13 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)
View submission: Guns and protection
I grew up in with guns for both hunting and protection. It’s almost a religion in the Midwest U.S. I don’t believe guns kill people. People kill people. HOWEVER, we’ve had an increasing lack of respect for life and willingness to commit violence in our country. Sometimes when things heat up, we have to look for solutions to cool things down. If a guy points a gun at someone, our first response shouldn’t be to give the other person a gun so that they can defend themselves. Our first response should be to try to talk the original guy into dropping his gun. There’s a reason why a lot of Old West towns outlawed guns in town: when things get heated, people are more likely to use them. That’s why I’m not against reasonable gun laws or even gun bans. I recognize that guns are not the problem, but at the same time if you want less deaths then less guns can only help. People argue for places like Switzerland where gun ownership is high while gun deaths are low. That’s obviously not the case here (although it used to be). People say if you outlaw guns, criminals will still have them. I could point out England where guns are basically outlawed and show you a minuscule amount of gun deaths. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. If we’re not willing to recognize the gravity of the situation, we’ll never be able to make the sacrifices necessary for a more peaceful society.
Comment by ElAwesomeo0812 at 02/12/2024 at 16:26 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
This is a very well thought out response and I respect your opinion. However I do want to ask a question. You mentioned that if someone has a gun pulled on someone else it is better to try and talk them off the ledge. If you're the person with a gun on you pulling your gun is going to do no good but someone else with a gun could potentially save their life. If you were the one with a gun pulled on you would you honestly want to wait til the police arrive and hope this person doesn't shoot you or would you want someone nearby with a gun to take care of the problem?
Comment by Head_Vermicelli7137 at 02/12/2024 at 19:34 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Gun deaths and violent crimes are way down in all areas
Comment by The_White_Ram at 03/12/2024 at 10:50 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The United States is just like Switzerland in that gun ownership has high and gun homicides are low.
England outlawed, guns and gun homicides are minuscule. The United States has not outlawed, guns and gun homicides are minuscule.
Gun homicides in the US are hyper rare and a large portion of them are clustered and small geographic areas and are very location specific.
Furthermore if your suggestion is that guns should be banned.You have to contend with the issue that the courts have ruled multiple times that police/government do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens. By law your own safety, security and protection in the US are 100% up to you. The police have as much legal obligation to protect you as a pizza delivery driver. Couple this with the fact that in reality the police don't have a realistic or accountable professional duty to protect you either and you come to the realization that if you are ever in danger you are completely on your own.
If someone's position is that they want ban guns purchased for defensive purposes and have police be the only ones with guns then the first step to actually making an argument to accomplish that is to make it a legal responsibility for police to actually protect people.
The courts have ruled 4 times that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens. Your safety, security and protection in the US are 100% up to you. (Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Lozito v. New York City, DeShaney v. Winnebago County)
In Lozito v. New York for instance; Maksim Gelham was on a 28 hour killing spree where 4 people were killed and 5 others were wounded. Gelman started attacking Joseph Lozito with a knife and literally stabbed him in the face. Two police officers who were LITERALLY ASSIGNED TO FIND GELHAM saw this happening and then WENT AND HID behind the locked door in the subway conductor car. They came out of hiding AFTER Lozito had disarmed Gelman and pinned him to the ground.
Lozito tried suing the officers for their failure to intervene and the lawsuit was dismissed because they argued successfully the police have no "special duty to protect" Lozito or anyone else.
The situation was also highlighted perfectly in Uvalde. The cops have no legal obligation to protect children from being shot but have the authority to stop parents from trying to save their kids. In my opinion those two things are mutually exclusive and must be sorted out before an argument can be made that a blanket ban is the best course.
It is also indicated in the Special Relationship Doctrine. The SRP is a legal principle that makes the state liable for the harm inflicted on the individual by a third party provided that the state has assumed control over the individual which is sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual. This shows that the governments default position is to NOT provide a duty to protect individuals UNLESS they take you into custody. If you are NOT in custody you are owed no protections from the government.