The debate "How does gun laws stop crime if someone wanted to kill they would" was started by
November 27, 2015, 10:44 am.
38 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
AstroSpace posted 1 argument, scotthansonMC posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument, rob5998 posted 3 arguments, MrShine posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 6 arguments, HRPufnStuf posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
DannyknowsItAll, AstroSpace, Tristanzee, MrShine, scotthansonMC, jellybeanie, AlexRose1517, AngryBlogger, Regalgeek, brandilyn, FluffiestDrop45, jjrocks1738, rob5998, truth_vs_true, M and 23 visitors agree.
historybuff, action007man, mdthuesen, Gandalf, Pictobug_1, swp16, Godfather98, esoo717, The_lamp, progressive, David and 11 visitors disagree.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/ this seems fairly compelling in favor of guns, and so seems worth mentioning, or an opportunity for gun control advocates to refute. I've already been a part of gun debates, and from what can be understood so far is that pro gun arguments aren't merely "good guy with gun" or " against tyranny", though that can be addressed as well, its that gun control will not be effective. Laws can only be laws if they can be enforced, and if laws do not attack the root of the problem then it will not be properly enforced. That means the only reasonable way for the supposedly remove the second amendment and guns, the laws would have to encroach on the other amendments of rights, policy, and assumptions of innocence until proven guilty. And who would be the judge? A soldier, a policeman, a politician? Who would enforce? There are already plenty of complaints of government red tape restricting its services to the people, think DMV inefficiency applied with taxpayer money to a population that already demonizes officers that apprehend criminals. Not to mention previous illegal government activity over borders endorsing guns, so is it even their intent to disarm the public, if they recognize someone must have the gun? I got a little too involved for just sharing a link, anyone in favor or against tell me why gun control can or can't be trusted to do the job it's supposed to do. Because unless the end of guns is the goal of gun laws, it should have the responsibility of reducing violent crime and death.
You're statement is absolutely false. You're sources are either completely inaccurate or you misread one of the articles that only lists rifles as being used less in homicides than knives. Here are the actual stats. Firearms account for 2/3 of the weapons used in all homicides. Guns are also the predominant weapon in impulsive violent deaths.
stabbing far out number the total gun crimes
most guns are not made in the US
most mass killings are done with explosives
The idea that any militia could stand up to the US military is laughable. you'd be bombed by drones long before you could accomplish anything. it doesn't matter how many rifles you have when they have stealth bombers. you would lose.
our weapons could actually stand up to the military it isn't about what they are it is how that are used. in most cases the resistance against a tyrannical government would be done by a means of guerilla warfare one of the most effective combat styles.
gun laws make it harder for massive attacks That's what it really comes down to honestly because even tho you can go knife everyone like that guy in Japan did, it is much harder to get kills compared to using a gun.Other than that, I agree that people will always find a way to kill.
The amendments, along with the rest of the constitution, is not taken word for word, there are interpretations of the constitution.
So you are saying that the government legislating what guns you can have does not infringe on your right to bear arms?
I dont feel like rewriting that so assume source is resolution
So therefore there hasnt been a change to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesnt directly limit our weapons. Now what does? Legislation, the source of all issues that are beyond the scope of the Constitution. Now can you buy any weapon. No you cannot, thats not an issue. So yes it is a strawman
I am not kidding you, I am pointing out that amendments are how the Constitution changes with the times. That is why they are called amendments.
Do you feel that civilians should be able to have military grade weapons? Should someone be unless to pick up a ground to air missile at Walmart? Should the local co-op be able to go together to buy a nuclear bomb? If you are claiming that saying there should be limitations on weapons available is unconstitutional, do you find conflict with it yourself? You are saying there is no limitation, so are you making that same "strawman argument" you are accusing historybuff of?
Also the discrepancies between nations guarantees discrepancies of effect. Your argument was purely hypocritical.
Are you kidding me. Amendments are additions to the Constitution. You cant change them without amending it. Has there ever been an alteration to the Second Amendment? No. Now about my quote... He argued that we hide behind a false assumption that we have unlimited guns. Where is there ever an amendment to counter this? Simply put there isnt. Now do we have every weapon? No. So therefore he created a strawman or he finds conflict with the constitution
Did you really miss the fact that I was using that to illustrate the inconsistencies and problems with your logic?
You just proved his argument...
If Australlia is an accurate representation to us but France has differing circumstances and cannot disprove the effects of gun control, then your whole argument is false.
France isnt comparable to the US, but Australia is? I thougt we were to take examples from the rest of the world
Two things are wrong with your statement. First, how have I distorted what was said by directly quoting you? Second, the Constitution does change with the times. There are handy things called constitutional amendments that are applied as society changes. You may want to keep that in mind as you reference one of them while claiming the Constitution is written in stone.
If you distort what was said, then yes I said Americans should have all weapons. But what I said was that we werent constitutionally limited to any sort of weapon after he claimed that we perverted our second amendment right. Now either that means he is anti-constitution or he used a strawman to say i advocate for more. Read the Constitution in the eyes of the anti-federalists and you will understand. The Constitution doesnt change with the times, but we destroy it to accommodate ideas.
So without proof coming from the US it will not be considered valid, and without proof there is no reason to implement gun control in the US. How is that not a circular argument?
We give examples from elsewhere and you say they are in no way valid since they have different circumstances than would exist in the US. What kind of evidence would you like us to provide if you will not accept historical precedent from other nations?
Do you believe the black market prices in the US would be unaffected by stricter gun laws? The effect may not be as pronounced as it was in Australia since the US has several large land borders, but the same market pressures would be applied. Is there any reason you believe that the US operates on a completely different set of principles from every other nation?
You point to Paris as proof that gun control doesn't work, but Paris has very different circumstances to those in North America. There is far more movement of people within the Eurozone, making smuggling easier than transoceanic transportation. Geographically they are more at risk as well due to their closer proximity to the conflict in the middle east. For these reasons the attack on Paris can not provide valid evidence that gun control doesn't prevent gun violence.
That is exactly the point. If the military can easily suppress you, your guns are not in any way for resisting tyranny. To claim that they are is to claim that my kayak is for transatlantic crossings. The tool is vastly inadequate to the task, meaning claiming that as the purpose is either dishonest to yourself or everyone else.
When asked if civilians should have access to military grade weapons, you said "There is no limitation on guns given to us on the Constitution"
You later responded to to historybuff by saying "You said that the framers didn't want us to have unlimited guns, I refuted that."
Do you now want to retract these statements, or will you admit that you did indeed say that there shouldn't be limitations on the guns allowed and that you are lying in denying having said so?
That is not what he said at all. He said effects in other countries cannot be applied to the US. Gun prices rose sharply in Australia which is isolated. We are neighbors to Mexico and they have historically been an area of trafficking into the US. Therefore, are the two nations expected to have the same results? Reason must dictate no.
Again this is a gross exaggeration of what was said. Guns were given as a right against tyranny. Now never did I say anything about a shooting spree for conflict with the government. Now I would love for you to tell me that we arent armed to protect us from the government. It would make my day for one legitimate source.
It doesnt matter if the military can suppress us. We have our rights for the purpose of defending ourselves from oppression. This is undeniable, and your misrepresentation of my statement is borderline disgusting.
Your reasoning is inherently flawed and circular. Information provided by studying other nations is useless since every nation has different circumstances. That means the only evidence you would believe would have to come from gun control in the US. You would resist any gun control without solid evidence that it would be effective. Basically you are saying that no amount of proof or precedent could change your mind but you have tried to hide it in a logical argument.
I suggested nothing of the sort. Either he posed a strawman or was saying the right to bear arms was given to us in a limited fashion
You may not be suggesting no limitations, but HRPufnStuf is. I suspect that is who historybuff is responding to.
You elect your government. Do you honestly expect to need to take to the streets to shoot your legally elected officials? If so, what would it take to prompt you to go on a shooting spree and consider it justified?
If you wouldn't be able to stop oppression, and you are aware that your firearms are utterly useless for the task, how can you use that as justification for them? I want to cross the Atlantic so should I buy a kayak? Having a tool for a purpose that the tool is unable to accomplish is useless. There are valid reasons for firearm ownership, plotting to overthrow the American government if you disagree with them is not one of them.
Now your assumption of disarmament is also insane. If I cant beat the miltary, do I submit all rights to a federal tyranny. Only they would strip civilians of their defense
Obviously I didn't say that there shouldn't be any form of limitation, and exaggeration of my stance to an idiotic degree isn't honset with everyone historybuff. As for the taking guns away meaning less gun use argument that is a fair understanding, but that is assuming a set amount is available and guns taken away can't be replaced by another gun or other weapon. Like a convict going to jail, he can try again if he's let out, so the opportunity to get another gun is never out of the equation even if laws are implemented.
You stated that the framers didnt intend for us to have unlimited guns, i refuted that. Does gun control protect us from gun violence, and that is no since Paris has proven thay anybody radical Islamist will gladly shoot law abiding citizens despite regulation
It seems you didn't read my comment with Australia and Japan in it. Other countries arguments don't cut it if it isn't America.
You take away guns, gun use will be less that is logically true. Now when half of the world was Communist or Fascist, we didnt follow Europe because the United States of America is founded upon freedom which Europe rejects in various ways.
so you want private citizens to be able to buy any kind of military hardware they want? that is insane. the days where a militia could fight off the US government are long gone. no matter how many assault rifles you own you will never be a threat to the government. as long as the army supports them the government can bomb you before you ever know the drone is there. the argument that you need gun ls to prevent tyrant is antiquated. all it does is let whack jobs walk into Walmart and buy an assault rifle to shoot up movie theaters or schools.
And it isn't a cop out saying that an active operation to remove guns requires manpower, money, and the delicate American touch to keep everyone happy and unopressed. So it is a tall order that requires specific, well known answers that have precedence, logic, and can even be implemented.
except that almost every other developed country has gun controls. all of these countries have lower homicide rates, far less mass shootings, far less accidental gun deaths etc. these arguments are not based on assumptions. they are based on what almost everyone else is doing.
Also, in terms of gun control, when it is control, how do you determine too much is too much? And the control assumption is still an assumption, so an argument for gun control only works, and it works loosely, when you argue for a full ban.
The first mention is not a part of my argument. Guns will be reduced, but placed solely in bad hands. Second of all, that is precisely what the framers wanted. At the time of the Constitution, military arms were primarily rifles and muskets. Now what do suppose the civilains had? Rifles and muskets. Now the Second Amendment practically says because the states may form a militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no limitation on guns given to us on the constitution.
Holes are holes, regardless of where they are in a ship, and addressing studies and groups unless data is never manipulated by any interest group this isn't a surprise. Other countries are almost good examples, except borders and policies that are exclusive to other countries make them work, and not all data collected that way can be trusted. Moving to Australia isn't like from Mexico to America, Australia is surrounded by water and has requirements that make moving there difficult. Traveling to Australia is hard, which may explain the black market price. It wouldn't be that high in the US, for plenty of reasons. The market does have a demand with criminals more densely packed than Australia, never mind population. Ever use Japan as an example? They turn cold case murders into suicides, so trusting statistics means understanding their collecting procedures like any country. Violent crime rates, yes statistics can go however the framer likes, but they do tend to go higher in places where guns are banned. There was even a Harvard study that said more guns less crime, though no doubt that's been brought up before. The reasons I have seen that say gun control will work rely on assumptions and inequivalent situations, that do not even address the roots of the problems. How can that sort of strategy be trusted?
That is only true if you make gun ownership illegal. Not if you regulate gun ownership. Gun control is not the same as a gun ban.
My argument is pointing to the regulation of drugs and failures of the government to do so. The black market may lessen the guns on the streets, but it guarantees all weapons will be in the hands of criminals (by definition). Therefore, the ones hit hardest by this will be lawful gum owners for they are the ones guaranteed to lose the protection of these. Not to mention, the black market implies a failure of regulation. Prices will skyrocket because average law abiding consumers will be deprived of private businesses who traditionally sell guns.
the idea that you can't significantly reduce the number of guns is a cop out. if America was willing to actually try they significantly cut down on gun violence. but gun companies and anti government conspiracy theorists are hiding behind their right to bear arms as if that gives them unlimited rights to unlimited weapons.
the black market for guns is very different than a black market for drugs.
1) virtually all illegal weapons in America (as well as many other countries) were made in America. America is the one making and selling the illegal guns. they are not being stuck into the country.
2) guns are not consumed for pleasure. there is a huge market for drugs because they provide recreation and are very addictive. guns can be fun, but they aren't a drug. they aren't primarily used for pleasure.
3) guns are alot harder to hide than drugs. they set off metal detectors. they are solid and not a powder or malleable substance
No business wants to see itself destroyed by the government. That is the reason you see the kickback from these various industries.
As far as the law enforcement goes, they cannot be on a scene at all times. Much can happen within 10 minutes it takes for the police to arrive. In this time, it is a matter of life and death for the individuals. There are many accounts of civilians stopping mass shootings. Many horrific shootings such as in schools or theatres are gun-free zones and therefore a shooter may persjst without conflict.
Despite a raise in price for the black market, you said that arms would be in the hands of organized crime. How does this protect civilians? We are armed specifically to guarantee self defense from any individual or government. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens
Isn't it fair to say that a majority of gun control arguments are flawed because they assume a control that is not possible considering the united state's borders and illegal trade. I know that the black market was mentioned and was argued against because it was expensive, but it is possible and a hole is a hole no matter where it is. The Zetas have more then enough money to buy if they ask for it, and just because it stops the poorer community doesn't mean the rich cant. Also, the prices wouldn't even go up, if anything lower and encourage buying. The war on Drugs was evidence enough that we can't even put a 1% dent into the illegal activity of that, why would guns be much different? Arguments in regards to gun irresponsibility should focus on responsibility, not the fact that guns exist? If someone drowns in a swimming pool because they had bad judgement in diving height consuming alcohol or otherwise should we ban them? It's too vague to say that because young are dying this way, there's nothing tying them other than guns, which could just as easily be knives, television screens, hot cars, ect. Enough on trade an responsibility, how would we get the guns from regular citizens and keep it from then without going against their rights? A law can only be a law if it can be enforced, and should it be that too many people don't give up guns and that the police have to forcefully take guns, then a sea of warrents and legalwork is required, and comparing a constant operation that requires the full public would be much more expensive than the census, and require closing out borders much further than we have, inspections with a valid reason than "gun search" but require that it specify guns as Mapp v Ohio would have, and even then it doesn't stop criminal activity, which may be called less effective without guns, but that is assuming that criminals are unable to get guns and that bombs can't be used, foreign invasion is never a problem, and that privacy rights aren't infringed on, as well as giving the police enough power while keeping them from being oppressive (people already complain about the police shooting criminals as it is, which I am not necessarily against, but is a factor in making gun control work) because even then policemen will have to have guns, and criminals do try to steal policemen's weapons, some people are proven to be abusive with power. And that's assuming that there is no chance of foreign invasion, which is never impossible.
I would say that the majority of the pro gun arguments are flawed. I'll go through the most common ones
Good guy with a gun argument.
There is no law enforcement agency that encourages this. Most law enforcement experts actually state that more guns make scenes more chaotic and more deadly.
The black market argument.
This argument rests on the fact that black markets will always exist and that guns will be available regardless of what at we do. This argument fails to see the effect of black markets on the prices however. Guns obtained on the black market in countries with gun control are often 10x more expensive than they are here. A AR15 in the US is pretty cheap (often less than $2k depending on manufacturer). That same gun, in Australia, will cost you over $23k. So gun control prices out the lone gunman and makes most illegal guns available only to criminal organizations.
The knife argument
This argument basically rests on killing being human nature and that someone who wants to commit murder will find a way. This is absolutely true. However, last year we had more toddlers shot and killed by stray bullets than officers killed in the line of duty. Do you really think criminals are going to start stabbing toddlers?
I'd also like to question the intellectual honesty of a lot of the gun advocate groups. Lobbying and legally prohibiting the CDC and other government agencies from conducting or even funding research into gun violence is a disgrace to keeping an informed electorate. You should immediately be suspicious of anyone advocating for X while at the same time actively hindering research into the effects of X. It's like saying that sugar is good for you while halting all research pertaining to the health effects of sugar consumption....
What I aim to say is that a robbery with a gun in the US is being committed in the UK with a knife
Illegal gun shops make it sound simple. But no, its black market. How did illegal drugs go? And yes, this is about Islamic terrorists. What would i do if i were being shot at? I cant protect myself. My point on guns being more available is that they will be used, but it cant prevent the crime. Box cutters took down the trade center. How is that possible without guns? I want to be protected from the worst threat that is viable to me, and frankly I want to stand a chance against tyranny.
Gun deaths were argued, not crimes.
1. stats are calculated per capita. which means the size of the population is calculated for. statistics definitely don't mean nothing.
2. no you would use a gun and be much more deadly. that was one of my points. if you restrict guns people would be less deadly.
3. no one is counting suicide in gun crimes. suicide isn't a crime. so saying that has nothing to do with this debate
4. if guns are restricted and you crack down on the gun shops selling these guns then how would they get guns? in the short term you might have a point. in the long term once you clean up the problem of illegal guns it will be much safer for law abiding citizens.
1. there are more people in the US. Statistics mean nothing
2. if i can get a gun easier, will i pick a knife?
3. Most gun deaths are suicides.
4. If i want a gun, I'll get it anyway. Law abiding citizens are weakened most since they can't defend themselves
100% of water drinkers die. 100% smokers die. 100% of those vaccinated die
Just how many stabbings do you think there are? It's nowhere near the levels of shootings in the US.
"It's harder to get guns in Europe." Yeah, that's called effective gun control.
Statistics are meaningless. We have more guns. If everybody has guns, there will be more gun violence. If we all had knives, there would be more knife violence. And people arent driven to kill because they have guns. Killers are killers. And people arent idiots. They wont pull out guns, because that alone is a crime of menacing.
Id also rather have a gun if there was an active shooter around me
you ignore the facts. the more guns there are then the more gun violence there will be. the more shootings there will be because there are more criminals that are armed. arming everyone just leads to more shootings. without proper training civilians with guns are almost as dangerous as the criminals. gun accidents happen all that time in the US.
Its harder to get guns in Europe. They are more stabby over there. Not to mention that more people live in the US. Anyway most deaths in the US are suicides. But if you are to draw your weapon, chances are more people are to die if you dont.
Shooting another person isn't easy, and in the panic you might not draw your gun. Or worse you could easily shoot an innocent bystander.
How many gun related deaths are there in most European countries? Very few, yes they do happen occasionally, but in the US there are many each day.
If 1 criminal alone had a gun, then many people would die. If 50 criminals had a gun, more would die. If 1 criminal and 1 civilian had a gun, then you could bring this down to 1 death, the criminal. The more of the populous that is armed, less innocent people will die. Obviously gun violence is more common in the US because it is a larger nation with more guns. Statistics may prove any point right or wrong.
no. even by your own argument it is not 100% futile. gun control isn't about Islamic terrorists, although it woukd help with that too. it is about controlling the rest of the violent crime. and since FAR more Americans die to gun crime from other Americans than from terrorism, it is far more important. the harder it is to get a gun then the less gun crimes there will be. the vast majority of illegal guns are made and sold in America. the black market guns come from your factories, your gun shops.
if you crack down on the gun shops illegally selling guns then the black market will be significantly reduced. that coupled with stronger gun control will make guns alot g
harder to get. and the guns that are still available illegally will cost 10x as much as petty thugs won't be able to afford them.
Trust me, getting guns is way easier than you think. They are easily obtained via the black market. Many guns used in large shootings were illegal to own. It was hard to get any gun in Paris, get almost 200 people we're killed. Guns also aren't the only option. Many people such as myself know how to build pipe bombs, which can kill people just like guns can. Anyone can learn to build bombs. So no, gun control is 100% futile.
but it is alot easier to kill someone with a gun. if they can't get a gun they might still try but are much less likely to succeed. there will also be alot less victims in a single crime. mass killings almost require a gun. if you can't get one then you can't kill nearly as many people.