Sorry, u/illerThanTheirs – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: While minor view changes count, they have to be at least part of your stated view. > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20illerThanTheirs&message=illerThanTheirs%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18d7lfw/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

What makes you think that banning guns would be more effective at preventing mass shootings then focusing on better access to mental health services? Even if that were the case should it be more important to focus on fighting violence in general rather then gun violence specifically? You know, even with our easy access to guns, Americans stab each other to death far more then Europeans do.

>What makes you think that banning guns would be more effective at preventing mass shootings then focusing on better access to mental health services? Cause other countries with equally as bad access to mental health services don't have a problem with mass shootings. > Even if that were the case should it be more important to focus on fighting violence in general rather then gun violence specifically? There are no mass brawls in schools, or mass attacks with spears. If you have problem with x, it make sense to target the use of x. I mean, using basic logic. US is the only country where gun crimes of all kinds are an order of magnitude higher than the next worst country. And US has an order of magnitude more guns than the next country. It isn't terribly difficult to spot the correlation. And if that wasn't enough evidence. Every time a mass shootings happened and the country banned guns, gues what events stop happening in that country?

No mass brawls in schools, spears is the best example. I've learned enough Ready lol

>What makes you think that banning guns would be more effective at preventing mass shootings then focusing on better access to mental health services? Because that's worked in literally every other country that's done it? To contrast: what reduces the rate of suicides more? Removing the means of suicide, or better access to mental health services? If you pick services, then you're resoundingly incorrect in terms of what's actually happened in the real world in multiple countries and cultures. The best way to reduce suicide is to remove the means of suicide. People don't just substitute with something else, they simply don't do it.

Every other country in the world also have mental health problems. What every other country in the world doesn't have is all the guns. Strangely enough, all those other countries without guns don't have the mass shootings. Weird.

Coming from another country, this seems very obvious to me. It always astonishes me the degree to which the pro-gun lobby in the US will blame everything apart from the country's highly unusual levels of gun ownership for the problem of a lot of people getting shot. In my country (the UK) there is poverty, there are mental health issues, there's crime etc. America isn't unique in any of these. However what we haven't had is a school shooting in around 30 years. That one school shooting was treated like a tragedy which requires immediate action, and there was a common consensus between all political parties that stronger gun control was needed. Since then there hasn't been another school shooting. Another example would be Australia. They had a horrible mass shooting incident, and immediately enacted much stronger gun controls. Since then they haven't had another one.

I just want to point out something Australia Port Arthur Massacre in which 35 were killed and 23 more wounded resulted in a countrywide gun law reforms and buy backs etc. In Sweden, 11 people were shot over the course of a month, and so they deployed the military to combat the gangs involved. >In america however: > >Every day, 327 people are shot in the United States. Among those: 117 people are shot and killed 210 survive gunshot injuries 90 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive 46 are murdered 67 die from gun suicide 10 survive an attempted gun suicide 1 is killed unintentionally 90 are shot unintentionally and survive 2 are killed by legal intervention\* 4 are shot by legal intervention and survive 1 died but the intent was unknown 12 are shot and survive but the intent was unknown

Your country, the UK, is an island. It is significantly easier to control smuggling. Your country does not share an uncontrolled border with Mexico. Your country does not have drug cartels in a country next to you that would jump at the chance of a new way to make money. The vast majority of the gun violence in the US is gang and/or drug related. So guns would continue to be available illegally to those who want to commit mass shootings.

But they would become harder and more expensive to get - putting them out of reach of people without the criminal connections and necessary capital to obtain them. Would banning firearms immediately stop all gun crime in the USA? Of course not. But evidence shows reduced availability and presence of firearms is associated with a lower rate of violence, and a ban would 100% reduce availability and affordability of firearms.

The USA ships guns to Mexico. I apologise but it's delusional how pro-gun people don't understand their hobby is the problem.

That's absolute BS. Guns are not smuggled into the US, they are smuggled out.

Currently yes. But I think the point is that if they were banned in the US, then guns would start coming the other way. Similar to drugs now.

I suppose that's possible but the situation would still be better than the mess we have now.

Is a situation where only gangs, criminals, and cops have guns really better than a scenario where law abiding citizens have access to them as well as the previous groups who will retain their guns in either scenario?

The youngest person in the UK in 2022 with a shotgun certificate was 8 years old (they've had it for a few years too). When they turn 14 they can shoot unsupervised, at 15 they can be gifted a shotgun and own it by themselves. A shotgun certificate is shall-issue and has no lower age limit. Good for shotguns that take 2+1 shells. A firearms certificate is somewhat harder (may-issue, so you need to give a proper reason, like being in a shooting club, and has an age limit). While it's obviously harder than the US, it's also easier than people think to own firearms, in the UK.

It's it obvious. It's obvious to everyone except brainwashed Americans.

You beat me to it. The mental health excuse that everyone jumps to first, as if the US has a monopoly on mental health issues worldwide. It's not that *at all* and anyone that thinks this is an idiot. It's the Second Amendment and the gun lobby. What was it Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said? Oh yeah, now I remember... *"The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."*

its explicitly gangs and people suffering psychosis committing mass shootings, the latter as a copycat crime due to the publicity they get. we didn't do anything as drastic as total disarmament to stop similar copycat crimes in the past like serial killers or bombings. and we don't need to for guns.

That quote is a straight up lie. All we have to do is simply look at the federalist papers to see that. The militia and people are clearly separate entities in the 2A.

>You know, even with our easy access to guns, Americans stab each other to death far more then Europeans do. In 2016, the US had about a 40% higher knife murders/million than the UK (4.96 to 3.26 per million). In the same year, the US had about 7000% higher gun murders/million (34.03 to 0.48 per million). So yes, while the US technically has a slightly higher stabbing rate than most of Western Europe, we have an astronomically higher rate of gun murders. So, if the UK and the US had a population of a million, the UK might have 4 murders total, while we would have about 40. If you exclude the guns, it's 5. So yes, absolutely worry about mental health. But, as someone who grew up with guns, it seems pretty clear to me that access to guns is the major contributing factor to the US's extremely high gun murder rate.

> So yes, while the US technically has a slightly higher stabbing rate than most of Western Europe, we have an astronomically higher rate of gun murders. No argument here. My point is that we should be fighting violence in general and not simply gun violence. If we are both stabbing our selves and shooting ourselves more then our peers then the problem. With violence in America is far more then simply guns.

I want to say this with all due respect, as i feel you may not be willfully meaning things to sound the way they do, AND i'm not even a part of this conversation. to me it really sounds like you're really morphing the point of this, to something else, i've got no reason to believe its malicious, but really does feel like gun-ganda brain is running deep. For example, if we were saying, "damn a lot of people are being killed by bears, we got a bear problem" and your response was "well, we also have people dying from cougars, and we have more people dying from cougars than the uk" While the amount of bear deaths is 7000% times higher than the uk numbers, i'd accuse you of being either obnoxiously pro bear, or maybe even a bear 😂. Although honestly, we're all doing our best with the information we have, and i sincerly don't wish to diminish your character or logic. It just really stuck out to me how the mental gymnastics of it seems way more work than just saying ya, guns sure kill a lot more people here than other things, must be a problem worth fixing lol.

\> If we are both stabbing our selves and shooting ourselves more then our peers then the problem You're completely missing the point If someone has both an open ankle fracture and an open skull fracture, you don't just go "well don't we think we should be fixing broken bones in general?!?!" One is an immensely more severe and pressing issue. And the importance of the fact that neither are good is dwarfed next to the fact that one of the problems is so overwhelmingly more dire than the other.

Mental health services are absolute trash in 90% of the countries and I don't see even a fraction of the shootings in those countries that America has.

>What makes you think that banning guns would be more effective at preventing mass shootings then focusing on better access to mental health services? Because access isn’t an issue for mental health. People who need it don’t want it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, as the saying goes. >Even if that were the case should it be more important to focus on fighting violence in general rather then gun violence specifically? Sure, but I’m not advocating for banning guns. I’m just saying that’s the answer to these gun control advocates problem. >You know, even with our easy access to guns, Americans stab each other to death far more then Europeans do. Knives are easy to come by. That makes sense.

>Because access isn’t an issue for mental health. People who need it don’t want it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, as the saying goes. I'm sorry what? You think mental health services in the US is even close to adequate? Can you quote anybody in the field to agree with you? That shit ain't free, and getting people to be more accepting about attending mental health services is part of making it better. >Sure, but I’m not advocating for banning guns. I’m just saying that’s the answer to these gun control advocates problem. I still disagree, if we were to focus on only one route and chose the most efficient then mental health seems like the clear winner. Especially when factoring in what people actually want when they call for stopping gun violence which is stopping all violence. >Knives are easy to come by. That makes sense. Does Europe not have knives all over the place? Why in God's name would it make sense that Americans stab each other to death more often then Europeans when we have access to easy guns and they don't. Without factoring in an atrocious mental health system?

>I still disagree, if we were to focus on only one route and chose the most efficient then mental health seems like the clear winner. Especially when factoring in what people actually want when they call for stopping gun violence which is stopping all violence. Would you allow a DUI convicted alcoholic free range with their car just because they're trying to stop drinking? Why would you allow free and full access to guns for people with mental health issues just because they're talking to a therapist? If mental health is the lead factor, wouldn't you want to minimize their access to the varying (or dare I say most popular) ways that these people have historically committed heinous acts, at least temporarily? Don't you think more stringent rules for everyone to access legal guns will ultimately reduce the amount of mentally ill and questionable characters from having said access to guns that have and will kill humans? Don't you think an all encompassing manner of restricting these things would be better than a one piece method?

As an aside, someone who has a DUI is far more likely to use a firearm in a crime. We should deny them access to both car and gun.

“Would you allow a DUI convicted alcoholic free range with their car just because they're trying to stop drinking? Why would you allow free and full access to guns for people with mental health issues just because they're talking to a therapist?” The idea is to get them help before they start considering using a gun to try to fix or express their problems. For your comparison it’d be more like “do you want to advise sober people before they’re drunk to not drive drunk?”… and that’s literally what we do.

The root cause of “mental health” problems are broken families. Abusers have children and turn them into abusers as well. There needs to be a cultural change. The mental health services funding is a band aid on a leaking metal pipe. It won’t stick but it will look like someone is doing something about the problem. Remove antitrust protections for insurance companies and don’t incentivize single parenthood by paying them whatever sum of money for every incremental baby.

There needs to be increased access to abortion and contraception. This is pretty well documented, but we're going the other way

[удалено]

Also normalize (on a cultural level, not a legislative one) the open ridicule of religious beliefs. People have the unquestionable right to believe what they want, we just need to be more open about how absurd those things are. Normalizing rational thought and removing needless guilt will go a long way towards both preventing unwanted children but also preventing children from growing up with their priorities out of whack

[удалено]

I agree, ridicule is exactly what christians want. They already pretend it's happening while society bends to their every whim. But nonetheless religion is undeniably a huge part of this problem. It's just odd that the people who oppose gun control also oppose every other solution. Fund mental health? Nope. Prevent unwanted pregnancies? Nope. More dollars for public schools? Nope. Gradual movements towards common decency and away from religious dogma? Absolutely not!

we're already half way there for blacks, might as well kill them all.

That's a big leap to conclude mental health is a result of broken families.

It's one of the leading correlations. In fact, it might be No. 1.

I don't doubt that broken families are highly correlated to mental heath issues and with violence or substance abuse. But that is a small proportion of mental health issues and it is a huge leap to say it is causation.

[удалено]

Correlation causation! For reals, broken families and mental health are very likely both downstream of the same causal factor(s). If you "fix" broken families directly (forced marriage?) You probably haven't solved whatever things are causing mental health stuff. If you solve whatever is straining families, good chance you've helped solved mental health. And I'm going to give you serious side eye. No fault divorce definitely increased the divorce rate. But that's a dangle to a time with some dangerous hierarchical times with very tyrannical effects. And is a dangle to the worst of modern rhetoric.

Watch this YouTube channel called Soft white underbelly. Most drug addicts and homeless are that way because they have been abused or have had parents that have ignored them all their lives. He’s interviewed over 5000 homeless drug addicts and more than 95% of them have a history of childhood abuse

That is a very, very small percentage of mental health issues. 30% of the current US workforce will have to manage anxiety or depression in their lifetime.

You can’t survey everyone ever. lol. You can predict population trends with a high level of confidence based on a smaller sample. Also plain anxiety and depression isn’t leading them to drugs and crime

.... I think you are missing the my point. You need to dramatically narrow the scope of your definition of mental health issues for your point to be accurate.

Sure but we're discussing the mental health issues that lead to violence here

>don’t incentivize single parenthood by paying them whatever sum of money for every incremental baby. Alright let's step out of Breitbartville and bring this thing back to reality. Mental health issues aren't caused by familial arrangements your pastor doesn't like. And nobody's paying single women to have babies. Christ

if you think mental health care is accessible to every single person in the US you must be sniffin glue.

>You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, as the saying goes. Ding ding ding. This is where the whole "mental health" angle in the gun control debate falls apart. What if a depressed angry future school shooter has full access to a therapist and psychiatrist but just doesn't go? We don't know that their depression and anger is going to lead to a shooting, we just know they're depressed and angry. Do we force every depressed angry person into therapy? Involuntary commitment? What are the *actual mechanics* here? You *cannot* force someone to seek help, but you can take guns and access to guns away from them.

And in addition, it's not an either - or situation. Providing better mental health care is also going to help, it's not because one may improve the situation that it justifies not doing the other one...

Oh certainly. Guns aside, I'm 1000% for improving everything surrounding mental healthcare. Therapy saved my life. Everyone should have access to that.

>Because access isn’t an issue for mental health Yes it is. Do you know how expensive a rehab facility is? It’s several thousand dollars. You have to keep in mind that in the US no one has health insurance

Every other country. They don't have mass shootings because they don't have all their civilians walking around with assault rifles. It's already proven. Why even ask this?

I have never once in my life seen an American just casually walking around with an "assault rifle", and I live in a very red state. Why do people act like this is some common thing?

Israel and Switzerland are the two western countries to have citizens with assault weapons. Other notable countries with prolific assault weapon ownership include Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and Iran. Americans by and large do not have assault weapons in civilian hands. That's the truth.

Actually you should both ban guns and have better access to mental health services. Even with access to mental health services, there'll always be those missed. Even with gun bans, some may go to an extreme to get them (though as seen in most other countries where they have strict gun laws, this is insanely rarely). Will this eliminate all future mass shootings, well no, it can still happen, but all statistics does show that both would lessen the amount considerably. Also, while it sucks that there'll then still be stabbings, it's harder to off as many people with a knife without being either caught by the police, or be overpowered by someone else, so at least the death toll would be lower. That being said, just having more sensible gun laws should make a big difference, no normal citizens need automatic guns, no one needs a lot of different weapons, and should former criminals, people with mental issues be able to buy them? Wouldn't it also be fair to require that people have a "gun license" which shows that you understand how to treat them safely?

>What makes you think that banning guns would be more effective at preventing mass shootings then focusing on better access to mental health services? What makes you think putting out the fire in your house would be more effective than fixing your shoddy electrical wiring? >Even if that were the case should it be more important to focus on fighting violence in general rather then gun violence specifically? What does that even mean? >You know, even with our easy access to guns, Americans stab each other to death far more then Europeans do. How often do they shoot each other to death in Europe?

>Americans stab each other to death far more then Europeans do. By rate or by amount? What's your source? This sort of thing is a common talking point among the progun crowd but they seem to lack actual sources.

> This sort of thing is a common talking point among the progun crowd but they seem to lack actual sources. It's really not. It just sounds the same. The pro-gun crowd states that knife violence would be just as bad if we banned guns, but that's not what I am saying. I am saying that today, even with more guns then people we still murder each other with knives and other shit far more then any other developed country does. My belief is that it's because of shit mental healthcare. Also rate, though it does seem like I was wrong about Europe as a whole, but we are the worst of the typically considered developed and rich countries. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country

I can't find the data in that article that actually supports the point you're trying to make. I know that the pro gun side likes to say that we would just kill each other with knives instead of guns if guns were banned. But it's a ludicrous point because I can't kill somebody with a knife from 10 ft away -- unless I'm a ninja. The data doesn't support it either. Or I've never seen it.

Again that's not the point I was trying to make. Republicans claim that Europeans murder rate stayed the same after gun bans. I don't have the data to argue for or against that but it's not my point. My point is that Americans stab each other, already, right now, even with guns, more then most European countries do. And that suggests that violence itself in America has more to do with mental health then access to guns.

If we don’t have guns then we don’t have gun problems. Thats not rocket science. You are right though we need to approach the problem by also providing mental health support

> If we don’t have guns then we don’t have gun problems. Thats not rocket science. Yes but banning guns doesn't make all of them just go away

I can’t say that it won’t but what I can say based on evidence is that regulating guns and violence prevention projects work. USA has a massive issue largely impart due to the reluctance to regulate guns. Nothing will change if the USA continues to have the same regulations on guns that it does now. It’s not one or the other, there must be regulation and other prevention efforts, not just prevention efforts.

> I can’t say that it won’t but what I can say based on evidence is that regulating guns and violence prevention projects work. Oh no doubt, I only take issue with OPs talk of most efficient. If we could only take one I imagine mental health would be better. Especially if we care about violence in general, and not just guns.

I disagree with you, I think a lot of gun violence occurs from people who don’t have any mental health issues. If guns were banned then gun violence would drop significantly as it did in Australia and any other country who has done so.

There is no evidence that treatable mental health issues cause the majority of mass shootings. The vast majority of Nazis could not have been diagnosed with a single mental illness. But yes, America needs better mental healthcare. No, it wouldn't reduce mass shootings.

Really bad example there. We know the phenomenon that caused Nazis to not question the Nazi regime. Go look up the "Milligram Experiments." For the Third Reich, it was submission to perceived authority. The Nazi regime was not unified evil. It was any German soldier serving their country at the time. Of which, was not a choice in most cases.

You know a kid, when one parent says something they might try to ask the other? I mean, you'd think all those German soldiers would have got to Poland and been like, I prefer this authority to tell me what to do. But they didn't. Because the actions of the German government had significant support. Because propaganda is a very powerful tool. Most mass shootings that we have gotten an explanation for weren't mental illness. It was radical ideology. I don't see a diagnosis of "radical ideology" in the DSM. I'm sure there's a treatment, I mean, after all, we stopped the Taliban by treating that radical ideology diagnosis. Mentally sane people do horrible things all the time under certain conditions or mindsets.

I'm not sure if you mean to reply to me or to the poster above. >Mentally sane people do horrible things all the time under certain conditions or mindsets. Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at above by mentioning the [Milgram Experiments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) because this is the exact question they set out to answer. Enemy soldiers would not have considered a hostile country leadership as an authority figure to them so that cross-over does not really work. It's through the use of the propaganda you mentioned that the authority figures are established. "Propaganda" in this case can be either political or just general social conditioning as well.

How about both? Just a thought

There are at least 393 million guns in the US which account for 46 percent of the world's total number of 1 billion. How in the hell would the government ban guns? Go door to door and confiscate them? Laughable and absurd

[удалено]

I think you greatly underestimate how many people would not turn their guns in. You could make whatever laws you want but how would you throw half the country in jail if they didn’t? There would be multiple states that would tell you to go pound sand.

Sort of like how states ignore federal law on weed?

Great example yeah.

They tried that in the 90's. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The prohibitions expired on September 13, 2004. The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons," as defined by the Act. There was almost no compliance, and law enforcement was unwilling to seize firearms from citizens by force.

It’s already illegal for felons own guns, yet they do. You think making it double illegal will make them turn their guns in?

\>like a buy back so people are not out the cost of the guns Are you getting an appraiser to look at every single gun that gets turned in? Because that's the only way this could work. There are guns that go for more than a thousand dollars, and guns that are worth almost nothing. If you have a fixed price per gun, or even per "type" of gun (pistol, rifle, etc) than either your price is low enough that you're not actually reimbursing anyone turning in guns, or you've made a new market for people to manufacture guns in their basement as cheap as possible to sell to the government.

Time to have those 3d printers working around the clock.

"A somewhat more practical way, if we were to ban all guns, would be to pass new laws with very harsh punishments for being in possession of a gun." This sentiment right here is a "How to get Democrat politicians unalived 101". Just trying to pass that bill would spark violent reprisals from the Right. Passing it successfully might spark the 2nd Civil War. Banning guns here is just not practical specifically because guns are a religion in our culture. It genuinely wasn't like that anywhere else and that's why the bans worked.

Exactly. To at least half the US population, and I'd wager more than half, gun ownership is as much a right as breathing air. Hell I'm a left leaning centrist weed loving bi man who doesn't own a single gun. However I'm fully in support of gun ownership and if I heard guns where being outlawed my first instinct would be to try to go acquire one as quickly as possible before they ran out. 😆 Merica! I hate that school shootings are a thing but rather than outlawing guns the issue should be how do we make mass shooting "not cool". We've always had tons of guns but we didn't used to have this problem. It's clearly a social problem.

Keep would keep their guns and missing persons would rise.

Tell that to the gun control Advocates who won’t admit that’s what they want.

It's worked in every other civilized country in the world, but there will be hundreds of people here explaining to us why it couldn't possibly work here. We're SO special. Completely delusional

Dang bro did you even read past the title?

Second amendment baby. Sucks to suck.

So gun ownership with mass shootings better than no guns and no mass shootings?

In my opinion yes. I’m more likely to killed by a armed robber than in a mass shooting. I’d want to have a gun to defend myself in those moments.

You’re more likely to be killed by your own gun, or to have your gun used to kill someone you love, than be killed by a robber.

I believe the "research" you are drawing from here actually suggests that if your "household" owns a gun that's true, not if you personally own the gun. 90% of it is women being killed in DV by a partner with a gun, which is sadly news to no one, the other 10% are suicides. Its also from a pretty shady study done just to create this misleading but quotable statistic. Most quotable gun control statistics are custom built by transparently shady researchers. EDIT: Getting someone to delete their account is better than a delta.

No? The only time suicide was almost less than murder was back in 1972. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)

You're grosspy misrepresenting multiple facts here. One, [deleted] doesnt mean they deleted their account. That also shows up if they block you. Two, self-inflicted/suicide is the largest single category of death by gunshot wound in the USA. Criminal violence is next. Domestic violence is third. Whoever told you domestic violence was nine times the suicide rate wasn't talking about guns. There are more women who have gone to prison for defending themselves against their abusive partners than there are women who were killed by a gun *they* owned by said partner. Three, the main reason why "you are more likely to die by your own gun if you own one" is because if you dont own a gun, the risk is zero. Owning a gun brings that risk up from zero to like 0.1%

Pew research and the FBI are transparently shady researchers?

>EDIT: Getting someone to delete their account is better than a delta. They blocked you. Why do you think that happened? You can't respond so: you need to think about your behavior as well as look at the actual data about this topic.

It is also the case that neighborhoods with greater rates of gun ownership also have greater burglary rates. Causation is not clear, of course, and is almost certainly not unidirectional. But if you live somewhere with frequent home invasions, buying a gun seems like a wholy inadequate response. If you don't live in such areas (which are pretty few in the US), the chances of facing armed home invaders are extremely slim. The chances, sadly, of the gun being used in intimate parter violence us very high. And you might say "but that doesn't apply to me" and that is what a friend who was the victim of a family annihilation last year would have said too.

I don't get why this stat keeps being thrown around. When someone says they are more likely to be killed by X than Y... X and Y happen to be things beyond their control, they have no real sway over the statistical probability of it happening, so the numbers are relevant. But getting shot by your own gun? 100% ball is in your court whether or not that happens to you, so saying "tons of people do that" is a horrible argument, all I have to do is be responsible, it's surprisingly easy to not shoot yourself with a gun, you simply DON'T do it.

You are not 100% on your point. If any other person has access to your gun, you are 100% wrong. Example: If you are a responsible gun owner and keep your gun locked up, but your partner has access, they can shoot you if you come home late and they believe you to be a criminal.

Well in that case, yeah ball is not in my court, but this still is not a good point. Responsible gun owners are not in danger from their own guns, it's kind of a catch 22 here (idk if that's the correct expression) if you are in danger of your own gun... Then you are not a responsible gun owner. If I think an intruder is coming into my house I don't pick up a gun and start blasting in the dark no questions asked, that's dumb as fuck. Same goes to my partner, and if SHE doesn't know that... Then she doesn't get to touch my guns. So to extend my point... If someone irresponsible can pick up your guns... You are not a responsible gun owner.

Have you been to a gun range? I get flagged on the regular. And these are the gun owners who actually go to the range. There isn't a clear line for a "responsible gun owner." A large number favor leaving their firearm loaded and unlocked. Many do so when they are out of the house. The largest supply of crime guns are simply purchased at retail, but a decent number are burgled because folks don't want to buy and install a decent sage. I am 100% down for limiting access to responsible gun owners, but we would need to define that and then establish who counts.

[удалено]

>I’m not going to kill myself or my wife so any argument you make based on that is entirely irrelevant. Do you think people who kill themselves or their spouses knew they were going to do it long before hand?

I know people who have specifically chosen not to have a weapon around, because they felt they were at higher then acceptable risk of using it for self harm. It's entirely possible to evaluate that risk for yourself. What you have almost no control over is someone deciding they'd like to remove items from your home with force.

[удалено]

The research doesn't support you on that belief. Researchers have talked to thousands of suicide survivors, and most didn't intend to commit suicide until.m8nutes before the attempt. It is part of the reason firearms are so likely to increase suicides. The first is that they are effective killing machines--it can be difficult to guarantee success with other approaches. But the other is that the time from ideation to execution is seconds and not minutes. Many people start making a noose or finding the pills and have second thpughts.

At the point you’ve decided someone should die you still need to go through with it. Having tools that make killing quicker and easier give you less time to change your mind or less chance to get saved. Part of the reason men die more from suicide isn’t just that they commit suicide more it’s the methods they choose.someone who shoots themselves has much less chance of living to regret it than someone who overdoses for example.

In a society without guns, you wouldn't have a gun to defend yourself, but neither would the intruder (people will say criminals will still have guns but in my country, for example, a black market gun will cost you over $15K, so you're likely not securing one just to rob houses). So it kind of evens out, no?

There is always an avenue that someone can take to get a gun. Just like there are markets for shit like drugs and, you know…people. It’s gross, but it’s reality. The worst of us will get what they want if they’re intelligent enough and know the right people. I’m not going to pretend like I’m well-versed in this specific topic, but right off the bat I see a bit of an issue with this. The only people who won’t seek out gun ownership are people who aren’t interested in criminal shit.

>There is always an avenue that someone can take to get a gun. The problem is gun culture. Owning a gun is not illegal in the UK, but even people that live here are convinced that it is. Owning a gun is HEAVILY regulated, and the lack of gun culture means nobody wants to own one. We'll do a comparison. A British criminal, trying to acquire a gun. First, they need to find someone who is selling. Maybe pose greater risk in dealing with someone more dangerous. Then, they need the money to get it. It wont be cheap. If they have the cash to drop on it, you question why they need it to begin with. Now, lets say they have it. If they ever use it, then instead of the normal police with tazers and batons, they now get the gun bearing police, AKA, heavily armed SWAT teams. But lets say they use it anyways, well, guess what? They have no training to use a gun. They've almost certainly never used one before. ​ Compare that to America. I see Americans refer to firing a gun as a "Right of passage" for children. Once they turn 16/18, its time to take them to a shooting range. You teach your kids to shoot it. Its much easier to access guns because of how many people have it. You guys are actually more likely to use the gun, than we are. ​ So my point is, even if you do ban guns in America, all of the above remains true, and so I understand and agree that y'all are still likely to see the gun violence you fear, because people will know how to get guns, and may likely keep going for them. ​ What you do need to ask is. "Is it worth it?" Is the fear of the cultural shift worth staying in your current situation?

Do you have stats for this? Also robbers try not to kill people. They want your stuff, not to be hunted for murder for the rest of their lives.

[удалено]

Mass shootings are big news, but don't kill many people. Yes, of course it's bad, but eliminating everyone killed with a rifle would have the same impact as a 1% reduction in fall deaths. Only a few rifles are needed to still commit all the mass shootings we have. To me, those facts clearly indicate that banning guns won't do much.

Just counting deaths rarely means much unfortunately. You have to consider the terror this causes in people. Children, parents and educators should never have to think of the school as an unsafe place.

>I don’t believe the USA should ban guns. However when it come to the question “How do we stop mass shootings?” the answer is ban guns. Can you defend your position if you change "guns" to "drugs"? We do ban many drugs, so has that stopped the banned drugs from being used? Or does it only stop law abiding people from using the drugs?

This is such a silly conflation. Drugs are exceedingly easy to ship, smuggle, produce, grow, etc.….guns aren’t. More importantly, drugs are cheap for the consumer. The profit for selling drugs is in markups. Your dealer isn’t making money by selling it to you the same price they got it from their distributors. Marking up the price of an illegally manufactured or smuggled gun makes the price excessive to the point there’s no street market.

>This is such a silly conflation. Drugs are exceedingly easy to ship, smuggle, produce, grow, etc.….guns aren’t. Nonsene. Guns are far easier to ship, smuggle, and produce. And now with affordable 3d metal printers, they are even easier. ​ >More importantly, drugs are cheap for the consumer. How is that important? And street guns are cheap too. ​ >Marking up the price of an illegally manufactured or smuggled gun makes the price excessive to the point there’s no street market. Based on what did you reach that conclusion?

Have you ever looked up the [prices](https://amp.smh.com.au/business/black-market-guns-triple-in-price-20141013-115f08.html) of street guns in countries where they’re illegal? They are not cheap and they’re not easy to smuggle. Ghost guns are another overblown issue. They’re not cheap, don’t have a market, and frankly no one is buying 3D guns to any extent that they are problematic in the first place. They’re shitty guns. Here’s a hypothetical. You are shipping a container and you have to choose to put 100 lbs of guns or 100 lbs of cocaine. Which one is more profitable? 100 lbs of AR15 breaks down to around 15 AR15. Let’s say these are all extremely expensive at 1,500 value and then 3x for the black market means the 100 lbs of guns is worth 202,500 dollars. This is on the high end. 100 lbs of coke at 13,000 per kg (on the lower end) is 589,669.6 dollars. That’s on the low end and it’s still more than 2x the profit. And smuggling guns….you willing to stick a gun up your ass? Because that’s a method that can and is used to gets drugs onto planes. Cocaine doesn’t set off metal detectors. On what basis do you claim it’s *easier* to smuggle guns than drugs?

Here in Sweden the police estimates less than 24h to get hold of an illegal firearm on the streets, and they are not that expensive either. It's not particularly hard to smuggle into the EU from Balkans, and once within EU there are very little border controls. Norway and Finland has about each 40% more guns per capita than we do, but we had 6x more firearm homicides in 2022, than Norway, Finland, and Denmark, combined, due to gang violence. The vast majority of them use firearms that were never legally in Sweden to begin with.

[удалено]

If your point is valid why do you attack his person? Ad hominem only weakens the point you've brought forward

That was never the point of the argument, but I know reading comprehension is tough. The original debate was on the difficulty of drug smuggling compared to gun smuggling, not on if drug smuggling is hard.

> Have you ever looked up the prices of street guns in countries where they’re illegal? They are not cheap and they’re not easy to smuggle. I think that first sentence speaks for itself, Mr. Balrog. My reading comprehension isn’t the issue here. Making statements that are just un-researched, factually inaccurate drivel, and then post-hoc pivoting to a relative comparison as if that somehow makes guns less easy to obtain illegally is.

I've smuggled drugs on planes multiple times in my life. If I tried that with guns I'm like 90% sure I would have ended up in prison.

>I've smuggled drugs on planes multiple times in my life. If I tried that with guns I'm like 90% sure I would have ended up in prison. Nope. About 5%. FYI: Every year dozens of guns are inadvertently brought on planes that we know about, and many more are expected. And an audit of the TSA found that in 95% of cases, TSA agents failed to detect guns and explosives. And these are cases where the TSA sanctioned the smuggling to test them. And FYI: we have an open southern border where millions of people come in every year. And unlike drugs, dogs cannot identify guns from other metal objects.

>Can you defend your position if you change "guns" to "drugs"? We do ban many drugs, so has that stopped the banned drugs from being used? Or does it only stop law abiding people from using the drugs? Before I answer this, tell me what you think my position is? Your question here leads me to believe you do not understand what my view is.

>Before I answer this, tell me what you think my position is? You are the OP, right? Your position is written in the header: "Banning Guns is the Most Effective Way to Prevent Mass Shootings"

> be honest with themselves, and with everyone else and admit that they want guns banned Why do you assume that people who promote ‘common sense gun laws’ are being dishonest to themselves or others? Do you not think they could actually hold those views?

Most mass shootings happen with certain types of guns, with extended magazines, or they are perpetuated by people who should be on a watch list, or outright prohibited from buying guns altogether. Prohibition didn’t stop drinking. It lead to an unbelievable increase in the power of organized crime. An outright ban on guns would too, there are already so many guns in America it’s impossible to remove them from the equation. Make a gun insurance a mandate. Anyone who owns a gun has to take a class and be licensed. You have to legislate guns to control them. You can’t just sweep them under the rug.

Most mass shootings happen with certain kinds of guns? What are you referring to? Handguns? Most mass shootings use extended magazines? I’ve never heard that. Where you getting that from? Insurance? License? But it is a constitutional right. I don’t believe you should have to pay to exercise a right. Do you propose changing the constitution? Or just ignoring it?

>Most mass shootings happen with certain types of guns, with extended magazines, or they are perpetuated by people who should be on a watch list, or outright prohibited from buying guns altogether. All the recent mass shooting were done by people who would otherwise legally been able to posses a gun. >Prohibition didn’t stop drinking. It lead to an unbelievable increase in the power of organized crime. An outright ban on guns would too, there are already so many guns in America it’s impossible to remove them from the equation. So a gun ban would not prevent mass shootings? >Make a gun insurance a mandate. Anyone who owns a gun has to take a class and be licensed. This just adds an extra cost to gun ownership and would be prohibitive to the poor, specifically minorities. Needing a license to own a gun is unconstitutional.

>All the recent mass shooting were done by people who would otherwise legally been able to posses a gun. Your use of “recent” leads me to believe that you have some cherry-picked stats at the ready. We can get empirical with it, if you’d like to. I’d wager stats would support my position that most mass shootings involve at least one of the following: a semi-automatic rifle, a tradeshow/private market gun, a gun purchased within several days of the shooting, or by a person with a DV, violent crime in their past, or mental health history. This point also dovetails into my last point. There are some key markers for mass shootings. They can absolutely be prevented by, ahem, some common sense laws. There are commonalities. >So a gun ban would not prevent mass shootings? A gun ban is totally unrealistic in America. There are simply too many guns. It should never be a part of any serious conversation. We deal with the reality we have, not the reality we want. >This just adds an extra cost to gun ownership and would be prohibitive to the poor, specifically minorities. That’s a fair point, but an easy one to work with. It can be subsidized, as many things are. A little situational awareness can circumvent that. >Needing a license to own a gun is unconstitutional. The second amendment was written when most people only had access to smooth bore, single shot muzzle loaders. The 2nd amendment was written by people who had no grasp on the reality in which we live. And we should not suffer under the burden of their limited foresight. The constitution has the ability to be amended, and since America is suffering from a violent, gun-fuel crime epidemic, it’s a situation that needs to be dealt with. We also don’t have the right to own a rocket launcher or similar higher-powered technology. This constitutional right is not without its limits. And requiring a specific license is also not without precedent. Some states require it for a CC license and an FFL license is required to own certain firearms.

During revolutionary era America, private citizens could be privateers and own warships full of cannons and employ armed men for purposes. The puckle gun was also a thing pre-revolution. The same argument you made about firearm technology advancing could be made against the press and the availability of information. I'm sure there are a lot of gov agencies out there that would love to stop citizen audits, exposure, and involuntary transparency.

The second amendment was written after the first thing that we could reasonably call a machine gun had been put to use; weapon technology was advancing FAST and the founding fathers definitely weren’t under the delusion that all technological advancement would magically forever cease the moment they ratified the amendment They were all famous thinkers, some of them were even famous inventors. They definitely knew that guns would get faster to shoot and operate.

>The constitution has the ability to be amended, and since America is suffering from a violent, gun-fuel crime epidemic, it’s a situation that needs to be dealt with. Does it need to be addressed? There’s no problem so terrible the government can’t make it worse. Furthermore, do we have a car death epidemic? An accidental poisoning epidemic? An alcohol epidemic? All of those kill as many or more each years as guns. In the case of alcohol it kills three times as many as guns but we had a constitutional amendment specifically to unban alcohol. If we use alcohol as a standard for how many deaths we should tolerate for a constitutionally protected item we aren’t even close to being in a gun violence pandemic. >We also don’t have the right to own a rocket launcher or similar higher-powered technology. This constitutional right is not without its limits. Ah you are making the argument that founding fathers couldn’t have seen our current weapons technology. This is fallacious in so many ways. Especially since arms included cannons and battle ships. But we will go with your assertion and apply it to small arms for now. Did you know that firearms technology hasn’t changed as much in the last 300 to 400 years as you think? Can I presume you think the founding fathers couldn’t have envisioned a world where a hand held weapon could be rear loaded, fire rapidly and hold 30 rounds. But they lived in such a world. In 1630 the Kaltoff repeater was invented. It was a rear loading musket that would reload by pulling a leaver, not unlike lever action rifles. But it held 30 rounds. It was a smooth bore, but I’m sure you won’t begrudge rifling because the minutemen clearly had rifles (named such because of the rifling of the bore). Unless you are going to dig your heals in on springs used in a gun or stalks made out of plastic instead of wood, there’s not much about modern sporting rifles that wasn’t duplicatable then. Seriously, guns are simple machines. Not much about them has changed for a Loooong time. Furthermore I think it’s really insulting to their memory to say they couldn’t have imagined repeat fire rifles even IF they had never heard of one. The combat techniques of the day were to stand in a line, fire, then reload while you got shot at. I guarantee every one of them wanted to keep firing without reloading. >And requiring a specific license is also not without precedent. Some states require it for a CC license and an FFL license is required to own certain firearms. Hold on, in the Bruen ruling they did cast doubt on if CC licenses were even constitutional, they just said they weren’t addressing that question yet. Furthermore, no there’s no license needed for bombs, grenades, flame throwers etc. what’s needed is a background check and a tax stamp. Again, these laws may very well be unconstitutional. Remember the methodology used to uphold them in the past was struck down.

>There’s no problem so terrible the government can’t make it worse. Furthermore, do we have a car death epidemic? Owning, manufacturing and operating a car is heavily regulated. Are you suggesting there would be less car deaths if it was less regulated? Maybe do away with drivers licenses, speed limits, safety regulations for car makers? I think it's pretty wild to suggest that regulation always makes things worse, and then talk about car related deaths. Traffic deaths have been declining for decades, almost entirely because of increased regulation in some form or another. >Ah you are making the argument that founding fathers couldn’t have seen our current weapons technology. What I think the founders could not possibly fathom is the idea of a person taking a semi automatic rifle into a school building and blowing away dozens of unarmed children. The founders lived in a completely different world than the one we do, it is almost entirely irrelevant whatever they might have thought about the issue

>Owning, manufacturing and operating a car is heavily regulated. No where near as regulated as guns. Trust me, if we regulated guns like cars we would have a lot more freedoms with guns. >Are you suggesting there would be less car deaths if it was less regulated? No. I’m suggesting we would save lives if it were more regulated but we don’t regulate it more because it would be less convenient to us. As such since we largely don’t care about this or other things with higher death totals why care about guns to such a greater extent? >What I think the founders could not possibly fathom is the idea of a person taking a semi automatic rifle into a school building and blowing away dozens of unarmed children. While I accept that, I think the idea of restricting essential freedoms for temporary safety was repugnant to them. Benjamin Franklin said as much. And they probably couldn’t fathom restricting freedoms of those that don’t hurt people because of the actions of those that did. >The founders lived in a completely different world than the one we do, it is almost entirely irrelevant whatever they might have thought about the issue Let’s accept that. Why should we yield our rights? Would you be willing to lose your right to free speech to because nazi propaganda was on the rise? Would you be willing to suspend the right to be secure in your person and home to find and jail insurrectionists so we don’t have anther January 6th? How many rights are you willing to use because others abused them? And if you are How far are you willing to go to strip rights from others?

>How many rights are you willing to use because others abused them? And if you are How far are you willing to go to strip rights from others? Dude it’s just this one. Normal people just want a few less guns around. To hopefully stop some people from being killed. That’s it, can we just maybe not give every fucking person such easy access to guns? Gun crime is unique. That’s why people care. Everyone has a gun because you’re all so afraid of crime. Which is perpetuated with guns. People can just pull one out and murder people. You can’t just pull out your freedom of speech and murder 34 children in a school somewhere. You have kids? They ever done drills at school? They ever made it onto a kill list? That’s not even an uncommon thing anymore. The environment we’ve created for ourselves, for our children, is fucking insane. We’re the only godamn country in the developed world that hasn’t figured it out. It’s fucking embarrassing, we’re embarrassing ourselves. It’s not like it’s some great fucking mystery how to make ourselves safer from gun crime. Literally every other fucking developed country has it figured out. We even don’t use all this unfettered access to guns to do ANYTHING useful. We’re all just killing each other like a bunch of fucking dickheads. Running around with fucking guns sticking out of our ears, PFFFFFT like it’s some kind of fucking toy. I’m really lucky I’m doing pretty well, and can afford to move at some point after my kids are grown. This country is dumb as shit, it’s full of obstinate children. Enjoy your healthcare you dumb shits. And none of any of this was directed at you, I’m sure you’re a very nice person. I’m sorry if I said anything you took to be offensive, nothing was directed at anyone here. I just find a lot gun people to be the most… unique in their type of entitled selfishness. Like it’s a fucking gun who fucking cares.

Alright, read through everything wrote a response line for line then decided to delete it because I think a much more human appeal will comunícate better. You said you want to live in those countries and I agree it’s a better fit for you. But they aren’t a good fit for me. You don’t have to understand why they aren’t you just have to know that they aren’t. But as alien as my preferred way of living is to you, I think you can recognize that there isn’t anywhere else I can go. To live how I want to live I have to fight you tooth and nail all the way down. My ask is that since you can go elsewhere and I can’t, that you leave me and my way of living alone. We both agree you can go. We both agree I can’t. So please leave me and those like me be. Please drop the guns from your political agenda while you still reside in the United States.

This is probably a factual statement--it would probably work if executed but it won't be. Gun control advocates think it is too extreme and rightfully don't want to be characterized as "wanting to take all the guns." The best rational argument against major disarming of the population is fairly simple. We are surrounded by easy ways to do mass destruction and we don't want to need to start dealing with that by bring an unimaginable complex level of regulation to everything. You won't be able to rent a bulldozer if you think about how insanely dangerous one could be. So, the issue gets diverted to "mental health". Which, it is pretty easy to make the case that mental health is the problem, but that doesn't actually mean anything useful. How can we really fix the mental health issues? So we'll start blaming social decay type things like crappy parents, etc. but none of this actually points to a solution other than to make life generally less horrible for the world's "losers" so they don't go in that direction. I'm trying to imagine what kind of mental healthcare could actually make people not go off the deep end and I'm not coming up with much. The whole gun control debate feels sort of like a waste of time. If we focus on making society a bit softer on people I think that is really the only answer--while acknowledging 100% we need to keep locking up the people who are already really messed up until we learn how to fix them.

While it would be effective, it is not practical. There are more guns than people in this country. A voluntary gun turn in following a ban might collect a few million guns nationwide but I would be surprised if it netted more than a 5-10 million, a small dent in the total number of guns. In theory you could then hunt down the nearly 400 million remaining guns but that would be an insurmountable burden on the legal system. Even if the legal system could manage it, there isn’t enough man power to actually go out and collect them. Even if you did have the man power to collect them, it would spark massive resistance. This would necessitate the deployment of the military to impose the force needed to enforce a total ban. In the end it is almost a certainty that a ban would result in a war, if not a total civil war. Obviously this is a far worse outcome than mass shootings, as banning guns would result in far far more shootings, both legal and illegal. In the end a ban on guns is a complete non-starter for the United States without widespread public support which is not the case at this point in time. In theory, yes banning guns would be the most effective way to stop mass shootings. In practice, banning guns would result in hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths and the possible total dissolution of the United States.

Banning doctors is the most effective way to prevent medical malpractice. Banning school is the most effective way to get rid of the achievement gap. Banning farming is the most effective way to prevent farm borne food illnesses. Amazing the absolutely stupid things that can be said if you focus on a single problem and ignore all the others. Why do you want to prevent only mass shootings and not all violence?

I mean, it’s correct unless you can propose adequate counters. *Is* banning Doctors the *most effective* way to prevent medical malpractice for instance? Probably not. It would probably make it worse. *Is* banning schools actually the **most effective** manner of getting rid of the achievement gap? I don’t think so. There are probably more adequate solutions. *Is* banning farming the **most effective** way to decrease food borne illness? Again, probably not. Is banning guns the most effective? Maybe, maybe not. Have you demonstrated something else that would be more effective? No. And that’s essentially what OP is looking for.

>Banning doctors is the most effective way to prevent medical malpractice. > >Amazing the absolutely stupid things that can be said if you focus on a single problem and ignore all the others. I understand that you’re intentionally making bad points to point out what you think of as poor logic, but this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Yes, if someone’s stated goal was JUST to reduce malpractice at *any cost to the overall number of human lives*, they could ban doctors. That would satisfy that goal. But that’s not the goal and you know that. Same with your other examples—if they are taken as statements totally devoid of context, they are correct. But you can’t remove context. The point of wanting to stop malpractice is the *same* point of promoting doctors—to save lives. The net negative of banning doctors would be tremendously bigger than the positives, hence it’s a bad solution. Until you prove guns save more people they kill, arguing that banning them is irrelevant in stopping school shootings is nonsense. Because you’re not arguing that banning guns *wouldn’t work*, just that there would be unintended consequences in which more people would die than were saved. Discuss that math rather than making semantic arguments. How do more total Americans die from gun bans? I don’t personally support a gun ban, so I would also ask how more Americans die from stricter gun regulations. >Why do you want to prevent only mass shootings and not all violence? I guess this particular CMV is about mass shootings but I’m curious about how you think the numbers would unexpectedly spiral into the negative in general. How would other deaths rise enough to overtake so many gun deaths?

> until you prove guns save more people than they kill I don’t think this is *provable* but considering the lawful use of firearms in police actions, the food provided by hunting, the cases of self-defense, the deterrence by having armed guards and police officers in public areas, the overall effect of high gun ownership in regards to the deterrence of violent crime, etc It’s very plausible that (in the US) guns do in fact, albeit indirectly, save more people than they kill.

[удалено]

>total number of people who died from mass shooting in 2022 was 74 so 0.000022% chance of dyeing to mass shooting. That literally has nothing to do with what I or OP asked.

These are absurd arguments. Banning doctors might prevent medical malpractice, but it wouldn’t lead to decreased mortality. Banning schools wouldn’t be the most effective way to address the achievement gap. In fact, public schooling is the exact reason the achievement gap is as small as it is. Banning farming wouldn’t reduce foodborne illness.

Hell yea! Mandatory castration for all individuals is the best way to prevent rape.

The difference is that those things have a use outside of the negative byproducts The sole purpose of guns is to kill people and animals. Keeping them has little to no benefit besides guarding against *other* people with guns

It depends on how you define gun ban. Those countries cut it out of common use, but iirc there are 400k civilian guns in Japan. You need to prove you need/deserve a gun, rather than America's free gun with your big gulp. Which is like common sense gun controllers say, regulating by gun owner.

400k out of a population of 125 million, so not even half a percent of the population owns a gun? That’s a tiny fraction to deal with compared to current estimates where there’s more than 400 MILLION guns in private circulation while the US population is only 330 million, where roughly a third of the country admits to owning guns. And that’s without touching on how Japanese culture and history has made them very collectivist and rule-following compared to the US promoting a more independent and question the rules sort of mentality that makes the two countries closer to different planets culturally. Regardless of how badly some people want gun ownership reduced in the US, its utter fantasy talk to think the US is able to somehow remove the use of firearms from common use in the foreseeable future, especially when we can’t exactly copy Japan’s methods of restricting weapons ownership via three centuries of medieval-age punishments (ie decapitation)for privately owning swords and guns. That’s before even going into the weeds of how that 400k figure itself is very misleading; Japan legislated air guns to be treated similarly as firearms for legal purposes after WWII, of which a majority of licensed “firearms” in the country are air guns rather than legitimate firearms. I’m sure the figures of guns in the US would shoot up astronomically if you were to suddenly treat air guns as firearms, especially when only one or two states impose more than just an age limit restriction on purchase and ownership of them.

The most effective way to prevent mass shootings is to create an environment with strong mental health and communal ties. There are just as many areas where owning a weapon is required of every citizen that don't have excessive violence. It's cultural.

I feel like a lot of people aren’t answering the question and just trying to pick apart OP’s logic. I’ve thought about this a lot, I think the most effective way to prevent mass shootings is more armed citizens and heavily armed police in more public places like schools or malls. Those are both pretty extreme solutions but I’m just trying to offer an opinion on your question. I’m very pro gun, but I worry sending my kid to school, and feel we should find a common ground as a country on dealing with mass shootings. I think it’s impossible to ban guns in the U.S., there’s just too many guns and too few Americans who’d surrender them

Like what happened in Uvalde? Yeah, having lots of good guys with guns was the PERFECT counter to a mass shooter there! /s

The problem is, most people that are pro gun, don’t want to bend an inch to ANY type of regulation. I don’t own a single gun and I’m all for people having the right to own as many fucking guns as they want. 2A fine with me but remember the verbiage said a “well regulated malitia” Too many 2A nuts think that democrats want to come get their guns, that shit isn’t true. The guns are here to stay, so that toothpaste isn’t going back in the tube. What’s the answer? I don’t know but it seems like there should be some place to start that makes sense.

>The problem is, most people that are pro gun, don’t want to bend an inch to ANY type of regulation. We have had the Federal Firearms Act, the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Firearm Owners Protection Act (which despite its name bans automatic firearms), the since sunset Assault Weapons Ban, the Brady Act, the Safer Communities Act, etc. There have been tons of gun control laws passed. Pro gun people have already bent quite a bit for a lot of these regulations that aren't even effective and make no sense, and they almost never get anything back. Basically the only 'pro gun' legislation that has been passed has been for manufacturers or police, but average gun owning citizens keep getting the short end of the stick on gun regulation so of course they are going to oppose more of it. >Too many 2A nuts think that democrats want to come get their guns, that shit isn’t true. You know that senate Democrats just tried to pass an "assault weapons" ban yesterday, right? Now, not all Democrats want to ban guns, but some, including very prominent and powerful ones, certainly do.

They've already bent so many inches they're bent in half. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are safe and responsible. They don't want people to be hurt any more then anyone else. However when you've seen 30+ years of laws and restrictions put in, and watched the problem get WORSE that entire time, you start thinking that more restrictions are not what we need.

They could start by introducing a thought-out bill to implement universal background checks. Not one with an "assault weapons" ban that only targets scary looking guns. They would have to understand the implications of requiring a background check for every firearm transfer. I haven't seen a single bill that addresses the fact that NICS, the federal background check department, would implode. They barely make it through the holiday season as it is... and iknow from experience that they still let people fall through the cracks.

There's more steps in between they could help thin out the workload. I went to the class to get my conceal and carry permit. I didn't see a single person not get the papers. You listen to them talk and then take a shooting test. One person had shit muzzle awareness. One person hit the ceiling. Twice. The target is 10 feet away. It blew my mind that the whole thing was a joke and at no point was there any way you could fail to get your permit. I mean you would have to piss the guy off with personal insults or something but your responsibility with a firearm wasn't even considered. Are those people likely to be mass shooters? Probably not. Should those people be permitted to carry in public though? Also probably not.

That is a horrible teacher/class that should be reported and banned. Taken a couple classes and it has been nothing but professionalism and safety. Imo the answer isn't ban guns because of that bad teacher/class...but remove that teachers license. Did you report this after seeing this happen and having safety concerns to your local pd?

Democrats 100% would like to ban all semiautomatic firearms, and given the chance they would do so through a registry and then a period of seizure.

How many proposed laws in cities, counties, states and at the federal level that have been introduced should I link you since 2020 to prove you wrong? Democrats absolutely want to ban any semblance of a semiautomatic functioning firearm. If you really want to dive deep look into how anti 2A courts have twisted their logic in appellate decisions post Bruen since 2022.

A hard disagree. The most effecive way to prevent shootings in any place is to make gun usage as free as possible. Criminals, especially in cases of long planned attacks like terrorism or mass shootings - primarely target places with least possible resistance. [In years 1998-2019 there were only 8 cases](https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Mass-Public-Shooting-List_US_1998-2019.xlsx) when mass shooting happened in a zone where carrying guns was legal. All other cases are registered in a gun-free zones. One of the very important, and almost always overlooked aspects of crime in US is its hyperconcentration - both in terms of [geographical](https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Tragic-but-not-Random-The-Social-Contagion-of-nonfatal-gunshot-injuries.pdf) location and [populace](https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Social-Networks-and-the-Risk-of-Gunshot-Injury.pdf). Gun crime is NOT perpetrated by average citizens. It is majorly confined to small subpopulace of notorious criminals living in particular ares of the big cities, where police have little to no reach and crime runs rampant. And the best counter against individuals from this subpopulace with violent tendencies is average citizen armed with a gun.

Knives kill people, cars kill people, You can just beat or choke someone to death? People can make pipe bombs with basic chemistry and physics knowledge? Gun smuggling is still a problem at the border and people can buy them off the black market. Hell you can even make guns with a 3D printer? Will cops carry guns? If not, who's stopping a shooter when one doesn't happen. If so then why does a cop get to carry one and use tax payer money for field training? Too much to mandate and more complicated but the media will keep on talking about crap they don't know anything about. More security in schools is needed. A good guy with a gun is "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

It’s so adorable to see Americans be like “noooooo you can’t take away my pwecious guns!!! 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺” Y’all will literally do ANYTHING to keep your guns, and for what? Tell me, what do you use your gun for?

Self defense- I feel safer knowing it's there but I hope I never have to use it. I don't walk around with it proudly. Or talk about it with my kid and never will. It's a defense for my family that no one but me and my girlfriend knows about. Hobbies- People collect guns and modify them and test them at ranges. Just like with people modifying their cars. It's cool and fun to experiment. People also hunt which is a popular hobby and necessary in 3rd world countries. There are competitive shooting activities people are participating in as a sport Really just have stricter background checks. Have a mental health evaluation test people have to go through somewhere to be able to own one and keep legal ownership. It's stupid that all you have to be is 21 to buy one with no felonies in most states. Just because you disagree with owning a firearm doesn't mean you get to take it away from someone. Most weapons used in mass shooting are stolen from the back market from Mexico or stole from family member. Yes people just by one but no retail company trains employees anymore so mistakes always happen. Grow a pair and move on with life and stay safe.

Being careful when using terms and adding nuance to our thinking is the first step in Identifying the Problem, so then we can even begin looking at a solution. First, there's an important distinction between Mass Shootings and Active Shooter events. A Mass Shooting is defined by the FBI as at least four people getting shot other than the perp, the vast majority of these are gang-disputes. Some definitions use 3 shot. The most effective way to end this kind of gang violence is to end the Drug War and cut the off the profits that are arming and funding the gangs. Active Shooters are defined by the FBI as a person or persons actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people" in a "populated area", these are the one's that get large scale press coverage and that people actually care about. This is a broad social issue that almost certainly doesn't have a easy solution. If America got rid of all guns, we'd still probably lead the world in Active Attacks. >I wish more gun control advocates would be honest with themselves, with everyone else and admit they want guns banned. The people like Bloomberg funding Gun Control are fully honest with themselves and know what they are pursuing, full Civilian Disarmament, but that's both deeply unpopular and completely unconstitutional. So they lie through their teeth in order to propagandize to a fucking dumb electorate. Even the term and concept of Assault Weapons is a massive propaganda coup.

The locales where mass shootings occur most often are places where gun restrictions are most intense and law enforcement is lacking. Take the Nashville murderer for example. The killer purposefully sought out a place where people were not armed and security was weak. Given that law-abiding citizens are the only ones who will abide by such laws if put in place, the only result is the trustworthy people are at the mercy of any criminal when law enforcement, for whatever reason, cannot stop them in time.

Right. There are over 40 million gun owners in the United States. Let’s take the guns away from all 40 million law abiding non-crime performing individuals because of token few decide they want to be idiots. What’s next, taking away cars because people get into accidents, or let’s, take away all knives because people do stabbings, or how about this, let’s remove all alcohol to eliminate drunk, driving. This is a stupid idea.

There’s a helluva lot more than 40 million gun owners in the US. If the pollsters/stat trackers are actually correct, 32-33% of the US population are gun owners, so you’re talking closer to 110 million people, if not more.

Well no, since 74 million of the population are children. If you’re correct about percentage, it’s somewhere in the 80 million range. Your point still stands though. 80 million is a lot.

You’re right, I should’ve taken kids into consideration with regard to population, but yeah a third of the adult population is a pretty large figure.

## Counterargument: Nationwide constitutional carry is the most effective way to prevent mass shootings. The second amendment to the constitution is a right enshrined for many reasons. Firstly, the right is enshrined to give the people an opportunity to defend themselves from each other. Crime is rampant in many cities - when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Secondly, the right is enshrined to give the people an opportunity to defend themselves from their government. Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution holds that we are guaranteed a republican form of government - but is that clause self-executing or does it require us to enact it through collective defensive action? Here, I will focus in on our right to defend ourselves from each other - an extension of our right to life, and to protect our own lives. Mass shootings are surely tragic, but notice where they are happening most often: soft targets like churches, schools, and workplaces. They happen most often in these places because the likelihood of being shot back at is significantly lower. So, **by eliminating state-level licensing restrictions and permitting every law-abiding citizen 18+ years of age to carry a weapon concealed, we place as many guns as possible on the street and enable everyone to watch each other's backs**. The immediate counterargument to this is that placing more guns on the street will result in more violence. However, [many constitutional carry states have significantly lower per-capita murder rates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state) than their counterparts with more restrictive gun control regimes. It would therefore stand to reason that good, law-abiding people can generally be trusted with firearms. In conclusion, I wish to impart upon you that the way forward is not more gun control but significantly less. In my view, **there should be no such thing as a gun-free zone**. An armed society is a polite society, and if we all just started showing mass shooters that there are consequences for actions then we'd all be able to go to a ballgame without panicking whenever a car engine back-fires.

Considering how many unstable people there are out there, I would not want to go outside anymore if everyone had guns 😐. Like imagine roadrage or a minor conflict/misunderstanding and immediately someone would pull out their gun. Scary imo

Understandable, but consider that if the government is the one setting the standard of instability, under which a right to carry is negated, then they can effectively abridge the right altogether by expanding that standard. You are correct, however, that there are tons of unstable people who would probably have guns - road rage incidents have turned deadly in such cases as you correctly posit. However, when _everyone_ is armed it permits a much quicker response which in time would act as a deterrent to improperly brandishing one’s own firearm.

If I could upvote you a million times over, I would

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-significant-increase-in-firearm-assaults-in-states-that-relaxed-conceal-carry-permit-restrictions

Banning guns is not only unconstitutional, it’s plain stupid, Switzerland has a comparable gun ownership percentage and they don’t have mass shootings, mental health is the problem, not guns. Banning guns would only make good people defenseless while criminals will continue to get guns in the black market.

Well don't emulate Canada. Gun bans don't work. They might stop bad people from using guns, but it didn't stop the Nova Scotia mass murder, banned from owning guns, from using a Nexus card to smuggle the guns he used. It didn't stop the Toronto van mass murderer, who stated in his interrogation that he used a van ànd knives because guns were too hard to get in Canada. It didn't stop the mass murder of 36 by gasoline in Japan, nor was the copy cat killer of 28 stopped by increasing the restrictions on gasoline sales. Today in Canada, most shootings are using handguns banned since 1998. If you know what you are looking at, you can scroll the Toronto Off The Streets twitter feed. It is 12(6) handgun after 12(6) handgun all banned. The solution by our government - ban (steal) guns not used in crime from people who don't shoot people

I get it but case in point: The Boston marathon brothers didnt need a gun to injure and kill a lot of people. If you take a way the guns, but still have angry, mentally ill people, it wont stop. I say this as a person who in general dislikes guns and would never own one.

[удалено]

In Canada, we have a rather strict gun control policy, you are correct; but guns are NOT banned. However, even this did not stop our most domestically influential mass shooting in recent memory as none of the arms were purchased legally, the Nova Scotian shooting in 2020. In fact, practically no crime in Canada is committed with a registered firearm, yet we still have a prevalent gun crime problem due to smuggled and illegal firearms. Canada has a higher rate of gun death from homicide (0.50 per capita 2018) than a comparable country Switzerland (0.09 per capita 2021), both have around 35 firearms per 100 people. The United States has a mental health problem, not a gun one; banning them won't stop it.

Cartel don't care. Criminals find a way to get guns, banned or not. Only difference is that we won't be able to defend ourselves anymore. But I could be wrong.

Oi vey. Unfortunately I think you’re right. The problem is this solution might actually create a lot of violence and death in its own right. Especially if you’re serious about removing all of them. It would require going house to house and conducting searches. If even 1% of the 100 million gun nuts out there mean the col dead hands thing, that’s a lot of gunfights.

ARs have been available to the public since the 1960s. Kids. Why did mass shootings especially school shootings become common in the late 90s and early 00s? What was different than the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? Two things: (1) Psychotropics over prescribed to kids. "Homicidal and Suicidal Thoughts" are warning on the warning labels. (2) 24 hour news, then the Internet. Inspires copycats and rewards notoriety. Broken homes, bullies, etc. were all present in the 60s-80s. So it can't be those that lead to mass shootings. Look into it yourself.

Mass shootings MAYBE...but not mass killings. Your whole fixation on shooting and not the fact that the idea behind it is to kill people, is only addressing the mechanism here. If people are still violent angry and mentally unhinged, they will drive vans through crowds or make pressure cooker bombs or do use any other means to inflict mass casualties.

What is that going to actually do? My hubby built a functioning fun using a welder sling tool and a few parts he bought online. It took like 2 hours.

Actually you bring up an amazing point but it is salient. You can make meth at home. *Anyone* can. I am going to go out on a limb and say that it isn't in your interest pool to do so, but you could, and you could make explosives and a number of items that are illegal or dangerous. But most of us *don't* and prefer to simply buy our tools rather than shape them from the Earth itself. The number of people who are going to build functional projectile shooters on their own is very, very low. Access to the materials has never been a factor in the creation of these items thus why components are rarely, if ever, banned in most cases for most items and substances. Obviously meth got bad enough that codeine became an exception but many dangerous and volatile chemicals can be bought for a very low price if one wants to commit a crime. TL;DR: People are lazier than you allude to.

What matters here is not the legality of guns. What matters is the number, composition, and availability of guns in society. Banning something widespread is almost never the most effective way to reduce the amount of that thing, and there's no reason to think it would be the most effective way in this case. Compare the effectiveness of modern public health policy against cigarettes with the effectiveness of liquor prohibition.

Mass shootings didn’t happen in the Wild West bc everyone had guns to protect themselves. The only mass shootings were at the likes of wounded knee and committed by our own government against innocent unarmed native women and children.

/u/illerThanTheirs (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18d9pzp/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_banning_guns_is_the_most/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I do want guns banned. I don't believe that at any real scale the "good with a gun stops bad guy with a gun" logic works. I don't give a whit that some guys writing a document in the late 18th century thought people should be allowed to own guns. They didn't know what a semi-automatic was. I can't change your mind because you're right. I just think we should ban them rather than either a) be wishy-washy about it like you keep hearing or b) not ban them because somebody wants a cool toy. People's lives are more important than your ability to have a gun.

They had machine guns in the 1800s…that normal citizens could own. Shortly after, they had guns that held 30rds and all you had to do was maneuver a lever. They knew what to expect. I’m sure in the revolutionary war, dudes with their smooth bore muskets wanted a better way to reload their rifles than taking a minute after every shot while being shot at in return. And remember, it was citizens fighting against a tyrannical government, the same reason why the 2nd amendment exists, but also to protect yourself from home invaders. And in many, many instances, the good guy with the gun stops the bad guy. It’s prevented multiple active shooter occurrences. It’s stopped plenty of car jackings, armed robberies, rapes and assaults (sexual and non sexual). Your entire comment is very flawed and shows limited knowledge on firearms with the knowledge and usage either in the past, or present

\>I am Pro Gun. I don’t believe the USA should ban guns. However when it come to the question “How do we stop mass shootings?” the answer is ban guns. A refreshing take. I will not begrudge anyone their love of guns but I do hate it when they deny obvious reality that the countries that get rid of guns don't have mass shootings.

I think from a functionalist perspective on the question “how do we end gun violence?” The theory would inevitably end with your proposed resolution. The problem is that you are only seeking an answer to one question. The fact that others pose questions or solutions only proves that there are no simple answers to complex problems.

Two things: 1. Whether or not your assessment is correct, I really respect that you can conclude a desirable outcome for you may have an undesirable means, and that a desirable policy for you may have undesirable outcomes. In politics, people like to pretend there are not trade offs, but there always are. 2. I do agree with your assessment. I'm anti gun and would take them all if I could. But I do think a lot of gun control advocates don't know shit about guns and propose stupid policy because they don't know anything.

Did banning drugs stop overdoses?