Anonymous OP 19h

Guns make it easier to commit violent crimes, and particularly murder. The UK and France have way higher rates of serious assault than the USA. And France and Belgium have way higher rates of robbery. But they have less murder, because there’s less guns.

6

Anonymous #1 19h

No, they had less murder long prior to having their modern day gun laww

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

In fact I have yet to see a country where you can point to a meaningful drop in murder with a causal relationship between that drop and gun law

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

Furthermore, South Africa has significantly less guns per capita than the US and a significantly higher gun homicide rate

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

There is literally 0 explanation for how that could occur under the theory that it is an issue with gun law alone.

0

Anonymous #1 19h

I’d much rather be robbed or even assaulted than shot and killed tho😭

11

Anonymous #2 19h

I'd way rather be shot in the head than stabbed in the gut so looks like our system is better

0

Anonymous #2 19h

Hell I would way rather get shot to death than beat to death

0

Anonymous #2 19h

How many knife and gun fights have you won since you know so well?

1

Anonymous OP 19h

None? It was simply a hypothetical. I rarely go anywhere crowded after dark anymore bc I stg someone’s getting shot on a daily basis.. and I’ll be dammed if I’m next.

1

Anonymous #2 19h

I’m not a fighter but I could run from someone w a knife.. can’t outrun a gun tho😭

1

Anonymous #2 19h

Well frankly I don't see how a knife could be even half as effective as a gun in defending your life. You have to get pretty up close and personal to use a knife, and in the time it takes you to close that range your attacker could have already used a gun, or could physically overpower you when you do close the distance.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

I agree w this one but my point was a gun can kill u instantly.. if ur getting beat u at least have the CHANCE to defend urself or there be enough time for someone else to step in

11

Anonymous #2 19h

A person can kill you instantly with a punch to the head, guns just make that dynamic equal for all people

-1

Anonymous OP 18h

I think u misunderstood. I’m not talking about me having the knife, I’m talking about the attacker having a knife vs a gun. Bc obviously a knife is not as effective as a gun, that was kinda my point. (And this is seperate from the convo of “well they can still get guns”)

10

Anonymous #2 18h

People who criminally attack others tend to be young, active males. For the majority of the population that group is physically stronger than them and therefore the ones being attacked would still be at a notable disadvantage, even against someone armed with "only" a knife.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

A gun to the head will kill u 9/10 times. A punch to the head depends on many factors and likely would only kill u 1/10 times. (Also I hope u don’t think I’m tryna be an asshole, this has just become an interesting conversation imo)

2

Anonymous #3 18h

so I wonder what fully funding both public schools and healthcare PLUS maintaining 2A would do for the US!

3

Anonymous #3 18h

True while I call it a crime issue I agree that there are a large swath of factors that play into the US having such disproportionate levels of crime, education being a major one.

5

Anonymous #2 18h

Ehh I think 1/10 is likely an understatement, depending on the punch and the person receiving it obviously. The major difference is that its not based on physical strength of the attacker, while a punch from Mike Tyson would be a lot more likely to kill than a punch from grandma, a bullet from either one carries the same kick. It takes away from the "might is right" philosophy being backed by natural ability

0

Anonymous #4 17h

They want to ban the guns I make for myself and thats all I particularly care about

0

Anonymous #4 17h

We also already have certain caliber/type of gun restrictions to and past the point that one could argue is actually reasonable (most of which is encompassed of full auto and destructive devices restrictions)

1

Anonymous #4 17h

Lastly I don't think its the government's business to screen me before I exercise my rights without any reasonable suspicion

0

Anonymous OP 17h

What would that even look like? They put a probe up my butt and the inside of my colon tells them the future of my likelihood to commit crime or whether or not I will use it to kill myself? Some government sponsored psychologist clears me?

0

Anonymous OP 17h

It should encapsulate more. Personally if you want a gun for protection then automatic weapons shouldn’t be allowed. Semi-automatic is perfectly reasonable for home defense. Also I don’t understand why people are against better mental health screening before getting guns

9

Anonymous #4 17h

I don't see why full automatics should be banned even for some hunting cases like big swaths of wild hog for population control. Jerry Miculek is perfectly fine using a semi auto at those speeds, maybe we ought to cut off his fingers

1

Anonymous OP 17h

It is their business when you can potentially cause harm to others. Why is a screening bad? It leads to less death and backs the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” bs that people spout.

9

Anonymous #4 17h

It's a search, and an unlawful and frankly unjustified one if the sole reason is them choosing to exercise their rights.

1

Anonymous #4 17h

What's next, they need to come into everyone's house because they want to look for guns?

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Annual Mental health screening by a professional psychiatrist/psychologist to ensure you are in the correct state of mine. Also background checks and maybe even a check like they do for section 8 recipients.

8

Anonymous #4 17h

Why not just put a majority of the people into camps that don't contain weapons and they can enjoy all the loss of their freedoms plus the added safety?

1

Anonymous #4 17h

You can have it your way and I can still have it mine.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

A checkup to ensure a gun is stored correctly and out of reach? Yes

6

Anonymous #4 17h

Why would having it stored safely mean having it unloaded or out of reach?

1

Anonymous #4 17h

I'm holding my gun as I type this

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Because majority of guns used in crime are stolen. Why is it that people like you value guns over the lives of children?

11

Anonymous #4 17h

I don't but I don't treat them like they're the ones doing the killing either, because I don't believe in fucking animism.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

And why is it that when I bring up valid points people like you just go completely off the deep end with nut behavior?

7

Anonymous #4 17h

The validity of your point weighs on its argument and ad nauseam is not a serious argument.

0

Anonymous #4 17h

I feel fine being equally unserious towards you

0

Anonymous OP 17h

What?

5

Anonymous OP 17h

You think the lives of others is unserious? You don’t want a genuine dialogue. You just want to bs. Troglodyte behavior dawg I swear.

8

Anonymous #4 17h

Lmfao I think your argument about it is very unserious

0

Anonymous OP 17h

How? Numerous data supports the idea that gun control works. People like you don’t even care to compromise with background checks and mental health screening. You don’t care about the preventable deaths from gun related deaths. You value them over human lives. That’s not an issue with my argument, that’s a moral failure on your part.

6

Anonymous #4 17h

I can't seriously believe that you are someone who thinks that people should allow themselves to be attacked, potentially murdered, raped, robbed, disabled, etc because of some vague "mental health" stigmatization, in the exact same way that you are actually arguing for. It doesn't even consider the direct consequences

0

Anonymous #4 17h

And yes, I consistently consider both sides of the gun death story, which includes defensive gun use.

0

Anonymous #4 17h

Not to mention we already have a mechanism in which people with serious, debilitating mental health issues lose their firearms rights.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

What are you on about? When did I say that? Are you still falling back on that strawman that I want all guns banned?

3

Anonymous OP 16h

Again you are falling back in that strawman

4

Anonymous #4 16h

You have yet to even mention what mental health issues we are supposedly dealing with to necessitate mass enrollment of every gun owner. Is it schizophrenia? Bipolar disorder? Multiple personalities?

0

Anonymous #4 16h

I'd like to see the numbers on that

0

Anonymous OP 16h

Mental health in general. Asking to point to a specific illness is disingenuous. A person can be disturbed without have a specific illness. Lack of impulse control deals with mental health but doesn’t necessarily link with a specific issue. Even extreme anger. These factors are linked to majority of Mass shootings. Both involve mental health.

9

Anonymous OP 16h

That’s why I say this is a moral failing on your part and not my argument. You resort to disingenuous requests just to avoid a solution. What further proves my point of this is you just saying my ideas are bad without offering any yourself. Just admit that you value your gun over human lives.

5

Anonymous #4 12h

It's pretty disingenuous to assume that general anger and impulse issues are the causes of mass shootings, an extremely new phenomenon compared to the issues of anger and impulse control or even the modern firearm. You know what the prevalence lines up perfectly with? The ban of guns from school property in 1990. School shootings shoot up immediately after and sensationalization of shooting people in public by the media carries it to where it is now.

0

Anonymous #4 12h

Also you're flat wrong in saying that I value guns over human lives (weird dichotomy in the first place but I'll play along). I see guns as a tool to keep good people safe and put holes in bad people

0

Anonymous OP 12h

There is no evidence that shows gun-free policies being the cause of increased mass shootings. Wanna know what there’s evidence of? Gun control decreasing gun related deaths as a whole. You say you see guns as a tool to protect good people yet but the whole “good guy with the gun” bs has been disproven time and time again. Data shows that this point does not benefit society nor is it a deterrent for mass shootings.

8

Anonymous #4 12h

Theres plenty of evidence that gun control and gun free zones decrease defensive gun use as well, and I don't think either of us is in a place to say that one life is more or less valuable than the other

0

Anonymous #4 12h

And actually, despite the "good guy with a gun" narrative triggering you folk, there is plenty of evidence that guns both deter and actually stop crime from occurring, and across the board (although the numbers range widely, from 30k per year at the lowest end to 2.5 million at the highest) there are more defensive gun uses than gun murders, and generally year by year more than gun deaths total

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Farther most acts that are deemed “self defense” are later proven to not be. Even farther guns are more likely to be used in crime than they are self defense by a very wide margin. I’d prefer a flat out ban but gun control should be good enough (though again you prefer guns over lives).

2

Anonymous #4 12h

Thats a rather disingenuous claim considering the ease of crime to study and the lack of meaningful study into defensive gun use.

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Again guns are more likely to be used in criminal offense than for self defense and in many claims of self defense the person is not in actual danger.

5

Anonymous #4 12h

I'd argue that the higher end of estimates for defensive gun use (the 2.5 million number specifically) would amount to a higher prevalence in self defense than any gun crime

0

Anonymous OP 12h

That 2.5 number has quite literally been proven to be overinflated. Estimates place it closer to 3% of that 2.5 million claim. Reports show that people are 9 times as likely to report being victimized by a person with a gun than being protected.

6

Anonymous #4 12h

Estimates by who? The NCVS who has much narrower standards and although not reporting directly to the government, still very much carries the inclination of involvement from the government? Excuse me if I'm a little more skeptical of the guy who has skin in the game of disarming their citizens.

1

Anonymous #4 12h

I also have mentioned those studies, but I use them to show that even under your terrible estimates, the prevalence of using a gun to defend yourself is leagues higher than gun murder

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Which is a big part of why I'm so against you guys wanting to ban guns, for every one person you "save" by taking away their gun, that could be 5 in the grave.

1

Anonymous OP 12h

No the Center For American progress, Giffords, Psychology today, Policing Etiquette and many more. That 2.5 estimate you used quite literally comes from THE NRA and and GUN LOBBYIST and you’re talking about vendetta. You’re skeptical of my sources while accepting that overestimation? Are you ok?

6

Anonymous #4 12h

I would wayyy rather take info from people who lose alongside me when I lose my rights than billionaires and activists begging for them to be taken away

1

Anonymous #4 12h

So yes I am incredibly skeptical of these Bloomberg funded organizations as well

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Here comes the belief preservation.

1

Anonymous #4 12h

Nope, here comes more facts. 97.8% of mass public shootings occurred in gun free zones since 1960

1

Anonymous OP 12h

The first gun free zone was created in 1990… 😐

1

Anonymous #4 12h

False there were states that were effectively gun free zones via banning carry

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Like I said moral failure on your part. Just admit it. Just say “I like guns over human lives.” I swear you’re like those people who fear being called a racist over actually saying racist things.

1

Anonymous OP 12h

…do you think gun free zones are the same as making a country with less guns in circulation

1

Anonymous #4 12h

That wouldn't be true lol

1

Anonymous #1 12h

Yes I think effectively banning carry is the exact same as making the entirety of a state a gun free zone. It is no longer legal to carry a gun, what else could you possibly do to make it a gun free zone?

1

Anonymous #1 12h

I have no idea how y’all keep pretending like having less guns in circulation wouldn’t obviously decrease rates of gun violence. Criminals in the UK have to resort to stabbing and shit (less fatal) precisely because guns are harder to access.

1

Anonymous OP 12h

It quite literally is. I told you that 2.5 number was false and told you who backed that data and you practically said “I don’t care.”

1

Anonymous OP 12h

In a nation with many guns in circulation, it is easier for criminals to access them and bring them into schools or concerts. There needs to be efforts to reduce the total number of guns in free circulation.

1

Anonymous #1 12h

These are just different countries man, we can keep being like "maybe if we do what they do we can have less crime", or we can just make our police better and more effective which is proven, tried and true.

1

Anonymous #1 12h

Maybe if we imprisoned 11 million muslim people like China we could experience their crime levels?

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Oh “toss more money at the cops” why is it that the people who claim to nobly want to arm the civilians also want to make jackbooted militarized cops?

1

Anonymous #4 12h

You thinking its a flawed study is far from the data being false

1

Anonymous OP 12h

It quite literally hasn’t. The opposite has occurred. Gun deaths in states with stricter regulations have decreased gun deaths

1

Anonymous #1 12h

I mean you're complaining about crime issues and it stupefies you why I say it'd behoove us to invest more in policing?

1

Anonymous #4 12h

Not my experience, I lived in MA and people were getting shot left n right. Moved to a red state and haven't heard of one.

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Because throwing more money at the police demonstrably doesn’t reduce crime. Our incarceration system actively turns more people into criminals. Reducing poverty is what decreases crime. If locking more people up reduced crime we would be one of the most crime free places on the planet. But we aren’t.

1

Anonymous OP 12h

You legit did not just say “because it hasn’t happened to me it doesn’t exist”😂

4

Anonymous #4 12h

I just said thats not my experience

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Your experience is not the rule.

4

Anonymous #1 12h

So often you types are constantly ranting about how “we need the guns to resist tyranny” and then cheer on police brutality wherever you see it.

4

Anonymous #1 12h

It has a lot more meaningful of an effect than I've ever seen tied to throwing more money at gun control

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Again your perspective is not the general consensus.

3

Anonymous OP 12h

Crazy that living in an area with a lower population density will mean you’re less likely to encounter people even when violence rates are generally higher in red states.

2

Anonymous #4 12h

Then prove me wrong

1

Anonymous OP 12h

I quite literally have multiple times but again you are engaging in textbook belief preservation

2

Anonymous #4 12h

I don't believe you parroting a bunch of numbers from bloomberg or me doing so from cprc proves anything other than our deeply held beliefs

1

Anonymous #4 12h

Prove me wrong logically in why I don't need a gun to defend myself

1

Anonymous OP 12h

lol acting like cprc is in any way equivalent to credible statistics

3

Anonymous OP 12h

Brother none of my sources have come from Bloomberg

3

Anonymous #4 12h

Every single one is a bloomberg funded organization I did you the favor of that research

1

Anonymous #1 12h

Bloomberg is very much just as biased as Gary Kleck

1

Anonymous OP 11h

Now you are just flat out lying.

1

Anonymous #4 11h

I think most of these gun guys just base their beliefs on a desire for what they perceive as righteous vengeance. That’s why they want guns and why they fetishize a powerful police state. They don’t want what’s statistically shown to help people, they want violence to occur against “the bad guys.”

1

Anonymous #4 11h

Its fine if you don't believe me but thats the truth, all of those organizations took money from bloomberg

4

Anonymous #1 11h

No, to be completely honest I think playing the whole statistics game is just too easily manipulated. You can tell your story with it, I can tell mine, and we both go home thinking we're right about what we derived from it. Or you can tell me logically why you believe what you do, and we might actually be able to come to some agreement. Food for thought

1

Anonymous #1 11h

Yeah this guy is an immoral gun lunatic. He has been proven wrong multiple times and rather than accept that he decided to scream “EVERYONE IS WRONG EVEN ME!!” That’s why dialogue with people like him is impossible. People like him hold not only this nation back but the world. Tbh I’m done discussing anything with him.

2

Anonymous #4 11h

I was definitely right that you are very unserious about your arguments

1

Anonymous OP 11h

I believe that we need to take multi-pronged effort to reduce all forms of violence in this country. I believe there are four primary drivers to the USA’s gun violence epidemic. Those are poverty, gun access, inadequate mental health care, and a culture which glorifies violence. All four of these should be addressed. Instead we are addressing none of them.

1

Anonymous #1 11h

I'd like you to expand on how you think inadequate mental health care and gun access specifically are playing into it. What about these two makes you think that they are more meaningful than factors like familial relationships to crime, or demographic factors?

1

Anonymous OP 11h

Oh your response to me pointing out that school and mass shootings are tied to mental illness was spouting thinly veiled racism

1

Anonymous #1 11h

Who mentioned race?

1

Anonymous OP 11h

What exactly else could you mean by “familial relationships to crime and demographic factors”

1

Anonymous OP 10h

the nerve of you to mention another being disingenuous as you attempted egregious ad hominem on multiple occasions. when the fuck did 7 claim to be someone who think people should allow themselves to be attacked, raped, and/or murdered? it sounds like you need actual self-defense classes, rather than your little gun fetish you’ve put on display for us all to suffer through.

1

Anonymous #5 10h

I promise you there is no class that is going to beat a gun

0

Anonymous #5 10h

(little typo: I meant 4 rather than “7”, my bad)

1

Anonymous OP 10h

there are entire courses dedicated to disarming someone with a firearm. sounds like a skill level issue on your part (aside from your fetish)🤷

1

Anonymous #5 10h

Actually you're right I just watched Master Ken's "How to Defeat a Cyborg Soldier" and I feel very confident that I can now disarm someone with a fake leg

1

Anonymous #5 10h

Curious though what is your counter to bear spray in that course

1

Anonymous OP 9h

If a guy had a gun I’d fear for my life a lot more than if he had a knife. Like I can fucking run away from a guy with a knife. A man with a knife also can’t, say, aim at a festival from the 32nd floor of a building, fire a thousand rounds, injure more than 400 people and kill 60.

5

Anonymous #6 8h

He could do so with a car

0

Anonymous OP 6h

I have too much hope for humanity to believe that this isn’t bait.

1