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: 1900

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lack of education and job stability also is a major reason people would use guns in the first place.  How many middle class , hard working , ,well educated persons do you see holding up liquor stores or part of a gang?  



"middle class , hard working , ,well educated persons"

These tend to commit murder-suicide on their family or shoot their neighbors over property quarrels. People committing armed robbery are usually armed robbers first and not murderers.

Commit suicide on a higher rate?  Any evidence for this?  Or are you just basically saying that robbers and well educated people also sometimes have a mustache or like to wear baseball caps?  


I thought mothers attempt to drown their children in bath tubs and fathers hack their families to pieces with an ax or children slice their parents throats while they are still sleeping or set their bedrooms on fire after locking inside their room?  


Sure they could use a gun to commit suicide or massacre their families , but there are OTHER methods of that as well.  If someone is THAT deranged or depressed , a bridge or an ax or food poisoning would work just as well .. 

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5]

"Or are you just basically saying that robbers and well educated people also sometimes have a mustache or like to wear baseball caps?"

Nope, but nice attempt at a straw man.

"but there are OTHER methods of that as well."

So because there are other options which usually are more psychologically taxing, we should allow guns to make it easy..?

"If someone is THAT deranged or depressed , a bridge or an ax or food poisoning would work just as well"

It's nearly impossible to stop those who are committed, but making it as easy as having a gun in a drawer will not exactly lower suicide or murder rates. Slicing wrists, jumping from bridges, poisoning, etc takes more planning or a fairly substantial tolerance for pain most people don't have. A bullet to the head is the easiest way to commit to kill someone or yourself.

the MAJORITY of gun related deaths might be suicides , but that doesn't tell me if it's criminals or middle class and educated people.  So like I said , if you want to commit suicide , you will find other ways to do so ........ 

Restricting gun laws wont do anything. Criminals, the people who commit these murders, will always be able to get guns so its really not that simple. in an idealistic society it would work. but not in the regular society that we all live in. in an ideal society you would not speed on a highway, you would not drink before 21, and people would choose political figures on ideas and skill rather than who is of the same religion or politcal party

"High availability of guns is surely one of the major reasons many get killed in gun fights!

To reduce the killings simply restrict the gun laws" \


Problem is that still won't stop the criminal element, replace the word "guns" with knives, baseball bats, cars, anything that can be used as a weapon and you can see that it's not really that simple at all.

No, you can't simply replace "guns" with "anything that can be used as a weapon". The difference is in your very description: "anything that can be used as a weapon" implies the item has a primary function that serves a purpose in our society. Apart from killing, guns do not.

This sense of power came before guns in the forms of swords. Guns are just quicker and easier and you don't need a ton of training to use them right. I don't like guns and I'm a police officer lol. I also have a different point of view being Canadian overall we just see a lot of more stabbing deaths with the strict controls we have.

The statement that without guns there would be fewer murders if false. This is because it would remove the guns from the people who are neutral and do not commit crimes. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun and by taking away all guns you are taking away the ability for people to defend themselves without police. Police can only respond to so many threats in a certain amount of time. The safest thing would probably result in everyone having guns. with everyone having a gun MAD or mutually assured destruction would come into play. instead of people thinking that there bad because they own a gun people would think will i get shot by someone for doing this. this is why people do not go crazy at shooting ranges and instead do it at a post office where nobody other than them are armed. 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


These words are not so i can defend my property or so i can hunt. At the time of the writing of these words that was a given.


These words dealt specifically with the British confiscating guns during the start of unrest in the colonies. 


That right to bear arms is to protect myself from my government. That is why we have the right to bear arms and infringing on that right is a step towards tyranny.

This is a really bad point. Originally this was musket against musket. I don't see much arguing over AT or AAA missiles...


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service