Gun Violence

[Livewire]

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8836735/map-mass-shootings-sandy-hook

Position A) Attempts to curb gun violence via legislation and "gun control measures" restrict protected rights to own firearms, don't help stop the violence,and are counterintuitive to that end

Position B) Gun Violence can be/should be curbed with legislation, social awareness programs, and a cultural attitude change towards gun ownership that will reduce gun violence rates


Have at it kiddos. Defend said position with well-evinced arguments, figures, etc. The link can provide all kinds of statistics to support/refute points.

 

[Somewhere_]

Lets ponder the following scenarios. Our setting is in your future home, where you live with your spouse and kids. In the middle of the night, you hear a loud shattering of a window just outside in the living room. You reach for your gun, which is hidden safely next to you bed, where it is impossible for your kids to acquire. A light suddenly appears in the crack under the door to your room. As the door opens, you fire a warning shot. The scared criminal runs away. Your spouse quickly calls 9-1-1 and you and your family are safe, and the police catch the crook.

Our second scenario is exactly the same, except the only thing you are armed with is your cell phone. You hear the shattering window and immediately call 9-1-1. By the time the police arrive, you and your family are severely injured or worse. Now, think. Which example is more optimal for you are your family to be in?

The scary fact about calling 9-1-1 is that it takes, on average, 10-12 minutes for police to react in the case of an emergency. If you live in a more rural area, it could take up to an hour! Even if they could have magically arrived in 2 minutes, the damage has already been done because the average victim and criminal interaction time is an extremely quick 90 seconds, or 1 and a ½ minutes!

Banning guns will prevent criminals from obtaining guns, right? Contrary to what you would expect, 93% of all firearms exploited by criminals are illegally obtained. They buy their weapons off of a black market, or steal them. That means that by banning guns, you have just disarmed all law-abiding gun-owning citizens! So now the criminals only have to face unarmed citizens, who have no way to defend themselves.

In fact, the FBI released information that said guns are used a whopping 2.5 million times a year to prevent crimes from occurring. That is over 68 hundred times a day and occurs 80x more than guns used to take lives. In addition, women use guns to protect themselves from rape and other sexual abuse. Similarly, they can be used to protect kids both in public and at home. Ironically, civilians kill more than twice the amount of criminals than police at 15 hundred and police mistakenly kill 5x more innocent people on accident than civilians do.

Do laws that permit concealed guns really reduce crime? Yes, studies have proven that crooks are less likely to attack armed civilians. For example, in the state of Vermont, citizens are allowed to carry guns without paying a fee or getting permission. It is one of the top 5 safest states in America. Hilariously, Florida citizens are far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than attacked by a concealed weapon holder. Another example is actually nationwide. Robbery rates have been reduced by 3%, assaults by 7%, rape by 5%, and murder by 8.5% in states that allow concealed weapons. To put this into perspective, that is over 11,000 robberies, over 4,000 rapes, 60,000 assaults, and 1,500 murders prevented! And these are only a few of the many statistics supporting how firearms prevent the loss of life, rape, and other violent crimes.

How many guns are actually used in violent crimes? Only 67% of all murders were committed with guns, with even less with assaults and robberies, with 41% and 21% done by guns respectively. And remember how 93% of weapons used by criminals are illegally obtained? That means there are very few legal guns used by criminals, and not law-abiding citizens defending themselves. In addition, only 137,000 cases of assault included firearms compared to over 500,000 uses of knives, fists, and even feet.

The second amendment allows citizens of the United States to bear firearms. We can use firearms for hunting, self-defense, recreational use such as target shooting, and defense against a tyrannical government. While our government now is stable, in 100 years or even 200 years from now, we never know what could happen. A tyrannical government could take over or a corrupt ideal could start spreading. If our second amendment rights are taken away now, our descendants may not have the resources to defend themselves from tyrannies in the future.

This isn't really edited and I pulled it from a speech I wrote, which is why its written in the spoken syntax. It might be a little awkward to read, but I tried my best with the time I have to take out the unnecessary rhetoric questions and stuff. I also removed some paragraphs and the intro/conclusion. I have no sources because it was not required for the assignment when I wrote it.

So, in conclusion, gun control will ultimately fail. It is very illogical to think it will work.

 

[Esper]

There is a third scenario: Leave your house. Avoid confrontation in the first place. Yes, that's not always feasible, but neither is every criminal armed with a gun, nor is every one of them going to want to injure/kill people when they can just burgle or rob.

In certain rural areas it makes more sense to own guns for protection against wild animals and because large distances make emergency responses less effective, but in a city you have an entirely different environment.

Also, you seem to paint a pretty picture by saying that your gun can't be accessed by the kids. Does that include keeping it locked up? What will you do when you're fumbling to unlock it with that dangerous criminal inside? That wastes many precious moments. And what if that intruder was just some drunk college kid who was entering the wrong house? What if your gun isn't as secure as you think it is and your kids get to it?

And about women using guns for protection: who is going to protect women against abusing partners who own guns? Criminals are not some separate group of people "over there." Plenty of them are normal people who you don't think of as criminals because they haven't been arrested for something like robbery.

 

[Her]

snip

So, in conclusion, gun control will ultimately fail. It is very illogical to think it will work.

Then why has it worked in Australia? The U.K? Canada? Japan? Most notably in Australia, it took one single mass shooting in 1996 for parliament to rush in gun control laws for the safety of the nation. There haven't been any mass shootings there since.

For all the excuses that can be made for the supposed failure of gun control in America should it come to pass, let the record show that a country which is arguably America 2.0 has managed to pass gun control and have it be hailed as one of the most effective in the world.

 

[Somewhere_]

I think guns should be stowed away from kids because they can hurt themselves very easily. All you need to do is fire a blank round and the criminal runs away in fear.

In those countries weapons such as shotguns are still allowed, which are good for home defense. idk how credible this is but: https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

There are other examples how gun control has not worked in the US.

 

[Her]

In those countries weapons such as shotguns are still allowed, which are good for home defense. idk how credible this is but: https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

There are other examples how gun control has not worked in the US.

You might want to cite something that isn't from 1998.

 

[Nah]

Then why has it worked in Australia? The U.K? Canada? Japan? Most notably in Australia, it took one single mass shooting in 1996 for parliament to rush in gun control laws for the safety of the nation. There haven't been any mass shootings there since.

For all the excuses that can be made for the supposed failure of gun control in America should it come to pass, let the record show that a country which is arguably America 2.0 has managed to pass gun control and have it be hailed as one of the most effective in the world.

My assumption is that while those countries are superficially similar to the US they're still different enough that strict gun control works better there than here for whatever reason.

Something I'm wondering though, do any of those countries have or had something like the US Constitution's 2nd amendment? The 2nd amendment will always be an obstacle to attempts at gun control in this country; it's not something I see ever getting repealed really.

 

[Crizzle]

Position C: There's nothing we can do because the NRA is stuffing cash in the pockets of politicians(I think they call it "lobbying") and we'll just debate for a little after every shooting then nothing will change. So just hide/live in your(your mom's,really) basement, live your entire life on the internet and hope you don't get shot.

 

[Her]

My assumption is that while those countries are superficially similar to the US they're still different enough that strict gun control works better there than here for whatever reason.

It works better in other countries because they went and tackled their bloodthirsty culture with gun control before it became so uncontrollably rampant like America.

Something I'm wondering though, do any of those countries have or had something like the US Constitution's 2nd amendment? The 2nd amendment will always be an obstacle to attempts at gun control in this country; it's not something I see ever getting repealed really.

Pre-modern England had a more muddled version of the 2nd amendment being guaranteed to their constituents, as it wasn't as concrete a definition as the one present in the American constitution. The 1689 Bill of Rights gave only Protestants right to bear arms, but it was left vague enough for future changes as need be - they were allowed to defend themselves as necessary, an interpretation by William Blackstone being 'when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.'

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Didn't Penn & Teller made an episode on how gun control is BS, and the best solution to lower gun violence is that everyone owns a gun, so nobody would dare pull out a gun at someone before knowing that the hostage also owns a gun?

 

[Nah]

It works better in other countries because they went and tackled their bloodthirsty culture with gun control before it became so uncontrollably rampant like America.

I'm pretty sure that there's more to it than just America being slow about curbing gun-related crime. What I was going for was more like.....what is it that's different socially/culturally about the UK/Australia/Canada/Japan that gun-related crime is (nowadays) only a minor issue there? Do political and/or socio-economic differences between the countries have anything to do with it? Why exactly has America been slower to curb gun-related violence than those countries? I think that those might be some of the important questions to ask in regards to this topic, but since I'm lacking in knowledge about (international) guns laws and cultures (or knowledge in general really lol) all I can really do is ask.

Pre-modern England had a more muddled version of the 2nd amendment being guaranteed to their constituents, as it wasn't as concrete a definition as the one present in the American constitution. The 1689 Bill of Rights gave only Protestants right to bear arms, but it was left vague enough for future changes as need be - they were allowed to defend themselves as necessary, an interpretation by William Blackstone being 'when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.'

thanks for this though

 

[Torshavn]

Warning: LONG POST AHEAD. I'm sorry, I couldn't control myself.

When people say why they are against laws restricting the use of guns, the first argument I see is "I need guns for self-defense". Then they say "well, if someone broke into my house..."
So, let's crunch some numbers!
The official FBI report states that " the rate of property crime was estimated at 2,730.7 per 100,000 inhabitants". That's a 2.7% rate.
Then, it says that, of all property crimes in 2013, "Burglary accounted for 22.3 percent". That's around 600 cases of burglary, which gives us a 0.6% rate. A 0.6% rate for a country of 300,000,000 people.
Now, a 0.6% rate is LOW. Let's look at some other nations. Let's start with the UK, shall we? The webpage states that domestic burglary represent around 13% of 6 million property crimes. The population in the UK is around 60 million I think? So, nationwide, that's a rate of 1.3%. Higher than the US' burglary rate.
Let's take a look at Canada now. The nationwide break-in rate in 2012 was 0.5% (~500/100,000). That's a bit lower than the US.

Time to look at gun ownership laws and statistics for each of these countries. I'll start with the UK because Hell, I have that tab already opened and I can't be bothered to follow the same order I followed before. No one knows for sure the number of guns in the UK, but the article states the number is estimated to be between 500,000 guns and 1 million guns. Let's go with 1,000,000 guns because I like that number and I'm getting tired of Math and statistics already. Taking into account 60,000,000 people, that gives us a gun ownership rate of ~1,6%. God, my head hurts. The Library of Congress states that, when you apply for a gun license in the UK, "self-defense" does not count as a valid reason for applying. So, let's pretend unicorns are real and the world is beautiful, and let's also pretend that, in the whole nation, NO ONE owns a gun for self-defense purposes and owns one solely to hunt or because they think guns look cool and they collect them.

As for Canada... the official RCMP site graciously gives us some gun ownership statistics. ~2,000,000 registered guns in the nation. A nation made up of ~30,000,000 different people. We have a percentage of ~6% here, people!
And yes, apparently Canada allows you to own firearms for self-defense purposes, just like the US. (sorry for linking Reddit, I'm no expert in Canadian law)

And now for the big finale, let's talk about the United States of America! This article states that the number of guns in the US is around 300,000,000. Can I say holy moly? The information's from 2008 so it's very outdated, but still... guns don't just disappear into thin air. So it's fair to assume the number is still around 300,000,000. Which is nothing short of insane.

So, tu sum up everything nicely:

US: 300,000,000 people (it's 321,000,000, I know, but I'm bad at Math and I like rounded numbers) and 300,000,000 guns in the nation; a 0.6% break-in rate. People may own guns for self-defense purposes.
Canada: 30,000,000 people and 2,000,000 guns in the nation; a 0.5% break-in rate. People may own guns for self-defense purposes.
UK: 60,000,000 people and 1,000,000 guns in the nation; a 1.3% break-in rate. People may not own guns for self-defense purposes.

The big question now is: why am I giving out a statistics lesson?
Because the "I need guns for self-defense" argument is nothing but bulls**t and I wanted to prove it. The UK has a break-in rate of 1.3%. Are people going crazy and saying they need guns? No. Canada has a break-in rate that's slightly lower than the United States', yet they don't have an insane number of guns. And unlike the British, they can have guns for self-defense.

So why do people have so many guns in the US? From an outsider's perspective, US culture (at least to me) seems to promote gun ownership no matter what, and promotes paranoia. People just seem super paranoid to me.
Of course American culture is much more militaristic than my own Italian culture, which has its downsides too: for example, while PTSD and the way it impacts the lives of other is highly publicized in the US, nothing like that exists in Italy. While this is a bit off-topic and I'll probably write more about it if I ever get the opportunity, I'm just saying that having a more militaristic culture is not a completely negative thing. There are upsides to everything. I'm not condemning anyone.

But if y'all really wanna lower the incidence of gun violence, the first thing the government and media should do is stop scaring people. Look at the numbers, I'm NOT making this up! No one wants to break into your house to steal everything you worked so hard for, no one is gonna break in to murder you in cold blood. Stop worrying about potential scenarios of people breaking into your house to do bad stuff. It does happen, but it's not so common and it doesn't warrant so much paranoia.

I think people's perceptions is the first thing that should be changed, but of course, laws that regulate the use and possession of firearms go a long way in reducing gun violence. For example, what if you couldn't use firearms to defend yourself in the US?
Let's shift focus from the US once again and talk about my country, Italy. There's a funny little thing here called "excess of defense", which is very similar to excessive force-- except that it applies to everyone, not just police officers.
Here's a link to the Italian Penal Code in PDF format if you're interested in more. The link's in Italian, so I'll tell you about the important part: article 52.

Art. 52 of our criminal code basically states that, if you did something because you absolutely had to defend one of your rights OR someone else's, you can't be punished. But then it says, "they [the person who acted in self-defense] are unpunishable SO LONG AS THE DEFENSE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE OFFENSE".
While this is certainly ambiguous (what is "proportional" anyway?), what this usually means is, if a burglar tries to punch me square in the face and I know for a fact that they aren't armed, I can't pull a knife on them. If someone broke into my house, I couldn't shoot them unless I knew that they had a gun on them AND wanted to shoot me. I can't shoot first in self-defense, because then it stops being "self-defense" and becomes "excess of defense".

This affects people in a huge way, because firearms are not seen as a way to defend yourself. While in recent times, thanks to American influence, people are starting to consider firearms just another way to defend themselves, the truth is it's too bothersome to use one from a legal point of view because most people don't own guns, not even most criminals. Chances are, if you shoot someone, you're probably in the wrong. So why take such a huge risk? Stick to pepper spray and Krav Maga if anyone tries to pull any funny s**t on you.

And, since I've pretty much only talked about self-defense in this post, let me talk a little bit about regulations. From what little I read, I like the way the UK regulates firearms. Here's more about it. Having a license you need to renew every 5 years, plus actually needing a reason other than self-defense (such as hunting, I wouldn't even consider collecting a valid reason tbh. But then again the people who made the gun laws in the UK probably are more fun than I am at parties) would help reducing the number of guns. And, with a lower number of guns around, the crime rate would lower as well.

Good God, I need a stiff drink. Sorry again for the long post! And sorry if I went too off-topic.

TL;DR American media and politics need to stop promoting paranoia, because that's what drives people to say "I need guns for self-defense" when, in fact, it's not exactly like that. Other good measures would of course be having tighter gun control laws and limits on how much you can hurt someone before it stops being "self-defense" and becomes "murder" / "assault".

 

[Luck]

Firearm violence statistics are merely symptoms of a larger "issue", that being America's cultural obsession with property rights, violence(duh), and self-defense. Assault weapon bans don't do anything to curb gun violence, and handgun restrictions only inconvenience civilians for the most part. The best thing to do for America is to continue to teach proper gun use and responsibility; the worst thing the USA can do is pander to a hysterical public.

Actually, I take it all back. Mass shootings happen because there isn't enough gun control, and not because criminals and the mentally ill acquire guns almost exclusively through illegal means. The best way to get to the core of this debate is to compare the USA to different countries, because America and Japan are just two peas in a pod.

 

[Esper]

If we want to get to the core of gun violence let's also bring in the ideas of money, education, and opportunity and how some places chronically lack them. You take these areas and then introduce readily available guns and you're asking for trouble.

 

[Sir Codin]

If we want to get to the core of gun violence let's also bring in the ideas of money, education, and opportunity and how some places chronically lack them. You take these areas and then introduce readily available guns and you're asking for trouble.

I just want to bring something up real quick before I go back to ignoring PC in general until this topic dies.

If you're going to bring in "lack of money" as being a factor in gun violence, please also don't forget to take into account that guns (even handguns) are actually pretty fucking expensive in a lot of places, especially in California...a state that, I must add, has the strictest gun control in the entire country and yet, according to these latest FBI stats, has the highest amount of death by firearms and a significantly high rate of violent crime (per 100,000 residents) at 402.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls

 

[Esper]

I just want to bring something up real quick before I go back to ignoring PC in general until this topic dies.

If you're going to bring in "lack of money" as being a factor in gun violence, please also don't forget to take into account that guns (even handguns) are actually pretty psyducking expensive in a lot of places, especially in California...a state that, I must add, has the strictest gun control in the entire country and yet, according to these latest FBI stats, has the highest amount of death by firearms and a significantly high rate of violent crime (per 100,000 residents) at 402.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls

I was thinking not so much "lack of money" on an individual's part (because after all even people below the poverty line can often afford one-off larger purchases every now and then) but more about how much money there is in a community. You know, like to build parks, fix roads, keep the place clean and safe and looking good. A tax base.

And while I'm here, the thing about the cost of guns and relative high gun control laws can be circumvented when you cross the border into a neighboring state where guns aren't as restricted/expensive.

 

[Zeph.]

I have never ever encountered/been near/known anyone involved in gun violence or gun related incidents. In fact I've never even seen a real gun. because I live in a country where guns are illegal. Guess what? We don't get gun violence.

Seriously guys, every single argument supporting the right to arms that I see is complete bogus. Remove the guns.

 

[Silent909]

Hi guys I am going to join this with my opinion and memory stats lol but anyways, I am a gun-owner as well live in California USA. I agree with Badsheep as well as part of others opinions. I believe because of the US Constitution, I have the right to bear arms whether it's to fight against the government if there was a take over (main reason why this was implemented by writers), Self Defense, and Sporting purposes. People say ban all guns or just "assault weapons", but they forget that we tried that. Twice. Did not work. Lets say they did ban them, it would be against our constitution to confiscate them. Yeah they can disarm the law-abiding citizens but there will always be criminals and black market here. Someone here mentioned about there's plenty of people that are criminals that have not been arrested for whatever charge. That's exactly one of the reason why to be armed for self defense. Take it from my area, I live in a ghetto area with alot of gangsters. I know some have guns. Some may have a clean record but would have a stolen gun becuase they want it to be untraceable. They would not buy one for themselves under their name and give it to a free without it connecting back to them. Another person here mentioned that US have 300,000,000 guns with 0.6% break-in rate. That's why it's low lol. Stats proves that states with open-carry/concealed-carry allowed has lower crime rates than states that doesn't allow open-carry. Some of you say having a gun for self-defense is stupid. It's not especially what location you live at. So in my location I definitely need to be armed because there is a higher risk of being robbed or jumped. I think everyone main concern is mass shootings events that makes them say ban all guns. If you look at the FBI stats, handguns, shotguns, and other types of weapons were used a lot more in crimes/deaths than an assault weapon has. Only difference is that majority of gun crimes are with one or a few people injured and an assault weapon was used where quite handful people get injured. Mass shootings does not happen a lot, its just mind blowing because of the damage but a handgun will not have that affect because its only one person so you dont get that shocking feeling. Back to the 300,000,000 guns thing. Not everybody gets one, one person can have up to 5 different type of guns. For example, a person that likes gun for sporting events can have a handgun, shotgun, hunting rifle, and an assault rifle. I have a few myself. Yes they meet California law requirements and I lock them away safely and I transport them to a shooting range to have fun and others just stay home. Like someone said California is one of strictest gun laws in the US, If the government just stop being lazy and enforce all the laws they already have then it would be progress instead of wasting taxpayers money to pass dumb laws where it could be used for schools or something useful. So learn how to safely use the gun, Safely secure it, Take responsibility for it and Make wise decisions with it. Sorry if my argument is a little all over the place lol might have missed some points but I am willing to respond to them.

 

[Silent909]

I'm pretty sure that there's more to it than just America being slow about curbing gun-related crime. What I was going for was more like.....what is it that's different socially/culturally about the UK/Australia/Canada/Japan that gun-related crime is (nowadays) only a minor issue there? Do political and/or socio-economic differences between the countries have anything to do with it? Why exactly has America been slower to curb gun-related violence than those countries? I think that those might be some of the important questions to ask in regards to this topic, but since I'm lacking in knowledge about (international) guns laws and cultures (or knowledge in general really lol) all I can really do is ask.



thanks for this though

The US gun-control "curb" is being slow because the major Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) proved it does not work in our countries. When is comes to our US gun laws, other countries has nothing to do with it. Our Constitution prevents the government from taking guns from us. Since bans does not work in our country, All they can do now is minimize the use of that gun. For Example, New York passed a law that an AR-15 rifle in that state is only allowed to use 7 bullets at a time instead of 10. Before that it was 30. In California they only allowed "assault rifles" to take 10 bullets at a time. Only way to strip USA its guns is if the government becomes a tyranny dictatorship. Which is why we have the 2nd amendment right to defend against tyranny lol

 

[Ivysaur]

Another person here mentioned that US have 300,000,000 guns with 0.6% break-in rate. That's why it's low lol.

Now the question is why the break-in rate in the UK is barely twice that of the US when they have 60 times less weapons running around compared to their population. And that is where the key to this issue rests- education, mindset. In the US there is this belief that you need to scare criminals with guns and death penalties and insane jail sentences for any small crime. Meanwhile, in most of Western Europe, there are less guns, no death penalty anywhere and more lenient jail times, and crime rates are barely bigger, if at all. In turn, you have to dig deep to find a single cop "accidentally" murdering someone or a single mass shooting. I think I can live with 0.7 more break-ins in exchange for 99% less mass shootings.

Now, obviously, the question is why the EU (and Australia, and Japan, and...) can reduce their crime rates without overstuffing every prison in the country and without handing out guns to every single person. I don't have a definite answer, but it's pretty clear that there is something wrong in the amount of violence that is considered normal or acceptable in the US, which, in turns, leads the people and the Government to increase their amount of violence accordingly to keep order. In the UK, where you don't expect anybody to be carrying a gun, many policemen go out without guns either. In the US, where there are as many guns as citizens, you find policemen with military gear. Crime rates are barely that different, except in one place "the normal" means you can walk around without ever considering the chance of being shot, and in the other "the normal" implies you'll always have that worry- and probably you'll have to carry your own gun just in case. That is something that needs to be addressed.