notice how in the graph on wikipedia, excluding USA, the correlation is really not that strong.
dont get me wrong, i agree with the general sentiment, but bad data weakens even the best of cases.
Gets even more interesting when looking at kills by police.
Like Lee Camp did recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxoOAArudgI
You know it’s illegal to study gun violence in America, correct?
That is absolutely fucked up, but whats the relevance?
The data are inaccurate
oh, well, luckily its not illegal for researchers in the rest of the world to study gun violence in America.
Because it’s not a gradual response curve. It doesn’t really matter is it 10 guns per 100 people, or 15, if there is a strict gun control policy, and you can’t easily get a gun at the age of 18 in a fishing shop. The problem is ubiquity that comes when the society is saturated and there is very little regulations.
yeah I think the real world is more complicated. Like, its not just about numbers, but also how control is implemented and even culture.
But it’s also about numbers, it’s just not a curve more of a ladder. You can’t saturate the society with guns and expect that they will not be a problem because your culture is good and control is implemented. Switzerland just about did it, but there is so many caveats it doesn’t even count, and let’s admit it, nobody else is Switzerland, so that’s an enormous outlier.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
Before I get dog-piled, I’d like to add that I know that there are too many guns in the US, and the process to buy a firearm is surprisingly lax. I do think there is a relationship between gun ownership and the murder rates, and the fact that most school shootings don’t even make the news anymore (and if they do, it’s for less than a day) indicates that the frogs have been completely boiled at this point.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
Fair point but see below…
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The United States has over 4 times mote murders per capita than France, for instance.
And you really shouldn’t discount just how easy it is to kill someone with a gun. I don’t have the stats at hand right now but knife related killings (as an example) are way less likely to happen because victims have a comparatively good chance to survive a knife attack.
There are solid reasons for keeping weapons that are designed to kill human beings out of the hands of most of us.
The United States has over 4 times more murders per capita than France, for instance.
One thing a lot of people seem to forget is that the US has significantly more income inequality and significantly less social safety nets than France. Poverty drives crime.
What the US needs most is nationalized healthcare, deregulation of marijuana to cut down on mass incarceration (which breaks up families and drives poverty), actually taxing the rich, and better regulations and workers rights to prevent corporations from exploiting everyone
Yes, but also an easy access to guns enables crimes by itself, and makes existing crimes deadly. That happens on top of other social problems.
A random poor teen with nothing to lose might think about robing a store, but be too scared of being confronted and never actually do it, unless he gets a gun which gives him courage. If a random night robbers get confronted with surprised home owner, they might punch him, scream, and run away, unless they have a gun in which case they’re in a shootout and everyone is dead.That becomes moot if they aren’t motivated to commit crimes in the first place.
Even if removing guns from the US reduced crime rates, it wouldn’t be as much as doing what I described. Plus, there’s an opportunity cost, in that you only have so much political capital to spend on legislation.
How about we focus on improving the lives of 99% of the population instead of wasting political capital on trying to reclassify 50% of the population as criminals for owning guns.
Until we actually create post-scarcity luxury gay space communism, there is always someone who is at least somehow motivated to do some crimes. And when there are easy murdermachines lying around, that motivation just gets married with opportunity.
Your loaded language betrays your deep gun-related motivation so I don’t think you will actually hear me, but I will try to convey this anyway. Improving the lives of 99% of the population necessarily will have to include strict gun control, it is impossible without it, and it’s one of the prerequisites. Not the first one, not even top 5 maybe, but it’s up there.
Well done. No notes.
another way these facts get skewed: most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides
in the US, states with the strictest gun laws do also have the lowest suicide rates, maybe because when there isn’t an easy way to quickly exit, fewer people do - and the same reasoning probably applies to homicides
either way, there are also accidental gun deaths (kids accidentally shooting themselves or others because they’re playing with daddy’s gun, etc.) - so gun policies absolutely do save or cost lives
maybe because when there isn’t an easy way to quickly exit
Intentional heroin overdose
Most suicides are spur of the moment things in execution. So the more steps it takes to complete suicide the more chances for reflection and regret and the less likely it gets carried out.
Compare the steps required from gun and overdose.
Gun: decide on firearm, retrieve from storage, load, shoot.
Drugs- decide on the drug of choice, find a source of the drug, purchase enough to complete suicide (tricky to judge with many drugs and expensive with things like heroin), often purchase alcohol as well, prepare drugs (if tablets pop them out of the packets or prepare the heroin), take drugs (if taking tablets probably going to be swallowing tablets for a good while).
In the UK we limit the amount of drugs you can buy at one time (like paracetamol, a common overdose choice) as the extra step of having to visit multiple shops or come back repeatedly reduces suicide rates.
Particularly when a family member already owns a gun, or you personally already own a gun.
I had guns for personal safety reasons, so suicide was always a single step away for me. (Which was quite dangerous because I incidentally owned guns when I was very suicidal, lol.)
Also, for whatever reason, men have a much higher suicide rate and are much more likely to use a gun - they care a lot less about the mess they leave behind. Women on the other hand are much more likely to not end up killing themselves, and much more likely to use a method with less trauma and cleanup, like poisoning themselves.
These might also be contributing factors for why the stats show far more people kill themselves with guns than by poisoning.
Also, poisoning is a very risky form of suicide, high chance it will fail - you either don’t take enough and then survive the poisoning (maybe you vomit up the drugs while you’re unconscious, maybe a family member finds you and rushes you to the ER where they pump your stomach, etc.) - and often surviving a poisoning can leave you disabled, etc. You can survive a suicide attempt with a gun, I just think it’s less common if executed correctly.
Also, if everyone’s out there getting shot, then of course I need a gun to protect myself.
A gun doesn’t stop you from getting shot, it just gives you a chance to shoot back.
Yes, I know you were being sarcastic.
That largely depends on if you’re their intended target.
But anyone fetishizing being the “good guy with a gun” would just piss their pants.
If I was carrying and there was an active shooter, I sure as hell would run or hide before fighting.
You don’t know who the active shooter actually is. Maybe the guy you saw with a gun is a plainclothes or off duty cop who is responding to the actual active shooter. Maybe there is more than one shooter, and confronting the one you see makes you a target for the one you don’t. Maybe the cops find you after shooting the active shooter, and assume you are the perpetrator.
For clarification, I don’t carry a gun, I just used myself as an example to simplify the text.
If anyone has an darned good self defense training, especially with firearms, they should be doing what you say exactly. You hide or GTFO dodge if there’s an active shooter. You’re not going to be a hero and just as likely to end up shot. Especially if they’re using a long arm over your compact carry.
You nail the second part as well, the fog of war situation. I’ve had this argument in real life and it took a bit for the person to understand you can’t ID the shooter if everyone with a gun tries to converge on them.
Gun ownership isn’t a right, it’s a privilege that carries heavy responsibilities. It’s a cultural view of firearms that differs heavily. I’m more likely to trust a leftist who trains, doesn’t exclaim everywhere they own a firearm, and locks up what needs to be locked up. The entire home invasion thing is a myth, majority that end up in a home with someone there bail. Few try to fight because they don’t know what you might have.
Having a gun probably also gives you a better chance of being shot either by suicide, accident, or making yourself seem like more of a threat.
And giving you false confidence making you do more stupid choices that lead you to danger that you otherwise would never get yourself into
And the gun manufacturers are literally making a killing.
It should be noted that this chart compares gun homicides to gun ownership, which… of course those will correlate
If we plotted kangaroo injuries vs kangaroos per capita, we’d see a similar outlier in Australia
It would be more useful to see gun ownership compared to total homicides, to see if an overabundance of guns correlates with more murders. Even then, though, a correlation between the two might not be casual in that direction. It may instead be that in areas with a high homicide rate, people are more likely to own a firearm for defense.
What you would need to prove is that places with high gun ownership have significantly higher homicide rates, but places with high homicide rates don’t have significantly higher rates of gun ownership
My problem with this dataset is, it combines US in one dot, while all other countries crowd at the corner. I failed to see a trend saying “more guns = more gun homicide”.
If there is a chart showing that state by state, presumably regresses to a line, that I can get behind.
That’s exactly the point! The whole, “it’s the owner, not the gun” argument is dumb. If you have more guns, you have more gun-related homicides – as simple as that.
When the populace don’t have easy access to guns, then that’s one weapon less they can use to hurt others.
Well for most of the named countries using all homicides versus gun homicides makes little difference.
australia 0.8 belgium 1.08 canada 1.8 france 1.3 portugal 0.72 spain 0.69 usa 5.76
What you should look up is homicides/non-homicide crimes against gun ownership. You will find that the US does not in general have more crime except for homicides.
You also are not going to find a country with anywhere near the gun ownership that the US has, so I suppose your are safe there.
My body, my choice on how to defend it. Clearly society at large will not defend me, so it is up to me and me alone.
I honestly wish I personally owned nukes instead of firearms, so that anyone that fucks with me gets to die with me. That is the one and only thing humans respect, ultra violence.
We are psychotic hairless apes. We still are living in the jungle, even if its made of concrete.
It’d be a good start to just conduct proper tests before handing people firearm permits. People who can barely read or who rage when you honk at them should never be allowed to own, let alone carry firearms.
where is switzerland? on the chart, this often gets touted as the counterpoint
On this chart Norway would also be listed with 29 guns per person. These are owned by only 10% of the population however, and automatic rifles are banned for civilians. I don’t disagree with the sentiment of this meme, but it’s cherry picking data in exactly the same manner as “the other side” would do just for a cheap gotcha argument.
yeah the type of firearm would be very useful data
These are owned by only 10% of the population however
Thats the case in America too, iirc like 30% of households have at least 1 gun, and if you assume 4 people per household, and 1.25 gun per American, that means the average gun-owning household has 16 guns.
It makes a lot of sense to own more than one gun. For self defense you might own one shotgun, one handgun, and a smaller handgun for concealed carry. If you’re a hunter, you likely want two rifles in different calibers, a shotgun, and a hand gun. In addition to that you might have an old gun laying around or grandpa’s old hunting gun, a range toy, some historic gun you like for some reason. Sport target shooters will have a few different guns, depending on what disciplines they shoot. Then there are also more serious collectors who might have dozens or hundreds of different firearms.
Yes. What’s the point of owning a firearm if you can’t have a gun for when you’re sleeping in your bedroom, a gun when you’re on the toilet, a gun when you’re on the couch watching the TV, a gun when you’re at the front door greeting guests, a gun when you’re driving your F150, a gun for that second amendment right, a gun when you go grocery shopping, a gun when you go buying clothes, a gun to go with your Tony Montana cosplay and you know, a gun just for fun. What are you supposed to do? Go outside without a gun? Use one gun for all those things? Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
You don’t need all those guns. You want all those guns.
Very true. People have all kinds of stuff they don’t actually need, but just like having.
I’m not sure the number of guns someone owns makes a difference regarding public safety and gun crime.
I support stricter gun laws in the US, registered ownership, some kind of license, sales only through licenses dealers, restricted advertising, waiting times, safe storage requirements, etc. A lot of gun regulations in the US are not very effective and more symbolic. Bothering legal owners more doesn’t necessarily help with violent crimes using firearms.
Fundamentally the main reasons for gun crime are social and can improved without changing gun regulations.
Any kind of registration of ANYTHING in the US is a bad idea. Especially at a time where the federal government is openly genocidal towards certain minorities, especially trans people. Having a list of trans people who own guns would be free eats for them if they declared every single one a terrorist or enemy of the state.
A valid concern.
A gun registry wouldn’t list if people are trans or not though. A list of trans people you would get through healthcare and insurance. Changes of a legal name is probably registered somewhere as well. So they would need to cross reference.
If they want to go after trans people individually, they would go for leaders and activists first. They are easily found on social media nowadays. Then go after organized groups.
An individual armed trans person is much less of a concern, than organized groups armed or not.
I agree. The main reasons for crime are social and in America that should definitely be improved upon, but have you questioned why specifically gun related crimes are so high compared to let’s say knife-related crimes? Because in Europe it’s probably the opposite, knife-related crimes are higher than gun-related crimes.
Yes, easy gun availability makes gun crime more likely. If you think your victim might have a gun, you want to use a gun to rob them. Knives are very deadly weapons as well and very hard to regulate.
In many European countries it’s easier to get a gun illegally than legally.
Who are you to tell how many of those someone needs? If someone isn’t a murderous psychopath it does not matter how many guns they have cause exactly none of them will be used on a person.
Let’s me rephrase it then. You can want to have all those guns but it’s not sensible to have all those guns.
The argument here is that it’s sensible to have so many guns. It’s not sensible because even among Americans the median gun owner owns 2 guns. You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
What you described in the first sentence is entirely reasonable, you just don’t understand it.
Here’s an evaluation based strictly on cost.
My hunting rifles cost something like $2 per round or more to fire. If I want to go to the range and practice technique firing 50 to 100 times is normal. This is a cost of $100 to $200 dollars.
My plinking, or training, rifles on the other have a cost of about 4 cents per round to fire. So now a practice day at the range is below $5.
However I cannot hunt with a training rifle, it’s caliber is far too small.
It’s the same with shotguns and handguns. The heavier ones are necessary for real activities but they cost a lot to train with. The smaller caliber ones are much less expensive to train with but aren’t useful for real work.
What you are missing, IMO, is that firearms are tools and people who use their tools tend to own more than one of each.
TBH if you’re a hunter you DO need different guns, because a gun for deer is overkill for something like wolves/boars but mostly useless against something like a bear. But aside from that, if I did live in the US I would be a collector, but the only guns I’d seriously plan to buy brand new would be a carry pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. And as long as they’re following the law and no one’s getting hurt, I don’t think it matters how many guns one could have.
Ah yes, the two genders, completely sane “piles of guns” owner and raging psychopath.
Nuance doesn’t exist, accidents don’t happen and a mostly overlooked societal mental health crisis is woke DEI propaganda.
Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
We call this the New York Reload and strapping down with like six pistols is a legitimate tactic.
It makes a lot of sense to own more than one gun
It’s hard to tell for me if this is meant as satire.
On this chart Norway would also be listed with 29 guns per person. These are owned by only 10% of the population however
Wait, so you’re saying the average Norwegian gun owner owns 290 guns? That sounds very implausible.
Yeah, the numbers seem wild to me. I live in Norway. I have family who lives up north among polar bears, so they have gun for bear protection. My in-laws do some hunting, so they have a few hunting rifles. I feel like my family and in-laws are far above the regular citizens when it comes to gun count per person, but it still averages to around 0.5 guns per person among us. I don’t know anyone in Norway who owns a gun to defend against other humans. Who are these 10%?
I think carrying the guns around plays a big role too
Also the social safety net and availability of (mental) healthcare, it’s not like Europe doesn’t have some glaring problems in that regard but holy shit is it better than whatever the US is doing.
Can’t shoot your gun if you don’t have ammo.
Which get very stricktly regulated in Switzerland
Czechia and Austria are also worth putting on this chart.
next to germany. according to small arms survey, which supplied the data, switzerland has about 25 guns and .5 deaths per 100 people.
Total homicides, total deaths, firearm homicides, or firearm deaths? Because the graph in the comic is intentionally misleading that way.
violent killings involving firearms, i think it said
So mostly suicides then
don’t think so actually, have a look.
.5 deaths per 100 people.
You mean per 100,000 people, right?
yeah, fixed
Thank god 😅
Alright, thanks for confirming!
Switzerland distributes a lot of firearms, particularly through their mandatory military service. But Switzerland also very tightly controls the supply of ammunition for all of those firearms they issue.
Uhm not really, I have multiple family members which store quite a bit of ammunition at home and while noone might get them by accident you could easily get the guns and the ammo of you wanted to.
Controlling supplies doesn’t mean they can’t get some, just that they had to jump through quite a few hoops to get it.
I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.
It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
Not making a specific argument for or against your argument, but I’d like to object to this like:
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
I’ve seen this argument used a lot, but it’s a broad generalization. You are assuming all criminals are the hardest criminals who will disobey any law, but a lot of law breakers and a lot of gun violence perpetrators are first time offenders, or someone who thinks they can get away with minor things.
A lot of people will do legally ambiguous stuff if there’s a low chance of being caught and punished but wouldn’t put themselves on the line for more heavily enforced things, plus even just the hint of illegality will put a type of social pressure on someone.
Will hardcore criminals still get and use guns? Absolutely. Are all gun deaths perpetrated by hardcore criminals? Absolutely not. Even that annoying brandishing couple at the BLM protests a while back would likely not have had the courage to bring out their weapons were it illegal to do so, since they tended to abuse law and loopholes rather than outright break them. They’re a milder case, but the point works with others who carry for “personal protection” but are a little too trigger happy. Plus stuff like legally owned but carelessly stored etc.
Are you saying that committing a mass shooting is legally ambiguous and people think they are likely to get away with it? Because buying a registered firearm in the U.S. Isn’t illegal. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You’re also kind of implying that people who do shootings are mostly opportunistic, when in reality there are likely other factors at play.
Nah, I’m mostly saying it isn’t black and white. It will have some effect on all layers, but I agree it wouldn’t stop all violence. To take your note about school shootings; yes, many of them are from legally purchased firearms, often a parent or something. Not all of course, so a gun ban would probably reduce, but not eliminate, school shootings. Plus outright bans aren’t the only form of gun control the US hasn’t tried, there are multiple things that can be done to limit without outright ban guns.
That’s true, and I can’t argue with you there. Banning guns would solve some problems, but you’d also be opening pandora’s box.
Given the US’ history with guns, banning them would almost certainly fuel a violent black market, making it easier than it already is for criminals to illegally obtain unregistered firearms. And with an estimated 400 million guns already in existence in the US, it would be really difficult to enforce, even if you did manage to pass a law. And loopholes exist like gun shows and private sales.
Regulating but not banning outright would be a slightly better solution, but it wouldn’t be a silver bullet (pun not intended).
I’ve always said banning guns doesn’t meant violent people incapable violence. Trying it during a time where we can 3D print guns isn’t really realistic. Its a cultural issue.
Trying it during a time where we can 3D print guns
Firstly, you don’t need a 3D printer to make a gun. Any plumbing store in America can sell you the supplies you need to make a gun.
Secondly, 3D printers make shit guns. Plastic has a low melting point and high elasticity. You’ll get off two shots if you’re lucky, before your bullets are firing sideways.
Thirdly, you don’t just need a gun. You need ammunition. And ammunition is much more difficult/hazardous to produce.
If you’re crazy enough to decide you want to become a revolutionary/reactionary anti-government insurgent, you’d be stupid to try and make your own gun from scratch. Bombs are easier to manufacture, simpler to deploy, and much more effective against the kind of people an anti-government activist has beef with.
The people of Myanmar used 3D printed guns to overthrow their government.
I’m starting to think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
The people of Myanmar used 3D printed guns to overthrow their government.
No they didn’t. They’re in the midst of a horrifying civil war with no end in sight. The current military junta is massacring people by the score with airstrikes. Over 5M people have been displaced.
I’m starting to think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Are you looking into a mirror?
I think you’re really underestimating 3d printed guns. There are some alarmingly reliable 3d printed 9mm semi-auto carbines that can be constructed with zero gun parts (source: I built one back when it was still legal in my state, but destroyed the receiver when registration became mandatory)
You’re correct about ammo, but I’m pretty sure making a bomb without reliable, stable explosive compounds is extremely dangerous
There are some alarmingly reliable 3d printed 9mm semi-auto carbines that can be constructed with zero gun parts
I have seen 3D guns in action and they have never failed to disappoint.
Maybe a professional gunsmith can turn cheap extruded plastic into something useful. But then they can just make a real proper gun.
You’re correct about ammo, but I’m pretty sure making a bomb without reliable, stable explosive compounds is extremely dangerous
Sure. Both of these hobbies are of dubious benefit and serious safety issues
There are many different polymers with a much higher thermal resistance and elasticity. You wouldn’t use PLA.
The gun used to take out UHC CEO was 3d printed. Wired did a cool video on it
Well said
Comics like the one in OP always ignore the primary underlying difference between US and the other developed nations: free, nationalized healthcare vs the Insurance Apocalypse that is the American healthcare system
Exactly this. If the US had proper social safety nets and low income inequality, all violence (which includes gun violence) would drop.
Also note that the arguments like in the OP only ever mention gun violence. It seems dishonest that they need to be that specific to get the narrative they want.
Yup. If Americans struggling with poor mental health had better access to professional help, crime as a whole would go down. But it’s not the only factor. Things like financial strain and environment also contribute. Crime is a slippery slope. Not a leap.
Agreed, but financial strain is part of what keeps people from getting care in the USA
Free healthcare would alleviate some of that
Agreed, but it’s a vicious cycle.
It does cost money to provide healthcare. Funding doesn’t come from thin air. But healthcare in the U.S is also ridiculously expensive. A lot of people can’t afford it without insurance (if your insurance even covers what you need). The system needs fixing.
It does cost money to provide healthcare. Funding doesn’t come from thin air.
Then tax the rich. There’s no reason for Jeff Bezos to pay less money than someone flipping burgers at McDonald’s.
Unfortunately we’re caught in a Republican scheme to remove government benefits by gutting taxes that was started during Nixon’s adminitration
Americans pay 10x per capita for their healthcare, compared to other countries like the Nordics or Germany. Still, the costs of the war on Iran would have funded public healthcare for all for how long? Decades?
Americans subisdize Israelis free healthcare that includes access to abortion care
Well it’s a start.
You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.
Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.
In the end it will still require banning guns.
True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)
That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist.
This is a saturation issue. It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
Crimimals wouldn’t have so many unregistered guns in the first place if there weren’t that many guns available from the beginning.
Escalation has proven to not be the answer. You don’t solve the problem that saturation has caused by creating even more saturation.
Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it?
Well, Australia managed to disarm a significant portion of its population in the past, so it’s possible.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market. Don’t have to start taking away people’s emotional support collections yet, just make sure nobody can start a new one.
… guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes.
Guns are weapons. Weapons exist to threaten, bring harm, if not outright kill another living being.
In areas where hunting is common, maybe the argument for them being useful tools to have can be made. Outside of this specific niche there is no reason for the public availabity of any weapon.
Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
I consider it a symptom and a problem.
Weapons also exist to defend, but you only make the arguments that suit you.
You don’t need weapons.
Thats your opinion. I disagree.
It’s a fact. And you’re simply wrong.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist. You realize that even if guns are no longer sold in the U.S., they can still be smuggled in from other countries along with other contraband like drugs and counterfeit cash. That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned. This is what I mean when I say “violent black market”. Guns can also be 3D printed.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australia’s gun control as proof that “it’s possible”. Australia doesn’t have anywhere near the same history that the U.S. has with guns. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist.
It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market.
I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.
That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned.
Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.
It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.
You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…
Ah well…
Your comment quite quickly devolved into an ad hominem. If you had a strong argument against anything I said, you would have used it.
It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
I’ll support gun control when the laws are not written by complete idiots whose only idea of doing anything to stop gun violence is giving a bajilion dollars to the pigs (who kill at a 33x ratio over mass shootings, btw) and banning guns over random ass ergonomic features or because they “look scary” so some random ass suburban white woman can feel safe while the government refuses to address poverty and crime in a meaningful way.
Anyway, remember what the bearded commie man said.
The laws will always be written by idiots. Politics pulls for weak minds. While you stubbornly wait, it’s those in poverty that are the ones getting killed by gun violence.
Yeah, now show me one gun law made in the last 26 years that wasn’t made with the explicit idea to only protect liberal white suburbans while at the same time giving exemptions to cops and ex-cops as if they don’t abuse their wives at a 40% rate.
Motivations aside, I’m not aware of a whole lot of very good American gun control laws at all. That’s the issue.
Who you gonna shoot to fix this situation? Seriously, though. What person needs bullets in their body so that your worker rights are protected? I want names.
You do, actually. Armed protests don’t get attacked or tear gassed by police. Also, look up the battle of Blair Mountain.
Where I live, when police think there might be firearms, there are police snipers. Armed protested don’t get tear gassed, they get shot.
You can’t be armed all the time. How many Black Panthers died in their sleep, again? When you take up violent means, you invite violent means. (No disrespect intended. Black power.)
Your guns cannot protect you from tyranny or even from another asshole with another gun. They are serving as a psychological security blanket.
When you take up violent means, you invite violent means.
They’re already shooting us, armed and unarmed alike.
That doesn’t even attempt to address my point. You’re not saying that taking up violent means wouldn’t make the problems you bring up even worse. You need to say that part. So I can show that you are wrong.
I’m addressing the part with which I disagree. The violence is here whether we literally fight back or not.
But you’re not disagreeing. Tell me what you disagree with about my statement: When you take up violent means, you invite violent means.
And that’s a justification for rolling over and doing nothing? In the US, armed protests don’t usually get messed with because open carry isn’t illegal everywhere. Hell, Ronnie Reagan banned open carry in California exactly because the Black Panthers were copwatching with guns and the kkkops didn’t like it.
And that’s a justification for rolling over and doing nothing?
If that is your reading of my comment, then I’m not interested in trying to correct you.
Nothing some good old thoughts and prayers won’t fix.
I’m kinda surprised Australia isn’t a bit higher, what with all the deadly critters around. Not merely scary, either, but genuinely dangerous.
Oh yeah let’s shot the scorpion, snake, spider, whatever with a gun because shovels or something handy that everyone has at home and doesn’t destroy half the house when you try to kill the creature is overrated.
Children getting shot up at school is just a way of life we all have to accept according to American leadership.
They only understand scattershot, not scatter plots.
Arguing that the populace shouldn’t have guns, and pointing to the usa as an example, is arguing that our fascist government should have a monopoly on violence. Every successful “gun control” law has been put in place in response to persecuted minorities and activist groups having guns. For a famous example, see the Black Panthers.
Peaceful protests are impotent unless backed by a genuine threat of violence. See how little the recent “No Kings” protests have accomplished vs the death of that one health insurance ceo.
Now, I am in favor of fewer guns, but the order of operations is important. Let’s start with disarming the police and abolishing ice. So long as my friends/family/neighbors/whatevers are being abducted by masked thugs in broad daylight, it is my right and my duty to defend with lethal force.
Wow. How’s that gun ownership working against the fascist takeover of the US?
It isn’t?
Gun ownership has, in fact, been usurped by fascists and their supporters in furtherance of the takeover?
Next argument, please.
So where is the well-regulated militia defending the United States with their huge arsenal of guns? We’re not hearing anything about valiant protectors of the constitution taking up arms against the domestic enemies that are ICE, MAGA, etc…it’s almost as if the whole spiel about needing guns to resist a tyrannical government was BS all along. 🤔
The option going unused doesn’t invalidate the need for the option to be there, moron.
Some people make it pretty clear that the only thing they understand is forced behaviors. Almost like what they’re really after is eradication of individual choices on favor of top-down uniformity.
I’m pretty sure there’s a name for that kind of centrally held power…
You didn’t see the like 3 or 4 multiple attempts at taking the pedophilic orange man out?
They tried. Maybe one of them will eventually succeed.
Also I’d like to point out that I noticed the ICE goons haven’t went to the hood yet. Let’s see how that plays out for them.
Unfortunately this man is not the issue. It’s the culture that allows him to do what he is doing. Everybody knows who he is and what he stands for. But he’s still not dangling from the gallows, so clearly the system has failed to correct itself.
He will die eventually, probably from one hamberder too many but the troubles won’t be over then.
Man, I see this sort of thing commented all the time as some sort of “gotcha” and really have to wonder what it is you’re envisioning.
Put yourself in the shoes of a firearm owner for a moment. Evidently, you believe the US has passed a tipping point where violent resistance is necessary.
Where are you going with your gun and who are you shooting at?
Are you saying you’re suffering a dearth of targets?
Again, if this is not the time to exercise your supposed God-given right to bear arms to ward off a tyrannical government then the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is moot.
I’ve said it before: You guys aren’t going to vote your way out of this pickle. I hate to say this (sincerely!) but this is going to end in violence one way or another. 🙁
You didn’t answer the question.
Am I to infer that you think that right now is an appropriate time to actively seek out and shoot ICE agents?
You could try flowers and hugs instead, I guess? Whatever works best.
With how subtle you are you might as well work for the FBI.
I see that as a cop-out to engagement in discourse, an alt account and VPN/privacy technologies would be enough to shield someone from “taking the bait”
My own opinion is that we have not reached a point where that level of response is justifiable, and I think it’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to suggest that it is.
The administration’s current rhetoric revolves around the domestic terrorist threat / violent insurrectionist motif that, while some people may buying into, is not being substantiated with strong evidence.
At this time, violent response / uprising by those perceived to be “on the left” will add fuel to validate that propaganda machine, it will firmly entrench the beliefs of those who might otherwise have a chance of moving away from it, and it will likely trigger a heavy-handed response leading to a substantial and catastrophic loss of life and liberty.
Hypothetically, “with how subtle you are, you might as well” be an agitator seeking to be a catalyst to what I just described.
no he got a point. If someone started doing that they would just get captured and tortured or killed. What can you meaningfully achieve with random violence, alone?
And just like that, we went complete route from “without guns we can’t fight fascism” to “guns are actually completely useless in fighting fascism” in two comments.
US - 1765 to 1784
EU - 1939 to 1945
Vietnam - 1955 to 1975
Yes, I’m aware that only one of these cases was literal fascism.
You can see my other comment in this chain, but firearms are the “last stand” tools to fight oppression. We’re in the midst of a particularly sensitive stage and, in my opinion, haven’t crossed the “tipping point” where a violent response would be wise or justified.
Bloody hell, are you for fucking real, WWII, seriously? The global war fought by armies has something to do with public having guns?
Fucking Vietnam? US losing a military campaign on the other side of the world is a testament of how useful it is for Americans to have guns? And then american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in.
I just hope for the sake of sanity that you’re trolling.I do concede that WWII was not fought and won by armed civilians, I was largely responding to “without guns we can’t fight fascism” and can see that, in the greater context of the thread, that might be less relevant. I do think the French Resistance would have been better equipped if they hadn’t had to rely on smuggled or captured weapons. A full scale invasion is going to pan out differently when most civilians are able to shoot back or organize into militia.
Vietnam is a testament to the fact that multiple military superpowers can still lose to a lesser armed (but still armed) populace.
And then the american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in
This is where you really have me stumped and should maybe do some reading into US history, fighting this war is the foundational experience that led to the creation of the second amendment. Here’s a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
See how little the recent “No Kings” protests have accomplished vs the death of that one health insurance ceo.
What did the murder of this CEO accomplish?
Lots of people got insurance claims approved, enabling them to get life saving care that otherwise would have been denied. It’s just a shame that it was a one-off and not a recurring thing.
I didn’t know about that. Do you have a reliable source?
And how does that gun protect you against the masked thugs? They are cops and hence, I assume, you cannot legally shoot them when they enter your home. So resistance is useless? As a non-US - american, correct me if I’m wrong here.
My gun doesn’t protect me. My gun protects you. Your gun protects me.
That sounds like a great bumper sticker for an NRA-meeting, but how does that actually apply?
I, also, cannot shoot your home-intruder, which is also a cop. So my gun does shit against ICE too. Just like yours.
Though I admit, I’d love to have a gun at home for actual intruders. We must not, the robbers don’t care (but probably aren’t armed either)
If I’m not willing to stick my neck out to help you when they come to take you away, who the hell will be left to do the same for me when it’s my turn?
Sure, you’re absolutely right. Be the change you want to see in the world and all…
But you fail to tell me HOW i am supposed to help your ass not being taken by ICE? Shoot the whole bunch that came to get you? (i assume those fuckers never come alone). And then other cops will take me for doing that after you are already gone? Threaten them with a gun will probably get ME killed. So what good does a gun do to anyone in that scenario?
The problem is that the 1/3 of americans who are actually opposed to this country being a fascist dictatorship are disorganized and scattered. You’re right, one or two or three guys with guns won’t accomplish much. Others in this thread have commented “where’s your militia?” or something like that, and it’s about time we make one.
I cannot blame you for wanting to keep your head down and waiting for all this to blow over. If I’m super lucky, maybe I can do that too. I’m rather pessimistic about the future though. To be honest, I talk a big game but I’m not doing shit until/unless I know I can make a difference.
It is my opinion that even if I had a perfect plan and was able to describe it perfectly, it wouldn’t work because it requires people to work together, and to make sacrifices for others. So things will slowly continue to get worse until I get put in a work camp over not being able to keep my mouth shut.
To loop this back to the original point, no having guns is not the solution. However, it is a critical part of the larger and more nuanced solution.
The problem is that the 1/3 of americans who are actually opposed to this country being a fascist dictatorship are disorganized and scattered. You’re right, one or two or three guys with guns won’t accomplish much. Others in this thread have commented “where’s your militia?” or something like that, and it’s about time we make one.
Another problem on top of the organisation itself, it the organisation itself. How? Whatsapp? Facebook? Or any other communication you guys mostly use, which is totally in control of those you want to organize against. You’d be eliminated as a thread before it even would become one. And not even knowing why…
I cannot blame you for wanting to keep your head down and waiting for all this to blow over. If I’m super lucky, maybe I can do that too. I’m rather pessimistic about the future though. To be honest, I talk a big game but I’m not doing shit until/unless I know I can make a difference.
I don’t want to keep my head down, I’m not in a country that is already there where you guys are. But we’re on the way though. Pessimistic? Nah, I’m more realistic, which sadly always sounds pessimistic. The future isn’t bright as those with power won’t give it away, and those without power mostly don’t even realise where the problem is until it takes them doggystyle. raw.
And, what else are your options beside “talking big game”. The resistance you can show is literally limited to that. The USA is the land of the free. Totally and absolutely! But it was meant like in “free corpos”, not “free individuals”. And it would not be wise to “act big game” when all you achieve is your own ending (See mr. mangione). If not even that stirs shit up ENOUGH, what would? another 9/11 initiated by your own people? Even that would do nothing except harden the system AGAINST oppression even more. IMHO capitalism already won, and it’s our own fault.
It is my opinion that even if I had a perfect plan and was able to describe it perfectly, it wouldn’t work because it requires people to work together, and to make sacrifices for others. So things will slowly continue to get worse until I get put in a work camp over not being able to keep my mouth shut.
For your own sake you should just STFU. Unless you’re totally unmonitored and big-tech-free. Sadly i have to second that. The only real way to counter the system is by throwing even MORE money at it than the opposition does. Which is already a fortune vast beyond anything even “rich” people could ever achieve or even dream of. If you can, pack your shit and piss off. You’re speaking english perfectly, which is already a foot in the door in almost all european countries. And you sound like a nice addition. A year later you wonder why you ever went to that cesspool of a country.
To loop this back to the original point, no having guns is not the solution. However, it is a critical part of the larger and more nuanced solution.
I have no personal feeling towards guns or no-guns, i just see the figures speaking for themselves. Countries with outlawed guns are doing better. Or even countries with highly regulated guns (switzerland afaik). We had ONE school-shooter so far. gun-incidents with cops are rare, homicide with guns is rare. And overall we don’t help put even more money to those that see us as cattle. I do see the value in being armed though. Unless everyone is armed, then it’s basically the same as when everyone just has a knife or a stone.
Oh yeah, and all yours 1.2 guns per person are doing absolute wonders right now, when you pedo in charge is rounding up people to put in concentration camps and starting wars all over the world. All your guns will start working any time now, liberating you from fascism.
It would have already crumbled to the ground in the 1900’s if we didn’t have them.
The US government cares only about money. They don’t give a fuck about us, as evidenced by our healthcare system.
We are expendable to them. Had we not have the guns we have now I truly believe it would have all ended for us a lot sooner and be significantly worse than it is now.
I know other countries manage. Other countries aren’t managed by a bunch of rich pedophiles that will let children and people die for the sake of “saving” $50 on an insurance claim.
Tell you what how about this, how about they take the guns from the police and ice and IRS and dea and atf and then we can sure talk about getting rid of our guns. But that will never ever happen.
It would have already crumbled to the ground in the 1900’s if we didn’t have them.
Remind me, what exactly did you do with your guns in the 1900s to prevent tyranny? I don’t remember any armed uprising against a dictator in 1900s.
If you weren’t so busy running around shooting each other with your precious guns, you might be able to see the depths your country fell into and maybe do something about it, but you didn’t, because you were hoping that when “the tyrant” comes you can just shoot him with your trusty remmington, but when tyrant comes, you only cheer him onhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Granted though, most of them happened during the 1800’s I Will admit that your Whiskey Rebellions and what not.
But had those things not happened before and even the flex of the muscles in '46 I’m telling you we would have been one of the most oppressive shitholes ever around already.
And also the thing is, we straight up wouldn’t even be an independent nation had we not had guns to fight the british so having guns is literally why we exist as an independent nation to begin with.
And see that’s where youre wrong, I do see the depths it has slid into and that is why I am going to have a gun here. Its easy not to when you don’t live near a major metropolitan city that has insane crime around every corner.
You see I think about the way things actually work, in practice not just on paper. And I know by using that thought process that when they “take guns” every gang member and drug dealer is still going to have one all that would do is make it to where normal people with children can’t protect themselves against criminals with guns anymore.
That’s the true reason they haven’t gotten rid of them yet. The government here no longer wants you to have them but they know that by banning them only the worst of the worst will have them and frankly even just the cops here having them and not the people make me nervous because they kill us all the time already, with zero remorse or consequences of any kind.
If the DEA can’t stop drugs from entering the ATF isn’t stopping guns from entering and that’s just facts. Only criminals will be able to get them then just like only criminals can get drugs now. People can call you gun nut or whatever but that is just cold hard facts man and I’m sorry that its true.
A “well armed militia” that is completely and willingly surveiled by private corporations that work with the government is fundamentally, critically impaired.
The fact gun nuts harp on about what is, at this point, a fantasy of rising against tyrannical government while being nearly completely blind to operational matters like communication, organisation, surveillance, etc. is frankly ridiculous.
If these people were serious about this, they’d be building infrastructure, communication systems, etc.
I agree communication and organization are key as well and I try to make that point to everyone I can. I try not to be too preachy about it but any chance I get to talk about Meshnetworks and E2E encryption I make sure to let people know it is the way.
Two things can be true at the same time, though. Organization is key but so is an effective way to defend yourself. And if necessary, kill those who are trying to kill you and the people you have organized.
I asked another guy this too but consider that nowhere in the history of humanity has any society ever overthrown an empire/government the size of the United States without many, many deaths and a lot of violence.
So you can call me a gun nut but if you want to talk about fantasy, let’s talk about how peaceful solutions don’t ever fucking work to get rid of oppressive governments. Literally, never. Not one single time in the history of humanity. Maybe like some small island nation or something but talking about your Roman Empires and your French Monarchy’s.
So at the end of the day dude your suggestion isn’t grounded in reality. I’m sorry that its that way, I wish it wasn’t either. But it is what it is.
The utility of gun rights as a potential defense against tyranny isn’t proven to be zero by the existence of tyranny, because guns are not a complete solution. I think it’s likely they would be rounding up more people by now, with less expense and difficulty, if Americans didn’t have guns.
This is the same circular reasoning, with the added bonus of “all the countrepoints are actually points in my favour because I would like it to be so”.
The reason they are able to be so aggressive, the reason they’re so militarised, the reason they start interaction with people guns first is because they have an excuse of “well, everyone can be armed, we need to be prepared”. And now they used it to build an army against you, that you can’t do anything about.
You let them do it, thinking you can stop them using guns somehow, when the time comes, not realising that the time came long ago and you were very busy stroking your guns and killing each other to notice.
deleted by creator
Yeahbwe should just make a campfire and talk to them while we are at it maybe get scoutmaster Dan to play the guitar for us while we all figure our peaceful solutions together.
They murder us in the street at protests, idk if you have seen it on tv. They are singlehandedly crashing the economy on purpose so they can extract as much from it for themselves as they can.
I would love for school shootings to stop and I think if a kid gets a gun there is an adult or likely a few that fucked up and shouldn’t have given the kid a gun.
But taking them away from all of us isnt going to get the north side of Saint Louis or the south side of Chicago to just give them up this is what I don’t get you think when they made method illegal it just disappeared? Can’t find it anymore right?
This whole take the guns away stance is them brainwashing you into believing that they will do right once you don’t have guns anymore.
They aren’t raking them away from the police. They aren’t taking them away from ice. And the IRS. Until they do that, fuck them I will have guns and I will suggest others do too. Just keep them away from your kids
deleted by creator
Can you tell me a single time in written history that an empire the size of the United States was toppled by the people without violence?
The world isn’t a fairytale and I really wish it wasn’t that way either but acting like it isn’t won’t help.
deleted by creator
There are some that gained independence so that’s fair you’re right.
The soviet union singing revolution ones were probably the most comparable I’d guess as far as size goes. But half of the soviet union starving at the time, which makes for an easier revolution when your government is incompetent and already being dissolved slowly inside of itself.
Same with Britain during ghandi, they were in the middle of WW2 and forced the Indian people into it and thats what made the calls for independence even stronger and being in the middle of a world war they were just tired of dealing with it.
So sure, if you’re government is already in the middle of giving up hunger strikes and singing national anthems together can get the job done.
Resisting US government control as it stands right now is more akin to Rome or Myanmar with how it will play out.
Also as far as size goes: more size = more people but also equals more cops, more mitary, more federal agents, etc.
Britain didn’t have an entire portion of the country full of forces who lived there ready to jump when Ghandi was doing hunger strikes. But boy oh boy, the USA sure the fuck does and doesn’t care if it would kill every single last one of us.
deleted by creator
Peaceful protests are impotent unless backed by a genuine threat of violence
Eastern europe (exluding Romania) would like to have a word.
So if we get rid of one gun per person, to be in line with the other countries, we might save 3 lives per 100,000?
There have to be more cost effective way to save three lives per 100k people.I say this as strong 2nd Amendment advocate; firearms aren’t the cause of our violence they are a symptom. The truth is that the United States is a violent country and it always has been.
Still, if you start tearing the Gun Homicide rate apart you’ll quickly run into some problematic details.
Oh but the 2nd amendment’s to protect from invaders foreign and domestic, to protect people and freedom…
USA, how’s that working out for you?
Highest prison population, highest rates of asset forfeiture (legalised theft by cops), highest health costs with worst health outcomes, highest rates of poisonous pollutants in “food” supply, countless ways the “democracy” is a sham with lobbying (legalised bribery) and voter suppression just the tip of the iceberg, education system and media dumbing down the population into totalitarianism, groupthink manufactured to keep people divided and conquered, false flag operations to manufacture emergencies to give government the right to rescind your rights, the orwellian named SAVE, GENIUS, CLARITY statutes and more to do the opposite continuing to worsen the situation… on and on and on it goes…
Keep repeating “we are free”, harder! XD
Those guns will start to protect you soon. Just like the wealth will begin to trickle down… annnny minute now…
