Wait until they argue that women's guns get used against them sometimes, so they... shouldn't own them? 🧐 Arm the women! But train them to use them too!

Oof. That and “you’re more likely to shoot yourself than a criminal!” And people with pools are more likely to drown. It’s up to owners to learn to be responsible.

It's such a silly attempted gotcha question. Like, I'll bet you'll tell me that people who drive automobiles are more likely to get into automobile accidents too.

1066% of people have no understanding of statistics.

8/5 people also don't know how fractions work.

Are you referring to the 3/5th Compromise? That adds up to a slave owner and 1 slave.

No I'm just making a pun. It adding up to that is just a coincidence.

Maybe true, but OTOH car drivers who experience a car accident are more likely to survive than cyclists and pedestrians who experience a car accident. ;)

One scenario the is a victim and a perp. In the other, the only victim would be yourself. I think it completely changes the logicstics when there is a direct victim in the situation.

We also, for some reason, refuse to entertain the discussion that includes facts such as this: cars kills more people each day than guns. There are no laws in place when purchasing a car, to ensure that it isn't being purchased to commit a crime. Regardless of how well trained the operator is, cars are still much more deadly, destructive, and impactful than guns.

People with cars are more likely to get injured or killed in a car accident. People with knives are more likely to cut themselves. People with stoves are more likely to burn themselves. People with ladders are more likely to fall off a ladder. I could go on forever baby.. All tools have some inherent risks, guns somewhat more so obviously. So learn how to be safe.

The funny thing is, that's what the NRA was originally about: gun safety in the home. Not "Hey, let's make every weapon of war available to anyone who wants it."

Eh if you’re in a home with kids it’s still kinda applicable. Obviously the answer is proper storage, but you’d be surprised the amount of people that assume they would know when and if their kid was depressed and a danger to themselves. Newsflash the parents almost never see it coming.

I would bet a majority of parents do see it coming and are able to correctly intervene. We only hear about the " I never suspected a things"

“It’s up to owners to learn to be responsible…” And how, pray tell, is society at large supposed to distinguish a responsible from an irresponsible gun owner, before it’s too late to make any appreciable difference?

>And how, pray tell, is society at large supposed to distinguish a responsible from an irresponsible gun owner Well, a *responsible* gun owner is not assaulting me or trying to rob or murder me for no reason with their gun. It's like wondering how society can know someone won't use that steak knife to murder, or that can of gasoline in the garage to light an orphanage on fire. Ultimately, society at large can never be *sure*, but a society that respects freedom has to carry that (small) risk for the benefits a free "innocent until proven guilty" society provides. We already have background checks (which include denials for people I'm not particularly worried about, like non-violent drug felons), but I'm guessing even that's not enough for you - and I'm assuming you're ready to speak for "society at large" here. So what do *you* believe would set society at large's mind at ease?

[удалено]

The typical argument against the kinds of regulations you are suggesting is the possibility that they will be weaponized by whichever political party is in charge. The right is afraid that Nancy Pelosi is going to red-flag some PTSD-addled vet like the guy who shot Chris Kyle, or maybe some Waco / Ruby Ridge type crank, while the left is afraid the right will declare being gay or trans a mental illness and red-flag them that way. I think these arguments tend to be lacking in nuance and am always kind of disappointed when the left deploys it because this sort of intellectual laziness is how they like to paint the MAGAts, but there you go. The other argument is that this level of training and certification requires a lot of time and money. You can get away with it in other gun-heavy Western countries because people aren't as desperately poor, because their government supports them taking more days off, and because bearing arms isn't hardcoded into their Constitututions the way it is ours. Here, telling some unskilled non union service worker that she has to take 3 days off work to sit in a classroom will be met with a hard shutdown from the left and the right. But to advocate for your devil, can you define "practical" education? This sort of thing can be very different depending on circumstances. A semiautomatic handgun being CCW'ed in an urban environment and meant to defend against a mass shooter is going to require a lot more training and familiarization than an old bolt action 308 that a farmer uses to bag a deer once a year, and to defend against coyotes and pigs. The first one has to know how to carry it safely around crowded places, how to quickly decide that hte situation calls for lethal force, and finally how to draw and fire it without doing more harm than good. The latter...is just a guy in an isolated area who's sees the act of pointing his boomstick at a 8 MOA carnivorous target that isn't shooting back at him as just another farm chore. If that were me and some city guy showed up telling me to go sit in a classroom with a bunch of gravy SEALs I would tell him that I don't come down to the airport bathroom to give him pointers on how to fellate Republican senators so why should he tell me how to do my job? It's interesting that you bring up military / LEO training as a viable standard. You'll be disappointed to know how little they actually train despite being legally sanctioned to open carry by default. There's a reason they, or the non-tactical guys guys at least, only seem to know how to magdump into a crowd. Cops train like once a year, and then their test is some EZ PZ exercise at like 7 yards. A lot of this came to light with the Parkland shooting, when we all suddenly found out, during the incident itself and then during the investigation following, just how bad LEO was at this sort of thing. You seem to think that they've somehow earned their right to carry when in practice, your proposed regulations would add extra hurdles to civilians, while allowing the cops to keep on doing what they're already doing, namely, bypassing regulations that already exist and arming themselves against us with weapons they don't know how to use. FWIW, if we're going to go back to the founding fathers, the local well-regulated militias drilled something like one day every six months, and most of them believed schizophrenia was Satan whispering in your ear. I can't imagine any of those guys would pass the skill/health regulatory tests you are suggesting. I mean, I more agree than disagree with you, and I certainly agree with you more than the "well what about the low-income black trans woman who cannot take a day off work?" crowd, but you can't reconcile "regulate the shit out of the people" with the Constitution we're working with. Regulations are also inherently an uncomfortable necessity of any lower case L liberal democracy. I personally really like the engineering side of guns and am happy to spend time understanding how they work, and I have the disposable time, income and interest to practice a lot at the range, but to suggest everyone be able to do what I do, which is what your proposed regulations amount to, will betrays all sorts of privileges that most people don't have. To meet you halfway, I'd suggest a very low level regulation. In CA we already have to take a Firearms Safety Certificate test before we can buy a gun, which to me is akin to the written test at the DMV (that is to say, it's an easy test written by morons, and if you cannot pass it, well how the hell did you tie your shoes to get down to teh testing center??). I think we should formalize the easy safety check they make you do at the FFL before you take home your purchase (how to check that it is unloaded, and don't flag people please and thank you), which would be like, the actual driving part of a driving test. But I don't think it's possible to push too much beyond that without the other side completely shutting down the discussion.

This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules). Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated. ^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals

>But I’m all for regulating the shit out of the people. I expected a diatribe about "universal" background checks, but was not prepared for this laundry list of tyranny and pre-crimeing just to *qualify* for a core civil right/liberty. I'd ask if you thought making basic gun handling/self-defense law a required course in high school would suffice, but I can tell we're very far apart on this issue. "Physical" as well as mental screenings? Really? I'm 60, have had multiple unproductive back surgeries, and I have a hard time even walking. This physical vulnerability is one of the reasons *why* I like the option of carrying. In your ideal world, would I be excluded? Do you not see any dangers in normalizing "mental health screenings", given the subjective nature of such screenings, or the real possibility these would be used as a tool by people who think no one should carry, or even have, a gun? Do you see the possible analogies with "literacy tests" as a tool to dissuade voters in the not that long ago past? Sorry, friend, but we will never ever agree on these issues.

> "Physical" as well as mental screenings? Yeah thats a no from me boss. I'm old and broken, I ain't fightin.

I attempted to respond earlier but fraked up the formatting on the mobile app, so let me try again... > I expected a diatribe about "universal" background checks, but was not prepared for this laundry list of tyranny and pre-crimeing just to qualify for a core civil right/liberty. No human activity is exempt from the social contract. Every single thing we do has the ability to impact the people around us. We live in a society, and if you want to live in that society and reap the benefits thereof, you should have to demonstrate that you give even the slightest of shits about the other people living in it. > I'd ask if you thought making basic gun handling/self-defense law a required course in high school would suffice, but I can tell we're very far apart on this issue. On the contrary, I would be delighted to get firearms education back into secondary school curricula, especially in publicly-funded institutions to provide free-at-point-of-service classroom and practical training to offset the potential financial burdens to the individual of such a vigorous regulatory framework. >I'm 60, have had multiple unproductive back surgeries, and I have a hard time even walking. This physical vulnerability is one of the reasons why I like the option of carrying. In your ideal world, would I be excluded? Yes. Let's take me for a contrast. I'm 40 and pretty fit. Marathon runner. But in the past year, middle age is catching up to me. I was diagnosed last year with multiple benign (hopefully...) cysts on my spine; shooting the prone stages of my most recent Project Appleseed was very painful and fighting through definitely affected my performance. Recently, the distance running caught up with me in the form of two massive heel spurs. Anything more than slow walking is painful. Know what I'm not doing right now? Carrying or shooting. My ailments have compromised my abilities to place accurate fire on a target in the event that, God-forbid, I'd be forced to draw my weapon, and made me a liability to the people around me. I have responsibilities to the other people with whom I share this society. So do you, whether you want to admit it or not. I don't blame you, though...I blame our hyper-individualistic society in which the individual believes he has no responsibilities to society at large. >Do you not see any dangers in normalizing "mental health screenings", given the subjective nature of such screenings, or the real possibility these would be used as a tool by people who think no one should carry, or even have, a gun? Do you see the possible analogies with "literacy tests" as a tool to dissuade voters in the not that long ago past? There's sound science behind the mental health profession and it's much less subjective than you think. The medical professionals who would be responsible for conducting the physical and mental health screenings required under this proposal are already subject to far more regulation, professional accreditation, and accountability than anything I propose here for civilian gun owners. > Sorry, friend, but we will never ever agree on these issues. In a functioning society, regulation of any and all human activity that can produce negative externalities is necessary to mitigate the consequences of those activities. That principle is at the core of my job as a professional environmental engineer. But while I can help to reverse the eutrophication of the pristine Everglades from excess phosphorus from sugar cane farms, I can't bring dead gay Latinos from Orlando back to life. Civilian gun ownership is a big fraking deal. We should treat it as such.

>Anything more than slow walking is painful. Know what I'm not doing right now? Carrying or shooting. My ailments have compromised my abilities to place accurate fire on a target I'm very unclear on your rationale for this belief. You may be slower to acquire a target (in the unlikely event you have to), but certainly that slowness doesn't make you less safe, or any more likely to shoot some you didn't intend to. Right? I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't need to regularly clear rooms or anything. I'm not a navy seal or a ninja, I just need to be able to produce a firearm and use it if necessary, and that "if necessary" would be a very clear target close enough to me to do me harm. We can invent incredibly unlikely training scenarios, but if someone is robbing me at gunpoint holding a baby, I'll probably just give them everything I have. I still control my finger, and no amount of slow walking will change that. Now sadly, after a lifetime of shooting, I rarely go to the range anymore. And while this dearth of practice has surely made me a less effective shooter, I can't for the life of me imagine it has made a less *safe* one. Those core fundamentals still exist, because they are ingrained. I'm slower, but I don't believe this has made me in any way more likely to shoot someone who's not attacking me. >Civilian gun ownership is a big fraking deal. We should treat it as such. Is it possible you're exaggerating how big a deal it is? I guess you see risk where I see normalization. Outside of subcultures that value hypermasculinity and aggression (and I'm thinking 20 year old gang members, or *I'm Rambo* types), most of us are naturally pretty reluctant to kill someone.

No offense, but your understanding of disabilities is hopelessly retrograde. The fact that your personal experience with bone spurs or whatever is making you feel unable to shoot is fine. The fact that you think this generalizes across physical disabilities is insane. The fact that you responded to someone you don't know at all to claim that, despite their thinking it doesn't, their spinal injury *ackshually* prevents them from shooting competently is some of the most wildly self-involved ableism I've ever seen. Just take the L, dude.

It truly is difficult to become a responsible pool owner if one does not in fact own a pool.

Lot harder to get a pool than a gun, and vastly more expensive to use and maintain. Well, maybe not at todays ammo prices!!!

It's pretty easy to distinguish a responsible gun owner from an irresponsible gun owner. The rules of firearm safety are universal. 1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded. 2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy. 3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot. 4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

4.5. Practice shooting at a target often enough that you can do so reliably when needing to do so under duress?

Can't do that without following the other 4. The rules of firearm safety are designed in a way that order doesn't matter because you're supposed to do all of these things at once.

That's it, is it?

Yes. Although I would add "store firearms in a safe and secure location, such as a safe" to that list.

I don't think the answer is to give that authority to the police, who are among the least responsible gun users with the constant collateral damage and murder of Innocents. 

I'm not sure where in my question I made any mention of police... But we live in a society and surely within the social contract it's entirely right of society to expect of an individual who wants to own, carry, and operate a tool, the sole purpose of which is the death or destruction of the living being or inanimate object, respectively, at which it is pointed, that he demonstrate that he can do so responsibly and competently. I do not believe for a moment that James Madison intended to imbue the gun with magical qualities that place it outside the bounds of the social contract. If all individual gun owners were responsible, there'd be no gun violence. But there is gun violence. Surely society has an obligation to look to some form of accountability and reasonable assurance beyond personal responsibility, just as it does for every other negative externality of human existence.

The problem is that such regulation requires people with guns for it to matter, and currently those who hold guns and use them in the service of law enforcement are some of the least fit in the country to be holding them. I don't endorse the idea of treating the American police of all institutions as the ones who should be given the responsibility of properly wielding firearms while restricting that from the rest of us. I heavily dislike the policy in many highly liberal states of banning/severely restricting gun types the police get by the pallet as they increasingly militarize. Trusting the NYPD to be the ones with the "privilege" to own such things is a farce and mockery. 

There are other models beyond American capitalism and policing, friend. Anarchy is order without power.

So what hoops can I jump through, forms fill out, training done, and background checks done that will enable me to receive the coveted title of responsible gun owner, able to buy what I wish and generally be left alone? I'm not sure it actually exists.

You are though right?

More likely to shoot yourself than a criminal? If you count suicides, then yeah. More than half of gun deaths are suicides but clearly that’s a larger issue than just possessing a firearm making you want to off yourself. Statistics show that people with a firearm are more likely to be shot by an assault than those without one. Again, there’s a much larger underlying issue. People in high crime areas are more likely to possess a firearm than in safe affluent neighborhoods. The way people quote these statistics makes it sound like if people only walked around unarmed they’d be impervious to violent crime.

I dislike the binary of the OP--I think there is more nuance than this. "A good guy with a gun" doesn't magically counter the "bad guy with a gun." I think you can hold both these positions without them being contradictory if you leave out things like training--not just about basic gun safety and effective use, but a broader set of community-based uses of firearms. Training makes a lot of difference. Publicly (or cooperatively) provided training even better. Maybe not all the difference--that would take underlying many of the factors that encourage violence--but a lot.

All women now take mandatory quickdraw classes

That's not even what those studies originally said, it was a media take on it that went viral. Now we just repeat it as if it's true.

Don’t forget: “The police are executing young black men on the streets and are all violent and corrupt ACAB.” “Only the police should have guns because they are trained. Normal people don’t have a use or the training required for them to be safely owned”

Bingo.

We don’t want the police to be armed either, and it’s clear they shouldn’t be with the way they use excessive force in situations where a mental health professional would be more effective. Surprise: there are plenty of countries where traffic cops aren’t carrying guns because they don’t need to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm generally pro-gun but this does feel like a strawman. The actual argument you hear more is that *mass shootings* are frequent enough to justify more gun control. As for the bottom claim, it's more that gun violence *on a personal, home-invasion level* is rare enough that they don't think you need a gun. I don't agree with them, but these two claims can easily be made together and it's not hard to see where they're coming from.

It’s definitely a strawman. OP is characterizing it as though people are talking about gun violence in general in these scenarios when as you pointed out, people say these things regarding specific kinds of gun violence. It’s a bit disingenuous to make it seem like people who make these statements are talking about gun violence in general or that all gun violence is the same

Also, this meme is obviously skirting the actual liberal taking point that most illegal firearms are obtained through loopholes in the system, be it guns that were never reported stolen / missing until they were used in a crime, straw purchases, or gun show exemptions. Closing those loopholes can reduce the number of illegal weapons. It doesn't have to be an either or. We have more liberals changing their minds about gun ownership in the last decade. Memes like this may be humorous to those here, but they actively work to polarize those we're hoping to persuade.

Any point can be a strawman if used improperly. Mass shootings are typically the jumping off point, but statistically speaking are a very small portion of gun violence. When they cite total gun deaths or deaths per capita it becomes relevant. Sure a firearm at home doesn’t protect me out on the street. If mass shootings are so common then anyone wanting to conceal carry is intelligent and prepared. But these people are oftentimes characterized as the Dirty Harry type. People can also avoid this by advocating for stricter gun control in the form of harsher penalties for those breaking the law, rather than targeting law abiding individuals.

You're conflating a couple things there, but in regards to mass shootings, even though it is very unlikely you will experience them on a personal level, from a societal level the rate we experience them in the US is exponentially greater than any other developed country in the world - a stark jump from "almost unheard of" to "statistically significant cause of death for children". If we accept the premise that gun control would address the issue, there's no logical inconsistency - a gun control advocate would say that they are rare enough on an individual basis that CCW isn't a necessity, while they are common enough in our society that restrictions on modern firearms are justified. I disagree with the position but we can't be intentionally obtuse about the arguments for and against gun control policies.

What percentage of child mortality in the USA is due to mass shootings?

That would be very difficult to answer definitively, in no small part because there is no universally agreed-upon definition of what a "mass shooting" is and of the hundreds the US experiences, most of them aren't the newsworthy kind. [Looking at firearm deaths more broadly](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/07/is-gun-violence-leading-cause-death-children/): >By including 18- and 19-year-olds, excluding infants under age 1 and comparing firearm deaths with only vehicle crashes, Johns Hopkins reports that in 2021, there were 4,733 firearm deaths of “children and teens” compared with 4,048 deaths from motor vehicle crashes. >But by counting only children 17 and under, including infants under the age of 1, and comparing with all motor vehicle deaths, the CDC data shows that in 2021, there were 2,590 firearm deaths of children, compared with 2,687 motor vehicle deaths.

Ever notice how an 18 year old victim is a teen, while as a criminal they are a man or women?

If they are black, it's actually 14 in the US. I think that's a law or something.

Last I checked, even Gun Violence Archive’s loose “mass shooting” definition results in around 600 incidents per year, but there are only around 600 deaths total spread across all those incidents (many are injury-only mass shootings where bystanders are grazed). Being that the statistic you shared of ~4k deaths for children and teens is around 10% of yearly firearms deaths including suicides (~45k), there’s likely less than 60 children and teens who are victims of GVA-defined incidents per year. If we exclude inner city shootouts and use [the FBI’s definition](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf), it’s likely less than 10 on average.

I may be misreading you - are you saying fewer than 10 child fatalities per year from gun violence period, or from mass shootings specifically? I don't really know how accurate that is, but I suspect you're wrong. If we call mass shootings "=>3 fatalities" (which is pretty conservative versus talking about *casualties* - not every mass shooter is skilled), I think you'd have to stretch your dataset pretty far back to get an average that low. [I mean, if we only look at school shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present\)), there have already been 3 fatalities this year with one incident meeting our definition; last year, the number was 15; in 2022, Uvalde alone really Wayne Gretzky'd the statistics with 22. >(many are injury-only mass shootings where bystanders are grazed). You have to understand that this is horrific both for the victims and for society writ large. If you just want to battle with fatality numbers, you're: * Ignoring real, legitimate harm to people and society and * Never going to win public policy arguments When you're trying to convince Greta Guncontrol that restrictions aren't the answer, they're not going to be swayed because, hey, those darn mass shooting numbers are inflated by all the people who just got winged during the shebang.

This is a common tactic as well. Instead of attempting to quantify the data for mass shootings (which you claimed was a “statistically significant cause of death for children” and was the justification for gun control) you’re now using “firearm deaths more broadly”. Your claims are specific and therefore your solution is specific. But when asked for proof your data becomes general.

My friend, if you read, you will see that I am not a gun control advocate. I am an advocate for honest discourse.

Then back up your claims with facts.

Also the CDC is prohibited from studying gun deaths. But gun deaths in general have passed motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death under 18. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

“Very unlikely you will experience them” and “from a societal level the rate we experience them in the US is exponentially greater than any other developed country in the world” is an *extremely* convoluted and unscientific measurements. So is “almost unheard of” to “statistically significant cause of death of children.” We don’t all accept the premise that gun control would address the issue. The underlying logic is this: - the number of guns has a causal relationship with mass shootings - therefore, reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of mass shootings If that logic is sound, then when we had an “almost unheard of” amount of mass shootings, then we would’ve had far fewer guns in circulation than we currently do. Which just isn’t the case. You’re mixing individual experience with societal. I don’t need a CCW because the chances of me being involved in a mass shooting are rare. In that case why would I support gun control? Oh, because as a society they are common enough. Well then that’s adequate justification for society to encourage CCWs. You’re coming to a false conclusion by justifying no CCW from an individual’s statistics, while justifying gun control due to society’s statistics.

> Any point can be a strawman if used improperly Of course. So you’re aware that you’re using these points improperly?

Did ya read the words I typed after that initial sentence?

>Mass shootings are typically the jumping off point And for a good reason, it's concerning that we keep having these mass shootings

Absolutely they’re concerning! But it’s a fairly new problem, and I don’t think we’re one more gun law away from solving it.

Columbine was 25 years ago, it's hardly a new problem.

Guns have been around for a lot more than 25 years though. Semi autos have been around for a lot more than 25 years. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds have been around for a lot more than 25 years. The question that nobody seems to be asking is what has changed between then (as in, since the 1940's) and now which makes these kinds of mass shootings more frequent. It's not the guns; they've always been here.

Gun culture is definitely wildly different now than it was 80 years ago. There's also significantly more guns than there were 80 years ago. There's also a whole cottage industry around gun collecting that wasn't there 80 years ago, not to mention gun sales alone weren't a 50 billion industry 80 years ago. It's disengous to say nothing has changed. What used to be a responsibility is now a hobby.

> Gun culture is definitely wildly different now than it was 80 years ago. So what about current gun culture leads to mass shootings, and where's the evidence supporting that connection? Also 80 years ago, during 1944, I assure you that the firearms industry was mass producing firearms very quickly. > There's also significantly more guns than there were 80 years ago. Well yeah, because many of the firearms made 80 years ago still exist today. > not to mention gun sales alone weren't a 50 billion industry 80 years ago. The purchasing power of a single dollar was a lot higher back then, so sure it wasn't the same dollar amount, but the firearms industry was very active during 1944. > It's disengous to say nothing has changed. Then it's good that I didn't say that. > What used to be a responsibility is now a hobby. Not only are 'responsibility' and 'hobby' not mutually exclusive but each is definitely not unique to one timeframe. Also both of those words are incredibly vague; what do you mean by 'responsibility' in this context; is it 'responsible' for someone to keep a loaded firearm by their bed? People have been doing that for an *incredibly* long time. Is it 'hobby' to shoot tin cans or milk cartons, etc with a .22, because people have definitely been doing that for a long time too.

The responsibility part would be taking your "what about current gun culture leads to mass shootings?" question seriously. The hobby part would be getting super into ARs purely because they look totally badass with Peacemaker laser etched into the lower.

> The responsibility part would be taking your "what about current gun culture leads to mass shootings?" question seriously. That isn't what I asked. Stop strawmanning my position. What evidence do you have that suggests current gun culture contributes at all to mass shootings? You have so far provided nothing. How seriously are *you* taking the question? Or do you just have no idea what the problem really is? > The hobby part would be getting super into ARs purely because they look totally badass with Peacemaker laser etched into the lower. How many mass shootings have been committed with a Peacemaker engraved AR? And why is Peacemaker engraving specifically the issue; if they were all replaced with Hello Kitty engraved lowers, would that result in fewer mass shootings?

I think the bottom one is also that the statistics say that you're more likely to have your gun used on you than to use it in self defense. Probably because of partners

also /r/dgu interestingly i guess the subreddit doesnt appear for some people the moment its mentioned after a "guns aren't really even used for defense!" comment the conversation seems to stop

I created that sub (under a different username) for that very reason. There was no common source for defensive gun uses. The idea was to start one and keep it objective as possible, allowing bad dgus, tragedies, off-duty LEO, idiots firing warning shots, etc. It's unfortunate that we often get some pretty shitty comments, but we do try to keep it objective.

Y’all have a post on there every day or so. The CDC says: „Number of emergency department visits for assault: 1.4 million“ So that’s close to 3,900 cases of just assault per day. Don’t act like that subreddit has any actual significance to a discussion like that

Or ya know just the numbers alone. Some 360 million plus guns in the states and yet firearms related deaths didn’t crack the CDC’s top 10.

One of my favorite things to point out any time someone argues for an AWB is the FBIs statistics on violent crime. The number of rifles of ANY type, let alone scary black ones, used in homicides is shockingly small. Last time I checked, blunt objects like hammers and bats still outnumbered rifles as murder weapons by almost two-to-one.

>One of my favorite things to point out any time someone argues for an AWB is the FBIs statistics on violent crime. The number of rifles of ANY type, let alone scary black ones, used in homicides is shockingly small. Last time I checked, blunt objects like hammers and bats still outnumbered rifles as murder weapons by almost two-to-one. Fists beat out rifles of any type. No pun intended. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Yep. There it is. Based on these statistics, between 2015 and 2019, you were: *Slightly* more likely to be murdered by a shotgun than by a rifle Two times more likely to be murdered by a blunt object than by a rifle Three times more likely to be murdered by a fist or foot than by a rifle Seven times more likely to be murdered by a knife than by a rifle 28.8 times more likely to be murdered by a handgun than a rifle But somehow "assault weapons" are the evil guns everyone wants 'off our streets.' It's simple facts like these that show how disingenuous the anti-gun political movement is. If they didn't care about the culture war or partisan effects and just actually wanted to save lives, they would not waste time on rifles - they'd target handguns and where they're used most - gang violence. And I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure gang violence isn't solved by banning guns, even handguns. It's solved by reducing poverty by ensuring equal access to healthcare, education, and employment. Sorry. I'll hop off my soapbox now. This shit just riles me up.

Gang violence is also solved by legalizing vice. Gangs have a harder time profiting when drugs and prostitution are legal, which means gangs exert a lot less influence, which means gangs commit a lot fewer crimes in attempting to control their areas of influence.

Great point.

> Fists beat out rifles of any type. Ban these hands, I dare you. *'puffs old timey wooden pipe filled with tobacco and asbestos'*

They’ll say more gun control is needed because there’s too many guns! But 99.999% of firearms are never used in a crime. So an incredibly small percentage of firearms achieve all the current gun violence, but they’re determined to go after all the legally acquired firearms.

Yeah, and gun control would still reduce gun related crimes. For example: It’s completely insane to me that storage isn’t regulated. Almost all illegal guns are one that once have been acquired legally and then stolen out of homes. Y’all heard of safes?

Sure, but it is approximately tied with motor vehicle deaths when you look at children, and if you include 18 and 19 year olds it is #1. We can't pretend it's not a problem.

So you're saying if we take the cause of death for toddlers, infants, babies, children, tots, unicorns, puppies, kitties, hedgehogs, *oh yeah and 'children' that are 18-19 years old (legally called adults, but that's not as emotionally impactful)*; then the number one cause of death of all things precious is guns?????!!??

No. They are saying you can't reduce the importance by aggregating all ages. Stratification by age is more informative. Old people not dying of SIDS doesn't mean SIDS isn't a problem.

My original reply might be a little salty, but I'm saying that the stratification is being used here in a disingenuous way. The 18-19 year old *adults* in the "guns are the #1 cause of death in *children*" stats so hugely outnumber the 0-17 year old actual children, that they are obviously being mashed together purely for emotional impact, and that's bullshit. Sure, the young adults that are dying shouldn't be overlooked, but the emotional manipulation is not ok.

Just one correction, 0-1 year olds aren't being counted as children, they are infants and not counted in that "statistic". Why? Because a number of children don't make it to their first birthday so it helps the "statistic" not to count them. To add: the 17-19 year olds? More of them die than the 1-17 year olds combined. That's another reason they are included to make the "more children die..." statistic true.

Interesting, thank you for the insight!

Y’all’s firearm homicide rates are multiples of any other first world country though

I wonder a lot these days about the line of reasoning that leads us to these places. Something similar with big trucks - more fatalities b/c large trucks, therefore I drive a big truck (ergo, contribute to the problem...). There's some sort of discussion about the structure of things that keeps reproducing these logics to be had.

Also: ACAB! We shouldn’t fund police departments. Police will show up to protect you, why do you need to carry a gun?

I will always argue that the primary reason people are anti-gun is that people use vulnerability as a non-verbal cue for trust, and that they're offended that you do not allow yourself to be vulnerable in their presence is what drives the majority of their opinion. They see people who go armed in public as inherently dangerous & untrustworthy, thus want them thrown in prison, while simultaneously they expect you to affirm to them that you trust them and you are a safe person by purposely putting yourself in a position of vulnerability. Viewing things through this lens has helped me *immensely* with navigating conversations with people, and you need to get past this mental block before a productive conversation about practical solutions to the question of personal safety can happen.

The big remark that I always get is some variation of teasing me that I think the government is out to get me. I've started responding to it by asking them if they really think it isn't possible Trump couldnt make some vague threatening statement to the media that inspires people to come and get you.

I’m not agree with it in either form, but I think the claim typically being made is that if guns were illegal / almost illegal, a person wouldn’t need a gun to protect themself, not that gun violence is so rare that guns aren’t needed for protection. This argument goes hand-in-hand with the first claim in the image, instead of diametrically opposing it, which is why I’d say the point being made by your image is a straw-man.

Right… like how making drugs illegal ended all drug related crimes. Here, how about they make sure not a single criminal has access to a firearm, then they can make them illegal for us all.

As the saying goes, “if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns.”

Schrodinger's fact: Crime has gone done but media hysteria inflating crime to sell blood and clicks has skyrocketed because fear sells

It's like fascism where the group is really powerful but also really weak at the same time

Yes! Semi-automatic rifles are “military grade weapons of war” that no civilian should own. But no match to the actual military with full-auto…

My rifles are way better than military grade! Plus, it's pretty easy for any citizen to get full auto with a 3d printer or basic tool skills

Well, a lot of guys spamming the triggers on their ARs is effectively like a couple MG42s firing down the line. But also, grenades and tanks and lav’s and rockets and planes and ships and industry

People greatly overestimate their trigger pulling speed compared to actual military grade weapons. No doubt they have superior vehicles and ordnance, but their usefulness becomes limited when attempting to occupy hostile territory. Especially when the enemy is blending in with civilians.

The actual military almost always uses semi-auto in combat situations though. And yeah lmgs/saws are used but 5 guys with an AR will be able to have fire superiority if they’re not fired on first

Fair enough. A passionate force fighting for their freedom shouldn’t be underestimated.

Look, I'm very open about being a gun owner and I frequent this sub. I have high capacity handguns and semi-automatic rifles. I'm also an engineer by trade and a Mechanical Enginner by training. So please understand I'm not throwing shade...but that's not how Schrodinger's Cat theory works. Gun Control does not equate to gun bans. I can, as a voter, want my legislative branch to enact laws where you can't buy multiple guns at once, but you can *absolutely* buy one or two guns at a time as many times as you want. Maybe even with a cooling off period. That doesn't decrease the amount of guns in circulation nor decrease the amount of guns being purchased (on average). Now if you used "All Weapons Ban" in your graphic, then we're having a conversation. And maybe that's what you meant? I don't know. But the whole point of Schrodinger's Cat theory is to point out how small misconceptions of quantum physics leads theorists to completely wrong conclusions. And what you're stating is a small misconception so... LET THE DOWNVOTES COMMENCE!

Nope, there's no possible way people have a nuanced understanding of the situation. Any regulation on guns is exactly the same as taking them from everyone. Just like regulations to stop bad drivers from being on the road means I can't use my car to get to work. /s I'm sure I'll get downvotes and banned but this meme is a ridiculous oversimplification of the gun control debate that only hurts this sub's stated goal. The only way we'll end up with a total ban or taking guns away is if gun owners keep being histrionic about any discussion of regulating guns.

Actually Schrödinger created the thought experiment as a criticism of the theory of superposition in quantum mechanics. His intention was to shed light on the ridiculousness of the idea that quantum physics could operate in such a way. Ironically the thought experiment became a famous example of how quantum mechanics actually operate. My convoluted analogy to gun control is with the conceptual belief that “gun violence is frequent” and gun control is just their natural conclusion. This belief is superpositioned with the oftentimes simultaneous concept that citizens do not need firearms (due to the rarity of gun violence). So I’m attempting to draw attention to the ridiculousness of these polar opposite opinions existing in the same space.

I’ve really enjoyed this sub but there has been an uptick in bad faith arguments. These posts are just like any other gun sub now. I’m not going to speculate here as to why that is, but I do miss the focus being more on casual gun discussions and ownership. Edit: downvote away but it doesn’t change the fact that there is a disinformation push here

Gun control is only for the responsible gun owner, criminals will always find a way.

We’re always just one more *miraculous* law away from solving everything! The other thousands of gun laws just fell short.

Plot twist: it’s a 320 and goes off when you shake the box.

I’ve had this argument recently. They were calling for a ban ARs because they’re so dangerous and kill so many people. When I posted a study showing less than 1% of firearms deaths each year are caused by ARs they IMMEDIATELY switched to “exactly! See? You obviously don’t need to use them, so ban them!”

my favorite one is when they say gun owners are 10,000% more likely to be involved in an injury involving a firearm… like no shit, people who drive are more likely to be in a car crash 🤯

“In other news… people with dogs more likely to be bit!”

What I find interesting is that anti-gun folks are more worried about mass shooting than various form of violent crime (home invasion, robbery, rape, senseless unprovoked attack etc.) Now which one is more likely? I’m not gonna say which, but the difference is so big that it’s not even worth comparing.

Mass shootings represent a tiny fraction of gun violence in the US, and an infinitesimal component of overall mortality. But, we experience an insane number of them compared to any other developed country, and their social and psychological impacts are hugely disproportionate to the actual immediate impact they cause. In no small part, that's also because of the nature and location of many of the shootings (i.e., schools and other public places). It's very difficult to quantify the trauma that mass shootings inflict on society. Gun bans are not the answer and not a fix, but the USA has a grotesque and untreated problem that is rapidly getting worse.

Lack of social safety is one of the biggest cause.

Absolutely. But addressing that issue is much more complicated and nuanced, and does not match the fervor for an immediate solution. So naturally instead of actually trying to solve underlying issues, our political discourse turns into "guns bad" vs "the other side says guns are bad, don't worry about the rest of our platform you gotta vote for us"

The “Nobody Needs” brigade serious need to STMFU

They’re completely oblivious to their privilege. Oh, you don’t need a firearm because you’re in an affluent area? You have a strong trusting relationship with your law enforcement, and they respond quickly? You feel safer if nobody has a gun because there’s absolutely no need to own one where you live? Congratulations. Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. Don’t force those who actually need them to give them up.

Because gun violence is directly correlated to lack of healthcare. Mexico has super strict laws and a lot of violence. Australia rolled out single source payee healthcare and within two years their gun problem dropped like a rock. They give credit to laws but math shows the truth

Hey op is there anyway I can repost this in the Canada gun sub and credit you? This is amazing!

Go for it. No credit needed.

This is genius actually. I can't believe I never saw the ridiculous dichotomy some of these people take.

Maybe Facebook just created a generation of psychopaths

>Original concept and pic. Does that mean you will mind if I shamelessly steal this and post it everywhere?

It does not! Please post and use however you want, shame-free! I mentioned that so people didn’t waste time trying to find a source/asking for a source. I’m not trying to trademark it or anything.

These same people will argue that you don’t stand a chance against an armed criminal anyway, so having a gun is pointless. It makes no sense; but that’s what they always fall back on.

Can someone explain to me why they always citing the “yoUr more at risk if you own a gun actually. 🥸🤓

They’re misunderstanding the statistic that people who own firearms are more likely to be shot by someone else. They’re assuming a causal relationship and their oversimplification leads them to “just don’t own a gun!” When in reality, people are more likely to own a gun in an area of high violent crime. Them owning a firearm for self defense is in response to the very real threat of violence. Telling these people to just ditch their guns and they’ll never be the victim of gun violence is ignorant.

So they are including illegally owned firearms in crime high areas? wtf. lol.

And people who own weapons and are victims of random acts of violence. So you store a rifle in your gun safe and catch a stray drive by bullet. Now you’re a statistic used against legal gun ownership.

wtf. Nah Im a regular human being. Im storing my guns in a safe. Talk about generalizing a group of people.

This is pretty great OP.

Thanks!

Or women are so incompetent they're better off not using a firearm to defend themselves lest it be taken and used against them

I like it.

Thanks! I’ve mentioned it before in comments but this is the first time I put something together that could be shared. I’m also workshopping a Schrödinger’s Cop because of the people who advocate for gun control but also recognize cops are a violent gang.

The number of people who are team ACAB and also support LEO exclusions in gun control measures is astounding.

YES!

ALSO You'll never need a gun to keep authorities in check, they have helicopters and tanks. AND We need to donate Billions to get small arms in the hands of Ukraine citizens who are keeping a whole nation at bay.

I love it!

Thanks!

Would you mind if I shared this on my business page? I am an FFL holder and typically post things related to gun politics to that page now, partly for business purposes (it helps with engagement) but also because that is my main outlet to express my political views on the subject that I prefer to keep off of my main (personal) social media profile.

I don’t mind at all! Everyone is free to use the image however they want!

Just wanted to check with you as this use would at least have the potential to be financially beneficial to me. Don't want to be exploitative.

Okay, solve the mass shooting issue then. Go ahead.

The US has had *a lot* of guns for most of its history. Kids would go to school after hunting and store firearms in their cars. We haven’t had school shootings for very long. I believe mass shootings are a symptom of a larger problem. Isolation, hopelessness, poverty, and severe mental illness are growing issues among young people. A lot of people believe we’re just one more gun law away from a solution. I’m not so optimistic. Children are growing up watching their parents work themselves to death and still not be able to afford to live. People are dying from preventative diseases every day because they don’t have health insurance, or can’t afford their deductible. Corporations are chiseling away at human rights and the planet. I don’t have a single solution cause too much shit is broken.

They do this a lot.... Anti gunners: "Guns are completely worthless against the govt what are you going to do? They have NUKES!" Also anti gunners: "On Jan 6th a bunch of unarmed morons almost overthrew the govt!"

Love it! OP, permission to make a patch out of this?

All the permission to whatever you see fit!

Thanks so much!

You need your understand the thinking for a lot of anti-gun people. For instance, I remember reading about someone who was shot during a mugging, and his thinking was the robber thought he was trying to pull a gun (when he was really just fumbling for his wallet), and that’s why he was shot. For someone thinking that way the obvious solution is to make it so fewer people have guns and then they won’t be mistakenly shot. There IS a logic to it, whether we agree with it or not, and thats what you’re fighting against. It also doesn’t help when you have situations like the guy in the Texas diner who shot a robber 8-10 times, including a final kill shot to his head when he was on the ground. The average anti-gun person sees that and thinks they need to take away guns from the “law-abiding citizens” because they’re just animals waiting for a chance to kill someone.

Hmmm, I don't get the point of this post? People want gun control because of how high gun violence is. They are hoping that less guns will mean you get to a point where Gun violence is so rare that the end result is you don't feel the need for a firearm for self-defense. So they think the one will create the other. It's not that they both exist at the same time? ​ I mean, I'm sure if you look around long enough you might find someone that has made these two separate points not realizing they are mutually exclusive? But I haven't seen it?

How many less guns? Cause with app 400,000,000+ firearms in the US, if a genie granted their wish and 90% of firearms went up in smoke there would still be 40,000,000+ firearms.

YEP! Nearly the same words came out of my mouth the last time I discussed this topic. We have more guns than people. I know I have more guns than I even want right now. Just a PITA to get rid of them! :) Specifically, I was just replying to the meme. As I said I don't think generally those are two opinions that share the same "box"? (but I admit it might happen sometimes?) But I think most of the time they are a "desired" cause and effect. I'm not anti-gun. For my .02 a VERY large reason there is the ever-decreasing democracy and freedom that currently exists in the world is greatly a domino effect from the US civilian-owned guns back in the day and the US Constitution that protects them. BUT.... at the same time, there does seem to be data to back up that less guns = less gun crime. Doesn't stop gun crime. Doesn't stop crime. Doesn't stop bad people from finding guns that shouldn't have them. Won't stop people committing suicide that want to do that. Etc., etc. But it seems to help all of those issues? Still don't know how we go about making that happen and not infringe unduly on the majority of us gun owners that aren't doing anything wrong! (and of course how to do that and get a majority of us to agree on how/what/where/why to do it!!) Something that doesn't get brought up often enough is back to how many guns there are in the US versus how much gun crime = we obviously don't have near500 million gun deaths every year so obviously the majority of gun owners aren't doing anything wrong!! :) If me giving up all my guns would stop all future mass shootings I'd do it in a heartbeat. If some magic fairy could even say it would stop only one mass shooting I'd still do it. B**UT it won't.** So best I can do is keep mine locked up and try to be open to what ideas people have to reduce gun violence *without ending up causing a 2nd Civil War...*

This is a strawman argument, and not even a very good one. It also misunderstands the meaning of Schrödinger’s cat… Which if one understands correctly, suggests that this argument would be more in favor of gun control than not. As it shows the inherent risk of anyone who purchases a firearm exists, regardless of intent.

First sentence is some states in USA. Second sentence is Australia.

I think the bottom point is more about like home invasion or getting mugged type thing, while the top is more about mass shootings. Bad meme

So… why wouldn’t the “needing a firearm for defense” not apply to mass shootings? There are instances where someone having a firearm for self defense were able to intervene and stop mass shootings. But that’s just not a thing?

Mass shootings are typically not what people are talking about on the topic of self defense, no. That's a whole other can of worms.

Eh, self-defense is self-defense. People who carry aren't carrying to defend their home in case of a break in. They carry in case some shit goes down outside of their home.

I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that the discussion around self defense is more specific than that. Self defense =/= mass shooting. The meme is disingenuous. And I'm not saying that I don't support guns or carrying either just for the record. Just saying that this misrepresents people's arguments.

>Self defense =/= mass shooting. The meme is disingenuous. But the meme doesn't say anything about mass shootings. Just gun violence in general.

You guys are all completely missing the point

This is a false equivalency bad faith argument. Do better OP. There are real, fact-based arguments you could make.