186
187

Sad numbers. (imgur.com)

submitted ago by gotmilt

top 200 commentsshow all 212
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]illuminutcase 86 points87 points ago

West Germany? How old is this?

[–]dark_roast 31 points32 points ago

The stats are from 1980.

[–]fyshstix 28 points29 points ago

The cold war is over? Shit, I better tell Grandpa.

[–]Samuel_Gompers 10 points11 points ago

The Cold War? My grandpa still doesn't trust the Germans or the Japanese...

(I wish I wasn't being serious.)

[–]hablomuchoingles 0 points1 point ago

Is he also suspicious of pizza?

[–]Samuel_Gompers 6 points7 points ago

He actually fought in Italy and says the Italians were too terrible at being soldiers to hold in the same regard. I remember when I was little that he got upset that someone had an Italian flag flying above an American one on Veterans Day though.

[–]Trayf 12 points13 points ago

Very.

[–]studiov34 0 points1 point ago

I thought it was just a purposely retro design :|

[–]remix_sakura 72 points73 points ago

Decades old statistics aren't helping your point, dude.

[–]popnlochnessmonster 17 points18 points ago

Also, the fact that these are relatively small populated countries compared to the USA.

Let's work with percentages, despite the year difference. Populations of today versus the gun deaths this infographic gives. We should find a reliable exchange happening even though it's not perfectly accurate.

Japan - 0.0000003%

Great Britain - 0.0000001%

Switzerland - 0.000004%

Canada - 0.0000015%

Israel - 0.000007%

Sweden - 0.000002%

West Germany - 0.0000007% (Information circa 1990)

United States - 0.00003%

[–]JoeBoxer249 23 points24 points ago

So ,the United States did have a significant amount more compared to the next closest country Switzerland...

0.000004
0.00003

the decimal point does matter, especially in this case. When comparing it to a large denominator like the total population.

[–]eriad19 5 points6 points ago

That alone doesn't disprove the point being made, as it's all about the relative percentages with respect to population size. Of course, given that that information is missing, it doesn't support the claim either.

[–]popnlochnessmonster 1 point2 points ago

I just did that. Another factor to consider is population density. For example, 1/6-1/3 of the American population lives in the Northeastern Megaregion, and we find that gun-crime rates correlate to higher population densities in America (but that's comparable to Japan, which has less of a problem with guns)

We also have a thriving gun culture comparatively to these other nations (well, similar at least to Switzerland, which has less of a problem with guns).

I guess what I'm saying is that I see statistics for both sides of the argument, but both sides fail to acknowledge flawed reasoning on either side. To me, the arguments are pointless, as there is no real data (yet) that supports guns being a terrible thing and guns being a beneficial thing. Both arguments are fueled with anecdotes and misrepresented data (a lot of correlation is causation arguments).

[–]Smilin-_-Joe 1 point2 points ago

Add to that a much more heterogeneous population where there are a lot more "others" to blame for what wrong with the world. It becomes easy to find a target for bad feelings.

[–]Tasty_Yams 2 points3 points ago

Guns don't kill people, people do, right?

Actually, people with guns kill people.

Interesting that on the same day in China: Man with knife injures 22 kids at school in China

Number dead: zero.

[–]popnlochnessmonster 1 point2 points ago

What? I'm not making that argument. My argument is more or less that the pro-gun control and anti-gun control people have very little in compelling arguments. There are no absolutes or truisms in this discussion. You just fell into what I was discussing about by making the implication that an attack with a knife is less deadly overall:

Both arguments are fueled with anecdotes

The people that we're dealing with have mental health issues, and if it's not a gun, then it will be a car, or a knife, or an improvised explosive.** Instead of focusing on which weapon they're using, we should be focusing on these individuals who are obviously not stable.

The arguments that are being focused on in the media can slip into moral panics and slippery slopes: how far are we willing to go to prevent people from dying? Creating a war on guns? War on drugs? War on terror? How far do we have to go with these issues until we've wiped every personal freedom off the face of the earth before we say, "ah, now there are no more people who want to kill others"?

**That's not to say that guns are "god's gift to man" and that no regulation should ever be required of it.

[–]Tasty_Yams 2 points3 points ago

No, I disagree entirely.

Anecdotal as it may be, the fact that almost identical attacks took place on the same day in China and the US is VERY comparable and VERY relevant.

The difference was: the easy access to guns versus the lack of access to guns.

The result speaks for itself.

NO ONE can root out every mentally unstable person. WE DON"T HAVE TO Because there is a way to significantly and substantially avoid the kind of tragedy that happened in Conn today. However, the US refuses to do anything because our politics are so dominated by a far right group of gun nuts.

[–]popnlochnessmonster 3 points4 points ago

I see your argument completely, and I agree that it's comparable and relevant, but I disagree with the conclusion. Non-lethal wounds from a knifing spree does not correlate to "lack of access to guns" to me, it correlates to how precise the individual was, how rushed they were, what their intent was, etc. There are hundreds of other factors to take into consideration. Obviously the person with the knife did not aim for vital organs or the neck.

Akihabara Massacre

Brooklyn son goes on 'stabbing and carjacking rampage'

Teenage Knifeman Killing Spree Leaves 8 Dead, 5 Injured

Even if it's relevant and comparable, it means nothing overall to real solutions; they're just anecdotes. I just found you three of thousands of cases of knife-killing sprees (just the top three results).

I just feel that our first reaction to ban guns after an incident like this is comparable to the reaction to ban violent video games. It's a nice scapegoat because it's something we can get rid of. But in the end, we will still have people who want to commit violence, we will still have people who are psychotic, we will still have people who may be easily influenced. I just want to find longterm solutions, not knee-jerk ones.

[–]Tasty_Yams 0 points1 point ago

I don't know what decade you are living in.

The REAL knee-jerk reaction in America to mass murders like today's is for the NRA to immediately begin whining about how the evil gubmint and the libruhls want to take their rights away! And how we just have to learn to live with millions of guns because there is nothing we can do about it.

Bullshit. There IS something we can do about it. Unfortunately, rational discussion of firearm regulation in America is immediately and thoroughly shut down by the NRA and their hired spokespeople; the GOP.

So we are left with this insanity, over and over again. Because the NRA says that's all we can have.

BTW, as far as you knife-weilding mass murderer anecdotes:

Akihabara Massacre: 4 dead

Brooklyn son goes on 'stabbing and carjacking rampage: 2 dead

Teenage Knifeman Killing Spree: 8 Dead

From what I can see, most of these involved close-quarter stabbings of family members. This wasn't people walking into a mall or classroom and randomly trying to kill people. The example from today in China seems more comparable.

And those numbers are in contrast to...

Norwegian summer camp murders 69 dead

Colorado movie shooting: 12 dead (60 injured)

Columbine: 13 dead (24 injured)

Virginia Tech: 32 dead

Sandy Hook: 26 dead

To suggest that knives and guns are on an equal footing in their ability to kill in the type of rampage mass murder we had today is ridiculous on the face of it.

[–]popnlochnessmonster 0 points1 point ago

I don't know what decade you are living in.

First of all, let's bring down the tone a bit, I can tell you're getting really flustered over this. It's a discussion.

The REAL knee-jerk reaction in America to mass murders like today's is for the NRA to immediately begin whining about how the evil gubmint and the libruhls want to take their rights away! And how we just have to learn to live with millions of guns because there is nothing we can do about it.

The NRA is valid as an organization, and so are any organizations that are pro-gun control. I don't know what you're argument is here? Ban the NRA?

Bullshit. There IS something we can do about it. Unfortunately, rational discussion of firearm regulation in America is immediately and thoroughly shut down by the NRA and their hired spokespeople; the GOP.

Okay, let's say we ban guns tomorrow. How do we collect all of them? You said it yourself, there are some real gun nuts out there and there are millions of guns. Who is going to return the guns? Well not the criminals or the gun nuts, that's for sure.

So we are left with this insanity, over and over again. Because the NRA says that's all we can have.

You do realize that the reason the NRA has such say is because a lot of people believe in their cause, right? The NRA doesn't just exist. It's made up of millions of members and millions of dollars in donations from those members.

This wasn't people walking into a mall or classroom and randomly trying to kill people.

The Akihabara Massacre was walking in a store. The Brooklyn son going on a stabbing and carjacking rampage was random people. You didn't really read them, did you?

And those numbers are in contrast to...

So, I pick the first three results, and you pick the results with the highest counts? Yea, not sure if that's comparable at all.

To suggest that knives and guns are on an equal footing in their ability to kill

I never suggested that. But trying to stop something from happening is not the same as telling people they have to use chopsticks instead of forks.

[–]Larrea_tridentata 1 point2 points ago

I completely agree with your point. We shouldn't be treating the symptoms, we could be treating the illness, and that illness is the poor state of psychiatric funding / available help for people who need it in this country.

[–]neurosnap 2 points3 points ago

Do we know anything about intention? He wounded 22 kids but didn't have enough time to make one single fatal blow?

[–]Tasty_Yams 2 points3 points ago

Who cares about his intention?

The point is; knives make a really bad choice of weapon for mass murder.

As opposed to being able to stand 50 feet away from somebody, point at them, and basically pushing a button with your index finger until that person is dead.

[–]garslo 5 points6 points ago

Relatively, however, the U.S. percentage is still 10 to 100 times higher than the others (count the zeros!).

[–]popnlochnessmonster -4 points-3 points ago

That's not the point that I'm making. Read my other comment to get a better understanding of my point.

[–]willebrord_snellius 1 point2 points ago

Don't be daft, look at it this way. The population of Israel is 8 million, population of the US is 300 million. If Israel had the same number of deaths per person as the US there'd be over 2000, nearly 40 times greater than the actual toll.

[–]thebends888 1 point2 points ago

Here's a summary of several studies from the Harvard School of Public Health. Is 2004 recent enough?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

[–]DasSchnootz -3 points-2 points ago

They've only gone up in recent years. http://imgur.com/IDD0S

[–]Greyletter 9 points10 points ago

Have they gone up in terms of percentage of population? If you don't take population growth into account, the number of shootings, alone, doesn't mean much.

[–]DasSchnootz 1 point2 points ago

Yes, by a large factor. My older brother has the same poster and it was printed in 1985. My info was from 2000 and the number of gun related deaths went up 700% but the u.s. population in that time only went up 20-35%

[–]LegitimateCrepe 4 points5 points ago

{cite}

[–]sifumokung -1 points0 points ago

You can still use regular [brackets] by putting a backslash before the modifier.

\[text]

[–]remix_sakura 1 point2 points ago

You're only giving stats for the US alone now, so we're not comparing apples to apples.

[–]illuminutcase 2 points3 points ago

I think that means we're just comparing one apple to itself.

[–]remix_sakura 1 point2 points ago

That's not a comparison then.

What I think this graphic was originally trying to say was that "X, Y, and Z countries have stricter gun laws than the US, thus they have far fewer fatalities." That very well may still be the case today, but to argue even a good point with data that doesn't apply is counterproductive.

[–]illuminutcase 2 points3 points ago

yea. I know. I was joking. Sorry.

[–]iambecomedeath7 35 points36 points ago

The sad thing is that the sort of gun laws that are going to get talked about don't actually help anything. I'm a pretty anti-legislation sort of guy when it comes to most things, guns included, but I think the only thing that will help reduce these sorts of incidences would be increased screening for mental issues, increased access to mental health care, and increased training for our nation's gun owners.

That being said, I really hope we don't get more gun laws. I'm in a wheelchair. I can't fight or flee well and I live near Atlanta. I really don't trust my safety to anything less than my .45. Without guns, what would I do? Carry a cop with me everywhere?

[–]st_gulik 12 points13 points ago

I agree, and also a large percentage of those numbers for the US are gang and drug war related.

[–]iambecomedeath7 -3 points-2 points ago

Well, that's what groups do when they want to make things illegal: they fudge the numbers and reach waaaay outside of their point to find statistics that they can use to their advantage. It's the same thing that's going on in the anti-pot movement. The exact same thing.

[–]Thunder_Blumpkin 4 points5 points ago

I've been robbed at gunpoint twice and knifepoint once since I was twelve years old. Most recently, a year ago at 19. I'll be getting my concealed carry permit, because as far as I'm concerned, that's three times that I've almost been murdered by somebody over twenty bucks, tops.

That said, I'm a 3.9 GPA engineering student- sophomore, but nevertheless -animal rescue center volunteer, and overall just plain responsible, law-abiding man. I don't think I'm 'part of the problem' if I own a firearm to defend myself.

(I'm just small and Asian and vulnerable-looking.)

[–]iambecomedeath7 2 points3 points ago

Hear, hear. I really wish there were more people like us - people who own guns and recognize the need to carry that aren't your typical right-wing negative gun owner stereotypes.

[–]visarga -1 points0 points ago

Are you prepared to shoot and kill a person with your gun? That's a pretty deep trauma to live with. Are you sure you won't resort to extreme violence before it is inevitable?

[–]iambecomedeath7 2 points3 points ago

Absolutely. I have no qualms about defending myself.

EDIT: To further qualify this, why should I feel guilty if someone has the gall to attack me - a handicapped, wheelchair bound amputee who doesn't even have much money? I haven't had to defend myself yet, and I might never have to, but I don't think I'd lose any sleep in shooting that sort of scum.

[–]Ianx001 6 points7 points ago

I really don't think banning guns from people like you is even remotely reasonable. Any kind of ban in the US would just not work. I agree with you regarding the reasonable steps we might be able to take to reduce this kind of violence though, because we really do need to do something. It is obvious to just about anyone that gun violence in this country is a major problem. Mental health screening and greater access to mental health care is a good place to start. I also think some kind of tiered licencing system ought to be considered(even increasing access to some weapons that aren't available now for those properly licensed, maybe include safety training and/or proficiency testing), also limits on the manufacture and import of some items might be helpful to (I'd like to see someone at least study what effect that might have). The thing is, the environment that has been created by groups like the NRA prevents even the slightest controls from even being considered.

[–]iambecomedeath7 7 points8 points ago

I'd love to see some sort of system in place that ensures competency and sanity as long as we could assure that the screenings wouldn't incorporate anything that could screen people for political affiliation or wouldn't hold addresses or anything. That sort of thing would undo much of the spirit of the second amendment. However, I'd be more than willing to submit to a licensing scheme next time I buy a gun or ammo. It seems perfectly reasonable.

Further, I am confident there must be a way to better monitor the secondary gun market without infringing on civil liberties. Perhaps we implement the tying firearm ID numbers to individuals? With this scheme in place; if you're going to sell a gun to someone, you'd better be damn sure that they're sane or that they'll comply with paperwork standards when they sell it, because if that weapon is recovered at a crime scene, you're going up river for a long time. This would take a huge chunk out of straw purchases and unregulated private sales - the source of a great proportion of guns used in these incidents. Further, it would add incentive to securely store weapons to protect them from theft. As a bonus, it would encourage much better record keeping amongst gun owners, the praises of which I myself preach to all of my gun owning friends.

However, this would do nothing to fix the problems with the existing black and grey markets for firearms.

[–]Ianx001 1 point2 points ago

Also great ideas. I was thinking that the limits on manufacturing and import might help with the black markets, even though a lot of it would likely get made up for by foreign manufacturers who use the black market to avoid the import restrictions, it still may end up with fewer guns in the hands of gangs and such.

More important than specifics though is that this is where the conversation needs to be. Not one side knee-jerking "OMFG we need to ban all the guns." while the other side knee-jerks with "No we need MOAR guns!". There are reasonable restrictions somewhere between that could help reduce the gun violence in this country.

[–]greengordon[!] 1 point2 points ago

Without guns, what would I do?

You could work to make the US a less dangerous society, like the other countries on the list.

[–]torchlit_Thompson 4 points5 points ago

If vigilance is the cost of a free society, are you really willing to give that away for a promise of safety? All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't stop a determined predator with helpless prey. Learn that. That is today's lesson.

I could do far more damage with a single homemade bomb, but nobody is talking about limiting access to the internet b/c one deranged lunatic might use the knowledge to commit an atrocity, are they?

Stop letting the people on TV dictate the conversation in your head. How you have any innocence left to shock is beyond me...

[–]iambecomedeath7 0 points1 point ago

You sound quite radical, but you've got a damned good point.

[–]torchlit_Thompson -1 points0 points ago

All pioneers (What a toolish thing to say, amirite?) were radicals in their day, but hey, somebody has to get the ball rolling. I don't see the harm in proposing a new course when we keep running aground. I don't know. I do know what staying the course will get us, so I'm open to dissent.

At least if we're talking, people will be more aware than if drones away our lives in our own disasters, mindlessly hoping that our "luck" will turn.

[–]iambecomedeath7 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, the criminals would still have them. I won't give up my guns until I'm confident that thugs won't have them.

[–]RV527 2 points3 points ago

Why do you need anything other than a handgun for self-defense? Is it such a problem to get licensed? This isn't about a ban, this is about gun control.

[–]iambecomedeath7 0 points1 point ago

So many people do talk about bans of classes of weapons after this sort of thing and it's, frankly, a stupid and futile gesture. Now, I have no problem with licensing, but my main fear with license schemes is that the information in them can at some point be used against gun owners. Surely there's a way to safeguard against such things, but I wouldn't trust our government to come up with it. These are the same people who run the NSA, secret torture prisons and the TSA, after all.

[–]RV527 1 point2 points ago

They already have all of the information. The NSA collects data on all of your transactions and communications, they just don't look at specific information unless there's a reason. In the case of a civil war or rebellion, the government would already be able to access information about weapons stockpiles.

[–]ajehals 2 points3 points ago

Well if it were possible you could aim to go down the New Zealand / UK route, disarm the police, make any criminal act that involves a firearm a massive issue and limit access to weapons and the weapons already in circulation (oh and secure the borders...). I can't see it happening, but it is certainly possible.

[–]iambecomedeath7 1 point2 points ago

I highly doubt that the police in America would allow themselves to be disarmed.

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 2 points3 points ago

Neither would citizens. It would be civil war.

[–]JoeBoxer249 -2 points-1 points ago

Non-lethal tazers are available & mental screening is likely already considered.. Nontheless the relative ease of obtaining firearms means that the probability of a subsequent case of it's lethal use is much higher in comparison to countries that have completely banned it. So we're measuring risk here... is it worth it to let guns be available regardless of how stringent the background searches are, because the probability of them being used will always be there..

The 2nd amendment was only practical when we had town militias and were still worried about the Brits invading.

Also the self-defense argument isn't proved by statistics, which clearly shows that guns lethal use is almost always in aggressive circumstances, as opposed to self-defense.

There are many remedies to protecting yourself in a very capable manner that don't require owning a lethal firearm.

[–]mspk7305 10 points11 points ago

By that logic, the 4th amendment is only practical when you have something to hide.

[–]iambecomedeath7 4 points5 points ago

You, good sir or madame, have nailed it.

[–]iambecomedeath7 0 points1 point ago

There are many remedies to protecting yourself in a very capable manner that don't require owning a lethal firearm.

My relative lack of mobility makes me distrustful of these.

The 2nd amendment was only practical when we had town militias and were still worried about the Brits invading.

The ability to defend oneself from the potential tyranny that any government can inflict is never irrelevant.

So we're measuring risk here... is it worth it to let guns be available regardless of how stringent the background searches are, because the probability of them being used will always be there.

I'd say so, yes. Guns are simply tools. They can be used for good as well as for evil. Besides, in order for a gun ban to be effective, you'd have to get rid of them all. You can still go on a spree with a target pistol or a hunting rifle, you know.

Besides that, any ban on firearms would be a futile gesture in a nation with as large and well developed a black market for guns as we have here in the States. All you'd do is disarm people who actually follow the laws, which I highly doubt gang scum and psychotic shooters would do.

Also the self-defense argument isn't proved by statistics, which clearly shows that guns lethal use is almost always in aggressive circumstances, as opposed to self-defense.

Clearly? If you can find statistics from unbiased sources, I might be more willing to entertain this argument.

[–]stinkyp00t -1 points0 points ago

Also the self-defense argument isn't proved by statistics

If you're going to type something like that, the very next thing you type should be a link to a source.

There are many remedies to protecting yourself in a very capable manner that don't require owning a lethal firearm

If you type something like that, you're very next words should be an example. So tell, me in what "capable manner" can the guy in the wheelchair protect himself that would be more effective than a firearm?

[–]JoeBoxer249 -1 points0 points ago

A guy in a wheelchair needs a gun to protect himself... why? Instead of telling me that there are no other capable ways for somewhere to protect themself except with a gun, how about you question the need from someone to have a device on them that can kill at a moments notice & call that 'protection'.

Are we protecting ourselves from a Soviet invasion or what? This is the richest & most powerful country in the world, we honestly don't need paranoid John Waynes carrying guns at their hips to feel safe here..

[–]stinkyp00t -1 points0 points ago

So you got nothing. Shocking...

[–]JoeBoxer249 -1 points0 points ago

There is a thing called the Internet where you can validate claims made by other people... maybe even try validating your own claims. Otherwise I have little time to check sources so I can walk in circles around some guy on reddit who thinks owning a gun o protection is an absolute necessity

As far as capable ways of protecting yourself other than with a gun... thats pretty self-explanatory..

[–]stinkyp00t 0 points1 point ago

I don't have to verify your claims. YOU DO. And if it's self explanatory, shy can't you explain it? Pathetic....

[–]JoeBoxer249 -1 points0 points ago

Explain that it takes a functioning brain to understand that you don't need a gun to adequately protect yourself from an unknown threat.

[–]weareyourfamily -3 points-2 points ago

Why wouldn't they just use a car to kill people if they didn't have a gun? Stop with the tunnel vision. It's a tool he used to further his goals. There are many tools that would do the same job and there's no way you're gonna get all of them banned.

[–]JoeBoxer249 0 points1 point ago

Right, brilliant analogy.. Nobody mentioned banning 'tools', just guns. Your attempt at classifying guns as just another household/everyday object is nonsense.

[–]weareyourfamily -3 points-2 points ago

What does the frequency of its occurrance in our daily lives have ANYTHING to do with someone who wants to kill people because he feels they've wronged him in some way? That person is going to kill people. With a gun, with a fork, with a car, with saran wrap, using household chemicals to make poison or a bomb, with a children's toy, with his fucking fists. What part of that don't you understand? THAT is the problem... not the guns. The guns are a tool, they don't think.

[–]JoeBoxer249 2 points3 points ago

So todays murders of 25 some people could have been accomplished with a fork & saran wrap? No, a gun is specifically designed for the business of killing.

Guns aren't like heroin & cocaine either, where individual addictions are the driving factor of the black market. Banning or tightly regulating guns has been proven to be effective.

[–]weareyourfamily -2 points-1 points ago

Even if it was possible to completely ban guns and make them unavailable this does nothing to help the people who eventually commit these crimes. You may be angry at them and they deserve some part of the blame but events don't occur in a vacuum and its also been proven that these types of crimes don't happen because someone just 'snapped'. There is a long build up throughout their lives leading to these events which includes the people who they interact with and who are in positions to educate and help them along the way.

The point remains. There is no study that you can show me that proves eliminating guns would cure people's desire to commit these crimes. These are very complex events and reducing their cause to one thing, even if you're trolling, is very damaging to the victim's health.

[–]Tasty_Yams -1 points0 points ago

Guns don't kill people, people do, right?

Actually, people with guns kill people.

Interesting that on the same day in China: Man with knife injures 22 kids at school in China

Number dead: zero.

[–]weareyourfamily -1 points0 points ago

Are you insinuating that knives can't kill? Or are you just saying that its ok if less people get killed, then we can feel better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011) Not that it matters. You're still just arguing for a band-aid instead of a cure. You realize that you are arguing that its OK if they're just injured. Why do people think that guns are the root of the problem? Why get stuck in a muddled debate about how to regulate guns when they aren't even the issue. The issue is the people who commit the crimes and the reasons why they did it. Stop distracting from the things that would actually help by perpetuating the same old circular argument about guns.

[–]Tasty_Yams -1 points0 points ago

Almost identical school attacks on the same day on different sides of the world. The only real difference is: GUNS.

One incident 22 attacked, zero dead.

One incident 28 attacked, 28 dead.

YOU are the one avoiding the obvious problem here.

You can't screen out every lunatic. But you can significantly affect their ability to murder.

EDIT: Updated death toll.

[–]StillAnAss -1 points0 points ago

If that's the case, then fuck it, why do we even try.

Just give up and let people die. Who the fuck cares, I didn't know them anyway, right?

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 1 point2 points ago

There are LOTS of things we can and should do, but gun control isnt one of them. Lets fix healthcare, education, and income inequality in this country. Equlity of opportunity is step one to reducing murders.

Decriminalize drugs too.

[–]RV527 1 point2 points ago

Equality of opportunity won't stop mentally unstable people from lashing out, although accessible mental health services would help. Right now, the most feasible and effective way for one of these people to kill a large number of civilians is to buy a semi-automatic weapon (they would buy automatic weapons if allowed) and to start shooting in an area as densely populated as they can find. If something like that can be mitigated through gun control, at the very least with respect to semi-automatic weapons, then it is going to appeal to some people. That's why many countries have stricter gun control laws.

[–]torchlit_Thompson 1 point2 points ago

Equality of opportunity won't stop mentally unstable people from lashing out...

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Some people are incurable, but that's such a tiny fraction that to punish the whole of society for these freak events would only create more monsters.

You can't wish away human nature, but you can incentivize socially postitive behavior and ignore shit like this. You do know this wall to wall media coverage and consternation, fear and infamy, is what fuels these monsters in the first place, right? Stop feeding the beast.

[–]RV527 -3 points-2 points ago

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Some people are incurable, but that's such a tiny fraction that to punish the whole of society for these freak events would only create more monsters.

Fuck you. You don't know what fraction of these people are incurable psychopaths. I've known mentally ill people, and there is no obvious relationship between violence and mental illness. There will always be people that want to destroy. Serial killers, mass-murderers, people who randomly attack an old man and beat him to death. You think that the majority of these people are mentally ill and curable? No. Some people are just bad eggs. You can try as hard as you want to reach them, but it doesn't mean you're going to help them. Society should be prepared for the fact that occasionally a person will want to kill a large number of people. If they have access to their parent's or someone else's guns, you can't do much about it, but we can certainly not sell automatic weapons. This guy would have used an automatic weapon if he had the chance, and James Holmes would have bought one if he could have. Semi-automatic is the best they can get; at least there's a line somewhere.

[–]torchlit_Thompson -1 points0 points ago

Every person you described is either psychopatic or sociopathic and are all mentally ill. conversely, not every mentally,ill person falls into that category.

You misunderstand the nomenclature. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. Get it?

[–]RV527 0 points1 point ago

...psychopatic or sociopathic and are all mentally ill.

Those are considered mental illnesses, it doesn't mean that they're treatable or that they would be treated if only more services were available. Many times others are unaware of the violent impulses. It's wishful thinking to think that all we need is better mental health services. This stuff will continue to happen, and that's why some people want better gun control. That way, these people aren't using automatic weapons. They will if they have the opportunity.

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 0 points1 point ago

they would buy automatic weapons if allowed

And they'd kill less people with them, because they wouldn't be able to control the recoil and conserve their ammo. For that reason if no other automatics should be deregulated and controlled like semi-autos.

Have you ever fired a fully automatic gun?

If something like that can be mitigated through gun control, at the very least with respect to semi-automatic weapons, then it is going to appeal to some people.

We have rights here. It isn't worth banning semi-autos.

That's why many countries have stricter gun control laws.

They aren't free in my opinion.

[–]Cassaroll168 0 points1 point ago

Sure but if the assault rifle he used was banned he would not have had nearly as much access to it. The gun was bought legally and registered to his mom. If the gun had been banned, his mother would not have had it and he would have had to look to illegal sources to obtain such a weapon. I'm not saying that would have stopped him and he might have done just as much damage with the pistols he was also carrying, but it seems to me that making it harder for anyone to possess such a weapon would be good for overall safety. But argue with me, I want to understand your perspective.

[–]iambecomedeath7 0 points1 point ago

assault rifle

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means. This is a rifle that accepts large magazines. An assault rifle is a select fire weapons with mid-range medium powered cartridges, under basically every reputable definition. The sort of gun you're thinking about is a self loading rifle with removable magazines. That may sound pedantic, but falsely conflating the weapon in question with military rifles (whether by malice or, more likely, ignorance) has a lot to do with how one might perceive our discussion.

Now, my belief is that since the massacre would have happened anyway - and since the vast majority of gun deaths in the United States are caused by cheap, $100 crap guns - there's very little point in banning reloadable semi-autos. Any estimates as to how many people might be saved are ephemeral at best, but the threat to gun rights and the possible leverage it might give future baseless gun control efforts lead me to be against these sorts of gestures from the start just on principle, to say nothing of how unappealing they become the more I hear about them.

[–]torchlit_Thompson -1 points0 points ago

The sad thing is you and the OP have no common fucking decency. You couldn't wait 24 hours to jump up on that soapbox, could you?

You can't wish away guns, or wave a wand and change human nature. Find a better fucking plan, or STFU.

At least let their families put them to rest you sons of bitches...

[–]contextual_somebody -1 points0 points ago

You fucking douche. You couldn't wait 12 hours to post your anti pharma bullshit. Give me a fucking break, you pussy.

[–]torchlit_Thompson -2 points-1 points ago

You are seriously butthurt that I've been shitting on your little parade for 20+ hours, aren't you? I'm so deep in your head you've got my Dick sticking out your other ear.

Anti-pharma? Wtf are you talking about? Basic decency, AND common fucking sense, dictate that we reserve our opinions for such a time as we can discuss the issue like level-headed adults, and our countrymen can have a moment to grieve.

Your not even trying. Go home. You're embarrassing yourself.

[–]contextual_somebody -1 points0 points ago

Are you fucking shitting me? You ask for space to fucking grieve? You want to take a step back to your ignorant accusations, pussy neck? Congratulations on your freshwater commitment to your country, GI Joe.

*you're

[–]weareyourfamily -3 points-2 points ago

Whats to stop someone from using someone else's gun? Just playing devil's advocate here. I agree that gun regulation is going to do precisely nothing to solve this problem. If not a gun, it'll be a bomb or a car... or a fucking spoon. We need to figure out how to get billions of people to understand one simple thing. Help each other, feed each other, don't abuse each other and we can all live happy lives. Pretty hard to do but its not impossible and saying that its TOO hard is only making it harder.

[–]iambecomedeath7 1 point2 points ago

Whats to stop someone from using someone else's gun?

Construct the laws in such a way that encourages responsible gun ownership. Elsewhere in this thread, I advocated tying firearm serials to someone's identification and punishing the owner for crimes. If this is already done, it should be better advertised. Doing this will encourage gun owners to keep their weapons better supervised and better secured.

[–]weareyourfamily 0 points1 point ago

I think charging people for crimes commited with their gun may be a good idea but has potential for a lot of messy lawsuits and probably would not stand up in court after very long. The fact remains that the owner did NOT commit the crime and the person who did would have most likely done it whether or not they had a gun.

[–]dreamingawake09 3 points4 points ago

Won't matter, it's too late to change anything related to guns at any level. The US and gun/gun culture are as intertwined as the fabric of the US flag itself. Socio-economics and mental health are the two biggest aspects to the gun issue here, and honestly, without those problems changing, the gun issue will not be changing either.

May sound defeatist, but that's the reality of the situation.

[–]TheIncendiaryDevice 10 points11 points ago

List of countries by firearm-related death rate

[–]DKamar 7 points8 points ago

Americans sure love killing themselves with guns.

[–]LegitimateCrepe 5 points6 points ago

Honest philosophical question: What does America have in common with the countries up there with it?

[–]TheIncendiaryDevice 1 point2 points ago

Yep.

[–]DKamar 2 points3 points ago

Now I'm curious, are Americans more prone to suicide in general or do we just favor guns versus other methods?

[–]TheIncendiaryDevice 2 points3 points ago

These Links seem to imply the latter.

Switzerland has the highest incidence of suicide by firearm than any other European country so there might be a correlation with availability.

[–]DKamar 5 points6 points ago

Okay, more important question.

Who the hell buys a map of the world's highest suicide rates?

[–]El_Dudereno 11 points12 points ago

Switzerland has the 4th highest rate per capita of gun ownership with ~45 guns per 100 citizens.

Source

A progressive approach would be to address the poverty that breeds crime as well as not treating drugs as a criminal (not medical) problem which creates black markets and violence.

edit: not

[–]aggie1391 14 points15 points ago

As well as providing easy access to mental healthcare.

[–]jesuz -1 points0 points ago

This is bullshit, Switzerland has compulsory military service for men and some opt to keep their firearms locked in a cabinet after service per tradition. It's in no way comparable to civilians buying assault rifles at gun shows or online without background checks in the US.

[–]aggie1391 5 points6 points ago

If a firearm is bought online it ships to an NFA dealer where they perform a background check on the buyer. My guns are in a locked cabinet here in America, and since that just needs a key it isn't really a deferent. Point is they have high gun ownership without high gun deaths.

[–]ajehals 4 points5 points ago

Point is they have high gun ownership without high gun deaths.

The point is that they have a completely different type of gun ownership, a different approach to gun ownership and a totally different type of gun culture.

The issue in the US isn't an ownership issue, it's a killing people issue. That killing people issue may well be something you could reduce through gun control (indeed that is almost certainly true) but if you don't address the other factors it won't make a dent sufficient to even get close to a sane gun crime and gun death rate.

[–]jesuz -5 points-4 points ago

Point is they have high gun ownership without high gun deaths.

Point is it's in no way comparable to civilian ownership in the US, and I noticed you ignored the gun show loophole. Rationalize child killing however you want, but things need to change.

[–]aggie1391 4 points5 points ago

Rationalize child killing

Not once did I ever, have I ever, nor will I ever, rationalize child killing. Just because I am a gun owner does not mean I am responsible for or support the actions anyone and everyone takes with a firearm. The events of today were absolutely tragic, and changes need to be made, however I am far from convinced that further gun control will have any effect beyond making things more difficult for law abiding citizens.

The majority of firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally, whether stolen or bought illegally off the street, and not through the so-called "gun show loophole", which is an attempt to regulate private purchases at gun shows, when that same private purchase could be made any other time at a different location.

[–]iambecomedeath7 0 points1 point ago

It's not a loophole. Gun shows are private sales, same as if you were buying it from a friend. If you want to "fix" gun shows, regulate private sales; but I rather enjoy going to a gun show to see what all is on offer.

[–]iambecomedeath7 -5 points-4 points ago

assault rifles at gun shows or online without background checks in the US.

Whew! Smells like bullshit in here!

[–]jesuz -1 points0 points ago

Do you not have google access?

[–]iambecomedeath7 1 point2 points ago

Because a group called "campaigntoclosetheloophole.org" is totally going to be non-biased and reputable, right? Do you know how hard it is to buy a real assault rifle? You're using anti-gun terminology to bolster your point without any real logic.

[–]mcdeaglesandwich 3 points4 points ago

The sad thing is that gun violence is a mental health issue not a firearms legislation issue.

[–]boogerhook 2 points3 points ago

Sad Numbers indeed

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 1 point2 points ago

6220 last year. Total firearm murders have declined for more than 5 years in a row.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Overall violent crime rates are at a 41 year low.

[–]RV527 1 point2 points ago

And what role do semi-automatic weapons play in that? This isn't about concealed carry, this is about the level of weapon available.

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 1 point2 points ago

You think we can ban semi auto weapons in the US without amending the constitution?

Or do you think 2/3 of state would be willing to remove the second amendment?

It doesn't matter what role semi auto weapons play, they are a fundamental right.

[–]RV527 0 points1 point ago

There is nothing clear about the level of weapons intended by the 2nd amendment. You would likely argue that automatic weapons should be a right as well. I think that we can have stricter gun control when it comes to semi-automatic weapons. It should be a longer process to acquire guns and large amounts of ammunition if you are a new owner. Someone like you would have already earned trust, but I'm not comfortable with the current setup. The level of scrutiny is inadequate. There is more scrutiny when it comes to a driver's license for a new driver.

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 3 points4 points ago

You would likely argue that automatic weapons should be a right as well.

Yes I would, but i'm ok with registration for those, like the 1934 NFA. I'm just against the 1986 machine gun ban.

I think that we can have stricter gun control when it comes to semi-automatic weapons. It should be a longer process to acquire guns and large amounts of ammunition if you are a new owner.

This guy stole guns from his mother. He wouldn't have been impacted by such laws.

[–]RV527 2 points3 points ago

This guy stole guns from his mother. He wouldn't have been impacted by such laws.

Yeah, you're right. Perhaps this was a case where accessible mental health services would have been the only way to help if possible. I'm reading that he had a known personality disorder and perhaps autism. I don't know what could have been done, but you're right that it had nothing to do with gun control in this case. In some cases it is relevant, when the person does not have easy access to guns.

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 2 points3 points ago

Perhaps, we'll have to see the circumstances of his acquisition of the guns from her, but I doubt she is to blame. Only he is to blame for this, we need to find ways to make people less likely to do this, rather than try and fail to control the tools they might use. Mental health services is a good start.

[–]RV527 0 points1 point ago

Only he is to blame for this, we need to find ways to make people less likely to do this, rather than try and fail to control the tools they might use.

But some people are going to do this regardless of whether or not they have accessible mental health services. In that set of circumstances, it is not wrong for people to want laws that mitigate the potential damage. It's just that you believe there is a tradeoff with concepts like "defense from tyranny." Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, the NSA is collecting information about your transactions and your communications. They won't look at it unless they have a reason, but any sort of armed rebellion would be more than enough. They could identify weapons stockpiles without much of a problem.

[–]Aaod 13 points14 points ago

Gun control is not progressive you idiot.

[–]iambecomedeath7 11 points12 points ago

Thank you! We should be in the business of protecting rights, not reducing them!

[–]JoeBoxer249 -3 points-2 points ago

Of course it is... What planet are you living on?

[–]iambecomedeath7 13 points14 points ago

No, it isn't. The progressive movement is all about protecting the rights of our fellows. Even if you personally are against guns, we have a right to own them and that right must be protected.

[–]JoeBoxer249 -1 points0 points ago

The right to live & live in safety is certainly more important than a right to carry a weapon that can kill at a moments notice that was crafted in the 18th century, before automatic & incredibly efficient weapons.

[–]coyote1284 3 points4 points ago

Progressive =/= Liberal

[–]mspk7305 7 points8 points ago

An automobile is a device that if pointed at a person or a thing, and a lever depressed, can destroy that thing or kill that person.

In 2009, over 30 thousand Americans lost their lives to automobile related incidents. Some were accidents. Some were negligence. Some were murder.

The only way to reduce the murder rate is to reduce the number of murderers. Removing a particular weapon will not get you there.

[–]rhymeswithsymmetry 14 points15 points ago

Except for one key point: A car is not a weapon. It is not designed to inflict bodily harm on a person. Don't hide behind the vagueness of a word like "some" because we both know that the number of deaths as a results of accidents versus murder is quite different. You can get back to me when someone designs a car to kill people, but I'd rather see the same sort of stringent safety policies that we demand of automobiles and roadways in gun control. It's a hell of a lot easier for me to go pick up a gun than it is a car, I assure you.

[–]weareyourfamily 1 point2 points ago

You could probably kill way more people with a car than you could with a gun. There are places with literally hundreds of kids walking in cross walks. If someone with an intent to harm target that place there would be devastation. What if he rigged it to blow up?

The point is even if you deleted all guns from existence, the problem remains... its pointless to focus limited resources on a small sliver of the whole issue.

[–]coyote1284 1 point2 points ago

One would have to intend to use a car that way, that doesn't mean that Ford designed the car for that purpose. When you shoot a gun, it operates as intended, to propel a projectile that damages objects in its path.

Try knives. Cutting a piece of food, breaking a string, stabbing a person; it's just doing it job, damage an object.

[–]weareyourfamily 1 point2 points ago

Yes, the intent of the creator has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. If my goal is to put a hole in your face I'm not going to stop because this kebab skewer was meant for FOOD and by golly its not my place to usurp its rightful throne as a FOOD ONLY utensil.

[–]coyote1284 0 points1 point ago

Sure; but it's going to be easier for me to stop or deflect your attack because you have to be within arms reach or the speed at which you can propel it is much slower than a bullet. I could even let the skewer pierce into my hand and effectively keep it from traveling on to my face.

And now we've just ruled out knives as an appropriate analogue.

[–]weareyourfamily 1 point2 points ago

What makes you think it has to be a face to face fight? Doesn't matter if they kill 1 or 8298472948 people. You have to figure out how to stop them from feeling like killing.

[–]coyote1284 0 points1 point ago

What makes you think it has to be a face to face fight?

This

If my goal is to put a hole in your face...

I was responding to the hypothetical you presented.

You have to figure out how to stop them from feeling like killing.

Agreed.

[–]coyote1284 0 points1 point ago

You can get back to me when someone designs a car to kill people,

Toyota sure tried a couple years ago. (facetious)

[–]LegitimateCrepe -2 points-1 points ago

A gun isn't designed to cause harm either. It's designed to emit a projectile. You're anthropomorphizing it to suit your agenda.

Edit: I don't own a gun, but I have several veteran friends who do. They use a gun for that which it was designed nearly every weekend, and they've never killed anyone.

[–]coyote1284 5 points6 points ago

Yeah, OK, let's get into the semantics here. Sure, an unloaded gun, lying on a table is not going to jump up and kill you and a car is not going to start itself and drive itself home.

The fact is a gun is designed as a weapon, when a person uses it properly, they intend to propel a projectile that damages an object in its path; when a gun is misused it still propels a projectile that damages an object in its path. A car is designed as a vehicle, when a person uses it properly, they intend to propel themselves safely toward a destination; it takes misuse of a car to result in death.

[–]wangers_got_wang -4 points-3 points ago

A car is not a weapon. It is not designed to inflict bodily harm on a person.

And yet they somehow kill and injure a lot more people than guns do.

[–]coyote1284 2 points3 points ago

Sure, because they were misused; a gun is designed to propel a projectile that damages objects in its path whether you are shooting at targets, game, people, or indiscriminately.

When a drunk person drives a car, their intent is still to get home (or the next bar), not to use it as a weapon. When a drunk person shoots a gun, they still intend to put a hole in something. Sure, a person can intend to misuse a car to injure another, but are there any figures that show how often that happens?

[–]wangers_got_wang 1 point2 points ago

And murdering people with a gun isn't misusing it? The whole point of bringing up the number of deaths caused by cars is to emphasize that it isn't the device, it's the operator. No one is making the claim that cars are designed to kill people or that people are intentionally killing other people with cars. It's the person operating the device (gun, car, etc.) you have to worry about. The parent comment stated correctly that a dangerous device used improperly can get people killed so the way to prevent deaths comes down to the operator, not the device. The response to that was that since cars aren't "designed" to kill people it somehow doesn't count. My point is that for not being designed to kill people cars are racking up a higher body count than guns without even trying. The reason for pointing that out is to again emphasize that it's the person, not the machine. You want fewer deaths? You need more responsible people. Someone killed intentionally or unintentionally is still dead. No sane person looks at accidental gun deaths and says "well, we probably shouldn't count those".

[–]coyote1284 0 points1 point ago

And murdering people with a gun isn't misusing it?

We are making the distinction between "murder" and "killing in self-defense when meeting like force", correct? If so, then I don't believe I implied differently; I said that, when used correctly or incorrectly, a gun is always doing what it is intended to do.

You want fewer deaths? You need more responsible people.

Absolutely; you don't get that by letting everyone have cars or guns. You get that by ensuring the owner is educated in the machine's use. Also, in both cases, I think we should ensure the person is mentally sound, but that's trickier to implement and a person may be 'sound' at time of purchase, then become impaired or deranged.

No sane person looks at accidental gun deaths and says "well, we probably shouldn't count those".

Fair; I'll refrain from using that in future discussion, but I'm still curious how they stack up comparing only intentional deaths.

[–]wangers_got_wang 1 point2 points ago

All are very valid points that I agree with. I don't think everyone should own a gun and those who do should know how to use one safely and responsibly. The tricky part is that gun ownership is a right (assuming we're talking about the US) and whatever laws and regulations exist can't "infringe" that right. What constitutes infringement is of course debatable and I'm certainly no legal expert. A disabled elderly person on SS income probably can't go through tactical training and pay a fortune in fees but they still need to know what they're doing and keep their guns out of their grandkids' hands. I certainly don't think that people who are mentally unstable, underage, or violent felons should be able to own guns. As you mentioned above, it becomes trickier when someone becomes mentally unsound at a later time. In looking for intentional vehicle deaths I haven't been able to find anything solid (my apologies). As far as I can tell (again, not a legal expert) intentionally killing someone with a vehicle gets grouped in with killing someone while driving recklessly.

[–]spooc 7 points8 points ago

Your analogy is invalid. A gun is a device designed to kill people, a car is not.

The only way to reduce the murder rate is to reduce the number of murderers

This statement is false according to numerous studies on the subject.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305

[–]weareyourfamily -3 points-2 points ago

Clearly you're trolling, but... first of all, correlation is not causation. And there is almost no way to prove that guns in and of themselves instigate murder. It makes no sense. The more likely scenario is that we live in a country that lacks certain avenues for, one, venting of anger and, two, having meaningful happiness and interaction with other people. Some people do have this but I guarantee you the people who would do this don't have healthy ways of dealing with their feelings and aren't getting the attention that would be necessary to bring them out of a homicidal mindset.

If these people don't get the help they truly need to avoid these heinous acts, which means a fundamental change in how we educate parents and how we act in general towards others, then no amount of banning dangerous objects is going to matter.

[–]Cylinsier 1 point2 points ago

So what you're saying is we shouldn't let anybody who is under 16 and doesn't have a license own a firearm?

[–]mspk7305 1 point2 points ago

You already have to be 18 to purchase a firearm.

[–]Cylinsier 0 points1 point ago

Half way there.

[–]mspk7305 3 points4 points ago

Would you require a license to vote? Or to practice free speech?

[–]Cylinsier 2 points3 points ago

Does my vote or my speech kill people?

[–]coyote1284 3 points4 points ago

Nope; but the point I believe mspk is making is that firearm ownership is a Constitutionally protected right, like voting and speech. It would take another Constitutional Amendment to even modify that right.

[–]Cylinsier 0 points1 point ago

So let's do it.

[–]mspk7305 0 points1 point ago

Slippery slope. You would have to repeal the 9th and 10th amendments as well as modify the 4th and 5th and 14th just to enforce it. Terrible idea.

[–]Cylinsier -2 points-1 points ago

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. We've passed and repealed amendments before and that didn't bring about the destruction of the country or the constitution.

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal.

That's a pretty hard process to get through. If such a proposed amendment passes, it's safe to assume the majority of the population supports it. Which makes it a good idea, at least to try. And if we change our minds, we can repeal it through the same procedure.

You would have to repeal the 9th and 10th amendments as well as modify the 4th and 5th and 14th just to enforce it.

Can you explain your reasoning behind this? From where I'm sitting, you only have to modify the 2nd amendment. I don't see what those other amendments have to do with it in any way.

[–]DarkGamer -1 points0 points ago

Indirectly it can.

[–]Cylinsier 0 points1 point ago

So...no, it doesn't.

[–]mspk7305 0 points1 point ago

Speech probably not but your vote can.

[–]Rockytriton -1 points0 points ago

We definitely should ban guns so they will be taken off the streets. We should ban meth and heroine too so they are taken off the streets.

[–]PanchoVilla4TW 8 points9 points ago

Make concealed carry really hard to get (psych test at least). Make buying guns harder. Restrict certain calibers as reserved for the military only. Ban Rifles (allowing exceptions for hunting rifles etc).

Regulation, not abolishment.

[–]Rockytriton 1 point2 points ago

This still goes with the same line of thinking that if you ban guns criminals won't have them. If you make it really hard to get a concealed carry, i hate to tell you, but criminals will still conceal weapons on them. You ban rifles, except for hunting (i got to admit I don't see the logic here), criminals will still be using them.

regulate them, criminals won't follow the laws

abolish them, criminals will still have them

[–]apester 1 point2 points ago

Except through attrition which will take time but it will happen...each gun involved in a crime and recovered would be one less in circulation. I am personally not in support of a ban on guns but the argument of "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" is kinda weak.

[–]PanchoVilla4TW -1 points0 points ago

I agree completely. I dont advocate banning or outlawing guns completely. Merely proper regulation and respect. Guns can't be treated like toys anymore. Do people really need large calibers to protect their homes? Or carrying a gun constantly?

There is no easy answer, but saying things are fine the way they are, thats what I'm against.

[–]PanchoVilla4TW 3 points4 points ago

By your logic things should remain the same because they are just fine the way they are. Except they aren't.

[–]Rockytriton -1 points0 points ago

by your logic guns should only be in the hands of criminals and the police state. that sounds much better.

[–]PanchoVilla4TW 0 points1 point ago

Guns shouldnt be in the hands of everyone. There should be a process to qualify for them. Flooding the market with guns is precisely what makes them end in the hands of criminals.

[–]Rockytriton 2 points3 points ago

yes, because criminals can't get around the process. There should be a strict process to qualify for buying and selling meth and heroine, then maybe that epidemic would go away too!

[–]PanchoVilla4TW 0 points1 point ago

Drugs should also get regulated. Prohibition isn't working either, evidently. Criminals can get around the process, but they cant get a brand new m-16 or ak47 clone from the store.

Saying that everyone should have guns because MERIKUH and KURMINALS is basically as dumb as it gets. I love guns. I just dont think nutcases should have them. Or people with a criminal record. Or someone that doesnt have trigger discipline. Or etc etc and etc. There are many people out there that shouldnt have guns, but do.

[–]DKamar 3 points4 points ago

Alcohol kills as many people annually as guns, even including suicides and accidental shootings. Second-hand smoke kills over three times as many.

Why isn't there a big movement to completely ban those things, too?

edit: To clarify, I'm talking about recent numbers for all of these, not the old number on this image.

[–]coyote1284 1 point2 points ago

I'm no proponent of gun control, but the primary use of alcohol and cigarettes is not as a weapon.

[–]DarkGamer 2 points3 points ago

Yet the outcomes are similar.

[–]gwarster 0 points1 point ago

I'd like to see a source for Japan's numbers. I'm pretty sure they are much lower.

Is it fucked up that my wife is a teacher and I'm scared about her going to work?

[–]Bbaily -1 points0 points ago

If someone really wants to kill people they don't need a gun - and there's nothing you can do or "take away" from them that would stop them from committing murder. I'm not sure that comparing the Japanese culture to American's much more violent culture is really a good comparison but there were only about 1200 murders over all in Japan to begin with.

America has a very sick culture of violence, war, torture etc... you can expect more of the same with or without guns. I'm still waiting on the psycho that decided to poison the water supply somewhere and kill thousands.. what do we do then? Ban poison's even more?

But I guess in some peoples minds there is no other recourse because we can't change society. Murder is against the law as well but that doesn't stop people from doing so. Laws can't stop murder.

[–]gwarster 1 point2 points ago

Yes, laws can stop murder. Any law that we have that prevents criminals from obtaining guns makes it more difficult to commit murder. Even if the gains might seem small, any small amount of protection for human life is worth the minimal reduction in gun rights. Because let's be honest, gun rights are a fabrication of our own imagination. It is something that was fabricated 250 years ago by people who did not understand what twenty first century guns are.

[–]kyfriedtexan 0 points1 point ago

Wow, this is quite a progressive group. Who sent you folks here, r/NRA? For you on here that are saying that additional controls/regulations on firearms is the moral equivalent of taking away everyone's rights to own a weapon, go fuck yourself and your disinformation campaign. And please quit your stupid arguments about how a knife is the same as a gun and go ahead and shutup about how cars kill people too, these examples are embarrassing and childish.

[–]KingQajar -1 points0 points ago

Banning guns DOES NOT prevent shootings. Just like how banning meth doesn't take it off the streets. People need to realize that making laws against people who break them DOES NOT WORK. Criminals break laws, that's their whole agenda. Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who can protect both themselves and others from criminals working against them is stupid. This puts the only guns in the hands of idiotic men who will not abide by laws. Crime rates go up, and non-progressives WONDER why people aren't fighting off criminals effectively anymore.

Not only that, but countries with stricter gun laws (with the exception of Australia) usually are worse off. Columbia, the center of drug cartels and mass criminal rings, has a complete ban on guns of any kind for ordinary citizens. El Salvador has the strictest gun laws in Central America, and they have the HIGHEST gun murder rate in the world.

In short, gun control is not progressive, it is unconstitutional, and should not be promoted.

[–]PanchoVilla4TW 0 points1 point ago

I disagree. While blanket bans would probably not work, proper regulation might. Where do criminals get guns in countries with strict gun control? From countries with lax gun control, be it sale, production, process of ownership, etc. Countries like Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and yes, the US.

[–]KingQajar 2 points3 points ago

...A lot of what you have said is untrue. In many of the post-soviet states, gun control is incredibly restrictive. In Russia, handguns and assault weapons are banned from civilian use. In China, guns are banned from civilian use.

[–]PanchoVilla4TW 0 points1 point ago

I mentioned production and sale. It goes beyond civilian ownership. I'll give an example regarding China.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-03/opinions/35495550_1_arms-trade-arms-deals-arms-embargoes

Eastern Europe:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/atlas-hoods-the-country-that-doesnt-exist

Its a generalization, but I think it remains true. Guns come from somewhere, they dont just pop out of nowhere.

[–]DarkGamer 1 point2 points ago

The US is the most heavily armed society in the world, as of '07, there were 90 guns for every 100 people in the US. even if you completely stopped production and sales it would not prevent access to this ample arsenal.

[–]HorseFD -1 points0 points ago

(with the exception of Australia)

And all of Western Europe.

[–]mongre -1 points0 points ago

What a loaded piece that is!

[–]mrchainsaw1 2 points3 points ago

500,000 people die a year from tobacco use. Lets ban cigarettes!!!!

[–]Karunamon -2 points-1 points ago

Some idiot shoots up a school (hey because banning guns would have stopped the crime amirite?) and this brings out the gun grabbing nutjobs.

Jesus Christ.

[–]dezine 0 points1 point ago

We don't need gun control. We need mental health.

[–]Bbaily 0 points1 point ago

Ban Big Pharma!

100,000 Americans Die Each Year from Prescription Drugs, While Pharma Companies Get Rich

[–]rathat 0 points1 point ago

And what, die from treatable diseases instead?

[–]jjens -2 points-1 points ago

obviously outdated statistics that should be shown per capita. but the point is that gun ultraviolence is about as american as apple pie at this point.

[–]mikevilla -4 points-3 points ago

We're still a young country, gotta get rid of the bad genes quickly. Sorry, was that too progressive?

[–]baelfire 0 points1 point ago

I'll just leave this here

load more comments (8 replies)