You displace guns primarily harming suicidal people and criminals into harms to innocent victims, via unchecked violence — potentially without reducing suicides.
You also see an increase in totalitarian behavior, eg, the Australian lockdowns compared to the US lockdowns.
And the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes — more people are killed by hammers or fists than rifles.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
So? Just having a swimming pool in your home increases your risk of drowning, but people have them anyway.
Also, I think you pulled that 50% number out of the air.
But we could also reduce that down to "if you're specifically in an assault". Surely you're safer right? If you're in an assault and in possession of a gun, you are over 400% (4 times) more likely to be shot then if you do not have a gun. [2]
While having a swimming pool in your home does in fact increase the risk of drowning - in fact, it increases the risk of all the kids of your neighbors drowning as well (this is why I don't, and never will in fact have a private swimming pool in my home)...nobody puts a swimming pool in and says "this will stop me from drowning". In fact they go to considerable lengths and there is considerable regulation surrounding preventing exactly that.
Don't believe tabloid media. No it wasn't 'totalitarian'. I can't take you seriously now.
And while those laws were pretty stupidly implemented they were just the outcome of improvisation from unprepared governments, not some totalitarian vision. Even citizens from countries with a strong culture of disobedience understood that.
Your own link shows that two thirds of homicides are committed using guns. That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns
You ignored what the text you quoted actually said.
If someone broke into my house the default assumption has to be that they're armed and I should fear for me an my family's lives. So I better be armed myself, and better armed then the burglars. Just don't accidentally shoot a family member that you mistake for the home invader in the heat of the moment. But that would never happen to you anyways, only to other, stupid and irresponsible people - who pretty much then deserve to live with the consequences. Compare that to any European country, where burglars always wait until nobody is home, and even if that goes wrong you at least don't have to fear for anyone's life as they'll either beat it immediately or you calmly hand over your cash and be happy you're alive and well.
You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you.
What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary — even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy. People have a right to defend themselves.
> A worthy trade-off for being able to defend yourself and keep the government from issuing lockdowns.
Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century — around 70 times the current US murder rate for 100 years. (That is, 7000 years of the current US murder-with-guns rate.)
Guns also protected Black Panthers, Afghani insurrectionists, and Ukrainian militias.
I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too.
Yes you did, and you even repeat it in your reply.
> You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you.
Yes, they are pretty much making you in parts of the US, because things are so bad.
> What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary.
Not just because "I find them scary", but because they are literally dangerous. They are made to kill. That's their only purpose.
And yes, you absolutely have the right to take them away from people - just like you have the right to declare certain substances illegal to sell, consume or own, and limit people's freedom in a dozen other ways for the sake of society's well being as a whole.
> even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy.
So where's the straw man again?
> People have a right to defend themselves.
And we arrived at the knee jerk reaction. Taking the arms race as a given. Don't even question why things are that fucked up in the first place. Might have to fear for my life any time of the day, so better have a semi-automatic rifle at hand. It's just so very sad.
> Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century
In the US? Or Europe? Or might it have been in some really unstable chaotic parts of the world? Why you would even want to compare this to a civilized first world country is beyond me. A more reasonable approach would be comparisons with countries that are socially and structurally similar to the US but have different gun control laws, but that comparison wouldn't really fly with your views I guess.
> I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too.
It doesn't seem you want it to be.
The US seems to have higher murder, but less per capita crimes against people (eg, rape and burglary).
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/...
Have a look at the order of all countries:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Burgla...
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Italy/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Uni... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Austria/Un...
> You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors.
Sorry but to my european ears, this "equalizing force" theory sounds plain stupid. I get that it is not that easy to ban them because we have different traditions and background, and I get that it is really hard to ban something when people is used to it and that it could lead to unexpected consequences (black market, etc).
But defending guns as an "equalizing force" is just stupid, given the stats.
But common in mass shootings.
In the US, “semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings”:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...
Also, most “mass shootings” are by pistol by gangs — you’re citing a statistic on the largest ones, which are rare even among rare events.
Generally, we shouldn’t base policy around outliers of outliers.
So far this year more school kids have died from being shot in the line of duty than cops who are routinely armed. So it doesn’t strike me as that much of an outlier. In particular kids should definitely be safer from gun violence than a police officer. That seems like a reasonable goal?
Or the fact that the incidence of school shootings means kids are more widely impacted than just those who end up on the wrong end of a gun.
They are outliers of outliers in other countries. In the US, it's once a week.
500,000-3,000,000
Suicides:
24,000
Murders:
14,000
- - - - -
Defensive gun uses:
https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g...
Suicide and murder:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_S...
The page you reference indexes a few thousand over several years. Seems likely an undercount as the page claims but not by that much by probably a couple orders of magnitude.
So by your argument crime should be lower in states with less gun control. That is not reflected in reality, in fact according to [1 ], the states with the highest crime rates have actually amongst the laxest gun control laws.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
You say guns can be used by weaker people to defend themselves (not sure if you consider children weak), and the argue that rifles kill less people than hammers. Yes rifles, handguns on the other hand kill >30 times more (and there is a large unspecified firearm category which kills ~10 times more than hammers). So are you suggesting weaker woman should take a rifle to their date in case they need to defend themselves.
The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one.
The rifle point was that while most murders are by handgun, most gun laws restrict rifles — which was a specific, second thing I was calling out.
> The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one.
My point is that is more equal than when violence relies on knives and bats and fists.
It is simply not true that women, and the elderly would defend themselves with lethal force all that often, besides aggressors are the ones who are quicker at obtaining guns and using them.
How often is acceptably "often enough" for the disadvantaged to protect themselves?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/04/texas-woman...
So show us the statistics that crime rates in states with high gun ownership are lower.
