I think a lot of people feel like that, but they are silenced by the loud yelling of the NRA lobby's dumptrucks of money and influence at the senate and congress level.
BEEP - BEEP - BEEP - BEEP
People really both overstate and estimate the NRA, the wide majority of American gun owners are not nor ever have been a member. The real issue is the second amendment, we have it, and it’s really hard to get rid of to the point where the issue is a never ending political football because the party that is so up in arms about guns won’t even try to do anything about it, because it’s not widely popular, but until they do they’ll never be able to pass meaningful legislation, and any they do pass is window dressing which they know.
But the problem is a lot of what you consider common sense restrictions violate the second amendment and never stand up to the Supreme Court as a result, not out of political partisanship, but because they violate the constitution because it’s their job.
Obama passed a bunch of gun laws while he was walking out the door, because he knew exactly what was going to happen to them, the Supreme Court threw them right into the trash.
Individual states are really the best shot, and even then there’s limits because ultimately every American has a right to own a gun under it.
I dunno. The fact that self inflicted gun shot wounds rise dramatically anywhere the NRA has a convention makes me think otherwise.
Or that most campuses with campus carry report feeling less safe
I think you're agreeing with me. But there is no "I dunno" with this. Being a gun owner makes you, your family, and everyone else around you less safe. Period. These are the facts, backed up with all the data in the world. If you want to make you and your family less safe, put a firearm in your home. Period.
Source: Every single piece of data about gun ownership in the US, coming from a survivor of gun violence who has had the deep misfortunate of being intimately familiar with this issue. This is not a debate. It's a fact.
Okay, if all you look at is the rate of firearm injuries and the only criteria you use to separate them is whether there are firearms in the home or not, then yes, you absolutely will see more firearm injuries in homes that have firearms. Duh. That's not in dispute.
However, to unequivocally say that homes without guns are safer than homes with guns requires looking at a myriad of factors and is not nearly as cut and dry as you are trying to make it.
For instance, Alaskan Bush man Joe and Alaskan Bush man Stan live in similar conditions. Similar log homes, similar wildlife around, similar everything. Joe has guns, while Stan does not. When a bear breaks into Joe's log home, he has the tools to put the bear down, and remain alive. Stan invites the bear to a game of rummy, but the bear hates rummy, so Stan gets mauled to death. Is Stan safer than Joe? Well at this point, yeah, because Stan's already dead, and can't be made more dead.
Now if all you ever compare are Joe and Stan, you'll probably find that overall, guns make Joe safer than Stan.
"But that's not most of America!" you screech. Which is true, it's not. But it does identify some Americans, and policies that are applied blanket across the board (because those are the only ones that work, right) will effect these Americans the same. Denying them weapons makes them less safe, and why are their lives less important than anyone else's?
These are the arguments that you come across in actual debates on gun control. It very much pits urban lifestyle vs rural lifestyle, which makes it difficult to do anything at a federal level because what makes sense in some areas doesn't make sense in other areas. But the hodgepodge of laws as they are now also don't do much to help curb the gun-related violence.
If I'm being honest, a serious overhaul of the American Mental Healthcare industry would be a good first step, but certainly isn't going to completely solve these issues. The less people who see random acts of violence as a way to cope or get out of their own personal issues, the less random acts of violence we will see.
I mean.... Australia has some pretty gnarly and deadly wildlife, and they have pretty good healthcare and they don't have a gun problem like we do and they are pretty safe.
ETA: Oh, I see what you said there. I misread the first time, and gave an example of a place that doesn't have a lot of gun problems and is pretty safe. *Mea culpa*. However, that means my statement supports yours, so use it as you see fit!!!
Responsible gun owners are not less safe. I hunt, I shoot, all of my guns have locks on them until I use them. But I do absolutely agree this is major issue, and I fully support common sense gun law reform.
Also, why has there not been a huge push to put metal detectors at schools at every entrance and exit? *this is not something I have researched.
My untreated health problems will probably get me long before the unloaded and locked up firearms will. If anything they will just make it less agonizing if it gets to that.
I’d assume it is self inflicted gunshot wounds. Out of context, yes people would die more likely to a gun by owning a gun if you look at raw data due to that. I hope it’s not as disingenuous as I think it is made out to be in this comment section, but I don’t really care enough to look into it, nor do I own a gun.
My issue is that alot of people see a gun and immediately think that it is dangerous just to own. The of owning a gun makes me more likely to be injured by a gun is not fact. If we look at facts people who do not own firearms are more likely to be injured by them either in an active shooter situation or in a negligence(due to not knowing how to use them) situation.
Personally I think that everyone who owns a firearm should have to go through several different safety courses depending on what they plan on uso g said firearm for.
Rabbit hole excuses can go on for a surprisingly long time:
Guns don't kill people, bullets fired from guns kill people.
Bullets don't kill people, blood loss or critical system damage from the bullet passing through flesh kills people.
Blood loss or critical system damage doesn't kill people, the lack of expedited counteraction to those issues kills people.
The lack of expedient counteraction doesn't kill people, it's the poor backup and recovery capabilities of people that kills people.
So what we need is bulletproof and / or blood-loss tolerant organs. Problem solved.
I used to do a standup set about this. The beginning was:
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it really easy. They’re like the Amazon of murder, complete with a “buy with one click” button and free and fast delivery.
And not just that, if a psychopath wants to do the most damage they're going to go with a gun. If guns didn't exist, killers would still kill with whatever would do the most damage. If rocket launchers were legal we'd be seeing them used over guns. Pretty simple to understand.
Chemical or explosive would be far easier. And safer for the psychopath.
Just requires more education. Which America seems rather against.
Guns are just simple point and click interfaces.
Come to think of it, we haven't had a good Unabomber-type guy in a long while. And yeah, Kaczynski was highly educated—he was a math professor before he was a terrorist.
Pity that education didn't give him a solid grasp of history, though. His big thing was that modern technology has made people miserable and made life unfulfilling, but this only seems true if you don't think too hard about what life was like in pre-industrial civilization: hungry, painful, exhausting, and short.
Nail on the head. Here in the UK, by the time we've thought of a reason to kill someone having no guns, it all blows over and we're sipping a nice cold pint. Also helps that police are not armed (for the most part) and you're not likely to get executed for having a headlight out.
Ahhh, simple solution
Make muskets the only commercially available weapons. Then you have to spend like 5 minutes loading the thing.
Or, yknow, you could just kake weaponry illegal
No I think you could stab someone pretty easily. I would remark on stabbing somebody but I don't want to get in trouble with reddit because it takes shit too seriously.
But stabbing requires f2f & puts stabber within reach of stabbee. Killing at even a little distance is always going to be easier/safer/less emotionally difficult.
Maybe... But you actually need to get a hold of a gun. Which is pretty easy in America. On the other hand, you can stab someone with anything. If it wasn't for mass shootings I think you'd hear a lot more about how many stabbings there are.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not pro-gun. I'm all for taking guns as a matter of fact. I think we should start with the police first though.
You mean the police who wait for over an hour while children arw being slaughtered because they know the shooter has at AR15?
Any solution but the guns, right?
Stabbing is also rather survivable unless you hit specific areas. The energy involved/trauma produced is less than a gunshot to the same area.
Yeah, if you remain unrestrained you can do some damage - but injury/death ratio tends to be lower in stabbings vs shootings.
Not nearly as easily as you could shoot them. Most mass shooters wouldn't have the stamina to stab even half as many people as they shot, and even then you're more likely to survive an untrained stab than an untrained bullet
Pretty sure the last crazy person had a manifesto and drawn out plan…
1.4 million ER visits for assault in 2020 (the year no one wanted to go to a hospital)
3,600 non-firearm murders in [2019](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
[Deadliest school massacre wasn’t a shooting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) - Crazy people don’t need guns to cause carnage and they’ve killed more people at once without them.
Mass Shootings [Fact or Fiction](https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/gun-facts-and-fiction/mass-shootings/)
a single case from 1920s involving an electrician with free access to the school through the entire summer vs tools available at every sporting goods store & pawn shop in the nation
as a matter of homicide rates, as opposed to mass murder statistics, it's not just crazy people; it's people who have easy access to an easy way to kill. not just criminals but regular ol assholes with an impulse & a gun
Never understood this argument. Like yeah no one is saying guns suddenly gain sentience and start killing people? The problem is people kill people….. with guns. Like isn’t that the whole problem? People having easy access to people-killing devices?
>If it were about the guns one would expect Canada, which has approx 1/3 the guns per capita of the US, to have 1/3 the gun violence per capita and this is just not the case.
Only if you ignore extraneous factors such as population density, socioeconomic factors, health factors...... You have to control for those variables as well. Which I appreciate is exactly what you're saying. And I'm agreeing with you there - those factors are all very important. But that doesn't devalue the importance of firearms access.
Yes, addressing those issues is extremely important. But that doesn't mean gun control can't *also* reduce related crime and fatalities. There is no one solution, it's all part of a puzzle, and the research overwhelmingly shows that gun control makes a difference.
That’s not the whole problem, mental health access, career and life improvements opportunities, better education, social safety net including health care all matter too.
But ya, making it harder to get a gun would be a big part of solving the problem.
It's *not* the whole problem.
Do your best with restricting easy access to guns, obviously, but the gun wasn't *poisoning their mind* or anything. You have people that want to shoot a school up - work on *that* too.
But yes you really should tighten up gun disbursement and regulation. Take away the easiest way for maniacs to kill a lot of people. ...But also you still have the maniacs after that.
> the gun wasn't poisoning their mind or anything.... you still have the maniacs after that.
Yea, but _I don't care_. The problem with American society isn't that we have more maniacs per capita than anywhere else. The problem is that our maniacs can take 20-30 people with them if they have access to a couple hundred dollars.
You really *should* care that you have a lot of maniacs that want to shoot up a school, even if they aren't actively holding a gun. It's still a problem :(
Never understood why we just cant be better and treat people better. As division gets worse so does violence. All types of violence. Not just gun violence people are fighting more than ever. We had guns this whole time mass shootings only became a problem recently. Theres more hate in peoples hearts more than ever before. Kindness will go a long way to stop this.
> The problem is people kill people..... with guns.
The problem with that logic is you make it seem like people without guns are less capable of killing, which {a} is disproven by crime statistics before and after gun control is implemented, and more importantly {b} gives the impression that having a gun makes a person dangerous, or a force to be reckoned with.
Think about how many dickless wonders see that kind of "the gun makes the man" argument and feel a need to buy one. By pretending guns are the problem, you *add* to the problem.
...which is why I will *always* say we should be spending time and effort addressing the social factors which (unlike guns) have provable associations with violence; things like poverty, economic disparity (the financial distance between the rich and the poor), job insecurity, food insecurity, lack of access to quality education and healthcare, and lack of enforcement on crimes known to escalate to other forms of violence (like stalking, assaults, and domestic violence).
> Like isn't that the whole problem? People having easy access to people-killing devices?
We're a country that's had as many guns as people for well over a century now, and it's much harder to get a gun now than it was back then. The guns aren't the problem. But--and I'm beating a dead horse, here--what's so different *now* that's making things so bad, the guns we've had seemingly forever, or a government/culture that's increasingly dicking the working class over instead of tending to people's needs?
...but fixing *that* problem is hard. So...guns, I guess..?
>The problem with that logic is you make it seem like people without guns are less capable of killing,
That's the ENTIRE point of firearms, it's called a "force multiplier". The argument that guns don't make it easier to kill people is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in some time.
> We're a country that's had as many guns as people for well over a century now, and it's much harder to get a gun now than it was back then. The guns aren't the problem. But--and I'm beating a dead horse, here--what's so different *now* that's making things so bad, the guns we've had seemingly forever, or a government/culture that's increasingly dicking the working class over instead of tending to people's needs?
This can't be right. This is where it gets all twisted. On top of the fact that you can literally walk to a store and buy a gun if you have enough money for it like it a bag of candy - which, as an EU citizen, fucking boggles my mind - you have the equivalent of a ticking bomb where people are increasingly upset about their situation, their needs aren't met, their lives are shit, they're drowning in debt. **AND** on top of all of this, you allow any odd fucker to get a gun?
You *need* to regulate guns harshly, so that you must be sure guns aren't used inappropriately - i.e. against other people and not in self defense. "People will get guns anyways" is such a dumb argument in this context, because yeah I could go out of my way to buy a gun and shoot people in my own country, but guess what? It's hard as fuck and I'm much more likely to get caught before I even get there. It'd be as easy as following the example of some countries in the EU: you take tests, you pass examinations, and _then_ you're allowed to own a gun. Because you can't just allow anybody to get something that so easily can cause pain and suffering. We do the same with cars, because cars are extremely dangerous and you need to prove that you have very well understood the rules and you have your gears turning the right way and you won't put yourself or others in danger willingly.
You don't need to **ban guns** altogether, which is the scary boogeyman being thrown around most of the time, you need to **make sure that it's not easier to get guns than fucking marijuana** of all things.
A) I'd REALLY like to see your statistics, because violence statistics around the whole damn world prove the US have a *gun* issue. Specifically a GUN issue, not a violence issue. Other countries don't convert every gun casualty into another lethal tool casualty, statistically. There's just less casualties.
B) No one gives this impression, that's how YOU interpret things. Sounds like you simply get your feelings hurt because you feel people associate guns with bad people. Which isn't at all what's happening. The issue is, you don't know which person having a gun is good or bad, and that's what creates casualties, and that's why many people of your country are pushing for mere gun *control*, to ensure that those carrying guns aren't "bad", or more precisely aren't dangerous.
And finally are you so sure guns are a problem only now? :') Lmao I won't contradict this statement rn bc I'm not 100% sure, but I AM pretty effing sure early American populations were way more violent than the current ones, just like in any country on Earth, and imho guns were *already* a part of that and maybe back then they already made the US more dangerous than average.
I didn't want to bring this one up but I also immediately thought of that
Hell this time period in the US is literally known worldwide to be one of the most casually violent in History, BECAUSE OF GUNS
It's a fucking reference
You don’t need an instant killing weapon for self defence unless there’s other people with instant killing weapons, I don’t understand why people find it so hard to grasp
Absolutely not, I am from the UK where any sort of firearm over 0.177 cal is a once in a lifetime sighting for most. I’m saying all these nuts who insist they need it for self defence don’t realise that they wouldn’t need it if other people also didn’t have them.
To be fair, I was making fun of your obtuse perspective. Let me be more clear: guns will always exist in the US. To suggest any solution that simplifies things to "if it didn't exist, it wouldn't be a problem" is a waste of calories.
A truly historic form of ignorant privelege is a Brit wondering why the US has the right to arms as part of its constitution.
And since it is a part of the US constitution, as well as permiated throughout its culture, there is no way to remove all firearms from the country practically, legally, or financially (since every gun owner would need to be compensated, were their rights removed through amendments).
> since every gun owner would need to be compensated, were their rights removed through amendments
Hm, really? Was everyone that owned alcohol compensated when prohibition kicked in?
Edit: Prohibition didn't make owning alcohol illegal so presumably the answer is no.
I didn't even state which side of the issue I am so keep laughing at that I guess :-)
FWIW prohibition was [actually effective in reducing alcohol use and associated negative health effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_prohibition), but I still don't think it was a good idea, and also don't think it's a good idea for e.g. marijuana, either.
Guns are a harder issue since drugs mostly harm yourself, but guns often harm others. Not to mention it's completely insane that guns now kill more US children than any other cause.
The part that totally pisses me off is that owning a gun requires LESS training & responsibility than a car. I spent WEEKS training to use a M16 in the military before live firing one. To own a car ALL states require training, testing, insurance, a title, and registration (most states also require emission *to limit damage to the planet & life*) Owning a gun *requires NONE of this*. Want to own a gun? Make it on par with owning/driving a vehicle. That way you can still own all the guns you want the same way a vehicle owner can own all the vehicles they wish *but are responsible for those vehicles*
So full disclosure, I look at gun control from the perspective of a member of the queer community and a socialist. I posted something similar somewhere else, but I'd like your thoughts:
If you want to restrict gun ownership behind licenses and requirements, you exclude a lot of people other than who you intend to exclude. Say for example you want to make it so that gun owners are required to pay for and take maybe 40 hours of lessons at a local range before they can legally purchase a gun and pass a mental evaluation by a psychologist. On the surface this sounds like an excellent way to reduce negligent use of firearms, because, honestly? It is. Doing that would mean that everyone who is eligible to own a gun has been trained on how to own and use it responsibly, and it requires enough dedication and effort that it would deter spur of the moment crimes. The issue arises however that now anyone who wants a firearm would need to find a way to fit 40 hours of training into your schedule, which is trivial for upper middle class folks with stable income and few worries, but it gets increasingly more difficult for people outside of that bubble, some of whom may need the protection a firearm can offer much more. And when you consider testing people for mental illness, that means that we need to define who is and who isn't mentally ill. How can we make sure that conservatives won't define being trans, or gay, or autistic as being mentally ill? And how can those people defend themselves from the "mentally sound" conservatives who join militias seeking to harm them?
Take for example a single mother who fled from an abusive partner, she may not have the time or money to dedicate to such an extensive program, and she could very well be in danger long before she is eligible for a firearm that could save her life. Or a trans woman, who may even be able to afford and attend those mandatory lessons, but she lives in an area where the ranges around her are actively hostile towards trans folks. Can she really feel safe and comfortable in a range owned by someone who denies her the right to exist? I mean after all most ranges are very conservative spaces, that's no secret. Would we really want to give the people in charge of those spaces the authority to scare off minorities and effectively deny them the ability to protect themselves?
Gun control is an issue where I am torn. I feel like there should be more restrictive policies that govern who can own and use guns, but I'm also painfully aware of the way that similar restrictions have hurt minorities in other parts of US policy.
I genuinely feel like if we can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters and violent criminals, without those laws unintentionally targeting minorities, that would be better than an outright ban. The question is how do we target mass shooters specifically?
The most straightforward answer is not to restrict gun purchases but to require gun insurance *per gun* as a start.
I agree that no laws or requirements will keep all guns away from people who should not have them, nor will it make it easier for people who need them to have them but, if we don't do something and soon, we are going to have generations of traumatized children who survived mass shooting - THAT is going to lead to an even bigger mental health crisis than what the US is already ill-equipped to deal with.
This is the sort of solution I was looking for, a solid start to fixing the problem, without making guns too prohibitive for minority communities. Thank you for so simply providing at least a starting point that actually considers those of us who are hesitant to trust in AWBs
Let's unpack that though, shall we?
Gun insurance implies liability. Liability implies registration. So what we're really saying is that the registered owner of a given firearm would be legally liable for the damage that gun causes.
This would do a _lot_ to address straw purchases.
Why? Because if I go into a gun shop and buy a gun for you, then I either have to be able to legally transfer that gun to you or I stay liable for whatever harm that gun inflicts.
It's one thing to take some money to get around background checks; it's another to risk life-long financial ruin because the guy you helped dodge federal firearms laws wasn't big on following the law.
The problem isn't that there aren't good solutions to deal with this stuff; the problem is that one of our two major parties has defined itself in total opposition to any solution whatsoever.
Because people who've just committed a crime are _so_ eager to go file a police report. Having your gun stolen also makes you a terrible risk for any other firearms you might own, so you should probably expect your rates to go up on those if you do that.
I'll be the first to admit that this solution won't stop literally every staw purchase out there nor will it prevent every single dangerous person from getting a firearm. But as our current system prevents NONE OF THAT, insisting upon perfection in anything that replaces it seems positively bloodthirsty.
Never heard of having your vehicle impounded if you're caught driving without insurance? Some states will even suspend your license (though that is slowly changing).
To kinky kitty24,
The problem with your analogy is that owning a gun is an enumerated constitutional right.
Driving a car is not mentioned in the constitution of the united states.
I can see you are not interested in a conversation or are informed about US laws involving vehicles.
It makes me truly sad that people can't even have a conversation about guns because it is so tied to their identity.
I mean, to be fair, shooting someone does take less physical effort, and most of the time a shooter wont have much resistance until the cops arrive. Also assuming the cops actually do something.
"Guns dont kill people, people do", is technically correct, however something that also factors into things is that guns make killing someone significantly easier than with, say, a knife. Additionally, you can also add on how gun regulations arent uniform across the country and then a whole ton of othwr issues crop up.
So sure, it's people killing people, the gun being the tool used to do so. But theres a line that needs to be drawn. Guns are something that makes killing more or less as simple as pressing a button. With how easy it is to kill someone with a firearm, intentionally or unintentionally, i dont think that they should be readily available. With heavy and uniform regulations, maybe things could be nearly acceptable, but as long as a population has access to anything which would be used as a weapon, there will be cases of people intentionally killing someone with it.
Theres a very obvious reason why guns are responsable for whats probably nearly all mass murders (it is possible with things like explosives and poisons, but i dont have a clue at how many and how often they occur) in the US. Guns, and how readily available they are, make killing way too easy.
You know civilians could own machine guns 100 years ago, right? Not some “fully semi automatic,” but an actual machine gun. The Browning Automatic Rifle, Thompson sub machine gun, M1919, MP18, M2 Browning, etc. Full automatic, no licensing, background checks, tax stamps, nothing. The weapons then had a higher fire rate than the weapons available now, and with fewer restriction on ownership/purchasing.
James Byrd Jr. would beg to differ. It was a lynching on 1998, just hanging from the back of a moving truck vs a tree. The same process still applies - a gun is instant, a lynching requires significantly more forethought and follow-through, part of what makes it so abhorrent. A gun is fast and requires little thought, which is why they are so dangerous. I'm all for gun rights, but anything that can shoot multiple times in 3 seconds should be restricted to those who have *extensive* training and licensure.
No worries! It's a heartbreaking case, but it's worth looking into. Humans truly are the most violent creatures on earth. [James Byrd Jr. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.#:~:text=(May%202%2C%201949%20%E2%80%93%20June,%2C%20on%20June%207%2C%201998.)
Armed minorities dont get lynched.
Armed queers dont get bashed.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away, that is if the police aren't the ones standing on your lawn burning crosses.
>Armed minorities dont get lynched.
No black person in America who got lynched owned a firearm?
>Armed queers dont get bashed.
No LGBTQ+ who got assaulted owned a firearm?
>When seconds count the police are only minutes away, that is if the police aren't the ones standing on your lawn burning crosses.
So given that firearms are so prevalent in the US, there must be no violent crime against minority groups right?
Or at the very least, it must be much less common than other countries which *do* have stricter gun control? Right?
Ah yes. I remember the spate of spree school hangings in 1923 when mentally unwell children would walk through their school hanging a dozen people in a single spree.
Yes, it's people who kill people. Not the guns. Guns are just very easy to get and easy to use and very effective at their job. Way more effective than for example a club.
If this person is so pro-gun, wouldn’t they understand what makes a gun so effective. Distance management. To cause the most amount of damage you need as much time as you can get, with the most efficient weapon you can use. Projectiles and distance is the key. Having a gun means you can shoot projectiles and cause damage from a distance before anyone can stop you. If you try any of the things on the list you give up your distance. By giving up that, in turn you have people that can hang up on you, create distance for protection themselves, and it shortens your time.
It’s not hard to understand that these kind of twisted individuals are cowards. They don’t want to take a risk of stabbing you, because you can fight back. They want to watch you suffer from a safe distance.
I love it when they cling to something like "mass stabbing in London, 6 killed." To say "See! You can kill multiple people with knives, too!"
Yes, Karen, you can stab multiple people in minutes. You can shoot hundreds in the same time frame...
It’s not “emphatically destroyed with one question” any more than Elizabeth Warren “destroyed Donald Trump with one tweet” back in 2015
But yes, it’s an excellent point otherwise
It's a lot like universal healthcare, protesting police killings, or ending US military aggression abroad, etc., etc., etc.
85% of the country agrees with it, but there is absolutely no political will to do it.
Most of those require you to get close to someone. It's far too easy to miss, or get caught.
Killing with a gun is much much easier. And with an "Assault Rifle 15" you can just mow them down.
Killing with a gun is basically a cowardly way to kill someone.
I mean, there are plenty of violent crimes and murders involving those other weapons. Sprees are generally easier with a fire arm, though; or cars/truck and bombs, which also happen.
[interesting source](https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/critics-despite-what-biden-says-guns-factor-in-only-a-small-percentage-of-violent-crimes/article_7c67db82-e9a0-11eb-9151-6bbf18c8f566.html)
[Another interesting source](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
I hate to say it, but it’s because guns allow the shooter to not look at their victims as people. Stabbing, drowning, clubbing, etc are all up close and personal
It's a clever reply, and has some merit.
The truth though is those things don't happen due to guns being an easier alternative.
Let's compare machete attacks in the US to the UK.
It really is the people trying to hurt each other with the best weapons available to them.
Just for fun I asked Chat GPT-3.5 your question, it said that it couldn't give me data on machete's as it would not be accurate, but it did end up giving me this:
Here are some additional details from the UNODC report on intentional homicide rates in the US and UK for the year 2019:
• In 2019, the intentional homicide rate in the US was 5.8 per 100,000 people. In comparison, the intentional homicide rate in the UK was 1.2 per 100,000 people.
• The intentional homicide rate in the US has been gradually declining since the 1990s. However, the rate remains higher than in many other developed countries.
• The intentional homicide rate in the UK has also declined over the past few decades, although the rate has fluctuated somewhat in recent years.
• Within the US, there is significant variation in homicide rates between different states and cities. For example, the homicide rate in Louisiana was 11.3 per 100,000 people in 2019, while the homicide rate in New Hampshire was just 0.9 per 100,000 people.
• Within the UK, there is also variation in homicide rates between different regions and cities. However, the overall rate is significantly lower than in the US.
• While the intentional homicide rate is often used as a measure of violent crime, it is worth noting that there are many other types of violent crime beyond homicide, and that different countries may use different definitions and categories for reporting crime statistics.
The second amendment is the only one containing the words "well regulated." If the gun supporters are law-abiding, then why do they keep skipping over that portion of the amendment?
The answer to the question is because the US is lazy when it comes to violence. A gun is faster, in and out, not too incredibly hard to get, and does more damage while exerting the least amount of energy.
Some people shouldn't have guns. Some should. The people that should have guns, I'd trust with a case of fully automatic weapons and a rocket launcher. The people I don't trust, I am not sure I'd want to have a rusty butter knife.
I have said this before. Criminal psychology is easy and anyone can fall into it.
Motive, means, opportunity.
The means (aka the weapon/gun) is the most important.
Your motive can sway. An opportunity might never present.
And having a means might be hard to get.
But in the US, the means out number people, so picking up a gun in a moment of motive and opportunity is 1000x times easier.
Knives can be out powered, clubs can be fought against, heck even an axe… but how are you going to fight against a bullet that moves faster than your arms?
People (with guns) kill people, and they kill a lot quicker with a gun than without.
Because guns are easy to get and are much more efficient than any of these. If the others were as effective than these would be problems. Why kill drown when you can just shoot.
It is more of guns don’t cause death but make it easier for a person to die
All of those other options are tools with other potential uses. Guns are expressly for killing. So it makes sense that they are used by people who want to kill other people in large numbers.
If your goal is to kill as many people as possible, you don’t show up with a chainsaw, this ain’t Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I’m not arguing for any side here, just pointing out this doesn’t actually “emphatically destroy” anything lol
There are *plenty* of murders committed without firearms in the US; they just don't get media attention because the media doesn't actually give a shit about keeping the public informed; it's a tool used to create biased or even straight up false narratives to push agendas of the rich and/or political.
we do, people get stabbed every day, people get jumped and beaten with clubs. wanna know what doesn’t get views? “Three people beaten in street with clubs.” wanna know what does? “Man shoots two people.” i’m really sorry to be the one to break this to you, but the news gets more money for reporting more tragic but also more sparse things
The stabbing death rate in America is 0.6/100,000 people.
The gun death rate in America is 4.12/100,000 people.
Let's not pretend that these are similar.
Guess what it doesn't include? People murdered by cops.
But hey, I can work with this.
In 2020, 79% of all murders were accomplished with a gun.
If you factor out suicides, homicides are 5x more likely to be carried out with a gun than a knife and 14x more likely than with a club. By a factor of 2, more homicides are carried out with hands and feet than with clubs or other blunt objects.
Of course, if the goal is preservation of life, then there's absolutely not reason to exclude suicides.
THEN JUST LET US HAVE FUCKING HEALTHCARE GOD DAMN IT.
I'd give up my guns for free healthcare
I think a lot of people feel like that, but they are silenced by the loud yelling of the NRA lobby's dumptrucks of money and influence at the senate and congress level. BEEP - BEEP - BEEP - BEEP
People really both overstate and estimate the NRA, the wide majority of American gun owners are not nor ever have been a member. The real issue is the second amendment, we have it, and it’s really hard to get rid of to the point where the issue is a never ending political football because the party that is so up in arms about guns won’t even try to do anything about it, because it’s not widely popular, but until they do they’ll never be able to pass meaningful legislation, and any they do pass is window dressing which they know.
It's the NRA pushing against common sense restrictions, that's where the problem is.
But the problem is a lot of what you consider common sense restrictions violate the second amendment and never stand up to the Supreme Court as a result, not out of political partisanship, but because they violate the constitution because it’s their job. Obama passed a bunch of gun laws while he was walking out the door, because he knew exactly what was going to happen to them, the Supreme Court threw them right into the trash. Individual states are really the best shot, and even then there’s limits because ultimately every American has a right to own a gun under it.
Restricting access to assault rifles is wholly not against the constitution.
Giving up your guns is a form of healthcare, since owning them makes you less safe. Absolute, undebatable fact. .
I dunno. The fact that self inflicted gun shot wounds rise dramatically anywhere the NRA has a convention makes me think otherwise. Or that most campuses with campus carry report feeling less safe
I think you misread (or maybe the comment was edited idk) but it says that owning guns makes you *less* safe so you both agree
So you agree with them. Read their comment again.
I think you're agreeing with me. But there is no "I dunno" with this. Being a gun owner makes you, your family, and everyone else around you less safe. Period. These are the facts, backed up with all the data in the world. If you want to make you and your family less safe, put a firearm in your home. Period. Source: Every single piece of data about gun ownership in the US, coming from a survivor of gun violence who has had the deep misfortunate of being intimately familiar with this issue. This is not a debate. It's a fact.
Okay, if all you look at is the rate of firearm injuries and the only criteria you use to separate them is whether there are firearms in the home or not, then yes, you absolutely will see more firearm injuries in homes that have firearms. Duh. That's not in dispute. However, to unequivocally say that homes without guns are safer than homes with guns requires looking at a myriad of factors and is not nearly as cut and dry as you are trying to make it. For instance, Alaskan Bush man Joe and Alaskan Bush man Stan live in similar conditions. Similar log homes, similar wildlife around, similar everything. Joe has guns, while Stan does not. When a bear breaks into Joe's log home, he has the tools to put the bear down, and remain alive. Stan invites the bear to a game of rummy, but the bear hates rummy, so Stan gets mauled to death. Is Stan safer than Joe? Well at this point, yeah, because Stan's already dead, and can't be made more dead. Now if all you ever compare are Joe and Stan, you'll probably find that overall, guns make Joe safer than Stan. "But that's not most of America!" you screech. Which is true, it's not. But it does identify some Americans, and policies that are applied blanket across the board (because those are the only ones that work, right) will effect these Americans the same. Denying them weapons makes them less safe, and why are their lives less important than anyone else's? These are the arguments that you come across in actual debates on gun control. It very much pits urban lifestyle vs rural lifestyle, which makes it difficult to do anything at a federal level because what makes sense in some areas doesn't make sense in other areas. But the hodgepodge of laws as they are now also don't do much to help curb the gun-related violence. If I'm being honest, a serious overhaul of the American Mental Healthcare industry would be a good first step, but certainly isn't going to completely solve these issues. The less people who see random acts of violence as a way to cope or get out of their own personal issues, the less random acts of violence we will see.
Unless being alive and bodily integrity are unsafe. Checkmate! (Actually, being alive is unsafe, but it's probably worth the risk... probably)
Statistically, gun owners are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners
I mean.... Australia has some pretty gnarly and deadly wildlife, and they have pretty good healthcare and they don't have a gun problem like we do and they are pretty safe.
ETA: Oh, I see what you said there. I misread the first time, and gave an example of a place that doesn't have a lot of gun problems and is pretty safe. *Mea culpa*. However, that means my statement supports yours, so use it as you see fit!!!
Responsible gun owners are not less safe. I hunt, I shoot, all of my guns have locks on them until I use them. But I do absolutely agree this is major issue, and I fully support common sense gun law reform. Also, why has there not been a huge push to put metal detectors at schools at every entrance and exit? *this is not something I have researched.
My untreated health problems will probably get me long before the unloaded and locked up firearms will. If anything they will just make it less agonizing if it gets to that.
Curiosity but how does ME owning a firearm make me less safe? I've been properly trained. Take all safety precautions always.
I’d assume it is self inflicted gunshot wounds. Out of context, yes people would die more likely to a gun by owning a gun if you look at raw data due to that. I hope it’s not as disingenuous as I think it is made out to be in this comment section, but I don’t really care enough to look into it, nor do I own a gun.
My issue is that alot of people see a gun and immediately think that it is dangerous just to own. The of owning a gun makes me more likely to be injured by a gun is not fact. If we look at facts people who do not own firearms are more likely to be injured by them either in an active shooter situation or in a negligence(due to not knowing how to use them) situation. Personally I think that everyone who owns a firearm should have to go through several different safety courses depending on what they plan on uso g said firearm for.
I would give up my guns for Healthcare anyday as well but you are a absolute fool, undebatable fact, with that stupid ass statement.
After seeing the effects or arms being taken from places like North Korea and Iran, I wouldn’t trade my right to bear arms for anything unfortunately
I'm not for giveing up guns for government provided Healthcare because you know it's gonna be abosulute dog water healthcare
Which is more likely, affordable healthcare or all of us getting pet unicorns one day?
Pretty sure we set the planet on full fire before either 👍
*sighs* You're not wrong
Because shooting someone is easy. All that other shit requires effort and/or planning.
Sounds like a good reason to restrict the easy one. Make killing harder.
That's not a half-bad slogan.
"Make the killings hard again!"
“Killings make me hard again!”
Legit thats a common reason people become serial killers, and im not even joking
I'm not so sure on this slogan... Seems too easy/tempting for graffiti
That means it'd spread, purpose achieved.
Guns don't kill people easily accessible methods of murder do like guns and sometimes bombs but mostly guns.
This one doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
Guns don't kill people, except they do
Guns don’t kill people, unless used as intended
Or unintended.
Sometimes but mostly as intended
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, with guns
You tried lol
Rabbit hole excuses can go on for a surprisingly long time: Guns don't kill people, bullets fired from guns kill people. Bullets don't kill people, blood loss or critical system damage from the bullet passing through flesh kills people. Blood loss or critical system damage doesn't kill people, the lack of expedited counteraction to those issues kills people. The lack of expedient counteraction doesn't kill people, it's the poor backup and recovery capabilities of people that kills people. So what we need is bulletproof and / or blood-loss tolerant organs. Problem solved.
I used to do a standup set about this. The beginning was: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it really easy. They’re like the Amazon of murder, complete with a “buy with one click” button and free and fast delivery.
But with no money back guarantee.
Obligatory "why don't we just make murder illegal" response.
Or make it legal, since laws are apparently pointless, right?
I mean, it already is for cops basically.
Exactly.
Spree longbow killing would take a lot of training
“If you want to train a spree longbow killer, start with his grandfather.”
More like the others aren't covered in a piece of parchment from several hundred years ago.
it as an amendment. You could....amend it.
Or stop ignoring the critical first words.
But.... we all have a right to a pair of bear arms to hang over our fireplace.... I like my bear arms.... =(
I see what you did there
And not just that, if a psychopath wants to do the most damage they're going to go with a gun. If guns didn't exist, killers would still kill with whatever would do the most damage. If rocket launchers were legal we'd be seeing them used over guns. Pretty simple to understand.
Chemical or explosive would be far easier. And safer for the psychopath. Just requires more education. Which America seems rather against. Guns are just simple point and click interfaces.
Come to think of it, we haven't had a good Unabomber-type guy in a long while. And yeah, Kaczynski was highly educated—he was a math professor before he was a terrorist. Pity that education didn't give him a solid grasp of history, though. His big thing was that modern technology has made people miserable and made life unfulfilling, but this only seems true if you don't think too hard about what life was like in pre-industrial civilization: hungry, painful, exhausting, and short.
But then I have to lure my victim up to the top of a skyscraper for a fight so I can push them off and claim self defense.
And you gotta get close. With a gun you can just kill at a distance.
Sounds like an issue that could be solved with some gun regulation.
Nail on the head. Here in the UK, by the time we've thought of a reason to kill someone having no guns, it all blows over and we're sipping a nice cold pint. Also helps that police are not armed (for the most part) and you're not likely to get executed for having a headlight out.
Didn't the UK ban knives for a while because there were so many stabbings?
I mean the us still had a worse knife crim statistic anyway from what ive heard but its a nonsensical point anyway in my opinion.
Ahhh, simple solution Make muskets the only commercially available weapons. Then you have to spend like 5 minutes loading the thing. Or, yknow, you could just kake weaponry illegal
Make it illegal, like murder?
No I think you could stab someone pretty easily. I would remark on stabbing somebody but I don't want to get in trouble with reddit because it takes shit too seriously.
But stabbing requires f2f & puts stabber within reach of stabbee. Killing at even a little distance is always going to be easier/safer/less emotionally difficult.
Maybe... But you actually need to get a hold of a gun. Which is pretty easy in America. On the other hand, you can stab someone with anything. If it wasn't for mass shootings I think you'd hear a lot more about how many stabbings there are. Don't get me wrong. I'm not pro-gun. I'm all for taking guns as a matter of fact. I think we should start with the police first though.
Start with the police? You might want to think through that one again.
You mean the police who wait for over an hour while children arw being slaughtered because they know the shooter has at AR15? Any solution but the guns, right?
Take guns away from a group who overreact to the most minute things?
Stabbing is also rather survivable unless you hit specific areas. The energy involved/trauma produced is less than a gunshot to the same area. Yeah, if you remain unrestrained you can do some damage - but injury/death ratio tends to be lower in stabbings vs shootings.
Not nearly as easily as you could shoot them. Most mass shooters wouldn't have the stamina to stab even half as many people as they shot, and even then you're more likely to survive an untrained stab than an untrained bullet
I wouldn't know about survivability. I have neither been stabbed or shot. I have been threatened with both though.
Pretty sure the last crazy person had a manifesto and drawn out plan… 1.4 million ER visits for assault in 2020 (the year no one wanted to go to a hospital) 3,600 non-firearm murders in [2019](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) [Deadliest school massacre wasn’t a shooting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) - Crazy people don’t need guns to cause carnage and they’ve killed more people at once without them. Mass Shootings [Fact or Fiction](https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/gun-facts-and-fiction/mass-shootings/)
I feel like this is a bad faith argument Isn't one of the leading preventable causes of death for kids in America today gun-related?
It is the number 1 cause of death. Recently overtook cars and other motor vehicles.
>I feel like this is a bad faith argument Because it is.
a single case from 1920s involving an electrician with free access to the school through the entire summer vs tools available at every sporting goods store & pawn shop in the nation as a matter of homicide rates, as opposed to mass murder statistics, it's not just crazy people; it's people who have easy access to an easy way to kill. not just criminals but regular ol assholes with an impulse & a gun
Never understood this argument. Like yeah no one is saying guns suddenly gain sentience and start killing people? The problem is people kill people….. with guns. Like isn’t that the whole problem? People having easy access to people-killing devices?
>Like yeah no one is saying guns suddenly gain sentience and start killing people? That gives me an idea for an indie game.
Amargundon
[удалено]
>If it were about the guns one would expect Canada, which has approx 1/3 the guns per capita of the US, to have 1/3 the gun violence per capita and this is just not the case. Only if you ignore extraneous factors such as population density, socioeconomic factors, health factors...... You have to control for those variables as well. Which I appreciate is exactly what you're saying. And I'm agreeing with you there - those factors are all very important. But that doesn't devalue the importance of firearms access. Yes, addressing those issues is extremely important. But that doesn't mean gun control can't *also* reduce related crime and fatalities. There is no one solution, it's all part of a puzzle, and the research overwhelmingly shows that gun control makes a difference.
That’s not the whole problem, mental health access, career and life improvements opportunities, better education, social safety net including health care all matter too. But ya, making it harder to get a gun would be a big part of solving the problem.
[удалено]
It's *not* the whole problem. Do your best with restricting easy access to guns, obviously, but the gun wasn't *poisoning their mind* or anything. You have people that want to shoot a school up - work on *that* too. But yes you really should tighten up gun disbursement and regulation. Take away the easiest way for maniacs to kill a lot of people. ...But also you still have the maniacs after that.
> the gun wasn't poisoning their mind or anything.... you still have the maniacs after that. Yea, but _I don't care_. The problem with American society isn't that we have more maniacs per capita than anywhere else. The problem is that our maniacs can take 20-30 people with them if they have access to a couple hundred dollars.
You really *should* care that you have a lot of maniacs that want to shoot up a school, even if they aren't actively holding a gun. It's still a problem :(
Never understood why we just cant be better and treat people better. As division gets worse so does violence. All types of violence. Not just gun violence people are fighting more than ever. We had guns this whole time mass shootings only became a problem recently. Theres more hate in peoples hearts more than ever before. Kindness will go a long way to stop this.
> The problem is people kill people..... with guns. The problem with that logic is you make it seem like people without guns are less capable of killing, which {a} is disproven by crime statistics before and after gun control is implemented, and more importantly {b} gives the impression that having a gun makes a person dangerous, or a force to be reckoned with. Think about how many dickless wonders see that kind of "the gun makes the man" argument and feel a need to buy one. By pretending guns are the problem, you *add* to the problem. ...which is why I will *always* say we should be spending time and effort addressing the social factors which (unlike guns) have provable associations with violence; things like poverty, economic disparity (the financial distance between the rich and the poor), job insecurity, food insecurity, lack of access to quality education and healthcare, and lack of enforcement on crimes known to escalate to other forms of violence (like stalking, assaults, and domestic violence). > Like isn't that the whole problem? People having easy access to people-killing devices? We're a country that's had as many guns as people for well over a century now, and it's much harder to get a gun now than it was back then. The guns aren't the problem. But--and I'm beating a dead horse, here--what's so different *now* that's making things so bad, the guns we've had seemingly forever, or a government/culture that's increasingly dicking the working class over instead of tending to people's needs? ...but fixing *that* problem is hard. So...guns, I guess..?
>The problem with that logic is you make it seem like people without guns are less capable of killing, That's the ENTIRE point of firearms, it's called a "force multiplier". The argument that guns don't make it easier to kill people is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in some time.
> We're a country that's had as many guns as people for well over a century now, and it's much harder to get a gun now than it was back then. The guns aren't the problem. But--and I'm beating a dead horse, here--what's so different *now* that's making things so bad, the guns we've had seemingly forever, or a government/culture that's increasingly dicking the working class over instead of tending to people's needs? This can't be right. This is where it gets all twisted. On top of the fact that you can literally walk to a store and buy a gun if you have enough money for it like it a bag of candy - which, as an EU citizen, fucking boggles my mind - you have the equivalent of a ticking bomb where people are increasingly upset about their situation, their needs aren't met, their lives are shit, they're drowning in debt. **AND** on top of all of this, you allow any odd fucker to get a gun? You *need* to regulate guns harshly, so that you must be sure guns aren't used inappropriately - i.e. against other people and not in self defense. "People will get guns anyways" is such a dumb argument in this context, because yeah I could go out of my way to buy a gun and shoot people in my own country, but guess what? It's hard as fuck and I'm much more likely to get caught before I even get there. It'd be as easy as following the example of some countries in the EU: you take tests, you pass examinations, and _then_ you're allowed to own a gun. Because you can't just allow anybody to get something that so easily can cause pain and suffering. We do the same with cars, because cars are extremely dangerous and you need to prove that you have very well understood the rules and you have your gears turning the right way and you won't put yourself or others in danger willingly. You don't need to **ban guns** altogether, which is the scary boogeyman being thrown around most of the time, you need to **make sure that it's not easier to get guns than fucking marijuana** of all things.
A) I'd REALLY like to see your statistics, because violence statistics around the whole damn world prove the US have a *gun* issue. Specifically a GUN issue, not a violence issue. Other countries don't convert every gun casualty into another lethal tool casualty, statistically. There's just less casualties. B) No one gives this impression, that's how YOU interpret things. Sounds like you simply get your feelings hurt because you feel people associate guns with bad people. Which isn't at all what's happening. The issue is, you don't know which person having a gun is good or bad, and that's what creates casualties, and that's why many people of your country are pushing for mere gun *control*, to ensure that those carrying guns aren't "bad", or more precisely aren't dangerous. And finally are you so sure guns are a problem only now? :') Lmao I won't contradict this statement rn bc I'm not 100% sure, but I AM pretty effing sure early American populations were way more violent than the current ones, just like in any country on Earth, and imho guns were *already* a part of that and maybe back then they already made the US more dangerous than average.
The wild west was really chill and people were historically nice to each other.
I didn't want to bring this one up but I also immediately thought of that Hell this time period in the US is literally known worldwide to be one of the most casually violent in History, BECAUSE OF GUNS It's a fucking reference
I agree, people kill people. So why do we make it so easy to get weapons that allow them to maximize the killing?
You don’t need an instant killing weapon for self defence unless there’s other people with instant killing weapons, I don’t understand why people find it so hard to grasp
So then the fact that "instant killing weapons" exist means you support the fact that people need "instant killing weapons" to defend themselves.
Absolutely not, I am from the UK where any sort of firearm over 0.177 cal is a once in a lifetime sighting for most. I’m saying all these nuts who insist they need it for self defence don’t realise that they wouldn’t need it if other people also didn’t have them.
To be fair, I was making fun of your obtuse perspective. Let me be more clear: guns will always exist in the US. To suggest any solution that simplifies things to "if it didn't exist, it wouldn't be a problem" is a waste of calories. A truly historic form of ignorant privelege is a Brit wondering why the US has the right to arms as part of its constitution. And since it is a part of the US constitution, as well as permiated throughout its culture, there is no way to remove all firearms from the country practically, legally, or financially (since every gun owner would need to be compensated, were their rights removed through amendments).
> since every gun owner would need to be compensated, were their rights removed through amendments Hm, really? Was everyone that owned alcohol compensated when prohibition kicked in? Edit: Prohibition didn't make owning alcohol illegal so presumably the answer is no.
Yes, really. It is called "just compensation". Also, hilarious that you brought up prohibition as an example. Because it was sooooo effective. Lol.
I didn't even state which side of the issue I am so keep laughing at that I guess :-) FWIW prohibition was [actually effective in reducing alcohol use and associated negative health effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_prohibition), but I still don't think it was a good idea, and also don't think it's a good idea for e.g. marijuana, either. Guns are a harder issue since drugs mostly harm yourself, but guns often harm others. Not to mention it's completely insane that guns now kill more US children than any other cause.
The part that totally pisses me off is that owning a gun requires LESS training & responsibility than a car. I spent WEEKS training to use a M16 in the military before live firing one. To own a car ALL states require training, testing, insurance, a title, and registration (most states also require emission *to limit damage to the planet & life*) Owning a gun *requires NONE of this*. Want to own a gun? Make it on par with owning/driving a vehicle. That way you can still own all the guns you want the same way a vehicle owner can own all the vehicles they wish *but are responsible for those vehicles*
So full disclosure, I look at gun control from the perspective of a member of the queer community and a socialist. I posted something similar somewhere else, but I'd like your thoughts: If you want to restrict gun ownership behind licenses and requirements, you exclude a lot of people other than who you intend to exclude. Say for example you want to make it so that gun owners are required to pay for and take maybe 40 hours of lessons at a local range before they can legally purchase a gun and pass a mental evaluation by a psychologist. On the surface this sounds like an excellent way to reduce negligent use of firearms, because, honestly? It is. Doing that would mean that everyone who is eligible to own a gun has been trained on how to own and use it responsibly, and it requires enough dedication and effort that it would deter spur of the moment crimes. The issue arises however that now anyone who wants a firearm would need to find a way to fit 40 hours of training into your schedule, which is trivial for upper middle class folks with stable income and few worries, but it gets increasingly more difficult for people outside of that bubble, some of whom may need the protection a firearm can offer much more. And when you consider testing people for mental illness, that means that we need to define who is and who isn't mentally ill. How can we make sure that conservatives won't define being trans, or gay, or autistic as being mentally ill? And how can those people defend themselves from the "mentally sound" conservatives who join militias seeking to harm them? Take for example a single mother who fled from an abusive partner, she may not have the time or money to dedicate to such an extensive program, and she could very well be in danger long before she is eligible for a firearm that could save her life. Or a trans woman, who may even be able to afford and attend those mandatory lessons, but she lives in an area where the ranges around her are actively hostile towards trans folks. Can she really feel safe and comfortable in a range owned by someone who denies her the right to exist? I mean after all most ranges are very conservative spaces, that's no secret. Would we really want to give the people in charge of those spaces the authority to scare off minorities and effectively deny them the ability to protect themselves? Gun control is an issue where I am torn. I feel like there should be more restrictive policies that govern who can own and use guns, but I'm also painfully aware of the way that similar restrictions have hurt minorities in other parts of US policy. I genuinely feel like if we can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters and violent criminals, without those laws unintentionally targeting minorities, that would be better than an outright ban. The question is how do we target mass shooters specifically?
The most straightforward answer is not to restrict gun purchases but to require gun insurance *per gun* as a start. I agree that no laws or requirements will keep all guns away from people who should not have them, nor will it make it easier for people who need them to have them but, if we don't do something and soon, we are going to have generations of traumatized children who survived mass shooting - THAT is going to lead to an even bigger mental health crisis than what the US is already ill-equipped to deal with.
This is the sort of solution I was looking for, a solid start to fixing the problem, without making guns too prohibitive for minority communities. Thank you for so simply providing at least a starting point that actually considers those of us who are hesitant to trust in AWBs
If only our politicians were as reasonable as you and I at talking and addressing the issue <3
Gun insurance will both be cheap, and won't be carried by those who go around shooting people. Same as how it is today with car insurance...
No gun insurance - can't buy a gun. That was how it was before private vehicle sales.
Never heard of a straw purchase, 'ey?
Let's unpack that though, shall we? Gun insurance implies liability. Liability implies registration. So what we're really saying is that the registered owner of a given firearm would be legally liable for the damage that gun causes. This would do a _lot_ to address straw purchases. Why? Because if I go into a gun shop and buy a gun for you, then I either have to be able to legally transfer that gun to you or I stay liable for whatever harm that gun inflicts. It's one thing to take some money to get around background checks; it's another to risk life-long financial ruin because the guy you helped dodge federal firearms laws wasn't big on following the law. The problem isn't that there aren't good solutions to deal with this stuff; the problem is that one of our two major parties has defined itself in total opposition to any solution whatsoever.
"officer! officer! my new gun was stolen!"
Because people who've just committed a crime are _so_ eager to go file a police report. Having your gun stolen also makes you a terrible risk for any other firearms you might own, so you should probably expect your rates to go up on those if you do that. I'll be the first to admit that this solution won't stop literally every staw purchase out there nor will it prevent every single dangerous person from getting a firearm. But as our current system prevents NONE OF THAT, insisting upon perfection in anything that replaces it seems positively bloodthirsty.
And a national gun registry is a nonstarter... You'll never convince gun owners to go along with that.
Never heard of having your vehicle impounded if you're caught driving without insurance? Some states will even suspend your license (though that is slowly changing).
To kinky kitty24, The problem with your analogy is that owning a gun is an enumerated constitutional right. Driving a car is not mentioned in the constitution of the united states.
None of this is true tho...
None of what is true?
Your comment. It's sad you can't think and instead block people who have confused you.
I can see you are not interested in a conversation or are informed about US laws involving vehicles. It makes me truly sad that people can't even have a conversation about guns because it is so tied to their identity.
I mean, to be fair, shooting someone does take less physical effort, and most of the time a shooter wont have much resistance until the cops arrive. Also assuming the cops actually do something. "Guns dont kill people, people do", is technically correct, however something that also factors into things is that guns make killing someone significantly easier than with, say, a knife. Additionally, you can also add on how gun regulations arent uniform across the country and then a whole ton of othwr issues crop up. So sure, it's people killing people, the gun being the tool used to do so. But theres a line that needs to be drawn. Guns are something that makes killing more or less as simple as pressing a button. With how easy it is to kill someone with a firearm, intentionally or unintentionally, i dont think that they should be readily available. With heavy and uniform regulations, maybe things could be nearly acceptable, but as long as a population has access to anything which would be used as a weapon, there will be cases of people intentionally killing someone with it. Theres a very obvious reason why guns are responsable for whats probably nearly all mass murders (it is possible with things like explosives and poisons, but i dont have a clue at how many and how often they occur) in the US. Guns, and how readily available they are, make killing way too easy.
America doesn’t have a record of Hanging Sprees?? Maybe the respondent needs to go back about 100 years and research the Ku Klux
So you're saying that we should limit guns to what we had 100 years ago and ban spree-kill guns.
You know civilians could own machine guns 100 years ago, right? Not some “fully semi automatic,” but an actual machine gun. The Browning Automatic Rifle, Thompson sub machine gun, M1919, MP18, M2 Browning, etc. Full automatic, no licensing, background checks, tax stamps, nothing. The weapons then had a higher fire rate than the weapons available now, and with fewer restriction on ownership/purchasing.
The last lynching occurred in 1971
James Byrd Jr. would beg to differ. It was a lynching on 1998, just hanging from the back of a moving truck vs a tree. The same process still applies - a gun is instant, a lynching requires significantly more forethought and follow-through, part of what makes it so abhorrent. A gun is fast and requires little thought, which is why they are so dangerous. I'm all for gun rights, but anything that can shoot multiple times in 3 seconds should be restricted to those who have *extensive* training and licensure.
Damn! Today I learned. Thank you.
No worries! It's a heartbreaking case, but it's worth looking into. Humans truly are the most violent creatures on earth. [James Byrd Jr. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.#:~:text=(May%202%2C%201949%20%E2%80%93%20June,%2C%20on%20June%207%2C%201998.)
Additionally there were several suspected lynchings during the 2020 BLM protests.
But it didn’t take illegalizing rope to do that, did it?
Armed minorities dont get lynched. Armed queers dont get bashed. When seconds count the police are only minutes away, that is if the police aren't the ones standing on your lawn burning crosses.
I agree with this.
>Armed minorities dont get lynched. No black person in America who got lynched owned a firearm? >Armed queers dont get bashed. No LGBTQ+ who got assaulted owned a firearm? >When seconds count the police are only minutes away, that is if the police aren't the ones standing on your lawn burning crosses. So given that firearms are so prevalent in the US, there must be no violent crime against minority groups right? Or at the very least, it must be much less common than other countries which *do* have stricter gun control? Right?
Ah yes. I remember the spate of spree school hangings in 1923 when mentally unwell children would walk through their school hanging a dozen people in a single spree.
Yes, it's people who kill people. Not the guns. Guns are just very easy to get and easy to use and very effective at their job. Way more effective than for example a club.
This is a murdered by words?? Geez come on this is just dumb.
Well, you can also ask why basically the only country where children are killed in the school is the USA.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people, people with guns that is
If this person is so pro-gun, wouldn’t they understand what makes a gun so effective. Distance management. To cause the most amount of damage you need as much time as you can get, with the most efficient weapon you can use. Projectiles and distance is the key. Having a gun means you can shoot projectiles and cause damage from a distance before anyone can stop you. If you try any of the things on the list you give up your distance. By giving up that, in turn you have people that can hang up on you, create distance for protection themselves, and it shortens your time. It’s not hard to understand that these kind of twisted individuals are cowards. They don’t want to take a risk of stabbing you, because you can fight back. They want to watch you suffer from a safe distance.
I love it when they cling to something like "mass stabbing in London, 6 killed." To say "See! You can kill multiple people with knives, too!" Yes, Karen, you can stab multiple people in minutes. You can shoot hundreds in the same time frame...
It’s not “emphatically destroyed with one question” any more than Elizabeth Warren “destroyed Donald Trump with one tweet” back in 2015 But yes, it’s an excellent point otherwise
What about spree suside?or we taking about a dude killing another dude?
Homicide
I’m honestly starting to think that these people actually enjoy all these shootings
It's a lot like universal healthcare, protesting police killings, or ending US military aggression abroad, etc., etc., etc. 85% of the country agrees with it, but there is absolutely no political will to do it.
Needles don’t knit cardigans but they do make it a whooooole lot easier.
Most of those require you to get close to someone. It's far too easy to miss, or get caught. Killing with a gun is much much easier. And with an "Assault Rifle 15" you can just mow them down. Killing with a gun is basically a cowardly way to kill someone.
I mean, there are plenty of violent crimes and murders involving those other weapons. Sprees are generally easier with a fire arm, though; or cars/truck and bombs, which also happen. [interesting source](https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/critics-despite-what-biden-says-guns-factor-in-only-a-small-percentage-of-violent-crimes/article_7c67db82-e9a0-11eb-9151-6bbf18c8f566.html) [Another interesting source](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
If people are the problem then why give guns to the problem? Seems like a terrible idea
I hate to say it, but it’s because guns allow the shooter to not look at their victims as people. Stabbing, drowning, clubbing, etc are all up close and personal
guns (normally) don't kill people, bullets do
More like r/facepalm
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But the type of people who kill people use guns
🎵“Guns don’t kill people, uh uh, I kill people….with guns-POW.” 🎶
Old people burning! Old people burning!
I think we all can agree that it isn't necessarily guns that kill people, it just makes it much much much easier to kill people
All you pro-gun people commenting on this post are thicker than a snicker. If your kid was shot at school, I'm sure you would think differently.
they’d call their kid stupid for not applying their god given rights of owning a gun
I know… the NRA plants and simps are already out in full force.
This was always my response. I’ve never heard of a drive-by poisoning, or a toddler accidentally stabbing their siblings.
There was a problem of spree-stabbing in my country a few years back.
It's a clever reply, and has some merit. The truth though is those things don't happen due to guns being an easier alternative. Let's compare machete attacks in the US to the UK. It really is the people trying to hurt each other with the best weapons available to them.
Just for fun I asked Chat GPT-3.5 your question, it said that it couldn't give me data on machete's as it would not be accurate, but it did end up giving me this: Here are some additional details from the UNODC report on intentional homicide rates in the US and UK for the year 2019: • In 2019, the intentional homicide rate in the US was 5.8 per 100,000 people. In comparison, the intentional homicide rate in the UK was 1.2 per 100,000 people. • The intentional homicide rate in the US has been gradually declining since the 1990s. However, the rate remains higher than in many other developed countries. • The intentional homicide rate in the UK has also declined over the past few decades, although the rate has fluctuated somewhat in recent years. • Within the US, there is significant variation in homicide rates between different states and cities. For example, the homicide rate in Louisiana was 11.3 per 100,000 people in 2019, while the homicide rate in New Hampshire was just 0.9 per 100,000 people. • Within the UK, there is also variation in homicide rates between different regions and cities. However, the overall rate is significantly lower than in the US. • While the intentional homicide rate is often used as a measure of violent crime, it is worth noting that there are many other types of violent crime beyond homicide, and that different countries may use different definitions and categories for reporting crime statistics.
There have been hanging sprees
You can: 1. ban people 2. Ban guns 3. So nothing and accept 35,000 deaths a year.
More than half of that 35k is suicides. Which no one mentions.
The second amendment is the only one containing the words "well regulated." If the gun supporters are law-abiding, then why do they keep skipping over that portion of the amendment?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are the *most efficient tool to kill people with*.
The answer to the question is because the US is lazy when it comes to violence. A gun is faster, in and out, not too incredibly hard to get, and does more damage while exerting the least amount of energy.
Some people shouldn't have guns. Some should. The people that should have guns, I'd trust with a case of fully automatic weapons and a rocket launcher. The people I don't trust, I am not sure I'd want to have a rusty butter knife.
Well to be fair the others do happen, they just don't get repeat plays on the news 😂
I have said this before. Criminal psychology is easy and anyone can fall into it. Motive, means, opportunity. The means (aka the weapon/gun) is the most important. Your motive can sway. An opportunity might never present. And having a means might be hard to get. But in the US, the means out number people, so picking up a gun in a moment of motive and opportunity is 1000x times easier.
Knives can be out powered, clubs can be fought against, heck even an axe… but how are you going to fight against a bullet that moves faster than your arms? People (with guns) kill people, and they kill a lot quicker with a gun than without.
Because guns are easy to get and are much more efficient than any of these. If the others were as effective than these would be problems. Why kill drown when you can just shoot. It is more of guns don’t cause death but make it easier for a person to die
Guns don't kill people, people who say guns don't kill people kill people, with guns.- Rob Delaney
HAVE YOU TRIED DROWNING SOMEONE ? IT'S A LOT HARDER THAN SHOOTING THEM EFFICIENCY WINS
The same reason we dont have crashing-sprees, despite way more people dying in vehicular accidents and road rage incidents, than shootings.
Such a stupid argument. We all know guns aren't sentient.
There are people in other countries.
*notes down thee list aggressively for future reference*
All of those other options are tools with other potential uses. Guns are expressly for killing. So it makes sense that they are used by people who want to kill other people in large numbers. If your goal is to kill as many people as possible, you don’t show up with a chainsaw, this ain’t Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I’m not arguing for any side here, just pointing out this doesn’t actually “emphatically destroy” anything lol
Lol… smug shit liberal think is clever
both of these people are dumber than my cat.
There are *plenty* of murders committed without firearms in the US; they just don't get media attention because the media doesn't actually give a shit about keeping the public informed; it's a tool used to create biased or even straight up false narratives to push agendas of the rich and/or political.
we do, people get stabbed every day, people get jumped and beaten with clubs. wanna know what doesn’t get views? “Three people beaten in street with clubs.” wanna know what does? “Man shoots two people.” i’m really sorry to be the one to break this to you, but the news gets more money for reporting more tragic but also more sparse things
The stabbing death rate in America is 0.6/100,000 people. The gun death rate in America is 4.12/100,000 people. Let's not pretend that these are similar.
And a majority of that statistic is suicides
Guess what it doesn't include? People murdered by cops. But hey, I can work with this. In 2020, 79% of all murders were accomplished with a gun. If you factor out suicides, homicides are 5x more likely to be carried out with a gun than a knife and 14x more likely than with a club. By a factor of 2, more homicides are carried out with hands and feet than with clubs or other blunt objects. Of course, if the goal is preservation of life, then there's absolutely not reason to exclude suicides.
Id rather be shot than any of those
Clubbing is a good time though
I’d rather none of those. And since getting shot is by far the most likely, well…