[Debate] Guns Even out the Playing Field

[Senju Bean]

Scenario 4 - no one is allowed guns, violence is no longer viewed as in proxy because you're not doing it by your own hand, people then actually have to commit physical and personal violence to do morally questionable actions. If you want to steal an old lady's purse? You have to actually stab her now, and get blood all over you. Now people actually have to take time to commit crimes in plain sight and have physical evidence of it rather than shoot a gun and pretend to be running from the shootout.

In this situation, the old lady has no chance. None at all.

 

[whoami28]

In this situation, the old lady has no chance. None at all.

In this situation the crime never happens because the criminals aren't all psychopaths who would kill an old lady for no reason. If you're viewing this criminal as a violent murderer who just wants to kill an old lady, then she never stood a chance in the first place. If it's a criminal who is on the streets stealing because he can't feed himself then you can't know what that person will do - but possibly this person is simply in a bad situation and not a psychopath, and will have some measure of a conscious to not kill someone and just steal the purse and run.

 

[whoami28]

The reality is an old woman doesn't stand a chance against an able bodied young criminal, male or female. Weapons change nothing. A criminal will see an opportunity and take it based on their perceived power (weapon vs no weapon, physical strength vs lack of physical strength).

 

[Senju Bean]

In this situation the crime never happens because the criminals aren't all psychopaths who would kill an old lady for no reason. If you're viewing this criminal as a violent murderer who just wants to kill an old lady, then she never stood a chance in the first place. If it's a criminal who is on the streets stealing because he can't feed himself then you can't know what that person will do - but possibly this person is simply in a bad situation and not a psychopath, and will have some measure of a conscious to not kill someone and just steal the purse and run.

Can't feed himself but could still buy a gun? Doesn't make sense.

Many criminals are sociopaths. Taking away the guns only means they will use knives.

Many criminals are pragmatists. Then taking away the guns only means they will have the advantage since they know they won't get shot.

If I were a criminal, I would live in an area where guns are illegal because I know that no matter what I do, I won't get shot.

 

[Senju Bean]

The reality is an old woman doesn't stand a chance against an able bodied young criminal, male or female. Weapons change nothing. A criminal will see an opportunity and take it based on their perceived power (weapon vs no weapon, physical strength vs lack of physical strength).

Yes it does. It doesn't take much strength to pull a trigger. Even an old lady can do it.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Senju Bean]

Here, an old lady was able to defend herself with a gun

You must be registered for see links

 

[whoami28]

Can't feed himself but could still buy a gun? Doesn't make sense.

Many criminals are sociopaths. Taking away the guns only means they will use knives.

Many criminals are pragmatists. Then taking away the guns only means they will have the advantage since they know they won't get shot.

If I were a criminal, I would live in an area where guns are illegal because I know that no matter what I do, I won't get shot.

In the world you're describing guns are seemingly easy to come by. You can steal a gun from a parent, or get one from a friend. I was not questioning the economic situation of the criminal, merely the motives for it as violence is more difficult to commit when you don't have to stand 10 meters away and just pull a trigger. What I fail to understand is why you prefer to arm everyone rather than promote education and prevent violence altogether. Giving everyone guns doesn't prevent violence, it only allows for an excuse to respond to violence with more violence. I don't know your own situation or experience with guns, but personally I've lost friends to gun violence and I see no need for more guns.

You must be registered for see links

- This teen lost his life because the gun owner believed that he could do what he wanted without even questioning whether or not he or his home were in danger. Do you want an old lady shooting every man who she feels threatened by? Your "criminal" could be a homeless man coming up to ask for change, or a good Samaritan offering to help her.

Sure, if it's a pragmatic sociopath who has no care for his actions and only for himself having or not having a gun won't likely stop him from committing a crime, so the discussion is irrelevant. These criminals will do what they want. Of course talking in hypotheticals gets us nowhere. I simply prefer to not advocate for more guns, or for more violence as a response to random acts of violence.

 

[Senju Bean]

In the world you're describing guns are seemingly easy to come by. You can steal a gun from a parent, or get one from a friend. I was not questioning the economic situation of the criminal, merely the motives for it as violence is more difficult to commit when you don't have to stand 10 meters away and just pull a trigger. What I fail to understand is why you prefer to arm everyone rather than promote education and prevent violence altogether. Giving everyone guns doesn't prevent violence, it only allows for an excuse to respond to violence with more violence. I don't know your own situation or experience with guns, but personally I've lost friends to gun violence and I see no need for more guns.

You must be registered for see links

- This teen lost his life because the gun owner believed that he could do what he wanted without even questioning whether or not he or his home were in danger. Do you want an old lady shooting every man who she feels threatened by? Your "criminal" could be a homeless man coming up to ask for change, or a good Samaritan offering to help her.

Sure, if it's a pragmatic sociopath who has no care for his actions and only for himself having or not having a gun won't likely stop him from committing a crime, so the discussion is irrelevant. These criminals will do what they want. Of course talking in hypotheticals gets us nowhere. I simply prefer to not advocate for more guns, or for more violence as a response to random acts of violence.

I never said that guns are easy to come by. I said that criminals have even more reason to commit crimes in a "de-guned" zone.

A criminal without a gun, but in a no gun area, will have more incentive to commit crime because they know that they will always win, because they know they can't be shot. He doesn't need to be pragmatic or a sociopath. He just needs to have some common sense. Any criminal knows that they can easily win against someone without a gun.

With regards to the news article you posted, like I said, there are side effects that could be negative sometimes, that's just the risk of allow the freedom of self defense.


Making guns illegal is denying self defense because without guns, criminals are too physical strong to overcome.

 

[whoami28]

I agree a criminal in a situation where there are no guns may be confident knowing there won't be a risk of being shot. What it doesn't account for is that criminals are sometimes stupid and overconfident. Criminals are not always certain that they can win a fight without a gun - just see the links I posted below. Now if we're specifically talking about preying on the weak then obviously those who are physically weaker are at a disadvantage, with or without a gun and no argument for or against guns with change this. Like I already said, with or without guns we can't know if a criminal will actually attack a victim. My opinion is that guns allow for people to resort to violence without actually feeling like they hurt someone. I believe it's far easier to shoot someone than stab someone both physically and mentally.

I also think that if there are no guns, criminals are less likely to resort to violent crimes and instead just shoplift.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I respect your belief that guns can even the playing field. I personally believe that having more guns just makes shooting and asking questions later an easy excuse that promotes more violence. My ideal situation is one where violence doesn't happen in the first place, but when it does happen I don't believe the answer is more violence.

 

[VongolaX]

Not as bad as you might think considering Navy don't actually have to qualify with weapons. Just fire them.

You go through a sh*t ton of papers to get them.

 

[Senju Bean]

I agree a criminal in a situation where there are no guns may be confident knowing there won't be a risk of being shot. What it doesn't account for is that criminals are sometimes stupid and overconfident. Criminals are not always certain that they can win a fight without a gun - just see the links I posted below. Now if we're specifically talking about preying on the weak then obviously those who are physically weaker are at a disadvantage, with or without a gun and no argument for or against guns with change this. Like I already said, with or without guns we can't know if a criminal will actually attack a victim. My opinion is that guns allow for people to resort to violence without actually feeling like they hurt someone. I believe it's far easier to shoot someone than stab someone both physically and mentally.

I also think that if there are no guns, criminals are less likely to resort to violent crimes and instead just shoplift.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I respect your belief that guns can even the playing field. I personally believe that having more guns just makes shooting and asking questions later an easy excuse that promotes more violence. My ideal situation is one where violence doesn't happen in the first place, but when it does happen I don't believe the answer is more violence.

It's true. Guns even the playing field by giving the oid lady a slight chance whereas the wouldn't have one. You must admit, her chances are higher, even if by a little, in scenario 2.

Will the overall crime rate lower by banning guns? Perhaps. It all depends the number of pragmatic sociopaths vs implusive simpletons.

But its not about numbers. It's about giving the indivdual the right to defense, in any circumstance. This is even more important than living in a slightly safer society.

 

[Ficklefire]

I'd just like to say that I agree with the OP's basic observation on the matter, and add my own spin. Putting a gun in the hands of someone who is out to defend themselves is something that really encapsulates the idea of American Equality. Equality isn't about giving everybody the same result, but about giving them the same chances to reach that result. Of course an old woman isn't going to be as skilled a shooter as a trained marksman or a lifelong hunter, but she's got a lot better chances with that gun than without it. Guns are, as a general rule, the most effective self defense weapon and deterrent.

One can't blame guns on the murders committed by man, in my opinion. Yes, they're dangerous, but so are knives and forks and bows and cars.

In fact, according to the

You must be registered for see links

, you're more likely to harm yourself (either accidentally or not) than you are to be assaulted by a firearm. In fact, even if you were to measure the "accidental discharge of a weapon's" chance of harming you against "dying in a house fire", you're about three times as likely to die in a house fire. The fact is, guns aren't the most dangerous thing in America anymore. The people wielding them are.

With that said, those same people, the unstable ones, are going to hurt others no matter what. Murdering someone with a gun is illegal to begin with, and so is acquiring a gun without proper permits. These people don't care about the law, or the well-being of anyone else. They've given up on conforming to the laws of society.

I'd rather have a gun in my hands to defend myself and others against that type of people, and that said, I agree with OP's observations in this thread. Props, Senju.

 

[Tingun]

Scenario 3:
A guy get pissed and decides to kill everyone he can with a gun. He kills 32 and injures 59.

Scenario 4:A man gets pissed and decides to kill as many people as he can at the mall with an axe. He kills one person and injures another before he is apprehended.