The debate "Banning guns increases crime in a country" was started by
June 11, 2019, 11:12 am.
83 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 107 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
boispendaddy posted 11 arguments, dkokkinis1995 posted 1 argument, fireball4thewin posted 1 argument, MightyJackalope posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 17 arguments, Nemiroff posted 12 arguments, Allirix posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Potatochiper, Potato, hollieg, boispendaddy, sakshi, dkokkinis1995, babymarie, fireball4thewin, rakshit_6706, trent, Deat, GotWood, Light, Communistguy, jrardin12, Atratuscythe, itzmeboi, whackamole1, Zsheaffer, Ambassador_Chess, Delta_Force01, MightyJackalope, CastLight, Rayyan989, chelrasonjohn, mtbtheboss, Unaluhabe, eva_pet35 and 55 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff, Raquel24, sssk, kuku, Rodolfo, ShiroSpeaks, bernie, MADHURA, thuy, TPSYT1, Allirix, TheDebator45, MrStealyogrill, EmiMoro, nikhil, sk25, JDAWG9693, crep, athihrii, YEET, TheExistentialist, Eurah, codyray16, realone_27, chelseat99, Agrumentman, StarianaMusicINFP, Andrew_Sagirius, Debatelegend, Facundo4261Arg, civilizeddiscussion, tyler0300, eli and 73 visitors disagree.
MightyJackalope - If your argument were true, then crime would be directly proportional to the amount of guns. IE with lots of guns there would be no crime, with no guns there would be lots of it. But we do not see that. The US has a massive amount of guns and it's crime rate is one of the highest in the developed world. Canada has much tighter gun laws and has considerably less violent crime.
Studies have shown that having a gun does not make you safer. It actually increases the odds of being harmed. Especially in a society where a criminal has such an easy time getting a gun themselves.
Fundamentally, there are two ways humans interact with each other, by force or deliberation. If I cannot have a gun, anyone who is bigger, stronger, more fight-savy, or outnumbers me can force their will on me. The only equaliser in this situation is a gun. It puts a 5'2" women on par with a NFL linebacker. The gun negates physical advantages. In a fully civilised society, all actions are done through convincing people, not forcing them. Seeing as how we have innate access to force through the mechanics of our own bodies, would you rather have an equalizer of force, or some individuals with a monopoly on force? That's why I'm pro-gun
Yeah, america's problems run deep. it isn't just that they have way too many guns that are way too easy to get. It is also that the gun lobby has successfully pushed it into mainstream acceptance that guns are needed for freedom. Despite that fact that most other modern countries are just as free as america but without most of the gun problems.
It also doesn't help that politics has become so polarized and corrupted by groups such as the NRA. No republican politician can possibly support gun reform or they will be kicked out of their party. So voters who want to support conservative ideas have no choice but to support people who have no intention of curbing gun violence.
Without guns this is what public attacks become (see link). He was subdued with a chair and a milk crate. If you've seen the live footage of the NZ attacker (the best footage of how people react in a serious public shooting) you'd have seen people attempting to stop him with weapons but in the chaos of it all his assault weapon was no match.
Having said that, the gun-obsessed culture in the USA means a solution to gun crime will need to be vastly different to the buy-back scheme of Australia. But a clear start is making it harder to buy a gun then it is to buy life-saving medication
Canada hasn't banned guns. My father owns several. There are however lots of restrictions on them. For example the maximum size of a magazine is 5 rounds. So it is impossible to have a mass shooter kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds because he simply couldn't have that many rounds. It is also much more difficult to buy a handgun. They requite a special permit which isn't all that easy to get.
Canada does on occasion have a mass shooting. But they are a fairly rare event. America has a mass shooting at a rate of approximately 1 per day.
In Canada, we have banned guns and we are overall a safe country. In the United States, guns are legal and many tragedies occur. Legal guns aren't safer guns!
Basically that entire post wasn't true. I provided an article proving that within 21 feet a gun is often ineffective. Your response was that you don't want to believe it. You didn't provide any evidence, any information at all. It is a fact that guns at close range are not the optimal tool to use to defend yourself.
A gun for home defense is not a good idea. There are about 250 cases of a "good guy" killing a "bad guy" with a gun every year. Compare that to 20,000 suicides by gun, 10,000 homicides and 500 accidental deaths. If you have a gun in your home, it is much, much more likely to be used by someone to kill themselves, murder someone else or accidentally shoot someone than it is to shoot a "bad guy". The odds that you will ever use a gun to shoot a bad guy are incredibly low. The odds your gun will kill someone you love or be used in a crime are much, much higher.
So no. You are much better off with a baseball bat than a gun. And if there were real gun control laws in your country, then you wouldn't ever really need a gun for home defense.
Excuse me for the late response but I massively disagree with your first point and the link you provided. First, in said article, it points out the Rule of 21 or the 21 Foot Rule. Although there may be some truth to this, I do not regard it as powerful enough evidence as to why guns do not work for defense. There are a lot of times where the attacker is more than 21 feet away with a melee weapon and you need to defend yourself. What happens when someone else with am illegally purchased weapon has a gun just like you? You can shoot someone point blank, and you can shoot them while they are running towards you. The article says that it takes about 1 second for an attacker 21 feet away to successfully reach you. The human reaction time, assuming you are holding the gun and looking at the attacker, is roughly .30 seconds. That means he could be shot 3 to 4 times over before he even had a chance at attacking you. A gun is quite clearly the most optimal weapon of defense for someone non skilled in the art of close range combat, for someone in a wheelchair, for a weaker woman, and for just about anybody.
A gun for home defense is a great idea, assuming you don't live in an apartment. If you live in a home your bullet won't go through a wall and hit a neighbor across the street, and probably won't hit someone else in the house as they are probably well aware of the intrusion.
That actually isn't true that you are better off having a gun. In many cases having a gun is worse than a melee weapon. If the person trying to harm you is within 21 feet of you, then it is often better to have a knife than a gun. And in many cases where a criminal has a gun aimed at you they will be closer than 21 feet.
Also, using a gun in home defense is often a really bad idea too. Bullets go through things. Using a gun in a close quarters fight inside your own home puts your family and neighbors at serious risk from both you and the criminal. You and your family would be far safer if neither you or the criminal had a gun. Which is what gun control is for.
The more guns that are readily available, the easier it is for guns to end up in the hands of criminals. Background checks would certainly be an improvement as it would keep the criminals from just walking into a gun store and buying them. But if there are still hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, they will certainly be able to get one illegally. The only way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to make them hard to get. That means for everyone. If you do anything less than that then all you can really do is treat symptoms of the underlying problem. You can slow down some of the worst aspects of gun violence. But you will never make significant steps towards solving it.
No, your first paragraph is absolutely false. You are using one case to justify all gun violence cases. If you have a concealed, AR in your home, or whatever it may be, you are safer. You are much better off bringing a GUN to a GUN fight.
I have actually proposed a solution in response to your second paragraph and that is extensive background checks and a mental health check in every state. Did you know 60% of shooters have a history in mental illness? Granted, is this plan fool-proof? No, but nothing is. The gun control you want to implement takes away guns from GOOD people who would never kill anybody. Like I said earlier, shootings will still happen with illegally purchased weapons, as they do now, and taking defense away from the innocent is one way to bump up the numbers dead from a shooting.
feeling safer and being safer are 2 different things. if you are being robbed at gun point, their gun is already out, safety off, and aimed at you. your gun is useless no matter how safe you felt when you first got it.
the real way to be safe is to make sure criminals have a much harder time getting them, to the point that most average thugs cant get guns.
The thing with the second debate is people already have those amounts of ammo in their house already, and there would be no way to get rid of said ammo supply unless you got a search warrant for every single person who owns a gun. About 1/3 people own a gun in the U.S., and the amount of guns owned exceeds the U.S. population at about 393 million. Miraculously, you will need to find all of these people and make these guns disappear. That'll be my entire lifetime in a utopian universe. There will always be guns in circulation, there will always be ammo dealers, there will always be gunsmiths to repair your guns. Will this kind of gun control reduce this? Possibly, but I believe it'll be very little, and that very little isn't worth my own and family's safety.
It is also the gun owner's responsibility to keep their guns away from people who would want to steal them. Keep them on your belt, hide them in your floorboards, hell, booby trap them to keep them out of the way of thieves. Theft is mostly preventable, and most of the time if something of yours gets stolen it'll probably be your fault. It should be a law that the gun owner and the thief should face jail time.
Another point I would like to bring attention too is safety in public. If you are a girl walking alone at night, what will make you feel safe? Your quick fingers to dial 911? The measly bottle of pepper spray in your purse? Or a firearm to quickly end any threat? There are plenty of situations like this and if you arm a law abiding citizen with a gun, not only do they feel safer they are a lot more likely to be able to defend themselves.
We can agree that background checks are necessary. Frankly i think it is kind of insane anyone would disagree. That is the absolute bare minimum of what was necessary decades ago.
Even if I agreed that the owners of concealed weapons permits were law abiding, which i'm not certain of, the people around them are not. Their family members get access to their guns and kill people. The guns can easily be resold to or stolen by someone who is much less law abiding. Think of guns like a nuclear weapon. Even if everyone who has them right now can be trusted, the more of them that exist and are available, the higher the risks get that someone less trustworthy will get their hands on them and use them. The more people who have access to guns, the more people who will get shot by guns.
Your next argument is kind of a mess in my opinion. The point of that story is that if you restrict access to guns and ammunition then it is much, much more difficult for criminals to shoot someone. You say it is common practice for people to keep that much ammunition, and maybe it is while there are no laws restricting that. If you had laws more in line with British ones that wouldn't happen. People wouldn't have 2,000 rounds of ammo in their house.
You say you can find all of this stuff on the dark web, but things don't magically appear out of thin air. The person selling those weapons and ammo on the dark web got them somewhere. Probably from a gun store or they stole them from someone who legally purchased them. If you restrict gun and ammunition sales then that guy on the dark web won't have access to them either. Or at least they will be much harder to get making black market guns extremely extensive. They would therefore be out of reach for most criminals if they cost tens of thousands of dollars.
I agree that today if someone wants to commit a horrible crime with a gun they can. That's why you need gun laws to prevent this. Gun laws can't solve america's problems over night. it will take years for them to really start helping. But if you control sales of weapons, ammunition, and parts for repair of weapons, then over years people who aren't allowed to have them will have less and less ability to use them. If you can't get ammo for it or get it repaired then it is useless. But the fact that it will take time for the solution to work is not an argument against solving the problem. Adding more guns just makes it even easier for criminals to arm themselves.
Mind you, that I support background checks for people who wish to own guns and that is the only form of gun control I support, sorry if I was unclear. For example in the state of Arizona it is legal to buy a gun from any gun shop, without a background check, and walk away being a new found gun owner. It is a common conservative belief that this would be a good thing, and being a conservative I should agree, but I don't. I think both you and I can agree this is disastrous. I will say it over and over, concealed gun owners with a permit are over 99% law abiding; therefore, if we implemented a background check into this process, we will ensure all of these gun owners have a permit and fundamentally decrease the amount of mass shooting casualties.
Do you know how many shots it took to kill John F. Kennedy? Your second paragraph shows a case of undoubted stupidity on the shooter's part. This act was committed over 50 years ago, before the times of the internet. Today you can access the Dark Web and obtain any gun, magazine, mod, or bullet you can find. It is also a general rule of thumb to keep 1000 rounds of ammo for non practice purposes and another 1000 for practice in your home, he fired 6 blanks. Leading on with this rule, the deadliest mass shooting in America was conducted by Steven Paddock in 2017 shooting at a concert crowd. He killed 58 people and injured up to 500. Assuming he had 100% accuracy (which he didn't) he only needed to use about 1/4th of a general supply of ammo. In reality he shot about 1,100 rounds of ammo, making him 50% accurate, before finally ending his own life.
Basically what I am trying to say that today, if a shooter really wants to commit a horrible act as such, they will. It is likely that if they live in a city or state with high gun control that they already have a gun with loads of ammo. This gun that they likely have, also probably does not have a permit attached, as they are likely to have a criminal background. How can we feel safe against these illegal gun owners, if we have nothing to protect ourselves with?
@ boispendaddy But your underlying argument is flawed. IE that if there are more guns, there will be less shootings. The more guns that are in circulation, the easier they are for criminals to obtain. The easier they are for criminals to obtain the more shootings there will be. I'm not sure how anyone could believe that the solution to guns killing people is more guns. It makes no sense on the face of it. It's like saying the solution to drunk driving is giving more alcohol to "good" people. Because a "good" person with alcohol would prevent "bad" people with alcohol....
As for the solution to people not turning over their guns. That is definitely going to be an issue for a little while. But if you also control the parts to repair those guns as well as ammunition for those guns, then it is much less of an issue. You could have as many guns as you want, if you can't get ammunition for them then they may as well be paper weights. To support this point i offer the case of Marcus Sarjeant. He wanted to assassinate the Queen of England. He managed to get his hands on a gun owned by his father but he could not obtain ammo for it. He got a gun license but still couldn't get a real gun and ammo for it. He eventually settled for a starter's pistol and blanks which he fired at the queen. Without Britain's strict gun laws he would likely have succeeded in his assassination. Gun control works.
to counter those. illegal guns will be far less available and far more expensive. gang higher ups probably will be armed, but average thugs probably wont.
bombs are rare because they are illegal. FBI monitors purchases of bomb making materials. they also require FAR more skill, and might blow up in the attackers face, or not at all. even IF all shooters would just switch to bombs, few will successfully acquire the materials, fewer still will succeed in making it, and a few will kill themselves trying.
vehicles could be a big problem, but really it's an issue for cities, where many sign posts/mailboxes/meters/hydrants... and rows of parked cars act as barriers. large crowds can be easily protected by temporary barricades as well. also our economy might collapse without vehicles. they have a heavy pro side guns cannot match.
I am pro gun but I disagree with your knife argument. Knives are much less effective and much more tiring than shooting people from long range. However, this will not stop other mass execution methods, such as shootings conducted with illegal guns, bombs, or vehicles such as large trucks.
I am glad to talk about how widespread gun violence is, and I am offering my philosophy as to how to fix it. Allow me to reiterate my stance on guns. I do agree, that on fully enforced gun control does not work. I have provided what I think to be substantial evidence to support this claim. However, I do think a thorough background check is in order due to about 60% of shooters have a history in mental illness, and I'm sure some of them in crime. Background checks do work, as people with conceal carry permits are over 99% law abiding. If you are truly who you say you are as a law abiding citizen, it is only fair for you to prove it. If defense were not an issue in this country, then I would possibly change my stance on guns, however I believe handguns specifically are the best method in defense against anything from an animal, a human, and to, as the constitution states, a tyrannical government.
I will admit, neither of our sources could be claimed as completely legitimate, but what can be considered legitimate to such a controversial issue. I try to find statistics rather than "facts," as even pro gun facts are skewed to fit an argument. But, even despite stats defense will still always be a nessecity in this country, or any country for that matter.
If I were a potential shooter with a history in mental illness and crime living at home, what do you think the possibilities are that I give my gun back? If you try to force me I might become hostile. These are the kinds of people who do not return their guns, and are the ones we need to be afraid of. Meanwhile, all of the law abiding citizens are left defenseless against ill people such as these. Banning guns takes away from the law abiding citizens and, although less criminals have guns now, they can still obtain them illegally. Who is winning now? Only the cops are there to protect them, but what good is it if the cops are not around? There are about 800,000 in the U.S. (correct me if I'm wrong), so that is 1 cop for every 400 people. Cops can't be everywhere at once, and (for another argument) I am an extreme believer that you need to be self reliant in some sort of fashion in order to survive in the world.
How would it become like prohibition? A gun black market cannot produce guns, only sell them. So if you introduce a continuous and enforced buy-back scheme on a large scale like we in Australia did then the volume of guns will drastically reduce, making a black market for them less and less sustainable over time as more and more guns are sold back to the government and destroyed. The black market for alcohol and drugs is sustainable because criminals can produce it themselves
there are reports of mass shootings with dozens of casualties. can you cite a single knife attack that killed 5 people that wasnt carried out by a rambo?
it is much easier to point and click then to get into someone's face with blood and guts going into your face. it's also much more physically exhausting. by the 5th person you will be pretty damn tired with a knife.
comparing the 2 is a false comparison. they arent even in the same ballpark.
Other ways are significantly less effective. You are much more likely succeed with a murder attempt if you have a gun. Even more so if you are trying to kill multiple people. It is alot harder to carry out a mass killing with a knife.
So while banning guns wont stop everyone from trying to kill, it will stop lots of people from succeeding.
if you ban guns people who seriously want to kill some one will find another way such as knives.
For point 5, those loopholes are exactly my point. The more guns that are in circulation then the more are going to be available to criminals through these "loopholes" as you call them. There are more civilian owned guns in america than there are people. Therefore there will always be a way from a criminal to get a gun. Adding more guns will only make this problem worse. The only way to start to address the problem is gun control. The less guns that are in the system the less guns that will be available to criminals.
And while you will never be able to get 100% of guns out of the hands of criminals, the harder they are to get the more expensive they will be. Therefore the average thug robbing a store, gang banger doing a drive by or even kid shooting up a school, would not be able to afford a gun as they would now cost thousands and thousands of dollars and require significant criminal contacts to get them. So you would still be saving thousands and thousands of lives which are currently lost in gun crimes. Add to that the thousands more that are lost in accidental shooting or suicides. (yes i know they would still attempt suicide, but if they try with a less successful method and fail they can get help. If they own a gun they are much more likely to succeed on their 1st attempt)
I agree that all media companies have bias. But given that the article you provided seems to be highly biased and misrepresenting the stuff they are sourcing, i would say this site is not particularly reliable.
There is no widely accepted definition of mass shooing. The words themselves just mean the shooting of multiple people. There is no reason that needs to be in a public place. The only reason to limit the definition is to try to change the debate on guns (i mean in general, not you specifically). Gun advocates don't want to talk about how widespread gun violence is. So if you can skew the debate by messing with definition and cherry picking stats that sounds good, you can convince people who aren't looking too closely.
I'm looking through material that CPRC article references. The article by Lott seems to be specifically trying to make the argument for more guns. A quick search shows me there is alot of controversy around his work ranging from him using economic principles in ways that are disputed by other economists to his work being funded by the John M. Olin Foundation which is the foundation set up by a weapons manufacturer. it's possible he chose the most restrictive definition of mass shooting possible for legitimate reasons. it is also possible he chose the most restrictive definition possible because he was being funded by a weapons manufacturer. Either way, the reason he did that was to try to reframe the debate around "mass shootings".
Below is the pdf they link to for the FBI. It specifically says "This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings, but rather a study of a specific type of
shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face." So the fact that they used this to make arguments about mass shootings is openly dishonest. They outright lied saying this was what the FBI considers a mass shooting to be.
Couple of issues with your argument.
1.) I am just going to blatantly say it, I do not trust the Washington Post as they are a primarily liberal news outlet talking about gun control. This is the same way I don't trust other sites such as New York Times, BuzzFeed (don't get me started), and even larger news outlets such as CNN and FOX. I prefer to use pdf's (one of which I have linked), sites such as the CDC, and neutral news outlets such as BBC.
2.) For the second one, I made a mistake that went under my nose. Instead of saying mass shootings in my paragraph, I said gun violence. Error by me. You also said that 64% mass shootings take place in people's homes. Mass shootings by definition only occur in public places, so that excludes one's own home. Knowing this however, how homes are more prone to a gun attack than a public place, this is even more of a reason to have a firearm for defense in your home.
3.) In the CPRC article (1st link) the person who came up with the stats used the federal definition for mass shootings. Everytown's definition is a little bit more narrow, and leaves out circumstances. Lott's (CPRC guy) definition is not only federally backed but included more circumstances where guns are not permitted. Sounds to me like Everytown left out circumstances compared to Lott.
4.) Of course, prisoners are prisoners and they may not be as trustworthy as you or I, however if a survey was to be published by 2 statisticians with PhD's in a pdf for the world to see, wouldn't it only make sense that they were to check those prisoners claims and make sure they weren't lying? It would say on each of their criminal records after all "illegally purchased firearm."
5.) All of those bottom stats you presented are what I like to call loopholes. There are multiple ways to commit a crime, wouldn't you agree? You could steal a legally bought firearm, you could have a friend give it to you, you could have someone sell it to you. All of these are super valid cases but according to me at least, still illegally purchased weapons. To add, I'd like to argue that legally obtained weapons would still be around as previous guns were never taken away, according to gun control rules. If these guns were never taken away they become massively overpriced and there would be an influx of people with money purchasing these 10,000 dollar firearms as they are no longer legal.
by your logic, criminals will simply purchase high powered guns under the table. we can then keep escalating this and see how far we can go.
going underground increases price by alot, limits availability, and opens you up to police raids and arrest. yes some criminals, like big shot mob guys will be armed, they have worse now, but the average crook wont.
also, if your getting robbed, most likely your gun is in your holster and the crooks gun is already pointed at you... not very helpful.
as for home defense... I hope you arent living in an apartment building. walls arent bullet proof. even in a house, i hope you dont have family in other rooms. I would prefer a bat... or a properly sized sword in close quarters. guns are useless except for apocalypse situations.
yes banning guns increases crime because then it becomes like how the prohibition era in the 1920s did when it came to alcohol people will start doing it under the table and no one will know until after it's done already and most of the time those who do get the guns will be criminals and then when the criminals do attack no one will have the ability to protect themselves from them however I do not believe that there should be high-powered guns on the streets
Thank you for providing sources. It makes it much easier to debate when I can research your points.
For your 1st article claiming 98% of mass shootings occur in Gun Free Zones. That is only true if you ignore most of the mass shootings. 64% of mass shootings take place in people's homes, which by definition are not Gun Free Zones. The survey you are sourcing intentionally leaves out alot of mass shootings to try to make their argument sound legit. Below is a link to an article discussing the issues with that survey. If you choose to include all mass shootings, the number changes to 10% of mass shootings are in Gun Free Zones.
I'm not totally sure what your second link was supposed to be arguing. Could you clarify for me?
Those stats don't really say what you seem to think they say. 1st, it's kind of questionable that all prisoners would answer honestly about how they obtained their weapons. So these should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. The percentages in their chart don't seem to exactly add up to 100%, so there may be a margin of error. But the numbers are:
- 10.1% purchased from a gun store. Legal
- 25.3% purchased/borrowed from an individual. Legal
- 43.2% off the street/underground marget. Illegal
- 6.9% Found at location of crime/victim. legality would depend on circumstance
-4.6% Brought by someone else. Legal
- 5.9% Other. Legality not specified
- 2.5% Multiple Sources. Legality not specified
Again, the source you used misrepresented the result. only 43.2% of them were reportedly obtained illegally. The rest were legal, or at least the legality is unclear.
And to expand on that further, where do you think those "illegal" weapons come from? They might have been stolen from a gun store. They might have been stolen from a legal owner and resold. Many are purchased legally from a gun store and resold illegally. So if you have gun control, those "illegal" weapons mostly go away too. Because the source for those illegal weapons at some point traces back to a gun store or a gun manufacturer. If you can control and restrict the legal arms sales, alot of the stream of illegal weapons dries up too.
Here are the statistics for gun violence in gun free zones:
Here are statistics for conceal carry violence:
These are 2 of many examples as to why gun control does not work. One of these sites contains more information on gun control and a bunch of points as to why it does not work, so check them out.
To debunk your statement that gun control will stop shootings as people do not have access to guns, I say to that most guns in violent crimes were bought or obtained illegally. To add, about 90% of all gun crimes were carried out with an illegally obtained weapon, be it underground markets, dark web, theft, etc. This site contains a pdf which data from a survey done by prison inmates is collected about how they obtained their weapon when they committed their gun crimes. Find it on the link under "just updated" in the first paragraph.
Why would I spend time searching for statistics that you probably made up. You are the one making a claim. If you can't back it up, it's because you don't have a source. If you don't have a source, then there is no reason for us to accept them.
You know what stops a mass shooting even faster? When criminals can't get their hands on a gun. There is no faster way to stop a mass shooting.
If shooters can't get their hands on guns, then there is no reason to arm a teacher and your point is moot.
They are real stats, look them up if you'd like. Also, when arming these kind of law abiding citizens shootings tend to be stopped more often and sooner than those of a defenseless crowd. Guns in a gun fight will always go over fists in a gun fight. This idea that I have brought up though has flaws, and I am willing to admit them. The biggest ones is the teachers may not be willing to handle those kind of guns in fear for their life. That is perfectly alright and a completely rational counter argument. To that I say either 1: make it optional for teachers to carry guns, and 2: put more cops in these kind of areas to ensure the safety of those on the premises.
1st of all, where did you get those stats? they sound made up.
most mass shooters don't go into it expecting to survive. Or even if they do, they are either ok with dying, or are so delusional that the possibility of people carrying guns wouldn't be much of as factor. So arming people is almost certainly not going to deter attacks. Your argument uses the kind of "logic" a 6th grader might use. But if you actually think about it, it makes no sense.
More guns just creates more opportunities for shootings. This is why america has regular mass shootings and other countries don't. The idea that adding more guns would somehow cause less people to get shot is just insane.
What do you mean by "customs at its borders?" Also, to provide another example, 98% of all mass shootings are taken place in what are called gun free zones. These include airports, schools, and nightclubs. However, it would be interesting to see if we armed teachers, nightclub staff, and airport security with a gun or more guns. I am sure this would work, as .002% of people with a conceal carry permit have ever committed a crime with said firearm. Although these stats are not definitive, as we do not have armed teachers, nightclub staff, etc; I believe these stats are a good enough representation as to what might happen if we armed these people with the proper firearms used to defend themselves and others in danger. Putting myself in a shooter's shoes, I'd say that if I were about to shoot up a school I would be more so willing to go to a school with unarmed teachers rather than armed ones.
the problem there is that Chicago doesnt have customs at its borders. if we look at nation wide results, they speak a different story.
If we disregard what we may "think" will happen, we need to instead look at the stats and facts behind this. Chicago, for example, has the strictest gun control in the country but coincidentally the highest gun homicide rate. Is it possible the bearers of these illegally bought firearms could be fearless as they know the general population is unarmed and defenseless?
to live in ignorance due to this unsolvable problem?
and furthermore, your source, and my sources show conflicting conclusions. are they both right? is there no way for us to determine which one is valid? are we cursed
I didnt say you cant find the capitalism magazine website. I said you cant find anything ABOUT capitalism magazine website except for a single German wiki site. doesnt that raise any red flags? do you not do any vetting for the information you use?
do you believe scientific American and capitalism magazine are equal just because they are both magazines and give it no further consideration? is bigfoot magazine print just as valid information as scientific American too?
not all information on the internet is equal.
and I'm sure you wont read all the studies referenced in the Harvard paper, but the studies are there for you. your link doesn't mention the studies it references it all. that's called faith.
How could you possibly think those 2 sources are equally reputable? I am trying to find information on who runs www.capitalismmagazine.com and as best I can tell is it is some guy in the bahamas who writes stuff on the internet. There is no way to tell if they actually review the things that go on that website or if any check of the information is done at all. There is no evidence that way they write is credible.
Scientific American is a highly respected magazine that has existed for 173 years. They have papers on a large number of topics written by experts in their fields. Their sources can be checked, their author's credentials are also readily available.
Those 2 sources are in no way equal. One is a highly respected, well sourced scientific journal. The other is an internet blog that seems to be based out of the bahamas.
Of course not having a gun might stop you. If you want to kill someone and you only have access to say, a knife, you are much less likely to succeed in killing someone. So not having access to gun might not prevent you from trying, but it makes you much less likely to succeed. Ergo, the overall crime rate would be the same, since you still committed a crime, but the seriousness of the crime would be significantly less (attempted murder instead of 1st degree murder)
If I want to kill somebody, I will do it. Not having a firearm will not stop me. That goes for many people. I would rather have an advantage over an assailant than not.
The Harvard site makes a lot of claims that reference several whole papers that, I will admit, I'm not going to read any time soon.
And, I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time finding the Capitalism Magazine because I don't.
But, the Scientific American source is just another magazine (equally reputable in my opinion) and a lot of the beginning of the article was counterintuitive and every study they cited was decades old, none passed the 2000's (which I know doesn't discredit them, but isn't in their favor, either). Also, suicides, in my opinion, should not be in the death toll when talking about gun deaths in relation to gun control.
Why do all of these sites come up with contrary information?
why cant I find any reference to this magazine besides a German wiki page?
why doesn't it list a reference to any of the studies it mentions?
how specific was your Google search and how many contrary opinions did you bypass to find this one?
you do realize not all info on the internet is made equal. I have a Harvard post to counter this, I will post when I get home and get to a computer.
And how many of those lives were only in danger because a criminal had access to a gun because you have no gun control?
where is this number of lives saved from? if you are talking about police situations, noone is talking about disarming cops. did private guns save 3 million lives? and how?
Almost half of the gun death rate is suicides, which I don't think should count. But, even if it did, the number of lives guns save is (if I remember right) like 3 million in the U.S.
I'm not certain if it banning guns has a significant effect on the overall crime rate. Someone desperate enough mug someone can do it with a knife as easily as with a gun. So the number of crimes is probably not a direct coloration.
However the severity of the crimes increase with the number of guns. The more guns there are, the easier it is for a criminal to successfully kill someone. As an example, here is the intentional homicide rates per 100,000 people in the US as opposed to several other modern nations with stricter gun controls. Your homicide rate is more than 4x most of them. A large part of that is that people are less likely to die from violence if the criminal doesn't have access to a gun due to gun controls.
United Kingdom 1.0
Also, as a side note, alot of the gun crimes in Canada are done with guns brought into canada from the US. So if you actually had gun control you would not only save millions of american lives, but a considerable number of canadian lives too.
Increases the rate of, say, knife crime, yeah. But, not crime in general
Umm no. why would you think that?