80
5 votes
Sep 5, 2015

The reduction in gun death rate would drop for domestic violence, while beatings, knifing and other such things would go up some and gun deaths due to crime would increase because criminals know you can't have a gun to protect yourself with. Additionally the government can now take control of every aspect of our lives with militarized police forces without threat of any rebellion because the public is disarmed.

Let's hypothesize that I want to kill you, my access to a gun or not doesn't effect the fact that I want to kill you. What a gun ban would do is prevent me from legally obtaining a gun with which to kill you. How much of a barrier to entry is this ? If I want to kill you but can't shoot you with a legally obtained gun what are my options? I can get a gun illegally, I can hire someone to kill you, I could poison you, I could use some other kind of weapon, I could stage some kind of "accident". In short, I have any number of potential ways to kill you, if I have decided I want to kill you.

The heart of this argument boils down to how many gun deaths are there simply and solely because there is a gun available? This question is nearly impossible to predict accurately because if the intent to kill is present there is no way of knowing how far that intent will go or if it will dissipate due to the minor hurdle of not having a gun on hand.

Also a gun ban would not stop gun crime because criminals will get guns if they want guns.

So what we are looking at is the minor potential to maybe prevent some domestic gun related deaths weighed against a lot of negative outcomes that are very real and it doesn't seem like a solid choice to ban guns in light of the heavily negative effects a ban would have.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
main reply
2 votes,
Oct 4, 2015

"Additionally the government can now take control of every aspect of our lives with militarized police forces without threat of any rebellion because the public is disarmed."

A rebellion is not a threat to modern armies. The technology and training advantage of the Armee is huge. Public would not stay any change if the US military would decide to take over the country.

"Let's hypothesize that I want to kill you, my access to a gun or not doesn't effect the fact that I want to kill you."

Planned murder makes up only for a small minority of overall homicide. A restriction on guns helps prevent shootings which develop out of the heat of the situation and are later regretted.

"Also a gun ban would not stop gun crime because criminals will get guns if they want guns."

Yes, but a ban on gut would it much easier to identify criminals. Everyone with a gun will be a criminal (by definition). Hence criminals need to carefully hide their guns or risk getting into trouble.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Sep 5, 2015

I agree in fact violent crime in states that passed CCL dropped when that law was applied. FL is an excellent example when they passed there CCL law bad guys actually started to target visitors and located them based on car rental car license plates.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
Oct 6, 2015
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
Oct 31, 2015

The evidence is very complex on this front but it does not bear out your assertion about the deterrent value of guns.

Where you really err, though, is the idea that even an assault rifle is a deterrent to a government. It is not. Internationally, guns in the hands of civilians is much more likely to lead to militia violence and civil unrest than peaceful, viable revolution.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
Feb 5, 2016
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Feb 7, 2016

"Additionally the government can now take control of every aspect of our lives with militarized police forces without threat of any rebellion because the public is disarmed."

Our military has drones, Apache helicopters, bombers, Bradley tanks, rocket-propelled grenades, and lots of other stuff that would make your AR-15 or your Desert Eagle .50 cal look like a cap gun. If our government shifts toward totalitarianism, a bunch of people with rifles, pistols, and shotguns aren't going to stop it.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Jul 9, 2016

Let's see how well did the military do in Vietnam? They went after the local poorly armed population in many cases, bombed, shot, burned, and still we pulled out. And yes I know there was other military support, but the armed forced were shooting at strangers, what happen when they have to start shooting at neighbors, friends?

So how about a better example, a well armed government trying to control a local population. Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign where they took the long game, fight for years, hit and run, wear the government down. Odds are that's what the fighting would look like, the government can't bomb the locals back to the stone age without hurting itself, and the harder they government would try and suppress the local population the more they would resist. So in the end if the locals took the long game, they would slowly wear down the government.

History has shown over and over again that if the local population is armed and willing to fight, they can fight a modern army to a stand standstill as long as they didn't fight a "normal" war. Yes there would be a LOT of deaths.

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: