Do guns kill people, or people kill with guns?

[Samuel_Rigby]

to even think forks and guns are suitable comparisons defies all logic. It is just a argument some clown came up with that is repeated on a regular basis. Obesity is not caused by forks. We all know that. You can just as easily eat with your hands or other implements and have the same problem. A gun however is designed to kill with its use.

So are you saying that all killing is morally wrong?

If so, you would be wrong. Killing isn't morally wrong if you are talking self-defense or the defense of your family or loved ones.

The point of our discussion--and the point that we can all agree on--is that there are too many mass shootings and murders. But to blame the gun rather than the person behind the gun is ridiculous.

I can actually tell you how to stop mass shootings. It is a point no one is talking about, and it would end mass shootings and murders immediately. Want to know how? Simple. . .if everyone obeyed the law, mass shootings and murders would end instantly. But we all know that will not happen because PEOPLE are sinful.

It is the sin nature in people that is the problem, not guns.

 

[Samuel_Rigby]

But if we basically do not allow anyone to have a gun (with exceedingly rare exceptions) I suspect that there will be less gun violence overall. I draw your attention to the fact that almost all western nations that restrict guns have fewer gun-related deaths than the US.

Is your concern just with "gun violence" and "gun-related deaths"? What about violence in general? Let's focus on violence in general rather than merely "gun violence". But in order to do that we have to shift our focus away from the gun and put it on the person since violence begins in the heart of a violent person.

 

[ximmix]

My post was purposely exaggerated to point out the inconsistency in your argument.

Your argument goes as follows:

Death by car--blame the person, not the car
Death by obesity--blame the person, not the fork
Death by gun--blame the gun, not the person

You are inconsistent with your argument. You say "guns are designed to kill" and you are correct. But you wrongly conclude that all killing is bad. Killing isn't wrong when you are defending your own life or the life of your family.

Thanks for telling me what my argument is. And, to no surprice, you're wrong...

 

[expos4ever]

Your argument goes as follows:

Death by car--blame the person, not the car
Death by obesity--blame the person, not the fork
Death by gun--blame the gun, not the person

You are inconsistent with your argument.

Can you show that this is the argument that the other poster actually made? I very much doubt it.

Either way, the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is deeply misleading. The gun is very much part of the problem since it is a tool that makes it very easy to transform bad intent into actual consequences.

Imagine if everyone in society were free to have a nuclear bomb. You, presumably, would agree with the rest of us that this is a terrible idea. Given all the mentally unstable and angry people in our world, the "right" to have a nuclear bomb would be a disaster.

But gun apologists say that the gun is the not the problem, the person is the problem.

Well, what about the nuclear bombs. Is it OK for people to have nuclear bombs since these bombs, like the gun, are merely "tools" that do not have the capacity to choose to hurt anyone?

 

[expos4ever]

Is your concern just with "gun violence" and "gun-related deaths"? What about violence in general? Let's focus on violence in general rather than merely "gun violence". But in order to do that we have to shift our focus away from the gun and put it on the person since violence begins in the heart of a violent person.

Violence may start in the heart, but the tool - the gun - makes it all too easy for that violent intent to be translated into action. As should be clear, the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a classic bit of misleading rhetoric. There is simply no doubt that the gun is indeed part of the problem precisely because it facilitates the actualization of malicious intent.

And yes, there is other violence other than gun violence. But the issue here, I believe, is the matters of guns.

 

[expos4ever]

to even think forks and guns are suitable comparisons defies all logic. It is just a argument some clown came up with that is repeated on a regular basis. Obesity is not caused by forks. We all know that. You can just as easily eat with your hands or other implements and have the same problem. A gun however is designed to kill with its use.

You are right, of course. And, indeed, the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is indeed profoundly ill-conceived. The fact that so many people accept it - and not all of these people have limited mental capabilities - says something very interesting, and very disturbing, about the capacity of even "normal" people to decide questions on the basis of reason and logic.

In short, lots of things seem to "trump" reason. And the one at work here, I suggest, is tribalism. Belief in gun freedom is a marker of membership in a particular "tribe" of American culture. And most of us will do almost anything - even rejecting reason - to ensure that tribal boundaries remain intact.

 

[Samuel_Rigby]

Well, what about the nuclear bombs. Is it OK for people to have nuclear bombs since these bombs, like the gun, are merely "tools" that do not have the capacity to choose to hurt anyone?

Can you point to anytime I have ever said that every person should have access to guns? No, you cannot because I have never made such a statement. You are assuming something which isn't true.

Convicted felons SHOULD lose their rights to gun ownership. The mentally unstable SHOULD be denied access to guns. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

The problem is that many--in their efforts to keep bad people from getting guns--want to outlaw guns for everyone. The problem with this solution is that the bad people will not turn in their guns, even if they are outlawed. The immediate result will be that good people will be unarmed, while bad people will STILL be armed, thus creating a situation where good people are vulnerable to attack with no means of defending themselves.

When you are ready to talk about what to do in this situation, I am all ears. If you continue to deny that this is a very real certainty, we have nothing to talk about.

 

[Aquila 04]

For those who responded to me:

In regards to the arguments about us needing to worry about citizens more than terrorists, I don't. Statistically speaking gun violence and violence in general is down. Go back to the 19th and 20th centuries and you could get shot walking down the street because someone didn't like you and if no one cared the man or woman who shot you could walk free.

My argument stands, you can restrict guns all you want but the cartels and gangs are still going to get them. Some of the most restrictive states like California and Illinois see more gun violence than the states who aren't as restrictive and the criminals in those states know that most people aren't carrying. Even if you did a nationwide ban the cartels in Mexico are still going to receive shipments from countries like Russia and their people will be walking around with fully automatic AKs and other high powered weaponry while everyone else has what? A stun gun and mace? That will do a lot.

Now don't get me wrong, we do need to make sure people are properly trained and handling firearms. I would be all for a class being provided that teaches people about firearms before they buy. As for storage, if you have kids your guns should be locked. When my niece was here a few days ago I locked my M9 up, even though I know she'd never play with it I wasn't going to give her the means either.


Now, as far as Christians saying they would shoot anyone who come to take them, I agree. We as Christians should never advocate violence. Despite that, we also have a duty to defend ourselves and our way of life in this country and if someone comes to me and tells me to surrender my only means of defense for what they think is the greater good then I will refuse. I'd be more likely to hide my firearms than shoot a government official but either way, I am not just handing them over when I know full well that people who don't abide by the law are still going to have them.

 

[Aquila 04]

Can you point to anytime I have ever said that every person should have access to guns? No, you cannot because I have never made such a statement. You are assuming something which isn't true.

Convicted felons SHOULD lose their rights to gun ownership. The mentally unstable SHOULD be denied access to guns. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

The problem is that many--in their efforts to keep bad people from getting guns--want to outlaw guns for everyone. The problem with this solution is that the bad people will not turn in their guns, even if they are outlawed. The immediate result will be that good people will be unarmed, while bad people will STILL be armed, thus creating a situation where good people are vulnerable to attack with no means of defending themselves.

When you are ready to talk about what to do in this situation, I am all ears. If you continue to deny that this is a very real certainty, we have nothing to talk about.

I just want to say as a lawful gun owner myself I also agree with this. There should be more licensing involved in acquiring firearms and above all, penalties for gun related crimes should be severe. If a criminal knows that shooting someone in cold blood will, for example, cause them to receive a life sentence or a very long sentence then they are more likely to not commit a violent act with said firearm.

Punishments do need to fit crimes, no doubt and as far as gun ownership, it shouldn't be outlawed but better care should be taken in the sale and procurement of firearms.

 

[expos4ever]

Can you point to anytime I have ever said that every person should have access to guns? No, you cannot because I have never made such a statement. You are assuming something which isn't true.

I never implied or stated that you did. You may be confusing me with another poster.

The problem is that many--in their efforts to keep bad people from getting guns--want to outlaw guns for everyone. The problem with this solution is that the bad people will not turn in their guns, even if they are outlawed. The immediate result will be that good people will be unarmed, while bad people will STILL be armed, thus creating a situation where good people are vulnerable to attack with no means of defending themselves.

Well, I suggest the evidence shows that guns are rarely successfully used in self-defence scenarios. To repeat what another poster cited:

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents -- this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In any event, it may indeed be true that getting America out of the gun mess it is in may produce some negative consequences in the short term. However, the evidence from around the world is clear: In the overwhelming majority of free nations in the world, guns are greatly restricted and the people there are typically much safer than in the USA. And in no other free nation, I submit, is anyone clamouring for gun rights.

This is a distinctly American phenomena. Through some odd quirk of history and culture, your nation has failed to come to its senses on the gun issue.

 

[expos4ever]

My argument stands, you can restrict guns all you want but the cartels and gangs are still going to get them.

Even if this is true, why does that mean you are safer with a gun? Are you simply assuming that the self-defence value of a gun outweighs the downside risk that you (or someone you love) will come to harm specifically through owning that gun?

If so, I believe there are a number of studies that show that a gun in the home actually increases the risk that the occupants will come to grief by means of gunfire.

 

[Aquila 04]

Even if this is true, why does that mean you are safer with a gun? Are you simply assuming that the self-defence value of a gun outweighs the downside risk that you (or someone you love) will come to harm specifically through owning that gun?

If so, I believe there are a number of studies that show that a gun in the home actually increases the risk that the occupants will come to grief by means of gunfire.

It would outweigh it in my case because if/when I have kids those firearms will be locked tight and once the kids are old enough I will teach them the importance of proper handling. It doesn't have to be about banning firearms, it should be about proper teaching.

 

[expos4ever]

It would outweigh it in my case because if/when I have kids those firearms will be locked tight and once the kids are old enough I will teach them the importance of proper handling. It doesn't have to be about banning firearms, it should be about proper teaching.

Two things:

1. If these firearms are "locked tight", how will you access them in time in the case of a home invasion? This is a really important question as I suspect you cannot truthfully say you can have it both ways: have a gun "at the ready" to deal with the home-invader (how often does this really happen anyway?) and yet also safely stored against accidental use.

2. Everyone thinks they are not the one who will, for example, use the gun to kill a cheating spouse, or to take revenge on a boss who has fired you, or accidentally shoot their own child, or commit suicide. I politely suggest a little humility: none of us is as reliable and stable as we like to think we are.

Why do you want / need a gun? I trust you are aware that it is only in the USA that there is this pervasive gun culture. In Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan, South Korea etc. I suggest that virtually no one sees owning a gun as a valid means to deter crime. Are you not at least open to the possibility that your gun culture is an unhealthy aberration in what is otherwise a reasonably rational society (i.e. American society)? Just to be even-handed about this, I would be the first to concede that Canadian culture has a real problem with hockey violence. Even though, like the USA, ours is a generally stable benign culture, we still have this odd and deeply unhealthy willingness to embrace the violence of fighting in ice hockey. So, you see, even "advanced" cultures embrace disturbing practices.

Yes, of course, it is theoretically possible that all the other free prosperous nations in the world are wrong and the USA, alone, has got it right about guns.

Do you think the evidence really supports this?

 

[expos4ever]

But to blame the gun rather than the person behind the gun is ridiculous.

I think this is really a straw-man. No one here, I think is drawing this particular "either-or". What strike me as ridiculous is what I see as the obvious fantasy that allowing anyone without a criminal record to have a gun is not a recipe for disaster.

Do you not think that it is self-evident that, as we sit here, there are hundreds of thousands of American citizens who qualify to get a gun (they have no record nor have they been certified as mentally ill) and yet are either (1) boiling with anger at real or perceived injustice; (2) mentally ill (but not yet identified as such); (3) emotionally unstable; (4) sympathetic to fringe causes like Islamic extremism or citizen militias?

The mere thought that the average person, with all our frailties, could get a gun seems like a formula for disaster to me. I once asked a bunch of my friends - all successful professionals in our 50s - if they had ever punched a hole in the wall in anger. About half of us have. I think we need to be a little more humble and recognize that we are each only a provocation or two away from a fit of rage. And when we have a gun at our disposal, that's a problem.

 

[Aquila 04]

I think this is really a straw-man. No one here, I think is drawing this particular "either-or". What strike me as ridiculous is what I see as the obvious fantasy that allowing anyone without a criminal record to have a gun is not a recipe for disaster.

Do you not think that it is self-evident that, as we sit here, there are hundreds of thousands of American citizens who qualify to get a gun (they have no record nor have they been certified as mentally ill) and yet are either (1) boiling with anger at real or perceived injustice; (2) mentally ill (but not yet identified as such); (3) emotionally unstable; (4) sympathetic to fringe causes like Islamic extremism or citizen militias?

The mere thought that the average person, with all our frailties, could get a gun seems like a formula for disaster to me. I once asked a bunch of my friends - all successful professionals in our 50s - if they had ever punched a hole in the wall in anger. About half of us have. I think we need to be a little more humble and recognize that we are each only a provocation or two away from a fit of rage. And when we have a gun at our disposal, that's a problem.

And yet despite all of this, despite the ridiculously high amount of privately owned firearms in the possession of a high amount of lawful gun owners most violent gun related crimes are caused by people who have a record or by people who are mentally unstable who's family or friends know they are but yet do nothing. Even a simple, "Hey, I know you've been struggling lately, how about you let us store your firearms for a while so you can get the help you need and then when you're ready we'll bring them back to you?" That in and of itself could possibly alleviate many issues.

All in all we just need to start looking out for one another. When my grandfather was going through depression issues we didn't act like he was a psycho and force his firearms from his possession. We talked to him and agreed that we would store them until he was ready.

We do need to look at better ways of regulating firearms. Not by banning them or taxing them or driving up costs but by properly assessing the people buying them and making sure they are properly trained. Firearms were used since the beginning of our country, initially for hunting which they still are today but also for releasing us from an oppressive government and helping us to build our own nation. They still play that part as we do need to defend ourselves not only against criminals but the idea of another oppressive regime. God knows I hope it never comes to it but the easiest way for a government to impose their laws upon the people is to remove the people's means to fight back. A great quote is the quote that people shouldn't fear their government, the government should fear the people. The government needs to know who they truly work for.

All that aside, even in a world of peace firearms still serve their recreational purposes through the heritage of hunting for food and simply for sport target shooting which can be a very fun activity in it's own right. Shooting targets for fun is actually a good stress reliever much the dame as video games can be. It's all about being responsible.

 

[TheDag]

Convicted felons SHOULD lose their rights to gun ownership. The mentally unstable SHOULD be denied access to guns. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Why? If they have a constitutional right then why should they lose those rights? Once you have done your sentence you have paid your debt to society so you should not be denied that right surely if it is all about the constitutional rights like many argue.
With mentally unstable you have not addressed the previous point where people can have perfect mental health and lose it in the space of a week. Heck you can lose it in a day. Having worked in the field I have studied this and seen it. So once again it is not a good enough solution. You need to come up with something better.

My post was purposely exaggerated to point out the inconsistency in your argument.

Your argument goes as follows:

Death by car--blame the person, not the car
Death by obesity--blame the person, not the fork
Death by gun--blame the gun, not the person

You are inconsistent with your argument. You say "guns are designed to kill" and you are correct. But you wrongly conclude that all killing is bad. Killing isn't wrong when you are defending your own life or the life of your family.

Just like your logic is flawed.
Car design flaw kills a few people and it gets recalled.
Medicine kills just over 30 people and it gets recalled.
Gun kills people and you say taking action is not the answer.

 

[TheDag]

The problem is that many--in their efforts to keep bad people from getting guns--want to outlaw guns for everyone. The problem with this solution is that the bad people will not turn in their guns, even if they are outlawed. The immediate result will be that good people will be unarmed, while bad people will STILL be armed, thus creating a situation where good people are vulnerable to attack with no means of defending themselves.

You say this but in other countries where restrictions were introduced gun crimes did not increase. In fact they decreased. So sorry but your argument is flawed. It is based on nothing but assumptions. A armed person is easily vulnerable to attack with no means of defending themselves in plenty of situations as well. If a person is already pointing a gun at you then you simply do not have time to draw aim and fire. That is the reality you need to acknowledge.

When you are ready to talk about what to do in this situation, I am all ears. If you continue to deny that this is a very real certainty, we have nothing to talk about.

Well why don't you actually start the conversation? Why does it have to be I'm not going to unless you do first schoolyard logic? I said in earlier posts which you quoted that a better solution is needed and you have made no attempt to talk about solutions but rather condemned my words. I was talking about restrictions. I used the word restrictions which essentially is part of gun control anyway. Gun control does not always mean taking guns away from people. We have gun control but people are allowed to have guns here. We have had several gold medal winning shooters after gun control came in. Of course the gun lobby just made death threats against the prime minister which shows their mentality.

 

[TheDag]

For those who responded to me:

In regards to the arguments about us needing to worry about citizens more than terrorists, I don't. Statistically speaking gun violence and violence in general is down. Go back to the 19th and 20th centuries and you could get shot walking down the street because someone didn't like you and if no one cared the man or woman who shot you could walk free.

So your response is because it is not as bad as it was once upon a time then we shouldn't care about all the deaths. Sorry unacceptable especially for a person who claims to be christian. It is still a far larger threat than terrorists. So my statement stands to use your wording.

My argument stands, you can restrict guns all you want but the cartels and gangs are still going to get them. Some of the most restrictive states like California and Illinois see more gun violence than the states who aren't as restrictive and the criminals in those states know that most people aren't carrying. Even if you did a nationwide ban the cartels in Mexico are still going to receive shipments from countries like Russia and their people will be walking around with fully automatic AKs and other high powered weaponry while everyone else has what? A stun gun and mace? That will do a lot.

No it does not stand because that was used in other countries where gun controls were being introduced and it was not a problem until about ten years later when guns started coming in again. So vigilance and repeated and consistent efforts to remove guns helps. If it is just a one off then further down the track it will be a issue once more. As another person said most of the shootings this year were from legally owned guns. When looking at the illegaly owned ones then how many of those were stolen from legal owners is the question to ask.

Now don't get me wrong, we do need to make sure people are properly trained and handling firearms. I would be all for a class being provided that teaches people about firearms before they buy. As for storage, if you have kids your guns should be locked. When my niece was here a few days ago I locked my M9 up, even though I know she'd never play with it I wasn't going to give her the means either.

Which makes the whole self defence argument bull and void as if it is locked up then if a person was to burst into your home you would not have time to grab it and it becomes useless.

Now, as far as Christians saying they would shoot anyone who come to take them, I agree. We as Christians should never advocate violence. Despite that, we also have a duty to defend ourselves and our way of life in this country and if someone comes to me and tells me to surrender my only means of defense for what they think is the greater good then I will refuse. I'd be more likely to hide my firearms than shoot a government official but either way, I am not just handing them over when I know full well that people who don't abide by the law are still going to have them.

Good to hear that you don't advocate shooting someones brother or sister or mother or father. Sadly you are in the minority it seems.

I just want to say as a lawful gun owner myself I also agree with this. There should be more licensing involved in acquiring firearms and above all, penalties for gun related crimes should be severe. If a criminal knows that shooting someone in cold blood will, for example, cause them to receive a life sentence or a very long sentence then they are more likely to not commit a violent act with said firearm.

Punishments do need to fit crimes, no doubt and as far as gun ownership, it shouldn't be outlawed but better care should be taken in the sale and procurement of firearms.

So why do we have people with life sentences if it deters people from committing crimes. Sorry but clearly there are plenty who are not deterred. Part of the reason for that would be drug use with motivation for many crimes being getting money for their next hit.

 

[TheDag]

Firearms were used since the beginning of our country, initially for hunting which they still are today but also for releasing us from an oppressive government and helping us to build our own nation.

Yes but by a well trained proper army. The only militias who did any good were the ones that received training from the army and fought alongside the army. The unregulated militias who did not receive that were useless. Not to mention you also had help from france who stopped the british from reinforcing their troops. A proper look at history shows that. So the argument that it is needed to stop oppressive govts does not stand to scrutiny. Please don't bring in other flawed arguments like Hitler or Mao. Hitler's gun controls were less restrictive than what was already in place. It also ignores the fact that the people themselves were starving and struggling to get by because of what countries like the US & other allies did after first world war. Hence why the US put so much money into Japan after WW2. They didn't want to repeat that mistake.
In China any laws made no difference as peasants couldn't afford guns anyway and they did not already have them so they were not removed. Take it from my friend who lived in China at the time and saw Mao on his march in to take over. Of course Mao was only able to take over because others put in effort to kick the japanese out of china and Mao joined in and took power in an area where there was a power vacuum. The reason Mao had to do such a long march around the country to get there instead of the most direct route is he simply did not have the ability to take on the govt of the country so had to go a long way around their strong points including the capital.

 

[KarateCowboy]

You are right, of course. And, indeed, the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is indeed profoundly ill-conceived. The fact that so many people accept it - and not all of these people have limited mental capabilities - says something very interesting, and very disturbing, about the capacity of even "normal" people to decide questions on the basis of reason and logic.

In short, lots of things seem to "trump" reason. And the one at work here, I suggest, is tribalism. Belief in gun freedom is a marker of membership in a particular "tribe" of American culture. And most of us will do almost anything - even rejecting reason - to ensure that tribal boundaries remain intact.

Well, was it Dr. Plumb, in the library, using a gun, or was it a gun, in the library using a Dr. Plumb?