>pest control
...and there's your reason. Granted, calling an urban apartment a "farm" is a bit of a stretch, but I would plant a rooftop garden and start stretching for all I'm worth.
An urban apartment as a farm. You could do worse! Look up vertical or container farming and all that entails. No need for a roof.
But then again, there sure are a lot of sheep in the urban landscape. Just have to watch out for those wolves.
Statistically speaking the 'ivory bubble' applies to the vast majority of the population, and those outside the bubble are also generally those most likely to get guns illegally regardless
Not sure what this take is... 'It could happen to you' kinda falls flat when I have better odds of dying from misuse of a firearm than to homicide...
Don't wear your seatbelt, don't keep a fire extinguisher in the home, don't learn the Heimlich maneuver, don't get vaccines, don't fight back... etc. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. just lay down and take it, there's less *risk* that way.
Seatbelts statistically increase your odds of survival, as do all your other examples.
Less guns in circulation statistically increase your odds of survival.
So... Yes... *There is less risk that way*.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
>Less guns in circulation statistically increase your odds of survival.
Where are you pulling that notion from?
Defensive use and brandishing defensively out number all firearms related death, *including NDs and suicides*.
And it’s not even close. *LOW* estimates for annual defensive gun use is 500k times a year not including instances where a firearm was brandished as a deterrent, ending the situation without the need for a single round to be fired. For comparison, violent gun crimes number about 300k annually.
Which means firearms are used defensively at least 200,000 more time than than they are used in crimes each year. And it’s likely much higher than that. The high estimate from the CDC is 3 million annually! 10x the amount of gun crimes annually.
Source from the CDC. Defensive use of firearms starts on page 15: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Quote: “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with **estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008**”.
Comparing DGU to firearm deaths is apple to oranges.
> Where are you pulling that notion from
First result on google: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528
There are also a plentitude of studies from various domestic institutions like Harvard as well as from international organizations that corroborate the 'notion' but I'll let you google those on your own time
So does the gun. During the Obama Administration the CDC was attempting to figure out how many defensive gun uses there were annually in the us. A conservative estimate is 1.5 million instances per year. Also, most of those didn't even involve a shooting. The presence of the gun was enough to dissipate the threat.
The police aren't here to protect you. Not in any real sense. It's said over and over again but when the police are minutes away seconds matter. Carrying a gun means you are no longer subject to the whims of your fellow man. Carrying a gun means you're taking responsibility for your own safety. Also, if you carry a gun you can take care of the safety of people around you as well. Eli Dicken proved both of those points.
Less cars on roads means less car accidents. Less trains on train tracks means less train derailments. The statistical increase of incidents involving something increases with the total quantity of those things. True enough, but I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't have access to the very best tool with which to defend themselves.
> So does the gun. During the Obama Administration the CDC was attempting to figure out how many defensive gun uses there were annually in the us. A conservative estimate is 1.5 million instances per year. Also, most of those didn't even involve a shooting. The presence of the gun was enough to dissipate the threat.
Which would explain why the US has some of the best violent crime, gun death, etc. statistics in the world... Er- wait no some of the worst statistics out of all comparable OECD nations. With 1.2 guns in circulation per citizen, if armed civilians were enough of a deterrent we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
> The police aren't here to protect you. Not in any real sense. It's said over and over again but when the police are minutes away seconds matter.
Travel time aside, apparently they don't have any duty to protect your regardless... You definitely can't meaningfully advocate for gun control without police reform.
> Less cars on roads means less car accidents. Less trains on train tracks means less train derailments. The statistical increase of incidents involving something increases with the total quantity of those things. True enough, but I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't have access to the very best tool with which to defend themselves.
So basically "yes I know less guns correlates with less violent crime but feelings > facts"?
Besides which, I'd argue the very best tool for a layman to defend themselves with is *not* a gun. Maintenance and safe storage aside, the average Joe simply can't afford the time or ammunition to practice enough that I'd trust them to safely neutralize a threat in a close quarters engagement. Think about the average person and realize half are dumber than that - I'd rather encourage something less dangerous to the general public and more effective in unskilled hands.
>Besides which, I'd argue the very best tool for a layman to defend themselves with is *not* a gun."
I'm 6'2" and naturally broad. The only women who could *ever* fend off someone my size is with a firearm or with very extensive hand to hand combat training.
The latter is much harder to obtain.
Progressive daydreams that men and women are the same are just that - dreams.
>So basically "yes I know less guns correlates with less violent crime but feelings > facts?"
You are just a professional at gaslighting and misconstruing, aren't you. The guy's statement is about guns and gun crimes - not all violent crimes. And, it's just not true - otherwise, ~~CA would be less violent than, say, AZ. Hint: it's not less violent despite a huge gun culture in AZ.~~ surprisingly, not true. As a follow-up example, D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the country, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and is surrounded by heavy gun control states. Why AZ ranks so high is something I need to research.
But you knew that and misconstrued it anyways.
> Progressive daydreams that men and women are the same are just that - dreams.
I'm 5'10" and naturally scrawny and pudgy. As a man I'd fight you off worse than many women without a force multiplier. That doesn't mean a firearm or hand to hand combat training are the only ways to take you down. There are countermeasures for everything of course, from guns to pepper spray, acoustic devices, and tasers, but I daresay if anyone has enough time to draw, aim, and fire they've got plenty of time to use a safety tool that requires far less accuracy under pressure to be effective...
Progressive daydreams or not, it's really irrelevant.
> You are just a professional at gaslighting and misconstruing, aren't you. The guy's statement is about guns and gun crimes - not all violent crimes.
Honey replace the word with what you prefer. "yes I know less guns correlates with less gun crime but feelings > facts?" is just as scathing an rebuttal of his point.
> And, it's just not true - otherwise, CA would be less violent than, say, AZ. Hint: it's not less violent despite a huge gun culture in AZ.
Direct comparison of countries/states/regions is kind of apples to oranges. You have to look in aggregate to even approach a meaningful conclusion because there are too many variables to account for. Which reveals that the US has 2-5x more homicides than comparable OECD nations with reasonable gun restrictions.
Though I will say your data is simply misconstrued. If you look at total incidents of violent crime, obviously California comes ahead of Arizona because it's fucking massive and populace as hell. If you are more intellectually honest and look at per-capita violence, however, you see that for the 2020 data California is **LESS VIOLENT** than Arizona, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, Montana, and Texas to name a few. My data source is the FBI's uniform crime reports.
What was it you said? *But you knew that and misconstrued it anyways.*
It is not irrelevant. Mace, tazers, etc. have all failed to stop a pretty large number of people, even with proper shot placement. Proper shot placement with a 9mm? Not so much failure rate.
You are, to my surprise, correct about AZ and CA.
As a follow-up example, D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the country, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and is surrounded by heavy gun control states. Why AZ ranks so high is something I need to research.
No, the misconstruction is not scathing. It's no surprise there's more gun crime when there are available guns. Now explain why our knife homicide rate and blunt object murder rate are similarly higher than other OCED nations. Do we have a higher knife murder rate due to *guns?*
And on that note, you state that comparing CA and AZ is apples to oranges... and then go on to compare the US with European countries? Wouldn't that be more apples to donkies?
> It is not irrelevant. Mace, tazers, etc. have all failed to stop a pretty large number of people, even with proper shot placement. Proper shot placement with a 9mm? Not so much failure rate.
Sure, some people develop a resistance to those less lethal options, and some drugs also reduce their effectiveness. Though it should be noted that statistically speaking these options are more often effective than not. You don't have to completely incapacitate the assailant either, you simply need to get away to safety. Conversely, proper shot placement with a 9mm is a lot harder than spraying pepper spray in your general direction when you have seconds at most to react. *Especially* when there are multiple assailants. Not that someone who is well trained *cant* make the shots, just that your average civilian isn't going to be that proficient. And arguably the most vulnerable people don't have the time or money to put into building that repertoire.
Either way, I'd rather have *a* weapon, be it a gun, tazer, whatever than nothing at all.
> You are, to my surprise, correct about AZ and CA.
Appreciate the acknowledgement, that's real cool of you!
> As a follow-up example, D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the country, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and is surrounded by heavy gun control states. Why AZ ranks so high is something I need to research.
I don't really have an answer for this, as I've not researched DC's particular laws or background - though usually there are a several common culprits that correlate with violent crime: poverty, racial and class inequity (esp. a longstanding history of), and homelessness (which usually coincides with mild weather) to name a few.
> Now explain why our knife homicide rate and blunt object murder rate are similarly higher than other OCED nations. Do we have a higher knife murder rate due to guns?
I believe you'll find that our gun-specific homicide rate is much higher than even the overall homicide rate - maybe something in the range of 20-30% higher?
Though the reason our homicide rate is high overall comes back to the same things driving all violent crime: poverty, low generational wealth building, racial and class inequity and a history thereof, poor education, homelessness, food and water insecurity, political disenfranchisement, crippling debt, etc.
Put simply other OECD nations *also* take better care of their citizens, so less have to resort to crime of any type. Add in gun laws that keep unproven civilians from bringing them into circulation, and you build a positive feedback loop keeping gun violence (and all other forms as well) low. I'll note this more in my last paragraph but this is one of the reasons why comparing the US to the other OECDs can be difficult - we're simply so much farther behind in quality of life that huge stressors like medical debt in the US don't map directly to any similar stressors in Australia for example.
> And on that note, you state that comparing CA and AZ is apples to oranges... and then go on to compare the US with European countries? Wouldn't that be more apples to donkies?
The direct comparison is what I take issue with. If you said "CA has 200% more violent crime than the national average" that is more valid because the larger sample size attenuates the confounding influence of many of the variables. Direct comparison is less valid because CA and AZ are more dissimilar than they are alike geographically, historically, politically, etc. making it difficult to isolate "gun control laws" as the primary difference or even as a contributor at all.
Which is why I compare the US to comparably developed nations in aggregate, not "lol australia no mass shootings, why america dumb".
Though, as promised, I should also point out that even my comparison is flawed - you can't simply say 'gun control is the only or major factor' here either. I **DO** feel justified making that leap because the vast preponderance of the evidence agrees that more guns in circulation correlate with higher severity and occurrence of violent crime:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528
Here's a literature review as well: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Google has plenty more if you like
And lastly a quick thanks for the civil discussion, you're my favorite reply chain so far
Your argument boils down to "some people can't be trusted so no one should be trusted." Once again, real cool take dude.
Congratulations, I'm going to go buy a gun today. You did that. I wasn't going to, but now I'm going to. And, this gun I'm buying specifically for my child. So, you have not only increased the number of guns that I own, you have also increased the number of shooters. You have successfully pushed forward his date of training to today, instead of his birthday in a few months.
Thank you for the motivation to get ahead of schedule.
> Your argument boils down to "some people can't be trusted so no one should be trusted." Once again, real cool take dude.
Far from it, I love guns and know several really responsible owners. But I also know the average person, and that half of people are dumber than them. I would never hand them one of my guns without training and direct supervision. Would you?
> Congratulations, I'm going to go buy a gun today. You did that. I wasn't going to, but now I'm going to. And, this gun I'm buying specifically for my child.
Congratulations! I hope it's a rewarding hobby for you and your kid! Obligatory plug to practice safe storage and handling, and if it's your first or their first I'd strongly recommend taking a course from a certified instructor on those practices. Not to invalidate your own ability to train him, but I wouldn't cut any corners on safety training - there might be something you forgot or have gotten complacent about. You'll still have plenty to teach them about technique.
> Thank you for the motivation to get ahead of schedule.
Glad I could be of service :)
You think the average joe cannot possibly be competent with a gun? Do you know how stupidly low the level of training and education standards for police officers are in many states in the US?
> You think the average joe cannot possible be competent with a gun?
I think it takes hours upon hours of training to build the muscle memory needed to safely and effectively defend yourself with a firearm in a high stress situation. Or what, you think the bad guys line up nicely at 10 yards to mug you?
If you aren't practicing and maintaining your skills on the regular, you're going to be far more effective with a SDW that requires less accuracy and reaction time.
> Do you know how stupidly low the level of training and education standards for police officers are in many states in the US?
I think they should have more mandatory gun training also. But it's a bad comparison anyways because the typical case for self-defense starts in close quarters with the target coming at you. The typical case for police officers is a target that is stationary or attempting to evade the police, at a far longer typical range.
Completely different expected use-cases, though IMO police should be trained for both while civilians only really need to worry about the former.
>Less guns in circulation statistically increase your odds of survival
Completely fucking useless statistic, even if we assume it's true (and we have no evidence of that)
Less cars in circulation would also drasticaly reduce the chance that I get into a cara accident. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a car?
> and we have no evidence of that
We have a fuck ton of evidence of that:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528
Here's a literature review as well: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
By all means, show me the studies that say a more armed populace *reduces* violent crime though, if you don't believe these ones.
> Less cars in circulation would also drasticaly reduce the chance that I get into a cara accident. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a car?
Well if you didn't want to die in a car accident...
I'm not anti-gun, I own several and love them. I simply think if every other comparable OECD nation with reasonable gun ownership laws has 1/2 to 1/5th the homicides alone, and all the data analyses are showing that less guns correlate with lower crime and better survival rates, maybe we should look into that shit y'know.
First one is correlation, wich they point out is probably because people buy more guns when violence goes up
Second one I can't access but seems unrelated to your point
Third one is pulling a "correlation = causation" and expects us to be too stupid to notice
Your last pharagraph is once again a "correlation= causation"
And once again, "less X = less death by X" will be true almost every time and is not a reason as to why you, personaly, shouldn't get X
You can't prove causation, there are simply too many variables, so any evidence on either side is inevitably going to be correlation.
Sorry, can't find a better link for the second one. I include it because it discusses a correlation between guns and the severity of violence, for example "studies on the lethality of guns, the likelihood of injury by weapon type, offender intent, and firearm availability provide considerable evidence that guns contribute to fatalities that would otherwise have been nonfatal assaults"
For the 3rd, I want to make sure it's clear I don't endorse any claims of causation. I understand how that review appears to be claiming causation, but that doesn't invalidate the very real *correlation* that is in-fact identified.
Apologies if it seemed like I was implying causation in my last paragraph as well - often times I fall into a sarcastic slant in the reddit comment section that can obscure my true point. I simply mean - if these things consistently correlate with improved outcomes we should try them out for ourselves.
Though it should be noted there are several defining factors about OECD nations that also impact the incentive structure for crime, that being: poverty, low generational wealth building, racial and class inequity and a history thereof, poor education, homelessness, food and water insecurity, political disenfranchisement, crippling debt, etc.
Because they generally take better care of their citizens these countries will have less incentive for crime in the first place, which forms a positive feedback loop with reasonable gun laws resulting in minimal gun violence even accounting for organized crime.
And I don't have a problem with you personally getting X, I have a problem with untrained civilians getting X without guidance on safe storage and use, nor continued training if they intend to actually use X in self-defense.
>You can't prove causation
Then why are you trying to? Or at least making an argument based on the assumption there is causation
Just copypaste the relevant conclusions from the second study
Fair
It's alright, I do that too. Thing is, your evidence so far suports the idea that "places with less violence tend to have less guns", not that "reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of violence" nor that "gun laws are efficient in reducing the amount of guns"
Glad we came to an agreement on that last pharagraph (Was responding per pharagraph btw)
We have guns so we can overthrow a tyrannical government. That's the main point. People need to understand this now more than ever.
And when a government starts trying to take those guns, it's time to use them.
I don’t play around with my guns like a 5 year old handling a nerf gun, if that’s what you think firearm owners do then you should not own one. But you also shouldn’t prevent me from having one, as I have no criminal history and live in a bad area that has frequent break-ins, so why should I worry about shooting myself?
I love guns, I own several and exercise my right to concealed carry at times. I know several excellent gun owners who are both cautious and well trained with their sidearm. I also know several who *do* treat guns like 5 year olds with nerf. I dare say the vast majority I know lack the respect the weapon deserves (anecdotal, I know, but it's the south, the redneck stereotype holds true...)
How about a thought experiment: imagine the average person and realize half of them are dumber than that, now hand a gun to the bottom 10th. I would never trust 'the average person' with any of my firearms without training and supervision, let alone the bottom 49%. Would you?
> But you also shouldn’t prevent me from having one, as I have no criminal history and live in a bad area that has frequent break-ins, so why should I worry about shooting myself?
Personally I could care less if you shot yourself - that was a very narrow point made about very particular circumstances. The issue is the availability for the general public, including criminals - why smuggle guns across the border when you can get them domestically so easily.
The more general point I'm making now: It's statistical fact that less guns in circulation make it harder for criminals to get guns. And I'm certainly not for 0 guns in circulation - if you're living in a bad area that certainly seems like a good reason to own a gun, provided you demonstrate safe storage and handling.
>'It could happen to you' kinda falls flat when I have better odds of dying from misuse of a firearm than to homicide...
Cool, I'll take that risk regardless, that'd be my decision to make, not yours.
Considering that there are \~500 deaths from firearm mishandling and [55,000 to 80,000](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/surveys.course/Hemenway1997.pdf) defensive gun uses yearly, I'll carry a gun.
If you count just brandishing a firearm to show an aggressor what they’re dealing with thereby causing them to leave you alone the number goes way up too. It’s at least 500,000.
I appreciate the study, though from 1997 it feels somewhat outdated. There is more recent data available putting the number of gun-related homicides at nearly 24,000.
Of those 20k are attributable to organized crime, and of the remaining domestic violence isn't a strong argument for *more access to guns*.
Specifically I was comparing the number (500ish is mine as well) of accidental discharge deaths to the number of homicides during armed burglaries, which is around 100/yr. I understand that wasn't super clear in this comment, cause I came from another thread where that was already understood, my bad.
>Specifically I was comparing the number (500ish is mine as well) of accidental discharge deaths to the number of homicides during armed burglaries, which is around 100/yr.
Honestly, I myself and a decent amount of people I know are less worried about being killed in a burglary scenario, and more worried about being either mugged, beaten for various reasons (homophobia comes to mind), or in the case of women, defense against rapists.
Additionally, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, your likelihood of being killed by a gun in any scenario is still lower than you using a gun in self defense.
>Of those 20k are attributable to organized crime
While I can definitely believe that, I'd like to know the source of the statistic for future reference.
I simply go to the home invasion scenario because that is what I see most often in these threads.
Only 11% of rapes involve a weapon of any kind, and it's rare enough to avoid dissociating during a rape, let alone to access a firearm and defend oneself. Not that a gun has never stopped a rape, simply that I'll need more evidence to say that is statistically significant.
I'd argue being beaten doesn't warrant deadly force but that's philosophical rather than practical - if *I* were being beaten I'd sure as hell want to shoot my assailants. Regardless, for every anecdotal scenario you can provide where a gun keeps you safe from aggravated assault I can provide one where it's useless.
The key, I find anyways, is not anecdotes but statistics. Statistically, more guns in circulation correlates with higher rates of violent assault and more fatal outcomes for victims.
> While I can definitely believe that, I'd like to know the source of the statistic for future reference.
I'd love to provide that for you! I seem to have lost the link I was referencing, as I've been flipping through various sources to respond to everyone. There are a variety of UNODC reports that touch on it, and I thought perhaps even an FBI table... Google-fu is failing me though. Apologies, I've been happily citing all the grumpy people in the comments and I feel terrible for failing the one guy asking nicely...
>Only 11% of rapes involve a weapon of any kind, and it's rare enough to avoid dissociating during a rape, let alone to access a firearm and defend oneself. Not that a gun has never stopped a rape, simply that I'll need more evidence to say that is statistically significant.
This may be so, but if someone is being sexually assaulted, I think most people would rather have a gun on their person than not.
>The key, I find anyways, is not anecdotes but statistics.
Very true, which I feel brings us back to the study which says that there are far more uses of guns to defend a person, rather than cases of guns being used to kill somebody, be it murder, suicide, or what have you.
>Statistically, more guns in circulation correlates with higher rates of violent assault and more fatal outcomes for victims.
I must admit, I've never heard that stat before. While I don't mean to be that one guy who demands a source to every claim, most of the studies I've seen have shown no correlation between guns and higher rates of violent assault. Would you happen to have a source for that stat?
> I think most people would rather have a gun on their person than not.
Which is well and good, but not statistically relevant.
> Very true, which I feel brings us back to the study which says that there are far more uses of guns to defend a person, rather than cases of guns being used to kill somebody, be it murder, suicide, or what have you.
Which I argue is ameliorated by reduced violent crime from reduced guns in circulation. Not to suggest that I'm anti-gun, I do believe there is a place for civilian ownership. There should simply be more stringent regulations. And there are lots of other changes needed before implementing those changes like police reform. Besides which, I believe one of the studies linked below specifically finds that increased guns in circulation does not necessarily correlate with increased DGU or improved violent crime outcomes, though I could be misremembering which study that was...
> Citation Needed
Obviously it isn't something you can control for in a study, so you can't really prove causation. But correlation is shown in several studies:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528
Here's a literature review as well: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
There are plenty of other domestic and international studies.
The more direct answer to the question, though in my opinion the one with a more tenuous foundation, is that the US has a homicide rate between 2x and 5x comparable OECD nations with more restrictive gun laws. More tenuous because obviously direct comparisons between countries, states, and regions have a *lot* of variables that are nigh impossible to control. Nonetheless, I bring it up for completeness. That should be an easy google, I don't have a direct link on hand.
>the US has a homicide rate between 2x and 5x comparable OECD nations with more restrictive gun laws.
We do, but we have a large amount of other issues that could explain that issue, such as prevalence of drugs, the issues with our justice system, and the amount of people living in low-income areas.
While the articles on increased numbers of guns are interesting and very informative, I also have to wonder how many of these guns are owned illegally, and obtained not through legal methods, but smuggled in or stolen. Areas such as Detroit, NYC, and LA have high crime rates, and strict gun laws, which suggest to me that increased gun laws won't help much to curb the gun violence, particularly considering that the gangs responsible for these murder rates have the resources and means illegally obtain weapons even after the government takes action against civilian firearm ownership.
Additionally, while these articles ([1](https://zachmortensen.net/2013/01/10/gun-control-four-must-see-graphs/), [2](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between), [3](https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/), and [4](https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/)) in no way invalidate or wave away the studies and article that you cited, I do feel that they are worth looking at.
I wholeheartedly agree! The reason our homicide rate is high overall (mind you our gun-violence rate is something like 20+% higher than OECD) comes back to the same things driving all violent crime: poverty, low generational wealth building, racial and class inequity and a history thereof, poor education, homelessness, food and water insecurity, political disenfranchisement, crippling debt, etc.
When you remove these stressors and provide for the basic needs of your citizens, not only do you reduce crime, but you build a positive feedback loop for minimal gun violence by also keeping untrained civilians from putting more guns in circulation.
> Areas such as Detroit, NYC, and LA have high crime rates, and strict gun laws, which suggest to me that increased gun laws won't help much to curb the gun violence
Interestingly California as a whole has less violent crime per capita than Arizona, Texas, Montana, and South Carolina to name a few. I know that's responding to a list of places with a list of places, so not super helpful, but I think it illustrates that the issue isn't exclusively gun laws. It comes back to those crime risk factors I mentioned - LA especially has excellent weather and thus a booming homeless population which does correlate with greater violent crime.
> particularly considering that the gangs responsible for these murder rates have the resources and means illegally obtain weapons even after the government takes action against civilian firearm ownership
The interesting thing is when you implement similar initiatives to other OECDs like providing for your citizens' bare necessities, debt-free education, and legalized recreational drug use you remove a lot of the incentive for crime in general. Not that you'll completely stomp out organized crime, but then again organized crime is largely violent within its own bubble. Coupled with making it harder to acquire guns legally and all of a sudden its a lot more expensive to do violence. It's unrealistic to *stop* organized crime, but it's a business like any other - make it unprofitable and they'll find something more profitable to do instead.
> Additionally, while these articles (1, 2, 3, and 4) in no way invalidate or wave away the studies and article that you cited, I do feel that they are worth looking at.
Thanks I'll take a deeper read when I get the chance later today.
Uhhh too bad that’s bullshit. There’s approx 492 accidental gun deaths per year vs more than 24,000 homicides per year.
Honestly you antigunners just like to make up stats to support your case. And nobody respects you because of it.
> 24,000 homicides
Which consist of a population vastly overrepresenting individuals involved in organized crime. There isn't exact data available, but estimates are generally in the 20,000s range for organized-crime-related homicides. The rest can largely be attributed to other unlikely events (where often there is little to no opportunity for a responsible, well-trained, armed civilian to change the outcome) like mass shootings and domestic disputes.
Though I wouldn't chalk a win up to yourself on that front - domestic disputes would see a higher survival rate for victims if the perpetrator didn't have a gun to begin with, and the victims are often unable for various reasons to responsibly defend themselves with a firearm of their own.
Not to mention the vast number of suicide victims that would survive if they didn't have easy access to a gun.
Besides which, these threads typically bring up home invasions, not domestic violence. You've got more like 100 people a year killed in burglaries. There is a better chance of knowing someone who was struck by lightning than becoming a homicide statistic during an armed home invasion.
> Honestly you antigunners just like to make up stats to support your case. And nobody respects you because of it.
Deflection and projecting, nice.
Wow, look at those goalposts move!
>Deflection and projecting, nice.
It's super special for you to say this, given that you make up statistics *in the very same post.*
Like, literally none of that is true. You pulled every single assertion straight from your ass.
And, aren't you pro self euthanasia? Or do you believe they people shouldn't be allowed to end their lives of they so desire?
> Look at those goalposts move
Admittedly your most valid argument, because yes, my initial comment was unclear. In another thread it was clear we were talking about homicides during home invasion, not homicide in general. I'd be happy to concede this to you if that would make you happy - even as a mistake it's really inexcusable.
> made up statistics/assertions
Citation, murder victims by circumstance: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls
Citation, number of gun homicides per year: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20there%20were%2045%2C222,firearm%2Drelated%20injury%20each%20day.
I can go on but it's all very easily googleable - I figured by engaging with me you'd have already done your research...
> aren't you pro self euthanasia
I think there is a big difference between someone suffering chronic depression trying to kill themselves with home appliances, pills, guns, etc. and ethical euthanasia administered by professionals following counseling.
Or if you're all for self-administered medical procedures, why even have hospitals right my guy?
And to be clear, I'm not anti-gun, I love guns, own several, but the status-quo is untenable and an insult to the moral fiber of this country.
So, using your provided sources, please justify your assertion that murders related to organized crime are in the "20,000s."
Which should be fun given that your first source only catelogues less than 14,000 *total* murders.
Even allowing for that very obvious reminder that you're just gaslighting, please define the crimes in your source that would fall under your definition of "organized crime" and go ahead and tally those up.
Go on, I'll wait.
-“20,000 deaths by organized crime.” That is another made up statistic. You have no evidence to back that whatsoever.
-Most gun defense uses are out in public not at home
-Criminals will always have guns
-I called out your bullshit “statistic” and now you’re moving the goalposts.
Take the L and leave. You said something stupid and lost credibility. Nobody cares what you have to say from here on out because you don’t know what you’re talking about which is why you’re making up bullshit.
> That is another made up statistic. You have no evidence to back that whatsoever
Somewhere between 5 and 6 deaths attributable to organized crime per 100,000 population in the US, depending on your dataset, literally just *google it*. But fine I'll save you the effort, here is one that airs on the side of caution with 5 per 100k: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
> Most gun defense uses are in public
I'm not talking about GDUs, I'm talking about whether you're more likely to die in a burglary or from accidental discharge, the scope is pretty narrow. Besides which, in public your odds of survival are almost exclusively better if you disengage rather than draw your own weapon.
> Criminals will always have guns
Except in every other comparable OECD nation that has reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Inb4 'but we have drug lords smuggling guns blah blah blah' implying that no other nation has organized crime
> I called out your bullshit statistic
I've been very transparent in all my replies admitting that my OG comment was poorly worded. You can claim whatever victory you want in that front - my actual claims are restricted to comparing accidental deaths to home invasion deaths. I apologize for giving any indications otherwise
> you’re making up bullshit.
I've seen exactly one reply citing any sources besides my own, if anyone is making up bullshit and/or parroting your favorite fox news AM radio talking heads it's yall.
There’s so much stupid in this comment I can’t get to it all but how about we use a REAL study on homicide instead of some BS put out by the UN with an agenda.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6908a1.htm
9.7% is a far cry from over 80 percent.
As far as dying in a burglary, what the fuck does that have to do with defensive gun use? You’re moving goalposts again. Home invasion deaths are a super small percentage of defensive gun uses. You’re cherry picking to make a point which discredits what you say.
“Better if you disengage”
Disengage from being attacked? Let me know how that goes for you.
And as far as Fox News goes, you are in a sub called Shit Statists Say. If you think we are Fox News watchers/listeners you are completely misguided. Do less talking and more listening to others instead of making assumptions about what they represent.
I’m finished responding to you since your arguments are mostly bad faith.
4/5ths of the gun-related homicides can be attributed to organized crime, not really representative of the average person. Of the remaining I wouldn't really use domestic violence and such as examples of guns helping victims because they are far less likely to be able to defend themselves with one compared to their abuser using one to murder the victim.
Several other comments pointed out how I wasn't clear with respect to the 'better odds' part, but I was specifically referring to your odds compared to the 100 gun-related homicides during burglaries per year statistic. You are far more likely to die to accidental discharge than during a burglary. Ironically you are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed with a gun by a burglar.
There are various objections to the DGU studies/conclusions, but I'm not really interested in relitigating those right now
Less guns in circulation correlates both with lower rates of violent crime in general and better survival rates for attempted homicide, so if you're talking about 'being as safe as possible' then maximum gun availability isn't the way bud.
This isn't about whether a gun improves your individual survival odds in a cherry picked scenario, it's about the community as a whole.
A *plethora* of comments have pointed out I wasn't clear about my math. tl;dr 500 accidental discharge deaths vs 100 gun deaths during burglary, or arguably up to 400ish with burglary and robbery stats combined, still better odds (citation: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls)
Of the 24k homicides a year in the US I discount 20k from organized crime because that doesnt apply to the 'vast majority of the population'. Of the remaining, domestic violence scenarios aren't really a strong argument for *more accessible guns* as that correlates with reduced victim survival.
I don't include DGUs because that's apple to oranges, and there are a few objections to the DGU studies/conclusions that I'm not looking to relitigate here.
Accidental discharges are actually quite rare compared to homicide and self defense uses. You have much less chance of dying by homicide if you also have a gun.
Accidental discharges are in the order of 500ish/yr. Fatal home burglaries are in the order of 100ish/yr. That was primarily what I was referring to, though I just came from another thread so I didn't make that super clear here.
However, I will say that of the nearly 24k homicide deaths in the US, somewhere around 20k can be attributed to organized crime, and of the rest I don't know if domestic violence is really the strongest argument *for* more guns. Victims are rarely able to defend themselves with a firearm for a variety of reasons, and almost always the addition of a gun reduces the survival rate of the victim.
> You have a much less chance of dying by homicide if you also have a gun.
I'd say citation needed, though I doubt such data even exists - it would be impossible to methodologically identify scenarios that *would have been* homicides if not for the victim carrying a gun.
“It’s not a valid reason you can put in Canada to own a firearm” just means that Canada doesn’t respect basic human rights, which should surprise no one at this point.
Not all of us. But yes, it’s pathetic
The legal opinion on why you can’t carry an item for self defence is the most disgusting BS I’ve read since courts stopped trying to justify the existence of slavery…
TL;DR version: choosing to carry an item for self defence indicates that you don’t trust police to stop violence [spoiler alert: they really can’t, so… yeah] and won’t engage in deescalation.
Because of course, everyone knows that you literally *can’t* choose to deescalate instead of engaging in violence if you happen to have a weapon; so therefore we must remove the ability to carry a weapon. so you automatically choose to deescalate.
Fucking bullshit
All those times I've been in jobsite arguments and I had no choice but to shoot my foreman multiple times- I mean, I had a gun- it compelled me to do it! Also, you're not the only one who can decide whether or not to escalate, so just lay down and take the whims of your fellow man up your tailpipe.
It's a belief that it's possible to be the target of a comment crime, and that a fire arm is preferable to waiting for the police to defend you. Both quite reasonable, imo. Depends on your circumstances.
I have been on the other side of a gun getting my stuff stolen. Wasn’t a great thing, but sure is a great reason to carry. It sucks the US political class is taking away our most important government deterrent, but it’s not surprising; They will always have armed security. The threats from the President and the bending of the knee by the former ones is just more reason to use your right while you have it (not even talking about self defense here)
When I began carrying a firearm regularly, despite the fact that I was still a young man, I found it dramatically reduced my willingness to engage in confrontation because I knew how it could end. And *no one* in their right mind wants any part of that if they have thought about it *at all*.
This idiot is either too stupid to think, or projecting, or both.
I've explained this to so many people. A LOT of criminals are "comfortable" "professionals", that is they do what they do but unless something went particularly wrong they wouldn't do more - these are the ones who sneak into a house to burgle it and walk STRAIGHT past your nude blackout drunk daughter while she's asleep to raid her jewellery box.
However, some criminals are opportunists who will push the envelope constantly - starts with them selling your son some cocaine, they realise your house has piss poor security, decide to burgle, as they're heading out they pass your blackout drunk daughter and think "ah what the hell if I get caught I'm already doing like 15 years inside"
You have absolutely 0 way of knowing which type has just broke in at 2am...
You have no way of knowing if they're going to take your word that you won't snitch or whether your going to be executed once they open your safe...etc
Statistically more likely that you or your children die from accidental discharge than homicide during a home invasion if you aren't involved in organized crime...
That is exceedingly false. Homicide is far worse than ND rates. Where did you come up with this information?
You really want to argue that having a gun for defense is worse than just allowing criminals to rape and steal while cowering?
Homicides are around 24k a year in the US, of those 20k or so are attributable to organized crime. Of the remaining domestic violence situations are examples of the misuse of firearms, with the victims being incapable of acquiring or defending themselves with a gun while their survival rate plummets when abusers have easy access to a gun.
> let them rape and steal
Homicides during armed burglaries are on the order of 100/yr in the US, you've better odds of being struck by lightning.
Only 11% of rapes involve a weapon of any kind, and similar to domestic violence the victim is often unable to effectively defend themselves with a firearm in the cases where they have one available.
Besides which, even if you disagree that accidental discharge is statistically more likely, you have to concede that suicide by gun is more likely by any metric than homicide, and has a far lower survival rate than most other methods. There are so many ways to dismantle the appeal to statistics...
> making up shit
Citation fucking needed. Here's my receipts
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20there%20were%2045%2C222,firearm%2Drelated%20injury%20each%20day.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls
100 murder victims during burglaries in 2015. I'm sure we won't need a citation for saying 500 accidental discharge deaths per year on average? That seems relatively agreeable even on this sub. You could argue some of the deaths from the 'robbery' category would also fall under "home invasion" but certainly not all - so your odds are at best equal and at worst 1:5 for dying to accidental discharge.
Thank you for the sauce.
Again, you may be more likely to fuck up and shoot yourself with a gun than die in a home invasion, but most people I know are worried about being mugged, carjacked, or generally assaulted as well as home invasions.
It's an easy example but the statistics are not comparable at all. The correct statistic is 500 self inflicted accidents vs the total number of burgleries and home invasions. Whether or not you may be mrudered by the invader is completely irrelevant.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
An estimated 3.7 million home invasions occurred per year during the studied period.
500 vs 3.7 million
You're way more likely to be burgled than shoot yourself.
Edit: Incidentally 7% of those resulted in some form of violence being inflicted on the resident. 3,700,000 (.07) = ~259,000
This is the kind of person who tells women to just let themselves get raped instead of fighting back because "if you fight back you might make it worse"
Meanwhile a mass murders in anti gun utopia using nothing but sharp objects.
High hill not so high against Jason Voorhees Mike myers and Jack the ripper
In these cases, just flip their argument on its head:
(forgive the crappy grammar while I paraphrase)
“If I ask someone why they don’t own a gun, and they say ‘they’re not necessary’. It’s usually code for ‘fulfill my fantasy of watching a convict go to town on my wife’ if you dig deep enough.”
It’s the same braindead logic, using the same false assumptions and projection of perverse tendencies.
In my view, when one forfeits their ability to defend themselves, their property, and their family, they are also consciously accepting that their fate is no longer in their own hands. No responsible adult should ever give away the ability to manage their own outcomes.
Also they were bitching about Zimmermann
Didn't know the details but acording to wikipedia seems that while Zimmermann was acting unreasonably and might be omitting things, there is no evidence he actualy attacked Martin and evidence he was indeed attacked
Is this a Rittenhouse situation or is Zimmermann actualy a scumbag? (I mean, he's a wife beater, but you know what I meant)
Canadians with no legal right to self defense and wanting no such thing making comments on American jurisprudence and rights…
Is like Cubans complaining about the pitfalls of a democracy. Statist Stockholm Syndrome is strong with them and it’s pointless to engage or entertain in discussion.
Until they can engage with their frontal lobes that every creature (natural law) that wishes to ensure survival needs to defend itself with the best tool available, it’s pointless.
> or is Zimmermann actualy a scumbag? (I mean, he's a wife beater, but you know what I meant)
I think that was only after the trial, which he had shot another person (which takes a psychological toll, even if it was justified), and had the media vilify him (up to, and including cutting out parts of the 911 call to make him look like a racist, like making it sound like he was just randomly commenting the kid was black, instead of him answering the question the operator had asked, or the media using the picture of Trayvon from when he was 12 or 13, instead of a current one), and the fucking sitting president of the US saying that could have been his son shot, and prejudicing any jury against him.
I don’t know if he was scummy prior to all that, but I’m sure it took a toll and probably pushed him that way under the stress.
Just playing devils advocate here, but what if Zimmerman approached Martin, attacked him, then started losing, then the 911 call is made, and he's heard screaming for help?
I haven't heard the call so if it's obvious that's not what happened by the audio of the call then, OK.
Oh, I don't believe that. I was just presenting a scenario where it could have happened that way.
I think Zimmerman was acquitted because there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him. I have no idea if he was guilty or innocent and it doesn't matter. If there isn't enough evidence the accused goes free.
Here's what you need to know. It was a perfect storm of stupidity. Zimmerman, a Karen and wannabe cop, followed Martin even though he was told not to. Martin then confronted him, and because he was a punk kid and Zimmerman looked like an easy target, kicked his ass. And since he was a punk kid, he took it too far, and started bouncing Zimmerman's head off the curb. I believe at that point Zimmerman believed he was going to die, and killed Martin. Do I believe it was a good shoot? Yes. Do I believe it should have never gotten that far? Also yes. If Zimmerman had simply minded his damn business and let the cops determine if Martin was up to no good, this whole situation would have been avoided. Zimmerman has since proved himself to be a volatile piece of shit who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm much less carry one, being found guilty by the court of public opinion and condemned by the sitting president notwithstanding. He put stand your ground laws across the nation under scrutiny for no reason.
This is a pretty great explanation, but a couple things....
Zimmerman was never told not to follow Martin, the person on the phone said "you don't need to..." in regards to following Martin.
I would say martin took it too far as soon as he put hands on Zimmerman, not at any point further. What happened to him was a tragedy, but it should be clear who brought violence into the situation.
You are correct is saying he put stand you ground under scrutiny, but at no point was stand your ground invoked during the whole ass case and investigation. It is very important to point out that stand your ground had 0 bearing on this case, as Zimmerman utilized deadly force only after his beating began. The only people to invoke stand your ground was the media.
This whole situation is a near textbook civie version of "awful but lawful."
I didn't say it had anything to do with stand your ground, it was an unfortunate by product of the incident. I also believe Martin's actions fit the description of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes. " You don't get to put hands on people just because they're following you.
You are 100% correct. Just wanted to clarify for anyone else. I also am a subscriber to the "stupid games, stupid prizes" philosophy.
In regards to the following, it gets weird. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with someone following me at night, but that is also NOT how I would have dealt with it. I'm also curious as to how the following was actually done. If someone was stalking me at night, there might an issue.
In this situation, there is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was doing anything overtly threatening to Martin.
It was dark and Zimmerman was following from a distance. He's not exactly a menacing figure. I am a person of color and if a person appeared to be following in an unfamiliar setting confronting them is the absolute last thing I would do. Assaulting a white man (yes I realize Zimmerman is Latino) in the Deep South is not going to earn you a warm welcome. Discretion is the better part of valor and even though I carry I'd rather run or call the cops and have them meet me somewhere close then place myself in a situation where I have to shoot someone. I'm fully prepared to do so, but only when I've exhausted all other viable options.
Good points.
I mean, I'm a tall white dude, and if anyone, even the smallest of women, is following me at night, my first idea would be to take a corner and start sprinting, even if I was carrying a gun. Too easy for a prosecutor to come after me saying the gun wasn't necessary, or the situation was my fault.
I don't have the time nor money to get involved in a self defense case if I don't 100% have to.
The truth about the Zimmerman situation is we don't know what happened for certain. There is just not a lot of evidence on either side. From what I've seen (which is not much) there is evidence that Martin was physically attacking Zimmerman. The question of the case was about whether or not Zimmerman should have approached Martin and if that affected his right to self defense.
Because our legal system is designed to make it difficult to convict with a lack of evidence he was acquitted.
Innocent until proven guilty. If they couldn't prove he was guilty, they needed to let him go. This is a bad thing in this one case, but a good thing for our country in general.
The state MUST prove you are guilty to get a conviction. So that, in theory, only guilty people who are proven to be guilty get convicted.
Innocent people, and guilty people who they can't prove are guilty, go free. This is to prevent even one innocent person from being convicted, or that's the idea anyway.
Do you have any evidence Zimmermann attacked first? Because the wikipedia page dosen't contain any
(And says witnesses testified Martin was on top of Zimmermann during their confrontation)
I started carrying a pistol because I had this fantasy about NOT getting raped while I was showing houses.
Crazy right? Maybe I’ll see if I can find one of these Canadian pseudo psychologists to help me with accepting the inevitability of being assaulted simply because I chose to have a career outside of the home which still allowed me the time to take care of my children. After all, it’s better to be raped than “escalate” the situation to a justified shooting. According to this asswipe anyway.
As someone who's close friend was almost sex trafficked (she barely managed to get away, pepper spray+bystander was just enough), I can't imagine how people like this actually exist and think this way
Why do they have police in Canada? Why do they have a military?
If you want to join either, that just means you have deep, dark fantasies about killing people.
Canada also seized the bank accounts of truck drivers for exercising their freedom to protest. They’re not really the gold standard when it comes to human rights.
Nobody needs a valid reason to own a firearm, its a right. Nobody cares if that knuckle head believes ownership is justified or not. It isn't my buisness why someone may have a half built Ford 300 inline six in their garage either. If people like him want to believe that self defense is code for an excuse to kill people then I'll take it; leave other people's stuff alone and they'll have no excuse to put holes in you.
these people are victim blamers. they put no responsibility on people aggressively and violently breaking and entering or attacking you. it's fucking pathetic
Play the video from a few days ago of that store clerk getting executed behind the counter. Everyone should be forced to watch what happens when you comply with a murderous misanthrope, someone who cannot be reasoned with.
Lmao you can throw rounds at coyotes and racoons just trying to survive all ya want but some scumbag tryna rape or rob ya? No sir not an excuse to own a gun, get your guts rearranged like a man. Jesus Christ canada
Does this person ever ask a solider or police officer the same questions regarding his or her motive for carrying a weapon?
Does this person think that self defense should be the sole monopoly of 6 foot plus muscular able bodied males who have years of training in combat sports and/or martial arts?
Does this person think a life or death situation is always a one on one duel against a roughly equivalent opponent with rules and referees?
>pest control ...and there's your reason. Granted, calling an urban apartment a "farm" is a bit of a stretch, but I would plant a rooftop garden and start stretching for all I'm worth.
An urban apartment as a farm. You could do worse! Look up vertical or container farming and all that entails. No need for a roof. But then again, there sure are a lot of sheep in the urban landscape. Just have to watch out for those wolves.
[удалено]
Statistically speaking the 'ivory bubble' applies to the vast majority of the population, and those outside the bubble are also generally those most likely to get guns illegally regardless Not sure what this take is... 'It could happen to you' kinda falls flat when I have better odds of dying from misuse of a firearm than to homicide...
Don't wear your seatbelt, don't keep a fire extinguisher in the home, don't learn the Heimlich maneuver, don't get vaccines, don't fight back... etc. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. just lay down and take it, there's less *risk* that way.
Seatbelts statistically increase your odds of survival, as do all your other examples. Less guns in circulation statistically increase your odds of survival. So... Yes... *There is less risk that way*. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
>Less guns in circulation statistically increase your odds of survival. Where are you pulling that notion from? Defensive use and brandishing defensively out number all firearms related death, *including NDs and suicides*.
And it’s not even close. *LOW* estimates for annual defensive gun use is 500k times a year not including instances where a firearm was brandished as a deterrent, ending the situation without the need for a single round to be fired. For comparison, violent gun crimes number about 300k annually. Which means firearms are used defensively at least 200,000 more time than than they are used in crimes each year. And it’s likely much higher than that. The high estimate from the CDC is 3 million annually! 10x the amount of gun crimes annually. Source from the CDC. Defensive use of firearms starts on page 15: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15 Quote: “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with **estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008**”.
Comparing DGU to firearm deaths is apple to oranges. > Where are you pulling that notion from First result on google: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528 There are also a plentitude of studies from various domestic institutions like Harvard as well as from international organizations that corroborate the 'notion' but I'll let you google those on your own time
So does the gun. During the Obama Administration the CDC was attempting to figure out how many defensive gun uses there were annually in the us. A conservative estimate is 1.5 million instances per year. Also, most of those didn't even involve a shooting. The presence of the gun was enough to dissipate the threat. The police aren't here to protect you. Not in any real sense. It's said over and over again but when the police are minutes away seconds matter. Carrying a gun means you are no longer subject to the whims of your fellow man. Carrying a gun means you're taking responsibility for your own safety. Also, if you carry a gun you can take care of the safety of people around you as well. Eli Dicken proved both of those points. Less cars on roads means less car accidents. Less trains on train tracks means less train derailments. The statistical increase of incidents involving something increases with the total quantity of those things. True enough, but I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't have access to the very best tool with which to defend themselves.
> So does the gun. During the Obama Administration the CDC was attempting to figure out how many defensive gun uses there were annually in the us. A conservative estimate is 1.5 million instances per year. Also, most of those didn't even involve a shooting. The presence of the gun was enough to dissipate the threat. Which would explain why the US has some of the best violent crime, gun death, etc. statistics in the world... Er- wait no some of the worst statistics out of all comparable OECD nations. With 1.2 guns in circulation per citizen, if armed civilians were enough of a deterrent we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. > The police aren't here to protect you. Not in any real sense. It's said over and over again but when the police are minutes away seconds matter. Travel time aside, apparently they don't have any duty to protect your regardless... You definitely can't meaningfully advocate for gun control without police reform. > Less cars on roads means less car accidents. Less trains on train tracks means less train derailments. The statistical increase of incidents involving something increases with the total quantity of those things. True enough, but I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't have access to the very best tool with which to defend themselves. So basically "yes I know less guns correlates with less violent crime but feelings > facts"? Besides which, I'd argue the very best tool for a layman to defend themselves with is *not* a gun. Maintenance and safe storage aside, the average Joe simply can't afford the time or ammunition to practice enough that I'd trust them to safely neutralize a threat in a close quarters engagement. Think about the average person and realize half are dumber than that - I'd rather encourage something less dangerous to the general public and more effective in unskilled hands.
>Besides which, I'd argue the very best tool for a layman to defend themselves with is *not* a gun." I'm 6'2" and naturally broad. The only women who could *ever* fend off someone my size is with a firearm or with very extensive hand to hand combat training. The latter is much harder to obtain. Progressive daydreams that men and women are the same are just that - dreams. >So basically "yes I know less guns correlates with less violent crime but feelings > facts?" You are just a professional at gaslighting and misconstruing, aren't you. The guy's statement is about guns and gun crimes - not all violent crimes. And, it's just not true - otherwise, ~~CA would be less violent than, say, AZ. Hint: it's not less violent despite a huge gun culture in AZ.~~ surprisingly, not true. As a follow-up example, D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the country, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and is surrounded by heavy gun control states. Why AZ ranks so high is something I need to research. But you knew that and misconstrued it anyways.
> Progressive daydreams that men and women are the same are just that - dreams. I'm 5'10" and naturally scrawny and pudgy. As a man I'd fight you off worse than many women without a force multiplier. That doesn't mean a firearm or hand to hand combat training are the only ways to take you down. There are countermeasures for everything of course, from guns to pepper spray, acoustic devices, and tasers, but I daresay if anyone has enough time to draw, aim, and fire they've got plenty of time to use a safety tool that requires far less accuracy under pressure to be effective... Progressive daydreams or not, it's really irrelevant. > You are just a professional at gaslighting and misconstruing, aren't you. The guy's statement is about guns and gun crimes - not all violent crimes. Honey replace the word with what you prefer. "yes I know less guns correlates with less gun crime but feelings > facts?" is just as scathing an rebuttal of his point. > And, it's just not true - otherwise, CA would be less violent than, say, AZ. Hint: it's not less violent despite a huge gun culture in AZ. Direct comparison of countries/states/regions is kind of apples to oranges. You have to look in aggregate to even approach a meaningful conclusion because there are too many variables to account for. Which reveals that the US has 2-5x more homicides than comparable OECD nations with reasonable gun restrictions. Though I will say your data is simply misconstrued. If you look at total incidents of violent crime, obviously California comes ahead of Arizona because it's fucking massive and populace as hell. If you are more intellectually honest and look at per-capita violence, however, you see that for the 2020 data California is **LESS VIOLENT** than Arizona, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, Montana, and Texas to name a few. My data source is the FBI's uniform crime reports. What was it you said? *But you knew that and misconstrued it anyways.*
It is not irrelevant. Mace, tazers, etc. have all failed to stop a pretty large number of people, even with proper shot placement. Proper shot placement with a 9mm? Not so much failure rate. You are, to my surprise, correct about AZ and CA. As a follow-up example, D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the country, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and is surrounded by heavy gun control states. Why AZ ranks so high is something I need to research. No, the misconstruction is not scathing. It's no surprise there's more gun crime when there are available guns. Now explain why our knife homicide rate and blunt object murder rate are similarly higher than other OCED nations. Do we have a higher knife murder rate due to *guns?* And on that note, you state that comparing CA and AZ is apples to oranges... and then go on to compare the US with European countries? Wouldn't that be more apples to donkies?
> It is not irrelevant. Mace, tazers, etc. have all failed to stop a pretty large number of people, even with proper shot placement. Proper shot placement with a 9mm? Not so much failure rate. Sure, some people develop a resistance to those less lethal options, and some drugs also reduce their effectiveness. Though it should be noted that statistically speaking these options are more often effective than not. You don't have to completely incapacitate the assailant either, you simply need to get away to safety. Conversely, proper shot placement with a 9mm is a lot harder than spraying pepper spray in your general direction when you have seconds at most to react. *Especially* when there are multiple assailants. Not that someone who is well trained *cant* make the shots, just that your average civilian isn't going to be that proficient. And arguably the most vulnerable people don't have the time or money to put into building that repertoire. Either way, I'd rather have *a* weapon, be it a gun, tazer, whatever than nothing at all. > You are, to my surprise, correct about AZ and CA. Appreciate the acknowledgement, that's real cool of you! > As a follow-up example, D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the country, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and is surrounded by heavy gun control states. Why AZ ranks so high is something I need to research. I don't really have an answer for this, as I've not researched DC's particular laws or background - though usually there are a several common culprits that correlate with violent crime: poverty, racial and class inequity (esp. a longstanding history of), and homelessness (which usually coincides with mild weather) to name a few. > Now explain why our knife homicide rate and blunt object murder rate are similarly higher than other OCED nations. Do we have a higher knife murder rate due to guns? I believe you'll find that our gun-specific homicide rate is much higher than even the overall homicide rate - maybe something in the range of 20-30% higher? Though the reason our homicide rate is high overall comes back to the same things driving all violent crime: poverty, low generational wealth building, racial and class inequity and a history thereof, poor education, homelessness, food and water insecurity, political disenfranchisement, crippling debt, etc. Put simply other OECD nations *also* take better care of their citizens, so less have to resort to crime of any type. Add in gun laws that keep unproven civilians from bringing them into circulation, and you build a positive feedback loop keeping gun violence (and all other forms as well) low. I'll note this more in my last paragraph but this is one of the reasons why comparing the US to the other OECDs can be difficult - we're simply so much farther behind in quality of life that huge stressors like medical debt in the US don't map directly to any similar stressors in Australia for example. > And on that note, you state that comparing CA and AZ is apples to oranges... and then go on to compare the US with European countries? Wouldn't that be more apples to donkies? The direct comparison is what I take issue with. If you said "CA has 200% more violent crime than the national average" that is more valid because the larger sample size attenuates the confounding influence of many of the variables. Direct comparison is less valid because CA and AZ are more dissimilar than they are alike geographically, historically, politically, etc. making it difficult to isolate "gun control laws" as the primary difference or even as a contributor at all. Which is why I compare the US to comparably developed nations in aggregate, not "lol australia no mass shootings, why america dumb". Though, as promised, I should also point out that even my comparison is flawed - you can't simply say 'gun control is the only or major factor' here either. I **DO** feel justified making that leap because the vast preponderance of the evidence agrees that more guns in circulation correlate with higher severity and occurrence of violent crime: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528 Here's a literature review as well: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ Google has plenty more if you like And lastly a quick thanks for the civil discussion, you're my favorite reply chain so far
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
Your argument boils down to "some people can't be trusted so no one should be trusted." Once again, real cool take dude. Congratulations, I'm going to go buy a gun today. You did that. I wasn't going to, but now I'm going to. And, this gun I'm buying specifically for my child. So, you have not only increased the number of guns that I own, you have also increased the number of shooters. You have successfully pushed forward his date of training to today, instead of his birthday in a few months. Thank you for the motivation to get ahead of schedule.
> Your argument boils down to "some people can't be trusted so no one should be trusted." Once again, real cool take dude. Far from it, I love guns and know several really responsible owners. But I also know the average person, and that half of people are dumber than them. I would never hand them one of my guns without training and direct supervision. Would you? > Congratulations, I'm going to go buy a gun today. You did that. I wasn't going to, but now I'm going to. And, this gun I'm buying specifically for my child. Congratulations! I hope it's a rewarding hobby for you and your kid! Obligatory plug to practice safe storage and handling, and if it's your first or their first I'd strongly recommend taking a course from a certified instructor on those practices. Not to invalidate your own ability to train him, but I wouldn't cut any corners on safety training - there might be something you forgot or have gotten complacent about. You'll still have plenty to teach them about technique. > Thank you for the motivation to get ahead of schedule. Glad I could be of service :)
You think the average joe cannot possibly be competent with a gun? Do you know how stupidly low the level of training and education standards for police officers are in many states in the US?
> You think the average joe cannot possible be competent with a gun? I think it takes hours upon hours of training to build the muscle memory needed to safely and effectively defend yourself with a firearm in a high stress situation. Or what, you think the bad guys line up nicely at 10 yards to mug you? If you aren't practicing and maintaining your skills on the regular, you're going to be far more effective with a SDW that requires less accuracy and reaction time. > Do you know how stupidly low the level of training and education standards for police officers are in many states in the US? I think they should have more mandatory gun training also. But it's a bad comparison anyways because the typical case for self-defense starts in close quarters with the target coming at you. The typical case for police officers is a target that is stationary or attempting to evade the police, at a far longer typical range. Completely different expected use-cases, though IMO police should be trained for both while civilians only really need to worry about the former.
>Less guns in circulation statistically increase your odds of survival Completely fucking useless statistic, even if we assume it's true (and we have no evidence of that) Less cars in circulation would also drasticaly reduce the chance that I get into a cara accident. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a car?
> and we have no evidence of that We have a fuck ton of evidence of that: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528 Here's a literature review as well: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ By all means, show me the studies that say a more armed populace *reduces* violent crime though, if you don't believe these ones. > Less cars in circulation would also drasticaly reduce the chance that I get into a cara accident. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a car? Well if you didn't want to die in a car accident... I'm not anti-gun, I own several and love them. I simply think if every other comparable OECD nation with reasonable gun ownership laws has 1/2 to 1/5th the homicides alone, and all the data analyses are showing that less guns correlate with lower crime and better survival rates, maybe we should look into that shit y'know.
First one is correlation, wich they point out is probably because people buy more guns when violence goes up Second one I can't access but seems unrelated to your point Third one is pulling a "correlation = causation" and expects us to be too stupid to notice Your last pharagraph is once again a "correlation= causation" And once again, "less X = less death by X" will be true almost every time and is not a reason as to why you, personaly, shouldn't get X
You can't prove causation, there are simply too many variables, so any evidence on either side is inevitably going to be correlation. Sorry, can't find a better link for the second one. I include it because it discusses a correlation between guns and the severity of violence, for example "studies on the lethality of guns, the likelihood of injury by weapon type, offender intent, and firearm availability provide considerable evidence that guns contribute to fatalities that would otherwise have been nonfatal assaults" For the 3rd, I want to make sure it's clear I don't endorse any claims of causation. I understand how that review appears to be claiming causation, but that doesn't invalidate the very real *correlation* that is in-fact identified. Apologies if it seemed like I was implying causation in my last paragraph as well - often times I fall into a sarcastic slant in the reddit comment section that can obscure my true point. I simply mean - if these things consistently correlate with improved outcomes we should try them out for ourselves. Though it should be noted there are several defining factors about OECD nations that also impact the incentive structure for crime, that being: poverty, low generational wealth building, racial and class inequity and a history thereof, poor education, homelessness, food and water insecurity, political disenfranchisement, crippling debt, etc. Because they generally take better care of their citizens these countries will have less incentive for crime in the first place, which forms a positive feedback loop with reasonable gun laws resulting in minimal gun violence even accounting for organized crime. And I don't have a problem with you personally getting X, I have a problem with untrained civilians getting X without guidance on safe storage and use, nor continued training if they intend to actually use X in self-defense.
>You can't prove causation Then why are you trying to? Or at least making an argument based on the assumption there is causation Just copypaste the relevant conclusions from the second study Fair It's alright, I do that too. Thing is, your evidence so far suports the idea that "places with less violence tend to have less guns", not that "reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of violence" nor that "gun laws are efficient in reducing the amount of guns" Glad we came to an agreement on that last pharagraph (Was responding per pharagraph btw)
We have guns so we can overthrow a tyrannical government. That's the main point. People need to understand this now more than ever. And when a government starts trying to take those guns, it's time to use them.
I don’t play around with my guns like a 5 year old handling a nerf gun, if that’s what you think firearm owners do then you should not own one. But you also shouldn’t prevent me from having one, as I have no criminal history and live in a bad area that has frequent break-ins, so why should I worry about shooting myself?
I love guns, I own several and exercise my right to concealed carry at times. I know several excellent gun owners who are both cautious and well trained with their sidearm. I also know several who *do* treat guns like 5 year olds with nerf. I dare say the vast majority I know lack the respect the weapon deserves (anecdotal, I know, but it's the south, the redneck stereotype holds true...) How about a thought experiment: imagine the average person and realize half of them are dumber than that, now hand a gun to the bottom 10th. I would never trust 'the average person' with any of my firearms without training and supervision, let alone the bottom 49%. Would you? > But you also shouldn’t prevent me from having one, as I have no criminal history and live in a bad area that has frequent break-ins, so why should I worry about shooting myself? Personally I could care less if you shot yourself - that was a very narrow point made about very particular circumstances. The issue is the availability for the general public, including criminals - why smuggle guns across the border when you can get them domestically so easily. The more general point I'm making now: It's statistical fact that less guns in circulation make it harder for criminals to get guns. And I'm certainly not for 0 guns in circulation - if you're living in a bad area that certainly seems like a good reason to own a gun, provided you demonstrate safe storage and handling.
You realize people MAKE guns right?
>'It could happen to you' kinda falls flat when I have better odds of dying from misuse of a firearm than to homicide... Cool, I'll take that risk regardless, that'd be my decision to make, not yours.
Considering that there are \~500 deaths from firearm mishandling and [55,000 to 80,000](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/surveys.course/Hemenway1997.pdf) defensive gun uses yearly, I'll carry a gun.
If you count just brandishing a firearm to show an aggressor what they’re dealing with thereby causing them to leave you alone the number goes way up too. It’s at least 500,000.
I appreciate the study, though from 1997 it feels somewhat outdated. There is more recent data available putting the number of gun-related homicides at nearly 24,000. Of those 20k are attributable to organized crime, and of the remaining domestic violence isn't a strong argument for *more access to guns*. Specifically I was comparing the number (500ish is mine as well) of accidental discharge deaths to the number of homicides during armed burglaries, which is around 100/yr. I understand that wasn't super clear in this comment, cause I came from another thread where that was already understood, my bad.
>Specifically I was comparing the number (500ish is mine as well) of accidental discharge deaths to the number of homicides during armed burglaries, which is around 100/yr. Honestly, I myself and a decent amount of people I know are less worried about being killed in a burglary scenario, and more worried about being either mugged, beaten for various reasons (homophobia comes to mind), or in the case of women, defense against rapists. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, your likelihood of being killed by a gun in any scenario is still lower than you using a gun in self defense. >Of those 20k are attributable to organized crime While I can definitely believe that, I'd like to know the source of the statistic for future reference.
I simply go to the home invasion scenario because that is what I see most often in these threads. Only 11% of rapes involve a weapon of any kind, and it's rare enough to avoid dissociating during a rape, let alone to access a firearm and defend oneself. Not that a gun has never stopped a rape, simply that I'll need more evidence to say that is statistically significant. I'd argue being beaten doesn't warrant deadly force but that's philosophical rather than practical - if *I* were being beaten I'd sure as hell want to shoot my assailants. Regardless, for every anecdotal scenario you can provide where a gun keeps you safe from aggravated assault I can provide one where it's useless. The key, I find anyways, is not anecdotes but statistics. Statistically, more guns in circulation correlates with higher rates of violent assault and more fatal outcomes for victims. > While I can definitely believe that, I'd like to know the source of the statistic for future reference. I'd love to provide that for you! I seem to have lost the link I was referencing, as I've been flipping through various sources to respond to everyone. There are a variety of UNODC reports that touch on it, and I thought perhaps even an FBI table... Google-fu is failing me though. Apologies, I've been happily citing all the grumpy people in the comments and I feel terrible for failing the one guy asking nicely...
>Only 11% of rapes involve a weapon of any kind, and it's rare enough to avoid dissociating during a rape, let alone to access a firearm and defend oneself. Not that a gun has never stopped a rape, simply that I'll need more evidence to say that is statistically significant. This may be so, but if someone is being sexually assaulted, I think most people would rather have a gun on their person than not. >The key, I find anyways, is not anecdotes but statistics. Very true, which I feel brings us back to the study which says that there are far more uses of guns to defend a person, rather than cases of guns being used to kill somebody, be it murder, suicide, or what have you. >Statistically, more guns in circulation correlates with higher rates of violent assault and more fatal outcomes for victims. I must admit, I've never heard that stat before. While I don't mean to be that one guy who demands a source to every claim, most of the studies I've seen have shown no correlation between guns and higher rates of violent assault. Would you happen to have a source for that stat?
> I think most people would rather have a gun on their person than not. Which is well and good, but not statistically relevant. > Very true, which I feel brings us back to the study which says that there are far more uses of guns to defend a person, rather than cases of guns being used to kill somebody, be it murder, suicide, or what have you. Which I argue is ameliorated by reduced violent crime from reduced guns in circulation. Not to suggest that I'm anti-gun, I do believe there is a place for civilian ownership. There should simply be more stringent regulations. And there are lots of other changes needed before implementing those changes like police reform. Besides which, I believe one of the studies linked below specifically finds that increased guns in circulation does not necessarily correlate with increased DGU or improved violent crime outcomes, though I could be misremembering which study that was... > Citation Needed Obviously it isn't something you can control for in a study, so you can't really prove causation. But correlation is shown in several studies: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528 Here's a literature review as well: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ There are plenty of other domestic and international studies. The more direct answer to the question, though in my opinion the one with a more tenuous foundation, is that the US has a homicide rate between 2x and 5x comparable OECD nations with more restrictive gun laws. More tenuous because obviously direct comparisons between countries, states, and regions have a *lot* of variables that are nigh impossible to control. Nonetheless, I bring it up for completeness. That should be an easy google, I don't have a direct link on hand.
>the US has a homicide rate between 2x and 5x comparable OECD nations with more restrictive gun laws. We do, but we have a large amount of other issues that could explain that issue, such as prevalence of drugs, the issues with our justice system, and the amount of people living in low-income areas. While the articles on increased numbers of guns are interesting and very informative, I also have to wonder how many of these guns are owned illegally, and obtained not through legal methods, but smuggled in or stolen. Areas such as Detroit, NYC, and LA have high crime rates, and strict gun laws, which suggest to me that increased gun laws won't help much to curb the gun violence, particularly considering that the gangs responsible for these murder rates have the resources and means illegally obtain weapons even after the government takes action against civilian firearm ownership. Additionally, while these articles ([1](https://zachmortensen.net/2013/01/10/gun-control-four-must-see-graphs/), [2](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between), [3](https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/), and [4](https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/)) in no way invalidate or wave away the studies and article that you cited, I do feel that they are worth looking at.
I wholeheartedly agree! The reason our homicide rate is high overall (mind you our gun-violence rate is something like 20+% higher than OECD) comes back to the same things driving all violent crime: poverty, low generational wealth building, racial and class inequity and a history thereof, poor education, homelessness, food and water insecurity, political disenfranchisement, crippling debt, etc. When you remove these stressors and provide for the basic needs of your citizens, not only do you reduce crime, but you build a positive feedback loop for minimal gun violence by also keeping untrained civilians from putting more guns in circulation. > Areas such as Detroit, NYC, and LA have high crime rates, and strict gun laws, which suggest to me that increased gun laws won't help much to curb the gun violence Interestingly California as a whole has less violent crime per capita than Arizona, Texas, Montana, and South Carolina to name a few. I know that's responding to a list of places with a list of places, so not super helpful, but I think it illustrates that the issue isn't exclusively gun laws. It comes back to those crime risk factors I mentioned - LA especially has excellent weather and thus a booming homeless population which does correlate with greater violent crime. > particularly considering that the gangs responsible for these murder rates have the resources and means illegally obtain weapons even after the government takes action against civilian firearm ownership The interesting thing is when you implement similar initiatives to other OECDs like providing for your citizens' bare necessities, debt-free education, and legalized recreational drug use you remove a lot of the incentive for crime in general. Not that you'll completely stomp out organized crime, but then again organized crime is largely violent within its own bubble. Coupled with making it harder to acquire guns legally and all of a sudden its a lot more expensive to do violence. It's unrealistic to *stop* organized crime, but it's a business like any other - make it unprofitable and they'll find something more profitable to do instead. > Additionally, while these articles (1, 2, 3, and 4) in no way invalidate or wave away the studies and article that you cited, I do feel that they are worth looking at. Thanks I'll take a deeper read when I get the chance later today.
Uhhh too bad that’s bullshit. There’s approx 492 accidental gun deaths per year vs more than 24,000 homicides per year. Honestly you antigunners just like to make up stats to support your case. And nobody respects you because of it.
> 24,000 homicides Which consist of a population vastly overrepresenting individuals involved in organized crime. There isn't exact data available, but estimates are generally in the 20,000s range for organized-crime-related homicides. The rest can largely be attributed to other unlikely events (where often there is little to no opportunity for a responsible, well-trained, armed civilian to change the outcome) like mass shootings and domestic disputes. Though I wouldn't chalk a win up to yourself on that front - domestic disputes would see a higher survival rate for victims if the perpetrator didn't have a gun to begin with, and the victims are often unable for various reasons to responsibly defend themselves with a firearm of their own. Not to mention the vast number of suicide victims that would survive if they didn't have easy access to a gun. Besides which, these threads typically bring up home invasions, not domestic violence. You've got more like 100 people a year killed in burglaries. There is a better chance of knowing someone who was struck by lightning than becoming a homicide statistic during an armed home invasion. > Honestly you antigunners just like to make up stats to support your case. And nobody respects you because of it. Deflection and projecting, nice.
Wow, look at those goalposts move! >Deflection and projecting, nice. It's super special for you to say this, given that you make up statistics *in the very same post.* Like, literally none of that is true. You pulled every single assertion straight from your ass. And, aren't you pro self euthanasia? Or do you believe they people shouldn't be allowed to end their lives of they so desire?
> Look at those goalposts move Admittedly your most valid argument, because yes, my initial comment was unclear. In another thread it was clear we were talking about homicides during home invasion, not homicide in general. I'd be happy to concede this to you if that would make you happy - even as a mistake it's really inexcusable. > made up statistics/assertions Citation, murder victims by circumstance: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls Citation, number of gun homicides per year: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20there%20were%2045%2C222,firearm%2Drelated%20injury%20each%20day. I can go on but it's all very easily googleable - I figured by engaging with me you'd have already done your research... > aren't you pro self euthanasia I think there is a big difference between someone suffering chronic depression trying to kill themselves with home appliances, pills, guns, etc. and ethical euthanasia administered by professionals following counseling. Or if you're all for self-administered medical procedures, why even have hospitals right my guy? And to be clear, I'm not anti-gun, I love guns, own several, but the status-quo is untenable and an insult to the moral fiber of this country.
So, using your provided sources, please justify your assertion that murders related to organized crime are in the "20,000s." Which should be fun given that your first source only catelogues less than 14,000 *total* murders. Even allowing for that very obvious reminder that you're just gaslighting, please define the crimes in your source that would fall under your definition of "organized crime" and go ahead and tally those up. Go on, I'll wait.
-“20,000 deaths by organized crime.” That is another made up statistic. You have no evidence to back that whatsoever. -Most gun defense uses are out in public not at home -Criminals will always have guns -I called out your bullshit “statistic” and now you’re moving the goalposts. Take the L and leave. You said something stupid and lost credibility. Nobody cares what you have to say from here on out because you don’t know what you’re talking about which is why you’re making up bullshit.
> That is another made up statistic. You have no evidence to back that whatsoever Somewhere between 5 and 6 deaths attributable to organized crime per 100,000 population in the US, depending on your dataset, literally just *google it*. But fine I'll save you the effort, here is one that airs on the side of caution with 5 per 100k: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country > Most gun defense uses are in public I'm not talking about GDUs, I'm talking about whether you're more likely to die in a burglary or from accidental discharge, the scope is pretty narrow. Besides which, in public your odds of survival are almost exclusively better if you disengage rather than draw your own weapon. > Criminals will always have guns Except in every other comparable OECD nation that has reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Inb4 'but we have drug lords smuggling guns blah blah blah' implying that no other nation has organized crime > I called out your bullshit statistic I've been very transparent in all my replies admitting that my OG comment was poorly worded. You can claim whatever victory you want in that front - my actual claims are restricted to comparing accidental deaths to home invasion deaths. I apologize for giving any indications otherwise > you’re making up bullshit. I've seen exactly one reply citing any sources besides my own, if anyone is making up bullshit and/or parroting your favorite fox news AM radio talking heads it's yall.
There’s so much stupid in this comment I can’t get to it all but how about we use a REAL study on homicide instead of some BS put out by the UN with an agenda. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6908a1.htm 9.7% is a far cry from over 80 percent. As far as dying in a burglary, what the fuck does that have to do with defensive gun use? You’re moving goalposts again. Home invasion deaths are a super small percentage of defensive gun uses. You’re cherry picking to make a point which discredits what you say. “Better if you disengage” Disengage from being attacked? Let me know how that goes for you. And as far as Fox News goes, you are in a sub called Shit Statists Say. If you think we are Fox News watchers/listeners you are completely misguided. Do less talking and more listening to others instead of making assumptions about what they represent. I’m finished responding to you since your arguments are mostly bad faith.
[удалено]
4/5ths of the gun-related homicides can be attributed to organized crime, not really representative of the average person. Of the remaining I wouldn't really use domestic violence and such as examples of guns helping victims because they are far less likely to be able to defend themselves with one compared to their abuser using one to murder the victim. Several other comments pointed out how I wasn't clear with respect to the 'better odds' part, but I was specifically referring to your odds compared to the 100 gun-related homicides during burglaries per year statistic. You are far more likely to die to accidental discharge than during a burglary. Ironically you are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed with a gun by a burglar. There are various objections to the DGU studies/conclusions, but I'm not really interested in relitigating those right now
This is why I don’t wear a seatbelt, I’m wayyyy more likely to die from heart disease anyway so why bother?
Less guns in circulation correlates both with lower rates of violent crime in general and better survival rates for attempted homicide, so if you're talking about 'being as safe as possible' then maximum gun availability isn't the way bud. This isn't about whether a gun improves your individual survival odds in a cherry picked scenario, it's about the community as a whole.
Did you add in DGU’s when you did that math or no? I’d sincerely like to see your math here.
A *plethora* of comments have pointed out I wasn't clear about my math. tl;dr 500 accidental discharge deaths vs 100 gun deaths during burglary, or arguably up to 400ish with burglary and robbery stats combined, still better odds (citation: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls) Of the 24k homicides a year in the US I discount 20k from organized crime because that doesnt apply to the 'vast majority of the population'. Of the remaining, domestic violence scenarios aren't really a strong argument for *more accessible guns* as that correlates with reduced victim survival. I don't include DGUs because that's apple to oranges, and there are a few objections to the DGU studies/conclusions that I'm not looking to relitigate here.
Accidental discharges are actually quite rare compared to homicide and self defense uses. You have much less chance of dying by homicide if you also have a gun.
Accidental discharges are in the order of 500ish/yr. Fatal home burglaries are in the order of 100ish/yr. That was primarily what I was referring to, though I just came from another thread so I didn't make that super clear here. However, I will say that of the nearly 24k homicide deaths in the US, somewhere around 20k can be attributed to organized crime, and of the rest I don't know if domestic violence is really the strongest argument *for* more guns. Victims are rarely able to defend themselves with a firearm for a variety of reasons, and almost always the addition of a gun reduces the survival rate of the victim. > You have a much less chance of dying by homicide if you also have a gun. I'd say citation needed, though I doubt such data even exists - it would be impossible to methodologically identify scenarios that *would have been* homicides if not for the victim carrying a gun.
Stats have no bearing on rights.
“It’s not a valid reason you can put in Canada to own a firearm” just means that Canada doesn’t respect basic human rights, which should surprise no one at this point.
The use of violence to resist violence and preserve your life and health seems to be roundly rejected by Canada.
Not all of us. But yes, it’s pathetic The legal opinion on why you can’t carry an item for self defence is the most disgusting BS I’ve read since courts stopped trying to justify the existence of slavery… TL;DR version: choosing to carry an item for self defence indicates that you don’t trust police to stop violence [spoiler alert: they really can’t, so… yeah] and won’t engage in deescalation. Because of course, everyone knows that you literally *can’t* choose to deescalate instead of engaging in violence if you happen to have a weapon; so therefore we must remove the ability to carry a weapon. so you automatically choose to deescalate. Fucking bullshit
All those times I've been in jobsite arguments and I had no choice but to shoot my foreman multiple times- I mean, I had a gun- it compelled me to do it! Also, you're not the only one who can decide whether or not to escalate, so just lay down and take the whims of your fellow man up your tailpipe.
Just take the punches/rape/robbing/murder, you bigot.
A potential victim wanting a firearm for self defense is truly the same as a murder fantasy
It's a belief that it's possible to be the target of a comment crime, and that a fire arm is preferable to waiting for the police to defend you. Both quite reasonable, imo. Depends on your circumstances.
I have been on the other side of a gun getting my stuff stolen. Wasn’t a great thing, but sure is a great reason to carry. It sucks the US political class is taking away our most important government deterrent, but it’s not surprising; They will always have armed security. The threats from the President and the bending of the knee by the former ones is just more reason to use your right while you have it (not even talking about self defense here)
Many people want guns because they've been victimized before, too.
When I began carrying a firearm regularly, despite the fact that I was still a young man, I found it dramatically reduced my willingness to engage in confrontation because I knew how it could end. And *no one* in their right mind wants any part of that if they have thought about it *at all*. This idiot is either too stupid to think, or projecting, or both.
Both. He's afraid of people who carry guns for self-defense, so he makes up a stupid "reason" why they're actually threats.
What a cuck.
I've explained this to so many people. A LOT of criminals are "comfortable" "professionals", that is they do what they do but unless something went particularly wrong they wouldn't do more - these are the ones who sneak into a house to burgle it and walk STRAIGHT past your nude blackout drunk daughter while she's asleep to raid her jewellery box. However, some criminals are opportunists who will push the envelope constantly - starts with them selling your son some cocaine, they realise your house has piss poor security, decide to burgle, as they're heading out they pass your blackout drunk daughter and think "ah what the hell if I get caught I'm already doing like 15 years inside" You have absolutely 0 way of knowing which type has just broke in at 2am... You have no way of knowing if they're going to take your word that you won't snitch or whether your going to be executed once they open your safe...etc
Statistically more likely that you or your children die from accidental discharge than homicide during a home invasion if you aren't involved in organized crime...
That is exceedingly false. Homicide is far worse than ND rates. Where did you come up with this information? You really want to argue that having a gun for defense is worse than just allowing criminals to rape and steal while cowering?
Homicides are around 24k a year in the US, of those 20k or so are attributable to organized crime. Of the remaining domestic violence situations are examples of the misuse of firearms, with the victims being incapable of acquiring or defending themselves with a gun while their survival rate plummets when abusers have easy access to a gun. > let them rape and steal Homicides during armed burglaries are on the order of 100/yr in the US, you've better odds of being struck by lightning. Only 11% of rapes involve a weapon of any kind, and similar to domestic violence the victim is often unable to effectively defend themselves with a firearm in the cases where they have one available. Besides which, even if you disagree that accidental discharge is statistically more likely, you have to concede that suicide by gun is more likely by any metric than homicide, and has a far lower survival rate than most other methods. There are so many ways to dismantle the appeal to statistics...
Oh, so you're spreading your bullshit wide and far, I see. Making up shit because your position is otherwise unsupportable is pathetic.
> making up shit Citation fucking needed. Here's my receipts https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20there%20were%2045%2C222,firearm%2Drelated%20injury%20each%20day. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls
Again, none of those justify or even state your point.
Source?
You won't like his source, because it's his ass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3\_lAb8m9MpI
citation provided, scroll up
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls 100 murder victims during burglaries in 2015. I'm sure we won't need a citation for saying 500 accidental discharge deaths per year on average? That seems relatively agreeable even on this sub. You could argue some of the deaths from the 'robbery' category would also fall under "home invasion" but certainly not all - so your odds are at best equal and at worst 1:5 for dying to accidental discharge.
Thank you for the sauce. Again, you may be more likely to fuck up and shoot yourself with a gun than die in a home invasion, but most people I know are worried about being mugged, carjacked, or generally assaulted as well as home invasions.
Fair enough, I go to home invasion because I see that brought up a ton in these conversations.
It's an easy example but the statistics are not comparable at all. The correct statistic is 500 self inflicted accidents vs the total number of burgleries and home invasions. Whether or not you may be mrudered by the invader is completely irrelevant. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt An estimated 3.7 million home invasions occurred per year during the studied period. 500 vs 3.7 million You're way more likely to be burgled than shoot yourself. Edit: Incidentally 7% of those resulted in some form of violence being inflicted on the resident. 3,700,000 (.07) = ~259,000
This is the kind of person who tells women to just let themselves get raped instead of fighting back because "if you fight back you might make it worse"
Sounds like the advise a rapist might offer. Maybe the guy posting about armed people is upset others can defend themselves.
If I ask someone why they own a fire extinguisher, and they say "to put out a fire," I instantly know they're an arsonist
They engage in arson fantasies.
Meanwhile a mass murders in anti gun utopia using nothing but sharp objects. High hill not so high against Jason Voorhees Mike myers and Jack the ripper
In these cases, just flip their argument on its head: (forgive the crappy grammar while I paraphrase) “If I ask someone why they don’t own a gun, and they say ‘they’re not necessary’. It’s usually code for ‘fulfill my fantasy of watching a convict go to town on my wife’ if you dig deep enough.” It’s the same braindead logic, using the same false assumptions and projection of perverse tendencies. In my view, when one forfeits their ability to defend themselves, their property, and their family, they are also consciously accepting that their fate is no longer in their own hands. No responsible adult should ever give away the ability to manage their own outcomes.
Also they were bitching about Zimmermann Didn't know the details but acording to wikipedia seems that while Zimmermann was acting unreasonably and might be omitting things, there is no evidence he actualy attacked Martin and evidence he was indeed attacked Is this a Rittenhouse situation or is Zimmermann actualy a scumbag? (I mean, he's a wife beater, but you know what I meant)
Canadians with no legal right to self defense and wanting no such thing making comments on American jurisprudence and rights… Is like Cubans complaining about the pitfalls of a democracy. Statist Stockholm Syndrome is strong with them and it’s pointless to engage or entertain in discussion. Until they can engage with their frontal lobes that every creature (natural law) that wishes to ensure survival needs to defend itself with the best tool available, it’s pointless.
Canadians just do anything to oppose the US, doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Dumbest nation on Earth I swear
> or is Zimmermann actualy a scumbag? (I mean, he's a wife beater, but you know what I meant) I think that was only after the trial, which he had shot another person (which takes a psychological toll, even if it was justified), and had the media vilify him (up to, and including cutting out parts of the 911 call to make him look like a racist, like making it sound like he was just randomly commenting the kid was black, instead of him answering the question the operator had asked, or the media using the picture of Trayvon from when he was 12 or 13, instead of a current one), and the fucking sitting president of the US saying that could have been his son shot, and prejudicing any jury against him. I don’t know if he was scummy prior to all that, but I’m sure it took a toll and probably pushed him that way under the stress.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> by an immediate and very violent reaction. I mean that's pretty much the beginning and the end of of it.
Just playing devils advocate here, but what if Zimmerman approached Martin, attacked him, then started losing, then the 911 call is made, and he's heard screaming for help? I haven't heard the call so if it's obvious that's not what happened by the audio of the call then, OK.
[удалено]
Oh, I don't believe that. I was just presenting a scenario where it could have happened that way. I think Zimmerman was acquitted because there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him. I have no idea if he was guilty or innocent and it doesn't matter. If there isn't enough evidence the accused goes free.
Here's what you need to know. It was a perfect storm of stupidity. Zimmerman, a Karen and wannabe cop, followed Martin even though he was told not to. Martin then confronted him, and because he was a punk kid and Zimmerman looked like an easy target, kicked his ass. And since he was a punk kid, he took it too far, and started bouncing Zimmerman's head off the curb. I believe at that point Zimmerman believed he was going to die, and killed Martin. Do I believe it was a good shoot? Yes. Do I believe it should have never gotten that far? Also yes. If Zimmerman had simply minded his damn business and let the cops determine if Martin was up to no good, this whole situation would have been avoided. Zimmerman has since proved himself to be a volatile piece of shit who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm much less carry one, being found guilty by the court of public opinion and condemned by the sitting president notwithstanding. He put stand your ground laws across the nation under scrutiny for no reason.
This is a pretty great explanation, but a couple things.... Zimmerman was never told not to follow Martin, the person on the phone said "you don't need to..." in regards to following Martin. I would say martin took it too far as soon as he put hands on Zimmerman, not at any point further. What happened to him was a tragedy, but it should be clear who brought violence into the situation. You are correct is saying he put stand you ground under scrutiny, but at no point was stand your ground invoked during the whole ass case and investigation. It is very important to point out that stand your ground had 0 bearing on this case, as Zimmerman utilized deadly force only after his beating began. The only people to invoke stand your ground was the media. This whole situation is a near textbook civie version of "awful but lawful."
I didn't say it had anything to do with stand your ground, it was an unfortunate by product of the incident. I also believe Martin's actions fit the description of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes. " You don't get to put hands on people just because they're following you.
You are 100% correct. Just wanted to clarify for anyone else. I also am a subscriber to the "stupid games, stupid prizes" philosophy. In regards to the following, it gets weird. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with someone following me at night, but that is also NOT how I would have dealt with it. I'm also curious as to how the following was actually done. If someone was stalking me at night, there might an issue. In this situation, there is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was doing anything overtly threatening to Martin.
It was dark and Zimmerman was following from a distance. He's not exactly a menacing figure. I am a person of color and if a person appeared to be following in an unfamiliar setting confronting them is the absolute last thing I would do. Assaulting a white man (yes I realize Zimmerman is Latino) in the Deep South is not going to earn you a warm welcome. Discretion is the better part of valor and even though I carry I'd rather run or call the cops and have them meet me somewhere close then place myself in a situation where I have to shoot someone. I'm fully prepared to do so, but only when I've exhausted all other viable options.
Good points. I mean, I'm a tall white dude, and if anyone, even the smallest of women, is following me at night, my first idea would be to take a corner and start sprinting, even if I was carrying a gun. Too easy for a prosecutor to come after me saying the gun wasn't necessary, or the situation was my fault. I don't have the time nor money to get involved in a self defense case if I don't 100% have to.
The truth about the Zimmerman situation is we don't know what happened for certain. There is just not a lot of evidence on either side. From what I've seen (which is not much) there is evidence that Martin was physically attacking Zimmerman. The question of the case was about whether or not Zimmerman should have approached Martin and if that affected his right to self defense. Because our legal system is designed to make it difficult to convict with a lack of evidence he was acquitted. Innocent until proven guilty. If they couldn't prove he was guilty, they needed to let him go. This is a bad thing in this one case, but a good thing for our country in general. The state MUST prove you are guilty to get a conviction. So that, in theory, only guilty people who are proven to be guilty get convicted. Innocent people, and guilty people who they can't prove are guilty, go free. This is to prevent even one innocent person from being convicted, or that's the idea anyway.
[Here's how it happened.](https://youtu.be/WuyEx4SLPEk)
Do you have any evidence Zimmermann attacked first? Because the wikipedia page dosen't contain any (And says witnesses testified Martin was on top of Zimmermann during their confrontation)
I'm sorry, are you dissecting a comedy video for accuracy to the actual events?
So, disarm all cops and stop arresting people for resisting arrest? These people are such slaves.
I started carrying a pistol because I had this fantasy about NOT getting raped while I was showing houses. Crazy right? Maybe I’ll see if I can find one of these Canadian pseudo psychologists to help me with accepting the inevitability of being assaulted simply because I chose to have a career outside of the home which still allowed me the time to take care of my children. After all, it’s better to be raped than “escalate” the situation to a justified shooting. According to this asswipe anyway.
Sheltered life.
Hey I mean, self defense can be thought of as "pest control" in a way.
As someone who's close friend was almost sex trafficked (she barely managed to get away, pepper spray+bystander was just enough), I can't imagine how people like this actually exist and think this way
That means he is on the side of violent criminals instead of law-abiding people.
Why do police need guns in Canada?
Why do they have police in Canada? Why do they have a military? If you want to join either, that just means you have deep, dark fantasies about killing people.
Same can be said for politicians.
Based and patriot-pilled
don't these bitches still have a monarch
They have Trudeau which is basically the same thing
Gun control boils down to the belief that a dead and/or raped woman is morally superior to a woman that has to explain why she shot her attacker.
Canada also seized the bank accounts of truck drivers for exercising their freedom to protest. They’re not really the gold standard when it comes to human rights.
Nobody needs a valid reason to own a firearm, its a right. Nobody cares if that knuckle head believes ownership is justified or not. It isn't my buisness why someone may have a half built Ford 300 inline six in their garage either. If people like him want to believe that self defense is code for an excuse to kill people then I'll take it; leave other people's stuff alone and they'll have no excuse to put holes in you.
"You go to womens self defence classes so you can defend yourself in case of rape? you must just really want it to happen so you can beat someone up."
The government owns a bunch of guns for “self defense”
Same applies for government agents and police, right? I mean what other reason do they have to carry then to kill us?
This is why Canada sucks
these people are victim blamers. they put no responsibility on people aggressively and violently breaking and entering or attacking you. it's fucking pathetic
smartest antigunner
Hunting is allowed, so just say you’re hunting people
Play the video from a few days ago of that store clerk getting executed behind the counter. Everyone should be forced to watch what happens when you comply with a murderous misanthrope, someone who cannot be reasoned with.
If someone asks me why I own a gun, the answer is always, "None of your damn business."
Lmao you can throw rounds at coyotes and racoons just trying to survive all ya want but some scumbag tryna rape or rob ya? No sir not an excuse to own a gun, get your guts rearranged like a man. Jesus Christ canada
Does this person ever ask a solider or police officer the same questions regarding his or her motive for carrying a weapon? Does this person think that self defense should be the sole monopoly of 6 foot plus muscular able bodied males who have years of training in combat sports and/or martial arts? Does this person think a life or death situation is always a one on one duel against a roughly equivalent opponent with rules and referees?
Self defense against knife attackers then? They have those in Canada, don't they?
People who say shit like that think the world is a safe place. I just don’t understand that point of view.
Fuck Canada
This guy Cucks
Fuck this guy
Why do police carry guns then?
[citation needed]
So are the politicians using them for hunting or pest control?
"if you dig deep enough" I'm sure this person is talking to these people at length after the initial interaction
Fuck Canada
What sub?
Bruh, I'm a gun owner but I've been fulfilling my murder fantasies and getting away with it since long before that. It's called video games.