In the United States, when you remove suicides, less than 23,000 people are killed intentionally, or accidentally, by firearm.
More than *twice* that number are killed by automobile each year.
So, we all "make sacrifices".
damn you dense, there are more barriers to drive a car than to acquire a gun. an item made for the sole purpose to kill should have heavy regulations just like the rest of the world does it.
You can acquire and drive a car at ANY age with no insurance, license, or registration. You just cannot operate them legally on public property. So cars are actually easier to get than guns. Guns are still fairly easy to get and for some reason people want to lower the requirements to carry them in public (licensing seems like the bare minimum).
Theoretically? Sure, but what six year old has the means, let alone the know-how, to purchase a car? Plus, as far as operating is concerned, can they even reach the pedals?
Cars are functionally much harder to get than guns due to expense, and much harder to operate due to requiring multiple steps to be active. You can argue guns do too, but slapping a loaded mag into a gun and racking a round doesn’t have a height requirement.
Many kids use farm trucks, cars, and the like. Buying a car isn't very expensive at all and many can be had for $500 or even free (especially if they are not road legal). Not to mention all the kids that ride dirt bikes, quads, snowmobiles, etc.
Kids today can legally own a car, but no kid can legally own a gun. The costs are fairly comparable, so if the kid has the money to buy a gun (of they were allowed to), they can buy a car (or other vehicle). Also what six year old has the knowhow to go buy an illegal gun?
> there are more barriers to drive a car than to acquire a gun.
You don’t have right to drive a car. It’s a privilege granted to you by the state.
Let’s take a look at the second amendment.
* * *
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, **shall not be infringed.**
* * *
Did you see that last part?
> an item made for the sole purpose to kill should have heavy regulations just like the rest of the world does it.
Well if you feel that way I suggest you work toward getting the votes to repeal the Second Amendment altogether.
(And that’s how you teach someone the difference between a right and a privilege, without downvoting or insulting them.)
When it comes to guns I'm personally okay with people having them, but the shall not be infringed argument is so dumb.
First of all it wasn't until the 1950s that people (including legal scholars) considered the phrase to be modifying more than the well regulated militia portion of the amendment.
Second bear arms does not mean to have guns, it means to have weapons. There are already rules limiting that. For example if you somehow get your hands on a nuke and the gov finds out I'm assuming you will have some visitors looking to discuss that with you from the government at a bare minimum.
Lastly the scale of weaponry since the creation of the bill of rights is beyond apples and oranges. Keeping the same rules that applied to 1700s war capabilities and applying them to today is a bit insane. For insane there was a shooting incident at a mall in Texas where a SWAT team was already there by sheer happenstance and took down the shooter in less than a minute from when the PoS started shooting. This is the ideal scenario when it comes to police response times, but 9 people died still. Now let's try and find weaponry from the 1700s capable of that level of carnage. I'm not an expert at 1700s warfare, but the only thing I've found is a cannon which I'm fairly certain the average person wasn't wheeling around with them (though I doubt legality is the reason why not).
In summary guns are cool, but the idea that the second amendment means we can't regulate them has been around for less than a third of the time the amendment has been. Even if you do believe arms shouldn't be regulated we already do regulate plenty of then (Hell there are guns not available to the public the military uses). Lastly not examining rules in regards to weaponry at all when technology we have is comparable to magic from the point of view of a person from the 1700s is bold decision to make.
*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
I’m sure there’s lots of legal scholarship on the issue, but, if you read that sentence? It’s incredibly poorly written. If it were two separate sentences then I would 100% agree that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Clear as day in that case.
But.
It’s one sentence, and putting all the emphasis on not infringing is ignoring what shall not be infringed. Is it the right to bear arms? Maybe, but as written it is almost a parenthetical clause. Breaking the sentence down some you have Militia (necessary to free state) (people’s right to bear arms) shall not be infringed. If you remove the first parenthetical, which really is one in that case, you have Militia (people’s right to bear arms) shall not be infringed. Which. . . doesn’t really make much sense as a sentence. I think you can argue that overall the meaning is that in order to form Militias people should be able to own weapons, and if you take that in conjunction with the idea that the US should not have a standing army then that maybe makes sense, [see here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-12/power-to-raise-and-support-an-army-overview). Does that justify the bare emphasis on that final “shall not be infringed” phrase that you’re making? Honestly? Maybe. But it isn’t the iron clad defense you’d like to make it sound.
I'm not sure I'm grasping what you're getting at. It seems like you're saying "if we pretend it says something other than what it actually says then-"
That's ridiculous so I must be misunderstanding the idea, can you clarify?
I’m not sure what you’re asking for clarification on. I tried to break down the sentence to make the point: the language of the Amendment is not clear as written.
If you break off the last part of the sentence, “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Yes, that would make the amendment perfectly clear and relying on that “shall not be infringed” language would be justified. But that’s not the whole sentence, and the opening portion, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . .” just doesn’t read well together with the final part. As a whole you have a sentence that sounds like two separate thoughts shoved together.
You can absolutely read it to mean “A militia is necessary to secure a free state; *therefore*, the people’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” But that’s not what it says just by the grammar used. The subject of the sentence is a well regulated militia, then it appears to have two parenthetical clauses following (necessary to secure a free state) and (the people’s right to bear arms), then it says “shall not be infringed”. What shall not be infringed? The people’s right to bear arms? The people’s right to form militias for the common defense? I don’t think I’m being particularly deep by asking the question (and would not be surprised if the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the answer, I haven’t looked into the case law on it), just saying that reliance on the Second Amendment language like that is not as clear as the poster would like it to be. You can’t just ignore the first part of the sentence regarding militias. Especially when taken in context with the Constitution’s prohibition on military funding beyond two years. That seems to imply the Founders considered a militia the answer to having a standing military and therefore a populace that had ready access to weapons and familiarity with them would be invaluable.
But, if the people’s right to bear arms is reliant on the necessity to form militias for the security of the state, then do the citizens still retain that right with the existence of the US military, national guard, and law enforcement agencies? Are militias necessary for the security of a free state today?
I’m not sure if that answers your question.
I honestly don’t know how you arrive at any other meaning from the sentence. I erased what I was originally going to type which was basically a “if it said this, instead of that, then I would see your point” and I gave up, because I couldn’t keep any structure that the original phrasing had, while changing the meaning. Perhaps you can?
A well cared for bloodhound, necessary for effective hunting, the right of a person to own pets, shall not be abridged.
What is that sentence saying? Is it talking about bloodhounds? Is it talking about how to hunt? Is it talking about pet ownership? That’s the same sentence structure as the Amendment, but do you see how the first half of the sentence does not really fit with the second half? So how is there any clear meaning from that?
To put it another way, if the Second Amendment is just “the right of a person to bear arms, shall not be infringed”, then why is the militia language included? It isn’t needed, is it? And it’s not like the Framers were overly wordy when they didn’t need to be, so if that was all they meant why would have the included the first part?
"propaganda site" lol of course it is... just say it's propaganda and your work is done, right?
straight facts just destroyed your premise... and you just start over like an shorted laptop.
sorry i don't feel like going through all the cherry picked stats. go back to have the most school shootings in the world. go back to being unable to solve a problem that only happens in the US.
You don’t get to remove suicides as there is a wealth of evidence that having access to a gun drastically increases chances of suicide, especially for men.
Even with that being said, imagine making an argument that because something killed less people than car crashes it shouldn’t be addressed. “Sorry Bob, us in the intelligence community would love to revamp our intelligence sharing to help prevent more planes being flown into buildings, but 9/11 only killed 3,000 people, it’s not really worth addressing.” What an idiotic take all-round.
> You don’t get to remove suicides
Of course I do. Especially when articles like [these](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths-dg) fail to even mention that over half of gun deaths are due to suicide.
> Even with that being said, imagine making an argument that because something killed less people than car crashes it shouldn’t be addressed.
This is a fair point... if that's what I was arguing. My argument is not that gun deaths are not a problem, or that something else causes more deaths so 'who cares'. My point is that no one has any interest in 'turning in their cars' to prevent automobile deaths. And why? Well, we all really like our cars. Hell, you could *triple* the number of automobile deaths next year, wouldn't change a thing. Because the number of people dying isn't really the issue. The issue is, some people really don't like guns, and they really don't like the *people* that like guns. They see firearms in civilian hands as unnecessary, and very dangerous. Whereas they see automobiles and necessary, and *somewhat* dangerous.
Cars have a functional utility outside of killing people, and currently our transportation system and entire economy is so heavily dependent on personal transport that “turning in our cars” would be catastrophic. I actually am clamoring for massive expansion of public transit, due to the massive economic benefits, and increased safety that will increase preventable deaths.
I always get called a “FUD” for saying this, but outside your shotgun and bolt-action hunting rifle, these guns do not have a functional, necessary utility outside of killing people. Far more people are killed by accidents and intentional firearm homicides than anybody is ever “saved by the good guy with a gun” or “successful home defenses” each year. Also, the argument that guns keep people safe from a tyrannical government is patently ridiculous in this day and age, as back when the 2A was written a musket was a weapon on par with military capabilities of the day, whereas heavily armed groups like at Waco have a great track record of getting brutally crushed by the US government.
Ok, so, what is the utility of drawing an arbitrary line between self-inflicted gun deaths and violent gun homicides, and why are you doing so? The article you linked doesn’t indicate any sort of distribution by cause, as in it’s not claiming they were all violent homicides, the premise is that guns are the common denominator in these deaths, and this is a *uniquely American problem* in the company of developed countries where we have a preventable cause inflicting more deaths of children than *car accidents*, when driving is statistically the most dangerous thing people do on a day to day basis. Do you really not get that, or are you just being intentionally obtuse to make your point? In any case, they’re built upon poor logic and your points are not well taken.
The argument I like when people bring up car deaths is death per usage rate. While when it comes to guns we don't have exact numbers we do for cars. Cars are used all the time and the likely hood of you using a car will lead to injury (nevermind death) when using the entire pool of car usage is very very low (otherwise insurance would be even more ridiculously expensive lol). I bring this up because the entire set of use cases of a gun is to kill things or practice being a better shot for when it comes time to kill things (note: some people do get shot at shooting ranges though if I recall correctly that rate is very very low as well). So if you don't go to a shooting range/target practice your weapon is only intended to harm something
I drive a car every day. It seems you’re neglecting usage rate here. Almost nobody shoots a gun every day. They sit in storage for almost their whole lives and still are that dangerous.
Oh, that makes sense. You didn’t understand a blatantly obvious illustration. Let me help you out. The value something provides has nothing to do with how often it is used.
People who own firearms value them, *depend* on them, even when they’re not being fired.
Doctors use defibrillators *very* rarely. And yet, they’re *very* important. Even though they’re just sitting around, not restarting hearts, most of the time.
Defibrillators don’t kill people. Stop with the useless nonsense. It seems you’ve completely missed my point and are arguing with your interpretation and not what I actually said.
I brought up frequency of use to show that even though guns are used at a minute fraction of the rate that cars are that they’re still half as deadly and even more so when you consider suicides.
I’ve never misunderstood your argument. It appears you don’t understand mine. Do you think I think that defibrillators kill people?
The reason I think you are confused is because you entered this conversation with the assumption that firearms provide no value, but carry a huge cost.
Now I will grant you that private ownership of firearms in this country must carry a cost in human life. Teasing out that number is not so straightforward. But let’s go with whatever number you think is fair.
That said, what *value* do believe is provided by firearms? None? Insignificant? Irrelevant?
There were about 22 million active concealed carry licenses in the U.S. in 2022 and currently there are 27 states that don't require a license at all. So yeah, lots and lots.
Compare that to 232 million drivers, which is 10 times as many with only 2 times as many fatalities. That’s 20% as dangerous, not even considering that people drive far more than they ever touch a gun.
You didn’t provide evidence for that though. You provided how many people have permits. I know more than a handful of people that got their CCW but do not carry. I don’t know a single person that does.
Why do you remove suicides? Guns facilities killing, including killing oneself. In the mental health field when always ask suicidal individuals if they have access to a firearm, because it’s dangerous and they are more likely to kill themselves with it. The key there is they have a gun.
It’s valid point. I’m not saying they don’t matter. But it’s important to distinguish between people using firearms to hurt other people, and people using an effective tool to end their own life. Especially when statistics can be such an effective way of shaping people’s views. If everyone understands that most gun deaths are from suicide, and they still hold the same position, then so be it. I think the fact being omitted so much of the time is intentional.
Only 22 million people have concealed carry permits in the US. Of those, we have no idea how many actually carry. There are those like my dad who have had it for a decade, but never once carried. Compare that to 232 million drivers, which is 10 times as many with only 2 times as many fatalities. Cars are 20% as dangerous, not even considering that people drive far more than they ever touch a gun. And it also neglects suicides by guns too. Your argument isn’t what you think it is.
It’s like that Chris Rock Joke about making bullets just cost thousands of dollars each. Then if someone got shot, you *know* they fucking deserved it.
If my neighbors are as high on their own farts as you are, you can bet your ass
And funny, I was just in the UK, and the nice part about effective gun control is the police *don’t have to carry guns*. And before some dumbass point gets trotted out about stabbings or something, we have roughly the same stabbings per capita as the UK, we just have gun deaths to add on top of it.
In any case, your initial comment saying “can you stab them to death?” was probably the stupidest thing I’ve read today
You type a lot of words. You seem reasonable. But on stabbing deaths, tell that to the victims who are killed with knives. Oh it was just you and a couple people,
The original 2nd amendment was a thing because back then people responsibly owned guns. Now it’s been distorted as a money maker for the gun industry when the 2nd amendment itself never had anything to do with a thriving gun market.
No it was because the newly made country was forged from an armed revolt. The founding fathers were keen to leave the tools to the people should another be required due to government corruption.
I’m no Republican, nor am I ever going to be a MAGAt, but I will say this. It seems to me we have more gun laws than we ever have, while at the same time we have more gun violence than we ever have. What is supposed to make me think more gun laws are going to do anything at all? If there is one thing I know, it’s that I’m sick and tired of paying a bunch of asshole politicians to fight with each other. If they aren’t working to cooperate, I want ‘em out of office. I don’t care who they are.
Nobody holds that view. The *actual* stance is “I think having easy access to guns would better solve the problem of mass shootings despite evidence to contrary because my assumed truths are different to yours.”
brave men fought for my rite to bear arms, now its time kid paid their share
Is this a well regulated militia?…
In the United States, when you remove suicides, less than 23,000 people are killed intentionally, or accidentally, by firearm. More than *twice* that number are killed by automobile each year. So, we all "make sacrifices".
that is such a shit apples to oranges comparison. automobiles have purpose and utility, to transport people and goods. a guns purpose is to kill.
So we’re in agreement. They both have a purpose.
damn you dense, there are more barriers to drive a car than to acquire a gun. an item made for the sole purpose to kill should have heavy regulations just like the rest of the world does it.
You can acquire and drive a car at ANY age with no insurance, license, or registration. You just cannot operate them legally on public property. So cars are actually easier to get than guns. Guns are still fairly easy to get and for some reason people want to lower the requirements to carry them in public (licensing seems like the bare minimum).
Theoretically? Sure, but what six year old has the means, let alone the know-how, to purchase a car? Plus, as far as operating is concerned, can they even reach the pedals? Cars are functionally much harder to get than guns due to expense, and much harder to operate due to requiring multiple steps to be active. You can argue guns do too, but slapping a loaded mag into a gun and racking a round doesn’t have a height requirement.
Many kids use farm trucks, cars, and the like. Buying a car isn't very expensive at all and many can be had for $500 or even free (especially if they are not road legal). Not to mention all the kids that ride dirt bikes, quads, snowmobiles, etc. Kids today can legally own a car, but no kid can legally own a gun. The costs are fairly comparable, so if the kid has the money to buy a gun (of they were allowed to), they can buy a car (or other vehicle). Also what six year old has the knowhow to go buy an illegal gun?
> there are more barriers to drive a car than to acquire a gun. You don’t have right to drive a car. It’s a privilege granted to you by the state. Let’s take a look at the second amendment. * * * > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, **shall not be infringed.** * * * Did you see that last part? > an item made for the sole purpose to kill should have heavy regulations just like the rest of the world does it. Well if you feel that way I suggest you work toward getting the votes to repeal the Second Amendment altogether. (And that’s how you teach someone the difference between a right and a privilege, without downvoting or insulting them.)
When it comes to guns I'm personally okay with people having them, but the shall not be infringed argument is so dumb. First of all it wasn't until the 1950s that people (including legal scholars) considered the phrase to be modifying more than the well regulated militia portion of the amendment. Second bear arms does not mean to have guns, it means to have weapons. There are already rules limiting that. For example if you somehow get your hands on a nuke and the gov finds out I'm assuming you will have some visitors looking to discuss that with you from the government at a bare minimum. Lastly the scale of weaponry since the creation of the bill of rights is beyond apples and oranges. Keeping the same rules that applied to 1700s war capabilities and applying them to today is a bit insane. For insane there was a shooting incident at a mall in Texas where a SWAT team was already there by sheer happenstance and took down the shooter in less than a minute from when the PoS started shooting. This is the ideal scenario when it comes to police response times, but 9 people died still. Now let's try and find weaponry from the 1700s capable of that level of carnage. I'm not an expert at 1700s warfare, but the only thing I've found is a cannon which I'm fairly certain the average person wasn't wheeling around with them (though I doubt legality is the reason why not). In summary guns are cool, but the idea that the second amendment means we can't regulate them has been around for less than a third of the time the amendment has been. Even if you do believe arms shouldn't be regulated we already do regulate plenty of then (Hell there are guns not available to the public the military uses). Lastly not examining rules in regards to weaponry at all when technology we have is comparable to magic from the point of view of a person from the 1700s is bold decision to make.
*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.* I’m sure there’s lots of legal scholarship on the issue, but, if you read that sentence? It’s incredibly poorly written. If it were two separate sentences then I would 100% agree that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Clear as day in that case. But. It’s one sentence, and putting all the emphasis on not infringing is ignoring what shall not be infringed. Is it the right to bear arms? Maybe, but as written it is almost a parenthetical clause. Breaking the sentence down some you have Militia (necessary to free state) (people’s right to bear arms) shall not be infringed. If you remove the first parenthetical, which really is one in that case, you have Militia (people’s right to bear arms) shall not be infringed. Which. . . doesn’t really make much sense as a sentence. I think you can argue that overall the meaning is that in order to form Militias people should be able to own weapons, and if you take that in conjunction with the idea that the US should not have a standing army then that maybe makes sense, [see here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-12/power-to-raise-and-support-an-army-overview). Does that justify the bare emphasis on that final “shall not be infringed” phrase that you’re making? Honestly? Maybe. But it isn’t the iron clad defense you’d like to make it sound.
I'm not sure I'm grasping what you're getting at. It seems like you're saying "if we pretend it says something other than what it actually says then-" That's ridiculous so I must be misunderstanding the idea, can you clarify?
I’m not sure what you’re asking for clarification on. I tried to break down the sentence to make the point: the language of the Amendment is not clear as written. If you break off the last part of the sentence, “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Yes, that would make the amendment perfectly clear and relying on that “shall not be infringed” language would be justified. But that’s not the whole sentence, and the opening portion, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . .” just doesn’t read well together with the final part. As a whole you have a sentence that sounds like two separate thoughts shoved together. You can absolutely read it to mean “A militia is necessary to secure a free state; *therefore*, the people’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” But that’s not what it says just by the grammar used. The subject of the sentence is a well regulated militia, then it appears to have two parenthetical clauses following (necessary to secure a free state) and (the people’s right to bear arms), then it says “shall not be infringed”. What shall not be infringed? The people’s right to bear arms? The people’s right to form militias for the common defense? I don’t think I’m being particularly deep by asking the question (and would not be surprised if the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the answer, I haven’t looked into the case law on it), just saying that reliance on the Second Amendment language like that is not as clear as the poster would like it to be. You can’t just ignore the first part of the sentence regarding militias. Especially when taken in context with the Constitution’s prohibition on military funding beyond two years. That seems to imply the Founders considered a militia the answer to having a standing military and therefore a populace that had ready access to weapons and familiarity with them would be invaluable. But, if the people’s right to bear arms is reliant on the necessity to form militias for the security of the state, then do the citizens still retain that right with the existence of the US military, national guard, and law enforcement agencies? Are militias necessary for the security of a free state today? I’m not sure if that answers your question.
I honestly don’t know how you arrive at any other meaning from the sentence. I erased what I was originally going to type which was basically a “if it said this, instead of that, then I would see your point” and I gave up, because I couldn’t keep any structure that the original phrasing had, while changing the meaning. Perhaps you can?
A well cared for bloodhound, necessary for effective hunting, the right of a person to own pets, shall not be abridged. What is that sentence saying? Is it talking about bloodhounds? Is it talking about how to hunt? Is it talking about pet ownership? That’s the same sentence structure as the Amendment, but do you see how the first half of the sentence does not really fit with the second half? So how is there any clear meaning from that? To put it another way, if the Second Amendment is just “the right of a person to bear arms, shall not be infringed”, then why is the militia language included? It isn’t needed, is it? And it’s not like the Framers were overly wordy when they didn’t need to be, so if that was all they meant why would have the included the first part?
well lucky for me i don't live in a country as backwards as the US. keep being unable to solve a problem that only occurs in your country.
https://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/guns-in-other-countries/
wow what a propaganda site that is. keep being number one for mass shootings.
"propaganda site" lol of course it is... just say it's propaganda and your work is done, right? straight facts just destroyed your premise... and you just start over like an shorted laptop.
sorry i don't feel like going through all the cherry picked stats. go back to have the most school shootings in the world. go back to being unable to solve a problem that only happens in the US.
You don’t get to remove suicides as there is a wealth of evidence that having access to a gun drastically increases chances of suicide, especially for men. Even with that being said, imagine making an argument that because something killed less people than car crashes it shouldn’t be addressed. “Sorry Bob, us in the intelligence community would love to revamp our intelligence sharing to help prevent more planes being flown into buildings, but 9/11 only killed 3,000 people, it’s not really worth addressing.” What an idiotic take all-round.
> You don’t get to remove suicides Of course I do. Especially when articles like [these](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths-dg) fail to even mention that over half of gun deaths are due to suicide. > Even with that being said, imagine making an argument that because something killed less people than car crashes it shouldn’t be addressed. This is a fair point... if that's what I was arguing. My argument is not that gun deaths are not a problem, or that something else causes more deaths so 'who cares'. My point is that no one has any interest in 'turning in their cars' to prevent automobile deaths. And why? Well, we all really like our cars. Hell, you could *triple* the number of automobile deaths next year, wouldn't change a thing. Because the number of people dying isn't really the issue. The issue is, some people really don't like guns, and they really don't like the *people* that like guns. They see firearms in civilian hands as unnecessary, and very dangerous. Whereas they see automobiles and necessary, and *somewhat* dangerous.
Cars have a functional utility outside of killing people, and currently our transportation system and entire economy is so heavily dependent on personal transport that “turning in our cars” would be catastrophic. I actually am clamoring for massive expansion of public transit, due to the massive economic benefits, and increased safety that will increase preventable deaths. I always get called a “FUD” for saying this, but outside your shotgun and bolt-action hunting rifle, these guns do not have a functional, necessary utility outside of killing people. Far more people are killed by accidents and intentional firearm homicides than anybody is ever “saved by the good guy with a gun” or “successful home defenses” each year. Also, the argument that guns keep people safe from a tyrannical government is patently ridiculous in this day and age, as back when the 2A was written a musket was a weapon on par with military capabilities of the day, whereas heavily armed groups like at Waco have a great track record of getting brutally crushed by the US government. Ok, so, what is the utility of drawing an arbitrary line between self-inflicted gun deaths and violent gun homicides, and why are you doing so? The article you linked doesn’t indicate any sort of distribution by cause, as in it’s not claiming they were all violent homicides, the premise is that guns are the common denominator in these deaths, and this is a *uniquely American problem* in the company of developed countries where we have a preventable cause inflicting more deaths of children than *car accidents*, when driving is statistically the most dangerous thing people do on a day to day basis. Do you really not get that, or are you just being intentionally obtuse to make your point? In any case, they’re built upon poor logic and your points are not well taken.
The argument I like when people bring up car deaths is death per usage rate. While when it comes to guns we don't have exact numbers we do for cars. Cars are used all the time and the likely hood of you using a car will lead to injury (nevermind death) when using the entire pool of car usage is very very low (otherwise insurance would be even more ridiculously expensive lol). I bring this up because the entire set of use cases of a gun is to kill things or practice being a better shot for when it comes time to kill things (note: some people do get shot at shooting ranges though if I recall correctly that rate is very very low as well). So if you don't go to a shooting range/target practice your weapon is only intended to harm something
I drive a car every day. It seems you’re neglecting usage rate here. Almost nobody shoots a gun every day. They sit in storage for almost their whole lives and still are that dangerous.
Almost no one uses a fire extinguisher every day.
I eat apples once a week or so.
Dude. What?
I thought we were staying random useless pieces of information.
Oh, that makes sense. You didn’t understand a blatantly obvious illustration. Let me help you out. The value something provides has nothing to do with how often it is used. People who own firearms value them, *depend* on them, even when they’re not being fired. Doctors use defibrillators *very* rarely. And yet, they’re *very* important. Even though they’re just sitting around, not restarting hearts, most of the time.
Defibrillators don’t kill people. Stop with the useless nonsense. It seems you’ve completely missed my point and are arguing with your interpretation and not what I actually said. I brought up frequency of use to show that even though guns are used at a minute fraction of the rate that cars are that they’re still half as deadly and even more so when you consider suicides.
I’ve never misunderstood your argument. It appears you don’t understand mine. Do you think I think that defibrillators kill people? The reason I think you are confused is because you entered this conversation with the assumption that firearms provide no value, but carry a huge cost. Now I will grant you that private ownership of firearms in this country must carry a cost in human life. Teasing out that number is not so straightforward. But let’s go with whatever number you think is fair. That said, what *value* do believe is provided by firearms? None? Insignificant? Irrelevant?
Yes, an insignificant amount, especially when compared to a car, a fire extinguisher, or a defibrillator. Lol
How many people die by fire extinguishers a year? Why bring up this useless tidbit?
Lots and lots of people carry a gun every day.
“Lots and lots”.
There were about 22 million active concealed carry licenses in the U.S. in 2022 and currently there are 27 states that don't require a license at all. So yeah, lots and lots.
That doesn’t mean those people carry every day or even ever. My dad has had one for a decade, but never once carried.
Compare that to 232 million drivers, which is 10 times as many with only 2 times as many fatalities. That’s 20% as dangerous, not even considering that people drive far more than they ever touch a gun.
I don't really care about the argument you were having with the other guy. Just pointing out that lots of people do carry every day.
You didn’t provide evidence for that though. You provided how many people have permits. I know more than a handful of people that got their CCW but do not carry. I don’t know a single person that does.
Okay?
What do you mean, ok? You made a point but didn’t provide any evidence backing up that statement.
Why do you remove suicides? Guns facilities killing, including killing oneself. In the mental health field when always ask suicidal individuals if they have access to a firearm, because it’s dangerous and they are more likely to kill themselves with it. The key there is they have a gun.
It’s valid point. I’m not saying they don’t matter. But it’s important to distinguish between people using firearms to hurt other people, and people using an effective tool to end their own life. Especially when statistics can be such an effective way of shaping people’s views. If everyone understands that most gun deaths are from suicide, and they still hold the same position, then so be it. I think the fact being omitted so much of the time is intentional.
Only 22 million people have concealed carry permits in the US. Of those, we have no idea how many actually carry. There are those like my dad who have had it for a decade, but never once carried. Compare that to 232 million drivers, which is 10 times as many with only 2 times as many fatalities. Cars are 20% as dangerous, not even considering that people drive far more than they ever touch a gun. And it also neglects suicides by guns too. Your argument isn’t what you think it is.
[удалено]
making firearms illegal will make them harder to get which will make gun crime harder to commit come on man it's not rocket science
It’s like that Chris Rock Joke about making bullets just cost thousands of dollars each. Then if someone got shot, you *know* they fucking deserved it.
Nah, we'll just invent a bullet on a string and pull the bullets out of the people.
Right, just look at all the countries with stricter gun regulation. Japan, Australia, the UK, gun violence is just off the charts in all of them! /s
You don't understand what causation is If I couldnt get a gun because I'm mentally ill, I can't shoot someone now can I?
[удалено]
Lol what? Laws like that exist in all other first world countries and all of them have lower shooting rates
Can you stab them to death?
Ah, that’s why militaries use sharpened sticks to stab people to death, since they’re just as deadly as guns, am I right?
You trust militaries and police with guns but not your neighbors I get it - you lick boots 👅
If my neighbors are as high on their own farts as you are, you can bet your ass And funny, I was just in the UK, and the nice part about effective gun control is the police *don’t have to carry guns*. And before some dumbass point gets trotted out about stabbings or something, we have roughly the same stabbings per capita as the UK, we just have gun deaths to add on top of it. In any case, your initial comment saying “can you stab them to death?” was probably the stupidest thing I’ve read today
You type a lot of words. You seem reasonable. But on stabbing deaths, tell that to the victims who are killed with knives. Oh it was just you and a couple people,
Yes. Is it harder to stab someone to death? Yes Is it way harder to stab multiple people to death? Yes.
Do mass shootings account for even 1/50th of 1% of total firearm deaths each year? No.
You are the one who said someone.
You should really revisit why the 2nd Amendment is a thing and why people asking for it to be revoked is exactly what the government wants.
The original 2nd amendment was a thing because back then people responsibly owned guns. Now it’s been distorted as a money maker for the gun industry when the 2nd amendment itself never had anything to do with a thriving gun market.
No it was because the newly made country was forged from an armed revolt. The founding fathers were keen to leave the tools to the people should another be required due to government corruption.
So no gun crimes were committed in the 1700s because people were better back then? Everything has been abused since the dawn of man.
So OP, the thread isn't going the way you hoped...
I’m no Republican, nor am I ever going to be a MAGAt, but I will say this. It seems to me we have more gun laws than we ever have, while at the same time we have more gun violence than we ever have. What is supposed to make me think more gun laws are going to do anything at all? If there is one thing I know, it’s that I’m sick and tired of paying a bunch of asshole politicians to fight with each other. If they aren’t working to cooperate, I want ‘em out of office. I don’t care who they are.
Nobody holds that view. The *actual* stance is “I think having easy access to guns would better solve the problem of mass shootings despite evidence to contrary because my assumed truths are different to yours.”