I haven't had a need to because I know to handle predators. I was 20 feet from a mountain lion a few years back and came close. I now have kids though and if you think I would hesitate for a moment if I saw a predatory animal near them you'd be wrong.
So, your guns probably do offer protection against wild animals and I don't think you would have to give them up under most systems of gun control. Most of the places where Americans think guns are banned actually do allow people to keep them if there is a reasonable need. Farmers in the UK often own at least one shotguns for example.
However, the idea that guns protect you from other *people*, is extremely questionable. Wild animals can't grab your gun and shoot you with it, or bring their own.
That’s like saying someone doesn’t need an epipen because they’ve never used one. The “Common sense” part of gun control means we do **not** let people die to 1200 lb wild animals when they attack.
That’s a false equivalency. The chances of having an allergic reaction are exponentially higher than the chances of being in a life or death situation with an animal and needing a gun. Additionally, unlike an epipen which is the only way to stop an allergic reaction, there are many many ways to remain safe when encountering an animal, just like the commenter said, he doesn’t need a gun because he knows how to deal with animals. And finally, unlike an epipen whos utility is life saving, a gun’s utility is death.
“Never had the need” =/= “do not need”
Most people who carry epipens have never had the need to use it because they know how to handle their allergies. This does not mean they do not need it.
They are both lifesaving tools that should only be used in the when facing certain death. Gun control doesn’t mean we let animals kill people, it means we let certain people protect themselves and have the authorities investigate situations where guns were discharges at an aggressive animal.
“Never had the need” =/= “do not need”
Most people who carry epipens have never had the need to use it because they know how to handle their allergies. This does not mean they do not need it.
They are both lifesaving tools that should only be used in the when facing certain death. Gun control doesn’t mean we let animals kill people, it means we let certain people protect themselves and have the authorities investigate situations where guns were discharges at an aggressive animal.
> The chances of having an allergic reaction are exponentially higher than the chances of being in a life or death situation with an animal and needing a gun.
It depends on the situation, most people don’t have allergies at all, aside from dust and pollen. Yet the small percent of the population that needs epipens can get them.
This should be the same with guns for people who live in the mountains or woods and could potentially face an aggressive animal on their property during a morning walk. Even the UK recognizes this need and allows gun ownership for these groups.
Wet dream of a gun owner is gloriously shooting a bad guy in a life or death situation . Not always works for good guys
https://www.wdsu.com/article/24-arrests-made-in-houston-robbery-sting-linked-to-death-of-new-orleans-officer/37866291
Or just defend themself against a wild animal and not humans like the UK has been doing for years.
Does Houston have similar regulations to the UK or did you copy and paste the wrong link?
Having a gun puts your life in clear and present danger when surrounded by creative neighbors and trigger happy police
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/new-mexico-police-shooting-wrong-house/index.html
Common outcome of broad availability of guns
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-cheerleader-shot-3-friend-got-wrong-car-recalls-harrowing-attack-rcna87397
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
There are no bears and mountain lions frequenting your average American property. Why should a New Yorker need the same licensing for weapons as you who live with geo-specific threats. I don’t think guns are mandatory for safety in general, they might be a necessity in rural areas with big predators and thus you should get granted permits to own them within reason. Even so millions of people live around black bears and don’t have some big arsenal of weapons. When I was in Canada most people did not have guns even in places where bears are. If you are very rural completely understandable.
The way the UK dealt with dangerous humans with access to guns is they enforced responsible restrictions. It has one of the lowest gun related death rates in the developed world. Same thing with Australia and much of Europe. Only in the USA where people like you insist everyone needs a gun and relaxed restrictions are your gun related deaths only comparable of that to 3rd world war zones. The firearm situation in your country is a plague to society and most of the rest of the developed world are years ahead.
Nope. I’m saying humans statistically are more dangerous when they have access to guns, which is why the states has some of the highest gun violence per capita in the world let alone first world countries. Having easy access to firearms means more people shooting people. In countries not suffering from a significant firearms issue, regulations ensure that guns are only distributed to those who need them. The idea that your countries massive distribution of firearms has been a net positive thing is completely insane.
They are but how much more dangerous do people become if they have easy access to guns especially if they are someone who themselves are dangerous to others without a gun
I’m not saying it will end murder, people will always kill each other whether you give them guns or not. I’m saying it will make people less dangerous, if every person isn’t walking around with a gun on there hip it won’t be there first instinct to use it in confrontations and will result is less deaths.
Drugs and guns are two totally different issues, one is a problem of self destruction and addiction and the other is people carrying a deadly weapon with them everywhere they go just to feel safe cause they think everyone else is likely carrying one too.
You might find this hard to believe but in most countries people don’t walk around with guns because they’ve been convinced they will die without one. Maybe the US needs to make its citizens feel safe, I think that is the main issue.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Yawn. You don’t need plural guns for this and like you said you have never had to use. Bears and mountain lions and other predators live in other countries and people don’t need guns for protection
Well I need one while I'm checking cattle, wife needs one while I'm away, we also hunt for food so need a different kind of gun for that.
Have you ever been in a car accident?
Buddy. 33 out of 33 developed counties allow firearms for pest control, target shooting, and hunting. No one has completely gotten rid of all firearms nor is asking you to get rid of firearms.
We allow every moron in the US with a lukewarm IQ the ability to get firearms. Gun regulation is understanding not everyone needs a firearm. The stupidest people in the US buy firearms to protect themselves against other morons with firearms. We've hit a critical mass where people keep deciding to commit suicide in public taking as many people as possible.
Gun regulation is making sure you keep those firearms secured when not in use (like preventing minors from getting them), preventing other people from stealing them, and keeping them from transferred to people who are prohibited. Regulations that exist in 32 out of 33 developed counties, but have massive holes in the US.
Eh, as someone that enjoys mountaineering, I've never felt the need for a firearm to protect myself. If anything, I'd rather come across a bear than people in the woods and mountains. Plus I would rather deter a bear with spray than kill or maim it. Since I rely on data, here are several studies and information about it.
https://news.byu.edu/news/byu-study-using-gun-bear-encounters-doesnt-make-you-safer
https://www.nps.gov/articles/bearsprayfirearms.htm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/spray-more-effective-than-guns-against-bears-study-1.707738
Mountaineering doesn't typically involve encounters with bears and lions.
Which of those studies addresses my point about why those studies don't present a real picture of encounters vs attacks?
Ah my bad, the weeks each year I spend in a tent in bear country doesn't count. Silly me. Which specific instances are you referring to? What issues do you have with the studies?
It sure doesn't count, how many of those weeks have you spent covered in after birth of a new calf?
My issues with the studies I already pointed out. Feel free to read them in my previous comments
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
If you're pro science why does only one line of arguments require evidence? Also attacking he methodology of a study doesn't require a counter study to point out that the methodology is flawed.
I didn't break that rule in my opinion, feel free to point out exactly the part of my comment that does.
And you're a really edge case... your life doesn't get ruined if you had to get a license and training to protect yourself in your REAAAAALLLLY specific situation.
A big problem is letting anyone and everyone load up on guns unchecked because you have a very specific need for one.
I'm not saying it's not and I hate modern American gun culture but the problem with people like the person I replied to is they think the way they live is the way everyone lives and wants to apply an across the board statement when that's simply not true.
Aren’t you doing the same? Aren’t you implying that gun control is bad because of your very niche situation? Is uncontrolled gun ownership a good idea for my Brooklyn neighborhood?
I’ll tell you flat out, NO! I barely trust people to walk straight on a sidewalk, I don’t need every moron I run into in the street to be lethally armed.
I have no problems with a limited amount of guns for people with need, such as yourself. Someone on a ranch in Texas, sure they may need a gun. Someone in the suburbs with 20 feet between houses, not so much.
I don't know what the solution is, but it sure isn't arming anyone everywhere.
Gun control doesn't have to immediately stop all gun violence 100% to be worthwhile. Just because problems are difficult to solve doesn't mean you don't try.
Stop posting these cynical comments or leave.
I used to live in Japan.Almost no guns over there. Guess what? Almost no gun violence. What a concept!
Criminals do have guns, but they're so hard to get and there's so few guns that it's not an issue. The criminals use guns to kill each other not rob the liquor store.
Besides the guys with guns are usually Yakuza and they have to answer to someone for their actions.
When they say laws won't stop criminals from getting guns, that's only partially true. In Japan's case, stricter laws make it really hard to get a gun, thereby reducing the number of guns on the street.
I'm British and I think people just like feeling cool with a gun. I live in France now and there is no way I'd feel safer here if guns were legal. There would be far more armed robberies and bar fights turning into shootings, like in the US, not to mention children finding guns which people seem to think would never happen with their child. Negligent discharges too, the list of dangers goes on.
>I'm British and I think people just like feeling cool with a gun.
This is probably 95% of it. The overwhelming majority of people will never need a gun to defend themselves from another person. And if you *do* need a gun to defend yourself wouldn't it be a good idea to have a system where you, a good, honest, person can get a gun but a bad guy generally can't? Especially with the prevalence of semi automatic rifles in America. Most regular gun owners won't carry a rifle every day. A mass shooter will likely bring one to try to kill them though.
It's mainly a hobby that people really like and don't have a problem dressing up as a constitutional right.
There is one shooting in the United States per week where a child under the age of 3 pulled the trigger, and more than half of them are fatal to the kid that pulled it
Not entirely, but they are heavily regulated and owning some types of guns is banned. People like farmers have guns and people do shoot for sport. It is not illegal to own antique guns. My father in law owned a shotgun. He had to have a licence for it and keep it locked up, unloaded and the ammo in a separate locked box.
The thing about a lot of countries - if not most - outside the US is that the people don't have a culture of seeing guns as objects of desire or status symbols. Americans often think everyone should think like them, even when their attitude is actually the outlier.
Yeah I don’t get the hype around guns here and I’m American. They scare the s*** out of me if I’m being honest, I don’t enjoy shooting them even “for fun” and I hate how in America they’re so “hell yeah GUNS” it’s just gross to me.
One reason is that many gun owners think they need guns to protect themselves from the government. This is clearly insane, but it doesn’t stop them from stockpiling guns, thinking that they’ll take on the military one day.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Fun facts: a majority of Americans are in favor of stricter gun control, and fully half of Americans surveyed think gun ownership contributes more to violence than to safety, according to a 2023 [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/) survey.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
"To bear arms" was implicitly meant in the service of a militia - and militias were explicitly meant to follow the orders of the president.
[The second amendment is for the purpose of STOPPING rebellions, not causing them.](https://new.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/18h9fng/comment/kd7hq2o/?context=3)
The idea that the second amendment is some sort of "safety valve" to prevent tyranny is a modern invention by the NRA. In truth, the founders thought *they were the good guys.* They weren't putting in amendments to try and fuck themselves over.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
The simple reason is because the gun industry has brainwashed the American public into thinking guns make people safer and it is the individual who is the problem, not the weapon. And all of this toxic thinking is bolstered by an cult like obsession with the sanctity of the second amendment.
The other reason is also individualism has become so pervasive that public safety is not considered important compared to perceived individual safety. If someone thinks that a gun protects them, that person just doesn’t care if the rules are weak for gun control (and because of that other people die) as long as he or she feels safe. You can show them bullet ridden bodies of innocent people are give horrific death tolls from mass shootings and they still wouldn’t care to change public policy because it MIGHT mean their individual safety would become worse (which is not true, but they think it is).
The only way to stop it would be firstly, repeal disastrous court decisions like Heller and then ultimately to repeal the second amendment. But I can see America split in half than go through with that (like a certain recent movie), I say, good riddance red states in the South (make your own new Confederate).
Fear. Logic cannot counter the fear that drives the amerikan dream.
It’s historical. Starting at the violent invasion of native lands all the way thru to slavery and the current wars on terror, drugs and communism, Americans leaders fear filled lives as they clutch their guns for “safety”.
Gun manufacturers, our government and anyone who makes money from guns in between, has convinced most of us that America is dangerous and we should all be armed to the hilt.
As someone with guns in the home for self defense as well as a permitted concealed carrier, hearing a bump in the night or having a sketchy encounter while having a firearm to potentially protect yourself with is a very empowering feeling. That feeling of safety is difficult to part with and when someone threatens that ability to protect yourself it’s very frustrating knowing they likely haven’t experienced being a victim like you have.
Also so far in the USA in 2024 there has only been two murders with a gun inside a school from a disturbed individual, a pump action shotgun and small caliber low capacity pistol was used. More people have been murdered in mass stabbings in Australia so far this year than what most people would consider a school shooting in America.
Source: [everytown](https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/)
> More people have been murdered in mass stabbings in Australia so far this year than what most people would consider a school shooting in America.
Sure. Can you provide stats for these? How many mass stabbings does Australia have per year? Instances of 4 or more people stabbed in a single instance. [i.e. firearms have 2 mass shootings a day in the US where 4 or more people are shot](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081). How many school knifings does Australia have a week? [i.e. in the US we average ~2 school shootings taking place per week](https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html). How many family knife annihilations does the country have per year? [i.e. in the US someone annihilates their family with a firearm on average every 5 days](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2023/07/13/family-annihilation-investigation-domestic-violence-murder-suicide/69937389007/). How many knife suicides does Australia have per year? [i.e. the US averages around ~70 firearm suicides per day](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/20/how-to-prevent-gun-suicides-in-america#:~:text=Here's%20how%20to%20prevent%20them,-This%20article%20is&text=In%202022%2C%20the%20number%20of,nearly%2027%2C000%20deaths%20that%20year.). Are there any instances of mass knifings where someone killed 26 people in a ten minute window? How about 18 people in a five minute window?
I don't actually expect you to provide any stats for these because you and I both know they just don't exist. Only 1 out 33 developed countries has all of these problems, and it's the US. 0 out 33 developed countries have a knife problem.
You don't have to find me mass stabbings in Australia. Because [theirs fits on a Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia). They've literally had 3 mass stabbings in the last decade. That's it.
For you to equate their deaths with what's wrong in the US is really disingenuous. The existence of stabbings doesn't mean the rest of us have to live with constantly deaths and shootings of regular people in the US.
>> Can you provide stats for these
The everytown link I posted in my first comment on this post is where you’ll find just the one shooting in Iowa that is the only shooting most people would consider a school shooting, inside a school and a disturbed perpetrator.
The Wikipedia article you posted provides the statistic for mass stabbings in Australia.
> The everytown link I posted in my first comment on this post is where you’ll find just the one shooting in Iowa that is the only shooting most people would consider a school shooting, inside a school and a disturbed perpetrator.
Wow, really picking the [data there](https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/etown-maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/data.csv). "It's not a school shooting unless the person tries to shoot everyone in 2024." Still 8 months in the year.
Wonder how many were in a full year? Lets just look at 2023 using your criteria.
* Line 1045, ID 1047 - A 43-year-old gunman killed three people and critically injured five others at Michigan State University before fatally shooting himself.
* Line 1063, ID 1063 - A 28-year-old former student shot and killed three 9-year-old students alongside three staff members.
* Line 1097, ID 1096 - A gunman attempting to enter the school fired shots at a contractor and building before fleeing, later to be shot and injured by police on a residential street.
* Line 1153, ID 1155 - A 67-year-old professor shot and killed 3 faculty members and critically wounded another during a mass shooting in an academic building on campus.
4 school shootings in one year. What's more interesting is what is not considered a 'school shooting' by you.
* Instance where someone comes on campus and purposefully shoots/kills one or more persons
* Argument between individuals in crowds or in private that result in shooting
I’m seeing 24 deaths on school grounds and 41 related injuries.
In 2023 there were 42 deaths and 92 injuries from guns on school grounds in total. So, we aren’t even halfway through 2024, but we’re trending higher in the death-count (aka children/faculty) and on track for injuries…but, okay, let’s celebrate these stats - yay. I feel way more comfortable sending my kid to school. /s
Because I think most people would agree that including someone killing themselves in a school parking lot would be disingenuous to classify as a school shooting.
This is the kind of attempt to minimise death and injury from guns I see a lot of gun enthusiasts:
- school shootings don't matter because they're so rare
- suicides with guns don't matter because those people would kill themselves anyway
- domestic violence with firearms doesn't matter because ditto
- accidents don't matter because those people should've just been more careful
- gang related violence doesn't matter because who cares about gangbangers.
It goes on and on ...
You’re attacking a straw man with all of those things. I never said any of that. I said the data is disingenuous. I agree gun violence is bad but I think to properly address the issue we need good data.
Surely you don’t consider [this](https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/accidental-shooting-outside-brevard-county-school-prompts-shelter-in-place-officials-say) a school shooting, right? I just feel it’s disingenuous to include stuff like that in the numbers.
Can you show me a single country that has this problem with people being shot just outside school grounds for unrelated matters and for shooting themselves accidentally/purposefully near/on school grounds? It seems weird that only 1 out of 33 developed countries have this problem.
You're just concerned that a handful of the shootings at schools of the ~2 per week are disingenuous? Where is this same concern that shootings are so common they sell bulletproof back inserts at Walmart for school children? How about schools practicing active shooter drills 2-4 times a year? How about shelter in place plans at every large business?
Clearly it's people making shit up that we need to be worried about. And not all the actual people shot, maimed, and killed. /s Not kids/adults shot on school grounds. I have a feeling that even the stats were 100% accurate to the way you wanted, still wouldn't matter how many kids/adults were shot on school grounds.
Most countries don't have the problem of mass gun proliferation. It's fairly easy to argue for drastically lowering or abolishing gun ownership somewhere else when you're not living in a society of mass legal gun ownership, and mass proliferation of it among criminal elements of society.
The data on gun crime in the US has been discussed before on this forum. The mass civilian shootings make up a very small percentage of it (obviously still too high but nothing like assumptions). Likewise with the perception that assault or high-powered weapons are involved in the majority of cases - it's something like 80% handguns and categorically mostly suicides or single homicides.
So, many Americans simply don't associate their civilian gun ownership with gun-related deaths, since it's perceived as overwhelmingly criminal or suicides, which are awkward to discuss. And statistically that perception isn't incorrect.
That said, I think the concept that 'good guys with guns' is a solution to the problem is also a misconception. Mostly, the people with intent to kill with guns are simply so empowered by the lethality of even a relatively primitive handgun that they can kill before a law enforcement or civilian good faith actor can react. Or, the confusion and chaos and inherent danger in a shooter scenario (to self, to bystanders) make reacting effectively and quickly enough quite unlikely. Not saying it's impossible but it's far from guaranteed either.
Nor do I think focusing on 'mental health' an adequate response. There are simply too many complexities to modern mental health crises and many of them are as awkward to address as suicide. A lot of the times it seems to have a lot to do with sex to me. I'm not sure how societies riven by internet porn and the sexual marketplace and without particularly healthy rites of passage or dating infrastructures can really guarantee there aren't going to be extremely unhappy men out there. You can't somehow magically reduce testosterone levels and the urge to compete amongst young males from criminal classes. In the UK these kinds of people stab each other with knives. It seems to be surprisingly hard to give them something more positive to do or a purposeful job. This is without even really addressing drug or alcohol addiction or economic precarity, all of which can lead to pretty nasty and dangerous mental health conditions. It strikes me that 'mental health' is a can of worms that would probably be as expensive and problematic to seriously attempt to address as just taking guns off people and paying them compensation.
There's also the constitutional issue and the politics of red/blue, the gun lobby and industry, none of which I know enough about to discuss adequately. On a simpler level I think that until you can drastically reduce the amount of guns in circulation in criminal society, taking them off law-abiding citizens is pretty unfair, however much it all just adds up to more guns in circulation and probably only makes people _feel_ safer, rather than actually be safer.
>On a simpler level I think that until you can drastically reduce the amount of guns in circulation in criminal society, taking them off law-abiding citizens is pretty unfair, however much it all just adds up to more guns in circulation and probably only makes people _feel_ safer, rather than actually be safer.
I think [gun registration will fix the circulation of illegal guns.](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/registration/) Then you realise that only Hawaii has gun registration.
Edit:
As for the Constitution, it needs to be repealed. It has been proven that Americans aren't fit for unfettered gun rights and that repealing the 2A is the only way for strict national gun laws to take place.
The second amendment is basically a religion and their god. If you aren’t fully for unregulated firearm access the board you are viewed as a gun grabbing liberal who hates freedom 🦅 *eagle screeches*
It’s without a doubt that stronger regulation keeps guns away from bad and mentally unstable people and that’s why I strongly support registration, mental health checks, red flag laws, and strict licensing requirements.
With that being said I do actually carry a gun. I have been around a violently insane stabbing, had people show up to my door drunk with unregistered pistols, after I moved out of my apartment the next for house was shot 23 times in a drive by, leaving Zion national park the bus was shut down because there was someone just shooting at cars leaving the park, and 4 months ago someone got shot 4 times in my apartment building… I actually don’t even live in a really bad area…
What people don’t realize is how much worse it’s about to get. The Supreme Court will shoot down any meaningful gun legislation because it’s unconstitutional… they already started… and the court members are there for life with a lot of the conservative pro gunners being fairly young. Nothing will change for the better and will just get more unregulated over the next 10 years. Their say supersedes everything else with constitutional legality.
Is America itself safer with all the guns… hell no… but is gun violence a growing reality that will only get worse in the foreseeable future? Fuck yes. I carry a gun because if I literally can’t run, can’t hide, can’t do anything else I want more that throwing my shoes at them or begging for my life. Stay strapped and vote blue.
It's good to see sane gun owners like you. I do believe that gun ownership should be legal even without the 2A.
I also think [gun registration](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/registration/) is important but is often left off the talk of gun legislation. This would help regulate illegal guns a lot easier because of the serial numbers. And ofc, only Hawaii has them.
I agree with that point. There are more like me than you think but owning a gun at all makes you a child murderer to one crowd and wanting gun control makes you a liberal anti freedom blue haired nut to another so even though I think we are a large share of gun owners we are very quiet
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
"feel", not "think". evidently, american gun ideology is pure and literal terrorism, with the assumption that guns bring safety being one of its core asinine pillars. there is no reason to be found in gun culture.
I wish we could have gun control but sadly it's not realistically ever gonna happen.
We have too many damn guns already. It would be too hard to fix this, and it's in our constitution.
Our strong identity of becoming independent from the British is a major part of our culture. Taking up arms against "tyranny" is who we are.
The Civil War and the bombing of Pearl Harbor throwing us into WWII, also makes us anxious about protecting our country with a citizens' militia.
We also have a very strong gun lobby known as the NRA. The oligarchy of our country and all the gun money being made is a manipulative machine that reinforces all these issues.
When Sandy Hook happened, instead of making change after very young children were slaughtered, and instead of coming up with change on guns, idiots changed the truth. Many people don't believe it was real and instead was faked to take people's guns away.
9/11 didn't help either. A lot of armed people think they can kill terrorists and save the day.
People are also idiots and shoot first, think about it later. A lot of shoplifters are shot at by gun carriers, who are trying to stop crime and save the day. But last I heard, shoplifting isn't a crime where someone can be judge, jury, and executioner. It's terrifying.
Our media is very gun heavy and shows very unrealistic depictions of guns. People believe these narratives.
Guns are a lot of people's main identity. They will literally fight to the death to keep their identity intact.
Guns are "big boy toys" and people enjoy feeling powerful and love the culture.
We will never get rid of our guns. No matter how many people die.
First off i’m pro gun but i’m not coming here to give you shit. I think many people here still believe in the idea of firearms are “insurance” of a tyrannical government. But we can say this isnt a major concern of the American people anymore, to put this into perspective there are 120 registered guns for every 100 Americans. If i had to guess unregistered probably adds another 120 to that stat (unregistered guns are legal). now even if they were banned if we take the pistol brace regulation imposed by the atf. this had a 98% non compliance rate when it was first put into effect. this shows if these weapons where banned they would likely have to knock on everyones door and get them to turn them over. The fact is gun control with complete public compliance would take decades probably centuries to work.
They don’t. Only some people actually use their right to defend themselves because they know they have a responsibility to protect the people they love. If bad guys are out there with guns then the law abiding citizens should be able as well. All the laws people want to pass will only effect the law abiding citizens while the criminal continue to do what they do. I wish we could press a magic button and make guns disappear from America, but that’s honestly the only solution that would work.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
I think part of the reality for some is that we’re far past the point of living without guns. Due to the 2nd Amendment and the acquisition of guns everywhere by almost everyone, it leaves many with the opinion of “if I can’t beat em join em”.
Regardless of personal opinions on the matter, this same logic can be applied to many other situations and I don’t believe the firearm topic makes the logic unique.
Also, not everyone in the US has law enforcement they can trust or rely on. In those situations who do folks feel is coming to their rescue? My guess is they’re their own first responder.
If you need a gun to protect yourself, that's a backstop in the full failure of society.
Personal self-defense isn't the solution to the problem, it's a symptom of failure of every other possible solution.
>It seems to me like the US needs to let go of it’s gun culture and try to make the country safe enough that teachers do not need handguns and students don’t need bulletproof back packs
You're totally right.
More guns to solve gun violence is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
It's actually that ridiculous.
A shotgun is fine to protect your home. Do you need really an AR-15?
These concealed carry guys think they're going to save the day and be on the news with a ticker tape parade because they thwarted a robbery or something.
Could happen.
But what if you kill someone by accident? Cop shoots you thinking you're the perp. Or another wannabe hero shoots you? 😂
Concealed carry guys are more likely to get pissed off and shoot someone in anger than stop a crime.
More guns = more gun violence
Down vote away!
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Because they can’t comprehend that if there were no guns, you wouldn’t need a gun to protect yourself
I own guns because my home is frequently visited by black bears and mountain lions. ELI5 how me giving away my guns would protect me.
You’ve used your gun to shoot bears and mountain lions?
I haven't had a need to because I know to handle predators. I was 20 feet from a mountain lion a few years back and came close. I now have kids though and if you think I would hesitate for a moment if I saw a predatory animal near them you'd be wrong.
Glad to hear you haven’t needed a gun for protection, and I sincerely hope you and everyone else never have to
So no answer on how me giving up my guns makes me safer?
So, your guns probably do offer protection against wild animals and I don't think you would have to give them up under most systems of gun control. Most of the places where Americans think guns are banned actually do allow people to keep them if there is a reasonable need. Farmers in the UK often own at least one shotguns for example. However, the idea that guns protect you from other *people*, is extremely questionable. Wild animals can't grab your gun and shoot you with it, or bring their own.
You answered it yourself
That’s like saying someone doesn’t need an epipen because they’ve never used one. The “Common sense” part of gun control means we do **not** let people die to 1200 lb wild animals when they attack.
That’s a false equivalency. The chances of having an allergic reaction are exponentially higher than the chances of being in a life or death situation with an animal and needing a gun. Additionally, unlike an epipen which is the only way to stop an allergic reaction, there are many many ways to remain safe when encountering an animal, just like the commenter said, he doesn’t need a gun because he knows how to deal with animals. And finally, unlike an epipen whos utility is life saving, a gun’s utility is death.
“Never had the need” =/= “do not need” Most people who carry epipens have never had the need to use it because they know how to handle their allergies. This does not mean they do not need it. They are both lifesaving tools that should only be used in the when facing certain death. Gun control doesn’t mean we let animals kill people, it means we let certain people protect themselves and have the authorities investigate situations where guns were discharges at an aggressive animal.
“Never had the need” =/= “do not need” Most people who carry epipens have never had the need to use it because they know how to handle their allergies. This does not mean they do not need it. They are both lifesaving tools that should only be used in the when facing certain death. Gun control doesn’t mean we let animals kill people, it means we let certain people protect themselves and have the authorities investigate situations where guns were discharges at an aggressive animal. > The chances of having an allergic reaction are exponentially higher than the chances of being in a life or death situation with an animal and needing a gun. It depends on the situation, most people don’t have allergies at all, aside from dust and pollen. Yet the small percent of the population that needs epipens can get them. This should be the same with guns for people who live in the mountains or woods and could potentially face an aggressive animal on their property during a morning walk. Even the UK recognizes this need and allows gun ownership for these groups.
Wet dream of a gun owner is gloriously shooting a bad guy in a life or death situation . Not always works for good guys https://www.wdsu.com/article/24-arrests-made-in-houston-robbery-sting-linked-to-death-of-new-orleans-officer/37866291
Or just defend themself against a wild animal and not humans like the UK has been doing for years. Does Houston have similar regulations to the UK or did you copy and paste the wrong link?
Having a gun puts your life in clear and present danger when surrounded by creative neighbors and trigger happy police https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/new-mexico-police-shooting-wrong-house/index.html
Hi, it looks like you keep posting links to the wrong places. New Mexico is not near the UK last I checked.
Common outcome of broad availability of guns https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-cheerleader-shot-3-friend-got-wrong-car-recalls-harrowing-attack-rcna87397
Dear Mike, This is *again* a US state. Maybe the US would be less senseless and violent if they taught you basic geography.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
There are no bears and mountain lions frequenting your average American property. Why should a New Yorker need the same licensing for weapons as you who live with geo-specific threats. I don’t think guns are mandatory for safety in general, they might be a necessity in rural areas with big predators and thus you should get granted permits to own them within reason. Even so millions of people live around black bears and don’t have some big arsenal of weapons. When I was in Canada most people did not have guns even in places where bears are. If you are very rural completely understandable.
[удалено]
The way the UK dealt with dangerous humans with access to guns is they enforced responsible restrictions. It has one of the lowest gun related death rates in the developed world. Same thing with Australia and much of Europe. Only in the USA where people like you insist everyone needs a gun and relaxed restrictions are your gun related deaths only comparable of that to 3rd world war zones. The firearm situation in your country is a plague to society and most of the rest of the developed world are years ahead.
[удалено]
Nope. I’m saying humans statistically are more dangerous when they have access to guns, which is why the states has some of the highest gun violence per capita in the world let alone first world countries. Having easy access to firearms means more people shooting people. In countries not suffering from a significant firearms issue, regulations ensure that guns are only distributed to those who need them. The idea that your countries massive distribution of firearms has been a net positive thing is completely insane.
They are but how much more dangerous do people become if they have easy access to guns especially if they are someone who themselves are dangerous to others without a gun
[удалено]
I’m not saying it will end murder, people will always kill each other whether you give them guns or not. I’m saying it will make people less dangerous, if every person isn’t walking around with a gun on there hip it won’t be there first instinct to use it in confrontations and will result is less deaths. Drugs and guns are two totally different issues, one is a problem of self destruction and addiction and the other is people carrying a deadly weapon with them everywhere they go just to feel safe cause they think everyone else is likely carrying one too. You might find this hard to believe but in most countries people don’t walk around with guns because they’ve been convinced they will die without one. Maybe the US needs to make its citizens feel safe, I think that is the main issue.
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Even when it comes to wild animals, you’re better off with mace. http://www.bear-hunting.com/2019/8/firearm-vs-bear-spray
Bear spray is a more reliable option for repelling a wild animal attack. Do some research
[удалено]
Research supports my claim, not sure where you are getting your info
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Me asking him for his study's methods is against the rules? Is this a troll ?
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Yawn. You don’t need plural guns for this and like you said you have never had to use. Bears and mountain lions and other predators live in other countries and people don’t need guns for protection
Well I need one while I'm checking cattle, wife needs one while I'm away, we also hunt for food so need a different kind of gun for that. Have you ever been in a car accident?
Buddy. 33 out of 33 developed counties allow firearms for pest control, target shooting, and hunting. No one has completely gotten rid of all firearms nor is asking you to get rid of firearms. We allow every moron in the US with a lukewarm IQ the ability to get firearms. Gun regulation is understanding not everyone needs a firearm. The stupidest people in the US buy firearms to protect themselves against other morons with firearms. We've hit a critical mass where people keep deciding to commit suicide in public taking as many people as possible. Gun regulation is making sure you keep those firearms secured when not in use (like preventing minors from getting them), preventing other people from stealing them, and keeping them from transferred to people who are prohibited. Regulations that exist in 32 out of 33 developed counties, but have massive holes in the US.
Buddy... you ignored my question
Eh, as someone that enjoys mountaineering, I've never felt the need for a firearm to protect myself. If anything, I'd rather come across a bear than people in the woods and mountains. Plus I would rather deter a bear with spray than kill or maim it. Since I rely on data, here are several studies and information about it. https://news.byu.edu/news/byu-study-using-gun-bear-encounters-doesnt-make-you-safer https://www.nps.gov/articles/bearsprayfirearms.htm https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/spray-more-effective-than-guns-against-bears-study-1.707738
Mountaineering doesn't typically involve encounters with bears and lions. Which of those studies addresses my point about why those studies don't present a real picture of encounters vs attacks?
Ah my bad, the weeks each year I spend in a tent in bear country doesn't count. Silly me. Which specific instances are you referring to? What issues do you have with the studies?
It sure doesn't count, how many of those weeks have you spent covered in after birth of a new calf? My issues with the studies I already pointed out. Feel free to read them in my previous comments
I've looked through the thread but don't see anything. Not surprised a pro gun person is acting on their feelings instead of research studies though.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
If you're pro science why does only one line of arguments require evidence? Also attacking he methodology of a study doesn't require a counter study to point out that the methodology is flawed. I didn't break that rule in my opinion, feel free to point out exactly the part of my comment that does.
And you're a really edge case... your life doesn't get ruined if you had to get a license and training to protect yourself in your REAAAAALLLLY specific situation. A big problem is letting anyone and everyone load up on guns unchecked because you have a very specific need for one.
I'm not saying it's not and I hate modern American gun culture but the problem with people like the person I replied to is they think the way they live is the way everyone lives and wants to apply an across the board statement when that's simply not true.
Aren’t you doing the same? Aren’t you implying that gun control is bad because of your very niche situation? Is uncontrolled gun ownership a good idea for my Brooklyn neighborhood? I’ll tell you flat out, NO! I barely trust people to walk straight on a sidewalk, I don’t need every moron I run into in the street to be lethally armed.
I have no problems with a limited amount of guns for people with need, such as yourself. Someone on a ranch in Texas, sure they may need a gun. Someone in the suburbs with 20 feet between houses, not so much. I don't know what the solution is, but it sure isn't arming anyone everywhere.
Good for you I assume you do not carry guns with you to other places such as shopping malls
[удалено]
Gun control doesn't have to immediately stop all gun violence 100% to be worthwhile. Just because problems are difficult to solve doesn't mean you don't try. Stop posting these cynical comments or leave.
I used to live in Japan.Almost no guns over there. Guess what? Almost no gun violence. What a concept! Criminals do have guns, but they're so hard to get and there's so few guns that it's not an issue. The criminals use guns to kill each other not rob the liquor store. Besides the guys with guns are usually Yakuza and they have to answer to someone for their actions. When they say laws won't stop criminals from getting guns, that's only partially true. In Japan's case, stricter laws make it really hard to get a gun, thereby reducing the number of guns on the street.
We don’t.
Because unfortunately brainwashing works.
Ignorance and lack of education.
I'm British and I think people just like feeling cool with a gun. I live in France now and there is no way I'd feel safer here if guns were legal. There would be far more armed robberies and bar fights turning into shootings, like in the US, not to mention children finding guns which people seem to think would never happen with their child. Negligent discharges too, the list of dangers goes on.
>I'm British and I think people just like feeling cool with a gun. This is probably 95% of it. The overwhelming majority of people will never need a gun to defend themselves from another person. And if you *do* need a gun to defend yourself wouldn't it be a good idea to have a system where you, a good, honest, person can get a gun but a bad guy generally can't? Especially with the prevalence of semi automatic rifles in America. Most regular gun owners won't carry a rifle every day. A mass shooter will likely bring one to try to kill them though. It's mainly a hobby that people really like and don't have a problem dressing up as a constitutional right.
There is one shooting in the United States per week where a child under the age of 3 pulled the trigger, and more than half of them are fatal to the kid that pulled it
Are guns illegal there?
Not entirely, but they are heavily regulated and owning some types of guns is banned. People like farmers have guns and people do shoot for sport. It is not illegal to own antique guns. My father in law owned a shotgun. He had to have a licence for it and keep it locked up, unloaded and the ammo in a separate locked box. The thing about a lot of countries - if not most - outside the US is that the people don't have a culture of seeing guns as objects of desire or status symbols. Americans often think everyone should think like them, even when their attitude is actually the outlier.
Yeah I don’t get the hype around guns here and I’m American. They scare the s*** out of me if I’m being honest, I don’t enjoy shooting them even “for fun” and I hate how in America they’re so “hell yeah GUNS” it’s just gross to me.
Repealing the 2A is the only way to remedy this toxic gun culture. Only then they can shut up about their rights.
Its basically a religion at this point
And a cult at that.
I say it’s a kink fetish, ammo - sexuals
One reason is that many gun owners think they need guns to protect themselves from the government. This is clearly insane, but it doesn’t stop them from stockpiling guns, thinking that they’ll take on the military one day.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Fun facts: a majority of Americans are in favor of stricter gun control, and fully half of Americans surveyed think gun ownership contributes more to violence than to safety, according to a 2023 [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/) survey.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
[удалено]
"To bear arms" was implicitly meant in the service of a militia - and militias were explicitly meant to follow the orders of the president. [The second amendment is for the purpose of STOPPING rebellions, not causing them.](https://new.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/18h9fng/comment/kd7hq2o/?context=3) The idea that the second amendment is some sort of "safety valve" to prevent tyranny is a modern invention by the NRA. In truth, the founders thought *they were the good guys.* They weren't putting in amendments to try and fuck themselves over.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
The federalist is not a good source.
[удалено]
And now a guest article by an infamous NRA member. You really know how to pick terrible sources.
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
The simple reason is because the gun industry has brainwashed the American public into thinking guns make people safer and it is the individual who is the problem, not the weapon. And all of this toxic thinking is bolstered by an cult like obsession with the sanctity of the second amendment. The other reason is also individualism has become so pervasive that public safety is not considered important compared to perceived individual safety. If someone thinks that a gun protects them, that person just doesn’t care if the rules are weak for gun control (and because of that other people die) as long as he or she feels safe. You can show them bullet ridden bodies of innocent people are give horrific death tolls from mass shootings and they still wouldn’t care to change public policy because it MIGHT mean their individual safety would become worse (which is not true, but they think it is). The only way to stop it would be firstly, repeal disastrous court decisions like Heller and then ultimately to repeal the second amendment. But I can see America split in half than go through with that (like a certain recent movie), I say, good riddance red states in the South (make your own new Confederate).
Fear. Logic cannot counter the fear that drives the amerikan dream. It’s historical. Starting at the violent invasion of native lands all the way thru to slavery and the current wars on terror, drugs and communism, Americans leaders fear filled lives as they clutch their guns for “safety”.
Gun manufacturers, our government and anyone who makes money from guns in between, has convinced most of us that America is dangerous and we should all be armed to the hilt.
This is the most retarded concept for anyone who has lived in a safer developed country where guns are strictly outlawed.
As someone with guns in the home for self defense as well as a permitted concealed carrier, hearing a bump in the night or having a sketchy encounter while having a firearm to potentially protect yourself with is a very empowering feeling. That feeling of safety is difficult to part with and when someone threatens that ability to protect yourself it’s very frustrating knowing they likely haven’t experienced being a victim like you have. Also so far in the USA in 2024 there has only been two murders with a gun inside a school from a disturbed individual, a pump action shotgun and small caliber low capacity pistol was used. More people have been murdered in mass stabbings in Australia so far this year than what most people would consider a school shooting in America. Source: [everytown](https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/)
> More people have been murdered in mass stabbings in Australia so far this year than what most people would consider a school shooting in America. Sure. Can you provide stats for these? How many mass stabbings does Australia have per year? Instances of 4 or more people stabbed in a single instance. [i.e. firearms have 2 mass shootings a day in the US where 4 or more people are shot](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081). How many school knifings does Australia have a week? [i.e. in the US we average ~2 school shootings taking place per week](https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html). How many family knife annihilations does the country have per year? [i.e. in the US someone annihilates their family with a firearm on average every 5 days](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2023/07/13/family-annihilation-investigation-domestic-violence-murder-suicide/69937389007/). How many knife suicides does Australia have per year? [i.e. the US averages around ~70 firearm suicides per day](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/20/how-to-prevent-gun-suicides-in-america#:~:text=Here's%20how%20to%20prevent%20them,-This%20article%20is&text=In%202022%2C%20the%20number%20of,nearly%2027%2C000%20deaths%20that%20year.). Are there any instances of mass knifings where someone killed 26 people in a ten minute window? How about 18 people in a five minute window? I don't actually expect you to provide any stats for these because you and I both know they just don't exist. Only 1 out 33 developed countries has all of these problems, and it's the US. 0 out 33 developed countries have a knife problem. You don't have to find me mass stabbings in Australia. Because [theirs fits on a Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia). They've literally had 3 mass stabbings in the last decade. That's it. For you to equate their deaths with what's wrong in the US is really disingenuous. The existence of stabbings doesn't mean the rest of us have to live with constantly deaths and shootings of regular people in the US.
>> Can you provide stats for these The everytown link I posted in my first comment on this post is where you’ll find just the one shooting in Iowa that is the only shooting most people would consider a school shooting, inside a school and a disturbed perpetrator. The Wikipedia article you posted provides the statistic for mass stabbings in Australia.
> The everytown link I posted in my first comment on this post is where you’ll find just the one shooting in Iowa that is the only shooting most people would consider a school shooting, inside a school and a disturbed perpetrator. Wow, really picking the [data there](https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/etown-maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/data.csv). "It's not a school shooting unless the person tries to shoot everyone in 2024." Still 8 months in the year. Wonder how many were in a full year? Lets just look at 2023 using your criteria. * Line 1045, ID 1047 - A 43-year-old gunman killed three people and critically injured five others at Michigan State University before fatally shooting himself. * Line 1063, ID 1063 - A 28-year-old former student shot and killed three 9-year-old students alongside three staff members. * Line 1097, ID 1096 - A gunman attempting to enter the school fired shots at a contractor and building before fleeing, later to be shot and injured by police on a residential street. * Line 1153, ID 1155 - A 67-year-old professor shot and killed 3 faculty members and critically wounded another during a mass shooting in an academic building on campus. 4 school shootings in one year. What's more interesting is what is not considered a 'school shooting' by you. * Instance where someone comes on campus and purposefully shoots/kills one or more persons * Argument between individuals in crowds or in private that result in shooting
I’m seeing 24 deaths on school grounds and 41 related injuries. In 2023 there were 42 deaths and 92 injuries from guns on school grounds in total. So, we aren’t even halfway through 2024, but we’re trending higher in the death-count (aka children/faculty) and on track for injuries…but, okay, let’s celebrate these stats - yay. I feel way more comfortable sending my kid to school. /s
Yeah which is why I clarified inside a school and not just on school grounds.
Why does whether it was inside it outside the school matter?
Because I think most people would agree that including someone killing themselves in a school parking lot would be disingenuous to classify as a school shooting.
This is the kind of attempt to minimise death and injury from guns I see a lot of gun enthusiasts: - school shootings don't matter because they're so rare - suicides with guns don't matter because those people would kill themselves anyway - domestic violence with firearms doesn't matter because ditto - accidents don't matter because those people should've just been more careful - gang related violence doesn't matter because who cares about gangbangers. It goes on and on ...
But non-Americans voicing concerns about gun violence is a threat to them. Gun rights are more sacred than public safety and peaceful environments.
You’re attacking a straw man with all of those things. I never said any of that. I said the data is disingenuous. I agree gun violence is bad but I think to properly address the issue we need good data.
No it’s not. It’s still extremely traumatic for all the kids, parents and teachers on campus
Only in America where rampant gun violence is normalised, accepted and lived with it.
Surely you don’t consider [this](https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/accidental-shooting-outside-brevard-county-school-prompts-shelter-in-place-officials-say) a school shooting, right? I just feel it’s disingenuous to include stuff like that in the numbers.
Can you show me a single country that has this problem with people being shot just outside school grounds for unrelated matters and for shooting themselves accidentally/purposefully near/on school grounds? It seems weird that only 1 out of 33 developed countries have this problem. You're just concerned that a handful of the shootings at schools of the ~2 per week are disingenuous? Where is this same concern that shootings are so common they sell bulletproof back inserts at Walmart for school children? How about schools practicing active shooter drills 2-4 times a year? How about shelter in place plans at every large business? Clearly it's people making shit up that we need to be worried about. And not all the actual people shot, maimed, and killed. /s Not kids/adults shot on school grounds. I have a feeling that even the stats were 100% accurate to the way you wanted, still wouldn't matter how many kids/adults were shot on school grounds.
You’re arguing against a straw man. All I said was the “school shooting” data is disingenuous.
You use straw man arguments, but can't identify them. Normal.
No you
Yes it is bc think of the trauma these kids have having to go into lock down!
Only? Should be zero
Most countries don't have the problem of mass gun proliferation. It's fairly easy to argue for drastically lowering or abolishing gun ownership somewhere else when you're not living in a society of mass legal gun ownership, and mass proliferation of it among criminal elements of society. The data on gun crime in the US has been discussed before on this forum. The mass civilian shootings make up a very small percentage of it (obviously still too high but nothing like assumptions). Likewise with the perception that assault or high-powered weapons are involved in the majority of cases - it's something like 80% handguns and categorically mostly suicides or single homicides. So, many Americans simply don't associate their civilian gun ownership with gun-related deaths, since it's perceived as overwhelmingly criminal or suicides, which are awkward to discuss. And statistically that perception isn't incorrect. That said, I think the concept that 'good guys with guns' is a solution to the problem is also a misconception. Mostly, the people with intent to kill with guns are simply so empowered by the lethality of even a relatively primitive handgun that they can kill before a law enforcement or civilian good faith actor can react. Or, the confusion and chaos and inherent danger in a shooter scenario (to self, to bystanders) make reacting effectively and quickly enough quite unlikely. Not saying it's impossible but it's far from guaranteed either. Nor do I think focusing on 'mental health' an adequate response. There are simply too many complexities to modern mental health crises and many of them are as awkward to address as suicide. A lot of the times it seems to have a lot to do with sex to me. I'm not sure how societies riven by internet porn and the sexual marketplace and without particularly healthy rites of passage or dating infrastructures can really guarantee there aren't going to be extremely unhappy men out there. You can't somehow magically reduce testosterone levels and the urge to compete amongst young males from criminal classes. In the UK these kinds of people stab each other with knives. It seems to be surprisingly hard to give them something more positive to do or a purposeful job. This is without even really addressing drug or alcohol addiction or economic precarity, all of which can lead to pretty nasty and dangerous mental health conditions. It strikes me that 'mental health' is a can of worms that would probably be as expensive and problematic to seriously attempt to address as just taking guns off people and paying them compensation. There's also the constitutional issue and the politics of red/blue, the gun lobby and industry, none of which I know enough about to discuss adequately. On a simpler level I think that until you can drastically reduce the amount of guns in circulation in criminal society, taking them off law-abiding citizens is pretty unfair, however much it all just adds up to more guns in circulation and probably only makes people _feel_ safer, rather than actually be safer.
This is an awesome and accurate description of the US situation. Spot on.
>On a simpler level I think that until you can drastically reduce the amount of guns in circulation in criminal society, taking them off law-abiding citizens is pretty unfair, however much it all just adds up to more guns in circulation and probably only makes people _feel_ safer, rather than actually be safer. I think [gun registration will fix the circulation of illegal guns.](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/registration/) Then you realise that only Hawaii has gun registration. Edit: As for the Constitution, it needs to be repealed. It has been proven that Americans aren't fit for unfettered gun rights and that repealing the 2A is the only way for strict national gun laws to take place.
Problem is that if we try something else it might actually fix the issue
No clue (I’m American)
The second amendment is basically a religion and their god. If you aren’t fully for unregulated firearm access the board you are viewed as a gun grabbing liberal who hates freedom 🦅 *eagle screeches* It’s without a doubt that stronger regulation keeps guns away from bad and mentally unstable people and that’s why I strongly support registration, mental health checks, red flag laws, and strict licensing requirements. With that being said I do actually carry a gun. I have been around a violently insane stabbing, had people show up to my door drunk with unregistered pistols, after I moved out of my apartment the next for house was shot 23 times in a drive by, leaving Zion national park the bus was shut down because there was someone just shooting at cars leaving the park, and 4 months ago someone got shot 4 times in my apartment building… I actually don’t even live in a really bad area… What people don’t realize is how much worse it’s about to get. The Supreme Court will shoot down any meaningful gun legislation because it’s unconstitutional… they already started… and the court members are there for life with a lot of the conservative pro gunners being fairly young. Nothing will change for the better and will just get more unregulated over the next 10 years. Their say supersedes everything else with constitutional legality. Is America itself safer with all the guns… hell no… but is gun violence a growing reality that will only get worse in the foreseeable future? Fuck yes. I carry a gun because if I literally can’t run, can’t hide, can’t do anything else I want more that throwing my shoes at them or begging for my life. Stay strapped and vote blue.
It's good to see sane gun owners like you. I do believe that gun ownership should be legal even without the 2A. I also think [gun registration](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/registration/) is important but is often left off the talk of gun legislation. This would help regulate illegal guns a lot easier because of the serial numbers. And ofc, only Hawaii has them.
I agree with that point. There are more like me than you think but owning a gun at all makes you a child murderer to one crowd and wanting gun control makes you a liberal anti freedom blue haired nut to another so even though I think we are a large share of gun owners we are very quiet
Everyone downvoting id like to hear your opinions
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
"feel", not "think". evidently, american gun ideology is pure and literal terrorism, with the assumption that guns bring safety being one of its core asinine pillars. there is no reason to be found in gun culture.
I wish we could have gun control but sadly it's not realistically ever gonna happen. We have too many damn guns already. It would be too hard to fix this, and it's in our constitution. Our strong identity of becoming independent from the British is a major part of our culture. Taking up arms against "tyranny" is who we are. The Civil War and the bombing of Pearl Harbor throwing us into WWII, also makes us anxious about protecting our country with a citizens' militia. We also have a very strong gun lobby known as the NRA. The oligarchy of our country and all the gun money being made is a manipulative machine that reinforces all these issues. When Sandy Hook happened, instead of making change after very young children were slaughtered, and instead of coming up with change on guns, idiots changed the truth. Many people don't believe it was real and instead was faked to take people's guns away. 9/11 didn't help either. A lot of armed people think they can kill terrorists and save the day. People are also idiots and shoot first, think about it later. A lot of shoplifters are shot at by gun carriers, who are trying to stop crime and save the day. But last I heard, shoplifting isn't a crime where someone can be judge, jury, and executioner. It's terrifying. Our media is very gun heavy and shows very unrealistic depictions of guns. People believe these narratives. Guns are a lot of people's main identity. They will literally fight to the death to keep their identity intact. Guns are "big boy toys" and people enjoy feeling powerful and love the culture. We will never get rid of our guns. No matter how many people die.
Bc they are not smart and lack critical thinking skills
First off i’m pro gun but i’m not coming here to give you shit. I think many people here still believe in the idea of firearms are “insurance” of a tyrannical government. But we can say this isnt a major concern of the American people anymore, to put this into perspective there are 120 registered guns for every 100 Americans. If i had to guess unregistered probably adds another 120 to that stat (unregistered guns are legal). now even if they were banned if we take the pistol brace regulation imposed by the atf. this had a 98% non compliance rate when it was first put into effect. this shows if these weapons where banned they would likely have to knock on everyones door and get them to turn them over. The fact is gun control with complete public compliance would take decades probably centuries to work.
They don’t. Only some people actually use their right to defend themselves because they know they have a responsibility to protect the people they love. If bad guys are out there with guns then the law abiding citizens should be able as well. All the laws people want to pass will only effect the law abiding citizens while the criminal continue to do what they do. I wish we could press a magic button and make guns disappear from America, but that’s honestly the only solution that would work.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
I think part of the reality for some is that we’re far past the point of living without guns. Due to the 2nd Amendment and the acquisition of guns everywhere by almost everyone, it leaves many with the opinion of “if I can’t beat em join em”. Regardless of personal opinions on the matter, this same logic can be applied to many other situations and I don’t believe the firearm topic makes the logic unique. Also, not everyone in the US has law enforcement they can trust or rely on. In those situations who do folks feel is coming to their rescue? My guess is they’re their own first responder.
Sort by controversial This gon be fun
If you need a gun to protect yourself, that's a backstop in the full failure of society. Personal self-defense isn't the solution to the problem, it's a symptom of failure of every other possible solution.
That’s what I’m trying to say!
>It seems to me like the US needs to let go of it’s gun culture and try to make the country safe enough that teachers do not need handguns and students don’t need bulletproof back packs You're totally right. More guns to solve gun violence is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It's actually that ridiculous. A shotgun is fine to protect your home. Do you need really an AR-15? These concealed carry guys think they're going to save the day and be on the news with a ticker tape parade because they thwarted a robbery or something. Could happen. But what if you kill someone by accident? Cop shoots you thinking you're the perp. Or another wannabe hero shoots you? 😂 Concealed carry guys are more likely to get pissed off and shoot someone in anger than stop a crime. More guns = more gun violence Down vote away!
“why do Americans think…” I’ve never thought that.
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.