When debating guns, it seems impossible to not hear the saying, "Guns don't kill people." If you toss out a statistic about gun deaths, you will hear this retort.

I'm a gun owner. I own them simply because I come from a law enforcement family. I don't have any interest in them at all. Grew up around them. You point, they go bang. But that's not all that guns do, now is it? 

Guns give people a sense of power. A command over many. They make men make rash decisions. They embolden people to do things out of arrogance and self-righteousness. If you were walking by a group of three young men whom were clearly out looking for a fight in a downtown area, you might decide to cross the street if you were unarmed. If you were armed, you might say,"Fuck it, I have a right to be here." and take on that path of resistance. A notable example of this being caught on video is the DC detective taking on a crowd for throwing snowballs. He drew his service weapon rather than walking or driving away. Link

There are other things that give people a sense of power and cause them to act as if human life doesn't matter. Cars. How many cases of road rage could we find? Cars are another thing that emboldens people to do stupid things. I had a guy attempt to run me down once while on a motorcycle. I waved him into a parking lot, got off the bike and he disappeared. As soon as I went to get back onto the road, he came at me. Being on a sport bike he had no chance and I was gone. But without a weapon, he wanted nothing to do with me. (Sremmed from him wanting me to pull out into the intersection that was blocked. Bad idea in the US, especially on a bike.) but you know what is rare... Murder in the first and second degree in cars. Killing someone in another car with the first car is difficult. We don't have enough interaction with pedestrians to get that provoked. Guns, however, allow that personal interaction along with the quick and easy solution that will give you that sense of power we have grown to love.

You can say that guns don't kill people because they are inanimate objects and be factually correct. What you ignore is that in a culture like ours where violence is regarded as being manly. Where winning a fight will get you patted on the back for years. Where people crave power over others from sports as a kid to watching movies and fantasizing yourself in the shoes of the successful violent character (Batman, Rambo, Kick Ass). Guns provide that sense of ability to easily win the fight and deliver justice when we feel wronged rather than letting the emotion settle. Gun ownership is the leading cause of homocide, 2 to 1. Nothing else compares.

We have a right to guns in the US. I don't deny that. But denying the reality that without guns we would not have nearly the same number of murders is denying reality. Without guns, people would take that extra second to think rather than simply react. There are anecdotal cases where the right gun owner wins and yeah, let's write that down. But don't forget that each year, there are 10,000 other cases where the outcome didn't have to be what it is. Guns cause people to act in ways that they wouldn't normally act. This is why I reject the claim that "Guns Don't Kill People".  

Tags: Guns, murder, politics, violence

Views: 1542

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Just because you didn't advocate it doesn't mean some political party or legislation wouldn't in the future 

Yes and more efficiently as you said.  A gun takes one finger flick and then someone is dead.  That means more crimes can be done in the heat of anger, desperation, or ignorance.  Most crimes of passion couldn't be done if someone had to butcher or bludgeon someone to death, and often that doesn't even kill them.  Children are always being shot because they find guns and play with them.  If you pull out your gun on another person that has a gun you're more likely to be shot at obviously. 

 

Personally my friend has a gun and I have played with it before while depressed and suicidal, I've considered playing Russian Roulette.  If I had one split second of hopelessness and motivation which has happened before, I would be dead without a second thought or regret to feel.  I've overdosed on pills, cut myself, tried to hang myself, and kill myself through carbon monoxide poisoning but always failed but there is no coming back from a bullet.

Araina you are right you should not have a gun for your personal safety but that doesn't mean no else should.

If you look at European history that is way we have the 2nd amendment. When the government leaves you no way to protect yourself from it, human rights become easier to take from the people.

I have had guns in my home for 50 years, raised children, and two wives, no one has been threatened with a gun, no child was going to get the gun. The cupboard under the sink is more dangerous to children if you take the correct measures safe guarding your guns.

If you look at European history that is way we have the 2nd amendment. When the government leaves you no way to protect yourself from it, human rights become easier to take from the people.

 

The french revolution succeeded without second amendement. Rumor has it that they stormed the armoury to get guns.

 

Rumor also has it that "you know who" encouraged personal gun ownership except for "you know which religion".

 

Old, overused and mostly invalid points.

Brilliant logic at work.

 

Sure you have the right to defend yourselves but you cant possibly win so screw it hand your guns over.  The british told us that back during the revolutionary war too. They were wrong.

 

Just brilliant.

So were the french. Also: England used 20000 troops. Completely mobilised european countries could field 200 000+.

 

Again: no point! Starting with foreign influence allows a wide range of speculation.

 

Edit: Not to mention that i argued that it worked 200 years ago but doesn't work anymore.

Old, overused and invalid, explain Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Invalid?

There are 270,000,000 guns or possible combatants take away the 1,450,000 in the military, say only a quarter of the population is willing fight, that would be 67,500,000. Invalid?

Yes, each of these left your military destroyed and net to every able-bodied male in the US dead! Neither of them where fighting a tyrant. Were the communists driven out by the people? No! Saddam? No! (bonus points for WMD use) The Taliban? No!

 

Guerilla tactics are not enough to beat a modern army behind a determined tyrant! You could only hope that the military starts deserting once enough of the own population got killed.

wrong location

Yes and more efficiently as you said.  A gun takes one finger flick and then someone is dead.  That means more crimes can be done in the heat of anger, desperation, or ignorance.  Most crimes of passion couldn't be done if someone had to butcher or bludgeon someone to death, and often that doesn't even kill them.  Children are always being shot because they find guns and play with them.  If you pull out your gun on another person that has a gun you're more likely to be shot at obviously. 


Personally my friend has a gun and I have played with it before while depressed and suicidal, I've considered playing Russian Roulette.  If I had one split second of hopelessness and motivation which has happened before, I would be dead without a second thought or regret to feel.  I've overdosed on pills, cut myself, tried to hang myself, and kill myself through carbon monoxide poisoning but always failed but there is no coming back from a bullet.

I'm sorry to hear about your struggles with life. I'm glad you are still around because we need all the atheist voices that we can muster in this world :)

What you are saying is confirming my previously mentioned point - without easy access to guns I believe that many of the examples you mention could be rendered non-fatal. Of course, those who really want to do harm or kill can always kill with knifes or clubs instead but it sure takes a lot more training and effort than a simple finger flick with a gun.

Removing guns from the streets also removes fear of not having a gun to protect yourself. In my country we have some of the worlds most strict gun laws and guns are generally not allowed. Whenever there is a fight in the street we generally do not have to fear that weapons are present so we dare to intervene and stop the fight without expecting someone to pull a gun.

Guns are relics of the good ole west - and so is the mentality that guns are needed for civilians to protect their freedom. I do not expect many Americans to understand my viewpoint since they have never tried to live in a country and society with virtually no guns so they have difficulty imagining the concept of freedom without fear of guns.

Guns are relics of the good ole west - and so is the mentality that guns are needed for civilians to protect their freedom. I do not expect many Americans to understand my viewpoint since they have never tried to live in a country and society with virtually no guns so they have difficulty imagining the concept of freedom without fear of guns.

 

The Old West was not what you see in film, but the US history is one of violence. We took the country by force and we are the largest supplier of weapons in the world 43% of all weapons, with the next closest China at 7.3 %. The Genie is out of the bottle in the US.

RSS

Blog Posts

Creationists Dispute

Posted by Fouad on December 24, 2014 at 7:26am 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service