Gun control as a "necessary evil"

[William Blakeley]

In my humble view it all depends on what is specifically meant by the term " gun control " , since it encompasses a rather wide range of both actual and proposed legislation relating to firearms .

To get more specific , if by " gun control " one means laws that prohibit criminals/mentally ill persons/substance abusers/ and minors from purchasing , owning , possessing , etc. , firearms then I very much support such laws as a matter of common sense prudence .

I also daresay that upwards of at least 90% of people in general , regardless of their overall stance on firearms legislation , support such laws all across the world due to their near universal appeal to basic common sense .

Granted it's most certainly true that the existence of such laws aren't in the least a guarantee of the aforementioned types of persons never being able to lay their hands on firearms , however the very intent of justifiable prohibitive legislation is not to serve as a metaphorical shield against any sort of undesirable event occurring , but to put as many barriers as possible in the way of those seeking/likely to cause harm .

Just as one would ( I assume ) never argue against people locking their doors before leaving their home on the basis of burglars still being able to break into their home , it only stands to reason that instituting this sort of " gun control " is merely a matter of good sense IMO .

On the other hand if by gun control one means laws that specify magazine capacity restrictions or outright bans of certain types of firearms and things of that nature , then I most certainly do not support such measures since they result in little if any measurable good relating to decreasing the overall level of unjustifiable ( aka non self defense related ) violence involving firearms use , not to mention the fact that they hamper the ability of honest people to obtain the firearms they wish to use for legitimate reasons .

As is often stated , while your proverbial ordinary person is indeed typically unlikely to find themselves in a situation where they would have to use a " high capacity " firearm to defend themselves , said truth shouldn't obscure the fact that such a scenario could nevertheless occur , particularly in this age of increased civil unrest .

In short prohibiting honest people from owning AR-15's or what have you only increases the likelihood of certain individuals finding themselves in " if only I had bought an AR-15 " type scenarios , whilst doing nothing of measurable use with regard to keeping firearms out of the hands of persons who really shouldn't have them .

As an aside I'd like to mention that I also , and this puts me on the outside of the pro gun American mainstream FWIW , do not view it in the least bit tyrannical for people to be required to become proficient in handling firearms before being allowed to carry them concealed in public .

There's a ( IMHO ) rather strange aversion among American pro gun individuals to the state requiring even such an ever so pragmatic restriction , in spite of the fact that not only does said restriction serve the purpose of ( for instance ) decreasing the likelihood of innocent bystanders being harmed due to misfiring , but also increases the likelihood of one having better odds of coming through an attack unscathed as a result of using their CCW weapon .


After all unless one happens to be attacked by a " scare easy " type individual who'd immediately bolt upon seeing one draw their firearm , then one very much runs the risk of ( at best ) waving around a useless object which could fall into the wrong hands in the event of ( say ) one's attacker besting them , not to mention the tragic possibility of an untrained concealed carrier inadvertently harming innocent bystanders as the result of not being proficient at hitting moving targets in such a high stress scenario .

Really while I'm not in the least in favor of instituting federal level laws requiring mandatory firearms training before allowing individuals to carry concealed , I do think that individual states could take a page out of the book of countries like the Czech Republic where such measures have proven to be much beneficial .

Also I must remark that the fact that ( unless I'm mistaken ) countries like Israel have such a low amount of both mass shootings and firearm related accidents may very well have something to do with the fact that firearms aren't mystified/treated as merely a symbol of freedom to be tucked away and never used after purchase .

Unlike many Americans , very few Israelis end up only seeing firearms as blips on video game screens , nor do they end up viewing them as a congenitally useful accessory that is helpful even if one doesn't take the time to become seasoned in its use .

In short my stance is that gun control where warranted is a necessary good , while where it isn't is an unnecessary evil .

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Sane?

An armed population fears no government.
A disarmed population fears all government.
Make your choice.

Were you alluding to this quote by Thomas Jefferson?

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by creepy

I find the title of your post odd, "Gun control as a "necessary evil"" gun control is not evil[b].

The phrase "necessary evil" doesn't really mean evil, in that sense. Studying hard at obscure, boring stuff at law school, and taking difficult tests on it that you have to pass, is not people's idea of a good time. But they have to do that, in order to have a good job of being a high paid lawyer. So, it's a necessary evil.

Nobody wants debt, but practically no one could ever afford to buy a home, if not for mortgages.

Bicycle helmets. Seatbelts. They're not worn because they're enjoyed. They're a necessary evil.

Especially in the last 20 years, gun control has clearly become one of those type of things. A lot of people don't want it, because they'd lose some of the freedoms they had before, but, we need it. Anybody out there just being able to go out and quickly buy a powerful rifle and ammo on their 18th birthday, is not a more important right, than an elementary school student's basic right to their life and safety. Or really anyone in society's basic right to live in a safe environment, without a Highland Park happening to them or their loved ones. There's an appropriate balance to be found, and the current status quo is clearly not that.

These people who seem to revere their guns like someone else reveres God, has gotten us into this mess.

I agree. It's like a fetish, for some of these people.

They say there are 20,000 gun laws on the books but if they are ineffective then that is why they are not working, not because of the number of them, that is plain logic. They like to say there are background checks and so forth for every gun sale because a critical analyzing of the reality turns up so many loopholes!

EXACTLY. They fight and prevent any actual effective or significant or serious laws, that would actually make an impact. So all that's left is 20,000 tiny things, mostly at local and state levels, and mostly just pointless annoyances and slight inconveniences. Then they say, oh look, gun control doesn't work!

Originally Posted by creepy

One more thing I find interesting, for my entire life I never heard an extreme 2nd amendment supporter ever mention wanting to support mental health. Supporting mental health was something bleeding heart liberals and pansies supported. But now, the past 2 years as so many of the extreme 2nd amendment supporters feel threatened-suddenly they want funding for mental health. The reason why? They are trying to keep their guns even though Americans own millions of guns their fear of losing them is so irrational they are willing to support mental health funding to avoid dealing with the other "elephant in the room", half the issue-too easy access to guns by those with mental illness wanting to hurt others.

Yep.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Sane?

An armed population fears no government.
A disarmed population fears all government.
Make your choice.

What does that even mean? Meaningless platitudes.

First of all, in a democratic society, we are the government, essentially. The government is us, is society. We elect people from among us, to represent us in congress, and they reflect our values.

Anyway, if the US government was somehow this tyrannical thing, and the common people revolted, then soccer mom Karen down the street having a Glock, is not going to do anything whatsoever against a thousand tanks and barrages of drone strikes, Navy SEALs and Marines, F-18 squadrons and stealth bomber attacks, and all that's if they even don't even choose to use their real weapons. News flash, folks: we don't live in the 1700's.

Originally Posted by City Guy997S

Australia did it right.........Port Arthur shooting in 1996, 35 dead.

Sweeping changes to gun laws and no more mass shootings in Australia!

Exactly. And guns are NOT banned in Australia! Total misconception.

They just simply have effective gun control. Therefore, we could do that here, too. If, you know, we valued human life, at all.

Originally Posted by Buckeye77

the fact is that it is impossible to stop Cruz from having access to an ar-15.

That makes zero sense. Of course it's possible. Because of the NRA and lobbying, we just choose not to do the various set of things that would and could have potentially prevented him from accessing an AR-15.

[Teacher Terry]

Only 46% of people that committed suicide were MI. Yes gangs are a huge issue. No one has wanted to address mental health or gang violence especially not the republicans.

[artillery77]

I truly haven't seen much to objectively support gun control. Gun control does not appear to have much, if any, bearing upon what is wanted, which is a reduction of gun violence. Gun violence tends to correlate much more highly to organized crime levels.



The unfortunate byproduct of this debate is that gun control advocates never address how their proposed laws will actually reduce gun violence. Rather they simply point to gun violence existing as their proof of the need for gun control. Meanwhile, a tremendous majority of US gun owners never misuse their weapons.



It's really tired, and with so much spite that goes into these tired, loud debates, no original research of how to actually minimize crime is ever going to reach over the din or oUtRaGe.

[primaltech]

I see we had our daily mass shooting today. Looks like 4 are dead, and others wounded, at a mall in Indiana. Yeah, freedom!

Originally Posted by artillery77

Gun control does not appear to have much, if any, bearing upon what is wanted, which is a reduction of gun violence.

How are you concluding this statement?

After Port Arthur, Australia implemented the National Firearms Agreement, which heavily restricted legal ownership of firearms in Australia. It established a national registry of guns, required a permit for all new purchases, and other such measures. It banned all rifles and shotguns, with a buyback and destroy program.

Homicides declined, suicides declined, and I think they've only had one mass shooting since 1996.

Untold lives have been saved. Australia is in many ways about the most similar country to the US that there is, and gun control clearly works well there. So I'm not sure how you conclude that.

Meanwhile, a tremendous majority of US gun owners never misuse their weapons.

Nikolas Cruz didn't misuse his weapon. He purchased it legally, purchased the ammunition legally, loaded the ammunition into the gun, aimed the barrel at his targets, pulled the trigger, successfully hit his targets, and they were down.

That's exactly what the tool was designed for. Not a misuse.

[Rachel NewYork]

It is time now to give this debate a rest, along with the many other debates we have had on this subject.

Thank you to all who participated.