I recently debated a coworker regarding whether or not having more guns in a population would deter criminals from committing violence with a firearm. The debate went something like this:
Me: Allowing students to carry guns on a college campus would deter violent crime, and would also increase the odds of a student surviving should they be in the vacinity of a shooting rampage.
Him: More students carrying guns would lead to more violence with guns in escalated situations, like angry arguments, fights, etc.
Me: If, in a large population such as a county or city, more people carrying guns has factually shown less violent crime with firearms, we can safely assume college campuses would show the same result.
Him: A college campus population is different than that of a county or city, and therefore the assumption is invalid.
Me: Most people that carry a firearm are going to use it as a last resort, regardless of the situation.
Him: Accidents are more likely to occur with firearms. In addition, people don’t think rationally in the heat of the moment. Other countries that have fewer guns in the population have fewer gun violence incidents.
Me: Other countries that have fewer guns probably have higher violence with other weapons. If you criminalize guns, only criminals have guns. Most school shootings happen in “gun free zones.”
What are your thoughts on the arguments? Is there a right answer? It seems to me there has to be, or people have to be willing to sacrifice some safety in certain situations to ensure safety in others.
You were on the right track. The person you argued with was grossly uniformed of the reality of gun control. Fewer legal guns does not mean less gun crime.
I’d like to know where you get your information. I made up a spreadsheet of gun related statisticsa while ago, and my findings contradict yours.
The sheet is sorted by “% households with guns”, and the averages show that there are more homicides in countries with more guns. (also consider that one of the countries with lower gun ownership is Northern Ireland, which somewhat skews that data. If it isn’t included, the homicides per hundred thousand equals 1.49)
The only tangible connection that can be made about owning a gun and gun crime would be this.
“If you have a gun in your hands, you’re more likely to use it to shoot someone than you would be if you didn’t have a gun in your hands.”
From this people try to draw the connection “If you own a gun, you are more likely to have a gun in your hands, thus you are more likely to shoot someone than someone who does not own a gun.”
For me, if a person owns a gun, they have already admitted to themselves they would use it. I don’t see why anyone would own a gun if they did not want to use it.
Guns invariably lead to deaths. They are designed for that very purpose. Were people to not carry guns, then the chances of someone getting shot are a lot lower.
it’s not necessary gun ownership that is the problem, although I still see no reason to ever own one. Guns are now just another way to settle an argument. Instead of trying to reason, people resort to violence, and violence now means guns. However unlike physically beating someone because you disagree with them, shooting someone is a lot less personal. It desensitises the action of killing a person. It makes it easy. You beat someone to death and you feel it, physically it will hurt, it takes a lot more effort, there is longer to think about what you are doing. Shooting someone is done in the time it takes to squeeze the trigger.
Gun control is a fanciful notion. You can’t have guns and expect no one to use them. If you cling to the second amendment then accept that people will die as a result of it.
Legal guns, rarely the problem. Some people collect guns and never use them…some people use them for hunting and target practice. You have made “use” the same as “Shoot people.”
Guns for sport is a different matter. Would you use a hand gun to go hunting dear? Would you use a hand gun for target practice? I think we both know this is not what this thread is addressing. Hand guns are designed purely to kill. Collecting them is not the same as using them. That is not their use.
“more people carrying guns has factually shown less violent crime with firearms”
. . .
“Conceal and carry permits have been proven to lower crime rates.”
Source? Maybe it’s true, but I haven’t heard it.
“Most people that carry a firearm are going to use it as a last resort, regardless of the situation.”
Source? I think guns are often used as a less-than-last resort. Is it most like 55-45, or most like 95-5?
Tace, aren’t most gun crimes committed with guns registered to someone? My understanding is that they generally find their way to the black market after being stolen from someone who procured them legally.
Gun control is preposterous. Let’s say I lived in France, where gun control is strict, and I lived in a dangerous area of Paris where many crimes are committed. Just because guns are outlawed does not mean that less violent crimes will be committed. Guns are just one way of injuring or killing someone. If someone really wanted to murder me, and didn’t have a gun, then they would find a way to do it, whether they use their bare hands, a knife, poison etc death finds it way to people regardless of the weapon. At least being able to own a gun deters the chances of being killed by some other individual with murder on their mind.
That statement infuriates me so much. Yes a gun cannot kill someone on its own. But guns make it so much more easier for people to kill people. I could kill literally anyone with a gun. To kill someone with my bare hands requires me to get up close, engage them, and win, without suffering fatalities myself and without anyone else interfering. Even to stab someone still requires me to get close enough to stab them. It at least gives my victim a change.
Shooting someone requires minimum thought or skill. See my first post on the matter.
Gun companies and people who support guns, feed us this line to detract responsibility. They are putting deadly weapons in the hands of people, often not capable of making decisions of live and death, and then holding their hands up saying ‘oh not our fault’. If you’re going to make it easier to kill people, at least accept some responsibility.
So, you’re saying you’re capable of killing people? If I handed you a gun, you’d shoot me and it’d be easy? Sure, pulling a trigger is easy, but you’re ignoring the psychological aspect. People who kill aren’t necessarily sane people like you and I (at least, I think you’re sane ), so how can you say that the average joe with a gun is going to be any more dangerous than a basset hound? You seem to believe that once a gun is put into a person’s hands that they’re automatically some crazed killer who has no remorse for human life. How do you explain this? Why do you think the average person with a gun would be any more inclined to kill or harm someone than if they didn’t have a gun?
If you are not going to shoot someone, why own a device that was built purposely for that?
The average Joe is no more dangerous. The gun is what makes him dangerous. I don’t think a person is more inclined to kill someone, but they are more likely to.
That’s why you install a police and justice system. Guns let people take matters into their own hands. What’s worse, getting robbed or killing someone. I’d rather let my wallet go than have a death on my conscious.
), so how can you say that the average joe with a gun is going to be any more dangerous than a basset hound? You seem to believe that once a gun is put into a person’s hands that they’re automatically some crazed killer who has no remorse for human life. How do you explain this? Why do you think the average person with a gun would be any more inclined to kill or harm someone than if they didn’t have a gun?