# data[].attributes.headline
Effects on young people... effects on old people...? IT CAN EFFECT ANYONE!

# data[].attributes.subject
Effects on young people... effects on old people...? IT CAN EFFECT ANYONE!

# data[].attributes.body
“It is almost impossible to understand what the victims, the families, are going through, what they feel, or even to be able to relate to a situation like this unless you’ve been in it,” Hudson told CNN’s Van Jones. “So for people who are watching . . . know that it can be anybody. It can happen to anybody.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like any subject that weaves its way round corpses, gun control discussions easily ignite the worst parts of us. Whether it's descent into name-calling, insults, ad hominems and similar lazy, childish tactics, or a dismissal of anyone other than those on "our" side, attempts at objectivity are often scarce. However, many of us, including myself, are in the advantageous position of ignorance: it is advantageous, since it means we have no excuse not to encounter and contemplate the best arguments on both "sides" of the debate.

To that end, I want to highlight two potent arguments I've encountered from two individuals who, more than likely, would disagree to large extents on gun control in the US.

I say "sides" because I'm very hesitant to portray sides in debates: important discussions are often more complicated than such a binary placement asserts. No one wants more innocent people dead; no one wants more children firing off guns in their home, killing family members. The difference depends on specific items of policy. These arguments highlight precisely this and, I hope, will show that indeed the "other side" do not comprise a set of evil, irrational individuals (there might be a few, but we'd be bad thinkers to assert that everyone who wants less gun control is a crazy, sky-shooting cowboy).
Argument 1.1: Guns Undermine Liberty
I've previously argued that individual liberty only has meaning if one is allowed to, basically, willingly destroy one's own body. That means, as long as you are not harming non-consenting others, you should be free to smoke, drink, even amputate your limbs - and, indeed, kill yourself. All of these come with caveats, of course: we might be ignorant to the extent such self-destruction might really have (on others). However, the larger point is not the encouragement for adult citizens to slowly destroy their bodies but the recognition that this civil society respects your autonomy, your personhood, to the point that, if you wish to harm yourself, such respect remains.

Freedom of speech similarly applies: we should be able to express even the most offensive of speech, without worry that mere offence is sufficient reason to stifle us (there might be other, better reasons to prevent it, based on legitimate concerns of harm). Under the guise of PC or "public morality", citizens are prevented from writing, acting, or expressing themselves, undermining the freedom not only of these artists, but of the audience too, in that their freedom to decide to be an audience is already prevented.

When the State starts deciding what is and isn't good for you, when it begins acting upon paternalistic grounds, then we ought to start worrying. Freedom only means something when we're free to act stupidly (again, all with caveats), when we're free to express ourselves.

Guns, however, change this dynamic entirely.

In the New York Times, Firmin DeBrabander argues that individual liberty is completely undermined by allowing citizens to wield guns.

"Guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name - that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech."

Those who long for a gun on every citizen would encourage an enforced "polite" society "precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening." We would "walk gingerly - not make any sudden, unexpected moves - and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend." A person who brandished a weapon would already be communicating that the conversation is over: there can be no discussion with such a person at all. The fullstop is in the barrel and he's willing to show you, if you decide to challenge him.

Free speech and expression can only exist with the knowledge that non-violence will be the response. But guns, by definition, would change that. DeBrabander asks us to imagine what would have happened had the non-armed Zuccoti Park protestors carried weapons when the police stormed.
Argument 1.2: Guns Poison Power
Against such powerful points, gun control advocates assert that by undermining our ability to arm, we allow complete government despotism a greater chance of reality. By being armed, we can stand up to a regime of control. But this encourages an extreme individualism, not a coherent community - since we are not asking for a select group of trained individuals to be the only and trusted bearers of arms, but everyone. This is a distrust of community, since gun control advocates are saying as soon as we allow one group guns (army, police, etc.), the rest of us open up to servility under their armed hands, pulled by the strings of their master (the government).

Citing Foucault, DeBrabander points out that "nothing suits power so well as extreme individualism". After all, this makes it easier to take control, since instead of a large opposing group, you have many disparate, self-regarding opponents. Thus, instead of aiding liberty against a powerful state, it aids a powerful state in taking more liberty.

But there is reason to consider the importance of being armed, as Sam Harris highlights.
Argument 2.0 Guns Can Protect in a Violent World
A popular argument from gun rights advocates it that if you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns. This means only "bad" guys would have guns, while good people would by definition be at a disadvantage. There are various responses to this: who decides who's a "good" or "bad" guy; even in the hands of innocent people, guns can escalate a crime situation unnecessarily; due to the insane nature of attacks, robberies, etc., one will not act like a John McClane but more like a quivering mess, which is the worst mindset to be in when holding a powerful weapon.

Thus, would it not be better to regulate guns more effectively, instead of getting rid of them altogether? Criminals will get hold of guns - indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one - and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever. I'm not certain outlawing all guns is the solution, because of this. It doesn't, however, mean we should all be armed, but I don't know how to square that at the moment.

But Sam Harris goes further and correctly so: He doesn't wish for a world without guns at all. According to him, people who wish for this do not understand violence or its nature. "A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene." The Kitty Genovese case comes to mind, where bystanders only watched while a young woman was brutally murdered. Would a gun have helped? Perhaps.

Harris undermines the rebuttal that these situations are sudden, shocking and thus would mean good people shooting recklessly.

"The liberal commentariat seems to have no awareness of what "well-trained" signifies. It happens to include an understanding of what to do and what not to do when the danger of shooting innocent bystanders exists. The fact that bystanders do occasionally get shot, even by police officers, does not prove that putting guns in the hands of good people would be a bad idea. Gun-control advocates seem always to imagine the worst possible scenario: legions of untrained, delusional vigilantes producing their weapons at a pin drop and firing indiscriminately into a crowd."

Harris here is calling for better and more training; better laws, not all-encompassing and totally restrictive ones.

As many have pointed out, this still doesn't undermine the data indicating guns increase chances of death - even when kept at home - and so on. The usual retort that risk is everywhere might be boring to hear, but remains true. Yes, guns are "designed" for killing whereas knives are not, but that doesn't mean you can't have incidents of knife-attacks. Guns can level the playing field, especially for women - who are often the targets of violent crimes from more powerful opponents. Says Harris: "A world without guns... is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?"
Conclusion
I do not know where I stand. However, assuming Harris' data is correct, that only "good" people acquired guns, were well-trained, regularly checked on by independent bodies (the same way we are tested for drivers, etc.), and such, I see little problem with gun ownership. But, the problem is deciding who should and should not own guns; the undermining of liberty if it is given to all citizens; the danger to free speech and liberty when held by anyone; that even "good" people can become enraged, drunk, etc., and easy access to a gun can escalate a mere drunken brawl to a murder spree.

This is a complex topic, but we ought not to dismiss arguments because they do not square with our gut feelings - regardless of whether we want more or less guns, more or less laws. By outlining two important arguments, we can see that reason does exist. Even if both are wrong, we can show this without recourse to name-calling, Strawmanning and caricature. A debate and discussion must be had, since discussion can aid us in achieving the goal we all want: a world with less violence or, more realistically, one where fewer innocent people die. If guns aid or hinder that goal, we will figure that out by having a proper conversation, not a mud-slinging contest, regardless of which "side" you are on.
Image Credit: Andrija Markovic / Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two Important Arguments from Both 'Sides' of the Gun Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like any subject that weaves its way round corpses, gun control discussions easily ignite the worst parts of us. Whether it's descent into name-calling, insults, ad hominems and similar lazy, childish tactics, or a dismissal of anyone other than those on "our" side, attempts at objectivity are often scarce.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, the topic of gun violence has made me think about many things such as "why hasn't anything been done before?" Why is it that it takes so many gun violence cases for something to be (possibly) done about it? After the mass shooting in Vegas, and the Sandy Hook shooting and many more.... WHY has nothing (effective) been done to prevent these shootings from happening again? I believe that all those shootings may have been prevented, and that the recent Parkland, FL shooting shouldn't have happened. I believe stricter gun laws ARE in fact more effective because although it will not prevent mass shootings from happening, it will reduce the number of gun violence shootings. Something needs to be done about these shootings or else they will keep on happening in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the same period, an average of 517 people were killed annually in terror-related incidents. Removing 2001, when 9/11 occurred, from the calculation produces an annual average of just 31.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the same period, an average of 517 people were killed annually in terror-related incidents. Removing 2001, when 9/11 occurred, from the calculation produces an annual average of just 31.

# data[].attributes.headline
Obama's tweet about "March for Our Lives" 

# data[].attributes.subject
Obama's tweet about "March for Our Lives" 

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Michelle and I are so inspired by all the young people who made today’s marches happen. Keep at it. You’re leading us forward. Nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Michelle and I are so inspired by all the young people who made today’s marches happen. Keep at it. You’re leading us forward. Nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Michelle and I are so inspired by all the young people who made today’s marches happen. Keep at it. You’re leading us forward. Nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 24, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Michelle and I are so inspired by all the young people who made today’s marches happen. Keep at it. You’re leading us forward. Nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Michelle and I are so inspired by all the young people who made today’s marches happen. Keep at it. You’re leading us forward. Nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Michelle and I are so inspired by all the young people who made today’s marches happen. Keep at it. You’re leading us forward. Nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.

# data[].attributes.body
This past Saturday on March 24, 2018 a march was organized in Washington D.C in protest of gun violence. The protesters hoped to accomplish three things- to pass a law to ban the assault weapons frequently used to carry out mass shootings, stop the sale of high-capacity magazines, restrict the amount of ammunition, and close loopholes in America's background checks and implement laws that require background checks on every gun purchase. Thousands of individuals of all ages attended, celebrities such as Ariana Grande, Demi Lovado and Miley Cyrus where there too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What you should know about the March for Our Lives | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Survivors of last month's deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, are preparing to take their fight for stricter gun control laws to Washington.

# data[].attributes.body
The effects of gun violence surrounding the youth today has very serious and very negative effects. Here is a quote from the article: "Children exposed to gun violence may experience negative short- and long-term psychological effects, including anger, withdrawal, posttraumatic stress, and desensitization to violence."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mitigating the effects of gun violence on children and youth. - PubMed - NCBI

# data[].attributes.headline
3) There have been more than 1,600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook

# data[].attributes.subject
3) There have been more than 1,600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook

# data[].attributes.body
This whole concept, especially recently, has made me think. What's the best solution? Is it necessary to completely ban guns? Maybe, more regualtions and background checks be instituted? Why is it public places like parks and malls are nowhere near as much of a concern as schools? So why are less shootings occuring in these places? How can we be sure mass shootings will never happen again? There is no obvious answer to any of these questions but something, no matter how small, needs to be done. Something does need to change. This issue can't be overlooked anymore.

# data[].attributes.body
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011. In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx

# data[].attributes.body
https://gun-control.procon.org

# data[].attributes.body
Using the previously mentioned statistic from Mexico to back up this opinion, citizens will find ways to acquire a gun even if they are banned (just as people acquire drugs despite their illegality). The way to really prevent mass shooting or deaths from guns in general, is to restrict and monitor who may own a gun more thoroughly.

# data[].attributes.body
Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. -from ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.body
Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). -from ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
March for Our Lives Highlights: Students Protesting Guns Say ‘Enough Is Enough’ (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hundreds of thousands of protesters, outraged by a recent school shooting, took to the streets in Washington and around the world, calling for action against gun violence.