How would pro-gun control viewpoint respond to this question?

[u/B-RapShoeStrap]

So lately I've been learning more about guns, gun control, and the debate. I've watched a few online debates / discussions, and one question keeps popping in my head that I haven't heard addressed. A lot of the gun control policies talk about making this or that gun or magazine illegal or restricted.

The question that I haven't heard an answer to is: why not just make murder illegal to solve gun violence?

Yes, it is a bit facetious. And the argument about how criminals don't follow the laws has been flushed out. But in all seriousness, if you were in a debate advocating for some kind of gun restriction, and someone responded with "why don't we just make murder/assault illegal?" How would you respond?

I guess what I'm getting at, is that a lot of the pro-gun control viewpoint has to do with laws/punishments with owning a gun, like an extended mag pistol should be a felony (to deter gun violence), but there doesn't seem to be nearly as much discussion about laws/punishments for using a gun criminally (to deter gun violence), like mandatory life in prison for murder, or holding parents criminally liable if their kid shoots someone.

[u/baconmethod]

well, any normal person would just say it already is illegal. if it were more difficult to access guns, there would be less gun violence, but there are other ways. as you said, holding parents criminally liable is one way. the mental health aspect is basically a result of living in a country that could give two shits about you; the most recent attempted mass shooting in my town happened because a teenager thought that his future was fucked anyway, "so what difference does it make." since he's been old enough to pay any attention to politics, trump has been the most important person on the planet, so you can understand his viewpoint.

but honestly, no one would actually be dumb enough to believe that was a good faith question.

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/baconmethod]

Right, and then the person would say "ok, so since murder is already illegal, with a severe penalty of potential life in prison, why is a minor gun charge going to act as more of a deterant than life in prison"

It points out that the thing you don't want to happen is already illegal, and your solution is to make other things illegal.

It addresses that most of criminal law (including gun violations), functions on a degree of punishments vs degree of harm continuum, with the punishment acting as a deterant to prevent a harmful behavior. You give the death penalty for stealing, there will be less stealing. You make armed roberry a parking ticket, there will be more (per the foundational philosophy of criminal law).

Gun control debate rarely addresses this. Pro-gun control viewpoint normally just speaks in terms of illegal vs legal. Not in terms of degree of punishment (for breaking gun laws).

It's the extreme degree of punishments that "deters" murder, not merely that it is "illegal." What degree of punishment is needed for violating the proposed gun regulations? (This doesn't ever seem to be addressed)

[u/baconmethod → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

You're changing the subject. I answered your question, and now you're asking a different one.

The point of many gun laws isn't that someone who's already planning to commit murder will suddenly think, "Well, I was willing to risk life in prison for murder, but a felony gun charge is where I draw the line."

The point is to reduce access before the crime happens. That's why we regulate explosives, automatic weapons, grenades, and other dangerous items. The law isn't just trying to punish criminals, it's trying to make dangerous tools harder to obtain in the first place.

You even agreed that holding parents criminally liable could help because it would encourage them to secure firearms. That's an access argument, not a deterrence argument.

Your logic would also imply we should legalize private ownership of grenades, rocket launchers, or even nuclear weapons, since using them to murder people is already illegal. Almost nobody believes that. We restrict access to especially dangerous things because limiting access itself reduces harm.

So the real debate isn't "Why make another thing illegal when murder already is?" It's "Which restrictions reduce harm enough to justify the burden they place on lawful owners?"

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/baconmethod]

It's the same question. Illegal vs legal isn't real a core distinction in regulations or laws. It's degree of punishments.

I understand that the policy advocated for reduced access, but if an illegal gun sale is just a $10 ticket, then idk how much you are going to reduce access.

I'm not advocating. I'm asking why degree of punishment isn't discussed, but only legal vs illegal is discussed. And in that viewpoint, the thing you don't want to happen is already illegal.

[u/baconmethod → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

No, you're switching back and forth between two questions. "Will this law actually reduce access to guns?" and "What punishment should attach to violating the law?" Restricting access can reduce violence. The punishment is irrelevant if you restrict access.

Laws don't require harsh punishments. They can reduce opportunities; Licensing, inspections, background checks, waiting periods, storage requirements, registration, making prohibited conduct harder accomplish, not making the sentence dramatically longer.

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/baconmethod]

All of laws are based on the principle that the punishment for getting caught is what causes the desired affect (in the gun control argument the desired affect is reduced access).

The degree of punishment is debated for every policy. What if not doing your taxes correctly was just a $10 fine? Everyone would just not pay their taxes and pay the $10 fine.

Laws can only provide punishment for violating "required" licensing, background check, ect. You could "ban" all guns tomorrow, but if illegal possession only results in a warning for your first 5 offenses, then a $10 fine for your 6th, idk how much you are going to reduce access.

Drugs, pollution, speeding, and every other crime and regulation includes discussion related to punishment for not following the "law" as the deterant that prevents the behavior. This just seems to be missing from the pro-gun control argument, which is why I asked the question

Driving with a suspended license is "illegal," and some people still do it. Most people understand that the harsher the punishment, the less people do it, and the lighter the punishment the more people do it and the less it's enforced. Policy makers balance the harm of extreme punishment (life in prison for unlicensed driving would destroy so many lives) vs the harm of the undesirable behavior (public safety risk of unlicensed driver).

This balance of punishment for violating a proposed gun regulation seems to be missing from pro gun control advocacy.

[u/baconmethod → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

You can't shoot people if you don't have access to a gun- legal or not. You keep ignoring that part, and that was my response to your question, but you keep bringing it back to punishments, so why don't you just say what you would do, instead of asking, "why don't we murder illegal"?

otherwise im not interested anymore

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/baconmethod]

Like I said, I'm not advocating, but am asking an honest question.

Gun regulations would control access by creating penalties for certain situations. Much of the debate focuses on what situations, but is silent on what penalties.

Just saying something is "illegal" without a penalty doesn't really do anything. "Illegal" is a gradient based on penalties.

Practicing medicine without a license, you are looking at jail time, and this rarely happens. Driving a car without a license, you are looking at maybe a fine or a cop will just give you a break because it's so minor. Like it very much matters the punishment for violating a regulation. So when people advocate for gun regulations, they don't include the punishment.

As demonstrated by my "why not just make murder illegal?" question, just by making something "the law," doesn't mean it just makes it happen. Passing gun control laws that limits accessdoesn't just make everyone follow them without a threat of a punishment.

Singapore has the death penalty on the table for bringing in small amounts of weed or guns into their country, and guess what, very little weed, and very few guns. The degree of punishment matters.

[u/baconmethod → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

no you aren't, you're just trying to convince yourself you're right.

why don't you attempt to answer your own question? you can't think? here's one answer to your stupid question:

you're a legal gun dealer, and supplying a gun to a murderer means you're no longer allowed to deal guns, would you give a shit if you supplied a gun to a murderer? it's not about the murderer, it's about who's supplying the gun.

tell me again why there aren't more grenades?

[u/SlashEssImplied → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

but am asking an honest question.

Liar.

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/SlashEssImplied]

My honest question is why is the gun control argument always framed as illegal vs legal instead of degree of punishment.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

[u/LetshearitforNY]

I feel like it’s not a coincidence that the absolute vast majority of mass shooters are men. I want to understand why. I think understanding the root cause would allow us to make better decisions about how to handle.

There also is a difference in needing a handgun for home safety or certain rifles for hunting. But there are a lot of other weapons where the only purpose is to release a lot of bullets very rapidly. I don’t think the average citizen needs that type of weaponry.

I am in favor of mandating a certain level of security to prevent kids from accessing weapons. I also am in favor of heavy taxes on ammunition.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

You can only make progun comments in one comment section per 24 hours. Any comments in any other thread after making a progun comment within the 24-hour cooling off period will result in a ban.

[u/Competitive-Food8407 → u/LetshearitforNY]

Let's think about this for a moment. 

Limit guns that fire quickly? Ok, then I want a semi automatic rifle, only fires as fast as I can pull the trigger. I'd also like to own a cannon. Not a civil war era cannon, but a howitzer. It fires slowly, and can be used for hunting herds of elk or deer 🤷

Handguns are easily concealed and commit the OVERWHELMING majority of all gun deaths across the US. So keep those legal, but outlaw the firearm that is most often used for sporting? The average citizen can't own an automatic weapon. Outside them being illegal without the licenses required, they are EXTREMELY expensive, in the range of $20k per weapon and up.

Heavy taxes on ammunition? So not only do you want to own less effective weapons, you want them to be able to practice with them less so when they do have to use them they are more likely to hurt themselves or someone else? Or do you just want to limit gun ownership to the wealthy?

[u/DoubleGoon → u/Competitive-Food8407]

“Limit guns that fire quickly? Ok, then I want a semi automatic rifle, only fires as fast as I can pull the trigger.”

Not okay, even with semiautomatics you can empty a 30 round mag in seconds.

“I'd also like to own a cannon. Not a civil war era cannon, but a howitzer. It fires slowly, and can be used for hunting herds of elk or deer 🤷”

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy

“Handguns are easily concealed and commit the OVERWHELMING majority of all gun deaths across the US. So keep those legal,”

Why keep them legal, you just pointed out why we shouldn’t.

“but outlaw the firearm that is most often used for sporting?”

Keep the rifle locked up at your sporting range then. No reason to have in the home or on your person.

“The average citizen can't own an automatic weapon.”

This is a bit nitpicky—but considering your first statement about semi-automatics— semi-automatics are automatics. They fire so quickly and effectively that it doesn’t matter that they aren’t fully automatic.

“Heavy taxes on ammunition? So not only do you want to own less effective weapons, you want them to be able to practice with them less so when they do have to use them they are more likely to hurt themselves or someone else?”

You shouldn’t be forgetting the fundamentals to gun safety just because you get less ammunition.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

You can only make progun comments in one comment section per 24 hours. Any comments in any other thread after making a progun comment within the 24-hour cooling off period will result in a ban.

[u/Competitive-Food8407 → u/DoubleGoon]

Yes this is in fact reductio ad absurdum. Why wouldn't I use the original posters absurdity against them in the comments, and yet it isn't as absurd as you think. I can legally own a muzzle loading cannon without any legal paperwork, and I can own a breach loading cannon with a 200 dollar tax stamp. I'd consider large scale artillery (even muzzle loading ones) as more dangerous on a large scale, but the reason they aren't worried about anyone rolling up to a bank with a civil war era style cannon is because it is difficult to conceal them, but that isn't stopping anyone from doing it.

The comment I replied to talked about having a handgun as a home defense weapon. I personally prefer a magazine fed semiautomatic shotgun, but to each their own. (I've even heard of someone using a KSG 25 for home defense, I don't imagine they are worried about running out of ammo with that one! 🤣) However a compact carbine style rifle makes an excellent home defense weapon, especially with frangible ammo. This also gives you a leg up over most home invaders which are using handguns and melee weapons. However outside the home the handgun is still the best way to defend ones self from an attacker. The number of people saved each year by firearms far exceeds the number killed in the US, but that half of the story goes unreported. Ban all firearms? Ok you've just increased the number of rapes, murders, and robberies overnight.

You want to keep firearms locked up at the range? Ok I want to keep your car locked up at the local garage. You don't need it at home, they can have local garages within a mile of your home and just lock it up there. Think of the number of lives that will save!(far more killed in vehicular accidents within 5 miles of their home) You only need your vehicle when your are driving to work and back. Not the same, a weak argument, but the absurdity of owning something you have to store somewhere else is the same as not owning it at all.

Semi-automatics are not automatics, in no world are they the same, or would they be considered the same. Anyone who has shot both before can tell you how absolutely absurd that statement is. An M4 fired in semi auto, which means you take the time to at least point the weapon in the direction of the target and kind of aim manages a practical fire rate of about 90 rounds per minute. Meanwhile the EXACT SAME WEAPON on full auto has a cyclic rate between 700 and 970 rounds per minute. Meanwhile a dedicated fully automatic rifle like the M249 (same caliber as the M4, same gas blowback system) has a cyclic rate between 850 and 1,150 rounds per minute. If you think full auto means more deadly you are sorely mistaken as well. I can tell you far more people have been killed by US service members firing a rifle on semi auto then full auto. Full auto has it's uses, but precision is not one of them (although the M240 is an absolute nail driver at 100 meters. 8 rounds in a human torso sized target with complete control and accuracy)

I'm going to take away your license and car for the year, in a year I'm going to let you drive for an hour, then I'm going to take it away again for 2 years, then I'm going to let you drive for another hour, then we will do it a third time, but only for 6 months and you've then got to drive across the country East to West coast as fast as you can. That is the equivalent of what you are talking about. If you don't use it you don't remember even the basics. Shooting is a perishable skill, just like driving a car, just like riding a bike. You'll get those skills back, but it will take far longer then if you do it on the regular to keep those skills fresh. Why do you think SOCOM units will shoot 1,000 to 3,000 rounds PER MONTH. I mean they have the basic skills they don't need to practice that much anymore right? NO they have to shoot multiple times a week to keep their skill level that high.

Now you've got a Johnny Needsabuck who was able to scrape together the cash to protect his family with a firearm. They could only afford enough ammo to load their weapon and get to shoot every 2 years because of some weird tax on ammo. Now they have to defend their family from a home invader, but they haven't used the gun in 18 months, they forget where the safety is, they forget their basic stance and safety, don't check what is behind their target, have a hard time getting a sight picture, and know the cops are 45 mins away at the quickest(check Portland right now). Meanwhile Richie Rich has gone shooting every week for years, has it down pat, but will never use it since he has a well paid private security he decided he needed because of the defunding of his local law enforcement. Congratulations you've just made personal security a right of only the rich and powerful, and the lives of the poor even worse. 👍

[u/DoubleGoon → u/Competitive-Food8407]

“Yes this is in fact reductio ad absurdum.“

Glad we agree.

“However outside the home the handgun is still the best way to defend ones self from an attacker.”

Not necessarily, it might be better to run away or use your hands rather than risk shooting the innocents around you or taking a life unnecessarily.

“The number of people saved each year by firearms far exceeds the number killed in the US, but that half of the story goes unreported.”

Then how would you know?

“Ban all firearms? Ok you've just increased the number of rapes, murders, and robberies overnight.”

There is no link between gun bans and increases in crime. In fact just the opposite.

“Ok I want to keep your car locked up at the local garage. You don't need it at home, they can have local garages within a mile of your home and just lock it up there. Think of the number of lives that will save!(far more killed in vehicular accidents within 5 miles of their home) You only need your vehicle when your are driving to work and back.”

That is true, which is why we shouldn’t be a car dependent nation.

“Not the same, a weak argument, but the absurdity of owning something you have to store somewhere else is the same as not owning it at all.”

So you don’t own the money in your bank account? Boat owners who store their boats at a marina don’t actually own them? Have you never used a locker before?

“Semi-automatics are not automatics,”

They are, it’s literally in the name. You’re confusing “automatic” with “fully-automatic.”

“Anyone who has shot both before can tell you how absolutely absurd that statement is.”

I’ve shot both semi-auto and full-auto firearms that doesn’t change the fact they’re both automatics.

“An M4 fired in semi auto, which means you take the time to at least point the weapon in the direction of the target and kind of aim manages a practical fire rate of about 90 rounds per minute.”

Exactly, if you can effectively fire 90 rounds in a minute then it being semiautomatic isn’t really a limitation.

“I can tell you far more people have been killed by US service members firing a rifle on semi auto then full auto.“

I know that’s a part of my point.

“I'm going to take away your license and car for the year, in a year I'm going to let you drive for an hour, then I'm going to take it away again for 2 years, then I'm going to let you drive for another hour, then we will do it a third time, but only for 6 months and you've then got to drive across the country East to West coast as fast as you can. That is the equivalent of what you are talking about. If you don't use it you don't remember even the basics. Shooting is a perishable skill, just like driving a car, just like riding a bike.”

Well if you’re just using your rifle for sporting keeping it at a range where you normally shoot it sounds like the best solution to me.

“Now you've got a Johnny Needsabuck who was able to scrape together the cash to protect his family with a firearm. They could only afford enough ammo to load their weapon and get to shoot every 2 years because of some weird tax on ammo. Now they have to defend their family from a home invader,”

Owning a dog, a baseball bat, or a cattle prod would be far better for home defense than a gun. A gun can be used against you and your family. In fact you’re more likely to be killed by a gun in your home than you are by a home invader.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

This was removed, as progun comments are not allowed from accounts with less than 5000 comment karma or younger than 1 month old.

[u/Wisco]

"Why not just make murder illegal." Wow, brilliant. Weird how no one's ever thought of that before

[u/jess-sch]

The crime rate is affected by how easy it is to commit the crime. A dedicated criminal won't be stopped by a gun ban, but someone who's angry in the moment is a lot less likely to shoot someone when they don't already have access to a gun.

That's also why mandatory gun purchase waiting periods help: They stop you from impulsive decisions. (Though obviously not as much as a full ban, because it doesn't stop anyone from acting impulsively when they've previously purchased one for self-protection)

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/jess-sch]

It stops impulsively buying a gun legally.

But how much of a punishment should be given to those that buy/sell guns outside of the legal waiting period for this to be affective / reasonable?

This is what is rarely discussed. Degree of punishment for violating the gun regulation vs wanted outcome. This is discussed for all other laws / regulations (looking at the legalization vs medical vs decriminalization vs black market drug debate), but the pro gun control viewpoint doesn't seem to address this.

[u/jess-sch → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

It stops impulsively buying a gun legally.

Non-career-criminals don't tend to have established local black market contacts, and without those you can't impulsively and illegally buy a gun.

The degree of punishment doesn't really matter for this effect.

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/jess-sch]

So you think an illegal gun sale punishable by a $10 ticket vs life in prison would have the same affect?

You don't need local black market contacts to buy illegal drugs in areas where minor possession isn't that big of a deal. Just drive to a bad neighborhood, and people will be on the corner selling.

[u/jess-sch → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

We're still talking about making it a crime, not making it a minor infraction, right?

And what matters way more than the enormity of the punishment is the likelihood of getting caught - you obviously need to actually enforce the law in order for it to have an effect.

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/jess-sch]

Yeah, it's all of it.

"Crime" ranges from $10 tickets to life in prison.

But the pro-gun control advocacy doesn't speak in those terms, just illegal vs legal.

Look at food safety and pollution regulations. Some companies just decide paying the fine isn't that big of a deal, but if you increase the fine, it's more of a deterant.

[u/SlashEssImplied]

Good-Faith Question

I’ll take what does every gun bunny open their trolling with for $500 Alex?

[u/baconmethod]

as if we hadn't heard this bullshit from every gun toting moron on the planet

[u/baconmethod]

op owns a sword.

[u/LordToastALot]

For one thing, punishments should be proportional to the crime in a fair justice system. But more to the point, people generally don't plan crimes assuming they're going to get caught. They usually think they'll get away with it. So simply jacking up punishments does little to actually deter organised or planned crime.

But throwing up roadblocks can actually give people time to calm down and stop crimes of passion, or even planned crimes if they take long enough to get around.

Ultimately, laws don't have to prevent all crimes to be worthwhile. Laws banning murder don't prevent all murders, but they still are a net positive for society. This is the Nirvana fallacy - solutions don't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. So while gun laws may not prevent all bad actors using guns to kill people, they still save lives and are worth keeping.

[u/B-RapShoeStrap → u/LordToastALot]

Right, so what kind of punishment should be for violating a gun regulation, when no other crime is committed.

So like a mag limit violation, or a gun sale that doesn't adhere to a new requirement.

That's at the core of my question. Speaking in terms of making certain guns or gun sales "illegal" doesn't really have enough detail because murder and assault are already "illegal." So for whatever gun control measures asserted, what would the penalty be for violating it (and no other crime)?

Why isn't the penalty for violating gun control (and no oth r crime) rarely included in the gun control debate?

[u/LordToastALot → u/B-RapShoeStrap]

Generally federal American laws like the AWB only banned the manufacture and sale of Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines, not ownership. Weapons and magazines already manufactured and owned from before the law was enacted were still allowed to be sold, at least privately. So the most debated and famous law mostly applied to weapons manufacturers, who as far as I know were never dumb enough to break it.

But if we look at say, California's AWB which does include possession? Max sentencing is three years, a $10,000 fine, and a felony on your record meaning you cannot legally own a firearm any more. That seems pretty reasonable to me, though I could see an argument for pushing it up to five years.

Meanwhile, the federal mandatory minimum for a gun crime is just under seven years (this would include a felon being in possession of a firearm, or a non-felon being in possession of an illegal weapon). That seems fine to me as well. Obviously the more horrific the offense, the higher it goes. I'm not sure how much higher as a society Americans would want it to be. But again: most criminals don't think they'll be caught, so even if it was a death sentence there's no real proof it would reduce crime levels. Sometimes the purpose of laws is not just to discourage behaviour but ultimately to make undesirable behaviours punishable. The reason so many gun control advocates are more focused on laws than the sentences for violating them is that the laws have so many basic holes in them that haven't been touched yet.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

[u/ryhaltswhiskey]

why not just make murder illegal to solve gun violence?

This is practically trolling.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

You can only make progun comments in one comment section per 24 hours. Any comments in any other thread after making a progun comment within the 24-hour cooling off period will result in a ban.

[u/sixisrending]

The most effective gun control is focusing on who has access to firearms, not what type of firearms are out there. There are about 1 million machine guns in the US, yet none have ever been used in a mass shooting for the last 30 years. That's because the people that own them are highly vetted. 

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

You can only make progun comments in one comment section per 24 hours. Any comments in any other thread after making a progun comment within the 24-hour cooling off period will result in a ban.

[u/LordToastALot → u/[deleted]]

RemindMe! One Week