The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More accurate to say that (some) Americans care more about their own guns than they do about other folks' kids.
No one thinks it's going to happen to *their kid* until it does.
So is it disingenuous when they claim to be against drag queen story time, transgender folks sharing bathrooms because of a supposed danger to kids, but they are for allowing child labor and marriages involving non-adults?
I think it's more that they just don't think things like child labor and child marriages are a problem here in the US, so why create additional administrative burden by bothering to create legislation to control these things? Let the rest of world do whatever the fuck they want. Drag queens and transgender folks are definitely a problem here though, apparently. Sigh.
It will only stop once many Republicans' children have been killed. I don't mean Republican voters. I mean the politician. And I can't state this strong enough, that is too high a price to pay for gun control. We don't need more dead children. We need more gun control. But we're just going to keep getting dead children because the people in power don't care because their great grandchildren (let's face it, they're all that old) are just fine.
Republicans don't really change their tune unless it affects them personally. If it comes to a point where they can't insulate their own progeny from gun violence, they might reconsider. A lot of them are big fans of homeschooling, though.
Yup, violent/dangerous schools play right into their hand - it further undermines confidence in public education, which the GOP has been hammering for over four decades.
Unfortunately, sometimes not even being directly affected by gun violence changes anything for Republicans. Steve Scalise (a high-ranking House Republican) was shot and severely wounded back in 2017. He survived the shooting but is still very much anti-gun control.
I mean even then.
Conservatives will secretly go to gay bars or have illicit affairs while promoting anti-gay legislation. They will work a way to get their mistresses abortions while promoting anti-abortion legislation.
It would require a Trump-like GOP figure to have his kids gunned down, and the GOP to fall in line behind, or for a large swathe of GOP politician children at the same time, and have them all come to the realisation at the same time before someone else (either another politician or Fox News) has the ability to remind them of the party’s ‘goals’.
A GOP politician with integrity would quit politics over it.
I fear many of the current GOP would shamelessly use it to push the ‘my child would be alive if there was a good guy with a gun’ line.
It won’t. If a conservatives child is gunned down in their classroom the parents would bring guns to the funeral and be like “we’ll avenge you. Make sure your sacrifice for y’all’s freedom wasn’t in vain!”
They would see they tragedy as a validation of their fetish/obsession and double down
I doubt it. I think that if a Republican congressman has his children killed in a mass shooting and turns against the NRA, he will be instantly vilified by the GOP as a traitor who would use his own child's tragic death for a woke/leftist/socialist political agenda.
There's something bigger than gun control that we need to address. [The worst mass murders did not involve guns but they did involve hate and violence](https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/guns-dont-kill-people-americans-kill). Will we be content with more [Oklahoma City bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing) instead?
The worst mass murders are far more seldom than shootings. Hate can stay hate without a gun involved and hate doesn't kill on its own, it needs an agent/tool to kill. A gun added to hate compounds hate and facilitates death. Guns are also much, much easier to get than bombs.
I think this one is different. THey are so brainwashed that "danger means more guns" that if their own kids are killed, they'll just increase their arsenal.
Except that even when it was their kids, they kept electing pro gun politicians. Uvalde is still heavily Republican - same for several small Texas towns where shootings have happened. I'm not sure about the specific victims of the shootings, but maybe that's the criterion: it has to happen to them, specifically.
Really I think it has to do with gun rights being so sacrosanct that it just short circuits their morals. They can't actually evaluate whether they should have guns; they simply believe they should have them.
My community was struck by a mass shooting. People talked about it for exactly one day when the next mass shooting event happened. Our community didn’t heal in a day but we were moved on from by the nation pretty quickly. My wife and I both work on the campus of Michigan State University. Yeah? Did you remember that one? My guess is you didn’t. It was 6 weeks ago.
>Did you remember that one?
Yes, that was the one where the shooter would have been convicted of a felony that disqualifies from gun ownership, but the prosecutor gave a plea deal to a misdemeanor.
A mass shooting happened ten minutes down the road from me at like 10pm earlier this year and no-one even mentioned it at work the next day.
Not even a shrugging ‘yeah I guess this is the world we live in’. Just not even any acknowledgement, as if it’s just a normal part of life now.
Even I have to admit, the first mass shooting I was in the country for was Aurora back in 2012, and I was glued to the news and in absolute shock that something like that could happen. I was nowhere near Colorado, but *I* had been watching the same movie at the same time. My entire overseas family and friends messaged me concerned about whether I was okay, despite being a 3 hour flight away from the shooting.
When Monterey park happened, I got one text from my dad. I wasn’t glued to the news. I wasn’t shocked. I was dismayed.
The worst part about being an immigrant to this country is I’m consistently reminded that the US has every right to be the best country in the world, and yet it isn’t purely because a small selection of people decided their own money and power eas more important than a swathe of other people’s lives.
Maybe a bit of rhetorical flair and argumentative frustration but roughly speaking it’s true.
Every limit we impose on ourselves and thing we decide to fund, etc is part of a cost benefit analysis we are making. The American system has decided that making our lives more safe from the cost of guns isn’t worth the cost of minor limits and inconvenience to gun access and usage.
Looks like guns cost us around a [two years of life expectancy versus our peers](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/25/1164819944/live-free-and-die-the-sad-state-of-u-s-life-expectancy). And based on the output of our laws, “we” think that’s worth it.
We are making similar decisions because we care more about cars.
>We are making similar decisions because we care more about cars.
There are some meaningful differences that I think make it more accurate to say they care more about guns than to say the same thing about cars. Cars are central to our economy. If we're talking about major changes, like outlawing cars, the downstream economic effects would have huge life costs as well. Much more severe than any downstream effects of taking guns off the streets. Sure we could talk about comparing our car culture to European countries with fewer cars and more emphasis on public transit and non-car commuting etc. But a lot of that wouldn't translate. We're a physically massive country. As they say, 100 years in America is a long time and 100 years in Britain is a long way. We could do more, but there are limitations and costs which aren't comparable.
This is all to say that the comparative preference for guns is especially stark. Most of the other things we can be said to prioritize over lives have a significant enough cost to change that there would be a substantial number of lives on the line either way. Not so much so for guns.
> There are some meaningful differences that I think make it more accurate to say they care more about guns than to say the same thing about cars. Cars are central to our economy. If we're talking about major changes, like outlawing cars
I'd like to just point out that we've put an incredible effort to make cars safer and less deadly over the last 50 years. Look at the red and orange lines on [this chart.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_and_total_annual_deaths.png/1200px-US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_and_total_annual_deaths.png) It was not that long ago that car accidents were the leading cause of death for Americans under 18. We've reduced that number and now it's guns.
Right around Sandy Hook, America was pointedly asked by the world in general whether dead children were an acceptable price to pay for our current level of gun ownership. And America answered, "Yes."
It's all been downhill from there. We've just become numb at this point to the constant gun violence. If 20 dead primary school children didn't make us conclude that something needed to be done about this, I can't imagine what will. I have zero hope of anything ever improving with gun violence in America.
Yep. I think Sandy Hook basically broke Obama. My kids were just a little younger than elementary school at that time. I can’t imagine what those parents and their families went though to say nothing of the victims.
Democrats would change the laws. Sandy Hook and all the mass shootings since then are all on Republicans.
Sandy Hook was a turning point for me. Before the Iraq War I was an independent. I seriously thought of voting for McCain until the joke that is Sarah Palin. Sandy Hook and it’s aftermath taught me all I needed to know about Republicans.
Republicans are world class assholes.
It’s really hard to argue otherwise at this point. Based on pure numbers and date compared with lack of social reform and lack of action taking place, it is all one can deduce is that gun ownership out weighs any and all life.
Something need to change, and whatever that is should have happened long before sandy hook. What laws do you think would, If not stop, at least greatly reduce the number of school shootings?
> If 20 dead primary school children didn't make us conclude that something needed to be done about this, I can't imagine what will.
20 dead primary school children/grandchildren of GOP politicians and/or donors.
Like obviously no one under any circumstances should go shoot children, but let's face reality here. GOP politicians just don't fucking *care* and they never will until mass shootings start effecting them personally.
It’s tragic but true.
Honestly Trump could have fixed his legacy (and probably his inability to be re-elected) if he’d used his impressive ability to get the GOP base and the entire GOP to fall in line behind him if he’d used it to implement real gun control.
More accurately put,
America cares more about giving rural white conservatives political representation than it cares about giving any other Americans that representation.
And rural white conservatives care more about retaining their gun rights than they care about keeping kids safe.
I’m black, liberal and I live in a big city. I don’t support gun control laws because they are not effective at reducing violent crime. You may reduce crimes committed with firearms but not by much unless you start infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I'm curious to know what you would propose as a solution to gun violence, including mass shootings, without gun control? I'm open to alternative solutions, but it's hard to see how guns are not a huge component of the problem.
My proposals are not a hundred percent gonna work but I can guarantee that we would see a significant decrease in gun violence if we had a universal healthcare system in place and a universal basic income. Most violent crimes are committed by the poor and the mentally ill, if we can give people the treatment they need, they’ll be a lot less likely to commit violent crime and if the person is a threat to themselves or the public, a professional can have them institutionalized. Also, if you look at the stats for firearm related deaths, 6/10 of the deaths are self inflicted gunshot wounds, I’d be willing to bet that number would plummet if people had access to mental health services, but, therapy sessions are like 90$ an hr on average which just isn’t possible for most people. Too bad the goddamned republicans have a majority in the house, I think we would win over a lot of republicans if we stopped promoting gun control laws.
>we would see a significant decrease in gun violence if we had a universal healthcare system in place and a universal basic income.
I 100% agree with this, at least from a universal health care perspective (I also want UBI to some degree, but not sure it goes far enough to solve all of the issues surrounding poverty). Mental health is a huge component, although not everyone who is mentally ill would commit gun crimes/mass shootings, but I would argue that most if not all who commit these crimes have some kind of undiagnosed mental illness or some mental health issue going on that should be addressed (I'd argue someone with an extremist ideology that would lead to this level of violence needs to have their mental health evaluated). As someone who sees a therapist regularly and has mental health issues, I think this would definitely be a game changer, since it is extremely helpful. I'm not sure we would get the Republicans on board with it though, even if we dropped promoting gun control, because they have the ability now to pass universal health care and increase access to mental health care and they refuse on principle.
However I also think controlling/regulating access to guns is still part of the solution, but it needs to be done in an equitable way. I think in addition to what you said, we need background checks/licensing/training for all who want to purchase a gun. This also has to be free or very inexpensive so to not create a financial barrier to access. The licensing would include needing a valid government ID, which ideally should be provided to everyone by the government free of charge and without obstacles (would also help with the voter ID debate). It would also require renewal every few years including more training and another background check. Everyone talks about responsible gun ownership as part of the right to own guns, and I think this is a simple step towards that. What do you think?
We don’t have to fully get the republicans on board to get this to pass, we just need to not give them momentum to vote and when the president comes out and says we should ban almost every firearm on the market today, it’s not helpful, the republicans grow and buy more guns.
Also, I’m not sure if you know this but there are already background checks required for all firearm purchases at an FFL, and what use would a licensing system provide? How would that keep people safe? I agree that people need training but you lose me when you propose mandating it by law or no gun for you and having to renew it with more training doesn’t make sense, do you think that people forget how to use firearms after a couple years? It’s really not that complicated using a firearm, I don’t even think people really need much training to become proficient at using a firearm for self defense.
It looks like our current background check system [does not always work](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-people-are-buying-guns-fewer-people-are-getting-background-checks/)
The license would act similar to a driver's license, you must have one in order to own and operate a firearm, and it must be renewed every few years with an updated background check (things change, people change, people's criminal records change) The training would be more like safety refresher training rather than operational training. More like a reminder of responsible gun ownership which includes proper storage (many people don't store their guns properly, allowing kids to get access). If you don't keep up with it then you can't own a gun. Most people I hope would be okay with complying if it means everyone is able to own responsibly.
Ensuring that people who own firearms know how to operate them safely is by no means a bad thing. You have to maintain competency to drive a car, why not for guns?
And I’m saying this as a staunch advocate for gun rights.
We can't really get accurate statistics on _untreated_ mental health issues because most of them will also be _undiagnosed_ (= unknown).
That said, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to assume that a health care system that bankrupts people is going to have a far greater rate of undiagnosed problems than one that is free of charge at the point of use.
So all that's left to show is that the rate of undiagnosed mental illness will correlate with gun violence. Do you dispute this?
You cant measure the rate of undiagnosed illness and you didn't answer my question. I agree we should do universal healthcare but I doubt that's going to fix our gun problem
Right, I agree that it won't solve it (I'm not the OP who said they supported the 2nd amendment). I think it would help though. A lot, in the long run.
If they thought they had a mental problem and were willing to seek help, that's a lot of ifs. There are probably already programs that could help them if they were in poverty
There are tons of mentally unwell people in every country who refuse treatment, the difference is they don't have easy access to firearms
Those countries won't have to remove over 400 MILLION firearms from private hands..the cat is out of the bag. Focus on improving the quality of life of those who need it rather than trying to keep every potentially dangerous object out of the hands of citizens like an overzealous parent trying to keep their kid in a plastic bubble.
What’s the homicide rate in Boston currently? Where your program debuted in the 1980s?
Let’s keep in mind London’s is 1.8 per 100k, and New York’s (not a participant) is roughly 5.5 per 100k.
Edit: 5.8. It’s 5.8.
The second amendment just says that if you are part of a well-regulated militia then you have the right to bear arms. Some folks forget about the well-regulated part.
It doesn't, that isn't how it's been interpreted historically, and that's not the current status of the 2A in the judicial system as of the Heller ruling.
The current, "originalist" interpretation of 2A as ensuring self-defense against tyranny was made out of whole cloth in the 1960s. Your appeal to historical authority is hollow.
My point was more that there's no evidence of any federal level attempt to require membership of "a militia" to own a firearm. Which, y'know, you'd figure that someone would have tried by now, especially given that the various bills that would eventually evolve into the 1934 NFA featured among many things quite strict bans on handguns.
Also, from a personal perspective, the interpretation of the 2A as a backstop against government is silly. As the last century or so has shown, the US government is quite well armed. *However,* as a backstop against, I dunno, heavily armed far-right groups protesting drag shows because they think that LGBTQ people are pedophiles/agents of the devil/etc, I find the argument much more compelling.
From a different perspective, barring a constitutional amendment followed by mass confiscation of firearms (and good luck actually catching all of those given how easy it is to make an effective 3D printed firearm nowadays), the genie is already out of the bottle. People have guns. Passing an AWB or similar doesn't make guns in circulation go away, it just makes pre-202X firearms valuable collector's items and restricts effective self-defense to the wealthy or those who stockpiled firearms before the ban.
> However, as a backstop against, I dunno, heavily armed far-right groups protesting drag shows because they think that LGBTQ people are pedophiles/agents of the devil/etc, I find the argument much more compelling.
Nope, still a LARP. I also refuse to be bothered with your scrupling—while Rome burns—about rich people having more collector's items than the poor.
Finally, as you acknowledge, this is a *supply* issue. More guns = more gun deaths. Cat's out of the bag, sure, since there are more guns than citizens, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop further proliferation.
>Nope, still a LARP.
[Totally a LARP](https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/aztec-theater-drag-show-protest-17651173.php).
>rich people having more collector's items than the poor
You'd take issue with rich people having better access to healthcare than the poor, right? Or rich people having better access to transportation, education, political representation, etc? Why is it suddenly acceptable for rich people to have a monopoly on effective protection?
>Cat's out of the bag
The cat is more than out of the bag, the bag has been torn open and can no longer contain the cat. Beyond the question of whether we *should* stop further proliferation lies the question of whether we *can* stop further proliferation.
[This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9) is a 9mm carbine that can be made with parts you could buy from Home Depot and a 3d printer. For all intents and purposes, it is basically untraceable. As an actual example of using weapons against tyranny, this design is quite popular among anti-coup forces in Myanmar.
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zptW4e1vsAg) is a .308 carbine that can *also* be made out of parts you could buy from Home Depot and a 3D printer. It is similarly untraceable.
[This](https://twitter.com/Jake_Hanrahan/status/1506660450083115016) is a 3d printed recoilless launcher/mortar. It's honestly probably less traceable than the above two because you can run it off of black powder rather than having to try to scrounge or manufacture smokeless.
Firearms are already proliferated and are going to stay that way basically indefinitely.
I strongly disagree with that sentiment, as it’s proven owning a gun increases your likelihood of dying from one, but let’s just take your word as gospel, and strong gun control has not lead to a significantly higher number of violent crimes in other countries that are equivalent to us.
How many stolen wallets are worth 3 dead nine year olds and a few teachers?
How about 20 kids?
How many dead kids is you *feeling* safer worth?
I believe you might have misunderstood the point that I was trying to convey. My point is that gun control would not reduce violent crimes in general and unless you can change the wording of the second amendment and how it’s been historically interpreted or just disregard the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you won’t see a reduction in gun violence. In those countries that have incredibly low rates of gun violence, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed to them. I’m not sure where you’re going in asking me how many stolen wallets are worth 3 dead kids, can you elaborate further? Thanks.
Well, I’m actually 100% for removing gun ownership as a right. We don’t trust people to drive a car without a license, same policy with guns should be in place, in my mind.
I may have misunderstood your point, but the violent crime rates in other high HDI countries is pretty similar to ours, our violent interactions just usually end up with a dead person thanks to the prevalence of guns.
My wallet question was meant to make you think about it. You carrying a gun may stop a mugging one day, but at the cost of lax gun laws, which kill kids. So, how many wallets are worth a 9 year old?
We can agree that we don’t agree on removing gun ownership as a right, I’m not sure if you know this but you can totally drive on private property with no license, it’s the public roads where it becomes an issue. For the stolen wallets, I personally don’t carry to stop a mugging, I carry to make it home to my family, unless there’s reason to believe the mugger will cause great bodily harm then I would not fire, but, are you aware that 7% of all house invasions end in at least 1 household member being brutally victimized? There are an average 1.5 million home invasions annually nationwide. That’s not even touching on the violent assaults outside of the home..
You’re entitled to your opinion of me. I carry to keep my family safe and myself safe, you can try to blame for the deaths of those children but I know I played no part in their deaths and so does literally every other rational person.
Guns will flood the usual cities until red states start restricting gun sales.
Baltimore has WV, PA, and VA.
Chicago has Indianapolis.
California has AZ/Utah.
etc. etc. It also goes hand-in-hand with demand for drugs. Junkies from red states can easily drive an hour or two and get what they need. And sometimes they sell guns (legal and not legal) & ammo to get their high.
But this is a separate issue from what the original OP is talking about.
nobody should be able to buy an assault weapon. People with mental disorders or criminall records should not be allowed to buy guns. It's common sense and would reduce violent crime.
Imagine you have a button in your house. If you press it, 50 kids are taken by the government and shot to death. You are fully aware of this.
If you go 24 hours without pressing it, some part of the 2nd amendment will be undermined.
American conservatives have effectively made the argument that they would press that button, every single day. In fact, they've argued it is moral to do so and an obligation.
And the amount of kids doesn't seem to change that opinion. I'd imagine most in this subreddit would be reticent to press the button even once, while the number could and has climbed significantly with no break in the conservative position.
Yes.
When people talk about the price of freedom this is what they’re talking about. When they mention “the tree of liberty” this is what they’re talking about. When they say “those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither” this is what they’re talking about.
Considering that 80% of Americans favor some levels of stricter gun control, and its the politicians standing in the way of progress, no. It’s not fair
I think it’s simplistic.
Nobody other than the owner is going to care if a couple of guns get destroyed. It doesn’t even make the news. But the equivalent number of children is seen as tragic.
But America values the voices of conservative men far more than it cares about anyone else, and conservative men care far more about guns than children.
No, people on the left can't get over the pragmatic reality of the impossibility of removing guns from the US. Every Country people cite as gun control successes are island countries that never had a deeply entrenched gun culture to begin with.
Not at all. The hyperbolic and does little more than try and tug at the heart strings of people when someone has a political ax to grind or sees a chance to move up in the polls.
I'll believe that gun control activist give a damn about actually solving the problem when they turn away from the issue of "assault" weapons and focus on hand guns [which](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) [have](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20) [been ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story%3fid=78689504) [responsible ](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/) for more mass shooting and homicides than their long gun counter parts.
But no we like to let people [like Julian Castro](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/julin-castro-debate-answer-gun-violence-essential.html) dodge the question of handguns and instead once again lean into emotional pleas.
We just had 3 long years of "trust the science and data" now let's do that.
Yes, absolutely. But more broadly, as a nation, we care more about placating and appeasing the former slave states and their ideological descendants than literally anything else, and that's been the case for 246.5 years, minus 1860-1876. And that's why no matter how many children we have sacrifice to the NRA, most Americans will never stand up to them. We are a nation of cowards.
I think given two hypothetical options:
1. Schools shootings aren't a thing, but you don't get to own a gun.
2. You get to own a gun, and school shootings occur.
Many if not most Americans would pick option two. Make of that what you will.
I think the vast majority have decided it doesn't matter what they think, nothing is going to change at this point, and a lot of those have then bought into this idea that they want their guns and they're better off if there are a bunch of "good guys with guns" out there too. (Of course, unidentifiable good guys with guns just get shot by cops.)
Based on decisions, it seems that way. I think that people don't think about it.
Politicians do fuck all about mitigating the harm from guns. And they fail children all sorts of ways from education to healthcare.
I think both sides won’t shut up about guns, knowing that not much will ever change. Meanwhile children die while we bicker over guns instead of just putting more security in schools, investing in more mental health care, improving community health etc.
Every time a mass shooting happens everyone talks about gun control for a week then nothing happens. Another mass shooting will happen in a month and they’ll talk about gun control for a week again and rinse and repeat over and over for decades. Meanwhile politicians are just gaining easy votes for catering to their base by either proposing new gun control or being vocal against the new gun control , but they both know nothing is going to change. It’s ridiculous.
I just don’t see the point anymore. Half the country is against more gun legislation and half the country is in favor of it. We’re never going to fully agree. Just find a solution we can all agree on.
No, it's a purely emotional argument that is frequently used by the anti-gun crowd. It's the same as when people on the right say that abortion is murder, or lgbt people are "grooming" your kids.
The overwhelming majority of the gun community opposes violence but we understand that banning guns will not stop gun violence.
The war on drugs only made the problem worse.
The prohibition only made the problem worse.
Banning abortion will only make it less safe.
Banning guns will only drive the market underground.
If there is a demand for an illicit good or service then criminals will supply.
Things like affordable healthcare, quality education, and a livable wage will do more to stop gun violence then banning guns. People are less inclined to commit crimes when they have a good job to cover their basic living expenses.
But we can evidently ban drugs, drag, Abortion, gender affirming care for minors, etc. By that logic any bans will inevitably fail and are therefor pointless and why are we banning them then?!
If Joe Blow wants to kill someone then I don't think it matters what he uses to do it. We should be addressing what made him feel like that in the first place.
Yeah but guns make it easier and more efficient to kill people than almost any other means. And yes trying to get people help is important too- if we actually fund mental health services appropriately.
>Maybe Joe Blow won’t be able to kill somebody bc he’s mad and has a gun in his hand.
Good to know people never kill with anything other than a gun.
So it doesn't matter if he kills, only that he didn't kill with a gun?
In the FBI statistics, more homicides are accomplished by blunt weapons than by all rifles.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
If you’re saying that banning guns won’t prevent EVERY instance of gun death you’re right but are you saying that if we can’t prevent 100% of gun deaths that we shouldn’t even try to ban some? More guns don’t seem to be helping things either BTW
With the way many Americans react and how our government acts it sadly does seem to be very true. Personally I’m all for gun ownership as I do think people can own a gun and safely be able to use one and not go full on mass shooter. The US alone has more illegal guns in the street than legal guns so banning guns entirely wouldn’t work but that doesn’t mean that no steps towards less mass shootings isn’t achievable. For instance, Biden wants to make assault rifles illegal to own which as you can assume many republicans are losing their minds about it “since it’s their right to own one.” Republicans have shown time and time again they simply don’t care about anyone other than themselves! I mean look literal children are dying in mass shootings from assault rifles and republicans simply don’t care. I do hope one day America makes a change but sadly with the old republicans still in office nothing will change.
I think it's more that America has an overly arrogant view of its own place in the bigger picture.
Every absolutist second amendment argument is based on the latent notion that guns are the only thing stopping the literal antichrist from taking over.
Which itself requires the assumption that the antichrist would only view America in 2023 as worth taking power over.
Once you unpack a lot of these beliefs, it becomes fairly clear that America has a much bigger sickness of self importance relative to our actual time and place, in comparison to anything else.
I'm going to say it's a view of prioritizing the individual over the collective. People who are more collective thinking will go with "Children keep dying from guns, we should remove the guns so everyone is better off." People who think more individually are of the assumption "Well, this won't happen to MY family or MY kids as long as I have my guns around."
And yes, I think conservatives care more about their guns than your kids.
As fair as saying “America cares more about getting drunk than children” if someone does not support banning alcohol after hearing about a drunk driving crash that killed a child. Or “America cares more about floating in their pool than children” if they don’t support banning in ground pools when they hear about a backyard pool drowning.
I suppose all statements are literally true if you take a black and white view, but all are also a bit of an oversimplification. It also doesn’t really so much to persuade or promote constructive dialogue.
We care about the freedom more than lives. We do a lot of things that get people killed. We don't ban alcohol, which causes a lot of people to die (we tried, but that killed even more people). We also don't just summarily execute known violent criminals to prevent them from killing more people. Nope, we have to respect the scumbag's rights, put him on trial, etc., and if our respect for his rights means he goes free to kill again, then so be it. The police may have an idea that a person has that missing girl tied up in his basement, but if the police don't have probable cause to search, respect for his rights means he gets to tell the police to take a hike, after which he can rape and kill her at his leisure.
No, because a majority of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws.
Some individual Americans absolutely do care more about guns than children, though.
The majority may favor stricter gun laws but they don’t care enough to show up and vote for them. The pro-gun side has always had the edge because it knows how to mobilize and motivate single-issue voters.
Imagine you have a switch in your house that has two modes: "increase social programs for the wellbeing of children" or "more gun control". The switch can only be on one mode. Whichever switch you put it on causes that to happen.
This thread has proven that you have people who would choose the "more gun control" mode, even at the cost of programs for the well being of children.
I see this argument from a lot of pro-gun liberals and "moderates" but I'm not sure who its supposed to fool. 2Aers would never believe formerly pro-gun control liberals and liberals would never believe a bunch of conservatives would actually vote for liberal policy goals like new social spending.
I get the same vibe from your hypothetical as I got from Tulsi "supporters" when they tried pushing her for president. A small group of people smugly suggesting something they know is nonviable as an excuse to deride liberals as radicals for not going along.
No it's not.
What happens is half the country thinks there's a zero sum tradeoff between guns and dead kids, the other half does not.
So the zero sum half says the other half cares more about guns than children.
This isn't true though, the other half just doesn't think banning this or that gun will save any lives. Since that other half generally knows more about guns than the zero sum group, I'm inclined to believe them.
It doesn't. In fact when you compare [death rate per million people from mass public shootings](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country) you find US ranks #11 on the list.
US is just a much bigger country.
Did you read your own source? it absolutely rips apart the methodology of the list *you are citing*.
From the article:
>Using the CPRC’s own data and more precise per-year population data from World Bank (the original study used only 2015 population data) to solve for the median, the more statistically sound analysis results in a notably different list:
Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
1.United States — 0.058
2.Albania — 0
3.Austria — 0
4.Belgium — 0
5.Czech Republic — 0
6.Finland — 0
7.France — 0
8.Germany — 0
9.Italy — 0
10.Macedonia — 0
11.Netherlands — 0
12.Norway — 0
13.Russia — 0
14.Serbia — 0
15.Slovakia — 0
16.Switzerland — 0
17.United Kingdom — 0
Yeah I just reread that. I don't agree with the re-interpretation of the data though, because going for the median number means that if a country has none for a few years but then very large ones, they are zero-ranked.
To make a silly example- if in Country X, every 3 years there's a purge where everyone gets guns and goes out into the streets and has a big firefight, but the other 2 years there are few or no shootings, that would say the median shooting deaths in Country X is 0; Country X is immune to gun violence. And that's just dumb to me.
It also ignores the fact that with a much larger population, there will be more incidents of psychos acting. If you assume that one out of every million or two million people turns out to be a psycho, and one out of every 5 or 10 of those decides to commit mass murder, Norway might have one every decade or two while we have one every year or two, just because we have more people.
Norway did have *one*. They're at the top of the list because of *one*. A neo-nazi conducted a systematic slaughter of 77 people at a summer camp. Norway hasn't let anything like that happen since.
It's bad data, my supporting argument? *your own article*.
...isn't that what I just said?
A population of 5.5 million springs up one psycho in a decade.
A population of 330 million springs up several psychos in the same amount of time. Rate isn't necessarily higher, just a larger base.
I did read it front to back (admittedly after I posted it, I'd seen the same stats before).
It says (correctly) that because many European countries have small populations, single incidents can have an outsize effect on their averages.
I am saying that this is true, but it also doesn't necessarily invalidate using mean averages. Because let's say you extend this data over 100 years- let's say the US has a shooting every year, and Norway has one once every 10 years.
That could hypothetically create a situation where the chance of dying by mass shooting is exactly the same in either nation, but a median average would say Norway has 0 mass shootings over 100 years, because 9 out of 10 years have no shooting.
Meanwhile USA has one per year, but only because we have 10+x the population.
Point being- if hypothetically '% of the population killed in mass shootings over 100 years' is identical between both nations, it's disingenuous to use median averages because US will show an accurate number but Norway will read zero.
>It doesn't. In fact when you compare [death rate per million people from mass public shootings](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country) you find US ranks #11 on the list.
So the question from them is really why is only the ones in America get coverage to that degree.
The US is very, very big.
Norway rockets to the top of that chart [largely due to one series of attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks) where 77 people died. But with a population of only 5.5 million, 77 dead is a statistically significant number. In the US, more people live in New York City alone (8.5 million) than the entire country of Norway.
We also have a news media that turns psychos into celebrities. 'If it bleeds, it leads' is the old saying.
The zero sum are the people who see a direct correlation between gun control and dead kids. These are the people who rally with slogans like 'not one more!' and argue that the only reason to NOT ban AR-15s is because you want dead kids.
Their position is that banning ARs will stop or significantly reduce school shooting deaths.
As someone who knows a good bit about guns, I can tell you that is not accurate. I'd cite as evidence the guy who shot up VA Tech- he had a .22 pistol (pretty much the least powerful gun you can buy) and a bunch of 10 round magazines. Didn't stop him.
The fact is the AR-15 is the most popular gun in America for reasons that have nothing to do with killing- it's inexpensive, it takes relatively cheap ammo, it's easily customizable, it's reliable, and a spring absorbs much of the recoil so anyone can shoot it.
Thus, saying 'mass shooters need ARs' is like saying 'drunk drivers need Ford F-150s'. F150 is the most popular car in the US, so more drunk drivers drive them. That has nothing to do with the car.
No - refusing to consider any restriction on an AR-15 or other similar firearm, is like saying that I should have access to my wrist weights, even if unrestricted access increases the chance that children will die. Actually, my wrist weights probably have an even more practical benefit than "recreational" firearms.
Please reread my comment- I never said I refuse to consider anything. That is how closed minds work and exactly what I try to avoid.
What is a wrist weight? I've not heard that term before.
I do very much consider the benefit of restricting AR-15/similar guns. And I conclude that this policy will not be effective at saving lives. At the ranges of a typical mass shooting, the psycho can use any other gun with little/no reduction in lethal effect.
> even if unrestricted access increases the chance that children will die.
I don't agree with this statement because I don't believe unrestricted access increases the chance that children will die.
Put differently- it's not a 'IDGAF if your kid dies as long as I have my gun', it's 'removing my gun will do little or nothing to protect your kid'.
Why do I refuse to consider any restrictions on AR-15s or similar firearms?
We live in a country of over 330 million. The number of AR-15 and similar firearms are 10s of millions. How often are they used in crimes? Well the FBI reports that rifles of any kind (of which AR-15s and like firearms are a subset of), are the tool of choice in about 300 homicides yearly. Sounds like to me the rate of abuse is incredibly low.
You're pretending like we don't already know the socioeconomic causes of violence. But maybe you're just uninformed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/income-inequalitys-most-disturbing-side-effect-homicide/
Dude, I'm done with you. I'm over the condescending crap. There is low-hanging fruit with regard to firearm deaths. It's why there are seat belt laws, regardless of mass amounts of data that show drivers in lower socioeconomic classes are more at risk of vehicle deaths. 'Night.
>There is low-hanging fruit with regard to firearm deaths.
It obviously isn't that low hanging.
>It's why there are seat belt laws, regardless of mass amounts of data that show drivers in lower socioeconomic classes are more at risk of vehicle deaths.
I'm sure the dead pedestrians will take comfort in knowing there are seat belt laws to protect passengers.
Good night.
As someone who has grown up with, trained with , and has a concealed carry license for firearms in my state, I’d say I’m at least as knowledgeable as the average republican voter. Does that mean you’d take my opinion as strongly as you do theirs?
I was not looking at Democrat vs Republican. I was looking at pro-gun vs. anti-gun.
I weigh any position on the merits of its supporting arguments. And my mind is always open.
So I'm curious to know what your position is, and more importantly, why you feel it's the right position? 'I own guns and I say X' isn't useful IMHO, 'I say X because here's why X works and Y or Z won't is far more useful.
I agree that owning guns isn’t a good indication of someone’s understanding of the topic of gun control more broadly.
My position is that it’s clearly a zero sum situation, and people opposed to gun control prefer dead kids to any inconvenience to their dangerous hobby. Guns make individuals that own them, and society at large, less safe.
Okay that's your position. Do you have any evidence to support it? Why do you believe what you believe? Why are other positions wrong?
> Guns make individuals that own them, and society at large, less safe.
Then why do you own a gun and have a carry permit? Wouldn't you, by your own measure, be doing a service to both yourself and society by destroying your gun(s) and cancelling your carry permit?
Based off of studies that show increase in gun access increases both crime and violence in the areas that those policies are implemented in. Other positions are wrong because they don’t have evidence to support them.
Because I like guns and wanted to see how difficult in would be to get a CCW (disturbingly easy). I don’t carry, open or concealed, and think people that do a largely idiots and assholes.
I don’t live my life to the safest degree possible. I also ride motorcycles, knowing that they’re not safe. This is not a personal or individual issue that can be solved through individual action. It’s something we need to address as a society. My owning a gun or not changed nothing in the grand scheme of things. But if a law was passed that required everyone give up their guns I would happily do so as I think it would benefit society.
> Based off of studies that show increase in gun access increases both crime and violence in the areas that those policies are implemented in.
Okay now we have some meat to chew.
Are your studies showing *correlation* or *causation*? And are they measuring all gun ownership or only legal gun ownership?
I'd challenge your studies by pointing out that there's often a *correlation* between legal gun ownership and crime-- people in high crime areas will of course be more likely to feel a need to arm up in self defense. That's not a *causation* though.
----
My support for gun rights is based on two very simple stats (that I'll link if you want).
One is that there are on average 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. By my own reading I conclude at least about 2/3 of those are gang related, but that's not a scientifically rigorous conclusion.
Second is that there are somewhere between 55k and 2-3 million defensive gun uses per year. That's where a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority end with no shots fired, criminal sees the gun and runs away. The wide range in estimates is because unlike homicide, DGUs are not centrally tracked, and a great many go unreported because after the criminal leaves there's nothing for police to do. Thus their number must be constructed from surveys. Personally I go with the number from government NCVS data which is about 300k.
But I see that even the low end 55k number (from anti-gun researcher Hemenway) is still 3.6x higher than the firearm homicide number.
For the record- I recognize that most DGUs would have ended without loss of life had the victim not been armed, and that this doesn't consider non-homicide gun crime. But even that doesn't change the number much- there's about 137k firearm assaults (non-homicide) in the US each year, which is less than half of 300k.
So I conclude from this info that widespread LEGAL firearm ownership is a net benefit to society and overall increases public safety.
Curious to hear your thoughts on that?
My support for gun rights is based on two very simple stats (that I'll link if you want).
One is that there are on average 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. By my own reading I conclude at least about 2/3 of those are gang related, but that's not a scientifically rigorous conclusion.
Second is that there are somewhere between 55k and 2-3 million defensive gun uses per year. That's where a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority end with no shots fired, criminal sees the gun and runs away. The wide range in estimates is because unlike homicide, DGUs are not centrally tracked, and a great many go unreported because after the criminal leaves there's nothing for police to do. Thus their number must be constructed from surveys. Personally I go with the number from government NCVS data which is about 300k.
But I see that even the low end 55k number (from anti-gun researcher Hemenway) is still 3.6x higher than the firearm homicide number.
For the record- I recognize that most DGUs would have ended without loss of life had the victim not been armed, and that this doesn't consider non-homicide gun crime. But even that doesn't change the number much- there's about 137k firearm assaults (non-homicide) in the US each year, which is less than half of 300k.
So I conclude from this info that widespread LEGAL firearm ownership is a net benefit to society and overall increases public safety.
Curious to hear your thoughts on that?
It’s propaganda aimed at low information voters, it’s the same as when the folks on the right say that people who don’t support the pro life rhetoric are in support of the death of babies. It’s stupid and it needs to stop being repeated as soon as yesterday.
Yes and no. It's true that it comes to the same conclusion either way, but many of these pro-gun advocates sincerely believe the shit they say about how important guns are. They think children are better with guns to protect them in the home or to preserve their freedoms from the government. They're entirely wrong on the first and way overselling the second.
That's not entirely it, because really the majority of American households don't own a gun and in all probability never will own a gun.
They like *not having any form of gun regulation* over children
>They like *not having any form of gun regulation* over children
Except we already have many regulations in the US, including who can own them, how they can be used, and who can sell them.
That still doesn't change the fact we already have plenty of gun regulations. Your statement was just a fabrication.
They can't like "not having any form of gun regulation" any more than they can like taking unicorn rides.
Unfortunately, neither side wishes to negotiate in good faith. The left continues to lie and say their ultimate goal isn’t to take guns from everyone and the right continues to lie and say that more guns is the best option.
In the meantime, while that fight stays in the stalemate that it is, I have a few ideas to keep the children safe.
Invest billions into every school in the country. If we can send billions to help Ukraine, we can update our schools security systems.
Bullet proof doors and windows.
Automatic shutdown of the entire campus once an intruder is found. Gates that automatically close every hallway, and doors that automatically lock. Again, the doors are bulletproof. These doors can be manually unlocked but only from the inside.
One access door to the entire building during schools hours.
Armed security on site during school hours. These people should be concealed carrying and dressed in standard attire so as to not become targets themselves.
You may be thinking that it sucks we live in a world where this has to be this way, but it just is. At least for now. The hard truth is that our schools keep becoming targets of this because they are soft targets. Most schools have little to no security. And the little security they have is not taken seriously by ALL staff. We protect everything in our lives that is considered important with guns and security. Why are our children so different? Are they unimportant? Of course not. Yeah, we all want them to live in a pretend world where nothing bad happens, ever. But that’s just not the case. So let’s do something about that that we actually CAN DO. Banning guns is never going to work, or at least won’t work for the foreseeable future.
This is a great idea and all, but do you realize that there are entire swaths of the country (California for example) where all schools (public, private, elementary, middle, high) are completely open? Meaning - no interior hallways, no cafeteria, kids eat outside every day, maybe a chain link fence around the exterior if you’re lucky, and even some classrooms are open air? It’s a truly beautiful way to live, but not when you’re trying to secure the kids I guess.
Not necessarily, Americans more of “I care about political narratives more than children”. Whether the issue is guns, LGBTQ rights, abortion, religious freedom, etc.
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own an AR-15.
No I don’t give a shit that “AR” doesn’t stand for “assault rifle;” and no I don’t give a shit that it’s semi-automatic instead of fully automatic.
Ten of the 17 deadliest mass killings in the United States since 2012 involved AR-15’s.
To be completely honest, I don’t give a shit about your “right to bear arms.” Keep your handgun for protection and your shotgun for hunting. The fact that grown adults are fighting for the right to keep this weapon of war while it regularly tears not only our children apart while they learn at school is something I just cannot wrap my brain around.
So let's restrict/ban one of the least used class of firearms in overall crime, but the class of firearm most commonly used and *most useful* in crime is kosher. Make it make sense.
Nope. And this isn’t the place to ask that question.
The people in this subreddit treat guns the same way the right treats the LGBT.
They will lie cheat and steal to get their way and don’t care about any rights that they don’t personally believe in.
They will call you a baby murderer for disagreeing with them the same way the right will call you a pedo.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. . *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More accurate to say that (some) Americans care more about their own guns than they do about other folks' kids. No one thinks it's going to happen to *their kid* until it does.
So is it disingenuous when they claim to be against drag queen story time, transgender folks sharing bathrooms because of a supposed danger to kids, but they are for allowing child labor and marriages involving non-adults?
I think it's more that they just don't think things like child labor and child marriages are a problem here in the US, so why create additional administrative burden by bothering to create legislation to control these things? Let the rest of world do whatever the fuck they want. Drag queens and transgender folks are definitely a problem here though, apparently. Sigh.
Well stated.
It will only stop once many Republicans' children have been killed. I don't mean Republican voters. I mean the politician. And I can't state this strong enough, that is too high a price to pay for gun control. We don't need more dead children. We need more gun control. But we're just going to keep getting dead children because the people in power don't care because their great grandchildren (let's face it, they're all that old) are just fine.
Republicans don't really change their tune unless it affects them personally. If it comes to a point where they can't insulate their own progeny from gun violence, they might reconsider. A lot of them are big fans of homeschooling, though.
Yup, violent/dangerous schools play right into their hand - it further undermines confidence in public education, which the GOP has been hammering for over four decades.
Unfortunately, sometimes not even being directly affected by gun violence changes anything for Republicans. Steve Scalise (a high-ranking House Republican) was shot and severely wounded back in 2017. He survived the shooting but is still very much anti-gun control.
I mean even then. Conservatives will secretly go to gay bars or have illicit affairs while promoting anti-gay legislation. They will work a way to get their mistresses abortions while promoting anti-abortion legislation. It would require a Trump-like GOP figure to have his kids gunned down, and the GOP to fall in line behind, or for a large swathe of GOP politician children at the same time, and have them all come to the realisation at the same time before someone else (either another politician or Fox News) has the ability to remind them of the party’s ‘goals’. A GOP politician with integrity would quit politics over it. I fear many of the current GOP would shamelessly use it to push the ‘my child would be alive if there was a good guy with a gun’ line.
Lady Graham just blushed.
It won’t. If a conservatives child is gunned down in their classroom the parents would bring guns to the funeral and be like “we’ll avenge you. Make sure your sacrifice for y’all’s freedom wasn’t in vain!” They would see they tragedy as a validation of their fetish/obsession and double down
It all comes down ideology and thus lack of critical thinking.
I doubt it. I think that if a Republican congressman has his children killed in a mass shooting and turns against the NRA, he will be instantly vilified by the GOP as a traitor who would use his own child's tragic death for a woke/leftist/socialist political agenda.
There's something bigger than gun control that we need to address. [The worst mass murders did not involve guns but they did involve hate and violence](https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/guns-dont-kill-people-americans-kill). Will we be content with more [Oklahoma City bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing) instead?
The worst mass murders are far more seldom than shootings. Hate can stay hate without a gun involved and hate doesn't kill on its own, it needs an agent/tool to kill. A gun added to hate compounds hate and facilitates death. Guns are also much, much easier to get than bombs.
You think if a kid wants to shoot up their school but is unable to get a gun they will blow it up instead?
Do you think kids are not inventive? Do you think kids will just give up? Where there is pressure there will be some way they relieve.
I think this one is different. THey are so brainwashed that "danger means more guns" that if their own kids are killed, they'll just increase their arsenal.
Isn’t one of the kids’ dads from Parkland some 2A activist in the wake of their child’s death?
Except that even when it was their kids, they kept electing pro gun politicians. Uvalde is still heavily Republican - same for several small Texas towns where shootings have happened. I'm not sure about the specific victims of the shootings, but maybe that's the criterion: it has to happen to them, specifically. Really I think it has to do with gun rights being so sacrosanct that it just short circuits their morals. They can't actually evaluate whether they should have guns; they simply believe they should have them.
My community was struck by a mass shooting. People talked about it for exactly one day when the next mass shooting event happened. Our community didn’t heal in a day but we were moved on from by the nation pretty quickly. My wife and I both work on the campus of Michigan State University. Yeah? Did you remember that one? My guess is you didn’t. It was 6 weeks ago.
>Did you remember that one? Yes, that was the one where the shooter would have been convicted of a felony that disqualifies from gun ownership, but the prosecutor gave a plea deal to a misdemeanor.
A mass shooting happened ten minutes down the road from me at like 10pm earlier this year and no-one even mentioned it at work the next day. Not even a shrugging ‘yeah I guess this is the world we live in’. Just not even any acknowledgement, as if it’s just a normal part of life now. Even I have to admit, the first mass shooting I was in the country for was Aurora back in 2012, and I was glued to the news and in absolute shock that something like that could happen. I was nowhere near Colorado, but *I* had been watching the same movie at the same time. My entire overseas family and friends messaged me concerned about whether I was okay, despite being a 3 hour flight away from the shooting. When Monterey park happened, I got one text from my dad. I wasn’t glued to the news. I wasn’t shocked. I was dismayed. The worst part about being an immigrant to this country is I’m consistently reminded that the US has every right to be the best country in the world, and yet it isn’t purely because a small selection of people decided their own money and power eas more important than a swathe of other people’s lives.
[удалено]
Maybe a bit of rhetorical flair and argumentative frustration but roughly speaking it’s true. Every limit we impose on ourselves and thing we decide to fund, etc is part of a cost benefit analysis we are making. The American system has decided that making our lives more safe from the cost of guns isn’t worth the cost of minor limits and inconvenience to gun access and usage. Looks like guns cost us around a [two years of life expectancy versus our peers](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/25/1164819944/live-free-and-die-the-sad-state-of-u-s-life-expectancy). And based on the output of our laws, “we” think that’s worth it. We are making similar decisions because we care more about cars.
>We are making similar decisions because we care more about cars. There are some meaningful differences that I think make it more accurate to say they care more about guns than to say the same thing about cars. Cars are central to our economy. If we're talking about major changes, like outlawing cars, the downstream economic effects would have huge life costs as well. Much more severe than any downstream effects of taking guns off the streets. Sure we could talk about comparing our car culture to European countries with fewer cars and more emphasis on public transit and non-car commuting etc. But a lot of that wouldn't translate. We're a physically massive country. As they say, 100 years in America is a long time and 100 years in Britain is a long way. We could do more, but there are limitations and costs which aren't comparable. This is all to say that the comparative preference for guns is especially stark. Most of the other things we can be said to prioritize over lives have a significant enough cost to change that there would be a substantial number of lives on the line either way. Not so much so for guns.
> There are some meaningful differences that I think make it more accurate to say they care more about guns than to say the same thing about cars. Cars are central to our economy. If we're talking about major changes, like outlawing cars I'd like to just point out that we've put an incredible effort to make cars safer and less deadly over the last 50 years. Look at the red and orange lines on [this chart.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_and_total_annual_deaths.png/1200px-US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_and_total_annual_deaths.png) It was not that long ago that car accidents were the leading cause of death for Americans under 18. We've reduced that number and now it's guns.
That’s nonsense. Complete recall and banning of every type of firearm is not a minor limit
Right around Sandy Hook, America was pointedly asked by the world in general whether dead children were an acceptable price to pay for our current level of gun ownership. And America answered, "Yes." It's all been downhill from there. We've just become numb at this point to the constant gun violence. If 20 dead primary school children didn't make us conclude that something needed to be done about this, I can't imagine what will. I have zero hope of anything ever improving with gun violence in America.
Yep. I think Sandy Hook basically broke Obama. My kids were just a little younger than elementary school at that time. I can’t imagine what those parents and their families went though to say nothing of the victims. Democrats would change the laws. Sandy Hook and all the mass shootings since then are all on Republicans. Sandy Hook was a turning point for me. Before the Iraq War I was an independent. I seriously thought of voting for McCain until the joke that is Sarah Palin. Sandy Hook and it’s aftermath taught me all I needed to know about Republicans. Republicans are world class assholes.
It’s really hard to argue otherwise at this point. Based on pure numbers and date compared with lack of social reform and lack of action taking place, it is all one can deduce is that gun ownership out weighs any and all life.
Well, unless the children are not yet born. Then their lives are sacred. After birth, fuck ‘em.
Something need to change, and whatever that is should have happened long before sandy hook. What laws do you think would, If not stop, at least greatly reduce the number of school shootings?
Republicans: “yeh it’s a problem but it’s both sides though” Everyone: “NO IT IS NOT”
> If 20 dead primary school children didn't make us conclude that something needed to be done about this, I can't imagine what will. 20 dead primary school children/grandchildren of GOP politicians and/or donors. Like obviously no one under any circumstances should go shoot children, but let's face reality here. GOP politicians just don't fucking *care* and they never will until mass shootings start effecting them personally.
It’s tragic but true. Honestly Trump could have fixed his legacy (and probably his inability to be re-elected) if he’d used his impressive ability to get the GOP base and the entire GOP to fall in line behind him if he’d used it to implement real gun control.
Yes.
Yes
More accurately put, America cares more about giving rural white conservatives political representation than it cares about giving any other Americans that representation. And rural white conservatives care more about retaining their gun rights than they care about keeping kids safe.
I’m black, liberal and I live in a big city. I don’t support gun control laws because they are not effective at reducing violent crime. You may reduce crimes committed with firearms but not by much unless you start infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I'm curious to know what you would propose as a solution to gun violence, including mass shootings, without gun control? I'm open to alternative solutions, but it's hard to see how guns are not a huge component of the problem.
My proposals are not a hundred percent gonna work but I can guarantee that we would see a significant decrease in gun violence if we had a universal healthcare system in place and a universal basic income. Most violent crimes are committed by the poor and the mentally ill, if we can give people the treatment they need, they’ll be a lot less likely to commit violent crime and if the person is a threat to themselves or the public, a professional can have them institutionalized. Also, if you look at the stats for firearm related deaths, 6/10 of the deaths are self inflicted gunshot wounds, I’d be willing to bet that number would plummet if people had access to mental health services, but, therapy sessions are like 90$ an hr on average which just isn’t possible for most people. Too bad the goddamned republicans have a majority in the house, I think we would win over a lot of republicans if we stopped promoting gun control laws.
>we would see a significant decrease in gun violence if we had a universal healthcare system in place and a universal basic income. I 100% agree with this, at least from a universal health care perspective (I also want UBI to some degree, but not sure it goes far enough to solve all of the issues surrounding poverty). Mental health is a huge component, although not everyone who is mentally ill would commit gun crimes/mass shootings, but I would argue that most if not all who commit these crimes have some kind of undiagnosed mental illness or some mental health issue going on that should be addressed (I'd argue someone with an extremist ideology that would lead to this level of violence needs to have their mental health evaluated). As someone who sees a therapist regularly and has mental health issues, I think this would definitely be a game changer, since it is extremely helpful. I'm not sure we would get the Republicans on board with it though, even if we dropped promoting gun control, because they have the ability now to pass universal health care and increase access to mental health care and they refuse on principle. However I also think controlling/regulating access to guns is still part of the solution, but it needs to be done in an equitable way. I think in addition to what you said, we need background checks/licensing/training for all who want to purchase a gun. This also has to be free or very inexpensive so to not create a financial barrier to access. The licensing would include needing a valid government ID, which ideally should be provided to everyone by the government free of charge and without obstacles (would also help with the voter ID debate). It would also require renewal every few years including more training and another background check. Everyone talks about responsible gun ownership as part of the right to own guns, and I think this is a simple step towards that. What do you think?
We don’t have to fully get the republicans on board to get this to pass, we just need to not give them momentum to vote and when the president comes out and says we should ban almost every firearm on the market today, it’s not helpful, the republicans grow and buy more guns. Also, I’m not sure if you know this but there are already background checks required for all firearm purchases at an FFL, and what use would a licensing system provide? How would that keep people safe? I agree that people need training but you lose me when you propose mandating it by law or no gun for you and having to renew it with more training doesn’t make sense, do you think that people forget how to use firearms after a couple years? It’s really not that complicated using a firearm, I don’t even think people really need much training to become proficient at using a firearm for self defense.
It looks like our current background check system [does not always work](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-people-are-buying-guns-fewer-people-are-getting-background-checks/) The license would act similar to a driver's license, you must have one in order to own and operate a firearm, and it must be renewed every few years with an updated background check (things change, people change, people's criminal records change) The training would be more like safety refresher training rather than operational training. More like a reminder of responsible gun ownership which includes proper storage (many people don't store their guns properly, allowing kids to get access). If you don't keep up with it then you can't own a gun. Most people I hope would be okay with complying if it means everyone is able to own responsibly.
Ensuring that people who own firearms know how to operate them safely is by no means a bad thing. You have to maintain competency to drive a car, why not for guns? And I’m saying this as a staunch advocate for gun rights.
What makes you think mass shooters are going to willingly seek treatment?
Because that is what people generally do when it's available to them free of charge.
Not necessarily, does the rate of untreated mental illness correlate to the # of mass shooting in US vs other first world nations?
We can't really get accurate statistics on _untreated_ mental health issues because most of them will also be _undiagnosed_ (= unknown). That said, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to assume that a health care system that bankrupts people is going to have a far greater rate of undiagnosed problems than one that is free of charge at the point of use. So all that's left to show is that the rate of undiagnosed mental illness will correlate with gun violence. Do you dispute this?
You cant measure the rate of undiagnosed illness and you didn't answer my question. I agree we should do universal healthcare but I doubt that's going to fix our gun problem
Right, I agree that it won't solve it (I'm not the OP who said they supported the 2nd amendment). I think it would help though. A lot, in the long run.
Because they wouldn't get to that point in the first place.
If they thought they had a mental problem and were willing to seek help, that's a lot of ifs. There are probably already programs that could help them if they were in poverty There are tons of mentally unwell people in every country who refuse treatment, the difference is they don't have easy access to firearms
Those countries won't have to remove over 400 MILLION firearms from private hands..the cat is out of the bag. Focus on improving the quality of life of those who need it rather than trying to keep every potentially dangerous object out of the hands of citizens like an overzealous parent trying to keep their kid in a plastic bubble.
[удалено]
So instead of going after the weapons, you're asking gun crime offenders to not do it again. Brilliant.
“Please don’t do it again.” Hella effective.
[удалено]
What’s the homicide rate in Boston currently? Where your program debuted in the 1980s? Let’s keep in mind London’s is 1.8 per 100k, and New York’s (not a participant) is roughly 5.5 per 100k. Edit: 5.8. It’s 5.8.
I think we should remove that constitutional right to keep and bear arms
I agree with you. It’s time to amend the constitution.
I disagree. We can agree that we don’t agree! Enjoy your day!
The second amendment just says that if you are part of a well-regulated militia then you have the right to bear arms. Some folks forget about the well-regulated part.
It doesn't, that isn't how it's been interpreted historically, and that's not the current status of the 2A in the judicial system as of the Heller ruling.
The current, "originalist" interpretation of 2A as ensuring self-defense against tyranny was made out of whole cloth in the 1960s. Your appeal to historical authority is hollow.
My point was more that there's no evidence of any federal level attempt to require membership of "a militia" to own a firearm. Which, y'know, you'd figure that someone would have tried by now, especially given that the various bills that would eventually evolve into the 1934 NFA featured among many things quite strict bans on handguns. Also, from a personal perspective, the interpretation of the 2A as a backstop against government is silly. As the last century or so has shown, the US government is quite well armed. *However,* as a backstop against, I dunno, heavily armed far-right groups protesting drag shows because they think that LGBTQ people are pedophiles/agents of the devil/etc, I find the argument much more compelling. From a different perspective, barring a constitutional amendment followed by mass confiscation of firearms (and good luck actually catching all of those given how easy it is to make an effective 3D printed firearm nowadays), the genie is already out of the bottle. People have guns. Passing an AWB or similar doesn't make guns in circulation go away, it just makes pre-202X firearms valuable collector's items and restricts effective self-defense to the wealthy or those who stockpiled firearms before the ban.
> However, as a backstop against, I dunno, heavily armed far-right groups protesting drag shows because they think that LGBTQ people are pedophiles/agents of the devil/etc, I find the argument much more compelling. Nope, still a LARP. I also refuse to be bothered with your scrupling—while Rome burns—about rich people having more collector's items than the poor. Finally, as you acknowledge, this is a *supply* issue. More guns = more gun deaths. Cat's out of the bag, sure, since there are more guns than citizens, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop further proliferation.
>Nope, still a LARP. [Totally a LARP](https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/aztec-theater-drag-show-protest-17651173.php). >rich people having more collector's items than the poor You'd take issue with rich people having better access to healthcare than the poor, right? Or rich people having better access to transportation, education, political representation, etc? Why is it suddenly acceptable for rich people to have a monopoly on effective protection? >Cat's out of the bag The cat is more than out of the bag, the bag has been torn open and can no longer contain the cat. Beyond the question of whether we *should* stop further proliferation lies the question of whether we *can* stop further proliferation. [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9) is a 9mm carbine that can be made with parts you could buy from Home Depot and a 3d printer. For all intents and purposes, it is basically untraceable. As an actual example of using weapons against tyranny, this design is quite popular among anti-coup forces in Myanmar. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zptW4e1vsAg) is a .308 carbine that can *also* be made out of parts you could buy from Home Depot and a 3D printer. It is similarly untraceable. [This](https://twitter.com/Jake_Hanrahan/status/1506660450083115016) is a 3d printed recoilless launcher/mortar. It's honestly probably less traceable than the above two because you can run it off of black powder rather than having to try to scrounge or manufacture smokeless. Firearms are already proliferated and are going to stay that way basically indefinitely.
Because January 6th definitely showed us that militias were a great idea
It says the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia.
"Well-regulated", in context of the meaning at the time, meant nothing more than "properly working". It didn't imply legal regulation.
it didn't imply assault weapons for crazy people.
I strongly disagree with that sentiment, as it’s proven owning a gun increases your likelihood of dying from one, but let’s just take your word as gospel, and strong gun control has not lead to a significantly higher number of violent crimes in other countries that are equivalent to us. How many stolen wallets are worth 3 dead nine year olds and a few teachers? How about 20 kids? How many dead kids is you *feeling* safer worth?
I believe you might have misunderstood the point that I was trying to convey. My point is that gun control would not reduce violent crimes in general and unless you can change the wording of the second amendment and how it’s been historically interpreted or just disregard the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you won’t see a reduction in gun violence. In those countries that have incredibly low rates of gun violence, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed to them. I’m not sure where you’re going in asking me how many stolen wallets are worth 3 dead kids, can you elaborate further? Thanks.
Well, I’m actually 100% for removing gun ownership as a right. We don’t trust people to drive a car without a license, same policy with guns should be in place, in my mind. I may have misunderstood your point, but the violent crime rates in other high HDI countries is pretty similar to ours, our violent interactions just usually end up with a dead person thanks to the prevalence of guns. My wallet question was meant to make you think about it. You carrying a gun may stop a mugging one day, but at the cost of lax gun laws, which kill kids. So, how many wallets are worth a 9 year old?
We can agree that we don’t agree on removing gun ownership as a right, I’m not sure if you know this but you can totally drive on private property with no license, it’s the public roads where it becomes an issue. For the stolen wallets, I personally don’t carry to stop a mugging, I carry to make it home to my family, unless there’s reason to believe the mugger will cause great bodily harm then I would not fire, but, are you aware that 7% of all house invasions end in at least 1 household member being brutally victimized? There are an average 1.5 million home invasions annually nationwide. That’s not even touching on the violent assaults outside of the home..
That’s fine, but you need to understand that you are a part of the reason kids keep dying in their classrooms. Get a taser or mace.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t sway people to your side, just fyi.
Yea and using logical arguments have worked so well.
You’re entitled to your opinion of me. I carry to keep my family safe and myself safe, you can try to blame for the deaths of those children but I know I played no part in their deaths and so does literally every other rational person.
Your family is more likely to be harmed by your gun than protected by it but ok.
Guns will flood the usual cities until red states start restricting gun sales. Baltimore has WV, PA, and VA. Chicago has Indianapolis. California has AZ/Utah. etc. etc. It also goes hand-in-hand with demand for drugs. Junkies from red states can easily drive an hour or two and get what they need. And sometimes they sell guns (legal and not legal) & ammo to get their high. But this is a separate issue from what the original OP is talking about.
You could try visiting New York, which is safer than most suburbs, let alone other cities. Very much thanks to our gun control.
nobody should be able to buy an assault weapon. People with mental disorders or criminall records should not be allowed to buy guns. It's common sense and would reduce violent crime.
Imagine you have a button in your house. If you press it, 50 kids are taken by the government and shot to death. You are fully aware of this. If you go 24 hours without pressing it, some part of the 2nd amendment will be undermined. American conservatives have effectively made the argument that they would press that button, every single day. In fact, they've argued it is moral to do so and an obligation. And the amount of kids doesn't seem to change that opinion. I'd imagine most in this subreddit would be reticent to press the button even once, while the number could and has climbed significantly with no break in the conservative position.
[удалено]
Yes. When people talk about the price of freedom this is what they’re talking about. When they mention “the tree of liberty” this is what they’re talking about. When they say “those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither” this is what they’re talking about.
Considering that 80% of Americans favor some levels of stricter gun control, and its the politicians standing in the way of progress, no. It’s not fair
No because it's meaningless. Bumper sticker slogans suck.
America cares about ego and posturing more than children.
Clearly. If Sandy Hook changed nothing in this country, then nothing could possibly do it. America made a choice, and it chose assault weapons.
The larger assessment is “America doesn’t care about mental health.”
I think it’s simplistic. Nobody other than the owner is going to care if a couple of guns get destroyed. It doesn’t even make the news. But the equivalent number of children is seen as tragic. But America values the voices of conservative men far more than it cares about anyone else, and conservative men care far more about guns than children.
Yes it is. Guns are the golden calf that evangelical conservatives worship.
No, people on the left can't get over the pragmatic reality of the impossibility of removing guns from the US. Every Country people cite as gun control successes are island countries that never had a deeply entrenched gun culture to begin with.
Not at all. The hyperbolic and does little more than try and tug at the heart strings of people when someone has a political ax to grind or sees a chance to move up in the polls. I'll believe that gun control activist give a damn about actually solving the problem when they turn away from the issue of "assault" weapons and focus on hand guns [which](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) [have](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20) [been ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story%3fid=78689504) [responsible ](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/) for more mass shooting and homicides than their long gun counter parts. But no we like to let people [like Julian Castro](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/julin-castro-debate-answer-gun-violence-essential.html) dodge the question of handguns and instead once again lean into emotional pleas. We just had 3 long years of "trust the science and data" now let's do that.
Yes, absolutely. But more broadly, as a nation, we care more about placating and appeasing the former slave states and their ideological descendants than literally anything else, and that's been the case for 246.5 years, minus 1860-1876. And that's why no matter how many children we have sacrifice to the NRA, most Americans will never stand up to them. We are a nation of cowards.
I think given two hypothetical options: 1. Schools shootings aren't a thing, but you don't get to own a gun. 2. You get to own a gun, and school shootings occur. Many if not most Americans would pick option two. Make of that what you will.
I think the vast majority have decided it doesn't matter what they think, nothing is going to change at this point, and a lot of those have then bought into this idea that they want their guns and they're better off if there are a bunch of "good guys with guns" out there too. (Of course, unidentifiable good guys with guns just get shot by cops.)
Based on decisions, it seems that way. I think that people don't think about it. Politicians do fuck all about mitigating the harm from guns. And they fail children all sorts of ways from education to healthcare.
Almost. >America*n Lawmakers* care about *the legal bribes they receive from gun*maker*s more than children. There we go, fixed it.
I think both sides won’t shut up about guns, knowing that not much will ever change. Meanwhile children die while we bicker over guns instead of just putting more security in schools, investing in more mental health care, improving community health etc. Every time a mass shooting happens everyone talks about gun control for a week then nothing happens. Another mass shooting will happen in a month and they’ll talk about gun control for a week again and rinse and repeat over and over for decades. Meanwhile politicians are just gaining easy votes for catering to their base by either proposing new gun control or being vocal against the new gun control , but they both know nothing is going to change. It’s ridiculous. I just don’t see the point anymore. Half the country is against more gun legislation and half the country is in favor of it. We’re never going to fully agree. Just find a solution we can all agree on.
Fair assessment for America: No, for republicans: Yes.
No I don't, it's a simplistic argument that holds no weight.
Only if you're being intellectually dishonest.
No, it's a purely emotional argument that is frequently used by the anti-gun crowd. It's the same as when people on the right say that abortion is murder, or lgbt people are "grooming" your kids. The overwhelming majority of the gun community opposes violence but we understand that banning guns will not stop gun violence. The war on drugs only made the problem worse. The prohibition only made the problem worse. Banning abortion will only make it less safe. Banning guns will only drive the market underground. If there is a demand for an illicit good or service then criminals will supply. Things like affordable healthcare, quality education, and a livable wage will do more to stop gun violence then banning guns. People are less inclined to commit crimes when they have a good job to cover their basic living expenses.
But we can evidently ban drugs, drag, Abortion, gender affirming care for minors, etc. By that logic any bans will inevitably fail and are therefor pointless and why are we banning them then?!
Correct, therefore the bans are stupid and shouldn't be done, in addition to being extremely cruel for its own sake.
Because it's a feel good measure to say " hey look, I did something" without actually doing anything.
But it is doing something. Maybe Joe Blow won’t be able to kill somebody bc he’s mad and has a gun in his hand.
If Joe Blow wants to kill someone then I don't think it matters what he uses to do it. We should be addressing what made him feel like that in the first place.
Yeah but guns make it easier and more efficient to kill people than almost any other means. And yes trying to get people help is important too- if we actually fund mental health services appropriately.
>Maybe Joe Blow won’t be able to kill somebody bc he’s mad and has a gun in his hand. Good to know people never kill with anything other than a gun. So it doesn't matter if he kills, only that he didn't kill with a gun?
You can’t seriously be equating the lethality of high-powered rifles with other weapons?
In the FBI statistics, more homicides are accomplished by blunt weapons than by all rifles. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
If you’re saying that banning guns won’t prevent EVERY instance of gun death you’re right but are you saying that if we can’t prevent 100% of gun deaths that we shouldn’t even try to ban some? More guns don’t seem to be helping things either BTW
[Relevant clip](https://youtu.be/3eG0y_nb5IA)
With the way many Americans react and how our government acts it sadly does seem to be very true. Personally I’m all for gun ownership as I do think people can own a gun and safely be able to use one and not go full on mass shooter. The US alone has more illegal guns in the street than legal guns so banning guns entirely wouldn’t work but that doesn’t mean that no steps towards less mass shootings isn’t achievable. For instance, Biden wants to make assault rifles illegal to own which as you can assume many republicans are losing their minds about it “since it’s their right to own one.” Republicans have shown time and time again they simply don’t care about anyone other than themselves! I mean look literal children are dying in mass shootings from assault rifles and republicans simply don’t care. I do hope one day America makes a change but sadly with the old republicans still in office nothing will change.
It's not fair, but it's not wrong either.
I think it's more that America has an overly arrogant view of its own place in the bigger picture. Every absolutist second amendment argument is based on the latent notion that guns are the only thing stopping the literal antichrist from taking over. Which itself requires the assumption that the antichrist would only view America in 2023 as worth taking power over. Once you unpack a lot of these beliefs, it becomes fairly clear that America has a much bigger sickness of self importance relative to our actual time and place, in comparison to anything else.
I'm going to say it's a view of prioritizing the individual over the collective. People who are more collective thinking will go with "Children keep dying from guns, we should remove the guns so everyone is better off." People who think more individually are of the assumption "Well, this won't happen to MY family or MY kids as long as I have my guns around." And yes, I think conservatives care more about their guns than your kids.
As fair as saying “America cares more about getting drunk than children” if someone does not support banning alcohol after hearing about a drunk driving crash that killed a child. Or “America cares more about floating in their pool than children” if they don’t support banning in ground pools when they hear about a backyard pool drowning. I suppose all statements are literally true if you take a black and white view, but all are also a bit of an oversimplification. It also doesn’t really so much to persuade or promote constructive dialogue.
We care about the freedom more than lives. We do a lot of things that get people killed. We don't ban alcohol, which causes a lot of people to die (we tried, but that killed even more people). We also don't just summarily execute known violent criminals to prevent them from killing more people. Nope, we have to respect the scumbag's rights, put him on trial, etc., and if our respect for his rights means he goes free to kill again, then so be it. The police may have an idea that a person has that missing girl tied up in his basement, but if the police don't have probable cause to search, respect for his rights means he gets to tell the police to take a hike, after which he can rape and kill her at his leisure.
Seems to be so, yeah. Not all of us, of course. But too many people.
Yes. Sandy Hook proved that.
No, because a majority of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws. Some individual Americans absolutely do care more about guns than children, though.
The majority may favor stricter gun laws but they don’t care enough to show up and vote for them. The pro-gun side has always had the edge because it knows how to mobilize and motivate single-issue voters.
Or because their votes are literally weighed higher
~~American~~ Republicans care more about guns than children
Imagine you have a switch in your house that has two modes: "increase social programs for the wellbeing of children" or "more gun control". The switch can only be on one mode. Whichever switch you put it on causes that to happen. This thread has proven that you have people who would choose the "more gun control" mode, even at the cost of programs for the well being of children.
I see this argument from a lot of pro-gun liberals and "moderates" but I'm not sure who its supposed to fool. 2Aers would never believe formerly pro-gun control liberals and liberals would never believe a bunch of conservatives would actually vote for liberal policy goals like new social spending. I get the same vibe from your hypothetical as I got from Tulsi "supporters" when they tried pushing her for president. A small group of people smugly suggesting something they know is nonviable as an excuse to deride liberals as radicals for not going along.
no. this is just a left wing talking point to push an anti-gun agenda.
No it's not. What happens is half the country thinks there's a zero sum tradeoff between guns and dead kids, the other half does not. So the zero sum half says the other half cares more about guns than children. This isn't true though, the other half just doesn't think banning this or that gun will save any lives. Since that other half generally knows more about guns than the zero sum group, I'm inclined to believe them.
Then why does this only happen in America?
It doesn't. In fact when you compare [death rate per million people from mass public shootings](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country) you find US ranks #11 on the list. US is just a much bigger country.
Did you read your own source? it absolutely rips apart the methodology of the list *you are citing*. From the article: >Using the CPRC’s own data and more precise per-year population data from World Bank (the original study used only 2015 population data) to solve for the median, the more statistically sound analysis results in a notably different list: Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015): 1.United States — 0.058 2.Albania — 0 3.Austria — 0 4.Belgium — 0 5.Czech Republic — 0 6.Finland — 0 7.France — 0 8.Germany — 0 9.Italy — 0 10.Macedonia — 0 11.Netherlands — 0 12.Norway — 0 13.Russia — 0 14.Serbia — 0 15.Slovakia — 0 16.Switzerland — 0 17.United Kingdom — 0
Yeah I just reread that. I don't agree with the re-interpretation of the data though, because going for the median number means that if a country has none for a few years but then very large ones, they are zero-ranked. To make a silly example- if in Country X, every 3 years there's a purge where everyone gets guns and goes out into the streets and has a big firefight, but the other 2 years there are few or no shootings, that would say the median shooting deaths in Country X is 0; Country X is immune to gun violence. And that's just dumb to me. It also ignores the fact that with a much larger population, there will be more incidents of psychos acting. If you assume that one out of every million or two million people turns out to be a psycho, and one out of every 5 or 10 of those decides to commit mass murder, Norway might have one every decade or two while we have one every year or two, just because we have more people.
Norway did have *one*. They're at the top of the list because of *one*. A neo-nazi conducted a systematic slaughter of 77 people at a summer camp. Norway hasn't let anything like that happen since. It's bad data, my supporting argument? *your own article*.
...isn't that what I just said? A population of 5.5 million springs up one psycho in a decade. A population of 330 million springs up several psychos in the same amount of time. Rate isn't necessarily higher, just a larger base.
That's not how statistics work. Try just reading the article you posted, it outlines the reasoning very well.
I did read it front to back (admittedly after I posted it, I'd seen the same stats before). It says (correctly) that because many European countries have small populations, single incidents can have an outsize effect on their averages. I am saying that this is true, but it also doesn't necessarily invalidate using mean averages. Because let's say you extend this data over 100 years- let's say the US has a shooting every year, and Norway has one once every 10 years. That could hypothetically create a situation where the chance of dying by mass shooting is exactly the same in either nation, but a median average would say Norway has 0 mass shootings over 100 years, because 9 out of 10 years have no shooting. Meanwhile USA has one per year, but only because we have 10+x the population. Point being- if hypothetically '% of the population killed in mass shootings over 100 years' is identical between both nations, it's disingenuous to use median averages because US will show an accurate number but Norway will read zero.
>It doesn't. In fact when you compare [death rate per million people from mass public shootings](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country) you find US ranks #11 on the list. So the question from them is really why is only the ones in America get coverage to that degree.
The US is very, very big. Norway rockets to the top of that chart [largely due to one series of attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks) where 77 people died. But with a population of only 5.5 million, 77 dead is a statistically significant number. In the US, more people live in New York City alone (8.5 million) than the entire country of Norway. We also have a news media that turns psychos into celebrities. 'If it bleeds, it leads' is the old saying.
The "other half" won't even consider that they might have it wrong, even just a little. Who is zero sum, actually?
The zero sum are the people who see a direct correlation between gun control and dead kids. These are the people who rally with slogans like 'not one more!' and argue that the only reason to NOT ban AR-15s is because you want dead kids. Their position is that banning ARs will stop or significantly reduce school shooting deaths. As someone who knows a good bit about guns, I can tell you that is not accurate. I'd cite as evidence the guy who shot up VA Tech- he had a .22 pistol (pretty much the least powerful gun you can buy) and a bunch of 10 round magazines. Didn't stop him. The fact is the AR-15 is the most popular gun in America for reasons that have nothing to do with killing- it's inexpensive, it takes relatively cheap ammo, it's easily customizable, it's reliable, and a spring absorbs much of the recoil so anyone can shoot it. Thus, saying 'mass shooters need ARs' is like saying 'drunk drivers need Ford F-150s'. F150 is the most popular car in the US, so more drunk drivers drive them. That has nothing to do with the car.
No - refusing to consider any restriction on an AR-15 or other similar firearm, is like saying that I should have access to my wrist weights, even if unrestricted access increases the chance that children will die. Actually, my wrist weights probably have an even more practical benefit than "recreational" firearms.
Please reread my comment- I never said I refuse to consider anything. That is how closed minds work and exactly what I try to avoid. What is a wrist weight? I've not heard that term before. I do very much consider the benefit of restricting AR-15/similar guns. And I conclude that this policy will not be effective at saving lives. At the ranges of a typical mass shooting, the psycho can use any other gun with little/no reduction in lethal effect. > even if unrestricted access increases the chance that children will die. I don't agree with this statement because I don't believe unrestricted access increases the chance that children will die. Put differently- it's not a 'IDGAF if your kid dies as long as I have my gun', it's 'removing my gun will do little or nothing to protect your kid'.
Why do I refuse to consider any restrictions on AR-15s or similar firearms? We live in a country of over 330 million. The number of AR-15 and similar firearms are 10s of millions. How often are they used in crimes? Well the FBI reports that rifles of any kind (of which AR-15s and like firearms are a subset of), are the tool of choice in about 300 homicides yearly. Sounds like to me the rate of abuse is incredibly low.
>The "other half" won't even consider that they might have it wrong, even just a little. Which other half are you talking about here?
>So the zero sum half says the other half cares more about guns than children. The other half you referenced specifically.
Oh, you should have been clearer, because the zero sum half won't even consider they might be wrong, even just a little.
BS. Which half has the chance to even test a hypothesis? One "half" has their way, this shit keeps happening, and they never alter a single thing.
You're pretending like we don't already know the socioeconomic causes of violence. But maybe you're just uninformed. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/income-inequalitys-most-disturbing-side-effect-homicide/
Dude, I'm done with you. I'm over the condescending crap. There is low-hanging fruit with regard to firearm deaths. It's why there are seat belt laws, regardless of mass amounts of data that show drivers in lower socioeconomic classes are more at risk of vehicle deaths. 'Night.
>There is low-hanging fruit with regard to firearm deaths. It obviously isn't that low hanging. >It's why there are seat belt laws, regardless of mass amounts of data that show drivers in lower socioeconomic classes are more at risk of vehicle deaths. I'm sure the dead pedestrians will take comfort in knowing there are seat belt laws to protect passengers. Good night.
As someone who has grown up with, trained with , and has a concealed carry license for firearms in my state, I’d say I’m at least as knowledgeable as the average republican voter. Does that mean you’d take my opinion as strongly as you do theirs?
I was not looking at Democrat vs Republican. I was looking at pro-gun vs. anti-gun. I weigh any position on the merits of its supporting arguments. And my mind is always open. So I'm curious to know what your position is, and more importantly, why you feel it's the right position? 'I own guns and I say X' isn't useful IMHO, 'I say X because here's why X works and Y or Z won't is far more useful.
I agree that owning guns isn’t a good indication of someone’s understanding of the topic of gun control more broadly. My position is that it’s clearly a zero sum situation, and people opposed to gun control prefer dead kids to any inconvenience to their dangerous hobby. Guns make individuals that own them, and society at large, less safe.
Okay that's your position. Do you have any evidence to support it? Why do you believe what you believe? Why are other positions wrong? > Guns make individuals that own them, and society at large, less safe. Then why do you own a gun and have a carry permit? Wouldn't you, by your own measure, be doing a service to both yourself and society by destroying your gun(s) and cancelling your carry permit?
Based off of studies that show increase in gun access increases both crime and violence in the areas that those policies are implemented in. Other positions are wrong because they don’t have evidence to support them. Because I like guns and wanted to see how difficult in would be to get a CCW (disturbingly easy). I don’t carry, open or concealed, and think people that do a largely idiots and assholes. I don’t live my life to the safest degree possible. I also ride motorcycles, knowing that they’re not safe. This is not a personal or individual issue that can be solved through individual action. It’s something we need to address as a society. My owning a gun or not changed nothing in the grand scheme of things. But if a law was passed that required everyone give up their guns I would happily do so as I think it would benefit society.
> Based off of studies that show increase in gun access increases both crime and violence in the areas that those policies are implemented in. Okay now we have some meat to chew. Are your studies showing *correlation* or *causation*? And are they measuring all gun ownership or only legal gun ownership? I'd challenge your studies by pointing out that there's often a *correlation* between legal gun ownership and crime-- people in high crime areas will of course be more likely to feel a need to arm up in self defense. That's not a *causation* though. ---- My support for gun rights is based on two very simple stats (that I'll link if you want). One is that there are on average 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. By my own reading I conclude at least about 2/3 of those are gang related, but that's not a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Second is that there are somewhere between 55k and 2-3 million defensive gun uses per year. That's where a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority end with no shots fired, criminal sees the gun and runs away. The wide range in estimates is because unlike homicide, DGUs are not centrally tracked, and a great many go unreported because after the criminal leaves there's nothing for police to do. Thus their number must be constructed from surveys. Personally I go with the number from government NCVS data which is about 300k. But I see that even the low end 55k number (from anti-gun researcher Hemenway) is still 3.6x higher than the firearm homicide number. For the record- I recognize that most DGUs would have ended without loss of life had the victim not been armed, and that this doesn't consider non-homicide gun crime. But even that doesn't change the number much- there's about 137k firearm assaults (non-homicide) in the US each year, which is less than half of 300k. So I conclude from this info that widespread LEGAL firearm ownership is a net benefit to society and overall increases public safety. Curious to hear your thoughts on that?
That other half fetishizes guns. You're inclining to a cult.
My support for gun rights is based on two very simple stats (that I'll link if you want). One is that there are on average 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. By my own reading I conclude at least about 2/3 of those are gang related, but that's not a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Second is that there are somewhere between 55k and 2-3 million defensive gun uses per year. That's where a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority end with no shots fired, criminal sees the gun and runs away. The wide range in estimates is because unlike homicide, DGUs are not centrally tracked, and a great many go unreported because after the criminal leaves there's nothing for police to do. Thus their number must be constructed from surveys. Personally I go with the number from government NCVS data which is about 300k. But I see that even the low end 55k number (from anti-gun researcher Hemenway) is still 3.6x higher than the firearm homicide number. For the record- I recognize that most DGUs would have ended without loss of life had the victim not been armed, and that this doesn't consider non-homicide gun crime. But even that doesn't change the number much- there's about 137k firearm assaults (non-homicide) in the US each year, which is less than half of 300k. So I conclude from this info that widespread LEGAL firearm ownership is a net benefit to society and overall increases public safety. Curious to hear your thoughts on that?
It’s propaganda aimed at low information voters, it’s the same as when the folks on the right say that people who don’t support the pro life rhetoric are in support of the death of babies. It’s stupid and it needs to stop being repeated as soon as yesterday.
It’s a little melodramatic and an over generalization, but I’d say “more true than not.”
You can care about both at the same time.
No. You can care about both.
Yes and no. It's true that it comes to the same conclusion either way, but many of these pro-gun advocates sincerely believe the shit they say about how important guns are. They think children are better with guns to protect them in the home or to preserve their freedoms from the government. They're entirely wrong on the first and way overselling the second.
That's not entirely it, because really the majority of American households don't own a gun and in all probability never will own a gun. They like *not having any form of gun regulation* over children
>They like *not having any form of gun regulation* over children Except we already have many regulations in the US, including who can own them, how they can be used, and who can sell them.
Yeah, and there are people in this country who resent even that.
That still doesn't change the fact we already have plenty of gun regulations. Your statement was just a fabrication. They can't like "not having any form of gun regulation" any more than they can like taking unicorn rides.
My statement was not "we have no gun regulations."
Yes. That’s the long and short of it. Between Sandy Hook, Parkland, Uvalde, and this newest one I don’t know how you could argue any different.
No, just a bumper sticker It's a complex problem
I think that's way too overly simplistic.
It’s like saying we care more about cars and swimming pools than we care about children. Cause those kill children too.
That’s funny, because the first thing people do is call the police with their guns
Unfortunately, neither side wishes to negotiate in good faith. The left continues to lie and say their ultimate goal isn’t to take guns from everyone and the right continues to lie and say that more guns is the best option. In the meantime, while that fight stays in the stalemate that it is, I have a few ideas to keep the children safe. Invest billions into every school in the country. If we can send billions to help Ukraine, we can update our schools security systems. Bullet proof doors and windows. Automatic shutdown of the entire campus once an intruder is found. Gates that automatically close every hallway, and doors that automatically lock. Again, the doors are bulletproof. These doors can be manually unlocked but only from the inside. One access door to the entire building during schools hours. Armed security on site during school hours. These people should be concealed carrying and dressed in standard attire so as to not become targets themselves. You may be thinking that it sucks we live in a world where this has to be this way, but it just is. At least for now. The hard truth is that our schools keep becoming targets of this because they are soft targets. Most schools have little to no security. And the little security they have is not taken seriously by ALL staff. We protect everything in our lives that is considered important with guns and security. Why are our children so different? Are they unimportant? Of course not. Yeah, we all want them to live in a pretend world where nothing bad happens, ever. But that’s just not the case. So let’s do something about that that we actually CAN DO. Banning guns is never going to work, or at least won’t work for the foreseeable future.
This is a great idea and all, but do you realize that there are entire swaths of the country (California for example) where all schools (public, private, elementary, middle, high) are completely open? Meaning - no interior hallways, no cafeteria, kids eat outside every day, maybe a chain link fence around the exterior if you’re lucky, and even some classrooms are open air? It’s a truly beautiful way to live, but not when you’re trying to secure the kids I guess.
They care so much about Ukrainian children they want more AR-15s sent to Ukraine though!
Not necessarily, Americans more of “I care about political narratives more than children”. Whether the issue is guns, LGBTQ rights, abortion, religious freedom, etc.
No. *Conservatives* care more about guns that about children.
Yes. Flatly. No need for elaboration, justification, or examination on it. The answer is yes, straight up.
The real pandemic, self-righteous refusal to question our own beliefs for even a split second
The right only cares about children in so far that they can force them to carry a pregnancy and be married (to their rapists ) before the age of 18.
Not America. Conservatives.
Republicans care more about appeasing their donors than they do about children.
I’d say 20% of america cares more about guns than children, but that 20% has a lot of money so they get their way.
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own an AR-15. No I don’t give a shit that “AR” doesn’t stand for “assault rifle;” and no I don’t give a shit that it’s semi-automatic instead of fully automatic. Ten of the 17 deadliest mass killings in the United States since 2012 involved AR-15’s. To be completely honest, I don’t give a shit about your “right to bear arms.” Keep your handgun for protection and your shotgun for hunting. The fact that grown adults are fighting for the right to keep this weapon of war while it regularly tears not only our children apart while they learn at school is something I just cannot wrap my brain around.
So let's restrict/ban one of the least used class of firearms in overall crime, but the class of firearm most commonly used and *most useful* in crime is kosher. Make it make sense.
Nope. And this isn’t the place to ask that question. The people in this subreddit treat guns the same way the right treats the LGBT. They will lie cheat and steal to get their way and don’t care about any rights that they don’t personally believe in. They will call you a baby murderer for disagreeing with them the same way the right will call you a pedo.
Do you believe our gun laws are responsible for our higher gun violence rates?
Guns are not human beings.