'@Isdaril' "The world is interconnected, and we manage to ban guns in EU while it's not banned in the US. "
EU is separated from the rest of the world by border, there are no customs checkpoints between states or counties in US.
"You don't necessarily have to assume that crime is immobile, some people could be in charge of specifying zones where guns are allowed without a license"
Considering how bureaucracy works in US and level of politicization of the issue, I don't think it's realistic. Also, "without license" is already not universal. Look at gun laws in US by state, there is a lot of regional variation in how you can buy and carry a gun.
"First granting a gun to almost anybody would mean that it would become the main weapon to kill someone (why would you use a risky way to kill someone when you could just use a gun)."
You would think so, but in homicide statistics from US handguns are used vastly more than any other kind of firearm. Due to short range, generally poor accuracy, small ammo capacity and lower stopping power it's the least safe option, compared to rifle or shotgun, so it's comparatively more risky. Especially if there are other armed people around.
"Second, as you've now effectively armed everybody, fights would transform into a shooting feast with the potential to kill both the agressor, the victim and additional bystanders. "
That heavily depends on circumstances, usually homicides (excluding gang-related violence) have personal reasons and as such are very limited, resulting in either perpetrator's surrender, suicide or escape. In case of armed robbery or some sort of hostage situation collateral injuries are either unlikely or least of your concerns. Access to guns probably increases the odds of workplace shootings, but even in US number of those is very small.
"Your argument is basically saying "fights are going to happen anyhow so I should give people the best way to kill eachother, that way it's fair for everybody". "
My argument is that if I meet someone high on synthetic drugs (or unhappy about something I said/done, or he just wants all of my money) and armed with a knife, my current plan is to bleed to death in less than a minute if I'm lucky, suffer an abdominal wound with 70% lethality if I'm not. I'd rather have more options than that.
" if you are a bystander and you see two people fight with their fist, you can probably intervene and stop them from killing each other, but if they are fighting with guns, you're likelier to get killed before you managed to stop one of them"
If they are fighting with guns it will end in about ten seconds. If I have a gun, surviving party will be held at gunpoint until police arrives or killed if self-defense warrants that. If I don't have a gun, I will not get involved in a fight without guns.
"that's how WW1 started and how Russia and USA almost destroyed the world during the cold war"
WWI was an outcome of multiple mutual defense pacts and spectacular failure of diplomacy combined with public's understanding of lethality of war based on obsolete experiences.
Cold War is the example of that deterrence actually worked. Without that we very well could see something like operation Dropshot being carried out.
"You stated you were against cars and pro guns, but all you've said to justify your pro-gun stand is that cars are worse than guns"
My main point was that there is no consistency in arguments used against guns and in favor of cars.
If emotional argument (i.e. every single life is invaluable and any loss of life should be prevented) is used, then cars AND guns should be banned, along with a very long list of other items.
If utilitarian argument is used for both cars and guns, then legally-owned guns are fine as they are in US (given number of their defensive uses), provided that issue of organized crime is addressed.
Currently you're the only one who offered any consistent argument, and it's against both guns and cars. Granted, that's an honest approach, but I will not easily agree with you on guns because I know that your arguments so far are either factually wrong or at least debatable. That doesn't make me pro-gun, but rather not convinced to be against guns.
I think at very least we can agree that it's strange to worry about mass shootings (a very small fraction of gun-related deaths) and ignore the tens of thousands of fatalities that are just a side-effect of convenient transportation.
Also, ban on semi-automatic rifles, which is currently championed by Democrats in US, is idiotic (or blatantly political) because it's the source of least number of firearms-related deaths in both US and Russia. Hence I've mentioned that in Russia cause du jour is not a limit on gun ownership (there's almost nothing left to limit), but instead further abolition of privacy.
317
'@Isdaril' "The world is interconnected, and we manage to ban guns in EU while it's not banned in the US. "
EU is separated from the rest of the world by border, there are no customs checkpoints between states or counties in US.
"You don't necessarily have to assume that crime is immobile, some people could be in charge of specifying zones where guns are allowed without a license"
Considering how bureaucracy works in US and level of politicization of the issue, I don't think it's realistic. Also, "without license" is already not universal. Look at gun laws in US by state, there is a lot of regional variation in how you can buy and carry a gun.
"First granting a gun to almost anybody would mean that it would become the main weapon to kill someone (why would you use a risky way to kill someone when you could just use a gun)."
You would think so, but in homicide statistics from US handguns are used vastly more than any other kind of firearm. Due to short range, generally poor accuracy, small ammo capacity and lower stopping power it's the least safe option, compared to rifle or shotgun, so it's comparatively more risky. Especially if there are other armed people around.
"Second, as you've now effectively armed everybody, fights would transform into a shooting feast with the potential to kill both the agressor, the victim and additional bystanders. "
That heavily depends on circumstances, usually homicides (excluding gang-related violence) have personal reasons and as such are very limited, resulting in either perpetrator's surrender, suicide or escape. In case of armed robbery or some sort of hostage situation collateral injuries are either unlikely or least of your concerns. Access to guns probably increases the odds of workplace shootings, but even in US number of those is very small.
"Your argument is basically saying "fights are going to happen anyhow so I should give people the best way to kill eachother, that way it's fair for everybody". "
My argument is that if I meet someone high on synthetic drugs (or unhappy about something I said/done, or he just wants all of my money) and armed with a knife, my current plan is to bleed to death in less than a minute if I'm lucky, suffer an abdominal wound with 70% lethality if I'm not. I'd rather have more options than that.
" if you are a bystander and you see two people fight with their fist, you can probably intervene and stop them from killing each other, but if they are fighting with guns, you're likelier to get killed before you managed to stop one of them"
If they are fighting with guns it will end in about ten seconds. If I have a gun, surviving party will be held at gunpoint until police arrives or killed if self-defense warrants that. If I don't have a gun, I will not get involved in a fight without guns.
"that's how WW1 started and how Russia and USA almost destroyed the world during the cold war"
WWI was an outcome of multiple mutual defense pacts and spectacular failure of diplomacy combined with public's understanding of lethality of war based on obsolete experiences.
Cold War is the example of that deterrence actually worked. Without that we very well could see something like operation Dropshot being carried out.
"You stated you were against cars and pro guns, but all you've said to justify your pro-gun stand is that cars are worse than guns"
My main point was that there is no consistency in arguments used against guns and in favor of cars.
If emotional argument (i.e. every single life is invaluable and any loss of life should be prevented) is used, then cars AND guns should be banned, along with a very long list of other items.
If utilitarian argument is used for both cars and guns, then legally-owned guns are fine as they are in US (given number of their defensive uses), provided that issue of organized crime is addressed.
Currently you're the only one who offered any consistent argument, and it's against both guns and cars. Granted, that's an honest approach, but I will not easily agree with you on guns because I know that your arguments so far are either factually wrong or at least debatable. That doesn't make me pro-gun, but rather not convinced to be against guns.
I think at very least we can agree that it's strange to worry about mass shootings (a very small fraction of gun-related deaths) and ignore the tens of thousands of fatalities that are just a side-effect of convenient transportation.
Also, ban on semi-automatic rifles, which is currently championed by Democrats in US, is idiotic (or blatantly political) because it's the source of least number of firearms-related deaths in both US and Russia. Hence I've mentioned that in Russia cause du jour is not a limit on gun ownership (there's almost nothing left to limit), but instead further abolition of privacy.