3 ms·
The problem is that too many guns exist already in the USA. If guns had just been invented and only a few of them existed, or if we were a moon colony that had
by csense 14y ago
The problem is that too many guns exist already in the USA. If guns had just been invented and only a few of them existed, or if we were a moon colony that had never imported guns, or if we were some country where, due to social/cultural/political circumstances very few people have guns, then gun control would stand a chance of working.
But we have to work with what we've got. The situation we're actually in is this: Even if we could get the massive political coalition it would take to repeal a Constitutional amendment, there are still millions of guns that exist in the USA.
There was an article on HN very recently about a site that allows buyers and sellers of guns to find each other and go through transactions using Tor and Bitcoin for anonymity. So I think it's fair to say that the advancing state of software and Internet technology will make it increasingly easier for people to obtain firearms illegally.
So if you outlaw guns in the USA, the practical effect is disarming responsible, law-abiding citizens, whereas anyone who's bound and determined to get a weapon and doesn't care about the law, can still get one.
(Presently I believe there is a federally mandated waiting period and check for felony records for those buying firearms, called the Brady bill; the idea is to make sure you have time to think about what you're doing and have a few days to "cool off" if you're angry about something.)
My state recently passed a concealed-carry law, whereby any citizen can become certified to carry a concealed weapon. The controversy surrounding that has made me aware of an interesting argument:
What if we go in the opposite direction?
If we assume most people are responsible enough to handle firearms, and a non-negligible percentage of the population carries concealed firearms wherever they go, then it's harder for mass tragedies to occur. When the crazed maniac begins his massacre, the would-be victims can start shooting back.
Concealed carry can also serve as a deterrent to violent crime like armed robbery. If you're desperate enough to try something like that, and you know you're gonna be the only one with a gun, you also realize that the worst thing that will happen is you get three squares a day and a roof over your head at taxpayer expense. Whereas if you know there's a decent chance somebody else will have a weapon, suddenly the worst-case scenario becomes a hole in the head, which might affect your calculations enough to change your decision.
That's the argument, anyway; I'd be interested if anyone can find holes in it.
- nowarninglabel 14y agoThe one glaring hole is in the idea that people with concealed carry will be ready and able to effectively "start shooting back". Are there objective examples of this? I've seen counter-examples, such as how in the Giffords shooting in Arizona the victims actually brought down the perp through physical force, even though some of them were carrying. Are there similar examples of concealed carry folks bringing down a shooter? It should be noted, I'm pro gun ownership, but I'd still like to see you prove your point rather than just regurgitating what all pro-gun people are saying without any data to actually back it up.
- nodemaker 14y agoRecent event in Ocala FL. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/71-Year-Old-Man-Shoots-Would-Be-Robbers-at-Ocala-Internet-Cafe-Authorities-162941656.html http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/71-Year-Ol... Although apparently the robbers had an unloaded shotgun.
- nowarninglabel 14y agoThat's a good example of stopping a robbery, however what I'm really looking for here is an example of where armed men came in with the intention of killing people and were stopped by someone carrying, as that's the scenario we are discussing.
- vacri 14y agoAfter the Port Arthur massacre here in Australia, firearm laws were tightened, and an amnesty program was put in place for people to drop off weapons. Police were surprised at how enthusiastically the public took up the offer. I don't think this would translate as well in the US due to the 'cold-dead-hands' mentality of a few, but I think you'd find more people willing to give up their arms than you might expect. a non-negligible percentage of the population carries concealed firearms wherever they go, then it's harder for mass tragedies to occur The problem is that mass killings are a drop in the bucket. This guy killed 12 people (and maimed 50), and in a bad year you might have half a dozen of them. Say 60 dead to this kind of thing. But the US has 17000 homicides per year. Basing your legal response on spree killings is very much the wrong thing to do. Given that most murders are crimes of passion done in the heat of the moment, you're going to cause more deaths by intentionally arming the population than saving lives by having a mass shooter killed after the first few victims. Also, 'concealed carry' is not a magic bullet. Washington state went concealed carry in 1961, yet its crime rates rose and fell in step with its colleagues. Concealed carry arguments always relies on anecdotal arguments and never statistics, I find. The one stat that does get mentioned is crime rate, but there's rarely any mention of other factors (like rising incarceration rates) Anyway, a simple counter to your armed robbery example - the robber almost always has the drop on you. Most people would rather give up the cash rather than risk the robber actually shooting you while you or a bystander start a mexican standoff. the worst thing that will happen is you get three squares a day and a roof over your head at taxpayer expense Really, we need to stop painting prison as a kind of holiday resort. No-one at risk of actually going to prison in any way actually thinks this.