The Dink Network

The problem of this discussion is that most people are very convinced that they are right, and the evidence is so clear to them that it seems anyone who doesn't accept it is ignorant, or an idiot (I wrote that almost literally in one of my own posts). This obviously doesn't lead to a nice discussion. I'm sure people don't mean to be such jerks (at least I don't). So everyone please try to be a bit more considerate for people who may not accept what you consider hard evidence. (Yes, that's a message to myself as well.)

He asked me for an example of when a gun might be needed.[i]

I did. But I expected that my other arguments would also be taken into account. It has been proven (the picture that Skull linked to shows it, too) that there are many more (mass and other) shootings if guns are easily available. The result of taking guns away means in most cases that there is no shooter. So in your current society, you say need a gun to defend yourself from those people. But this is no reason to allow people to have guns: with stricter gun control, both you and the shooter don't have a gun anymore. You say that if everyone else has a gun, you need one too. (Even that is not true, see below.) You don't explain that allowing everyone to have a gun is a good idea. And the facts show that it isn't.

I'll repeat myself on one point, because I think it wasn't well understood: You say you need a gun so you can shoot a lunatic with a gun. This means that in case there is a lunatic, you have given him a gun (by allowing everyone to have one), and then you go shoot him. So you have at least two dead people when someone goes crazy: their first victim, and themselves. If you're a bit slower, there are more victims.

On the other hand, with stricter gun control, they use a knife or similar. They may injure several people, but they are relatively easily stopped, probably before killing even a single person.

So the problem is that in some cases, even with strict gun control, a lunatic may still get their hands on a gun. And when they do, there's only the police to stop them, and they are slow. This is a problem, but it is also something for which you can calculate the risk. The nice thing is that there are examples of places with and without gun control in the world, so we can simply look at actual data, not just guesses.

The data says that there are very many more victims from mass shootings in the USA (with guns) than in the rest of the world (mostly without guns). Knowing this, choosing to allow guns in your country anyway means that you gain the benefit (as you see it) that everyone can handle their own safety (instead of leaving that to the police, as most other countries do). This comes at the price of reduced safety for everyone. You are more likely to die in a shooting because of this. Read that again: if you don't trust the police, your safety is reduced.

So yes, when a shooting lunatic shows up, I understand that you feel that the good guys should have guns too in a place like that. But experience shows that you get much better results if you try to take the guns away from the bad guys (and as a side effect also the good guys, because you can't tell them apart). Even if you don't always succeed, and some bad guys will still have guns.

[i]Y'know, Skull. This is a debate in America, not Finland or India or Korea or wherever.

Actually, this is only a debate about the USA, but it's everywhere. I saw a post on Facebook saying "In the USA, automatic weapons are allowed, but French cheese is forbidden, because it may be dangerous for your health", for example. The only thing is there doesn't seem to be much of a debate in the rest of the world; almost everybody agrees that guns are bad and should be banned.

I have looked at facts given to me and I've determined that guns deter criminals who would otherwise invade a home.

Wait, what? I would be very interested to see those facts. Can you share your sources, please?

Here's a scientific paper mildly claiming the exact opposite and one which is a lot stronger in its conclusions; here's the summary (the emphasis is mine):

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.

Note also that this is about the USA, without even the need to ban guns in the country: having a gun increases the risk that people you care about will die. I previously thought (and wrote) that this was not the case; that it would only help if all (or at least most) people do away with their guns. But their research shows that even if everybody else has a gun, you not having one makes you safer.

there are multiple seriel killers who didn't use a gun.

Yes. Nobody claims that if you ban guns, there are no more crazy people. There will always be crazy people, and they should always be treated. The problem is that intelligent crazy people can do a lot of damage no matter what the rules are. This means that they are irrelevant for this discussion: both with and without guns, they kill many people. And they are intelligent enough to do it in a way that they are not caught. Which means that guns don't help: If you don't catch them, you can't shoot them.

What this is about, is the slightly intelligent people who go crazy. The ones who will try to do as much damage as they can, without thinking too much (and thus without much preparation). In the USA, those people are very likely to grab a gun and start shooting. In most other places, they are very likely to grab a knife and start stabbing. Both are bad. Both show that society needs to treat these people (and hopefully detects them before such a thing happens). And it also clearly shows that with guns, you have bigger problem when one of them "explodes".

None of these people used any form of gun, and they caused more death than Columbine or the Colorado shootings or Virginia Tech.

And none of them could be stopped by a gun, because they made sure that they were invisible. You are not making an argument for allowing guns here.

It's not the guns that facilitate mass murder any more than the insane mind that John Wayne Gacy held.

Yes, as we all agree, the problem is that there are crazy people. I hope we all agree that this problem can be reduced with treatment, but it will never be solved completely. Gun control helps for the cases where this problem shows up.

Here's an idea: we want the good guys to have guns, but not the bad guys. I propose we select some people with good screening that we know are good guys, give them a gun and training to use it, and don't allow anyone else to have a gun. We make sure to have enough of those good guys patrolling the streets that there's always one near, so if something happens they can come running and save the day. That should solve your problem, right?

We have that system in the Netherlands. It works great. We call those trusted people "the police". You should try it, too!