Is Gun Control Really Necessary?

in #informationwar6 years ago (edited)

The debate about Gun control has been a hot topic in the United States, especially thanks to the massive shootings that have recently taken place within the world superpower, some calling for control in a country where there are a huge number of weapons, others calling for the laws to be kept intact as they have been since the United States has been the United States, defending the Second Amendment, the question is this: Is Gun control really necessary?


Source

Before I review the statistics and begin to speak more fully on the subject, it is necessary to know what the Second Amendment of the United States says: "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." With that in mind, we know that the United States is a country where you can buy weapons without many restrictions, which means that more than 40% of the population has at least one weapon in their possession. And they also represent the majority of murders in the vast majority of countries around the world, whether they have gun control or not, because a criminal who is willing to kill or harm will always get a gun, whether it's a gun or a knife to commit the crime. Trying to implement gun control in a country with as many guns as the United States would be the equivalent of cutting off your leg and using a band-aid to stop the bleeding, it would be futile and would not prevent further crime, just as banning the carrying of knives in England is absurd and requiring a driver's license does not prevent tragedy. Some will say, ok, but there is a "control" yes, but the worst thing about that control is that, as I said before, it would not prevent anything at all, quite the contrary, we know by common sense that a criminal will always be armed, gun control will only disarm good people who are law-abiding and who only carry them for self-defence. And there are a lot of cases and statistics that support what I'm saying.

"While it is true that gun-free zones can keep law-abiding citizens from overreacting and turning simple altercations into lethal shootouts, a person bent on committing a mass shooting can be counted on to seek out soft targets – i.e., places where guns aren't allowed. For that reason, gun control in the form of gun-free zones can facilitate gun violence by leaving law-abiding citizens exposed." Source


Click here to see more statistics

In the United States there is less and less crime but more and more weapons, this is a lapidary argument for those who say that more weapons translate into more crime, it is false, and the statistics show it, in fact, in many other countries of the world, the rates of crime by firearms do not vary much regardless of whether there is gun control or not, in the case of the United States these assaults are falling for decades and here the Bureau of Justice Statistics This is demonstrated, in short, by 2011:

  • Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
  • Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
  • Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
  • From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.
  • Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.
  • About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.

"No nation is free of murder and assault. Granted, guns do make the job easier, but in places like the UK, knives and blunt objects are still regularly used for acts of assault. It is true that victims of assault are more likely to survive, but the raw rate of assaults in gun-banning nations isn't much lower than it is in America." Source

Ben Shapiro Destroys Gun Control

According to the statistics and the FBI handguns represent the vast majority of killings in the United States, however if you ban the guns, you must ban the rifles, otherwise it wouldn't make sense, but of course, this would be totally against the second amendment, so many arms control supporters simply ask to ban the assault rifles, but, assault rifles represent a number of deaths "similar" to knives, will they ban the knives as well? it would be absurd to ban assault weapons in that case and it could be a kind of "first step", disarming a population is something more serious than it seems, we saw what the Nazis did when they took the weapons from the Jews, to give just one example... In my opinion the debate is not about having weapons or not.... It is about having "Control" and that is all.

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson

#ReferencesTitles
1Guns In AmericaA Factual Look At Guns In America
2Bureau of Justice StatisticsFirearm Violence, 1993-2011
3FBIMurder Victims by Weapon, 2012–2016
4Just FactsGun Control
5The FederalistGuns Don’t Kill People, But Gun Bans Do
6Pew Research CenterThe Demographics of Gun Ownership
7Pew Research Center5 Facts About Crime in the U.S.
8RankerHere's Why Gun Control Doesn't Make Sense Right Now
9Youtube"NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUN!" Ben Shapiro DESTROY Gun Control

Information War Icon.png
Information War.png
If you are passionate about the search for truth join @informationwar

Firma de La República.jpg
Invitación La República.png
Join my project in Spanish named @larepublica

Signature-of-Steemit.jpg

Sort:  

Unfortunately, this argument is not as it appears.

There are three sides to this debate. Freedom, Security and Control.

We all know that giving up freedom for security gives you neither.
Still, those arguing for security are arguing from an emotion. And emotions are not quelled by statistics or facts.

However, the ENTIRE reason that "assault weapons" are even debated is because of the 3rd side in this argument. Those that want control. Control of the entire population. They do not care if the wolves kill the sheep. What they care about is complete control. Gun violence is not a concern, keeping people from opposing the police officer is the concern.

So, since we have three sides, and only talk about two of them, we will never reach an agreement. Further, we have facts fighting emotions. In this case, emotions always win... until they die from being smooshed by facts. Reality is harsh.

Well, my outlook on this definatly has changed over time - not surprising that i wouldve been very opposed to guns as a german.
Yes, they do sometimes stop criminals. And more often than they kill others they are used for suicide - and while id prefer to go out on an OD of heroin, which allegedly doesnt feel much different than a normal trip till you go out which typicly is seen as pleasurable... And its much cleaner than blowing your brains out. But enough of that tangent, i definatly think people having the means to decide over their own body and life is a good thing.

To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:

Outlook good

Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by DaniSciB from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.