Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are pro-gun supporters so unwilling to look at instances where gun control works? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Following the latest incident in Vegas, the gun issue in America has been brought up again, and all I ever see is Americans ranting about how gun control doesn't work. I don't understand why people who are pro gun are so unwilling to look at instances where gun control works? There are cases where gun control doesn't work, and gun control doesn't stop all violence, but there are countless instances of gun control working? Why are people not even prepared to look at those examples? How many times does something like this need to happen before America actually acknowledges their problem with guns? I know it's tied into money and the fact the government often has their hands tied on the issue, but I'm referring to every day citizens who won't even give it the time of day.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This looks at it rather well:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts

    ahnd this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8e49bc4923f9

    The influence of the gun lobby, mainly the manufacturers, led by the NRA, especially on Republicans, is toxic and pervasive.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmmaRebecca1997)
    Following the latest incident in Vegas, the gun issue in America has been brought up again, and all I ever see is Americans ranting about how gun control doesn't work. I don't understand why people who are pro gun are so unwilling to look at instances where gun control works? There are cases where gun control doesn't work, and gun control doesn't stop all violence, but there are countless instances of gun control working? Why are people not even prepared to look at those examples? How many times does something like this need to happen before America actually acknowledges their problem with guns? I know it's tied into money and the fact the government often has their hands tied on the issue, but I'm referring to every day citizens who won't even give it the time of day.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVus...JSfWtblaY3-iky
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmmaRebecca1997)
    I don't understand why people who are pro gun are so unwilling to look at instances where gun control works?
    Because, fundamentally, these people believe that gun ownership should be a right, not a privilege under the purview of the state.

    A right is something that can be exercised regardless of its wider social utility. Ultimately, a right is something that says "even if we accept that this thing is actually detrimental to wider society, the law still allows it to be done".

    Most of us of course accept a great many rights in that sense in everyday life. What we do with our property may not fall into someone's conception of good, or may even be actively negative to the community we live in - but, in our views, we own it and that is that. This means of course that no matter how effective gun control might be at reducing gun deaths, these people still believe they ought to be entitled to own them.

    Where we draw the line in these terms is, of course, rather arbitrary. We could, for example, end all traffic deaths tomorrow by entirely banning the use of private cars, but we don't. We accept those deaths as being part of something more useful to us.

    But of course rights themselves have to be justified in a wider sense: there is no point in simply asserting a right unless a case can be made for it - not in all circumstances, but in a broader interest. Gun ownership is a tricky one: people can point to their legitimate self-defence, or the old American principle that the people ought to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical state or whatever - or even simply because things like hunting and shooting are desired by many while crimes are committed by a relative few.

    There's rarely a silver bullet in debate on these terms. The key point is that we are intellectually honest. I would question if many pro-gun advocates in the US really do think that gun control doesn't work - or if the cases they make in this regard are actually just nice-sounding arguments to try and defend a position they hold but don't think will be as popular.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Because the pro-gun point of view has nothing to do with the practicalities of whether gun control works or not at reducing incidents of gun violence. Many (if not most) pro-gun people would admit that gun control would reduce gun crime, it would reduce the number of people who are killed by guns but none of that is particularly relavent given what their argument is:

    They’re not arguing that more guns = less gun crime, they’re arguing that they should have the right to own a firearm. As analogy, there are people who argue that Nazis (for example) should not have free speech, should not be protected from violence etc. Because of ... safety, because on the balance of probabilities it’s better to deny Nazis their civil liberties ‘less they become able to gain traction and we have a second Hitler (I know Godwin’s law =P ). Now, I disagree with the conclusions of that argument in any case (i.e. that it is dangerous to allow Nazis to have basic civil liberties, I would in fact argue the opposite), but even if I agreed with them I would still wholeheartedly defend the rights of Nazis to exist, to hold their views, to express their views, to have equal protection under the law ... etc. The practicalities don’t matter, that right is important and it is valuable in and of itself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This looks at it rather well:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts

    ahnd this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8e49bc4923f9

    The influence of the gun lobby, mainly the manufacturers, led by the NRA, especially on Republicans, is toxic and pervasive.
    You do realise the NRA isn’t a big political contributor financially? Their influence comes from having five million voters. As a side not they’re also calling for further regulation on bump stocks (not that it’ll mean much, they’re very easy to make yourself)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You do realise the NRA isn’t a big political contributor financially
    You astound me. The NRA spends over $3 million on lobbying alone, and this is the tip of the iceberg. It spends massive amounts more in contributions to politicians around the country, and has an overall budget of $250 million. Its members are well known to vote according to candidates' stance on this single issue.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35261394


    The NRA spends about $250m per year, far more than all the country's gun control advocacy groups put together. But the NRA has a much larger membership than any of those groups and disburses funds for things such as gun ranges and educational programmes.

    In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy - the recorded spend on lobbying in 2014 was $3.3m. That is only the recorded contributions to lawmakers however, and considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track.

    Analysts point out that the NRA also wields considerable indirect influence via its highly politically engaged membership, many of whom will vote one way or another based on this single issue. The NRA publicly grades members of Congress from A to F on their perceived friendliness to gun rights. Those ratings can have a serious effect on poll numbers and even cost pro-gun control candidates a seat.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares. Let the Americans kill each other or have a loved one die to a gun so they can have their beloved right to bear arms.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It doesn't work. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US and they have the most gun violence. Europe actually has more mass shootings than the US does. Hard to believe, and something I didn't believe until I looked it up. Show me where it has worked and I'll look at the data.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The second amendment states that people have the right to bear arms.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EagleKingdom)
    The second amendment states that people have the right to bear arms.
    we ****ing get that, but the argument is that the limitations of this "right" NEED to be strengthened NOW. And the only way to do that is getting to the NRA as well as securing borders in other countries so people can't smuggle them in at docks and ports.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    It doesn't work. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US and they have the most gun violence. Europe actually has more mass shootings than the US does. Hard to believe, and something I didn't believe until I looked it up. Show me where it has worked and I'll look at the data.
    Can you cite your sources?

    I already found evidence that cotradicts your claim, mass shootings in europe:
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4...europe-in-2016

    Mass shootings in America:
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/x...europe-in-2016

    I counted 35 mass shootings in Europe and I didn't bother counting the number of these atrocities in the US since the list was so large.

    In Europe
    53 dead, 169 injured

    In America:
    392 dead, 1,502 injured

    As you can see, there were way more mass shootings in America than there were in Europe and way more died from these in America.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    It really makes no sense. The amendment was drawn up by confederate white people who were threatened by large black population. It's roots are inherently racist. And yet it's the only amendment that's been left virtually untouched (apart from the banning of automatic rifles which really is pointless given the use of a bump stock).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyrell221)
    It really makes no sense. The amendment was drawn up by confederate white people who were threatened by large black population. It's roots are inherently racist. And yet it's the only amendment that's been left virtually untouched (apart from the banning of automatic rifles which really is pointless given the use of a bump stock).
    Good try on the false flag tactic.

    Of course, if you weren't intending to do such a thing, then you are just incredibly ignorant.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You astound me. The NRA spends over $3 million on lobbying alone, and this is the tip of the iceberg. It spends massive amounts more in contributions to politicians around the country, and has an overall budget of $250 million. Its members are well known to vote according to candidates' stance on this single issue.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35261394


    The NRA spends about $250m per year, far more than all the country's gun control advocacy groups put together. But the NRA has a much larger membership than any of those groups and disburses funds for things such as gun ranges and educational programmes.

    In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy - the recorded spend on lobbying in 2014 was $3.3m. That is only the recorded contributions to lawmakers however, and considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track.

    Analysts point out that the NRA also wields considerable indirect influence via its highly politically engaged membership, many of whom will vote one way or another based on this single issue. The NRA publicly grades members of Congress from A to F on their perceived friendliness to gun rights. Those ratings can have a serious effect on poll numbers and even cost pro-gun control candidates a seat.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/cl...0082&year=2017
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...&id=D000000082
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I told you that. But you ignore the bit that said:

    considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track.

    Obviously, much of the NRA's expenditure is deliberately obscured. Don't forget it is essentially an arms industry representative.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I told you that. But you ignore the bit that said:

    considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track.

    Obviously, much of the NRA's expenditure is deliberately obscured. Don't forget it is essentially an arms industry representative.
    That’s a cop out, you don’t get to avoid proving your claim by saying ‘it’s difficult to find the evidence but I’ll report it as fact anyway’
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    That’s a cop out, you don’t get to avoid proving your claim by saying ‘it’s difficult to find the evidence but I’ll report it as fact anyway’
    I didn't report anything as a fact. I quoted a BBC report, which said that the spending is difficult to track. Do you deny what the NRA is set up to do?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    More Americans have died from domestic gun violence since 1968 than have been killed in every single war the USA has fought in ever [1]

    Number of fascist dictatorships prevented by guns since the inception of the USA: Still zero

    [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/la...mbined-n807156
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I didn't report anything as a fact. I quoted a BBC report, which said that the spending is difficult to track. Do you deny what the NRA is set up to do?
    And I didn’t say it was you reporting but what are doing is trying pass off an article which essentially acknowledges its sources are nonexistent as proof of something. No, I haven’t mentioned anything about why it was set up and don’t really see why it’s relevant
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 9, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.