Anonymous #1 1d

Yeah, not surprising that this logic works on Californian "people"

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

I'm pretty sure Newsom has been keeping it going though, don't worry lib

2

Anonymous #2 1d

I honestly think if he hadn't have done that, your team wouldn't have ever gotten a serious platform for gun restrictions in this country.

-3

Anonymous #2 1d

Legit. The most gun control occurred due to minorities

15

Anonymous #3 1d

I mean close but its actually even simpler. Gun control in this country is solely for the oppression of minorities, seen at the founding with George III's arms bans on colonists, after the founding with colonists arms bans on Indians and Blacks, over prohibition with the arms bans intended to affect alcohol sellers (NFA/GCA).

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

Even in the 20th and 21st centuries it still prevails, nobody cared about ghost guns until they started popping up in Chicago and Detroit, and obviously you can draw the connection between the CA carry laws and the Black Panther party

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

You don’t think that the school shootings have anything to do with it? Democrats tend to be the more minority party, but it’s also the one supporting gun control.

6

Anonymous #2 1d

No I think school shootings are just an excuse for democrats to take away your rights, same as gangland shootings were for Reagan.

5

Anonymous OP 1d

Wow that’s just like dumb then. At least understand where someone else is coming from instead of making up a straw man in your head.

10

Anonymous #2 1d

Like if it was about oppressing minorities why would the heavily minority party be pushing for it

8

Anonymous #2 1d

The mainstream Democratic Party supports the same racist institutions as the republican.

3

Anonymous #2 1d

There's a lot of ways you can propagandize people to be against their own rights, look at the Nazis, Soviets, Maoists, etc etc

0

Anonymous #2 1d

I just want to say too, I think it's equally stupid to act as if the ownership of guns is the sole determinant of school shootings. This country existed with gun rights for hundreds of years before school shootings became an issue, hell you used to be able to buy a full auto from a SEARS catalog and even then this shit wasn't a problem.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

It’s not the sole but it is one of the main factors. Most guns involved in crime in general are stolen from gun owners. Also true this country existed with gun rights for years but you are wrong. Even during that time gun deaths were extremely high. Crime was higher back then so it’s be foolish to think that gun deaths were lower.

9

Anonymous #3 1d

Gun ownership and number of guns were both much lower so you have actually proved an inverse relationship

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

Idk about later data but according to violence poverty center, between 1973 -2021, gun ownership decreased.

5

Anonymous #3 1d

Today roughly 50% of americans live in a house with a gun. In 1774 only 50-74% of white male heads of household lived in a house with a gun. Total gun number estimates are somewhere in the hundreds of thousands for 1774 and 400M+ for 2020

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

So yes there is both more ownership and more total guns today

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Sure but I don’t get the connection. Regardless of time period, America has remained the number one developed nation in terms of mass shootings. Time and time again, gun control has been shown to work.

13

Anonymous #3 1d

What makes development index less important of a factor than gun rights? I'd argue that since you can only have these findings among developed countries, and we are comparing ourselves to nations hundreds or thousands of years older than us that have consistently had lower crime rates since our conception, it may be an issue of development and not our rights.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Can you elaborate because I’m a little confused on what you are saying

8

Anonymous OP 1d

Furthermore, since lesser developed countries can have notably higher gun death and/or gun violence rates than even the country with the most guns on Earth without having any inordinate amount of guns themselves, it'd suggest this theory has some validity.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

I'm basically saying that economic hardship or government instability will have a much greater impact on the number of gun deaths than high gun ownership rates

0

Anonymous OP 1d

Yeah I agree. I never said gun ownership rates impact gun deaths. What I am saying is we should make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands while also taking steps to address the causes of these deaths

6

Anonymous #3 1d

I mostly agree there too, but the point where I differ is that I don't believe we even need any new laws to do this.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Economic instability is a massive factor but we still have more gun deaths than countries with comparable wealth and quality of life. Hell, a number of European countries have higher robbery and violent crime than we do but fewer murders and gun deaths.

8

Anonymous #2 1d

Like the reason Britain is known for stabbings is that they don’t have access to many guns.

10

Anonymous #2 1d

When I hear British mass violence I think of a terrorist running a bunch of people over in a car not the 20 people who get stabbed in London

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

Also, these countries saw lower murders and gun crime rates before they ever restricted guns, further suggesting that the low rates are more so an effect of their development and wealth over time than legislation.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

America in comparison is not as developed or geographically well working in policing or crime prevention. European police get better and longer training than our cops, the population density is double ours which means crimes are going to be committed closer together to each other, and Europe has more robust safety nets against poverty.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

There isn’t a European country with a higher violent crime rate than us. France has the highest violent crime while still being lower. Also stabbings in the US is still higher than Britain. Also gun deaths in European countries were higher than what they were before their reforms. That is due to legislation. Even European nations struggle with wealth inequality.

7

Anonymous #3 1d

Ours were higher than what they are now before WW2, does that mean we need another WW2?

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

That is quite literally apples and oranges. Gun control is a solution proven to work that minimizes deaths vs an actual war. How does that make sense?

7

Anonymous #3 1d

My point is that you can say that any event solely caused the lower rates in crime, but what seems like a much more reasonable explanation to me than a single piece of legislation bringing down crime rates like that is that these countries had a longer time to develop their systems of policing/crime prevention and made them more effective with that extra time.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

I’m not talking on crime in general though. I’m talking about crimes involving crimes specifically. It is factual that gun control leads to a decrease in crimes revolving around guns.

11