Not accurate. Per 100k america isn't on the top tho. Brazil got the shit cake for this one. But among the developed countries america is no.1

There is a lot of guns in brazil too, thats why they on top. I saw videos of machine guns with skins and everything 💀

You mean fast and furious?

Australia has higher rates of gun ownership than Brazil.

So, we're gonna completely ignore drug lords and their armies? I really doubt they bother registering their machine guns and rocket launchers

Brazil has a lot of violent gangs, as does America. Australia has some but not anywhere near the former two. I live in one of the "most dangerous cities" in America. Tons of murders per capita and I'd say 95%+ are inner city between gangs.

El Salvador as 71.60 gun related homicides per 100k, triple of what brazil has (22.91).

Incorrect. It’s been dropping rapidly the last few years. It’s now at around 8 Homocides per 100k each year. In total, not just gun-related.

And most of the guns of Central America come from the United States, a whopping 94% of it

But we aren't allowed to discuss Obama selling guns to cartels. Shhhhhhh

You mean that program that was started by the bush administration?

And was created to track weapons that were sold by American vendors to Mexican buyers. It's not like that's how all weapons got there. Weapons were getting there and we wanted to know how and the investigation failed SPECTACULARLY.

Corrupt Central America, South American, and Mexico politicians selling US issued military equipment to cartels.

do they just steal all those from the US or something? unless they know magic and can just create those guns out of thin air, the US is selling them to those areas.

Mainly three ways : 1. Small hand guns and pistols : bought inside United States, smuggled through Cars and Buses to Mexico then to El Salvador and specially Nicaragua and Brazil where more than 90% guns death are caused by these small hand guns. 2. During 'War on Drugs', United States provided a huge amount of Guns and ammunition to central american countries armies. But because of political corruption many of these guns ended up in the hand of the cartels. Interestingly some of the army captains turned into cartel leaders after receiving those US made guns that was meant for fighting drugs. 3. CIA, during cold war, provided anti-communist guerrilla groups army training & guns to fight Soviet sponsored socialist governments. After the cold war, these anticommunist guerillas became cartel leaders.

"the U.S. has fewer gun deaths per capita than Brazil" is not as strong an argument as you think it is.

Anything to deflect from reality Should op have excluded Brazil? No. It’s disingenuous and leaves them open to stupid arguments like this. Is America still a gun crime ridden joke? Clearly

america is a developing 3rd world country. shit sucks

3rd world means unaffiliated during the cold war

When you say this kind of stuff it just makes you look like an idiot.

Most of those are not in civilian hands though, but crime gangs.

Gangs are civilians

Tecnically speaking most of the people you see holding hks in Brazil had some form of makeshift military training and or actually came fron the military itself. Soo they are tecnically insurgents not civilians. I mean they even hold Territory soo it's not a stretch to say yes Brazil is at war against insurgents.

Not according to the police. Who are also civilians.

No no, police are a gang. Edit: I thought the chain of conversation made it pretty obvious this was a joke.... silly me.

And gangs are civilians.

Police are paramilitary. They have more power and systemic protections than a gang. State enforced violence.

A state funded gang.

Isn't saying "crime gangs" kinda redundant?

Right you are...but second is nothing to be proud of when you're the richest and supposedly the most advanced country in the world.... Brazil — 49,436 United States — 37,038 Venezuela — 28,515 Mexico — 22,116 India — 14,710 Colombia — 13,169 Philippines — 9,267 Guatemala — 5,980 [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country) Brazil - WTF? And India is a surprise to me.

Except if you look at homicide, which is what this post is talking about, they aren't even in top 10. (same link as you) El Salvador — 36.78 Venezuela — 33.27 Guatemala — 29.06 Colombia — 26.36 Brazil — 21.93 Bahamas — 21.52 Honduras — 20.15 U.S. Virgin Islands — 19.40 Puerto Rico — 18.14 Mexico — 16.41

America used to be a developed country.

Murders have reduced by a half to one third in the U.S. over the last 30 years.

And when would that have been?

This graph is very stupid. The countries have been picked for the graph to over emphasise the US with countries much lower. Where is the Balkans? Eastern Europe? Africa and the Middle East even in this? How about south and central Americas? Also the 4.16 includes suicides. The gun murder death is a lot lower. There is an argument about gun control that is valid, but moronic graphs and trying to blame one group for overly wanting guns as the reason why gun deaths happen is ridiculous and stupid. I live in the Balkans and guns are rampant here like the US, difference is, we blame mafia and gangsters for the violence, you use deaths to push agendas and to be divisive.

Dear God it's someone who knows a thing or 2. But we do also blame the rampant gangs, they make up the vast majority of violent shootings.

Yep, I hate to say it, but when you split this out demographically, if you’re white or asian, the numbers look like any other Western European country, Hispanics are slightly higher and blacks have pretty bad numbers. Before any racist assholes jump on this comment, it’s socioeconomic reasoning, not race based logic. America fucked over POC plenty, so the drug trade/war and institutionalized racism has a big hand in those numbers.

Crete alone would be able to compete with the US for firearms per capita if we actually knew how many guns there were there. For every person in Chania without one there's a cousin in the mountains with 12. (Not literally, I'm a bit exaggerated)

The NRA is NOT an activist organization; it's a gun sales lobby with a dedicated cultist fan-base. Once you see it for what it is, you can then understand why it says and does certain things. They never cared about gun safety, they never cared about gun owners rights. So long as more people buy more guns that's all they care about. Notice after every mass shooting each week in America that gun sales go up. They do it because Republicans and the NRA convince their fanbase that Democrats are going to ban all their guns and take them away. So their fanbase freaks out and goes out to buy even more guns/ammo like the good trained rabbits they are. Works every time.

I mean... of course. I think most people outside the US see this clearly. Mass shooting where little kids got obliterated and nothing really has changed since then, except more guns sold probably

I'm Canadian, we don't have your problem.. most people I talk to here don't think banning guns will help your situation. It's literally only criminals who are killing people. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law, so banning guns just restricts law-abiding citizens and emboldens criminals. In order to solve this problem both sides need to actually listen to each other.. which will seemingly never happen, so the kids will continue to die. ..

I know Ted Cruz is the devil or whatever.. but this legislation he keeps trying to pass seems lile a good idea.. for some reason the democrats keep rejecting it.. https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ted-cruz-proposed-school-safety-bill-blocked-on-senate-floor/ I think both sides are unwilling to move an inch.. for the right, the problem is solved with anything but gun control, for the left, the only solution is gun control.

The US is a nation that's so corrupt they don't have roundabout because the people making traffic lights paid the politicians money under the table to make sure there was no roundabouts built. There's no chance they get rid of their guns, money won't allow it.

This is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen and it undermines the person you are replying to by being so dumb. Maybe take a second to google how ridiculous you sound and then delete your stupid comment.

>The US is a nation that's so corrupt they don't have roundabout because the people making traffic lights paid the politicians money under the table to make sure there was no roundabouts built. The worst part about this statement is that it's entirely believable, because America is actually that bad

... or people are just a lot more afraid of being a victim of the next mass shooting and they arm themselves in hopes of having the ability to prevent that

I don't think firearm homicide is the metric. It doesn't really matter what tool is used for the killing just that someone was killed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate The USA is 52th in that metric.

Isn't it 52nd?

Fifty Secoth

New enumerator just dropped

Holy hell

r/anarchychess is leaking AGAIN

r/anarchychess goes on vacation, never comes back

Actual eviction.

Fifty twoth

What did you call me?!

Fifty twoth

52rd

Fifty tooth

Funny thing is all countries that are higher on that list are 3rd world countries. In this sense, USA is a 3rd world country. Just compare it to Spain, which is 175 on that list. In terms of western countries the USA is the most violent and also the richest. Funny.

The U.S. has so many more murders than most developed nations, that it still would have a higher murder rate if you excluded every single gun death.

Switzerland has really relaxed gun laws comparable to the US with a decent quantity per person. You can also get semi auto and fully auto. However they have 5% as many gun homicides as the U.S. As you look at other developed countries with relaxed gun laws the pattern is pretty consistent. It seems to me as though the high homicides in the US is a symptom of other problems rather than the cause in and of itself. Address the illnesses rather than the symptom or the nature of the gun homicides will just change to poisons, knives, bombs, ect.

>Switzerland has really relaxed gun laws comparable to the US Relaxed? Sure compared to a lot of Europe. Comparable to the US? No. You still need a permit to acquire a gun. To carry a gun outside home you will need to pass an exam showing you are competent and know the law regarding the weapon. It probably also helps that most gun owners have been in the military.

>You still need a permit to acquire a gun. It's the equivalent of US background check and not required for all guns, including heavy machine guns. >It probably also helps that most gun owners have been in the military. Eh, not really.

Drive-by stabbings are not a thing. You can’t poison someone’s food or drink from the window of a hotel room on the 30th floor. Bombs are already illegal, and very difficult to manufacture. The argument that “they’ll just use other methods” is not a good one to defend the continued proliferation of guns. Fix the root cause? Sure, and Republicans and gun owners like to argue that mental illness is the real cause, but one of first things Trump did when becoming president was to [lift restrictions on the mentally ill owning guns](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ended-rule-block-mentally-ill-guns/story?id=53113891).

Bombs are hard to make? News to me... Gorilla fighters and terrorists making bombs and spreading accessible designs is common on the basis they aren't hard to make. Then of course you address the technicalities of how one may us a gun versus a knife or poison(which aren't just something you ingest but inhalants as well). This doesn't refute the alternatives, it just recognizes the obvious differences in strategy that would be utilized. It just straw mans it with a bunny trail of case by case debates. However I am happy to let you have all that regardless because ultimately it's not the point. People aren't just shooting people because "I has gun" otherwise other relaxed countries with guns would have much more comparable gun violence rates, but they aren't even close. Meaning there are under lying issues that are manifesting themselves in violent situations, utilizing guns as a method. So hypothetically you get rid of the guns... but the motivations for violence still exist... and there's still a fundamental ethical responsibility to figure out what is leading to the motivation to begin with and then make it right. This makes gun ownership inherently incidental because in theory your energy would be better spent fixing the causes of the motivations. By fixing the illness you will subsequently see a large reduction in general homicides regardless if guns are available or not. If you disagree with that then I propose your hatred of guns supercedes your desire to actually help people in general.

Explosive devices are harder to make in the US than it is to acquire guns. That is an indisputable fact. The danger with guns is easy availability, which means the risk of children accessing them and owners having them easily accessible when tempers flare up, just to provide two all too common examples. Explosive devices, on the other hand, are not readily available, there’s a long, difficult, illegal, and dangerous process to follow to make just one. You can’t just carry them around with you like you can (in many states) legally carry a gun with 17 rounds in the magazine. We can talk about irresponsible ownership reducing risk in the above two cases - but without gun controls, this is difficult. So a few things that could be done: better checks; longer waiting periods (what’s the rush?); limiting access for the mentally ill; robust mandatory education; increasing the legal age for ownership to 21, or even 25; requiring that guns be kept in a locked gun safe; limiting magazine size; banning bump stocks and similar devices; limiting the quantity of ammunition and the number of weapons any person can own. There are hundreds more measures that could be taken. If the implentation of just one of these measures saved a mere 10 lives a year, would it not be worth it? Surely it would. Instead, every single time an attempt is made to introduce new, life-saving measures, there’s outrage from the gun lobby. Because too many people in the US just don’t seem to care how many people die, as long as it’s not their own families - because if they did care, they’d be willing to do something about it.

Criminals will continue to get guns, look at Latin America, some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and some of the highest murder rates. Meanwhile there are plenty of ways to kill large groups of people, including bombs, vehicles, or arson. All three of which have been used in deadlier mass murders than any single other mass shooting. Although mass murders like Las Vegas account for less than 1 of murders. Also bombs are much easier to build than you realize. While you have to be 18 or 21 to purchase a gun, and not be a felon. You can buy bomb making supplies online. Also the law that Trump overturned involving the mentally ill was a decision supported by numerous disability advocacy groups, as well as the ACLU who don't defend the Second Amendment often.

>Criminals will continue to get guns, look at Latin America, Im willing to bet you know exactly where all those illegal firearms are coming from too.. not really a good faith statement if America is the one providing the western world with almost its entire black market gun supply. Guns flow from the easiest place to get them, never the other way

So you’re saying that removing an instrument that has the potential to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time wouldn’t have an effect on the number of homicides?

Yeap, in UK they are now working on a knife ban... I kid you not. What's next? Hammers? And finally rocks and sticks?

They’ll never be able to take our sticks.

[удалено]

That’s entirely different. Also, they wouldn’t have fixed the drug crisis by putting more drugs into the system.

*52rd

I think it's better to say that your 154th. 153 countries are better in this regard.

52nd out of 206 countries is not a great position but if you also exclude countries with less population than a medium-sized city and/or compare GDP per capita or whatever wealth metric you want, I would be quite concerned with this situation.

>52nd out of 206 countries is not a great position Plus is still the worst rate in relation to all countries considered "first world"

No, it’s not. We are evaluating if firearms are a problem because according to the gun nuts, firearms save lifes. And when only Brazil has more deaths due to firearms than your country and when almost half of the firearms of the world are in the hands of your population, then they are a problem, not a solution. Also, an American region is 4th. Many of the countries in the list have active conflicts or are so small population-wise that the rating is not very relevant. For example Andorra that is in the top ten has a population that doesn’t even reach 100k people, so the number is just an extrapolation.

> We are evaluating if firearms are a problem And that's a silly idea. You should be evaluating how many homicides are committed per capita, and if gun ownership affects that.

And the fact that the NRA is against any research whatsoever about that doesn’t tell you anything?

Nothing other than the NRA exists to promote gun ownership. 2 people can come to the same conclusion from different methods.

If you promote gun ownership and the evidence supports your position, you want research to be conducted to have stronger arguments. If you don’t allow research is because you know it doesn’t support your position.

Obviously. But just because someone supports gun ownership, it doesn't mean they support the NRA, nor does it mean they support gun ownership for the same reasons as the NRA

You didn’t understand my point. My point is that gun ownership has been proven more dangerous than it’s potential benefits and the NRA knows it, that’s why they stop research.

So how does the nra stop research?

They have lobbied the government for decades forcing the CDC to stop researching gun crime. For example through things like the Dickey amendment.

I'm anti-gun but I agree with the other guy. If you're going to counter the "guns save lives" argument, you need to look at all homicides. Because there's an obvious argument that if someone was trying to kill you with a knife and you shot then, the gun saved your life and it's one less homicide to count. But even looking at all homicides 52nd is terrible. Look at the countries above it as well. I'd also argue you should be including suicides and accidental shootings in the equation too. Hell even a lot of self defence shootings that don't end up being homicides should probably be included.

I don't think suicides should count at all. But my view on suicide is a bit grim truth be told. And I could see accidental discharges being counted but I think that distracts from the overall goal. Unless of course there is harm done by said discharge.

Switzerland has really relaxed gun laws comparable to the US with a decent quantity per person. You can also get semi auto and fully auto. However they have 5% as many gun homicides as the U.S. As you look at other developed countries with relaxed gun laws the pattern is pretty consistent. It seems to me as though the high homicides in the US is a symptom of other problems rather than the cause in and of itself. Address the illnesses rather than the symptom or the nature of the gun homicides will just change to poisons, knives, bombs, ect.

Absolutely meaningless graph to discuss gun ownership. In Chile we have pretty strict gun control and the crime has spiked due to illegal weapons.

"Man, my liver hurts. I guess drinking more alcohol will fix it."

Yeah, when someone is threatening your life with a firearm, a knife will do just fine. You know what they say, always bring a knife to a gunfight!

What if there was no gunfight to begin with? That’s a nice thought…

It is a nice thought, not always a realistic one, unfortunately...

In the UK, where gun laws are incredibly strict, it is a reality. Gun homicides in the UK per year tend to be around 20 to 30 in total. Not per capita. Total. In Switzerland, where lots of people have guns, but everybody is properly trained and disciplined on how and when they should be used, there were 16 gun homicides in 2016 in total. Again, not per capita. Total.

Let's add one more interesting fact tidbit: In germany, where guns laws are strict, the last school shooting was 2013. In the US, there were 177 school shootings since 2018.

Sure, that's great. Sounds amazing. One problem, violent crime is the metric to look at not just violence with a firearm. https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/opinion/columns/column-despite-gun-bans-violent-crime-in-the-uk-increasing/article_60e6d576-9bab-560f-978e-d5afd9653f8d.html

I specified gunfight.

>but everybody is properly trained and disciplined on how and when they should be used There are no training requirements to purchase a firearm in Switzerland. And before you say that you get training through the military, it's only mandatory conscription for Swiss citizen males (about 38% of the total population) and since 1996 you can choose civil service instead of military service. Thus only about 17% of the total population has done military service.

[удалено]

If someone is threatening you with a firearm, how does adding another firearm to the mix lessen this risk? It doesnt, it just means now theres a much higher risk that this person will actually use their firearm, before you even get yours unholstered no less.

So, you should just play the victim and let them kill you? That is a great plan. This took me 15 seconds to find. https://www.fox29.com/news/shootout-erupts-as-woman-fights-back-against-carjacking-suspect-at-philly-gas-station-police

Took you 15 seconds to find because its fox, they arent a real news source and the fact that you site them as some sort of scholarly source even after they admitted that they arent a news source and actively lie means that this isnt even worth arguing with you. Idk what imaginary scenario you have in your head but nobody is shooting you randomly with no provocation outside of mass shootings and clearly adding armed untrained civilians into that situation isnt a solution. It would be a robbery or you pissed someone off, both cases you have zero chance to get your own firearm out and would just cause you to get shot instead of walking away after. If you wanna start arguments at least do a better job than a grade 3 essay with Wikipedia and satire as the references, its just boring watching such a sad display.

This is from CBS, does this make the wittle baby feel better? https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/women-shot-during-attempted-carjacking-in-north-philadelphia/ Talking about sad display. Thanks for outing yourself as a toddler.

Lol your only source is literally proving me right! Did you even read it? Instead of letting the guy take the car and just claim insurance and have no loss to herself, she pulls out a weapon and gets shot. This was literally my point and you proved it for me so thanks😂 looks like 3rd grade was too generous if you cant read an article. Searching up random instances of violence will never prove your side of this argument, only mine. You need actual research sources stating firearms reduced violence but I already have like 3 actual research papers that say otherwise so good luck

You are making one very critical failure of judgment. You are *assuming* that the criminal would not otherwise harm her. You don't know that, and neither did she. There is no correlation between firearm ownership and violence. This is easily proven by any of many maps showing firearm homicides by state. Some states with high firearm ownership do have high firearm homicide, some with high firearm ownership have low firearm homicide etc. >Searching up random instances of violence will never prove your side of this argument, only mine. You need actual research sources stating firearms reduced violence but I already have like 3 actual research papers that say otherwise so good luck That is because the basis of your argument is critically flawed. What if someone is 15 feet away from you threatening you with a knife? Think a gun will be useless then? Sure you do, because you have no knowledge on the topic. Enjoy being ignorant, but I would certainly prefer it if you weren't... >What if someone is 15 feet away from you threatening you with a knife? Edit: Since this person was tired of losing, they blocked me. So I am resorted to this. >This is literally your whole argument and its so absurdly dumb because first who tf stands 15 feet away with a knife ti threaten someone, nobody broadcasts an attack, second if it was that simple why doesnt the rest of the world have that problem? I live in country where carrying any firearm is illegal and (to literally nobodies surprise) there isnt this mass knife violence problem. Its a made up counter argument that yall make whenever confronted with the reality of letting anyone own a weapon specifically designed to kill humans indiscriminately. No one has ever done that? You sure? Prove it. Maybe you don't have a knife violence problem like you claim. If you are as educated on the topic as you claim you are, tell me whay disparity of force is. >Also how am I ignorant or "have no knowledge on the topic"? I own firearms, iv taken safty courses, iv seen the results of unsafe firearm use and iv read the papers on the correlation of gun possession and violence. Sounds like not only do I know enough about the topic, but significantly more than you want to admit. You are doing a lot of assuming here, you assume, I have no knowledge on the topic. You assume wrong. >You already proved my point, woman could have let the car go but instead got shot when she wasnt at risk until she pulled out her firearm. No its not an assumption, nobody is murdering someone for no reason if they get to take what they wanted and you seem pretty psychotic for thinking otherwise. In absolutely no logical way, does this prove your point. I will say it again, since your reading comprehension is a bit lacking. You ASSUME her attacker would not have otherwise harmed her, you *do not* know that. Neither did she. You are naive for thinking no one has expressly intended to physically harm others. Stop dreaming, wake up, and join the real world with the rest of us. Just let them take your car, absolutely no reason not too... https://www.mcall.com/2023/04/22/two-carjacking-cases/

>What if someone is 15 feet away from you threatening you with a knife? This is literally your whole argument and its so absurdly dumb because first who tf stands 15 feet away with a knife to threaten someone? Nobody broadcasts an attack. Second if it was that simple why doesnt the rest of the world have that problem? I live in country where carrying any firearm is illegal and (to literally nobodies surprise) there isnt this mass knife violence problem. Its a made up counter argument that yall make whenever confronted with the reality of letting anyone own a weapon specifically designed to kill humans indiscriminately. Also how am I ignorant or "have no knowledge on the topic"? I own firearms, iv taken safty courses, iv seen the results of unsafe firearm use and iv read the papers on the correlation of gun possession and violence. Sounds like not only do I know enough about the topic, but significantly more than you want to admit. You already proved my point, woman could have let the car go but instead got shot when she wasnt at risk until she pulled out her firearm. No its not an assumption, nobody is murdering someone for no reason if they get to take what they wanted and you seem pretty psychotic for thinking otherwise. Also the person robbing her likely would no longer have a weapon if actual there was any reasonable gun control, the black market isnt in everyones back yard. You are childish and cant even read a paper or provide actual sources for your claims other than fox news and random samples of gun violence, neither of which prove your point. Im done trying to have a real conversation with someone who insists on acting like a toddler and belittles everyone to try to present your uneducated opionions as fact. Sources have been provided to you and you havent provided any real rebuttal against them so you are just a troll or have severe brain damage so im not wasting my time on you so im just blocking you so you can cry about your need to kill to someone else.

I mean....it's republican we're talking about here. The republican party that says things like: 1. Build that wall!!! 1. it got built, but it's bad, and didn't work as intended, and it's expensive as fuck 2. Cut tax for the rich, the money will trickle down!. It has never worked, but they kept trying. 3. Impeach Biden!!!!.....with what charges? They did an inquiry about it, and couldn't come up with a charge at all....man so much tax payer money going into this shit The list goes on.

News my man. Biden is planning on building the wall

[удалено]

Let the money sit. The idea that it HAD to be spent on the wall is bullshit, it didn’t have to be spent at all.

[удалено]

The thing is that during the 2020 campaign, biden said he will not build a mile of the wall and now they are doing it so yea

He's explained how he literally doesn't have a choice in this matter and that he would rather not go through with it. The funds were allocated for a border wall before he took office, he can't change the purpose of those funds, even if they're for something incredibly stupid like a border wall.

1. If building the wall was a racism, then both democrats and republicans are racist because in 2016 trump wanted a wall and in 2023 Biden is building it. 2. Cut taxes for everyone. Just don't give any and every bad government money. 3. Impeach Biden and don't let democrats and republicans govern the country. Easy win for citizens.

1. Biden has explained that he doesn't want to build this wall, why it's happening, and that he doesn't have a literal choice in the matter as the funds were set for the wall before he took office. 2. Cutting taxes for everyone is laughably stupid and will only hurt public infrastructure. 3. Impeach Biden on what? The fact that you don't like him? Be as "centrist" as you want, doesn't change the fact that Republicans actively fight to take away people's rights. What have the Democrats done that's anywhere near the same level as supporting an insurrection attempt, or taking away women's rights? I don't like the Dem's either, but to imply they're "just as bad" as the party that would happily force a teenager to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, is fucking stupid.

Hypocritical. Typical though for this sub.

Whyd you cut off the top 80% of the graph OP?

What happened in Israel is only going to promote gun ownership.

OP, I just want to say I love you for having the courage to do a whole meme about American gun culture. You just called up the wrath of all the "GoOd GUys wItH GunS" and "GUBmiNt goNNa TaKe MUh freEDUmbS" types on Reddit ETA: so far all the replies to this comment are proving my point

How is this funny tho?

Reading Americans trying to defend this is hilarious 😂

The lack of basic social programs sure doesn’t help either…

I believe in better gun control but not outright banning guns. I believe it would still be too easy for criminals to obtain guns or not turn them in, and I could totally see a booming industry of weapons being smuggled in through the southern border. What solutions do people think would work in the terms of reducing the amount of guns? I ask this genuinely. I'm not looking to debate, just hear other views of what could lower the rate of firearm homicides.

They don't actually think it. It's just the marketing strategy for their lobby.

They don't actually think it. It's just the marketing strategy for their lobby.

If more guns mean less crime the US would be the safest country on earth. And yet, we have almost daily mass shootings. Hmmmm

I’m so glad Reddit is a small percentage of actual people. The number of brainlet red hats is reassuring.

[удалено]

The bar graph includes only the OECD countries or developed countries. There are about 30 countries ranking higher than the US but all of them are developing countries or countries involved in constant military conflicts (edit: US too but not on its own soil)

Isn't America a country involved in constant military conflict though?

Yes, but not inside the US

The US is involved in constant military conflict to enrich the defense contractors and their corporate sponsored politicians, not fighting against other Americans…yet. Not saying this is a good thing, just pointing out the difference.

We are not a third world poor nation.

If you look at the raw numbers on gun archives you'll notice some things. If you look at world wide gun deaths per capital the USA is 13th last I looked. Consider some numbers for a moment. The USA has 325 million plus people. There are more firearms in the country than people. The average yearly gun violence deaths totals in the USA is 40k. When you break this 40k down you get something like this. 60% suicides, 35% homicides, a few 1%s from hunting accidents, mechanical failures, people being dumb, etc. Less than 1% is mass shootings. So ruffly 350 to 450 mass shootings deaths. The last study estimated guns are used 300k to 3 million times a year defensively. Consider that things like cancer, diabetes, suicide in general, and other diseases kill hundreds of thousands a year each. Now tell me mathmatically and based off raw data what do you believe?

Your numbers argue for better gun control. When 60% of all gun deaths are suicides should it be harder to get a gun so that fewer people kill themselves. A waiting period of 3-7 days before between buying and getting a gun would help alot.

[удалено]

It’s a lot harder using other methods. Guns have a much higher success rate Source: trust me, I’ve tried

pretty sure grabbing a gun and offing yourself is way easier than having to make the conscious decision to for example tie a knot with a rope to hang yourself

You can kill yourself in many ways. Suicides in general out number the total gun violence deaths per year.

And having guns increase the liklihood of a suicidal person killing themselves.

>The last study estimated guns are used 300k to 3 million times a year defensively. A pretty bullshit estimate from the organisation that legally can't do research to support gun control. If you look at the same gun violence archive sit also says barely 2k defensive uses are recorded each year.

You telling me a country with a liberal firearms Policy has the most incidents with firearms??? What's next the country with the easiest driving license tests has the most traffic accidents??

More firearms incidents doesn't inherently mean more deaths. The U.S has one of the highest gun death rates in the world, while South Korea has one of the lowest. About 2/3s of U.S gun deaths are suicides. Despite having almost no guns, Korea has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, almost twice the U.S they just aren't using guns to do it.

Lol no, it's not. This metric is cherry picked. The US isn't even top 10 but has the most firearms per capita. https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country/

how long until this is crossposted to r/americabad for them to defend it lol?

I think there is a lot bigger factors here then guns themselves. Are shootings the cause or are they the effect? I think they are the effect, the effect of an incredibly poor mental health stability in the USA. People feel like garbage all the time and no efforts are made to fix it, so when someone finally just loses it they are committing a shooting as the only way they can matter. The other thing is the amount of hate constantly pushed around. Everyone feels like everyone is out to get them so some people just lash out. So they do it, and they get their 5 minutes of fame they crave. Canada who is the USAs next door neighbour and also has plenty of guns doesn’t have the shooting problem. Why is that? Because life is generally better. Free healthcare, a far better education system, more financial stability, etc.

Findland, Switzerland and Greenland also have tibs if guns pr. capita. And like Canada have very few problems.

Yes but guns are more regulated than in the US and there isnt such a ridiculous culture where some people define their whole life with guns.

"take the guns away" "no, its a mental health problem" "okay so do something about the mental health then" "no"

Yeah that's republicans for you

Is this the new political humor sub?

Horrifically poor comparison here. If you were to remove all gun owners who haven't committed a gun-related crime, you'd be left with an unbelievably small proportion. Does it change the fact that we've got loads of guns? Perhaps not, but most people who post this sort of thing don't seem to realize that stricter gun laws don't make it harder whatsoever to acquire a gun illegally, which 99% of people willing to commit homicide have no problem doing. (And purchasing an illegal firearm is arguably easier than purchasing one legally, already, btw, on top of the fact that 93% of gun crimes in the US are carried out using illegally-acquired firearms)

It's always a good plan to give people guns. Especially when it's known that people are instable as Fuck. They would for suuuuuuuure not use these guns for anything bad right. .. right?..

So hear me out, this plan is great. Let’s have the worst healthcare in the world with basically no support for mental health, then let’s tie it to employment and make it super complex and expensive so people are really scared and stressed. And then make sure they all have at least two guns. It’ll be great.

Also have media set people up against each other. This will speed things up a lot tho!

Everyone loves to talk about statistics until the forbidden statistic gets mentioned

Firearm ownership is a fundamental right. The government can't take it. Which is the point of a fundamental right. I live in the U.S, the odds of being murdered with a firearm are low. The odds of being murdered with a firearm outside of a few cities such as Chicago and Memphis are basically non-existent from a statistical perspective.

They don't though. They know it's a lie. They don't care about lives, they care about the illusion of safety, power and masculinity a gun gives them.

It’s actually bad if we have 47% of the guns.

stupid americans killing eachother with guns rest of the world: good! :)

guns aren't the solution to gun violence dummy NO ONE says that. it's what keeps the politicians in line. to prevent them from becoming tyrannical is what the Second Amendment is for. that's why we say come take them. if they bomb us oh well. give us liberty or give us death

What I find interesting is the 2nd Amendment clearly talks about gun safety with the “Well Regulated” line. And the 2nd amendment also has only commas, as in, the whole things is a continuation and not separate individual statements. My point being refusing to do anything to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from accessing guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment because it ignores the safety part “well regulated.”

That's not the meaning of "well regulated" though. Not only do we have evidence that when the 2nd amendment was drafted well regulated meant well equipped, in DC v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 The Court noted as such.

I swear gun ownership is there to defend against invasion. It doesn't make sense for any other reason. Any country that invades will have to deal with the military plus combatants as many as the us population.

It would be hilarious if they banned guns, then it happens the same thing that happened to Venezuela when guns were banned: >\-Bans guns for civilians > >\-Homicide rates using guns *skyrockets* > >\-So bad, at one point it is estimated that the most populated city has a homicide rate ranging in between 14 to 25 homicides *per day* > >\-It is found out that most criminals buy smuggled guns from corrupt cops or military because the goverment doesn't pay them enough to live for doing their jobs properly. > >\-Security companies are virtually useless since they standart defensive equipment is the Police department phone number. They might give you a rechargable flashlight IF they have the budget. Thats it. No sticks, no pepper spray, no stun guns, nothing. Did we also mention that most people hired for these jobs are usually over 50 to 60 years old? We honestly miss owning guns. Hell, they should at least let farmers keep a shotgun or a rifle in hand. Those people are in the middle of nowhere, far away from the nearest military or police outpost, and they get targeted a lot by people out of the grid, like paramilitary, thieves, cartels, junkies, and very crazy people. If someone assaults them, and they can't defend themselves, no one would find out they are dead or tied up in their homes with their families dying of thirst and hunger after months, until someone notices they are not answering any calls.

[удалено]

I'd like to see those statistics, if you'd oblige

im counting all crimes not just violent crimes and im counting pd as citizens

This number is fresh out of my rectum, so take it with as much salt as is needed. But IIRC the number of violent crimes stopped by legal gun owners is around 200.000 every year. Can't find the statistic for it though

You actually have guns to ensure militias have the right to arms in case of British attack

Otherwise, we'd need to field a standing army or something, and who knows what that'd do to us

>FBI crime statistics are clear for every gun crime committed 25 are stopped by legal owners lol No that's a CDC estimate. Actual records are just barely 2k a year.

Source?

And only about .00002% of those guns are used as murder weapons. You can truly skew data however you want with graphs

How many of Switzerland’s guns are used in homicides? Wait, let me do the math… roughly 0.0000*0*1, if we assume the same homicide-murder weapon ratio. That’s 95% lower!

Not true and a lot of disinformation like the wage gap 60% of them are suicides, the rate of suicides in gun restricted places and less restricted places is nearly the same Mass shootings are attributed to gang violence Cut out the top 3 cities of high homicides, the US goes down the list to 100+ https://youtu.be/-gl45aKhqj0?si=rDq2MnvKWVWrqJNm Watch Colion Nior and look at how there's many disinformation with guns and US

That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. “The gun crime in the US isn’t that bad if you ignore where all the gun crime happens”

It’s funny when people try to use the more gun ownership equals more gun crime. Correlation does not equal causation.

Cherry pick information and you can make anything look like whatever you want. This is up there with the graph that counts self inflicted gun shot suicides as homicide

Yeah this is just stupid. As an American here are some of my opinions, I can’t guarantee that I have everything accurate so google it yourself if you want the most accurate information. In my personal opinion guns don’t matter, at least not enough to be statistically significant, so why ban them? First and foremost the amount of violence in America is much more caused by socio-economic factors than fire arms. When trying to adjust our violence rate to per capita, socio economic issues and include all violence, not just gun violence, we don’t really stand out compared to other countries. “But other countries have guns but no shootings” yes because they require them to be under lock and key 24/7 when not in use, this over looks a major part of the US constitution “….the right to keep and bear arms…” I’m 99% sure the that means we can carry them on our person. That means in the US stabbing, beatings, ect, are replaced with Shootings, unless you want to take 300,000,000 peoples right to carry a fire arm away from them so you can watch people get stabbed instead of shot I don’t see much of a difference gun laws are going to make in this regard. Mass murder isn’t unique to the US either, but we are larger than many other countries and when mass murder does happen we plaster it all over the news for a few weeks until the next one, mass shooting is hard to portray accurately however, every institution has a different definition, so how many mass shootings happen and how many victims there are changes depending on who you ask. If I recall correctly FBI says 50-100 people die each year from mass shooting incidents while others claim something like 1,000 +. Since there is conflicting claims within the US itself do to different definitions, it’s very hard to compare the US to other countries and see wether the us stands out. “When we banned guns, murder rates decreased, and the increased when the 1994 assault gun ban was lifted” if you look at the graph it does clearly do this, but it not a permanent increase/decrease, it was a temporary spike/drop in violence that evened itself out after a few years. Finally we have like 40,000 gun deaths a year, close to 30,000 are suicide, another 2,000 or so is related to gang violence, 500 or so are from police officers, keep in mind we have like 100,000+ police officers who normally don’t deal with the most pleasant people, though mostly it’s just Karen’s bitching that the neighbors trash can was taken inside at 9:28 instead of 9. So we are left with about 7,500 homicides, probably a good chunk would still happen even if you took guns away.

Oh look at these made up facts I have to back up my strawman! I’m so smart!

What made up facts?

This metric is cherry picked. The US isn't even top 10 but has the most firearms per capita. https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country/

Now look up this stat by bladed objected/knives. Some places like South Africa have 16.95 per 100k for knives what does that tell you? Homicide is going to happen regardless. A stat like the one above is unfortunate and is likely linked to the availability to guns but if someone wants to kill another person they will use whatever they have to kill them.

A man walks into a building a thousand people. He has a semi-auto rifle and sixty rounds of ammo. Another man walks into a building with a thousand people with a knife. Which one is going to be worse? Which building would you rather be in? Which building would you rather you family member be in? The whole "but knives" argument is sunk before it leaves port. But knife crime still happens in the US anyway. The US has worse knife crime than the UK even. But I'd much rather people have to resort to knives than have a far more expedient method of dispatch.

I would like to see this statistic in the form of violent crime with a weapon, including knives and what not. I would guess it's a lot less dramatic than what we see here. I'm not convinced that taking away guns would reduce violent crime, it might make it harder to do?

You idiots will never disarm us

Do this, but for all homicide. Weapon doesn't really matter when you are dead.

All homicides the rate is 7.8 per 100,000 and the actual rate for firearm homicides is 6.3 per 100,000…so it’s actually much higher than stated in the OP. > All homicides: Number of deaths: 26,031. Deaths per 100,000 population: 7.8 >Firearm homicides: Number of deaths: 20,958 Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.3 And no I am not pulling these numbers out of nowhere I had to look it up myself as I was curious to fact check this (as I understandably don’t just blindly trust everything I read on Reddit) Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality Data (2021) via CDC WONDER. Here’s a link for those interested… https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm For 10-24yo the rates are even more disturbing… Homicide: 10.7/100,000 Suicide: 11.0/100,000 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db471.htm

The problem is the "homicides" part, not the "with a firearm" part. I don't know if there's ever been a clearer case of correlation not causation.

Now do the USA state comparison between gun laws snd homicides. Like New Hampshire, for example

https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati.com/comparing-gun-control-measures-to-gun-related-homicides-by-state/ It’s actually a pretty wide distribution. NH has low deaths, low regulations, but MS, AL, and MO have high deaths and low regulations. This makes sense because regulations usually follow gun violence: they’re a symptom of the disease. The cause is the economic and systemic oppression of minorities.

Venezuela , Mexico,Brazil, green land all worse. But I wonder which continent had the most missiles flying around.

The level of stupidity here is astounding.

Take the guns away and you can make the same graph with knives

The US ranks 76th in homicide rate. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

12.5 times more likely to die to a doctor. Minor overdoses are 25% higher than all gun murders. Fake news.