Amazing how this topic/narrative surges whenever the chances of leftists and minorities arming themselves and/or actually doing something peak.
So what happened this time? Recent Performative Resistance/“No-Kings Protest” turn-out lower than expected? Higher? Someone show up armed and people talked to them instead of assuming they were a counter-protestor? Police and other local morons particularly brutal in a way the press couldn’t gloss?
Hey, look, it’s divisive rhetoric!
Crimes and violence are caused by unjustified heirarchies, in particular, the ruling class ruling over the working class.
You know what would reduce school shootings? Publicly funded mental health services for young people.
This kind of post is aimed at dividing the working class into two groups, pro-gun, and anti-gun. Refuse to give in to their messaging. Solidarity across the WHOLE working class!
No, this kind of post is aimed at dividing people between people with critical thinking abilities and maga morons.
Bingo
Nah dude, I’m sure we will all be drowning in peace once only ICE, police and the US military have all the guns :D
nothing on this comic advocates against publicly funded mental health services
My point is that we can fight together to advance our mutual goals instead of arguing amongst ourselves while the tides of a far greater battle are turning against us.
Fight the ruling class, the rest of our problems will be much easier to solve once they are removed from power.
Sure, but know what else would reduce school shootings?
Less guns.
Would it? Is that the only solution?
Why do Yemen and Switzerland have such high ownership and no school shootings?
Don’t get me wrong, less guns would be good for many reasons. And I think we can get there, eventually. But right now, I have zero confidence that our government is fit to enforce any law fairly. Neonazis are openly running the DoD and ICE, this is not the time to dial back the Bill of Rights.
Which is more likely, funding for better mental health services as a whole or removing guns from the unwilling?
How about both? Why do you pretend it’s one or the other?
Give free mental health support AND prohibit guns. Best of both worlds
Hmm, why did you exclude Switzerland, Mike?
it’s in there, it’s one of the unnamed blobs. 25 guns per 100 people, .5 deaths per 100 000 people. on par with portugal.
This may be referencing a chart from CNN’s report on Small Arms Survey data, which includes many other statistics making the same point. Here’s another:
the data is taken directly from the small arms survey site.
It should be noted that this chart compares gun homicides to gun ownership, which… of course those will correlate
If we plotted kangaroo injuries vs kangaroos per capita, we’d see a similar outlier in Australia
It would be more useful to see gun ownership compared to total homicides, to see if an overabundance of guns correlates with more murders. Even then, though, a correlation between the two might not be casual in that direction. It may instead be that in areas with a high homicide rate, people are more likely to own a firearm for defense.
What you would need to prove is that places with high gun ownership have significantly higher homicide rates, but places with high homicide rates don’t have significantly higher rates of gun ownership
Finally, proof that homicides cause gun ownership
I know you mean this as a joke but does that not make sense with US history?
A lot of killing causes people to own guns, a lot of guns causes a lot of killings, and repeat.
Yes, just a joke.
I’d have a hard time preparing for a school shooting or similar, simply based on the mere lack of guns in my environment. I think I held an actual gun in my hand once in my life and that was in Murica. And it was a civil war times rifle. Not sure I’d even be able to do a shoot without hurting myself.
The chicken or the egg
Comics like this are just preaching to the choir, and only the ones so fervent they’re blinded by their own self righteousness. It’s so obviously cherry picked and slanted if you’ve looked into the issues at play. It shows no respect for the reader at all, and likely only hardens the opinions of those it disagrees with.
You can’t convince anyone of anything with this kind of trollish virtue signal. It only exists to get the author pats on the back from people in their own camp.
This kind of shitty rhetoric harms the cause. You can’t win hearts and minds with blatant disrespect.
Why all the side issues. Is it true, or not?
If it is true, and I believe that it is, it may explain why you are triggered?
I think it’s lying to try to get people to do a good thing.
Deception destroys credibility.
And it makes fun of people who disagree with it.
It alienates, not converts.
Ok, then what is the truth?
I see no disrespect. I see a good and valid point being made that a huge amount of Americans are oblivious to the obvious.
That is a cherry picked statistic. It is blatant propaganda.
Arguing that the populace shouldn’t have guns, and pointing to the usa as an example, is arguing that our fascist government should have a monopoly on violence. Every successful “gun control” law has been put in place in response to persecuted minorities and activist groups having guns. For a famous example, see the Black Panthers.
Peaceful protests are impotent unless backed by a genuine threat of violence. See how little the recent “No Kings” protests have accomplished vs the death of that one health insurance ceo.
Now, I am in favor of fewer guns, but the order of operations is important. Let’s start with disarming the police and abolishing ice. So long as my friends/family/neighbors/whatevers are being abducted by masked thugs in broad daylight, it is my right and my duty to defend with lethal force.
See how little the recent “No Kings” protests have accomplished vs the death of that one health insurance ceo.
What did the murder of this CEO accomplish?
Lots of people got insurance claims approved, enabling them to get life saving care that otherwise would have been denied. It’s just a shame that it was a one-off and not a recurring thing.
I didn’t know about that. Do you have a reliable source?
it was in the news when it happened
and also discussed a lot here
And how does that gun protect you against the masked thugs? They are cops and hence, I assume, you cannot legally shoot them when they enter your home. So resistance is useless? As a non-US - american, correct me if I’m wrong here.
My gun doesn’t protect me. My gun protects you. Your gun protects me.
That sounds like a great bumper sticker for an NRA-meeting, but how does that actually apply?
I, also, cannot shoot your home-intruder, which is also a cop. So my gun does shit against ICE too. Just like yours.
Though I admit, I’d love to have a gun at home for actual intruders. We must not, the robbers don’t care (but probably aren’t armed either)
If I’m not willing to stick my neck out to help you when they come to take you away, who the hell will be left to do the same for me when it’s my turn?
Sure, you’re absolutely right. Be the change you want to see in the world and all…
But you fail to tell me HOW i am supposed to help your ass not being taken by ICE? Shoot the whole bunch that came to get you? (i assume those fuckers never come alone). And then other cops will take me for doing that after you are already gone? Threaten them with a gun will probably get ME killed. So what good does a gun do to anyone in that scenario?
The problem is that the 1/3 of americans who are actually opposed to this country being a fascist dictatorship are disorganized and scattered. You’re right, one or two or three guys with guns won’t accomplish much. Others in this thread have commented “where’s your militia?” or something like that, and it’s about time we make one.
I cannot blame you for wanting to keep your head down and waiting for all this to blow over. If I’m super lucky, maybe I can do that too. I’m rather pessimistic about the future though. To be honest, I talk a big game but I’m not doing shit until/unless I know I can make a difference.
It is my opinion that even if I had a perfect plan and was able to describe it perfectly, it wouldn’t work because it requires people to work together, and to make sacrifices for others. So things will slowly continue to get worse until I get put in a work camp over not being able to keep my mouth shut.
To loop this back to the original point, no having guns is not the solution. However, it is a critical part of the larger and more nuanced solution.
Oh yeah, and all yours 1.2 guns per person are doing absolute wonders right now, when you pedo in charge is rounding up people to put in concentration camps and starting wars all over the world. All your guns will start working any time now, liberating you from fascism.
The utility of gun rights as a potential defense against tyranny isn’t proven to be zero by the existence of tyranny, because guns are not a complete solution. I think it’s likely they would be rounding up more people by now, with less expense and difficulty, if Americans didn’t have guns.
notice how in the graph on wikipedia, excluding USA, the correlation is really not that strong.
dont get me wrong, i agree with the general sentiment, but bad data weakens even the best of cases.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
Before I get dog-piled, I’d like to add that I know that there are too many guns in the US, and the process to buy a firearm is surprisingly lax. I do think there is a relationship between gun ownership and the murder rates, and the fact that most school shootings don’t even make the news anymore (and if they do, it’s for less than a day) indicates that the frogs have been completely boiled at this point.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
Fair point but see below…
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The United States has over 4 times more murders per capita than France, for instance.
And you really shouldn’t discount just how easy it is to kill someone with a gun. I don’t have the stats at hand right now but knife related killings (as an example) are way less likely to happen because victims have a comparatively good chance to survive a knife attack.
There are solid reasons for keeping weapons that are designed to kill human beings out of the hands of most of us.
The United States has over 4 times more murders per capita than France, for instance.
One thing a lot of people seem to forget is that the US has significantly more income inequality and significantly less social safety nets than France. Poverty drives crime.
What the US needs most is nationalized healthcare, deregulation of marijuana to cut down on mass incarceration (which breaks up families and drives poverty), actually taxing the rich, and better regulations and workers rights to prevent corporations from exploiting everyone
While the data might be cherry picked, one thing that can’t be displayed here is motivation. In Canada, a decent number of people have guns, but you can’t carry firearms with you, you have to take highly specific routes while transporting any restricted hand guns. The role of guns is sport shooting and hunting and it’s highly regulated for those.
In the USA, guns are intended to be used to kill other civilians. Owning a gun for self-defense purposes is buying with the intention that you may one day use it to kill another human. Not an enemy combatant in war, but a fellow citizen with a gun.
It’s only a feeling, but I feel like that might be the biggest distinction between the USA and other (omitted) high-gun-per-capita countries. Guns in the USA aren’t for mitary drafting or protection against a national invasion.
There’s also the matter of training and licensing. A buddy in the USA was staunchly opposed to gun licensing. When I said that in Canada, it just helps ensure that people know how to maintain their gun and use it safely, he said, “Well the people who don’t take the time to learn how to maintain it and use it safely just shouldn’t get it in the first place”, which I’m sure is a popular enough sentiment, but it’s also the argument for licensing. The zero barrier for entry approach is also a problem.
I’d love to see more nuanced stats than this 4-panel comic is presenting.
Seeing that reminds me, as atrocious as that is… the numbers are miniscule compared to the biggest killer. Pharma.
Guns in America, to me, are a perfect representation of the fallacy of personal responsibility.
Let’s take a scenario that, while tragic, has happened in the USA; a small boy of less than 6 finds a gun, plays with it, and shoots their baby sibling. The common refrain from responsible gun owners is: “You should’ve kept it locked and trained your family to use it responsibly!”
But who’s “you”? The shooter? The victim? One was killed and one was traumatized. The parent? They didn’t suffer nearly as much as the others.
So it’s not even the only issue where I hear “We need parents to be more responsible!” but simply saying that won’t change the number of drunk deadbeat parents putting zero effort into their children; and potentially leading other real human beings to suffer for it.
In terms of assigning responsibility, this is an easy one.
“You” refers to the firearm’s owner. Firearm ownership comes with a high degree of responsibility. It means knowing and following the four rules, at least two of which must be broken at the same time for someone to get hurt. It means maintaining a reasonable degree of control over that firearm at all times, whether it’s on your person or being stored.
If anyone is “finding” a firearm, reasonable precautions were not taken to secure that firearm.
These cases all boil down to gross negligence on the owner’s part. Legally and logically, the owner should be the one to suffer the consequences.
Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, the incident gets treated as a “tragedy” and legal consequences do not get applied.
So yeah, haul the parent to court, and then sit the traumatized child down and tell them “Good news! The law has correctly identified the negligent party in this incident. You may be eligible for up to $1mil in damages!”
while he’s sitting there crying over his dead sibling. Better, you want to extend this case to a school shooting? Go announce to 30 parents that “We worked out who is negligent!” You discover common, repeating human ignorance after the fact, and nobody is saved.
The fact that some people in our society are negligent is an expected outcome. That’s why your friend will yell at you one night when you take his car keys away, and then thank you the next day when he’s sober. The point is that society can plan better for that negligence, rather than just pat themselves on the back for spotting it.
Fucking liberals. It’s a graph showing “gun deaths” which you’re conflating with “murders.” Which is intentional; you’re being deceived, and propagating the deception.
Here’s a simple breakdown from an anarchist responding to this standard milquetoast liberal argument a few years ago:
Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.
And according to the defensive gun use (DGU) data The Violence Policy center (which is extremely anti-gun fyi) gives the low range estimates at ~67,000 DGUs per year. Consider this the extreme low:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
FYI most estimates put it far higher, including the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
So how about guns killing? Statistics show only .0005% of gun owners commit a gun related crime. Best estimates put gun ownership at 37% in America, and that was in 2013, the number today is estimated to be closer to 45% but lets go with the smaller number to do the math conservatively. So America has population of 318 million people. So the number of gun owners is 318,000,000 x .37 = 117,660,000 Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ So we have ~117,660,000 gun owners. What is the latest FBI statistic on violent crime? FBI database shows ~11,000 fatal gun crimes a year. The study linked in the OP including suicides is beyond BS. So 117,660,000 / 11,000= .0000934897 = 99.99065% But there is a problem with this number, it doesn’t take into account illegal gun ownership and assumes the legal gun owners are the ones causing all the crime. This source shows 90% of homicides involved illegally bought or sold guns, or owners who where previously felons: Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html So for fun lets re-run the numbers to differentiate between criminals and non criminals. Since a felony record disbars you from legally owning a firearm, yet 90% of murders are committed by those with felony records, we know only 10% of murders are committed by legal gun owners. So we have ~11,000 murders, ten percent of which are committed by previously law abiding gun owners. So that is 1,100 murders. So we have 117,660,000 law abiding gun owners commenting 1,100 murders, which comes out to 99.999065% So yes 99.999065% of Legal gun never murder someone. Only .000045% of them become murders. So as you can see, the stats clearly show that guns do not increase the likelihood of violent crime, or cause anyone to be less safe, quite the opposite as the DGU data shows.
So using the high estimates for gun violence, and the low estimates for DGUs, DGUs outnumber use of a legally held weapon in a deadly violence by ~60 times.
Also: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F13504851.2013.854294 & http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013
&
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
&
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294
&
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/01/using_placebo_l.html
&
&
https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/2#2
You are just wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. If you want an even more simple summary, the “moar guns moar death” BS is just hilariously wrong on the face of it. According to the Washington Post, civilian firearms ownership has increased from ~240 million (1996) to ~357 million (2013) (For reference to the figures below, it shows about 325 million guns in 2010). According to Pew Research, the firearms homicide death rate fell from ~6 per 100,000 persons (1996) to 3.6 per 100,000 (2010). So according to these figures, between 1996 and 2010, the number of civilian firearms increased by ~35%. Over the same time period, firearms homicide deaths decreased by ~40%. If you want to focus on ccw specifically, fine that shows the same thing. Rather do murder per 100,000 globally? Sure thing. And that is where you get your GINI connect fyi. The correlation is a lot stronger than gun ownership. This has been looked at and somehow keeps getting forgotten. You don’t pick up a gun to hurt someone because it is your first choice, you generally do it because it is your last. Inequality, desperation, the effects of capitalism in the third world and increasingly the first, drastically increase this.
Real anarchists know this, and know that anything attempt to restrict the rights of the proles is class war.
“i mean, you don’t really think a popular army could challenge the authority of any sovereign great power state like US or China do you???”
I’m sorry but if you think this, you simply do not understand military conflict in the 21st century or historically. Allow me to give you a few examples that will quickly show you the reality of the situation ( which is that the U.S. military stands no chance what-so-ever against even a moderate proportion of the population rising en-mass).
Iraq and Afghanistan: In over 10 years resistance has never been stamped out, in countries with much smaller populations than ours (both <1/10th), despite our massive technological advantages. This is with significant infighting in both countries.
Vietnam: A country of less than 1/10th our population was subjected too more bombing than was used in all of WWII and began the conflict less well armed than the US public is now. We lost handily.
There are countless more examples from all across the globe (From Russia to Nicaragua, From Columbia to Kurdistan, etc.) that unequivocally show armed populations can crush organized militaries, or at the very least resist them effectively for extended periods of time.
This is not even count the even more obvious problem with your statements: Almost 100 million Americans are armed (the number of which would likely grow in this event) armed with over 300,000,000 guns including almost 500,000 machine guns (although to be fair most are sub-machine guns). You’d have to do this with a combined army and police force (including reserves) of a little over 2million (with no desertion or refusal of orders). Mass defection and resistance from within the military and police would be very common. These US soldiers have families and friends in the civilian world, and many (like the oathkeepers) are dedicated to NOT engaging those targets with violence. There would be massive resistance in the ranks, it would be at best chaos. However even if this were NOT the case (which it is) and it was an army of automatons, the sheer number of armed citizens would be so overwhelming as for it not to matter much. That’s not to say any conflict wouldn’t be a BRUTAL and costly affair, but with enough participants from the public the conclusion would be forgone.
An armed proletariat obviously helps to balance the power equation between the public and those in power, to the point that exploitation beyond a certain point and conflict becomes EXTREMELY unattractive to those in power. In a similar manner to nuclear weapons an armed populace acts as a DETERRENT to elite exploitation and violence. In other words this conflict (that the people would likely win all things considered) isn’t likely to occur and for good reason. Those in power squeeze any opportunity to do so as much as they possibly can, and if you give an inch, they take a mile. I wish it wasn’t so but that is just the way they operate. In addition, taking away weapons from the population while leaving them in the hands of the government of almost ANY kind of weapon (AR to SAW to whatever) is a horrible idea, given that the government has proven they are far less responsible than it’s citizens. My entire post gives all the reasons why removing power from citizens and giving it to those in power is a horrific idea with terrible historic consequences.
All revolutions historically had bloodshed, and those in power do not give it up without a fight.
“Defensive gun use” is horseshit. Statistics clearly show that owning a gun increases the risk that anyone in the household (including children) will die by homicide, suicide or unintentional injuries. The amount of successful defensive uses of a gun pales in comparison to the number of preventable injuries and deaths that gun ownership brings.
If you actually looked at the statistics, you’d know that’s not the case. Defensive gun use is not horseshit, but being a privileged liberal is.
Guns are a tool of equality for all manner of marginalized and dispossessed people.
How frightening it is that the statistical likelihood of accidental injury goes up for a family when a parent goes from carless to owning a car. It’s bullshit that we don’t have ubiquitous, safe public transit, but it’s also bullshit to demonize the most effective tool for the family’s to thrive in capitalism.
If you actually looked at the statistics, you’d know that’s not the case. Defensive gun use is not horseshit, but being a privileged liberal is.
I did, did you? Crime victims who respond with a gun are 2.5 times less likely to get away from the offender than those who respond without one and 10 percent less likely to avoid injury.
Guns are a tool of equality for all manner of marginalized and dispossessed people.
This is an unhinged statement. Guns by definition are used to oppress the marginalized, weapons to force people to do what they do not want to do. To claim that they’re “tools of equality” is bizarre gun-industry propaganda. Women in abusive relationships are 5 times more likely to be killed if their partner owns a gun. Women in the US are 28 times more likely to die to firearm homicide. “Shoot first” laws increase the odds that a minority is a victim of a violent crime (an anecdotal example is Ahmoud Arbery, who was shot and killed for the crime of jogging while black).
You also mentioned that 69k is an “extreme low”, but it’s likely an overestimation since it includes non-legal DGUs. Even then, the statistics show that this is less than 1% of property crimes and in nearly 60% of those cases the perpetrators weren’t even armed. The picture that the NRA likes to push, legally using a gun against an armed stranger in a home invasion, is so rare there’s not enough reports to even find a semi-accurate number.
Meanwhile, violent crime goes up if gun ownership does (when compensating for other factors like GINI): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119025000269
Your argumentation reeks of “Gun Culture 2.0”, the project that the NRA is pushing to promote guns for personal safety in a dangerous world (as opposed to “Gun Culture 1.0”, where the main motivation for owning a gun was hunting and recreational shooting). It’s heavily pushed through a lot of propaganda in pro-gun magazines and commercials, ignoring all statistics showing owning a gun makes you less safe, and that the world around you in general is becoming safer overall over time.
Hold up. The US has over 100 guns per 100 people? 😳 So on average, everyone owns at least one gun? Tell me I’m reading that wrong!
Unironically, the average person doesn’t actually own a gun, but the average gun owner owns several
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
This is from 2017, almost 10 years old. I’d be interested to see how much it’s changed, if at all, especially since there’s that 30% who could see owning one in the future.
It’s that the people who own guns tend to own gunnnsssss. Like an entire arsenal. Most people don’t own any.
Around 40% in the USA own at least one firearm. It’s probably higher now since trump is back in power.
That is higher than I thought, but still not most.
Do remember that we have no registry, which means that number is self reported and it’s just a educated guess. Myself and many others buy private sales. I’ve never purchased from a FFL or online. Everything I own is purchased from private owners in my state. I don’t fall into that 40%. With trump in power, many new owners are buying locally as well and many on the left are now armed.
Some of us put ownership around 50% at this point.
Still an insane amount 😐
Think of it this way. The majority of our gun deaths are from suicides, then the next largest amount is from gang/drug violence, after that it’s police (on average 1k a year) then it’s the rest. Meaning that around 4k deaths a year are from literally everything else (domestic/robberies/random acts). We don’t really have a gun problem, we have an issue with our society. 99.99999999% of all firearms in civ hands have never been used to harm another person.
Poverty creates the violence, lack of education, lack of social support, lack of opportunities, lack of healthcare. If we fixed those things, our guns violence would plummet overnight. But the owners of this country would rather have us fighting each other than them.
With this logic, saying poverty is what creates the violence, and that the existence of the guns have nothing to do with it, should mean that if you removed all the guns, you’d still have the same proportion of homicide with knives instead, or some other weapon.
And I don’t think that would be the case.
Poverty necessitates the violence, I agree. But the availability of guns makes the violence accessible.
Both are problems.
Brazil and Mexico both have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Basically civs are banned from owning firearms, but their homicide rates are 10 fold ours. A lot of countries in Africa are the same way.
The guns are just the tool used. You solve the why and overall violence will plummet.
Close, but the best estimates are there are 470 million guns in US civilian hands. With a population of 338 million, you’re looking at approximately 1.4 guns per person in this crazy land of free-dumb. 😂
Jesus Christ.
Most gun owners have more than one. If you’re a hunter, you might want to shoot different rounds for different game or seasons.
My state bans the use of rifles for deer hunting in most circumstances. In that example, you’d want 12ga for deer hunting, 20ga for duck, and 5.56 would be used for coyotes, boar, or groundhogs. And if you go boar hunting you’ll want a sidearm (9mm or .45) because they’ll gore you if they get the chance.
So that totals 4 guns for a single person with decent reasoning. Plus, if you had kids and took them hunting, you’d want at least 1 more of each type.
And for people who live in non-rural areas, you might decide to concealed carry a 9mm for protection. But handguns aren’t as ideal for home defense, so you might want a shotgun or 9mm carbine for that task, so that’d be 2 guns for 1 person.
My jaw figuratively dropped when you suggested putting rifles and side arms in the hands of kids.
Gotta have an age limit on those things.
I’m saying to hand rifles to toddlers, nor that the kids get unrestricted access to the guns. JFC it’s like you’re deliberately trying to misunderstand.
Where I live it’s normal for teens to go hunting alongside there parents, and when the guns aren’t in use they are stored in the family gun safe that only the parents can get into.
These parents also teach their kids gun safety, and with exposure the kids know that the guns aren’t toys to be played with. This shares similarities to how many European countries’ drinking age of 16 removes the novelty and rebellion of drinking, generally preventing them from drinking to excess
I understood what you meant. No misunderstanding there. I do not think teens under 18 should be handling a lethal weapon. Matter fact it should be over 21. My opinion. 🤷♂️
I do not think teens under 18 should be handling a lethal weapon. Matter fact it should be over 21.
Cars are a lethal weapon, but they’re allowed to drive on public roads under supervision before they’re 16, and can drive without on private property. Kids under 18 are allowed access to cooking knives at whatever age, and should be taught how to cook before they’re adults. Teaching kids safe firearm operation under supervision is useful. Not only that, sharing hobbies with parents help with communication and bonding, giving the kids a better support structure while growing up.
Your black-and-white mindset of infantilizing teens like they’re completely incapable of handling anything before they’re 18 is demeaning and ultimately damaging to society as a whole. It leads to adults who’ve never learned skills they need to survive on their own.
If it makes you feel better, most gun owners own many guns, so there isn’t actually a gun in everyone’s hands.
Just a lot of them in a few hands… Much better…
Some people are collectors, but a lot of people just have some old guns around.
Also if guns are a hobby or interest of yours, you are likely to own several. Just like people who are into headphones, mechanical keyboards, vintage gaming consoles, bicycles, etc.
Just like people who are into sarin, questionably stored viral samples, bombs, gillotines, etc.
You can call these things “collectables” but their nature doesn’t change because you put a friendly term to it. It is psychologically fucked up to stockpile lethal weapons that can only be used for taking life without even having a practical application in mind.
I’m going to push back a little bit. For one thing, have you ever gone hunting? Some would say that taking life (specifically deers and rabbits and stuff) is a practical application. For two, sport shooting is a thing. Being good at using a weapon can be rewarding in and of itself, whether you’re talking about guns, bows, slingshots, or throwing knives.
where is switzerland? on the chart, this often gets touted as the counterpoint
On this chart Norway would also be listed with 29 guns per person. These are owned by only 10% of the population however, and automatic rifles are banned for civilians. I don’t disagree with the sentiment of this meme, but it’s cherry picking data in exactly the same manner as “the other side” would do just for a cheap gotcha argument.
These are owned by only 10% of the population however
Thats the case in America too, iirc like 30% of households have at least 1 gun, and if you assume 4 people per household, and 1.25 gun per American, that means the average gun-owning household has 16 guns.
It makes a lot of sense to own more than one gun. For self defense you might own one shotgun, one handgun, and a smaller handgun for concealed carry. If you’re a hunter, you likely want two rifles in different calibers, a shotgun, and a hand gun. In addition to that you might have an old gun laying around or grandpa’s old hunting gun, a range toy, some historic gun you like for some reason. Sport target shooters will have a few different guns, depending on what disciplines they shoot. Then there are also more serious collectors who might have dozens or hundreds of different firearms.
Yes. What’s the point of owning a firearm if you can’t have a gun for when you’re sleeping in your bedroom, a gun when you’re on the toilet, a gun when you’re on the couch watching the TV, a gun when you’re at the front door greeting guests, a gun when you’re driving your F150, a gun for that second amendment right, a gun when you go grocery shopping, a gun when you go buying clothes, a gun to go with your Tony Montana cosplay and you know, a gun just for fun. What are you supposed to do? Go outside without a gun? Use one gun for all those things? Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
You don’t need all those guns. You want all those guns.
Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
We call this the New York Reload and strapping down with like six pistols is a legitimate tactic.
Very true. People have all kinds of stuff they don’t actually need, but just like having.
I’m not sure the number of guns someone owns makes a difference regarding public safety and gun crime.
I support stricter gun laws in the US, registered ownership, some kind of license, sales only through licenses dealers, restricted advertising, waiting times, safe storage requirements, etc. A lot of gun regulations in the US are not very effective and more symbolic. Bothering legal owners more doesn’t necessarily help with violent crimes using firearms.
Fundamentally the main reasons for gun crime are social and can improved without changing gun regulations.
Any kind of registration of ANYTHING in the US is a bad idea. Especially at a time where the federal government is openly genocidal towards certain minorities, especially trans people. Having a list of trans people who own guns would be free eats for them if they declared every single one a terrorist or enemy of the state.
A valid concern.
A gun registry wouldn’t list if people are trans or not though. A list of trans people you would get through healthcare and insurance. Changes of a legal name is probably registered somewhere as well. So they would need to cross reference.
If they want to go after trans people individually, they would go for leaders and activists first. They are easily found on social media nowadays. Then go after organized groups.
An individual armed trans person is much less of a concern, than organized groups armed or not.
Who are you to tell how many of those someone needs? If someone isn’t a murderous psychopath it does not matter how many guns they have cause exactly none of them will be used on a person.
Let’s me rephrase it then. You can want to have all those guns but it’s not sensible to have all those guns.
The argument here is that it’s sensible to have so many guns. It’s not sensible because even among Americans the median gun owner owns 2 guns. You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
What you described in the first sentence is entirely reasonable, you just don’t understand it.
Here’s an evaluation based strictly on cost.
My hunting rifles cost something like $2 per round or more to fire. If I want to go to the range and practice technique firing 50 to 100 times is normal. This is a cost of $100 to $200 dollars.
My plinking, or training, rifles on the other have a cost of about 4 cents per round to fire. So now a practice day at the range is below $5.
However I cannot hunt with a training rifle, it’s caliber is far too small.
It’s the same with shotguns and handguns. The heavier ones are necessary for real activities but they cost a lot to train with. The smaller caliber ones are much less expensive to train with but aren’t useful for real work.
What you are missing, IMO, is that firearms are tools and people who use their tools tend to own more than one of each.
I think carrying the guns around plays a big role too
Also the social safety net and availability of (mental) healthcare, it’s not like Europe doesn’t have some glaring problems in that regard but holy shit is it better than whatever the US is doing.
On this chart Norway would also be listed with 29 guns per person. These are owned by only 10% of the population however
Wait, so you’re saying the average Norwegian gun owner owns 290 guns? That sounds very implausible.
Yeah, the numbers seem wild to me. I live in Norway. I have family who lives up north among polar bears, so they have gun for bear protection. My in-laws do some hunting, so they have a few hunting rifles. I feel like my family and in-laws are far above the regular citizens when it comes to gun count per person, but it still averages to around 0.5 guns per person among us. I don’t know anyone in Norway who owns a gun to defend against other humans. Who are these 10%?
next to germanybetween Portugal and Canada. according to small arms survey, which supplied the data, switzerland has about 25 guns per 100 people and .5 deaths per 100k people..5 deaths per 100 people.
You mean per 100,000 people, right?
I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.
It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
Comics like the one in OP always ignore the primary underlying difference between US and the other developed nations: free, nationalized healthcare vs the Insurance Apocalypse that is the American healthcare system
Yup. If Americans struggling with poor mental health had better access to professional help, crime as a whole would go down. But it’s not the only factor. Things like financial strain and environment also contribute. Crime is a slippery slope. Not a leap.
Agreed, but financial strain is part of what keeps people from getting care in the USA
Free healthcare would alleviate some of that
Agreed, but it’s a vicious cycle.
It does cost money to provide healthcare. Funding doesn’t come from thin air. But healthcare in the U.S is also ridiculously expensive. A lot of people can’t afford it without insurance (if your insurance even covers what you need). The system needs fixing.
Americans pay 10x per capita for their healthcare, compared to other countries like the Nordics or Germany. Still, the costs of the war on Iran would have funded public healthcare for all for how long? Decades?
Americans subisdize Israelis free healthcare that includes access to abortion care
Well it’s a start.
You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.
Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.
In the end it will still require banning guns.
True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)
That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist.
This is a saturation issue. It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
Crimimals wouldn’t have so many unregistered guns in the first place if there weren’t that many guns available from the beginning.
Escalation has proven to not be the answer. You don’t solve the problem that saturation has caused by creating even more saturation.
Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it?
Well, Australia managed to disarm a significant portion of its population in the past, so it’s possible.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market. Don’t have to start taking away people’s emotional support collections yet, just make sure nobody can start a new one.
… guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes.
Guns are weapons. Weapons exist to threaten, bring harm, if not outright kill another living being.
In areas where hunting is common, maybe the argument for them being useful tools to have can be made. Outside of this specific niche there is no reason for the public availabity of any weapon.
Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
I consider it a symptom and a problem.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist. You realize that even if guns are no longer sold in the U.S., they can still be smuggled in from other countries along with other contraband like drugs and counterfeit cash. That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned. This is what I mean when I say “violent black market”. Guns can also be 3D printed.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australia’s gun control as proof that “it’s possible”. Australia doesn’t have anywhere near the same history that the U.S. has with guns. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist.
It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market.
I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.
That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned.
Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.
It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.
You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…
Ah well…
Weapons also exist to defend, but you only make the arguments that suit you.
You don’t need weapons.
Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated
Thousands of children may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
Cops (aka class traitors) have killed 33x more people than mass shootings since 1982. But sure, we’re the ones sacrificing children.
A. This is obvious whataboutism. Yes, you are literally the ones sacrificing children. The fact that you are sacrificing less children doesn’t let you off the hook.
B. Cops in the UK don’t kill nearly so many children because most of the cops are unarmed. They are unarmed because mostly everyone is unarmed. Cops killing more children (not to mention everyone else) is literally a consequence of everyone having guns.
Come on my dude, if you think the dead kids are an acceptable cost, then just admit it. Even the right wing talking heads can do that.
Cops in America don’t need guns for 90% of the stuff they do, no matter how armed the population is. They’re the actual nutjobs with guns. They’re the ones killing people over getting talked smack back or over a fucking wallet. And even if cops started getting killed from not having guns, so what? THEIR JOB is to sacrifice themselves for the public good. They can just have SWAT at the ready and have unarmed cops do almost everything. You don’t need a fucking gun to radar cars in the highway, write tickets, go to someone’s burgled house to take a note they’ll eventually lose, or bother someone over the position of their stereo knob.
What’s your point exactly? Why the fuck are you talking about cops? The simple proposition being discussed is “it would be better if there were fewer guns”. I never said there should be a special exemption for cops. No one mentioned cops until you did.
“it would be better if there were fewer guns”
There are 470 million guns in the US. This conversation is a non-starter. You are not putting that ketchup back in the bottle. Not without causing millions of deaths. It would be exactly what ICE is doing, except everyone’s got guns.
Let’s discuss how the number of arms per capita correlates with workers’ rights?
The problem is that every single gun law made in modern day is explicitly made to empower the police and protect the bourgeoisie.
that’s a load of crap… australia had a mass shooting, we banned guns, now we have no more gun problem… the police have literally nothing to do with it
Ask an aboriginal what they think of the police.
ah yes of course and that’s a simple problem rather than a complex web of interconnected issues
Do you have an example of this?
Tax stamps (recently repealed)
For the longest time, if you wanted certain types of weapons, you had to pay a $200 tax to own that weapon. These include surpressors, full auto guns, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shotguns
The point wasn’t to ban these things it was to make them prohibitively expensive because “its the poor’s who vomit violence”. And this tax was implemented in the 1940’s where $200 was off 2 or 4 times the cost of the gun itself.
A different example is gun registries and concealed carry license databases. I don’t trust the police to act calm when interacting with me when they know I have a gun. There are special classes that CCL holders take often so that they know how to read a cop and keep them calm during a traffic stop or a welfare check because cops are trained to shoot first and are very scared of the masses.
Think of Paretti here. Shot dead for having a gun. People blamed it on the ICE agent being a violent fascist thug trained like that. I don’t see it that way. I think he operated like a cop who was told no consequences.
We have videos of cops approaching black men, committing the crime of being in white people spaces, who ask them if they have a gun, the man says yes, the cop tells them at gun point to pull it out and drop it, and then shoost the man when he touches the gun.
I don’t trust police to use surveillance state information like who owns what guns in a way that won’t get me killed. Its why I’m still hesitant to get any tax stamp items. I’d love an SBR, but then I am legally required to let the ATF “inspect” my home if they ask me to. I have to tell the ATF when and where I’m moving to if I change states.
