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.
At the end of the day, people like to own guys and there is a very profitable industry that wants to keep it that way.
I’d really like everybody who is into guns, to be into guys instead. The world would be a better place.
people like to own guys
Unintentionally calling out the 13th Amendment for what it really is
I’ll bite.
I believe most crime is fundamentally due to poverty. I don’t believe you can simply enforce your way out of crime. That would be extremely expensive and wouldn’t do anything about the poverty. You’d be better off giving the police funding to the poor communities. Enforcement would be unequally dished out to poorer areas, creating an oppressive atmosphere. So when people say it’s something a dictator does, it’s because it ignores the fundamental problem in order to jump straight to aggressive policing. Aggressive policing is something a dictator does.
Petty crime, sure.
White collar crime is pure greed, though, and that’s 90% of what politicians are doing right now in the US…
There are many motivations for crime, and we need to start punishing the poeple that don’t “have” to do the crime A LOT more harshly, and the people that do “have” to commit the crime far less.
Ideally white collar crime wouldn’t even be possible.
There’s a presumption that individuals are less likely to harm themselves or others if they are denied the tools to do so.
Whether you’re dealing with demilitarization (Palestinians are currently being asked to give up any and all remaining weapons, as a condition of permanent peace with Israel while Russia is asking much the same of Ukraine) or local disarment (Reagan’s Mulford Act seeking to deny the Black Panthers the right to Open Carry) or the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1996 (prohibits those with a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction from possessing firearms) the expectation is that no weapons means a lower and less lethal instance of future violence.
Generally speaking, the idea’s popularity hinges on whether you believe taking guns away will leave you safer (because a suspect cohort is disarmed) or more vulnerable (because the folks doing disarment intend to do you harm after you’ve been stripped of a means of self-defense)
I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place
Folks fearful of dictatorship can see crime as a necessity for survival in a country that has made it a public policy to torment them.
On the flip side, “weapons should be banned” never seems to apply to the police or the military. There’s a certain attitude of “if disarment makes us safer, you disarm first”.
Minor contra point. Many police in the UK do not carry guns on their person. They have access to guns and the state monopoly on violence is very one-sided in favour of the state, but community-policing and disarmament of the first-contact-point is absolutely something that can and (sometimes) does happen when the societal level of gun violence is low enough.
community-policing and disarmament of the first-contact-point is absolutely something that can and (sometimes) does happen
What I’m seeing around the police harassment of Palestine Action protestors doesn’t reflect that.
Nevermind the persistent obsession with Knife Crime, which has become the subject of hysterical news coverage for decades over there.
Well, there are 2 problems with banning weapons that I see
One. Weapons are dead simple to make. I can go to the hardware store and buy everything I need to make short range, single shot firearms, and this doesn’t even take into consideration how dangerous slings and sling shots can be when used as a weapon. Additionally, more than a few full auto sub-guns have been made by folks in their basements or sheds, with admittedly mixed results. Turns out that the magazine is actually the hardest part of a repeating firearm.
Functionally, it’s an impossible task. Weapons are generally the simplest of physics problems to solve. Just ignore safety and you’ve got t weapon.
Two. Lets say you succeed. Short term, what changes? A few less deaths, but overall crime goes up because the risks go down and you haven’t done anything to address the true causes of the crime in the first place.
Long term, you have even bigger problems if people from outside the community that has banned weapons, suddenly view you as weak and helpless. And this also discounts the possibility of your own community leaders suddenly deciding to attack in order to seize more power for themselves.
People make arguments like “If you ban guns why not knives? They are both weapons.” The counter is the addage “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”
You’re right you could make firearms in your basement, but they would be far less effective that something that came out of a factory.
The world should not have crime. And in such a world, guns would not be needed (excluding for sport).
To play devil’s advocate and get the conversation going (please don’t down vote), the idea is primarily coming from US citizens whose constitutional amendment states that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. The idea behind it is self preservation (the right to live and defend yourself) and fight against government tyranny. Which, given the origin of the US, that last one is of valid concern. It’s not about the love of guns (though many do), but upholding that amendment.
The oppositional approach as I understand is if guns are illegal, there will be no mass shootings.
I don’t have an answer. I don’t have any guns, and I hate hearing about shootings. So here’s some questions to consider:
- Will laws banning firearms work against criminals? If not, who now has all the guns?
- How would we handle cases of tyranny where the government controls all militia?
- Those who intend to kill, assuming that can’t illegally obtain a gun, will they still kill? (Homemade explosives, mass stabbings, probably more) If killing people is already illegal, then how will making guns illegal make things any different long-term?
- Given the high percentage of shootings being gang on gang violence, which is illegal by the way, will new laws help?
- Statistics is complicated. Cars kill way more people, do we outlaw them? Knives kill people, do we outlaw those too? How do we measure statistically what laws will work and what won’t?
- How do you outlaw and then remove 400,000,000 guns in the US?
It’s complicated, genuinely. But people argue about it so vehemently that no ground is ever gained in the conversation. I think both sides are in favor of not killing people, but want to go about it in different ways.
How would we handle cases of tyranny where the government controls all militia?
How are you handling the case of tyranny right now? Haven’t seen the guns make a ton of difference so far. I don’t see how they would either, as it would be going against the largest military in the world.
a legal monopoly on violence is the cornerstone of the states power. while there are definitely valid reasons to want to restrict access to the tools of violence, the state will always have that access, and if it restricts the general populations access to same, it becomes far easier to oppress them.
also, if we’re gonna ban weapons, i’d like to start with SUVs.
I think only the state having weapons is the less terrible option instead of everybody having weapons.
But +1 to banning SUVs (and cars in general).
You’re going to need A LOT more public transit already in place before banning cars would ever be a remotely ‘good’ idea.
Oh noooo, that’s terrible, I didn’t want that at all
It’d definitely be a good thing. Point is, getting rid of cars won’t be a good thing until effective alternatives are actually available.
The problem is that the ban is one-sided, and generally boils down to “the oppressed are disarmed but the oppressors are not.”
I’m in favor of armed revolution. In socialist society, we wouldn’t really need weapons as much.
There are absolutely legitimate places and reasons to ban weapons (i.e. schools), but we need to have weapons as communities and individuals in the short term to defend ourselves against monsters, in particular capitalists.
Sadly, the capital has stronger weapons and professional fighters on its side to fight for their interests: soldiers. I don’t see how civilians owning guns would help, especially if some of them support a fascist regime and would fight for them.
I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place
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
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.
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”
the harm people can do improvising an everyday device as a weapon, is magnitudes of order lower
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.
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”
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.
Not necessarily.
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
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.
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?!
A person who uses a firearm irresponsibly should have their firearms/firearms license taken and be jailed in such a case.
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)
To me it sounds like the issue you have is not with vehicles or firearms, it is with Larry.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?!
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).
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
I’m just going to put it this way.
People will find a way to be violent.
So we take away their guns, what are we down to? Sharp weapons.
We take away their sharp weapons, what are we down to? Blunt objects.
We take away those, what’s next? Creative ways people can get with non-conventional ways of harming others.
What then? And if we somehow regulated that or controlled it, people can get violent just by their hands alone.
The point again of the matter is, people WILL find a way to get violent, even if you take everything from them such as weapons.
And yet homicide is so much higher in the USA than other wealthy countries.
To make a counterpoint to all the views stated here: statistically, countries which have banned guns see far fewer gun deaths per capita than America. Gun bans work to reduce death, whatever else you may think.
“stopping this is impossible, says only country where this regularly happens”
In the case of the USA, there’s more than just the lack of gun restrictions at play. If you were to compare knife deaths per capita in the UK (we all know how much of a problem stabbings are in the UK) and USA, the US is leading by a significant margin (and that’s on top of gun deaths ofc).
For a gun ban to reduce death in the USA you’d first need to addres atleast some of the other systemic problems the country has been neglecting and/or intentionaly expolting.
I’m not sure I’d agree that tackling system factors would be required for a gun ban to reduce deaths - though some of those factors arguably could have more impact than the ban would.
I think one of those systemic issues is that the US has an unhealthy relationship with guns, from my understanding they’re often treated like toys rather than lethal weapons, and I think strict regulation would help combat that too.
I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place.
You can move to Sweden
The problem with banning weapons basically boils down to “weapons already exist.”
Bad actors have them and will not give them up voluntarily. It’s very simple to say “they should be banned,” but short of Star Trek-level scanner technology, it’s impossible to find all of them. If everyone else gives them up, then the bad actors essentially run the show.
If we were somehow able to ban and dispose of all existing weapons, another problem presents itself: namely, weapons can be created or improvised from other items. 3D printers can make guns (yes, really), knives are a standard and critical kitchen tool, baseball bats are recreational equipment, even pencils have been used as deadly weapons. “Banning weapons” requires banning essentially anything heavier or sharper than a balloon; and even then, you could suffocate someone with it.
Imagining that we were somehow able to do away with all things that could be weapons, as well, we are faced with a third problem: that during the time that we’re making this change, law-abiding countries and citizens will be disarmed, while criminal elements will retain their weapons.
Conservatives and gun nuts (particularly in the US) deploy this weapon on an individual level (“when guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns”), but it’s much more salient on a governmental level: to wit, when you are invaded by another country, you’re going to have to have your own weapons to counter theirs. And the promise of police (while debatably realized) is that they wield weapons to protect unarmed individuals from violence carried out by criminals with weapons.
Some people on Reddit were talking about how only dictators would want to disarm people.
They’re wrong that only dictators want to disarm people, but they are right that dictators have a vested interest in banning weapons. A resistance is a lot harder to put down when that resistance is armed.
The reality, though, is that this particular talking point was encouraged by the American NRA (National Rifle Association), which masquerades as an organization for firearm owners and users but is actually a professional organization of firearm manufacturers. It has spread to other countries from there.
I believe weapons should be banned
Should be? Yes. Can be, safely? Good question.
and that crime should not exist in the first place.
Everyone thinks that. That’s why we call it “crime.” It’s named that because it’s stuff we don’t want to happen, so we get together and assign a penalty to everything we don’t like and call them “laws.”
Okay, everything above is not my opinion, but reality. That’s the state of the world, and the logical outworking of the state of the world. What follows is my opinion. As you may be able to tell, I am a U.S. citizen, so my answer is based largely around that context.
We have to significantly ban and restrict and curtail weapons: sale, possession, and use. Dramatically. Especially firearms. Particularly especially military-grade weapons.
It should be essentially impossible for private citizens to own firearms, and those who are allowed to own them must provide a valid reason (“collecting” working, non-historical weapons is not a valid reason) and be subject to a background check, registration, psychological evaluation, extensive training, and mandatory safe storage requirements. They should be required to join and maintain good standing in their local National Guard or other defense organization. Individuals who currently own firearms and are unwilling or unable to comply with the new regulations must surrender their weapons or face imprisonment for the sake of public safety.
In line with that, ordinary police and private security firms should not be permitted to carry weapons more deadly than a nightstick and pepper spray; with more psychological evaluation and extensive training, perhaps a taser. Firearms should be exclusively allotted for specific use cases, such as animal deterrence in communities near wilderness areas, and perhaps SWAT teams. Qualified immunity should be abolished, and every person killed or injured by a police officer’s weapon should result in immediate suspension of the officer, pending an external audit and investigation.
All weapons and ammunition used by any private citizen, police officer, private security employee, or military personnel should be subject to strict check in/check out regulations, and should include a valid reason for checkout associated with specific training activities or a specific, single incident requiring their issue. Government employees (members of law enforcement and the military) and private security employees should be subject to mandatory bodycam activation (with the footage declassified) any time weapons are checked out.
That is what can be done now, safely, without unduly endangering individuals. We know that it can be done, now, safely, because many other countries have done it.
In terms of the US, it is simply impractical. The political will is nowhere near the level required, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. Agree or disagree, there are too many people for whom this right is not really negotiable. Within that context, yes, I own firearms even though I would really rather not. My right-wing neighbors certainly aren’t going to give theirs up, so I think it would be naive for me to.