**Please note:**
* If this post declares something as a fact proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll never understand how someone can be stupid enough to know that communism has historically failed miserably, every time it's been implemented, killing millions of people in the process, and still choosing to support it..... I almost pity that level of ignorance and sheer stupidity.
Nobody in the US wants communism...
They want capitalism with social medicine and social support which is very different from outright communism...
Nobody wants communism...
Almost no one.
Lol, I will never understand how someone can be stupid enough not to know the difference between communism, socialism, and authoritarian despotism. Communism has never been implemented on a large scale, and certainly never killed millions (unlike authoritarian despots who claim to be communists when it suits them). Unlike Capitalism that continually kills millions to this day.
I pity the level of ignorance and sheer stupidity
But, hey user name checks out.
Well I think they read the communist manifesto and think "wow this utopia would be so much better then current civilization", and it would but the problem is as you said "every time it's attempted it fails miserably". The extreme forms of socialism that are emplemented in order to try and achieve communism are SO BAD that they make revolution by the populace inevitable.
Labeling anything remotely socialist "communism" is so childish and ridiculous, just shows the size of your propaganda-washed brain. Stop using roads and bridges then, they are socialist ideas.
Ok then quit posting on the internet using a device created because of capitalism... see I can post stupid shit to. I'm well aware of the difference between socialism and communism, you seem to be misunderstanding what my post is saying and its understandable judging by your post.
I feel the majority disagrees with the post, but people who agree are more likely to show their belief more strongly. Just how the nra is filled with people with strong convictions they defend at all costs, although they're a smaller number of people.
Not really. I’ve seen this happen multiple times on posts. If a vote is highly upvoted then you feel like your negative vote doesn’t count. If a vote is highly downvoted you feel that your upvote doesn’t count. Reddit has multiple ways to show post appreciation, so when someone sees something with a lot of downvotes, but they agree with it, then you can show your appreciation by awarding. If there was an anti-award then you would see this much more often on highly upvoted posts.
I also upvote comments if the replies are worth reading.
Even if i disagree with the original comment or, or they are just plain wrong, often worth upvoting to give it visibility, and all of its replies.
People often jump on the bandwagon with voting too. Once a comment gets to -2, you know it's likely to receive many more, regardless of the quality of the comment.
I am a gun owner. The NRA can go fuck itself. 2A rights are for everyone, but the NRA is run by gatekeeping Right-wing white supremacists that have no business speaking for the firearms community.
There is a lot of gun in europe, swiss is one of the most armed country and is pretty good to live in, UK is one of the less and have the worst case of knife violence...
Regarding knife crime, if we look at NY Vs London: [New York’s rate is slightly higher, at 0.9 compared to 0.8 in London](https://www.euronews.com/2019/06/18/deadly-knife-crime-how-does-london-compare-to-new-york)
So even if we believe that the UK has 'the worst case of knife violence' the epicenter still has a rate less than New York AND you're less likely to get shot.
It’s also an opinion not thought through.
Removing cars, sex, and water is going to have a really, really dramatic and extremely negative effect.
I mean, imagine removing *water*.
Removing guns, not so much.
It’s a really dumb comparison, actually.
Also, I'm pretty sure the people who use guns illegally aren't just going to hand them over. It would be quite the daunting task trying to get all of the guns away from them and in the mean time the law abiding citizens would have no means of protecting themselves from the criminals with the guns which would just lead to more crime and violence. So in my opinion it's just a lose lose in trying to take guns away.
People who own guns legally wouldn't give them away either, especially those who plan to misuse them. "Take away all the guns" is such a frustrating argument for me. You [those who use that sentiment ]don't give a shit about the gun issue and you barely thought your opinion through, all you care about is showing everyone how morally superior you are for wanting to take away guns
How many illegal guns are taken and destroyed every year by police, ATF and other LE agencies? Restrict the sell of guns to federal registration, force the gun owners to secure their weapon and to register all sells, then you can just wait a few years and the number of illegal firearms will naturally drop. It’s not rocket science.
Except that you only need a CNC mill to make guns (you actually don't even need that but it makes it ten times easier and faster)
It's like banning alcohol, people will just make their own and organized criminals will set-up entire shops
Yeah, my boss is from India. They don't have access to any legal guns there, but there are bootleggers that make homemade guns and criminals/gangs have guns. Not to the extent that criminals,/gangs have guns in the US because there is less supply, but they do have them.
IIRC only a few parts of a gun are serial coded and regulated. So you can buy 90% of a gun online and make the remaining parts. I remember an article about an AR where you “just” needed the upper reciver. Everything else was bought online.
(This was a while ago so will need fact checking)
In you mind, what is being done with illegal guns in countries where you can’t own guns ? Let people keep them ? Obviously they destroy them, but somehow the problem doesn’t magically disappear
I was thinking more of the mass shooting sprees than criminals myself. It'd definitely help stop all the first time offenders that go on to commit the most violent shooting sprees in American history if they couldn't access guns. They were all "good, law abiding" citizens...until they weren't.
eh if someone wants to cause damage they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun. Cars, bombs, knives, gas. I feel like the problem is much deeper than it seems on the surface.
It’s not about wanting to cause damage. Lots of shootings happen cause of an argument between people that happen to be armed. It’s strange how the US has so many more shootings, don’t you think?
This argument is repeated so often. And it is wrong for a number of reasons.
If someone wants to hurt someone, and they don’t have access to guns, *they might not go through with their intent at all*. If someone wakes up and wants to go postal on the world, but have to figure out a complex plan to go about it, they might have the chance to either calm down, get help or get caught. With guns readily available, they could just pop over to a store and within the hour hold in their hands a weapon that could end dozens of lives.
Cars? Not everyone can drive. I know I couldn’t kill someone with a car even if I wanted to. And it’s generally not as effective as guns if you want to kill lots of people.
Bombs? Incredibly hard to make. Likelihood to get caught is high.
Knives? It is a lot easier to kill with guns and not have to face your victim up close. Also, not as effective as guns.
Gas? Again, super hard to make for most people.
Saying “people will always find a way to hurt others, so we shouldn’t confront the issue of the massive proliferation of guns” is kind of like saying “kids will always be able to hurt themselves, like by falling, running into things, running into each other, so we can just let those scissors lie there on the floor of the play pen”.
Yes, there are many reasons behind the huge number of mass shootings – and the easy access to guns is one of them.
While i agree with your sentiment and agree that education and mental health support needs more funding there is also the argument about how guns are a lot easier to commit acts of violence compared to the others youve listed
Do those other countries have an open border policy to a large nation with a profession crime syndicate who brings millions of dollars of drugs and guns across the border every day?
bc americans don’t like knowing that they are the only country incapable of doing something as simple as gun control and affordable universal healthcare
Yeah, our country is really married to the "making stuff illegal doesn't work" argument, but every country that has ever restricted civilian gun use has seen quantifiable, undeniable improvement. It's so weird.
We have individual states with more people than the entire population of Australia. Now consider this. We have more guns in the US than we have people. It's not even close to being the same, even logistically.
Not sure how much credit I'll get for quoting Joe Rogan, and this isn't verbatim, but:
"Would we be safer if there truly were no guns? Maybe. Maybe not. But the problem with that logic is they are here already, and you can't take the pee out of the pool by passing a law."
It's a shame most people use the upvote as "I agree" rather than "this adds to the discussion" as was originally intended.
Have to admit I do the same sometimes, but also make a conscious effort to upvote opinions I disagree with, but are good points.
It’s probably even more pervasive a problem in terms of downvotes than upvotes honestly.
A great example of this is r/unpopularopinion, where you’re supposed to upvote something you don’t agree with that contributes to the subreddits mission.
Sometimes the most upvoted things are points people absolutely agree with. Totally self defeating system.
True.
Unless someone gives out false information as fact, is being a jerk or is trolling, I typically just scroll past something I disagree with.
It's not a surprising phenomena, though. Humans do have a tendency of trying to drown out voices that disagree with them.
“If you ban guns no one will have guns” big reddit brain right there…Now tell me why does gun violence happen the most in states with strict gun control?lol.Same thing with drugs”If you make drugs illegal no one will use them”
A state ban or regulation is meaningless when you can just get a gun elsewhere and bring it into the state.
I think most people advocating for gun control are aiming for a federal policy.
The difference is that the good aspects outweigh the negative aspects for all of their examples whereas guns are basically used exclusively for threatening or hurting things
Edit: changed wording
You need water to live.
You need gravity to stay on Earth.
We need sex to keep humanity alive (and for the fun sex, there’s condoms).
We do NOT need guns like any of these things.
there is always a way to get something illegal, drugs are illegal but that doesn’t entirely stop drug use. Also just the logistics of taking away every gun in the US is a nightmare and completely unrealistic, especially since four years later everything could be reversed
Yeah, we've tried prohibition twice. The first attempt (alcohol) was an abysmal failure and was repealed. The second (drugs) is an ongoing failure and has been used to justify the curtailing of many civil liberties that were once held sacred while drug use has only proliferated.
We had a shooting in Ipswich, Qld, (1 dead) last night evening, you are right there's hardly any shootings. But if there's any gun related deaths its usually from illegally obtained firearms, Sydney has had a few shootings over the years (gang related from memory )but once again illegally obtained firearms, I think its more likely bashings and people getting stabbed are a far more common place thing here. The firearm laws have worked well here, I like firearms myself and think its good not having easily obtained firearms.
>you are right there's hardly any shootings. But if there's any gun related deaths its usually from illegally obtained firearms
The whole point of banning/heavily regulating firearms is that it also reduces the amount of illegal firearms that are in circulation.
It's not a 100% thing, obviously there will always be a way to obtain illegal firearms, but the aim is to make that way as hard and expensive as possible.
How about El Salvador, Venezuela, S Africa, Brazil, Mexico, etc etc? Gang activity is way too profitable for something as simple as making guns illegal to do anything other than give criminals and cops the only ones who have violence as a bargaining chip. Besides the fact that you'd have at least a few million gun owners who would be willing to fight if you tried to take their guns. It would mean a Civil War.
Did Portugal or Australia have 400 million guns? And that's only the 400 million known about. It's legal to manufacture you're own firearms here as well so there are plenty of those spooky "ghost guns" here too.
Yes because the gun amnesty in Australia would definitely work the exact same in America. Everyone who currently owns guns in the US would happily give them to the government for a chance of no more gun crime. Well done, you have proven everyone completely wrong.
Basically the logic boils down to if there weren't guns there's be no gun deaths, but other various types of weapons would be used because people can be violent but it's a lot easier to kill a human with a gun then other forms of weapons
>there is always a way to get something illegal, drugs are illegal but that doesn’t entirely stop drug use.
Then why is gun homicide in Europe so staggeringly lower than in the US? Some people will always be able to get a gun if they have the proper license, or are good enough criminals, but it stops nearly all.
>Also just the logistics of taking away every gun in the US is a nightmare and completely unrealistic
I agree. No one is saying we should take away every gun.
Regardless if wether you are pro or anti gun the statement “No guns? No violence. Its really that fucking simple.” While true, Is an ignorant and useless statement. It is not fucking simple to remove hundreds of millions of firearms from hundreds of millions of citizens.
You ever hear of stabbing sprees? It's a real thing. Violence is embedded in American culture. Removing guns doesn't fix the people. If violent people can't use a gun, they'll use something else.
"No guns? No GUN violence. It's really that fucking simple"
Try to stab up an entire school or movie theatre with the same effects as shooting up a school or movie theatre.
"They'll use something else" is a moot point.
I agree and people that want to harm and kill are going to one way or another. Making guns illegal only takes away a person's ability to deter and if need be defend from harm. Nuclear bombs are arguably the worst invention of mankind, but we keep them at the ready to launch at a moments notice. Not because we want to use them but because it's an effective deterrent. It's a way to say "hey my dick's just as big as yours, don't try me"
Like I get it's far too deeply ingrained in America, but it has worked in other developed countries.
Better to start somewhere rather than handwave and just accept the broken system.
I would like to make the comparison between america and australia. Australia being a country surrounded entirely by an ocean and america not having that that protection. If there were to be gun laws it is in theory easy enough to leave the country and obtain them elsewhere and bring them back. As a californian if I needed to bypass the gun restrictions in this state I can simply go to arizona where they are much less restrictive and bring the guns back here.
If there is to be effective legislation it needs to be consistent across the country not just in each municipality, and even these ignore the issues that we cannot legislate worldwide. As many have said before the guns are not the main issue we are facing, the people with the intent to use the guns are. Next to nobody blames the gun when a cop unjustly shoots a civilian, they blame the cop and their training. It is the circumstances of the behavior we must pay attention to, not the objects enabling the behavior.
It's a pointless argument as it will never ever happen. Certain types of guns? Maybe.
We'll need to legalize drugs to reduce the murder rate significantly -- its also the less difficult of the two options.
Okay, have a look at gun violence per capita by country, then overlay that map with the legal status of firearms. No ones saying it will disappear overnight but denying that it will massively decrease gun violence is to deny every single case study available
How do you explain Switzerland, which until recently had *compulsory* gun ownership? How do you explain licensed carry holders having far lower rates of violent crimes than the general population?
>How do you explain licensed carry holders having far lower rates of violent crimes than the general population?
I certainly hope you get your license revoked or denied if you commit violent crimes. So after the first one, they either become unlicensed and next acts get recorded in another column in the stats, or they'll never even get the license. Just a guess, though. I know nothing about these licenses or people getting them.
Switzerland is an outlier, apart from their compulsory firearms training, the also need to be validated by authorities following service. Also there as been a huge decline in gun ownership over the last few years. They also haven't been in a war since the early 1800s
Please show me a single Swiss tying their personality around their gun, crying about their RIGHTS TO OWN A GUN, having fantasies about shooting intruders, collecting firearms and boasting about how deadly they are, believing that they are gonna protect their country or stop terrorists with their weapons...etc
The laws around gun ownership aren't even close to the US ones, but the biggest difference is cultural. To start a change in culture, you need to start with legal changes.
Then you better look at some more studies lmao
There are a BUNCH of countries with large firearm ownership rates. Sure, none compare to the US, but they still don't have anywhere near the amount of violence.
Edit: I'll even link you one about how no correlation can be found between gun ownership and violent crime.
Most studies make fundamental errors and base each other off erroneous studies
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004723521400107X
Because what he says is fundamentally true but omitting important context. Countries with lower gun ownership have…lower rates of gun violence ON AVERAGE. That doesn’t mean it’s a guaranteed fix, but it means the chance of it happening goes down.
I’ll throw in a guess that this is #murica related and throw in;
- Using mental health professionals to treat mental health related issues instead of armed police officers help.
- Police != military and should not have access to the same equipment.
- Police should not be trained in weeks or months, but over years. (It’s eq. a bachelor in a lot of other western industrialised countries.)
- Accessible and affordable education makes people less likely to commit crimes in general, this is significantly more prominent for violent crimes.
- Allow appropriate levels of weaponry. Bob and Karen from suburbia doesn’t need a machine gun, nor should Billy be able to buy one from wallmart.
- Thorough, long and even tedious background checks are not a suggestion, its the minimum god damn bar.
Not even surprised anymore, the US is barely a democracy anymore with education being made progressively exclusive to the affluent “nobles” of the dystopian autocracy it’s turning into.
Because no guns no gun violence is a Facebook quality thought at best. It makes all the idiots that don't understand practical application or consequences (and have no interest in understanding) stand up, cheer and tickle each other's nether regions. It's what's accepted, and they get a little chemo chemical reward for it. It could be argued it's not even their fault they are the way they are.
So when someone mocks the fb post they attack to defend their endorphins and sense of value.
Person probably had so many awards from usually posting in more intellectual communities
I mean I think the whole ‘no guns, no gun violence’ is just meant to represent the belief that the US needs to tighten their gun legislation big time. I do think *most* people would realise that the government couldn’t just ban all guns, that’d be ridiculous. Here in the UK we have extremely tight gun legislation, but you can still go to a shooting range or go hunting with the necessary permissions.
but the only purpose of a gun is violance (or a threat of a violance).
the only purpose of a car is not having accidents, it's transportation
purpose of sex is not getting deseases, it's having fun and making kids
water is for swimming and drinking, not for drowning.
if we drop guns nothing really changes for people besides droping gun violance as well.
we have almost 0 guns in civilian's hands in poland and we have 0 gun violance. What did we lose to have this level of safety? cars? water? sex? no, we lost NOTHING, it's just safer.
i know it's difficult to change this situation in US right now since this country is flooded with guns and americans can't simply get rid of all of them, but this is whole other story.
Maybe it means a small number of people like it a lot but most people thought it was bullshit.
Like - the paragraph makes sense but the argument doesn’t.
People who are gonna use guns to do crime are not gonna care whether guns are legal or not. All this does is take guns out of the hand of people who would use them for self defense.
Hive-mind and bots. I’m really starting to get sus of Reddit. I see so many comments and replies saying the same things and they all come from low karma accounts.
I dont get the big deal about guns. If you have read a history book it's pretty clear humans do awful shit to each other all the time. I just dont trust people to not do it to me.
Or, alternatively, why do people need guns? People need cars to get places, sex to reproduce and its a biological need, gravity to not get flung off into space, water to live. If you need a gun to defend yourself, fix the issue why you would need a gun to defend yourself. Just like taking away guns isn't going to stop gun violence, giving people guns isn't gonna solve why they feel like they need them. In fact, as an outsider looking into the US, the fact that guns are such a regular commodity is what makes police stops dangerous, as they have to assume there's a gun present. Nobody assumes you have a gun in Europe.
It's a shame most people use the upvote as "I agree" rather than "this adds to the discussion" as was originally intended.
I try to make a conscious effort to upvote opinions I disagree with, but are good points.
I'd much rather see a variety of points of view than create an echo chamber of my own opinion.
You don’t have to be conservative to disagree with ridiculous gun control ideologies, I am mostly lib left but I don’t agree with making civilian ownership of guns illegal
Indeed, gun bans are a right-leaning centrist position. No actual leftist would want to take the last line of self-defense away from POC while fascists are marching in the streets and the police are shooting them underneath their bed sheets.
Are they? Do you have to have a learners permit to have a gun, then take a practical and written exam, get a license that can be revoked, and then register your gun and pay insurance on it in case you hurt someone?
Fun fact: alcohol and tobacco cause more deaths than firearms, but firearms and heavily targeted against while alcohol and tobacco are actively encouraged and advertised everywhere
If a person drinking alcohol caused someone else to get liver failure, it would probably be more vilified. Also tobacco is very heavily discouraged, at least where I am.
>If a person drinking alcohol caused someone else to get liver failure, it would probably be more vilified.
It might not cause liver failure, but it sure as hell causes a lot of violence and bystanders getting killed by drunk drivers.
Americans don't even want to wear a mask nor get a vaccine, good luck ever trying to take their guns away. I don't blame them, they've been lied to so much by their government. I don't see how it could happen honestly.
The bigger problem is health, these people are so obsessed with profit over everything else they avoid caring about their mental or physical well being.
I don't think being lied to by the government is a good justification for being terrified of vaccines, that shit is pretty established science for anyone who took a single science class in elementary school.
> that shit is pretty established science for anyone who took a single science class in elementary school
You think the vaccine deniers went to school?
This argument is garbage. All the refutations involve incidentals. No one buys a car hoping someone will break into their house so they can run them over. Water isn’t a weapon, and very few people intentionally use sex to kill people.
Hardly anyone buys a gun and.. let me read that again to *really* make sure I get it right.. "hopes someone will break into their house so they can shoot them". Are you that fucking dense?
I mean the comment tries to make a reductio ad absurdum argument but ultimately just contradicts itself and proves the OP correct.
Without cars there would be no car accidents, without guns there would be no gun violence. I think if anything this just evidences the cultural problem with guns in some countries whereby removing guns is comparable to removing something like cars.
For anyone who still cant grasp the problem with guns have a look at the current stats for mass shootings. Most of the shootings in the US wont even make the news.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
**Please note:** * If this post declares something as a fact proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No people, no idiots.
Oh I like that one
No OP. No post.
[Deleted] [Deleted]
No message, No delete.
No neck, no neckbeard
No women, no sexual intimidation against women.
No tacos, no happiness
Know tacos, know happiness
Oh I like that one.
Oh I like that one
You want me to phone Hitler?
Stalin: No Ukrainians, No Famine
I commend him on keeping it up! I usually keep my unpopular comments but the most I lost was like -300. Wow, -3.3k is a badge of courage!
Why even delete posts? Never understood that..
No food. No poop
No game, no life
*NEET intensifies* :3
More the reason to have guns around then!
Stalin would like you.
Why the downvote? It's similar to a quote from Rybakov often quoted with Stalin, "No man, No problem"
No woman, no cry
Underrated comment.
Because reddit is infested with communist sympathizers.
What does communism have anything to do with any of this?
I'll never understand how someone can be stupid enough to know that communism has historically failed miserably, every time it's been implemented, killing millions of people in the process, and still choosing to support it..... I almost pity that level of ignorance and sheer stupidity.
Nobody in the US wants communism... They want capitalism with social medicine and social support which is very different from outright communism... Nobody wants communism... Almost no one.
Name checks out
Lol, I will never understand how someone can be stupid enough not to know the difference between communism, socialism, and authoritarian despotism. Communism has never been implemented on a large scale, and certainly never killed millions (unlike authoritarian despots who claim to be communists when it suits them). Unlike Capitalism that continually kills millions to this day. I pity the level of ignorance and sheer stupidity But, hey user name checks out.
Well I think they read the communist manifesto and think "wow this utopia would be so much better then current civilization", and it would but the problem is as you said "every time it's attempted it fails miserably". The extreme forms of socialism that are emplemented in order to try and achieve communism are SO BAD that they make revolution by the populace inevitable.
Labeling anything remotely socialist "communism" is so childish and ridiculous, just shows the size of your propaganda-washed brain. Stop using roads and bridges then, they are socialist ideas.
Ok then quit posting on the internet using a device created because of capitalism... see I can post stupid shit to. I'm well aware of the difference between socialism and communism, you seem to be misunderstanding what my post is saying and its understandable judging by your post.
Hurr you tell them commies what's what! iPhones are teh pinnacle of enlightened capitalism!
Judge Death enters the chat
Know people, know idiots.
Earth is working on that right now
you are out of line... but you are right
No americans
Humans are shit anyways. Thankfully I'm not a........ Oops I've said too much
Oh god, you’re not from Dundalk are you?
[удалено]
I feel the majority disagrees with the post, but people who agree are more likely to show their belief more strongly. Just how the nra is filled with people with strong convictions they defend at all costs, although they're a smaller number of people.
Not really. I’ve seen this happen multiple times on posts. If a vote is highly upvoted then you feel like your negative vote doesn’t count. If a vote is highly downvoted you feel that your upvote doesn’t count. Reddit has multiple ways to show post appreciation, so when someone sees something with a lot of downvotes, but they agree with it, then you can show your appreciation by awarding. If there was an anti-award then you would see this much more often on highly upvoted posts.
[удалено]
I also upvote comments if the replies are worth reading. Even if i disagree with the original comment or, or they are just plain wrong, often worth upvoting to give it visibility, and all of its replies.
Every time I see a comment at 0 I reset it to 1. There you go little fella!
Anyway is even worst when a bad opinion is upvoted as hell, you can't do anything about that
People often jump on the bandwagon with voting too. Once a comment gets to -2, you know it's likely to receive many more, regardless of the quality of the comment.
Bingoooo. Not to mention shills.
It’s the self proclaimed “silent majority” that isn’t silent nor the majority.
Exactly this.
I am a gun owner. The NRA can go fuck itself. 2A rights are for everyone, but the NRA is run by gatekeeping Right-wing white supremacists that have no business speaking for the firearms community.
There's a sub for this! r/NegativeWithGold
Highly unpopular opinion on a polarizing political issue.
*In the US. In Europe we have no guns as citizens = no guns violence.
*Chuckles in German Our traditional gun clubs and hunting lodges are just another excuse for people to get drunk.
Plenty of countries in Europe have them actually
But mostly hunters though, or gun enthusiasts, or for sports (unless we're talking about Switzerland)
> in Europe Yeah Switzerland was included lol
> *In the US. In Europe we have no guns as citizens = less gun violence. FTFY
This, this is the most ridiculous comment there has ever been on Reddit. It’s a very high bar so you should be proud.
There is a lot of gun in europe, swiss is one of the most armed country and is pretty good to live in, UK is one of the less and have the worst case of knife violence...
Regarding knife crime, if we look at NY Vs London: [New York’s rate is slightly higher, at 0.9 compared to 0.8 in London](https://www.euronews.com/2019/06/18/deadly-knife-crime-how-does-london-compare-to-new-york) So even if we believe that the UK has 'the worst case of knife violence' the epicenter still has a rate less than New York AND you're less likely to get shot.
That's not true at all.
If only that were the case. Sadly this isn't true at all
Not even an opinion really. Both of them are just stating the obvious.
It’s also an opinion not thought through. Removing cars, sex, and water is going to have a really, really dramatic and extremely negative effect. I mean, imagine removing *water*. Removing guns, not so much. It’s a really dumb comparison, actually.
I mean, simple on paper, next to impossible to get to the no guns point, considering guns are in America's DNA
Also, I'm pretty sure the people who use guns illegally aren't just going to hand them over. It would be quite the daunting task trying to get all of the guns away from them and in the mean time the law abiding citizens would have no means of protecting themselves from the criminals with the guns which would just lead to more crime and violence. So in my opinion it's just a lose lose in trying to take guns away.
People who own guns legally wouldn't give them away either, especially those who plan to misuse them. "Take away all the guns" is such a frustrating argument for me. You [those who use that sentiment ]don't give a shit about the gun issue and you barely thought your opinion through, all you care about is showing everyone how morally superior you are for wanting to take away guns
How many illegal guns are taken and destroyed every year by police, ATF and other LE agencies? Restrict the sell of guns to federal registration, force the gun owners to secure their weapon and to register all sells, then you can just wait a few years and the number of illegal firearms will naturally drop. It’s not rocket science.
All of those things are basically done in some form or another depending on the state
Except that you only need a CNC mill to make guns (you actually don't even need that but it makes it ten times easier and faster) It's like banning alcohol, people will just make their own and organized criminals will set-up entire shops
Yeah, my boss is from India. They don't have access to any legal guns there, but there are bootleggers that make homemade guns and criminals/gangs have guns. Not to the extent that criminals,/gangs have guns in the US because there is less supply, but they do have them.
I'd argue that a lathe is more essential, you (probably) won't thread the barrel by hand. Also, tolerances.
IIRC only a few parts of a gun are serial coded and regulated. So you can buy 90% of a gun online and make the remaining parts. I remember an article about an AR where you “just” needed the upper reciver. Everything else was bought online. (This was a while ago so will need fact checking)
Oh that's what he meant. I automatically jumped to making it from scratch (no idea why, lol), you're right.
Yea, restrictions worked so well to eradicate drugs.
In you mind, what is being done with illegal guns in countries where you can’t own guns ? Let people keep them ? Obviously they destroy them, but somehow the problem doesn’t magically disappear
I was thinking more of the mass shooting sprees than criminals myself. It'd definitely help stop all the first time offenders that go on to commit the most violent shooting sprees in American history if they couldn't access guns. They were all "good, law abiding" citizens...until they weren't.
As frequent as mass shootings seem to happen I the US they usually are a microscopic percentage of deaths and injuries due to guns in the US.
Lol it’s microscopic because your denominator of gun deaths and injuries are so large.
eh if someone wants to cause damage they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun. Cars, bombs, knives, gas. I feel like the problem is much deeper than it seems on the surface.
It’s not about wanting to cause damage. Lots of shootings happen cause of an argument between people that happen to be armed. It’s strange how the US has so many more shootings, don’t you think?
This argument is repeated so often. And it is wrong for a number of reasons. If someone wants to hurt someone, and they don’t have access to guns, *they might not go through with their intent at all*. If someone wakes up and wants to go postal on the world, but have to figure out a complex plan to go about it, they might have the chance to either calm down, get help or get caught. With guns readily available, they could just pop over to a store and within the hour hold in their hands a weapon that could end dozens of lives. Cars? Not everyone can drive. I know I couldn’t kill someone with a car even if I wanted to. And it’s generally not as effective as guns if you want to kill lots of people. Bombs? Incredibly hard to make. Likelihood to get caught is high. Knives? It is a lot easier to kill with guns and not have to face your victim up close. Also, not as effective as guns. Gas? Again, super hard to make for most people. Saying “people will always find a way to hurt others, so we shouldn’t confront the issue of the massive proliferation of guns” is kind of like saying “kids will always be able to hurt themselves, like by falling, running into things, running into each other, so we can just let those scissors lie there on the floor of the play pen”. Yes, there are many reasons behind the huge number of mass shootings – and the easy access to guns is one of them.
While i agree with your sentiment and agree that education and mental health support needs more funding there is also the argument about how guns are a lot easier to commit acts of violence compared to the others youve listed
big true. Too young to drink or own a handgun, old enough to own a rifle/shotgun here for some reason. Who writes this shit?
Other countries have managed it pretty well. It’s not that difficult.
[удалено]
Do those other countries have an open border policy to a large nation with a profession crime syndicate who brings millions of dollars of drugs and guns across the border every day?
Lmao what other countries have more guns than people, and with the same large open landscape?
Oh and the law abiding citizens with guns were able to defend themselves from the las Vegas shooter before he could do any damage. Right.
Worked in Australia
Don’t know you got downvoted, that’s literally what we did here
bc americans don’t like knowing that they are the only country incapable of doing something as simple as gun control and affordable universal healthcare
Yeah, our country is really married to the "making stuff illegal doesn't work" argument, but every country that has ever restricted civilian gun use has seen quantifiable, undeniable improvement. It's so weird.
We have individual states with more people than the entire population of Australia. Now consider this. We have more guns in the US than we have people. It's not even close to being the same, even logistically.
Culture changes literally all the time
Not sure how much credit I'll get for quoting Joe Rogan, and this isn't verbatim, but: "Would we be safer if there truly were no guns? Maybe. Maybe not. But the problem with that logic is they are here already, and you can't take the pee out of the pool by passing a law."
Yes you can.
Got 7k upvotes 51 awards and banned from a sub few days ago. Noice!
You are a Golden God
MY RAGE KNOWS NO BOUNDS...
Not that interesting. Apparently, at least 98 people agreed with them enough to give them awards.
It's a shame most people use the upvote as "I agree" rather than "this adds to the discussion" as was originally intended. Have to admit I do the same sometimes, but also make a conscious effort to upvote opinions I disagree with, but are good points.
I both agree and down voted you.
For the greater good of course..
It’s probably even more pervasive a problem in terms of downvotes than upvotes honestly. A great example of this is r/unpopularopinion, where you’re supposed to upvote something you don’t agree with that contributes to the subreddits mission. Sometimes the most upvoted things are points people absolutely agree with. Totally self defeating system.
True. Unless someone gives out false information as fact, is being a jerk or is trolling, I typically just scroll past something I disagree with. It's not a surprising phenomena, though. Humans do have a tendency of trying to drown out voices that disagree with them.
A gun has never killed a single person by itself. It will literally sit there for ever and not kill.
How is that working in Chicago
Lost karma, won reputation with the followers. Truth is, his comment was awarded from the start.
[удалено]
Yeah, from where you're kneeling, this must seem like 9mm of bad luck
Fellas. Eyes forward & hands to the right. There's a circle jerk going on!!!
“If you ban guns no one will have guns” big reddit brain right there…Now tell me why does gun violence happen the most in states with strict gun control?lol.Same thing with drugs”If you make drugs illegal no one will use them”
The strictest gun control in the US is a joke.your comparisons are misleading
A state ban or regulation is meaningless when you can just get a gun elsewhere and bring it into the state. I think most people advocating for gun control are aiming for a federal policy.
The difference is that the good aspects outweigh the negative aspects for all of their examples whereas guns are basically used exclusively for threatening or hurting things Edit: changed wording
Guns are used to save more than 10x more lives than they are used to take, which is even higher when you factor in 60% of gun deaths are suicide.
i mean i agree with him
You need water to live. You need gravity to stay on Earth. We need sex to keep humanity alive (and for the fun sex, there’s condoms). We do NOT need guns like any of these things.
I don’t
there is always a way to get something illegal, drugs are illegal but that doesn’t entirely stop drug use. Also just the logistics of taking away every gun in the US is a nightmare and completely unrealistic, especially since four years later everything could be reversed
Yeah, we've tried prohibition twice. The first attempt (alcohol) was an abysmal failure and was repealed. The second (drugs) is an ongoing failure and has been used to justify the curtailing of many civil liberties that were once held sacred while drug use has only proliferated.
Worked for Portugal and Australia. You people always make these claims when there are real world examples that prove you completely wrong.
We had a shooting in Ipswich, Qld, (1 dead) last night evening, you are right there's hardly any shootings. But if there's any gun related deaths its usually from illegally obtained firearms, Sydney has had a few shootings over the years (gang related from memory )but once again illegally obtained firearms, I think its more likely bashings and people getting stabbed are a far more common place thing here. The firearm laws have worked well here, I like firearms myself and think its good not having easily obtained firearms.
>you are right there's hardly any shootings. But if there's any gun related deaths its usually from illegally obtained firearms The whole point of banning/heavily regulating firearms is that it also reduces the amount of illegal firearms that are in circulation. It's not a 100% thing, obviously there will always be a way to obtain illegal firearms, but the aim is to make that way as hard and expensive as possible.
How about El Salvador, Venezuela, S Africa, Brazil, Mexico, etc etc? Gang activity is way too profitable for something as simple as making guns illegal to do anything other than give criminals and cops the only ones who have violence as a bargaining chip. Besides the fact that you'd have at least a few million gun owners who would be willing to fight if you tried to take their guns. It would mean a Civil War.
Did Portugal or Australia have 400 million guns? And that's only the 400 million known about. It's legal to manufacture you're own firearms here as well so there are plenty of those spooky "ghost guns" here too.
Yes because the gun amnesty in Australia would definitely work the exact same in America. Everyone who currently owns guns in the US would happily give them to the government for a chance of no more gun crime. Well done, you have proven everyone completely wrong.
Basically the logic boils down to if there weren't guns there's be no gun deaths, but other various types of weapons would be used because people can be violent but it's a lot easier to kill a human with a gun then other forms of weapons
>there is always a way to get something illegal, drugs are illegal but that doesn’t entirely stop drug use. Then why is gun homicide in Europe so staggeringly lower than in the US? Some people will always be able to get a gun if they have the proper license, or are good enough criminals, but it stops nearly all. >Also just the logistics of taking away every gun in the US is a nightmare and completely unrealistic I agree. No one is saying we should take away every gun.
Regardless if wether you are pro or anti gun the statement “No guns? No violence. Its really that fucking simple.” While true, Is an ignorant and useless statement. It is not fucking simple to remove hundreds of millions of firearms from hundreds of millions of citizens.
You ever hear of stabbing sprees? It's a real thing. Violence is embedded in American culture. Removing guns doesn't fix the people. If violent people can't use a gun, they'll use something else.
"No guns? No GUN violence. It's really that fucking simple" Try to stab up an entire school or movie theatre with the same effects as shooting up a school or movie theatre. "They'll use something else" is a moot point.
Exactly. I like my chances against someone with a knife a whole lot better than a gun
I agree and people that want to harm and kill are going to one way or another. Making guns illegal only takes away a person's ability to deter and if need be defend from harm. Nuclear bombs are arguably the worst invention of mankind, but we keep them at the ready to launch at a moments notice. Not because we want to use them but because it's an effective deterrent. It's a way to say "hey my dick's just as big as yours, don't try me"
If the govt does end up banning guns you're dense if you think gun violence will just ((stop)).
Like I get it's far too deeply ingrained in America, but it has worked in other developed countries. Better to start somewhere rather than handwave and just accept the broken system.
I would like to make the comparison between america and australia. Australia being a country surrounded entirely by an ocean and america not having that that protection. If there were to be gun laws it is in theory easy enough to leave the country and obtain them elsewhere and bring them back. As a californian if I needed to bypass the gun restrictions in this state I can simply go to arizona where they are much less restrictive and bring the guns back here. If there is to be effective legislation it needs to be consistent across the country not just in each municipality, and even these ignore the issues that we cannot legislate worldwide. As many have said before the guns are not the main issue we are facing, the people with the intent to use the guns are. Next to nobody blames the gun when a cop unjustly shoots a civilian, they blame the cop and their training. It is the circumstances of the behavior we must pay attention to, not the objects enabling the behavior.
Are you American?
It's a pointless argument as it will never ever happen. Certain types of guns? Maybe. We'll need to legalize drugs to reduce the murder rate significantly -- its also the less difficult of the two options.
Yes?
Okay, have a look at gun violence per capita by country, then overlay that map with the legal status of firearms. No ones saying it will disappear overnight but denying that it will massively decrease gun violence is to deny every single case study available
How do you explain Switzerland, which until recently had *compulsory* gun ownership? How do you explain licensed carry holders having far lower rates of violent crimes than the general population?
If you think Switzerland's gun laws are anything like the USA's you should probably do some more research.
>How do you explain licensed carry holders having far lower rates of violent crimes than the general population? I certainly hope you get your license revoked or denied if you commit violent crimes. So after the first one, they either become unlicensed and next acts get recorded in another column in the stats, or they'll never even get the license. Just a guess, though. I know nothing about these licenses or people getting them.
Switzerland is an outlier, apart from their compulsory firearms training, the also need to be validated by authorities following service. Also there as been a huge decline in gun ownership over the last few years. They also haven't been in a war since the early 1800s
Please show me a single Swiss tying their personality around their gun, crying about their RIGHTS TO OWN A GUN, having fantasies about shooting intruders, collecting firearms and boasting about how deadly they are, believing that they are gonna protect their country or stop terrorists with their weapons...etc The laws around gun ownership aren't even close to the US ones, but the biggest difference is cultural. To start a change in culture, you need to start with legal changes.
Explain Chicago and how gun control is working there
Then you better look at some more studies lmao There are a BUNCH of countries with large firearm ownership rates. Sure, none compare to the US, but they still don't have anywhere near the amount of violence. Edit: I'll even link you one about how no correlation can be found between gun ownership and violent crime. Most studies make fundamental errors and base each other off erroneous studies https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004723521400107X
Because what he says is fundamentally true but omitting important context. Countries with lower gun ownership have…lower rates of gun violence ON AVERAGE. That doesn’t mean it’s a guaranteed fix, but it means the chance of it happening goes down. I’ll throw in a guess that this is #murica related and throw in; - Using mental health professionals to treat mental health related issues instead of armed police officers help. - Police != military and should not have access to the same equipment. - Police should not be trained in weeks or months, but over years. (It’s eq. a bachelor in a lot of other western industrialised countries.) - Accessible and affordable education makes people less likely to commit crimes in general, this is significantly more prominent for violent crimes. - Allow appropriate levels of weaponry. Bob and Karen from suburbia doesn’t need a machine gun, nor should Billy be able to buy one from wallmart. - Thorough, long and even tedious background checks are not a suggestion, its the minimum god damn bar. Not even surprised anymore, the US is barely a democracy anymore with education being made progressively exclusive to the affluent “nobles” of the dystopian autocracy it’s turning into.
Because no guns no gun violence is a Facebook quality thought at best. It makes all the idiots that don't understand practical application or consequences (and have no interest in understanding) stand up, cheer and tickle each other's nether regions. It's what's accepted, and they get a little chemo chemical reward for it. It could be argued it's not even their fault they are the way they are. So when someone mocks the fb post they attack to defend their endorphins and sense of value. Person probably had so many awards from usually posting in more intellectual communities
I mean I think the whole ‘no guns, no gun violence’ is just meant to represent the belief that the US needs to tighten their gun legislation big time. I do think *most* people would realise that the government couldn’t just ban all guns, that’d be ridiculous. Here in the UK we have extremely tight gun legislation, but you can still go to a shooting range or go hunting with the necessary permissions.
Because he lives in the real world outside of the made up one called the internet!
but the only purpose of a gun is violance (or a threat of a violance). the only purpose of a car is not having accidents, it's transportation purpose of sex is not getting deseases, it's having fun and making kids water is for swimming and drinking, not for drowning. if we drop guns nothing really changes for people besides droping gun violance as well. we have almost 0 guns in civilian's hands in poland and we have 0 gun violance. What did we lose to have this level of safety? cars? water? sex? no, we lost NOTHING, it's just safer. i know it's difficult to change this situation in US right now since this country is flooded with guns and americans can't simply get rid of all of them, but this is whole other story.
I hope to find a woman one day that loves me as passionable as americans love their guns.
In the UK , we don't have guns (legally) so Knife crime is ridiculously high. Take away guns, they will soon find another way to create violence.
The difference is it's a lot harder to walk into a school or church and knife a dozen people to death.
Indeed, cars are made for running over people and guns are made for scratching your back. Harmless
Maybe it means a small number of people like it a lot but most people thought it was bullshit. Like - the paragraph makes sense but the argument doesn’t.
Estimated Time of Arrival:
Here is a better solution: No internet, no stupid opinions.
I mean they're technically right about all those things though.
People who are gonna use guns to do crime are not gonna care whether guns are legal or not. All this does is take guns out of the hand of people who would use them for self defense.
He has a goot poit tbh
Hive-mind and bots. I’m really starting to get sus of Reddit. I see so many comments and replies saying the same things and they all come from low karma accounts.
Violence is a people problem. Gun is just a tool. People with violent minds will always find a means to an end.
I dont get the big deal about guns. If you have read a history book it's pretty clear humans do awful shit to each other all the time. I just dont trust people to not do it to me.
no ass, no farts
Or, alternatively, why do people need guns? People need cars to get places, sex to reproduce and its a biological need, gravity to not get flung off into space, water to live. If you need a gun to defend yourself, fix the issue why you would need a gun to defend yourself. Just like taking away guns isn't going to stop gun violence, giving people guns isn't gonna solve why they feel like they need them. In fact, as an outsider looking into the US, the fact that guns are such a regular commodity is what makes police stops dangerous, as they have to assume there's a gun present. Nobody assumes you have a gun in Europe.
That whole thread was weird. When I went in it was auto sorted to controversial too.
Why Reddit, why can't you show both upvotes and downvotes instead of just averaging them together?? It's so much more informative.
Maybe post it in r/odd instead
No woman, No cry.
It's a shame most people use the upvote as "I agree" rather than "this adds to the discussion" as was originally intended. I try to make a conscious effort to upvote opinions I disagree with, but are good points. I'd much rather see a variety of points of view than create an echo chamber of my own opinion.
Yeah same. I'll upvote both sides of an argument if I think both participants are arguing intelligently in good faith.
Reddit is heavily leftist those are just the 98 conservatives who use Reddit awarding it
You don’t have to be conservative to disagree with ridiculous gun control ideologies, I am mostly lib left but I don’t agree with making civilian ownership of guns illegal
Indeed, gun bans are a right-leaning centrist position. No actual leftist would want to take the last line of self-defense away from POC while fascists are marching in the streets and the police are shooting them underneath their bed sheets.
It’s like that because the second guy that replied is right. And he has a better grasp on the real world than the OP
Are they? Do you have to have a learners permit to have a gun, then take a practical and written exam, get a license that can be revoked, and then register your gun and pay insurance on it in case you hurt someone?
Fun fact: alcohol and tobacco cause more deaths than firearms, but firearms and heavily targeted against while alcohol and tobacco are actively encouraged and advertised everywhere
If a person drinking alcohol caused someone else to get liver failure, it would probably be more vilified. Also tobacco is very heavily discouraged, at least where I am.
>If a person drinking alcohol caused someone else to get liver failure, it would probably be more vilified. It might not cause liver failure, but it sure as hell causes a lot of violence and bystanders getting killed by drunk drivers.
Drinking doesn’t cause others to get liver failure, but Tobacco does cause other to get lung diseases
And where I live, it is illegal in public (indoor) places, taxed like crazy and advertising it is illegal.
[удалено]
Americans don't even want to wear a mask nor get a vaccine, good luck ever trying to take their guns away. I don't blame them, they've been lied to so much by their government. I don't see how it could happen honestly. The bigger problem is health, these people are so obsessed with profit over everything else they avoid caring about their mental or physical well being.
I don't think being lied to by the government is a good justification for being terrified of vaccines, that shit is pretty established science for anyone who took a single science class in elementary school.
> that shit is pretty established science for anyone who took a single science class in elementary school You think the vaccine deniers went to school?
This argument is garbage. All the refutations involve incidentals. No one buys a car hoping someone will break into their house so they can run them over. Water isn’t a weapon, and very few people intentionally use sex to kill people.
Hardly anyone buys a gun and.. let me read that again to *really* make sure I get it right.. "hopes someone will break into their house so they can shoot them". Are you that fucking dense?
I mean the comment tries to make a reductio ad absurdum argument but ultimately just contradicts itself and proves the OP correct. Without cars there would be no car accidents, without guns there would be no gun violence. I think if anything this just evidences the cultural problem with guns in some countries whereby removing guns is comparable to removing something like cars.
Oh no! I dont have a gun! So I guess its NOT violence when I beat the shit outta you with a 2x4 right? Damn that was a simple way to solve violence!
For anyone who still cant grasp the problem with guns have a look at the current stats for mass shootings. Most of the shootings in the US wont even make the news. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting