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".  

Views: 1910

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Its the only argument that matters. I have a constitutional right to protect myself and even rise up against a tyrannical government. 


The right to bear arms was never put in place so that you could stop home invasion or hunt deer. Its there in the constitution for one purpose and that is to protect the rights of the people to challenge a government gone astray of the people.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms, whatever the reason. Just stop using reasoning that no longer has much relevance. Self-defense, sports or mostly "militia culture" are better points.

I am sad for anyone that truly believes that the people of this country being able to defend themselves against their own government is not a relevant thing. It speaks to the apathetic response to our politics and sheep-like mindset of the two party system.


I know its not relevant because our country is so perfect right.. No chance of tyranny or the government no longer representing the will of the people. 


No, it's not relevant because it's not possible anymore. Government has tanks, helicopters and stealth bombers. They could take out any resistance center from several hundred miles away. Just ask the Taliban...


It stopped being infantry versus infantry 100 years ago. You can only hope that the states can take down the federal military.


Also: i'm from europe and my country's military is too small for any attempt of tyranny.

Really, You want to use this reasoning? Explain Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan? No air power, no navies, tanks where? Nam was, at the time, the longest war we ever fought and now Afghanistan has taken that record over ten years.

How many people in America are armed? There are enough guns in America to arm 90 out of every 100 people, 270 million guns. If the US government want to go against the people it would be a long battle.

 Although "direct American involvement" in Vietnam was between 1963 and 1975 (12 years) America was involved for way much longer. So 12-18 years, sadly Vietnam is still our longest war.



According to wikipedia, it was fought for 11 years against France between 1946-1957 and 18 years against the U.S. between 1957-1975. Exact dates are sketchy.

You can take Nam back to 1955. We armed the Taliban against USSR in Afghanistan, trained and armed them. Since WW11 is there years we haven't been fighting somewhere, declared or not?

My point is don't need planes and tanks to fight the strongest army in the world.

That was democracy with rules of engagement. Tyrants against the own population generally tend to have neither. They can nuke cities without fear of being voted out of office.

You don't see tyrants using nukes in there own country but I guess there could always be a first time.

Tyrants wouldn't nuke their own cities ....

Both Iraq and Vietnam had tanks, an air force and a navy, though Iraq's military was severely degraded from the first Gulf War and the following sanctions.


North Vietnamese MiG-17s, MiG-19s and MiG-21s put up a pretty good fight against American F-4s and F-105s and were in fact superior in some aspects - most notably maneuverability. The losses they inflicted early on were shocking for the USAF and led to a rethinking of air combat tactics, training and doctrine that has effects to this day


It's true that the NVA was a peasant army in some aspects and not technologically sophisticated. Ultimately they outlasted the US's will to fight, but that probably wouldn't have been possible without their insanely dense air defense network, courtesy of the Soviets

This response doesn't address a single point of the post. At no point have I advocated removing guns from society. It's about having a real conversation about how to help solve the problem and the stonewall approach is causing 10,000 deaths per year. There are solutions. Why can't we take down the walls and find them? 


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service