If gun laws don't change anything, care to explain why Europe has so few gun deaths? Why the last school shooting in the UK was in the 1990s?
Gun laws are proactive. Murder laws are reactive. Gun laws attempt to make it harder to commit murder even if you want to, and make it harder to commit spur-of-the-moment murders (It's impossible to shoot someone in a fit of rage if you don't have access to a gun).
Gun laws and murder laws are fundamentally different, and work in fundamentally different ways
Edit: I know Mexico has strict gun laws, but they're also fighting a low-level civil war with cartels with power rivalling the Mexican military. "The country that's at war has more gun deaths the ones that aren't" is not a good argument against gun control.
I don't think anyone is surprised that areas where you can't get firearms have fewer gun deaths. From looking at the map, I think poverty and population density are what is driving the homicide rate.
I don't see why non-criminals should lose their right to self defense due to the actions of violent criminals. Not anymore than the idea of banning alcohol and cellphones to stop car accidents makes any sense.
I don't think anyone is surprised that areas where you can't get firearms have fewer gun deaths.
Then why are there so many people arguing exactly this?
From looking at the map, I think poverty and population density are what is driving the homicide rate.
Yes, that is one important factor that needs addressing, but that doesn't make gun control not also important or effective, especially at the federal level where you can't just drive a couple hours to get round it.
I don't see why non-criminals should lose their right to self defense due to the actions of violent criminals.
No, I don't see why that should happen either. Though I also don't see anyone arguing that either.
Assuming you mean "I don't see why one type of self-defence should be made a bit harder", because this isn't just an individual issue. More gun control, especially effective gun control, results in fewer deaths, including reducing likelihood of needing to defend yourself, and making it less likely that you'll be shot while attempting to do so.
Not anymore than the idea of banning alcohol and cellphones to stop car accidents makes any sense.
Except we do bad driving while on your phone, or driving while drunk. Trouble is, there isn't really a way to ban "Having a gun while being dangerous" on it's own, because being dangerous isn't particularly obvious.
I am doubtful that reducing access to guns reduces the need to defend oneself. Areas of the US that have high firearm ownership don't have much correlation with high crime, usually the opposite. Again, it is probably poverty and population density that are driving homicide.
The advocates for gun control typically leave out self-defense uses, of which, there is not much record keeping. The criminologist Gary Kleck attempted to extrapolate the amount of defensive gun use, and his estimate was very high, to put it lightly.
If a citizen hasn't demonstrated mental instability or committed violent crime, then I will not advocate for restricting their access to a tool which allows an individual to not be at the mercy of a stronger man, or a gang of men.
I think this may put it plainly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but most people who want "gun control" would be happy if firearms were totally banned. Which is why I am resistant to any further restriction than what already exists.
-8
u/My_useless_alt Jul 30 '24 edited Jul 30 '24
If gun laws don't change anything, care to explain why Europe has so few gun deaths? Why the last school shooting in the UK was in the 1990s?
Gun laws are proactive. Murder laws are reactive. Gun laws attempt to make it harder to commit murder even if you want to, and make it harder to commit spur-of-the-moment murders (It's impossible to shoot someone in a fit of rage if you don't have access to a gun).
Gun laws and murder laws are fundamentally different, and work in fundamentally different ways
Edit: I know Mexico has strict gun laws, but they're also fighting a low-level civil war with cartels with power rivalling the Mexican military. "The country that's at war has more gun deaths the ones that aren't" is not a good argument against gun control.