[Puffer Fish]

Here's a hypothetical for those of you who support lots of gun control restrictions.
Let's just suppose hypothetically here that all gun deaths were single homicides, where there was only one victim in the incident.

Supposing that was the case, would you still be demanding more gun control?

(In other words, are single homicides all by themselves enough reason for you to want more gun laws?)

Let's think about this for a moment.
Someone who would murder someone else with a gun is a murderer, they are capable of murder. If someone is a murderer and they want to kill a single victim, they hardly need to have a gun to be able to do so, now do they?

Now, I'm not going to argue that not having guns would not reduce the murder rate at all, but I do question how much it would actually reduce the murder rate.
If you decrease the murder by a gun rate, the rates of murder by other things are just going to increase.

I think it's fair to say a would-be murderer is a murderer, and you can't know who they are until they kill somebody.

Even assuming taking away a gun stops them from carrying out a killing, it's just going to delay them and they'll likely just carry out a murder a few years later.
That's not really going to do much to help decrease homicide rates.

A few statistics from the U.S.:
Something like 86% of gun homicide incidents only involve a single victim, and incidents where 4 or more people are killed at the same time account for less than 0.6% of total gun homicides (most years).


Two other threads:
essays on disarmament in history (posted in Libertarianism, 19 Nov 2020 )
Those who sell guns to criminals should not be held responsible for crimes committed (posted in Conservatism, 16 Apr 2023)

[ingliz]

Supposing that was the case, would you still be demanding more gun control?

Yes

Why?

Shooting someone is relatively easy and impersonal when most other ways to kill are messy and up close where the chances of being on the wrong end of the violence are high. Make killing messy, up close, and personal, where you're gambling on the outcome, and most people will think twice before acting on a whim.

I am not saying people shouldn't own a gun, but making it more difficult will lower the homicide rate.

How?

Simple

Fewer firearms equals fewer firearm deaths.

How do you make things more difficult?

Take your pick.

But, without bans, tying people up in red tape, having them wait, and charging them for the privilege of being tied up waiting usually works a treat.

Examples:

Mandatory membership of a local gun club with the clubs having a statutory duty to report aberrant behavior

Mandatory registration of firearms with your local police department - Licenses

Mandatory training courses with proof of attendance

A mandatory minimum number of range sessions per year, sessions to be logged, and ammo expended to be signed off by a registered RCO

An ammunition log complete with receipts of ammo bought and ammunition expended, numbers to tally, to be presented before renewing a license.

An annual written exam on state and federal firearms law before a license is renewed

Ditto an annual safety exam

Tri-annual medical and psychiatric tests

Random inspection regimes

Etc., etc.

[Puffer Fish]

I am not saying people shouldn't own a gun, but making it more difficult will lower the homicide rate.

How?

Simple

Fewer firearms equals fewer firearm deaths.

But it will not necessarily lower the homicide rate.

Yes, you might reduce the number of homicides that are carried out using a gun.

If there is a problem of people being stabbed with red-coloured knives, and you take away all the red-coloured knives and replace them with blue, you could claim that it would stop people from being stabbed with red-coloured knives.

The real question is what percentage of murders are planned out, with the murderer having every opportunity to target that person. And I believe that makes up a very large percentage of total gun murders.

Obviously, for example, if a wife decided to employ a hitman to knock off her husband and the husband was later found dead from a gunshot wound, taking away the gun would have done nothing to prevent the killing.

[Puffer Fish]

Mandatory membership of a local gun club with the clubs having a statutory duty to report aberrant behavior

Mandatory registration of firearms with your local police department - Licenses

Mandatory training courses with proof of attendance

Anyone who is being realistic will recognise that things such as this are very unlikely to prevent any homicides.


And when it comes to killings between and by profession criminals, I doubt you will be much more successful with stomping out guns than government has been with illegal drugs. Obviously a drug dealer selling large amounts of illegal drugs is going to have no qualms about illegally selling guns. Indeed, many drug dealers need to have a gun to defend themselves and reasonably operate their business, especially since they cannot go to police for help.

[ingliz]

@Puffer Fish

Are you saying Americans have a 'killer' gene?

Other countries with sensible gun laws have much lower homicide rates.

"being realistic"

Being realistic, it will reduce the number of people owning firearms as all these measures will cost potential gun owners time and money.

No opportunity for instant gratification and a long hard slog through bureaucracy will put many people off buying a gun they don't need.

"Mandatory training courses"

This will save lives as there will be fewer negligent discharges, fewer kabooms due to poor maintenance, fewer idiots shooting themselves trying to clear a stoppage, and more shooters hitting their targets.

[Rich]

Only murderers will use a gun to commit murder

This is just wrong. A huge percentage of murders are committed by people who are not murderers. As to the people who have become murderers, I'm not one hundred percentage sure of the statistics, but I think you will find that the majority of murderers will never commit a murder.

[late]

Here's a hypothetical

Here's reality..