When a shooting makes the news, someone will often claim that those killed would still be alive if the person who killed them did not have a gun. A talking point response to this is to point out that by this reasoning, if OJ Simpson did not have a knife, then the people who were allegedly killed by him would still be alive.
This talking point does, in a mean way, make a reasonable point. After all, people can kill without guns. Knives have been used to kill people. Other tools have been used in violence as well, including such bizarre ones as frozen animals (or their parts). As such, getting rid of guns would not eliminate murders or suicide. From this some people conclude that nothing new should be done about guns.
Guns make killing easier as they are tools designed for that task. As such, if people did not have guns, they would have to use other means of killing, most of which make killing people more difficult. This would reduce the number of killings in the same way that if there were no cars, then Americans would be less likely to go places. If a person must work harder to accomplish a task, they are usually less likely to attempt that task.
It is also worth considering that a gun makes impulse killing easier. After all, a person can point the gun and pull the trigger and this allows little time for thought. If people had to use slower means of killing, they might pause between the impulse to kill and the act of killing. Then again, this might have little impact. After all, a person can stab with a knife almost as fast as shooting a modern gun.
People also correctly point out that a gun can do a lot of damage, making death more likely than with many alternative means of violence. For example, a gun will usually do more damage than a club or a fist. But there are weapons that can match guns in lethality, such as a knife, crossbow or automobile. But these are harder to use, thus reducing the chances that someone will be able to kill other people, especially many other people. There are obvious reasons, for example, that no one uses a crossbow to attempt a mass shooting. But to be fair and balanced, a person can hurt many people by driving a car into a crowd or slashing people with a knife.
But it does make sense that getting rid of guns would reduce the number of deaths in the United States. However, there is the question of the significance of the impact and the costs associated with eliminating guns. After all, getting rid of automobiles would significantly reduce deaths, yet most Americans would argue that this would not be worth the cost. The usual trump card people play is the Second Amendment, arguing that gun ownership is a legal right. But the obvious reply is that Constitutional rights (including gun rights) are limited and the Constitution can be amended. In the Free State of Florida, for example, the rulers of the state routinely pass laws limiting First Amendment rights, although these sometimes do get overturned.
Another talking point is that “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” A more recent social media variant seems to argue that gun control laws should not be passed because criminals will just ignore them. The obvious problem is that this reasoning can be applied to anything and thus lead to absurdity. For example, if meth is illegal, then only criminals will have meth. While that is true, it does not give us a good reason to not try to control meth.
A final point of consideration is the usual talking point that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This is true. After all, people do not (in general) kill just because they have guns. Rather, they use guns to kill because they have a reason (or think they have a reason) to kill. As such, banning guns would not address the foundational cause of violence, since taking away guns would not take away the reasons people kill. So, one might conclude, guns should not be banned like comedians Trump dislikes. But this is more of an argument in favor of addressing the root causes of gun violence than a good argument against banning guns. While the right is often happy to blame mental illness, they generally do not support meaningful efforts to address the mental health crisis in the United States or other causal factors behind gun violence.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.