Sorry if this is not the place for that kind of discussion. I would like to be civil, please. Some people on Reddit were talking about how only dictators would want to disarm people.
Can I have some explanation on your opinion and why? I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place. My opinion may change, but I believe there should somehow be strict rules regarding crime to reduce the amount of it and just have a place where it will not be worried about.
A car can be used as a weapon as can cleaning products, baseball bats, tire irons, kitchen knives, sharp sticks… etc. If someone wants to purpose something as a weapon, then they will.
Crime is defined by law and law is defined by government and/or society. As long as people exist, crime will exist. It is not sound reasoning to believe “crime should not exist” because if it were made illegal to wear black shoes, crime exists again, and as such it is an impossible standard.
Rather, I accept that crime will always exist in the world as a result, but aspire to a world wherein there is no real need to ban things like guns because no one uses them to harm other people - the same goes for cars, baseball bats, etc.
Banning registered/licensed owners from owning firearms does not do much, because the last thing a potential mass shooter does when obtaining a firearm is register or get a license. As such, laws that ban only really affect people who are generally responsible in the first place.
If all firearms suddenly disappeared, people would just build rudimentary ones if they wanted one for violence. Shinzo Abe was killed by a gun someone built in their home. To prevent that you would have to make the purchase of metal piping and whatnot illegal as well.
Stopping mass shootings, gun violence, and violence in general is not a matter of banning something, it is a matter of education and societal responsibility. Read about the comparatively high gun ownership yet low shootings in Switzerland for example.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178924000776
Sure, but as seen repeatedly in countries where guns are heavily regulated, the harm people can do improvising an everyday device as a weapon, is magnitudes of order lower
Cars I think are a great example. We have ALL seen how irresponsible people in general are with them, even though we do have a full framework of regulations around them. How can anyone see that and think “oh sure Larry is a crazy person, drives drunk all the time, usually on his phone, but I am sure he will be super responsible with an automatic machine gun”
Not necessarily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack
You could also fill the car with a lot of gasoline canisters and fertilizer if you so wished. These are all also a lot easier to get than a firearm, particularly if you are crazy.
Agree that regulation can always be better however.
I think you are drawing a false causal relationship/strawman here. Almost no one thinks this, including 99% of people who own and use firearms. Certain people should be prevented from owning and operating firearms and certain people should also be prevented from owning and operating vehicles.
A person who operates a vehicle irresponsibly should have their license and vehicle taken and be jailed in such a case.
A person who uses a firearm irresponsibly should have their firearms/firearms license taken and be jailed in such a case.
Such a person using either thing irresponsibly can result in the loss of life, but I don’t see as many people trying to ban vehicles, gasoline, and fertilizer because they are capable of killing multiple people.
To me it sounds like the issue you have is not with vehicles or firearms, it is with Larry. This brings us back to my point about this being a societal/educational problem rather than a banning problem. I get the feeling if Larry wants to hurt a lot of people, he will find a way to do so regardless. If you want society to be safe from Larry, you would have to go a lot further than banning only firearms.
Alternatively, you tackle the societal responsibility/education/mental health problems that society has, and maybe Larry stops drinking, gets therapy for his mental problems, gets off social media and now feels as though there is no need to hurt anyone or to act irresponsibly with guns, vehicles, gasoline, knives, baseball bats, tire irons, or whatever else.
Yes, and there have been cases of guns not going off and failing to kill anyone but that is a very pedantic take… The fact of the matter remains, guns are designed to kill people, other things could kill people but not been designed for such purpose, they tend to be less effective
The point is that, since seemingly we all agree (even gun owners as per your comment)… why do we do it at all when we all agree it’s a bad idea?!
Which is the case in 99% of the world… not sure why we need to pretend there is any logic or reason in the USA when it comes to this topic (or a growing list of other topics for that matter)
Not quite… I would not trust a toddler to get a pie out of the oven because, no matter how well trained, such toddler will likely burn themselves and ruin the pie. Sure, Larry is a disaster, but we have COUNTLESS examples of Police Officers, arguably the most trained demographic to hold guns, who constantly misuse them.
The amount of people that could truly be trusted with guns, under special circumstances, is very very slim. No amount of education or training would make a human 100% trust worthy with guns 100% of the time. There is a reason a huge percentage of violent crime falls in the category of “passion” crimes
We should do those things… and still not let almost anyone own a gun. The case is clear, there is simply no societal benefit to allow widespread ownership of certain guns
Before replying, I will note that I feel as though we have reached the end of the discussion - I think you have raised your contentions well, and I understand them but disagree. I expect you feel the same from your end, and that is fine, but I am sure neither of us thinks we will really convince the other of anything at this juncture.
As a result, I won’t be continuing the conversation after this, but know that I don’t feel any animosity toward you.
Some guns are designed to kill people, others are designed to hunt, others are designed to target shoot.
For example, you don’t see one of these killing a lot of people:
https://www.ssusa.org/media/c0yk1ziu/12feinwerkbau-aw93.jpg
Note that an argument of “it could be used to kill someone however” returns us to placing it in the same category as a vehicle.
Poor regulation depending on your area. Recall that I am in agreement that regulation can always be better. I disagree with the regulations for this in a place such as America, but you should examine how this works in other countries as well (such as the paper I linked regarding Switzerland).
Yes and I would not trust a toddler to drive either, just like how I would not trust Larry to drive, nor to use a firearm. Officers (in the US I assume you are referencing) do not receive nearly as much training as I think you suppose. Furthermore this again goes back to regulation - I believe that if a cop misuses a firearm or a vehicle, then again, they should have those things taken and be jailed. This again hints that you are more upset with specific people/regulatory systems than firearms or vehicles I think.
You don’t seem to have produced an argument against guns that does not directly depend upon a specific group of people choosing to misuse one, but the same argument can be applied to my car bomb allegory.
The same could be said for someone driving - most likely more often for drivers since more people own vehicles than those who own firearms. It is anecdotal to say that is slim as well - you should search for a source to back that up in the future. I suggest you look into the actual data regarding gun ownership versus responsibility.
I would highly recommend you read the paper I linked in my first comment regarding Switzerland because it implies the opposite in their case.
In the US? Yes that could be different, but again that demonstrates quite clearly this is not a gun problem, but a societal/educational problem since this problem only really exists in specific places.
I don’t think the case is very clear at all - based on the sources I have provided I would say it is decidedly unclear. Social benefits include the control of wildlife, military protections, and social sport (such as olympic shooting, and target shooting competition).
I used to feel similarly to yourself so I challenged my bias by going through the process of getting a firearms license in my country and engaging with firearms, sport shooting, and the community that surrounds it. After all, if my bias did not change, then I could simply sell the firearms to recoup my money and would not have lost anything - however it did change my opinions on the matter, so just know that I am speaking from a place of having involved myself with the subject directly to go seek out the real tangible information on my own behalf.
Perhaps someday you may find it enlightening to do something similar, even if you don’t take it quite as far as me.
Thanks and have a good day.