Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhy GUN violence?
I'm a humble newcomer, even though I've been reading this forum for quite some time now (I find it to be just about the only place where one can find well-reasoned arguments on both sides), and I want to pose a question.
Why is it that the concern always seems to be reducing gun violence? Wouldn't violent crime rates regardless of means be a better metric? Is it simply understood that if gun crime goes down, all crime tracks with it, and if so what evidence is there to support that? What good would it do to institute a policy that reduced gun crime if overall rates went up (only hypothetical, but illustrative)?
Okay that was more than one question, but I look forward to the responses.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)it is easier to control the weapon than it is the problem
rdharma
(6,057 posts)CobblePuller
(38 posts)shenmue
(38,501 posts)Fewer guns, fewer shootings. It's pretty hard to shoot somebody without a gun.
Also, lots of criminals use guns to threaten people, even if they don't open fire. If you pulled a gun, you could probably pull off a robbery. No gun? Not so much...
Yes, there are crimes with knives and clubs and such, which are certainly bad too, but at least if there weren't as many shootings, there wouldn't be, uh, so many shootings. I don't think all the criminals are suddenly going to switch over to knives. Knives are already there. If they wanted more knife crime, there'd be more now.
I understand why guns are the target. It makes sense to go after the majority of crime. But then the studies and the cited statistics should reflect that. The argument should not be "country X passed Y gun-control law and saw Z decrease in gun crimes" but rather "X->Y->Z decrease in crime"
Also it stands to reason that criminals are going to look for disparity of force wherever they can get it, so I'm not sure I agree that criminals won't switch to some other weapon.
eta: That's not to say that every criminal will switch over resulting in zero reduction, just that it's impossible to tell what the real impact would be.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Like "phasers"?
hack89
(39,171 posts)CobblePuller
(38 posts)they won't substitute another weapon.
Hmmmm...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Than for any other measured category, even handguns.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)By the mid 90s, guns in civilian hands were around 190 million. That number has grown to an excess of 300 million today. Check the homicide rates by guns during that same time. Which way did they go, up or down?
But maybe FBI data have become "NRATalkingPoints"
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)We must destroy their totem thereby killing their courage so that we may defeat them.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)but I could never quite formulate it. That is very succinct and piercing.
Can I steal that?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Then they start developing expectations. Bleh!
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Most likely agreed upon as just fine, reasonable and common sense approaches (really don't like those latter terms) by just about everyone.
But talking about controlling gun violence via controlling guns, is EXTREMELY polarizing.
Which causes endless conversations and fights...up front and in-your-face usually-quite-loud type discussions.
There is much involved...fear, culture, need, wants, rights, inconvenience, control, self preservation, family protection, leisure, property, constitutional aspects, laws, liberty, personal experience, safety, anonymity, giving something up and taking something away, vulnerability, lives, victimization and prevention of same, &c &c - all involved in HUGE amounts.
And so it is always a hot and popular topic, where debates stretch on - well - forever.
It makes it seem that the focus of those involved is quite narrow, when it is usually not the case. There is no reason why more then one cause/contribution to crime/violence can be addressed - and usually are in varying degrees.
There simply is no easy solution that please everyone, as many other subjects allow.
Of course - guns are hot now (again), because - in case you missed it, almost 100 people were shot, and many killed recently, in only 2 incidences involving firearms. Just about everyone is focused on them.
petronius
(26,580 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Bazinga
(331 posts)I was dreading your post, as you tend to be passionate, but I was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps you are taking it easy on a new poster.
I still think, however, that the justification for new gun-control policies should be public safety in all of it's forms. The statistics regarding just Gun crime seem cherry- picked.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)but also tend, or atleast try, to understand the big picture.
Have to constantly remember the experiences of others iaren't the same as mine.
Cheers.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Iit's not about violence or crime it's about control...
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The basic conservative/liberal split is along the individualist/collective fault line. The conservative wants rugged individualism while the liberal wants greater involvement of the government in meeting people's needs. The conservative wants everybody to be responsible for working to meet their needs, save for retirement, and pay for their own medical insurance. The liberal realizes that some people can't work, don't make enough to be able to have a 401(k) or an IRA, and that most medical insurance companies (before medicare) stopped insuring folks over 65. So there is a large role for government in meeting those human needs. I firmly support unemployment insurance, Social Security, public education, Medicare and most other social programs.
The liberals believes that you should rely upon the police to fight crime. But the brutal fact of real life is that the police will not be there if your become targeted by a criminal. The police show up after the crime to collect evidence and try to find the criminal later. That is good, but it is of little help to the victim.
Only 20% of gun owners are hunters, the rest having guns for other reasons, mostly self-defense. The fear of many liberals is that if someone has decided that the government is not able to protect them from crime and that they must provide for their own defense, then in what other areas will they become rugged individualists.
The flaw in that fear is that the gun-owners is not a rugged individualist as he is very happy to have the government do the work of patrolling towns and cities, catching bad guys, and prosecuting them. As a LEGAL gun owner he functions as a member of the collective by protecting himself from crime, thereby protecting a small part of the collective. It is completely possible to be a gun owner and not be a conservative.
Bazinga
(331 posts)But I still can't see why the stats and the arguments hinge on gun violence. It seems to me that the collective would be much better served to concern itself with total violence. Then if it plays out that their goal of reduced violence is better served by banning guns, their argument is much more powerful. And if the opposite is true, that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a deterrent to crime, then the goal of reduced violence is still accomplished.