Serious Questions For Those Who Oppose Gun Laws

[SecularMotion]

In the wake of the latest example of America’s ridiculous and indefensible gun culture, a few questions for those who perpetuate this idiocy:

If an armed society is a polite society, then do you agree that the problem in Chicago is that there just aren’t enough guns?

In which of two fantasy worlds—one where everyone had a gun, and one where no one had a gun—would more people die by violence?

How do we tell the difference between an Open Carry activist and a murderer who just came to the fast food place to kill as many people as possible? Do we just wait until they start shooting?

http://www.chicagonow.com/dry-it-in-the-water/2015/08/serious-questions-for-those-who-oppose-gun-laws/

[hack89]

1. The problem in Chicago is criminal gangs and illegal guns

Why not fix that problem first?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. What's driving the violence in Chicago is the failed War on Drugs.

The violence in Chicago is gang driven which, in turn is driven rivalries among the drug sellers. The work-a-day citizens of Chicago aren't the problem. Guns have not seized control of their minds and turned ordinary Chicagoans into killers but those people are being held hostage by gangs and a breathtakingly corrupt police force.

[liberal N proud]

3. Doesn't answer the questions of the OP

Just makes excuses.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. The questions proceed from a flawed premise.

The "armed society is a polite society" cliché does not account for those who are willfully malicious and cannot be deterred. Those who cannot be deterred -- tautologically -- cannot be deterred. They are who they choose to be.

The question then becomes: Why do they choose to become so?

In this instance it is the War on Drugs and poverty. The lack of opportunity, the corruption of civil authority leaves residents few options except gang life. They cannot be deterred because, point-blankly, they have no other options.

And, no, a War on Guns will not disarm them any more than the War on Drugs has deprived them of an illicit drug trade.

The only thing Chicago's gun laws have succeeded in doing is threatening to put people like Otis McDonald in prison for doing nothing more than defending themselves.

Gun control is just that, gun control. It makes no pretense -- and thus bears no success -- in stopping violence. Violence is the thing we have to confront, not than manner in which violence is conducted.

[Lee-Lee]

4. The questions are framed in a ridiculous manner

For example, the first one.

The right answer to that one is that in a place like Chicago it's not that there are too many or too few guns- but that all the guns are concentrated disproportionately in the hands of the wrong people.

If you took all the guns in the hands of gang members and criminals in Chicago and were instantly able to change possession to another group- let's make it teachers- and told those teachers they had to own those guns for a year (let they store ten at home, carry, their choice) while we made sure the previous owners didn't get new guns do you think gun crime would rise, fall or stay the same?

Fall, of course. Unless you think teachers would suddenly become eqtally or more violent than gang members and criminals just because they owned a gun.

The questioning framed to present the gun with all the responsibility while ignoring the main problem- the people who misuse them and who in places like Chicago own them at far higher rates than the people not inclined to such acts.

The same people in Chicago were screaming about Wild West shootouts and blood in the streets when Illinois lost in court and had to start issuing concealed carry permits. But as was true in every other state those predictions didn't happen- because that put guns in the right hands, not in criminal hands.

It's not about the number of guns, it's about who possesses them.

[LonePirate]

7. If it is about who possesses them, how do you distinguish ...

The open carry activist exhibiting his holstered courage device and another guy walking around with his holstered murder device a few seconds before he lights up the place?

From my perspective, they look identical. Is there some special code or signal the open carry guys use to differentiate themselves from the would-be criminals. Those of us who abhor guns would love to know.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. That's a fair point...and one reason (of many) open carry activism is moronic.

In places where open carry isn't commonplace (which is only in some rural areas), it's an invitation to trouble. Moreover, it's a spectacularly counterproductive method of protest.

[Statistical]

10. Ok so outlaw open (and/or concealed) carry of firearms ...

Now murderer conceals the weapon and kills someone just as quickly. You could also outlaw conceal carry as well but given that murder is already illegal it is kind of obvious the murderer is just going to conceal carry the weapon. Regardless of the carry laws the first notice you will have if when the person starts shooting.

What exactly would changing those laws accomplish other than maybe "feel good security". You haven't reduced the risk and you haven't removed firearms from those who would commit crimes. You just feel safer despite the risk being exactly the same. Do you want to pass laws which will do nothing just to pass laws or do you want to prevent crime? That is the real question right? I think we can both agree to reduce the homicide rate we need to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have a criminal history or who are mentally ill.

Somewhat ironically open carry came about because of the idea that people would only hide firearms. For most the early history of this country open carry was universal from border to border and conceal carry was almost universally prohibited. Conceal carry as a legal option only began to occur as open carry fell out of favor. In many places open carry was never prohibited it just became less common. Of course since it is uncommon it is now "scary". Personally I have no problem with outlawing open carry as long as conceal carry exists under as a fair and impartial "shall issue" system without poison pills ($500 per year licenses, etc). Now it won't make you any safer but maybe out of sight out of mind is a better way to coexist. In VA open carry is legal but I never use that option anymore simply because it does irrationally scare a minority of people. On the other hand when I did open carry most people just assumed I am an off duty cop (not kidding).

[Lee-Lee]

11. That's why I'm not a fan of open carry in urban areas

Rural areas, sure- in much of the country it's routine to see a farmer with a small pistol on their hip or someone walking down the road with a rifle after hunting or target shooting.

Urban areas- just carry concealed as long as it's not a place where CC is reserved only for the monied or politically connected.

I teach concealed carry classes and tell my students unless it's in a real area where it's just not practical for the work you are doing to keep it concealed.

Open carry activists are about .00001% of the population of gun owners. Using them as an argument against gun ownership is as asinine as homophobes taking video of scantily clad participants at a pride parade simulating sex acts in public to try and argue the LGBTQ community are all perverted monsters who have sex in public in front of kids or similar nonsense.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Precisely. Starts with a silly planted axiom and goes downhill from there.

Excellent response, though...I couldn't be arsed to respond to that nonsense, but that's largely because I'd have undoubtedly turned the snark meter to 11 and risked a hide.

[onehandle]

5. FREEDUMB!

The blanket answer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Yes. The Controllers contempt for civil liberties and human rights is well established.

[SecularMotion]

13. Kick

[Coventina]

14. Serious question: Shouldn't this be in the Gungeon?

[SecularMotion]

15. It was also posted in the Gungeon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172175030