I’m interested by these US stats that show basically zero correlation between gun ownership and gun murders by state.
Whilst I think such a comparison leaves huge amounts of further relevant detail to be explored, and in fact misses the point, the idea of zero correlation at such a macro level potentially still applying to the micro level on further investigation amuses me. This is because it would otherwise annihilate both sides of the argument:
Are you anti-gun? Well there’s no correlation between gun ownership and gun murders so all your fears were unfounded in practice after all. Deal with that!
But also, are you pro-gun? Well it turns out that all the rhetoric about needing a gun to protect yourself was equally unfounded in practice after all too. Suck it!
Of course, if this were true, despite the welcome respite that we would get from the most polarised commentators incessantly spouting what would have turned out to be fabricated drivel, nothing would change - because with no correlation it’s no longer an issue. So the US would keep their guns, but a least they’d have to eat some humble pie.
But what do these stats really mean?
They mean with however many guns lying around, as long as there are at least some, the vast majority of people still don’t want to use them against each other and don’t, and the ones who do will pick them up and cause much more devastation than if they weren’t around.
About this subject of criminals getting their hands on guns regardless of laws, that’s not the full story. You see, with guns few and far between, black markets do indeed still sell them but at vastly inflated prices. This is only enhanced by there being no legal avenue through which to acquire a gun, and who resorts to criminal behaviour if they’re rich enough to buy guns that cost obscene amounts? Also, when guns are everywhere, their use or even possession isn’t seen in the same way as if they are all banned. It’s like smoking when there’s been a ban on it. You might be against it while there’s no ban, but the degree to which you notice it sky-rockets once it’s banned. Additionally, even criminals don’t need guns, which are far more expensive than knives, when everyone is aware that nobody else has them. There is knowing that you know something, knowing that someone else knows something, but then there is also knowing that someone knows what you know, and even knowing that everyone knows what everyone else knows. The difference between these types of knowing is far more than you might think. Nobody seems to be appreciating the full consequences of banning guns, least of all the pro-gun people. We in countries that have banned them know for sure, by our own experience, how these things pan out. It really IS ok to just let them go. You don’t get enslaved, none of your fears come true - we are living evidence of this.
Yes, there are countries where this happens more so than in others.
In fact, ironically, the countries where banning guns matters least, having guns matters least too. The less you need them, the more you are ok to have them. In the US, you feel you need guns, and correspondingly you don’t deserve them.
A potential scenario that also interests me is based on the above: there might be a sweet spot that causes the most trouble with guns, and as long as you go to one extreme or the other, you’ll be ok. Like people have said, if people know everyone has guns, they’re less likely to use them because they have no advantage. And also, obviously, if nobody has guns, there’s no need to bring one because the advantage is not worth the cost to acquire it.
But what I think it comes down to is this:
Gangs are going to use guns. This will influence figures.
Regular people are only going to use guns on themselves or on others in extreme moments of emotion. The more we do to help prevent these states before they start the better. And when there are less deadly weapons available, the most severe thing at hand won’t be as dangerous and the consequences of the inevitable, occasional crime of passion will be alleviated.
Similarly to the above, mentally ill or unstable people are going to break and go on sprees regardless - but would you rather they did this with a knife or an automatic weapon?