telpinaro
New member
Had an interesting conversation with someone intelligent and able to listen, who happens to be in favor of gun control. And by gun control, she means nobody allowed to own guns in their home, for any reason. (Possibly be allowed to keep them in designated gun clubs that would have the ability to somehow store them securely for each individual owner.)
Here's where it gets interesting. She agrees that it would not lessen crime, and would likely increase crime. She agrees that criminals would still have guns to use against good people. However, she has found surprisingly credible information supporting the idea that countries with strict gun control have less people dead. Debunking the ?Guns Don?t Kill People, People Kill People? Myth | Armed With Reason was the most interesting. Some of the sources are biased (anything from UK or New York is suspect... lol), but a surprising amount weren't obviously so.
I'm not interested in disproving the article... frankly I don't care about the article, as one day when I have time, I'll try to find the straight numbers-from government crime statistics, not articles-of people dying in each country (if someone already has some of those, that'd be great!). Her logic is that if nobody had guns in their homes, there would be fewer successful impulsive suicides (true - part of a different conversation though so won't address it here), no children would be able to have accidents or shoot people at schools after finding parent's guns, and no psychotic people could steal guns from family members (obviously they could still buy them from criminals, but it's cheaper to steal from your relatives). That is ALL she is concerned about, and if nobody allowed to own guns will fix that, she's all for it. And frankly, nobody owning guns would lessen that type of thing. We all know the usual arguments, but she acknowledges them and says it would still be better for us all be forced to deal with less-lethal self-defense methods rather than letting kids take their parent's guns and the like. It's rather difficult to argue when she gives you all your points!
Sadly, the best way to counter this would be to let CA ban guns and see what happens in ten years or so. Anyone got any other methods? Any sources stating how few incidents/gun owner that aren't extremely conservative? (I don't blame her for not trusting anything that has any sort of agenda... I don't either.) I remember reading some a while ago... especially a cool one that weighted crime in each country where it turned out Belgium was the most violent and the US ranked about 12th. Having trouble finding it again, though...
Keep in mind that while we don't agree on this particular issue, I still love and respect her, so be nice! :smile: She's a good person who was raised in and never left CA, and is surrounded by liberals. A logical, non-angry approach may not change her mind, but will at least keep it open.
Here's where it gets interesting. She agrees that it would not lessen crime, and would likely increase crime. She agrees that criminals would still have guns to use against good people. However, she has found surprisingly credible information supporting the idea that countries with strict gun control have less people dead. Debunking the ?Guns Don?t Kill People, People Kill People? Myth | Armed With Reason was the most interesting. Some of the sources are biased (anything from UK or New York is suspect... lol), but a surprising amount weren't obviously so.
I'm not interested in disproving the article... frankly I don't care about the article, as one day when I have time, I'll try to find the straight numbers-from government crime statistics, not articles-of people dying in each country (if someone already has some of those, that'd be great!). Her logic is that if nobody had guns in their homes, there would be fewer successful impulsive suicides (true - part of a different conversation though so won't address it here), no children would be able to have accidents or shoot people at schools after finding parent's guns, and no psychotic people could steal guns from family members (obviously they could still buy them from criminals, but it's cheaper to steal from your relatives). That is ALL she is concerned about, and if nobody allowed to own guns will fix that, she's all for it. And frankly, nobody owning guns would lessen that type of thing. We all know the usual arguments, but she acknowledges them and says it would still be better for us all be forced to deal with less-lethal self-defense methods rather than letting kids take their parent's guns and the like. It's rather difficult to argue when she gives you all your points!
Sadly, the best way to counter this would be to let CA ban guns and see what happens in ten years or so. Anyone got any other methods? Any sources stating how few incidents/gun owner that aren't extremely conservative? (I don't blame her for not trusting anything that has any sort of agenda... I don't either.) I remember reading some a while ago... especially a cool one that weighted crime in each country where it turned out Belgium was the most violent and the US ranked about 12th. Having trouble finding it again, though...
Keep in mind that while we don't agree on this particular issue, I still love and respect her, so be nice! :smile: She's a good person who was raised in and never left CA, and is surrounded by liberals. A logical, non-angry approach may not change her mind, but will at least keep it open.
