by the tools involved, and never consider how common (or not) any of these things really are.
Imbalanced Thinking
We hear of a school shooting and a shallow statistic for firearm deaths, and in a fit of conflation, forget that about two thirds of US gun deaths are suicides. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention puts yearly suicide rate at almost 45,000, slightly over half of which are by gun. Like it or not people who want to kill themselves have enough methods available, and getting rid of guns would not change the outcome significantly.
We have adjusted to the fact that that as many people die in car wrecks as by guns. Somehow we are smart enough to accept automobile deaths (and all the paraplegia, quadriplegia, brain damage, wrecked faces, etc.) as a natural part of modern life. We know that cars are not the problem, and that carelessness is endemic to people, and seek to reduce that, but we do not want to apply the same principle to guns.
We do not want to admit that people are the problem, and that NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, there will always be some dickhead who wants to shit in the pool, whether by using a gun, a machete, an axe, or bleach and ammonia. Which tools these dickheads use is not a particularly big part of the problem.
Perspective
Consider, the CDC reports US gun homicides in 2014 at 11,800 (3.5/100,000 people.)
By contrast, that same year there were 32,700 deaths in car wrecks(10.3/100,000 people).
The stats run about the same for most years, though from 1963-2007 the yearly highway death toll was always above 40,000, and often above 50,000.
There are ways to mitigate this, and we have improved the car wreck problem markedly, but no sane person thinks we would solve death by eliminating cars.
We need to keep some perspective in all of this.
Consider also:
- 50,000 opioid deaths in the US in 2016.
- 32,000 deaths by accidental falls (10/100,000 people).
- 42,000 deaths by accidental poisoning (13.2/100,000 people).
How do 11,800 gun homicides really compare?
Reasonable Responses
Principles of Project Management teach us the following:
- 1 - Some risks we can transfer, usually these are financial risks, and the transfer involves an insurance policy. Sometimes it is trading one risk for another.
- 2 - Some risks we can mitigate, either by reducing likelihood, or reducing impact.
- 3 - Some risks we can avoid, usually by changing the scope of the project, or cancelling it altogether.
- 4 - Most risks (whether mitigated or not) we must ultimately accept.
Lots of people want to go with option 1 and trade risks to freedom for risks to safety, but as the reality with auto deaths demonstrates, that is not going to address the problem effectively.
The risk of dying before we are old, however we might try to mitigate it (category 2) is not avoidable (category 3) and is ultimately in category number four.
It is silly for people to deny that.
Would it make you feel better to go and throw a brick at a temple?
I think it comes down to whether people believe that self-defense and the defense of one's property and liberty are worthwhile benefits. The fact that three times more people are killed by cars than by homicides by gun is not seen as a reason to ban cars, after all. The reason for this difference must be the belief that being able to travel quickly is a more worthwhile benefit than the defense of one's self, property and liberty.
Do you actually believe citizens of the U S need guns to defend their liberty and property ?
What do you think distinguish the people who rise to power in any place or age from those who rise to power in any other place or age?
When I read history, and the news, I don't see any difference between one set of ambitious people and another.
What distinguishes how some governments behave toward the citizenry is the set of constraints inherent in the system, and the whether the people in power believe the citizenry capable of enforcing the constraints.
The US Constitution articulates and establishes an effective set of restraints, and for two and a quarter centuries, the people in power, have generally believed the citizens capable of enforcing those restraints. However, for a half century, they have nibbled around the edges of our freedoms.
I notice that, historically, when governments disarm their citizens (Nazi Germany, Venezuela, etc.) sooner or later, they stop nibbling, and start to take full bites.
Those of you in the disarmed nations of Europe are dependent on your leaders' virtue, such as it is. What do you think would happen if someone were to arise who is less virtuous than those you have at present?
"Cars are deisigned for transport , guns are designed to kill , can you not see a difference here ?"
Martial arts are designed to harm and kill too, sometimes it is necessary to harm and kill in order to defend oneself.
"Do you actually believe citizens of the U S need guns to defend their liberty and property ?"
Yes, throughout history there has always been the constant threat that one will be robbed, attacked or enslaved. While these threats are lesser in modern developed countries, they persist and will never desist.
Guns are designed for one purpose to kill , most see martial arts as a sport and a discipline , thankfully in my society it’s extremely rare where one has to kill to defend ones self
If the government wished to enslave its populace there would be no contest an unorganized populace against the might of the American military would have no chance
"Guns are designed for one purpose to kill , most see martial arts as a sport and a discipline , thankfully in my society it’s extremely rare where one has to kill to defend ones self "
Shooting is a sport too. Also the purpose of martial arts is to harm and kill. As far as I am aware, people learn it primarily for self-defense (which is why it's often marketed as such).
"If the government wished to enslave its populace there would be no contest an unorganized populace against the might of the American military would have no chance"
For one thing the fact that there are so many guns is a barrier to rulers even considering becoming oppressive beyond a certain degree. Aside from the risk of insurrection, there is also the risk of assassination. Moreover, the U.S. military would not wholly obey an oppressive government; there would be lots of deserters joining the resistance, bringing with them the latest technology. Without an existing resistance to join, not only would less desert (because there would be no force to join with), but those that did would be far shorter on armed civilian assistance.
The fact that three times more people are killed by cars than by homicides by gun is not seen as a reason to ban cars, after all. The reason for this difference must be the belief that being able to travel quickly is a more worthwhile benefit than the defense of one's self, property and liberty.
I think this is a solid observation.
I think a corollary is that more people own cars than own guns, so more people have a vested interest in maintaining car ownership.
But I never said people dying was a problem but the way they die is as in gun related deaths is , to me anyway , you think not why ?
Emotional reaction ? Yes , I admit I get a tad “ emotional “ when I see yet more children slaughtered in the U S through a nutter who can freely obtain a gun and end the life of innocents .
I wonder if Stephen Cranes musings will offer solace to the victims families of the latest outrage , what do you think ?
So yes , Imbalanced thinking leads me to think civilized societies need guns to function effectively
I know you Americans have a love affair with the gun , I get it , why can you not at least admit it ?
Emotional reaction ? Yes , I admit I get a tad “ emotional “ when I see yet more children slaughtered in the U S through a nutter who can freely obtain a gun and end the life of innocents
More school children were killed in car accidents last week than in shootings, at school or otherwise. Are you just as emotional about those deaths?
More people die by falling off ladders, etc. than by being shot by someone else. Four times as many people die of accidental poisoning.
Are you anti-car, anti-ladder, anti-swallowing stuff?
Of course not.
But I bet you are anti-homicidal dickhead, and anti-carelessness. That is where the Pro-gun people are.
I know you Americans have a love affair with the gun , I get it , why can you not at least admit it ?
Who denies it?
Have you seen American movies and TV shows? We shamelessly adore guns, just like we love fatty food, automobiles, and power tools.
Imbalanced thinking leads me to think civilized societies need guns to function effectively
Guns are one way to go in a civilized society. The vast majority of American gun owners are responsible, law-abiding(ish), peace-loving people.
The Swedish model is another way to go. I understand they still haven't got that gang rape problem under control, and I bet there are lots of Swedish rape victims who would love to try out our version of civilized society.
Yes, but automobiles have a purpose other than killing people. Moreover, we regulate cars, we require seat belts, restrict speed, and require a license and insurance in order to drive
Now you resort to calling me a dickhead whys that ?
Yes , yous adore guns which are designed to kill and you see nothing strange in that , wow
If guns are one way to go in a civilized society why do unarmed civilized societies not see the need to follow suit ?
Regards Sweden you reckon guns would solve this problem , in your ideal scenario only rape victims would have guns but of course the rapist wouldn’t ?
Now you resort to calling me a dickhead whys that ?
NO, my friend, I am NOT calling you a dickhead!
When I wrote. "But I bet you are anti-homicidal dickhead," I was saying that Homicidal dickheads are something you are against. That is why there is no comma before the word dickhead.
I wonder if Stephen Cranes musings will offer solace to the victims families of the latest outrage , what do you think ?
I have known friends over the years whose kids have died (fire, cancer, gunshot, car wreck.) NOTHING offers them solace, not even passing decades.
They are all way past throwing bricks at the temple, but parental outrage at the universe (or mankind, or that one guy who did it) is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
Nobody likes to hear that their kid was not some treasure whose death could stop the world. The reality is that most shootings don't affect anybody who did not know the victim because the vast majority of us just are not all that important.
We see something about 17 kids on TV and then have an emotional reaction, but over 500 times that number die in car wrecks each year and we don't care because unless it's on the news, it does not actually affect us.
The parents all have exactly the same problem, but somehow people talk about shooting victims' families as if they are different.
Yes, but automobiles have a purpose other than killing people. Moreover, we regulate cars, we require seat belts, restrict speed, and require a license and insurance in order to drive .
1 million people have died by guns in the U S since the sixties add in gun related injuries and the figures are even more shocking , you do not for some bizarre reason see a problem here
Feel free to choose from the initial short answer and the essay that follows it.
1 million people have died by guns in the U S since the sixties add in gun related injuries and the figures are even more shocking , you do not for some bizarre reason see a problem here
I think we agree that it is important to see the problem clearly. I hope you do not mind the length of my essay, but there is a lot to address.
Short Answer
Of course I see a problem, but I do not think the problem with gun violence is the gun, but rather the violence. I don’t think the particular tool is the problem, nor are the majority of the proximate causes. There are root causes that must be addressed if anything is to change. The focus on the tool is merely chasing a chimera. I just don’t see how getting rid of guns can solve the American violence problem.
Long Answer
If we are to address the violence we need to consider some realities.
Trade-offs
Economist Thomas Sowell has observed there are no solutions, only trade-offs. This is true of every type of problem, including this one.
Were we to illegalize firearms in the US, people would merely use other weapons for commission of crimes, and to use against each other:
Obviously, the first sets are primarily weapons of opportunity, generally less effective than firearms; I included them primarily examples of the range of possibilities. However, the last lines of the list are nasty weapons that are real problems worldwide, and they eclipse the brutality and effectiveness of semi-automatic weapons in causing human suffering and death.
(Frankly, were I a homicidal dickhead intent on causing suffering, I would eschew the semi-automatic rifle, and select from the last two lines. Toxic gasses, poisons, and bombs offer greater damage combined with better possibility of escape. Automobiles offer equal effectiveness combined with better surprise capability and opportunity to change venue without detection.)
Without (comparatively) easy access to guns, selfish, brutal, and ill-intentioned people would merely migrate down the list, with the tradeoff that there would be fewer decent people in the community equipped to discourage or respond to the criminals.
As much to the point, there would still be criminals with guns. The fact that law-abiding citizens would have no firearms would give the criminals a considerable advantages over criminals in our current situation.
Hunters and sportsman would lose both a source of sustenance and entertainment. The US would also lose the Constitutionally protected deterrent against government overreach and tyranny.
These are significant trade-offs, and I see nothing to indicate that the result would be a safer and less violent society, or even fewer homicides. Currently guns account for only 70% of US homicides. If my list of weapons can do 4,800 homicides/year, they can do almost 16,000
Realities of Legislation
The laws against armed robbery, violence, and homicide are clearly not particularly effective. There is no reason to believe that increased legislation would be more effective than current legislation in reducing violence and violent crime.
Laws against drug use and sale are ineffective, so there is no reason they would be more effective in controlling the use and sale of guns.
Even background check and registration laws have uncertain effectiveness. Since the 1980s the US has implemented more stringent gun controls, and the use of internet databases for background checks. Concurrently, according to the General Social Survey Final Report, Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972-2014, only 31% of American households owned a firearm in 2014, compared to 51% from 1976-1982. (http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/ )
This would seem to correlate with a marked decline in gun homicide since the 1970’s, and with the implementation of controls. That correlation is very possibly misleading.
Decrease in gun ownership may be an incidental byproduct of increased urbanization and overall cultural change.
Even comparing homicide rates over time is unreliable because of the radical advances in medical technology that have reduced the mortality of gunshot victims, stabbing victims, etc. downgrading would be homicide to attempted murder or aggravated assault. When doing research, aggravated assault is too vague a category to know if it was a bad fistfight or an attempted murder that missed being a murder only because of effective emergency care.
Consider alcohol laws as a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of legislation in general.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, “Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths . . . Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.” This is despite legislation regarding minimum drinking ages, drunk driving, access on college campuses, and legislated alcohol education programs in public schools etc..
However, anti-alcohol legislation, particularly the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition,) failed miserably to curb alcohol consumption, dramatically increased violent crime, and established organized crime syndicates who maintained power decades after the repeal of Prohibition.
It is conceivable, based on the history of Prohibition, that illegalizing guns could make the problem worse.
I just do not see that laws are capable of solving the violence problem any better than the alcohol problem, which, given the numbers, is significantly more impactive on the American populace, anyway.
Proximate and Root Causes
The focus on the particular tool of killing overshadows the proximate causes of the violence, including factors like mental illness, poverty, and drug use. Some of these factors are addressed in the current American public discussion, notably mental illness. Addressing some of these may make a difference in the homicide rate in the US. Regardless of their role in violent crime, each of these needs to be addressed because they are important issues in and of themselves.
However, I do not hear anyone in the public sphere discussing root causes for why these proximate causes are manifesting in violent crime.
Since 1965, the real standard of living of people in “poverty” in the US (calorie intake, medical care, housing access and quality, access to higher education) has risen radically. So, why have per capita rates for every category of violent crime more or less doubled since 1965, except homicide which is about the same as in 1965 (5.1/100,000 vice 5.3)? To the extent that poverty increases likelihood of violence, why would violence increase as poor people become fewer and less poor?
That would be a handy thing to know if we want to address the problem.
Use of illegal drugs correlates highly with violence for very well understood reasons. Some of this is due to the effects of high-dollar enterprises operating outside of legal channels. Obviously, de-legislation would reduce the violence some. Even so, why people engage in drug use to begin with has not been effectively addressed in our society.
Possibly the most critical root cause of American violence is that 26% of American kids are raised in single parent homes, predominantly by a mother. Among Black Americans, this rises to over 70%. Significantly, the crime rate among Black males is higher than any other demographic group. There are also similarities between single-parent home rates and crime rates among Hispanics, Whites, and Asians.
The need for strong and present father figures to help develop more complex and responsible concepts of manhood is evident. Otherwise the main source of male role models are in movies and TV, where manhood is more associated with violence than with responsibility, self-control, and sacrifice.
I could go on, and on (even more than I have,) but you get the idea.
If we fail to address root causes effectively, changing the tool will not matter at all.
Dermot are you aware that there is close to 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens in America ? I live freely in this society of guns and even own a few weapons and those weapons have never shot a single person.
The real issue is the cultural rot that has taken place in America put forth by a Leftist/Progressive News Media. The gun is not to blame and never will be it's the sick criminal behind the trigger with evil intent that is the problem.
And let me make it clear i am not trying in anyway to rude you out or disrespect your view of guns. There is a Bill of Rights in America and for those that want to twist what the 2nd Amendment is are the gungrabbers that believe if there was just common sense gun laws then criminals would not have guns and that sir is a fallacy.
Outlaw it’s fine honest and you’re not rude at all .
The whole gun debate is an area that Americans and Europeans rarely agree on as even though we speak a similar language culturally we are miles apart on different issues , it still makes great debate
However, 300 million guns are no joke, especially when they are spread among more than 100 million people dispersed over the entire geographic area of 3.5 million miles, and in every single neighborhood of every single city and town.
The sheer mess would discourage an unconstitutional grab for power. There would be no neat or easy way to win without destroying sections of every major city, interruption of production in every economic sector, and alienation of more than half the citizenry.
Cities' and states' jurisdictional police forces are not guaranteed allies of the Federal military forces. There is also the issue of a volunteer military that comes from every state, primarily from the conservative gun-owning portion of the populace. It is not unlikely that many in the military would refuse to bomb or fire on Americans.
Yes, the military would win in the end, but the destruction would be wholesale.
Consider that Bashar al Assad is still trying to deal with the results of a national reaction to overreaching his authority. Syria has a much smaller and less well armed populace. Even so, he may get back only half of the country, and it is in ruins nonetheless.
I think that the certainty of a Pyrrhic victory encourages restraint in the US government.
I don't know if it is more civilized to be unable to defend yourself against brutal and uncivilized people.
I tend to think that moral advancement (which is what I understand you to mean by civilized) is not a defined by what people have, or by what they are allowed to do.
I think advancement is defined by self-restraint.
Using law (and the violence implicit in enforcing that law) to prevent people from carrying firearms merely creates the illusion of advancement.
A truly advanced society would be one in which everyone carries a loaded firearm, but no one discharges it.
There are brutal and uncivilized people in every society if your armed they’re also armed , I would much prefer a brutal individual to be un - armed
I’m not talking about moral advancement whatever that means , do you think moral advancement is not defined by what one is allowed to do ?
If advancement is self restraint then society has a long way to go , using law to prevent people from carrying lethal weapons is what I want the law to do
A truly advanced society is one where no feels the need to carry a gun in order to walk freely and go about their day
I see your points, but it appears that you think MUCH more highly of modern humans than I do.
I’m not talking about moral advancement whatever that means , do you think moral advancement is not defined by what one is allowed to do ?
Sufficient moral advancement to be "truly civilized" would mean that nobody in the society would need external rules to shape good behavior. (Cue John Lennon's Imagine.)
There are brutal and uncivilized people in every society if your armed they’re also armed , I would much prefer a brutal individual to be un - armed
I think we are all brutal and uncivilized, but we pretend to be otherwise in order to continue to benefit from civilization. We are only civilized on the outside, and only so long as we are well fed enough to care what others think of us. If I thought humans were capable of learning to be INTERNALLY civilized, I would be right there with you. However, the older parts of the brain outrank the newest parts (the ones that are civilizable.)
My observations indicate that, at best, we are capable of donning a veneer of decency, so long as enough of the people around us seem to have the same veneer, and are able to enforce the rules that support the surface-level civilization.
There are brutal and uncivilized people in every society if your armed they’re also armed , I would much prefer a brutal individual to be un - armed
The brutal ones who do not care to maintain their personal veneer of civilization will always arm themselves because they do not care that arming themselves is breaking the rules of being civilized. The brutal ones who believe in the veneer of civilization are the ones capable and willing to enforce the civilizing rules, but only if they are as well armed as the others.
A truly advanced society is one where no feels the need to carry a gun in order to walk freely and go about their day
I agree, but in the clear absence of that, I will settle for a society that is sufficiently not-irredeemably-primitive that when making its laws, it takes into account that its people are not truly advanced.
There is no reason to default to such extreme and unfounded characterizations of the situation.
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill
I think you are incorrect about this basic part of your argument.
Not only is it untrue that "the sole purpose of a gun is to kill," but it is also untrue that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill.
There are more conflict/danger responses than just fight and flight, and guns have a purpose beyond fight. In build ups to conflict, and dominance contests,there are also the additional options are posture and submit.
Posturing consists of showing strength and ability to fight pith the purpose of discouraging violence by showing that resistance or non-cooperation is too dangerous to be worth the risk. Posturing is a how a one elicits submission by the other side without violence.
Consider, the vast majority of encounters with police include no violence because the people submit due to the posturing implicit in the police being armed with guns. The potential for violence and death is demonstrated by the guns cops carry (in the US). Cops carry weapons partially to be able to use in violent confrontation, but mostly to leverage the capability to do violence as a means to promote submission to their authority, and thereby discourage the need to actually do violence. Cops keep the peace primarily through posturing. Guns are a part of that.
This principle goes beyond law enforcement.
Most criminals use the threat of violence to get robbery victims to hand over their stuff.
Countries with nuclear weapons use nukes to prevent invasion, not to kill enemies with them.
There is even implied and non-point posturing. The potential of some American in a public place to be carrying a gun discourages robberies, or people armed with machetes from running around hacking people apart. (Yes, I know this is an extreme example.)
We can see how well this tends to work because these mass shootings almost exclusively happen in gun-free zones where the violent fuck-head can be assured of being the best armed person there. Posturing works to discourage violence.
Is the U S such a dreadful place that its citizens feel so utterly helpless unless they can carry a gun
Nope, not at all.
I do not carry a gun, and I always feel safe.
Most of us do not carry guns and still do not feel helpless. The vast majority of gun owners do not routinely carry them, and do not feel helpless.
but it is also untrue that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill.
That's where I stopped reading and downvoted you for being stupid. I suppose it is just coincidence that we arm military units with guns. Clearly, they are supposed to be given as presents to the enemy, but soldiers are just using them wrong.
You said you did not read it. How would you know whether it is worth reading if you don't read it? That makes any of your comments empty and ineffective.
And again, you really need to work on your insults. ; ) They always sound like they are coming from a 15-year-old.
For example, arrogant is not an intrinsically insulting term for the simple reason that it only points back at your own insecurities.
Likewise, shill hardly insults because it merely means that you have identified me as working for a position you oppose. That is basic to what this site is about, so again, there is no insult.
Repeating an ineffective attempt at an insult does not improve its effectiveness
Marcus, if you weren't so arrogant then you would understand you are not the judge and juror of the effectiveness of anything. Indeed, you would understand that you are not the judge and juror of what is an insult and what is merely factual.
The fact of the matter is that you are denying basic fundamental reality because of stupid ideology you have been brainwashed with. Nobody is interested in reading your 6,000 word posts which begin with you redefining the basic purpose of weapons, and nobody is interested in your embarrassing attempts to be witty.
Your arrogance is like a shield that protects you from the knowledge of how incredibly stupid you are.
if you weren't so arrogant then you would understand you are not the judge and juror of the effectiveness of anything.
Only the insulted is equipped to judge the quality of the insult. If I see you insulted me, as evidenced by name-calling, but I do not feel insulted, then you have done a poor job of it. (That is nothing more than the nature of an insult.) It is telling that you are so socially inept that you are inept even at being unpleasant.
The fact of the matter is that you are denying basic fundamental reality because of stupid ideology you have been brainwashed with. Nobody is interested in reading your 6,000 word posts which begin with you redefining the basic purpose of weapons, and nobody is interested in your embarrassing attempts to be witty.
Now who is being arrogant? You and your six or seven alternate identities may not wish to read my posts, which is fine, but others do. I do not write them for you.
Hell, I might even be insulted by your approval. ; )
Marcus, if you weren't so arrogant then you would understand you are not the judge and juror of the effectiveness of anything. Indeed, you would understand that you are not the judge and juror of what is an insult and what is merely factual.
Marcus has provided arguments, as one tends to do on a Debate site. Conversely, you have engaged in an infantile rampage (a.k.a. a 'temper-tantrum').
Again, this is why you would not make it in a 'formal' arena
No he hasn't, you pathetic troll. He denied that the primary purpose of guns is killing people. That is not an argument. That is a revision of reality.
You are a shockingly hateful little troll. Your determination to attack me inevitably leads to you defending stupidity.
