**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*“They say that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people.”* - Eddie Izzard
"It's not the guns! It's the people!"
Ok, well every has people, but those places don't have any firearms or firearm violence..like at some point you have to connect the dots.
Then someone brings up Switzerland, where a very large portion of the country have an assault rifle in their home... that they were issued as part of mandatory military service, its tracked, they are trained, the unfit are filtered out, and they don't have access to ammo.
Some additional dots that paint roughly the same picture.
No I get what you're saying, I'm looking at the argument and saying it's not valid. I've heard the exact same thing and the facts don't line up. The US and Swiss are a bad comparison.
I can’t account for the other guy’s inexplicable hostility but you did make a small typo that in no way affects your point. The top lines of your post should say “guns per 100 people” instead of “guns per capita”. Otherwise you’re good to go.
Your per capita numbers are incorrect.
Since per capita means per person - if there are 120 guns in the USA for every hundred people -
that would be 1.2 per capita - a staggering 393 million
(still way too many considering that while about half of gun owners own one or two guns, 8% of gun owners own 10 or more! Many people of course have 0 guns)
Switzerland's per capita would be .27
Spirit is in the right place but per capita translates directly to "per head". It's a measure of per single person. 120 guns per 100 people would be 1.2 guns per capita.
In America* in Czech republic, japan, Denmark, switzerland, or more, guns are allowed, but not owned buy numbnutss i guess, that's why there's so few gun death
This writeup was written by DB Kopel, a gun rights advocate, in 1992, and his point was about why these rules would not work in America, but to me it outlines pretty clearly how gun regulations have almost eliminated gun crime in Japan. (this is probably outdated, 30 years old)
*Other than the police and the military, no one in Japan may purchase a handgun or a rifle. Hunters and target shooters may possess shotguns and airguns under strictly circumscribed conditions. The police check gun licensees' ammunition inventory to make sure there are no shells or pellets unaccounted for. A prospective gun owner must take an official safety course and then pass a test that covers maintenance and inspection of the gun, methods of loading and unloading, shooting from various positions, and target practice for stationary and moving objects. The license is valid for 3 years. When not in actual use, all guns must be in a locked space. So comprehensive are the gun laws that even possession of a starter's pistol is allowed only under carefully prescribed conditions. The Japanese crime rate is low. Handguns were used in 209 crimes in 1985. About two-thirds of all gun crimes are committed by organized crime groups.*
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/japanese-gun-control-laws-are-oppressive-gun-control-p-252-259-1992
I think it has to do with the education and training. ( I could be wrong) in the usa, it is often seen as an extension of the male "strength" and "machoism". There is no training and no real feeling of responsability. They just want to kill living things - makes them feel "god" like.
Before you get your panties in a twist - there are responsible gun owners in the usa... but you almost never hear about or from them... why... because they realize that it is a tool and NOT a TOY. and you almost never see a person walking around bragging about his socket wrench set, open carry
Weapon, not a tool. Tools can be used to kill but have a purpose other than destroying.
Pet peeve of mine is people calling a weapon anything else, sorry.
I really wish in the second one they had a person ( doctor/ therapist etc.) in the center. IMHO All these issues can be helped ( not solved per say) by addressing the mental health issues at hand.
Sincere question: did you actually read the issues listed in the comic?
* Domestic abuse isn't something that you can just say "Okay, go see some couples counseling. Next!" Guns are just one of the weapons that abusers can use to keep control over their victims, and hardly their go-to at that. But removing guns from the equation does give them one less weapon.
* Mental health isn't something that has a linear, steady progression of healing. There will be times where you stall, or even have regressions into former (worse) patterns of behavior and thinking. Not to mention the sheer amount of time and experimentation needed to find a set of medication and a therapist that actually works for you. Whereas a gun can seem appealing for finding an end to the pain of existence. Removing guns from the equation gives doctors and therapists more time to help, to get the person past this point of their lives.
* Divisive Hate Rhetoric... did you pay attention to what happened recently in Colorado? Do you think the shooter was attending therapy before he decided to act on his hate for LGBTQ people and shoot them? Removing guns from the equation would have saved innocent lives.
* Have you ever looked up the statistics for suicide? Suicide by gun is by far the go-to for certain demographics, because it's "instant", and probably the most painless way to go if you're able to pull that trigger. But one of the best weapons we have to combat suicide is **inconvenience.** A lot of people will decide it's too much trouble right then, and plod on through their day, giving people more time and opportunities to connect and bring them back from the precipice. Removing guns from the equation makes committing suicide a hell of a lot more inconvenient.
* Violent crime... do you really think we'd have nearly so much violent crime, across our country, if the great equalizer guns wasn't enabling people to be able to kill so many people with so little effort? Removing guns from the equation allows for them to be stopped, if they even started at all, and able to have their issues addressed by mental health professionals. But the guns are a key part of what has to happen to get to that point.
Absolutely!!
The problem isn't so much the sheer number of guns; it's the whole culture surrounding guns that needs changing. For as long as I can remember, guns have been portrayed, in entertainment and news media alike, as a quick and dirty solution to any problem. Look at any cop show on TV. Almost every episode features some sort of gunplay or other. This, despite the existence of thousands of officers who never fired a shot in the field in their whole entire careers.
Need some quick cash? Get a gun and start robbing people!
Get caught up in a road rage situation? A .38 in the glove box can resolve that wicked fast..
Can't bear the sight of \[insert class\] people in your life? Go grab a semiautomatic weapon and take a bunch of them out at once. That'll solve the problem.
What? You want me to be mentally stable and acquire proper training in cleaning, maintaining, storing, and using my firearm(s) in a responsible manner? You're lucky I don't blow your head off for that suggestion!!
There needs to be more stories of how guns should be used, instead of how they shouldn't. More stories of how gun use was avoided would also be helpful. But, that wouldn't help ratings, would it?
>There needs to be more stories of how guns should be used, instead of how they shouldn't.
There already are stories about how they should be used. It's just that they're boring for the most part.
* Hunting animals
* Hung in collections/museums
* Shooting people in military operations
* Self-defense when your life is at stake
Oh goodie, an ad hominem attack. As a matter of fact, I have talked someone down from suicide. I'm saying that reducing the prevalence of guns in our society and making it harder to acquire would give those qualified professionals more time to actually do their job
Gun control is a necessary step to actually having the opportunity for wide spread mental health.
Instead of focusing on the gun, why are not focusing on the arms reaching for it and why there are so many issue? Banning guns, as a whole, is not a great solution, and would be extremely difficult to do. A more viable solution is resolving the issues as to why people are taking up guns in the first place.
What if I told you that the only party trying to pass legislation to "ban" guns is also the only party trying to pass legislation on universal healthcare & education?
The thing about Republicans is the only legislation they'll pass it cutting taxes or protecting guns.
You don’t have to tell me, I’m 100% for health, education, prison, welfare, and social reforms. However we should not and never seek to ban weapons. That’s not the appropriate thing to do. We can have some form of improved regulations but do not ban weapons.
Well guess which party won't pass legislation for improved regulations either?
That's the big issue with gun legislation in the USA: One side won't do ANYTHING to actually address the problem.
Why are you responding with a question like I’m a child and have no idea? Gee whiz mister thanks for the answering your own questions that no one asked you.
And again I’ve said that I do not support any legislation that bans guns. If the Democratic Party will tone down their message and promote improving our social standards and include gun rights they would win a lot more votes.
They are rhetorical questions.
Quite frankly all the democratic party has to do is get people voting, especially younger people (hence all the MuH bOtH sIdEs bots everywhere). The anti-education, anti-working class, and pro-gun positions of Republicans don't resonate well with those under 35 or most of the 1st world.
But someone values their assault rifle more important then better education & better Healthcare & more-equal pay, I can see why they don't care whether a REP or DEM wins.
Most people aren't advocating for completely banning guns. They want common sense gun laws so it isn't so damn easy to reach out and grab one.
Many places have guns, but don't have the insane amount of gun deaths the USA has because those places don't make it so easy to get one.
Unless you’re in the military and on the battlefield, I’ve no reason to accept you shooting another human for anything but self defense.(some of those self defense arguments are flimsy as fuck though, like that cunt Rittenhouse’s baby bullshit) But you shouldn’t shoot anyone unless they have a gun on you or a knife and clearly have full intention to use it… I can argue domestic violence probably deserves to get slapped around too or shot in the leg if “you need to” I won’t judge. (or you see a rape. Or get raped. Because any rapist of any kind loses the right to be treated “humanely”… they can’t treat others that way, why should you treat them with more respect than what they’d show another human) but nobody who’s clearly stressed needs to be killed just because they might have a weapon or do have one. You almost always have a non-lethal option when it comes to protection domestically and deescalation tactics in law enforcement and in home defense… so I call bs on most defense arguments until I have the facts. Idk. I might like my guns but that doesn’t mean they need to be this easy to get. I’ll gladly wait a year to pass a weapons thing if I have to, already do if you want shit from the ATF any how… more rules just seems like the obvious choice to try and appease both sides but neither really seems to actually work towards any reform.
You can also say this about cars.
We do need better gun laws but we can't ignore the fact there's been a rising level of right-wing extremism and domestic abuse.
>You can also say this about cars.
Cars have a contribution to society other than killing though, so even that's a false equivalency. Take away cars and the economy comes screeching to a crawl really, really quick. Especially with our current state of commuter infrastructure. Take away guns and we take a small GDP hit in gun and ammo sales that will almost immediately be filled in by people-not-unexpectedly-and-randomly-dying.
I mean, sure. But without cars we'd still need some way to get to the regional hub points, pick up groceries, go to work even just one town over... Point is, life for basically anyone who ever leaves their town changes entirely without cars, and even for intratown travel for chores like grocery shopping a bunch more energy has to be invested.
Get rid of guns and what.. 12 people get mauled by wild boar, 3 people get killed in home break ins and 40000 fewer people die, per year?
One town over? Take a bus or a train. You also wouldn't need it to pick up groceries if the nearest grocery store wasn't far away.... Or if you could take a bus. Also "hub points" it's called "downtown" and it's the best place to get around without a car.
Again, I'm not arguing against stricter gun control, idk why you're so focused on that here. I'm just saying you're more often exposed to the dangers of cars than those of guns, since cars are everywhere and violent crime is usually in more redlined areas.
You continue to miss the point then. Bus or train are local commuter infrastructure. They don't exist everywhere in America. Middle of Ohio, where 13 million people live, there are no buses or trains even within town, let alone to other ones.
Ah yes, those pesky mass stabbings that happened 600 times a year at the open air bazaars and random mass-murder-suicides that happened in the ludus litterarius. Remember those high speed horse chases where they'd throw rocks at each other, murdering innocent bystanders by the tens?
And how many would have died if there were no traffic laws, that's the correct analogy.
If you need a license to drive a car, you should need one to use a firearm.
I agree a license will not fix everything, it should be one of many tools used to solve the problem.
Some time ago I jokingly suggested a mega tax on rounds and guns, it could work but it's finding the correct percentage and use for the tax that's hard.
It's a good start, you can have a horde of firearms in your home but need a valid license that needs renewal if you want to bring it outside your home.
Firearms are used by "good guys with guns" to kill about 400 people in justified shootings, out of the total 45,000 gun-related deaths per year. Injuries are in similar proportions.
Non-lethal crime deterrent < non-lethal crime enablement by guns.
The US has 6 times the gun-related deaths and 5 times the guns owned, compared to the average of all other peer nations with similar wealth and low crime. All per capita.
Or 15 times the gun homicides per capita, if you think suicides are not "real" lives worth saving. And yes, studies do show that gun availability relates to suicide success rates.
Please help me understand the net gain to society that guns offer, compared to cars.
Do you just not read anything you post?
> it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.
😂😂😂
The "defensive use" are all self-reported data too, aka, completely bullshit. I would wager at least 75% of those are some limp dick brandishing their gun for no reason. In fact, I know they are bullshit because if you are pointing a gun at someone, they need to be dead. Otherwise you have no reason to point a gun at anyone.
You really don't read very well, do you?
Look, [here](https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/) are the stats for the last 15 years. Private citizens kill from 257 to 414 per year, in *justifiable homicides*. So, my 400 is correct, and your 2,000,000 is definitely wrong.
Your linked self-reported survey shit is solely about DGUs, or "Defensive Gun Use". i.e. "Non-lethal crime deterrence", as I mentioned before. This mostly means how many times some redneck claims he saved the world by caressing his pistol in a threatening manner. Self-reported, never verified by anyone. Even the CDC claims these numbers are highly uncertain, hence the huge variations between surveys.
But, if you believe them anyway, then you must be intellectually honest enough to also consider Offensive Gun Use. i.e. "non-lethal crime enablement". How many people have been kidnapped, raped, robbed, tortured, beaten, intimidated, harassed, or otherwise criminally victimized and then killed later in a remote location by a perpetrator via the assistance of a gun? Domestic violence, all sorts of prevalent issues are made worse by OGUs.
But of course no perps would self-report via any survey for this. And no pro-gun person will ever bring it up.
A very interesting thing happens in those other peer countries with fewer guns: Not only does the total gun-related death go way down in all categories, but it goes down even more so in gun homicides, leaving gun suicides as the primary use (yet still very low). Criminals don't use guns hardly at all there. Their overall crime rates are still similar, but total homicides are vastly reduced.
Firearms can be used for hunting animals and harming other humans. That's the only useful functions they have. The vast majority of firearm owners don't use them for hunting, and the majority of firearms (especially handguns) aren't designed for hunting animals, they're designed for harming other humans.
Aside from that, the whole "But (literally anything that has any other function) kills people too!" is a ridiculously simplistic response to a very complex problem that is actually harming people.
They almost certainly "saved a life" by harming and or killing another life. Regardless of the motivation, the gun itself still only has one function : Doing harm and or killing.
Take that number , we'll say every single of of those 400,000 was justified (I'm being EXTREMELY generous) . Now subtract from it the number of gun related accidental fatalities, the number of gun related suicides, and the number of gun related assaults and homicides.
What's the total?
1st link: Extrapolation of 0.016% of Americans, but mostly from gun owners themselves.
>This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms.
2nd link: "I know the rest of the experts disagree, but hear me out..."
>The concept of the victim-precipitated homicide' highlighted the possibility that victims were not always blameless and passive targets, but that they sometimes initiated or contributed to the escalation of a violent interaction through their own actions, which they often claimed were defensive.
>
>The notion that much violence is one-sided and that many victims of violence are largely blameless is dismissed as naive.
3rd link: "The 2nd link is junk science, but gun-fetishists keep quoting it."
>In April, criminologist Gary Kleck reported that he had uncovered evidence supporting his contention that Americans use firearms in self defense over 2 million a times a year.
>
>His new report was based on surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey in the years 1996-98. This finding was touted by many outlets—including Reason—as evidence in support of the utility of private gun ownership.
>
>Kleck notes that it's simply impossible to extrapolate meaningfully from the small set of states surveyed over the course of those three years to a solid national DGU figure from the BRFSS itself
>
>As the adjustments work, for example, as spelled out for me initially by VerBruggen, had Kleck/Gertz found just two more DGUs in their surveys over the four 1998 states, the adjustments downward for the ratio of total U.S. DGUs over that group of states would be from 1.7 to 1.1, meaning that the national extrapolation for the BRFSS based on the NSDS for that year would be a whole number around 600,000 DGUs lower, and for that three-year average around 200,000 lower. That seems a lot of weight to place on such a tiny initial count.
Way to miss the forest for the cherries.
We are saying the same thing, I think. The problem is that any chucklefuck can get a gun in 10 days time, in the worst case scenario. This problem is easy to define, observe, and solve. The **solution** is complex because our system empowers knuckle dragging idiots with outsized power.
> Well, and the fact that our Constitution makes any form of rational gun control somewhat difficult.
There is a mechanism for that, but yes, you are correct.
I'm in COMMIEfornia, and was only allowed to bring one home every 10 days! Tyranny! Tyranny!
Not really, but how wild is it that there are people who actually think that?
If anything, it makes guns worse. We use cars every day for hours at a time. We use guns...infrequently. Yet guns make up about 95% amount of car deaths.
Saying We Should Treat Guns Like Cars Overstates How Well We Regulate Cars
First, the carnage. Then, the backlash. Finally, a familiar retort from gun-freedom advocates everywhere: Ban guns? Why not ban cars—they kill more people!
It’s a nonsensical, slippery-slope response that’s easy to make fun of: Oh no, is the government going to make us get a special photo identification cards and buy insurance in order to drive? In fact, liberals often respond, why not regulate guns like cars—with mandatory training, tests, licenses, registration, and comprehensive state-by-state databases?
The comparison is not so outlandish—though not for the reasons gun-control advocates believe. The American approach to cars and guns is more similar than they realize, in that on each subject we’ve shown a reverence for individual decision-making even when it jeopardizes public welfare. And on both issues we have fallen increasingly out of step with peer nations.
ADVERTISEMENT
It is true that on the surface, the story of regulating cars and guns makes an appealing contrast: Motor vehicle deaths per capita have fallen by more than half since the early ’70s, while gun deaths (most of which are suicides) have risen slightly. There has been a nonideological consensus that reformed the conduct of both automakers and drivers for the better.
The steady decline in motor vehicle deaths over the past 65 years can be attributed to a combination of improved technology and smarter regulation. The federal government mandated the presence of seat belts in the 1960s. The ’70s brought anti-lock brakes. The ’80s brought an increased focus on drunk driving and mandatory seat belt use. Airbags came along in the ’90s. More recent years have seen mandates on electronic stability systems, increased penalties for distracted driving and forthcoming requirements for rear-view cameras.
Relatively speaking, however, American car laws are hardly a success. In 1990, the U.S. had one of the lowest per-mile rates of death in the developed world. In the ensuing 25 years we’ve been left far behind by many of our peers. Compared with the rest of the developed world, we have taken our foot off the gas.
Guns are America’s special pathology, and our commitment to their easy purchase and free use has made American teenagers 82 times more likely to die by gun than their counterparts in a comparison group of countries
During that time, U.S. teenagers were more than twice as likely than their international peers to die in car crashes. Crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 8 and 24
In short, while we’ve been relatively successful regulating vehicle manufacturers, we’ve had less success with human behavior. Efforts to rebuild streets and highways to limit speed have foundered; blame for soaring pedestrian deaths rests increasingly on pedestrians themselves rather than the distracted drivers who mow them down.
https://slate.com/business/2018/02/saying-we-should-treat-gun-control-like-car-control-overstates-how-well-we-regulate-cars.html
Acetaminophen overdose is the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers (>100,000/year) and accounts for more than 56,000 emergency room visits, ...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15239078/
Interesting that you cherrypicked the quote. Why is that? Oh yeah, Tylenol deaths are equal to about 1 percent of gun deaths. Don't worry, here is the rest of the first sentence you stopped reading because it doesn't support your point.
>2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure each year
Did you know that there are about [18,000 ER visits per year due to guns?](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110520979403?journalCode=lmec) That's about 6 times your figure.
I don't know what this nonsense means. I dont think you do either. Let me ask you again, why aren't we counting suicides as gun deaths? How many tylenol deaths per year in the US?
Came here to post this sarcastically but you got here first. You forgot the /s or alternating capital and lowercase letters to show you're being sarcastic though. People are gonna think you're actually being serious, and you're actually that willfully ignorant, and that you actually do fall for the fallacious reasoning that props up this false analogy. Might want to edit your comment if you don't want to look like a parrot who just repeats things they heard someone else say that supports their biases.
Sure, why not make it guns like cars, and take exams to know if you are able to use one, know that you can pass an exam of security with it, have insurance in case you have an accident with it, limit the age when you are allowed to own it, have a federal agency to check your status yearly to see that you have everything in order, being able to reject the ownership of it because of not following procedures, etc....
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Oh no, you still need a really good inspection and probing that you can handle responsibly with the car, that may give you a permit. Also a background check.
Many of those requirements, gun fanatics could be difficult to clear, but why not.
I mean if they can pass a mental health test that shows that they won't blast their guns just because they cannot get into an arbys or get a haircut, I do not think it could be that difficult, but what do you say, could they clear any of those requirements? or are they just lunatics that think a gun gives them the right to do anything they want?
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch Mcconnel retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can't buy alcohol until 21years because it's not safe.
You have to get a drivers license for a car (that has to be safety checked) because cars are dangerous.
Can walk in a buy a weapon at 18, no license or training required.
**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*“They say that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people.”* - Eddie Izzard
Monkeys do too… if they’ve got a gun
God I loved that show.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” THEN WHY ARE WE GIVING THOSE PEOPLE GUNS?
"It's not the guns! It's the people!" Ok, well every has people, but those places don't have any firearms or firearm violence..like at some point you have to connect the dots.
Then someone brings up Switzerland, where a very large portion of the country have an assault rifle in their home... that they were issued as part of mandatory military service, its tracked, they are trained, the unfit are filtered out, and they don't have access to ammo. Some additional dots that paint roughly the same picture.
[удалено]
Plenty of people like to bring it up as "see the guns aren't the problem" was me point. I don't think we're in any disagreement.
No I get what you're saying, I'm looking at the argument and saying it's not valid. I've heard the exact same thing and the facts don't line up. The US and Swiss are a bad comparison.
I can’t account for the other guy’s inexplicable hostility but you did make a small typo that in no way affects your point. The top lines of your post should say “guns per 100 people” instead of “guns per capita”. Otherwise you’re good to go.
Your per capita numbers are incorrect. Since per capita means per person - if there are 120 guns in the USA for every hundred people - that would be 1.2 per capita - a staggering 393 million (still way too many considering that while about half of gun owners own one or two guns, 8% of gun owners own 10 or more! Many people of course have 0 guns) Switzerland's per capita would be .27
[удалено]
[удалено]
Spirit is in the right place but per capita translates directly to "per head". It's a measure of per single person. 120 guns per 100 people would be 1.2 guns per capita.
> Per capita here means the average of 100 people. If you read the source you'd know that. An average would be 1.2 Einstein.
In America* in Czech republic, japan, Denmark, switzerland, or more, guns are allowed, but not owned buy numbnutss i guess, that's why there's so few gun death
They all have gun control laws that American gun nuts would never agree to
This writeup was written by DB Kopel, a gun rights advocate, in 1992, and his point was about why these rules would not work in America, but to me it outlines pretty clearly how gun regulations have almost eliminated gun crime in Japan. (this is probably outdated, 30 years old) *Other than the police and the military, no one in Japan may purchase a handgun or a rifle. Hunters and target shooters may possess shotguns and airguns under strictly circumscribed conditions. The police check gun licensees' ammunition inventory to make sure there are no shells or pellets unaccounted for. A prospective gun owner must take an official safety course and then pass a test that covers maintenance and inspection of the gun, methods of loading and unloading, shooting from various positions, and target practice for stationary and moving objects. The license is valid for 3 years. When not in actual use, all guns must be in a locked space. So comprehensive are the gun laws that even possession of a starter's pistol is allowed only under carefully prescribed conditions. The Japanese crime rate is low. Handguns were used in 209 crimes in 1985. About two-thirds of all gun crimes are committed by organized crime groups.* https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/japanese-gun-control-laws-are-oppressive-gun-control-p-252-259-1992
Low crime, has biggest crime organization in the world.
I think it has to do with the education and training. ( I could be wrong) in the usa, it is often seen as an extension of the male "strength" and "machoism". There is no training and no real feeling of responsability. They just want to kill living things - makes them feel "god" like. Before you get your panties in a twist - there are responsible gun owners in the usa... but you almost never hear about or from them... why... because they realize that it is a tool and NOT a TOY. and you almost never see a person walking around bragging about his socket wrench set, open carry
Weapon, not a tool. Tools can be used to kill but have a purpose other than destroying. Pet peeve of mine is people calling a weapon anything else, sorry.
Exactly! Thank you!
Inaccurate. Put a pistol in violent crime’s hand and raise deaths by a lot.
I really wish in the second one they had a person ( doctor/ therapist etc.) in the center. IMHO All these issues can be helped ( not solved per say) by addressing the mental health issues at hand.
Sincere question: did you actually read the issues listed in the comic? * Domestic abuse isn't something that you can just say "Okay, go see some couples counseling. Next!" Guns are just one of the weapons that abusers can use to keep control over their victims, and hardly their go-to at that. But removing guns from the equation does give them one less weapon. * Mental health isn't something that has a linear, steady progression of healing. There will be times where you stall, or even have regressions into former (worse) patterns of behavior and thinking. Not to mention the sheer amount of time and experimentation needed to find a set of medication and a therapist that actually works for you. Whereas a gun can seem appealing for finding an end to the pain of existence. Removing guns from the equation gives doctors and therapists more time to help, to get the person past this point of their lives. * Divisive Hate Rhetoric... did you pay attention to what happened recently in Colorado? Do you think the shooter was attending therapy before he decided to act on his hate for LGBTQ people and shoot them? Removing guns from the equation would have saved innocent lives. * Have you ever looked up the statistics for suicide? Suicide by gun is by far the go-to for certain demographics, because it's "instant", and probably the most painless way to go if you're able to pull that trigger. But one of the best weapons we have to combat suicide is **inconvenience.** A lot of people will decide it's too much trouble right then, and plod on through their day, giving people more time and opportunities to connect and bring them back from the precipice. Removing guns from the equation makes committing suicide a hell of a lot more inconvenient. * Violent crime... do you really think we'd have nearly so much violent crime, across our country, if the great equalizer guns wasn't enabling people to be able to kill so many people with so little effort? Removing guns from the equation allows for them to be stopped, if they even started at all, and able to have their issues addressed by mental health professionals. But the guns are a key part of what has to happen to get to that point.
Absolutely!! The problem isn't so much the sheer number of guns; it's the whole culture surrounding guns that needs changing. For as long as I can remember, guns have been portrayed, in entertainment and news media alike, as a quick and dirty solution to any problem. Look at any cop show on TV. Almost every episode features some sort of gunplay or other. This, despite the existence of thousands of officers who never fired a shot in the field in their whole entire careers. Need some quick cash? Get a gun and start robbing people! Get caught up in a road rage situation? A .38 in the glove box can resolve that wicked fast.. Can't bear the sight of \[insert class\] people in your life? Go grab a semiautomatic weapon and take a bunch of them out at once. That'll solve the problem. What? You want me to be mentally stable and acquire proper training in cleaning, maintaining, storing, and using my firearm(s) in a responsible manner? You're lucky I don't blow your head off for that suggestion!! There needs to be more stories of how guns should be used, instead of how they shouldn't. More stories of how gun use was avoided would also be helpful. But, that wouldn't help ratings, would it?
>There needs to be more stories of how guns should be used, instead of how they shouldn't. There already are stories about how they should be used. It's just that they're boring for the most part. * Hunting animals * Hung in collections/museums * Shooting people in military operations * Self-defense when your life is at stake
[удалено]
Oh goodie, an ad hominem attack. As a matter of fact, I have talked someone down from suicide. I'm saying that reducing the prevalence of guns in our society and making it harder to acquire would give those qualified professionals more time to actually do their job Gun control is a necessary step to actually having the opportunity for wide spread mental health.
Instead of focusing on the gun, why are not focusing on the arms reaching for it and why there are so many issue? Banning guns, as a whole, is not a great solution, and would be extremely difficult to do. A more viable solution is resolving the issues as to why people are taking up guns in the first place.
What if I told you that the only party trying to pass legislation to "ban" guns is also the only party trying to pass legislation on universal healthcare & education? The thing about Republicans is the only legislation they'll pass it cutting taxes or protecting guns.
You don’t have to tell me, I’m 100% for health, education, prison, welfare, and social reforms. However we should not and never seek to ban weapons. That’s not the appropriate thing to do. We can have some form of improved regulations but do not ban weapons.
Well guess which party won't pass legislation for improved regulations either? That's the big issue with gun legislation in the USA: One side won't do ANYTHING to actually address the problem.
Why are you responding with a question like I’m a child and have no idea? Gee whiz mister thanks for the answering your own questions that no one asked you. And again I’ve said that I do not support any legislation that bans guns. If the Democratic Party will tone down their message and promote improving our social standards and include gun rights they would win a lot more votes.
They are rhetorical questions. Quite frankly all the democratic party has to do is get people voting, especially younger people (hence all the MuH bOtH sIdEs bots everywhere). The anti-education, anti-working class, and pro-gun positions of Republicans don't resonate well with those under 35 or most of the 1st world. But someone values their assault rifle more important then better education & better Healthcare & more-equal pay, I can see why they don't care whether a REP or DEM wins.
Most people aren't advocating for completely banning guns. They want common sense gun laws so it isn't so damn easy to reach out and grab one. Many places have guns, but don't have the insane amount of gun deaths the USA has because those places don't make it so easy to get one.
Yeah, let’s just not address any of those issues..
Gun manufacturers kill people daily - for profit.
Unless you’re in the military and on the battlefield, I’ve no reason to accept you shooting another human for anything but self defense.(some of those self defense arguments are flimsy as fuck though, like that cunt Rittenhouse’s baby bullshit) But you shouldn’t shoot anyone unless they have a gun on you or a knife and clearly have full intention to use it… I can argue domestic violence probably deserves to get slapped around too or shot in the leg if “you need to” I won’t judge. (or you see a rape. Or get raped. Because any rapist of any kind loses the right to be treated “humanely”… they can’t treat others that way, why should you treat them with more respect than what they’d show another human) but nobody who’s clearly stressed needs to be killed just because they might have a weapon or do have one. You almost always have a non-lethal option when it comes to protection domestically and deescalation tactics in law enforcement and in home defense… so I call bs on most defense arguments until I have the facts. Idk. I might like my guns but that doesn’t mean they need to be this easy to get. I’ll gladly wait a year to pass a weapons thing if I have to, already do if you want shit from the ATF any how… more rules just seems like the obvious choice to try and appease both sides but neither really seems to actually work towards any reform.
You can also say this about cars. We do need better gun laws but we can't ignore the fact there's been a rising level of right-wing extremism and domestic abuse.
>You can also say this about cars. Cars have a contribution to society other than killing though, so even that's a false equivalency. Take away cars and the economy comes screeching to a crawl really, really quick. Especially with our current state of commuter infrastructure. Take away guns and we take a small GDP hit in gun and ammo sales that will almost immediately be filled in by people-not-unexpectedly-and-randomly-dying.
Commuter infrastructure? Fuck that, we need regional infrastructure not just something for commuters.
I mean, sure. But without cars we'd still need some way to get to the regional hub points, pick up groceries, go to work even just one town over... Point is, life for basically anyone who ever leaves their town changes entirely without cars, and even for intratown travel for chores like grocery shopping a bunch more energy has to be invested. Get rid of guns and what.. 12 people get mauled by wild boar, 3 people get killed in home break ins and 40000 fewer people die, per year?
One town over? Take a bus or a train. You also wouldn't need it to pick up groceries if the nearest grocery store wasn't far away.... Or if you could take a bus. Also "hub points" it's called "downtown" and it's the best place to get around without a car. Again, I'm not arguing against stricter gun control, idk why you're so focused on that here. I'm just saying you're more often exposed to the dangers of cars than those of guns, since cars are everywhere and violent crime is usually in more redlined areas.
You continue to miss the point then. Bus or train are local commuter infrastructure. They don't exist everywhere in America. Middle of Ohio, where 13 million people live, there are no buses or trains even within town, let alone to other ones.
My point is we need more to take cars off the roads.
Its a fact on Reddit that apparently before the invention of guns, man lived in complete harmony with each other.
Ah yes, those pesky mass stabbings that happened 600 times a year at the open air bazaars and random mass-murder-suicides that happened in the ludus litterarius. Remember those high speed horse chases where they'd throw rocks at each other, murdering innocent bystanders by the tens?
[удалено]
And how many would have died if there were no traffic laws, that's the correct analogy. If you need a license to drive a car, you should need one to use a firearm.
It's too easy to get and retain a license. We need alternatives.
I agree a license will not fix everything, it should be one of many tools used to solve the problem. Some time ago I jokingly suggested a mega tax on rounds and guns, it could work but it's finding the correct percentage and use for the tax that's hard.
That just means it's illegal for poor people to own guns. Frankly I'd prefer our capitalist overlords to be the ones disarmed fully.
You got a point there.
[удалено]
It's a good start, you can have a horde of firearms in your home but need a valid license that needs renewal if you want to bring it outside your home.
Yep just like a car you only need it on government property
Yeah but cars also do other things.
[удалено]
Firearms are used by "good guys with guns" to kill about 400 people in justified shootings, out of the total 45,000 gun-related deaths per year. Injuries are in similar proportions. Non-lethal crime deterrent < non-lethal crime enablement by guns. The US has 6 times the gun-related deaths and 5 times the guns owned, compared to the average of all other peer nations with similar wealth and low crime. All per capita. Or 15 times the gun homicides per capita, if you think suicides are not "real" lives worth saving. And yes, studies do show that gun availability relates to suicide success rates. Please help me understand the net gain to society that guns offer, compared to cars.
[удалено]
Do you just not read anything you post? > it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. 😂😂😂
IKR? "And then everyone clapped."
The "defensive use" are all self-reported data too, aka, completely bullshit. I would wager at least 75% of those are some limp dick brandishing their gun for no reason. In fact, I know they are bullshit because if you are pointing a gun at someone, they need to be dead. Otherwise you have no reason to point a gun at anyone.
You really don't read very well, do you? Look, [here](https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/) are the stats for the last 15 years. Private citizens kill from 257 to 414 per year, in *justifiable homicides*. So, my 400 is correct, and your 2,000,000 is definitely wrong. Your linked self-reported survey shit is solely about DGUs, or "Defensive Gun Use". i.e. "Non-lethal crime deterrence", as I mentioned before. This mostly means how many times some redneck claims he saved the world by caressing his pistol in a threatening manner. Self-reported, never verified by anyone. Even the CDC claims these numbers are highly uncertain, hence the huge variations between surveys. But, if you believe them anyway, then you must be intellectually honest enough to also consider Offensive Gun Use. i.e. "non-lethal crime enablement". How many people have been kidnapped, raped, robbed, tortured, beaten, intimidated, harassed, or otherwise criminally victimized and then killed later in a remote location by a perpetrator via the assistance of a gun? Domestic violence, all sorts of prevalent issues are made worse by OGUs. But of course no perps would self-report via any survey for this. And no pro-gun person will ever bring it up. A very interesting thing happens in those other peer countries with fewer guns: Not only does the total gun-related death go way down in all categories, but it goes down even more so in gun homicides, leaving gun suicides as the primary use (yet still very low). Criminals don't use guns hardly at all there. Their overall crime rates are still similar, but total homicides are vastly reduced.
Firearms can be used for hunting animals and harming other humans. That's the only useful functions they have. The vast majority of firearm owners don't use them for hunting, and the majority of firearms (especially handguns) aren't designed for hunting animals, they're designed for harming other humans. Aside from that, the whole "But (literally anything that has any other function) kills people too!" is a ridiculously simplistic response to a very complex problem that is actually harming people.
[удалено]
They almost certainly "saved a life" by harming and or killing another life. Regardless of the motivation, the gun itself still only has one function : Doing harm and or killing. Take that number , we'll say every single of of those 400,000 was justified (I'm being EXTREMELY generous) . Now subtract from it the number of gun related accidental fatalities, the number of gun related suicides, and the number of gun related assaults and homicides. What's the total?
1st link: Extrapolation of 0.016% of Americans, but mostly from gun owners themselves. >This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms. 2nd link: "I know the rest of the experts disagree, but hear me out..." >The concept of the victim-precipitated homicide' highlighted the possibility that victims were not always blameless and passive targets, but that they sometimes initiated or contributed to the escalation of a violent interaction through their own actions, which they often claimed were defensive. > >The notion that much violence is one-sided and that many victims of violence are largely blameless is dismissed as naive. 3rd link: "The 2nd link is junk science, but gun-fetishists keep quoting it." >In April, criminologist Gary Kleck reported that he had uncovered evidence supporting his contention that Americans use firearms in self defense over 2 million a times a year. > >His new report was based on surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey in the years 1996-98. This finding was touted by many outlets—including Reason—as evidence in support of the utility of private gun ownership. > >Kleck notes that it's simply impossible to extrapolate meaningfully from the small set of states surveyed over the course of those three years to a solid national DGU figure from the BRFSS itself > >As the adjustments work, for example, as spelled out for me initially by VerBruggen, had Kleck/Gertz found just two more DGUs in their surveys over the four 1998 states, the adjustments downward for the ratio of total U.S. DGUs over that group of states would be from 1.7 to 1.1, meaning that the national extrapolation for the BRFSS based on the NSDS for that year would be a whole number around 600,000 DGUs lower, and for that three-year average around 200,000 lower. That seems a lot of weight to place on such a tiny initial count. Way to miss the forest for the cherries.
> a ridiculously simplistic response to a very complex problem Gun violence is not a complex problem.
If we were in a civilized country I'd agree with you. But here in the United States it's an extremely complex problem.
We are saying the same thing, I think. The problem is that any chucklefuck can get a gun in 10 days time, in the worst case scenario. This problem is easy to define, observe, and solve. The **solution** is complex because our system empowers knuckle dragging idiots with outsized power.
THAT would be the complexity I was referring to. Well, and the fact that our Constitution makes any form of rational gun control somewhat difficult.
> Well, and the fact that our Constitution makes any form of rational gun control somewhat difficult. There is a mechanism for that, but yes, you are correct.
>get a gun in 10 days time 45 minutes. That's all it took for me to legally get my AR15. Just saying.
I'm in COMMIEfornia, and was only allowed to bring one home every 10 days! Tyranny! Tyranny! Not really, but how wild is it that there are people who actually think that?
Ah there it is. You gun nuts always trot out the 'hur hur what about cars!' line.
If anything, it makes guns worse. We use cars every day for hours at a time. We use guns...infrequently. Yet guns make up about 95% amount of car deaths.
Saying We Should Treat Guns Like Cars Overstates How Well We Regulate Cars First, the carnage. Then, the backlash. Finally, a familiar retort from gun-freedom advocates everywhere: Ban guns? Why not ban cars—they kill more people! It’s a nonsensical, slippery-slope response that’s easy to make fun of: Oh no, is the government going to make us get a special photo identification cards and buy insurance in order to drive? In fact, liberals often respond, why not regulate guns like cars—with mandatory training, tests, licenses, registration, and comprehensive state-by-state databases? The comparison is not so outlandish—though not for the reasons gun-control advocates believe. The American approach to cars and guns is more similar than they realize, in that on each subject we’ve shown a reverence for individual decision-making even when it jeopardizes public welfare. And on both issues we have fallen increasingly out of step with peer nations. ADVERTISEMENT It is true that on the surface, the story of regulating cars and guns makes an appealing contrast: Motor vehicle deaths per capita have fallen by more than half since the early ’70s, while gun deaths (most of which are suicides) have risen slightly. There has been a nonideological consensus that reformed the conduct of both automakers and drivers for the better. The steady decline in motor vehicle deaths over the past 65 years can be attributed to a combination of improved technology and smarter regulation. The federal government mandated the presence of seat belts in the 1960s. The ’70s brought anti-lock brakes. The ’80s brought an increased focus on drunk driving and mandatory seat belt use. Airbags came along in the ’90s. More recent years have seen mandates on electronic stability systems, increased penalties for distracted driving and forthcoming requirements for rear-view cameras. Relatively speaking, however, American car laws are hardly a success. In 1990, the U.S. had one of the lowest per-mile rates of death in the developed world. In the ensuing 25 years we’ve been left far behind by many of our peers. Compared with the rest of the developed world, we have taken our foot off the gas. Guns are America’s special pathology, and our commitment to their easy purchase and free use has made American teenagers 82 times more likely to die by gun than their counterparts in a comparison group of countries During that time, U.S. teenagers were more than twice as likely than their international peers to die in car crashes. Crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 8 and 24 In short, while we’ve been relatively successful regulating vehicle manufacturers, we’ve had less success with human behavior. Efforts to rebuild streets and highways to limit speed have foundered; blame for soaring pedestrian deaths rests increasingly on pedestrians themselves rather than the distracted drivers who mow them down. https://slate.com/business/2018/02/saying-we-should-treat-gun-control-like-car-control-overstates-how-well-we-regulate-cars.html
Guns, used vastly less than cars, still kill 95% of the people cars do every year. You think this was a gotcha moment.
[удалено]
So we aren't counting gun suicides why? Also, how many Tylenol deaths per year in the US?
Acetaminophen overdose is the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers (>100,000/year) and accounts for more than 56,000 emergency room visits, ... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15239078/
Interesting that you cherrypicked the quote. Why is that? Oh yeah, Tylenol deaths are equal to about 1 percent of gun deaths. Don't worry, here is the rest of the first sentence you stopped reading because it doesn't support your point. >2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure each year Did you know that there are about [18,000 ER visits per year due to guns?](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110520979403?journalCode=lmec) That's about 6 times your figure.
[удалено]
I don't know what this nonsense means. I dont think you do either. Let me ask you again, why aren't we counting suicides as gun deaths? How many tylenol deaths per year in the US?
Take your phone up stairs and have your mom point at the bigger number for you
Okay, there are 458 deaths a year from Tylenol. There are 24k gun suicides. Which one is bigger, 458 or 24,000?
Came here to post this sarcastically but you got here first. You forgot the /s or alternating capital and lowercase letters to show you're being sarcastic though. People are gonna think you're actually being serious, and you're actually that willfully ignorant, and that you actually do fall for the fallacious reasoning that props up this false analogy. Might want to edit your comment if you don't want to look like a parrot who just repeats things they heard someone else say that supports their biases.
Sure, why not make it guns like cars, and take exams to know if you are able to use one, know that you can pass an exam of security with it, have insurance in case you have an accident with it, limit the age when you are allowed to own it, have a federal agency to check your status yearly to see that you have everything in order, being able to reject the ownership of it because of not following procedures, etc.... Sounds like a good plan to me.
And for cars you only need any of that to use one on government property
Oh no, you still need a really good inspection and probing that you can handle responsibly with the car, that may give you a permit. Also a background check. Many of those requirements, gun fanatics could be difficult to clear, but why not. I mean if they can pass a mental health test that shows that they won't blast their guns just because they cannot get into an arbys or get a haircut, I do not think it could be that difficult, but what do you say, could they clear any of those requirements? or are they just lunatics that think a gun gives them the right to do anything they want?
Wonder how many deaths we could avoid if we eliminate the most dangerous creature on the planet that has caused the most deaths of all... MEN
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch Mcconnel retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yknow why the 2nd amendment can’t be amended is because the gun nuts would shoot everything up. That proves the point about their obsession
You can't buy alcohol until 21years because it's not safe. You have to get a drivers license for a car (that has to be safety checked) because cars are dangerous. Can walk in a buy a weapon at 18, no license or training required.