People talks about "owning weapons for self defense" as if it was going to help avoid shooters. And when confronted, they always argue that "everyone has knives in their houses and not everyone uses them as weapons, and they are allowed". This is a terrible argument.

First of all, not all knives can be used for killing. Some are too short, others have a blade that is too flimsy to be used to stab someone. Indeed, there are knives that can be easily used to stab someone. But here is the question.

If you were to be attacked, what would you prefer? Someone confronting you with a knife? Or someone shooting at you from a vehicle or a balcony/terrace/whatever high place you can think of? Because I'm pretty sure it's easier to avoid a knife, than a gun. Specially if it is semiautomatic or automatic.

And guess what? The chances of the later happening will exponentially increase if everyone has access to those weapons.

Morale of the story, don't give weapons to civilians because they'll go postal with them. Period.

Besides, why the fuck would you want a gun, if it's not for killing someone? You're just going to murder someone. You can't have one.

@enigmatico if someone is shooting at you from a moving car they are more likely to hit the road tjan hit you
especially if that gun is a handgun
also have you tried to dodge knife attacks in a close quarters situation? its harder than you think

I think its completly stupid to imply that a knife is simply the "easier situation to get out of" because theres so much nuance within a self defense situation that you could have a betrer time if the assaliant has a gun (i know that sounds weird to say, but its easier to miss gunshots than you think)

also a majority of armed crime is done with illegally obtained firearms, so taking them from civilians changes nothing

@theorytoe@ak.kyaruc.moe > if someone is shooting at you from a moving car

Normally the mobs use a motorbike, and they don't shoot at you from a moving vehicle. They stop, shoot at you, and then run. And it's one of the most common tactics used by the mafia, gangs, etc.

also have you tried to dodge knife attacks in a close quarters situation? its harder than you think

Depends of whether the motion is slashing, or stabbing. Slashing is not easy to dodge, but you can keep your distance. Stabbing is easier, providing you have enough reaction time.

Try that with a gun. All you can do is run for your life and try to find an appropriate cover. Which is also harder than you might thing, bulets can penetrate a lot of stuff depending on the caliber.

I think its completly stupid to imply that a knife is simply the "easier situation to get out of"

It's your opinion, and I respect it, but I don't share it.

also a majority of armed crime is done with illegally obtained firearms

Of course, but it's harder for regular people to obtain a weapon illegally, and not get caught with them. So the chances for anyone on the street to have a firearm are normally pretty low, unless you live in a shitty neighborhood or some shitty country that is too lax. Which is precisely why giving weapons to the regular population is a bad idea.

It's all about statistics and probability.

@enigmatico @theorytoe To be fair, statistics and probability are specifically in _favor_ of guns there.

Assume you have 1 million people.

* If you let 200,000 "peaceful civilians" be armed, you're gonna get 20,000 guns stolen etc. in the hand of criminals who go around, rob, rape and murder.
* If you let 20,000 "peaceful civilians" be armed, you're still gonna get 5,000 guns stolen etc. in the hand of criminals. Mostly stolen from civilians.
* If you let 2,000 "peaceful civilians" be armed, surprise! You're gonna have 4,000 guns in the hand of criminals. They're gonna be self made, or imported, or stolen (yes, even from cops). Or they're gonna be non-firearms but still effective weapons. Massive springs that propel a projectile (like a Nerf gun but on steroids). Knives. Rocks. Bows. Freaking throwing stars.

Sounds like a success, right? Let's see what happens.

* Now one of the 20,000 criminals tries to attack someone. 20% chance their victim is armed. That attack must really be worth it then - not gonna risk your life to steal a wallet.
* What if one of the 5,000 criminals attack someone? 2% chance their victim is armed. That's a risk many criminals take on a regular basis. 2% is maybe still too high a risk for a robbery (unless the victim looks wealthy), but a rapist might easily risk it.
* And one of the 4,000? With just 0.2% of the population armed? That's basically nobody. At that rate, one can definitely rob people for a wallet.

Japan has very strong gun control, and that didn't stop Shinzo Abe from being assassinated using a gun.

The real problem rather lies in the numbers above. It's a cultural thing. Why do we HAVE so many violent criminals in the US, but not in Switzerland? It's not the guns, because the Swiss have a comparable amount of guns (even machine guns, which are mostly outlawed in the US). It's the lack of care for the poor. It's ghettoization and gang violence stemming from this lack of care. If Americans had taken care of their poor, that would have prevented entire town quarters devolving into areas where even the police won't dare go. Also, it's the US prison system which sets up people for reoffending rather than resocialization. The US seem to do all they can to increase the amount of violent people, but - surprising as it might sound - gun ownership actually mitigates that. Shouldn't have come to be this bad in the first place. Just see e.g. here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWWWyG5ZwG8 - Mark Rober just could GET his car broken into and robbed by random criminals multiple times because he wanted to? Just by parking it in a known dangerous place? That shouldn't be a thing in any civilized country.

As for taking cover against firearms - it is true that many rounds would penetrate wood, but they'd also usually get deflected. And of course the shooter can't see where you are behind the cover. They're gonna have a hard time hitting you. Cover often won't stop bullets, but if it stops view, that already means a lot. If you're running from someone with a gun and can't find cover, make sure to move around in their field of view (e.g. by a zigzag motion, but even a straight line will do wonders as long as it isn't straight away from the shooter but at a small angle) so they can't hold steady on you.

@divVerent@blob.cat @theorytoe@ak.kyaruc.moe It's good to see they steal less weapons, the weapon market is going to be delighted lmao.

10% of weapons get stolen? I guess we are speaking of the US if this is true.

@enigmatico @theorytoe I think you noticed I pulled those numbers out of my behind. It was a hypothetical situation; I don't actually know where the theft rate is, but I do know that in the US, convicts can't get past the mandatory background check which in most places is required both to obtain a gun license and to then later obtain a gun. They still often get a gun, so go figure. Stolen, maybe. Purchased by a "friend" (that's a felony too).

However, my point is - if you restrict gun ownership too much, eventually armed criminals outnumber armed civilians. And that's even worse - even for the unarmed.

@divVerent@blob.cat @theorytoe@ak.kyaruc.moe Yeah I figured, but you can't back up facts with made up facts. You need actual data.

The number of armed criminals will always outnumber the number of armed non-criminals in a country where weapons are not legal. But how many criminals are armed against how many non-criminals are in the country? What's the proportion? And the chance of having an encounter with an armed criminal?

Go figure, if you were to arm everyone, then everyone has a chance to become an armed criminal - even by accident.

@enigmatico @divVerent
its logical reasoning to think through this.
you dont need real data to make an educated guess

and what isnt reported are armed crimes stopped by the presence of civilian gun ownership.
Get me that data (and from a trustworthy source) and then you can start making an argument.

again, you are also basing your arguments on hypotheticals since we dont have any data that proves that gun control stops armed crime (other than media outlets crying about how thats the only solution since they get their pockets lined)

@theorytoe @enigmatico Well, _in the limit_ gun control does stop armed crime. If one could eradicate all guns from the world, and also all knowledge about how to build them - then there's no more gun violence.

But the more interesting question is, would there be _more_ or _less_ total violence then? More or less murders?

Cain needed just a rock to kill Abel. David however shot Goliath - probably because as a felon Goliath couldn't own a slingshot ;)

However, the practical problem is that one can't just do that. Any measure of gun control favors criminals first, as they're the ones least impacted by any bans. They're on the run already, after all...

So in this imperfect world, the main question where people differ is, should civilians own guns, or should we have so high police presence that crime is actually stopped before anyone dies? IMHO both are valid extremes, and most countries pick an option somewhere in the middle. No option is really perfect.

@divVerent @enigmatico
Well obviously if you expunge how to make guns and their presencd from society you wont have gun crime.

But that doesnt mean violent crime wont lower, because if people want to kill, they will kill no matter the weapon they have available

im more considering the fact of stopping an assailant because if a shooter is incapacitated or dead, they cant kill more people

@theorytoe @enigmatico Yeah. This is also why most people would NOT want to eradicate all guns, but at least want the police and military to have them.

The problem is - once we accept that, those guns are gonna get stolen or sold on the black market for sure - from the cops, from the manufacturer, in transit, etc.

So we just gave criminals guns by arming the police. Even if we assumed all cops had good intentions.

@divVerent @enigmatico
and being that I see police forces being use to opress people more than stop crime you would think people would take it into their own hands and keep themselves safe

@theorytoe @enigmatico Yeah, that's another problem. Distrust in government in general and police in particular also raises both gun ownership AND crime (even crime against "civilians", not just anti-government crime).

And the US have been particularly bad at this, with being so extremely divided that every American considers half their own country nazi satan worshippers. This too should never have happened, but people should instead have learned to cooperate. This sadly won't end well.

@divVerent @theorytoe @enigmatico America has always been two countries in a trenchcoat. It's just that prior to ideological subversion (Bezmenov) the two counties were somewhat compatible enough to see the other side as humans.

the liberal world order (Bidens own words) doesn't. they declare themselves tolerant and then sort everyone they don't like as somehow not human; as you can see by how everyone they don't like is declared a human rights abuser.

the abortion debate is fundamentally one about what age does it become murder to kill a human and you see this model of rhetoric magnified intensely.

I dont support gun control anymore because the UN wants it and anything billionaire elites want is probably bad for me, since nobody becomes a billionaire by being a good person.

@icedquinn @enigmatico @theorytoe Sorry, the UN are your argument against gun control? That seems weak. The Useless Nations. The highest power they have is sending strongly worded letters, and even that they can't do because whoever they want to address it to has veto right.

The UN are just plain useless. Ignoring them is the only logical action.

(Oh, and no need to pay them any money)