• PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public.

    Than the general public in America maybe, but legal gun owners in other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero, since they’re properly vetted through laws that aren’t dogshit.

    But even giving you that point, what about all the violent crime those permissive laws enable?

    Over 70% of mass shooters use legal firearms. Of the remaining, most are teenagers who took the poorly secured firearm of a family member.

    There is no magic gun fairy distributing illegal firearms. Every firearm in the hands of a criminal was either bought legally, stolen from a “responsible gun owner” who didn’t secure it, straw purchased or purchased through a loophole.

    Nevertheless, the pro-gun community opposes more robust background checks, mandatory safe storage laws or the closing of loopholes.

    And what does the public get in return? Mostly just shot because none of the pro-gun promises have come true.

    Good guys with guns intervene in 3% of shootings. The crime rate remains the same as comparable countries. The country is no more free when measured by any metric except guns. The government spies on and kills its own citizens.

    The gun laws are a failure.

    • sudo22@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don’t have the time right now I’m sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no “well regulated” does not mean legal regulations)

      I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don’t commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won’t bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.

      Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There’s no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who’s needs are actually met don’t need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.

      • SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders. There’s something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don’t kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it’s a whole lot easier to just say “guns bad”.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders.

          Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you’ve finished building all of that, you can have them back?

        After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn’t fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.

        • sudo22@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because guns in America are used defensively at least 1 to 1 (this ratio is higher in some studies) with their use in crime. So no, until the crime is gone I want to defend myself. And once crime is gone, then who are you making safer by disarming anyone.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Are you basing those numbers on the study that just asked gun owners about “defensive gun use” without any form of validation whatsoever?

            Regardless, your talking point had nothing to do with anything I posted, you clearly just wanted to say it. Are you worried I might have hurt your guns feelings?

            70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Of the remaining, most are children who took the unsecured firearm of a family member.

            The pro-gun community has spent 20 years insisting that they (and they alone) have the answers yet the problem continues to spiral further out of control. The number of guns used in crimes that were bought through “gun show loopholes” is on the rise, but the pro-gun community still opposes background checks for private sales.

            So regurgitate all the gun lobby talking points you want because your word is worthless.

            • sudo22@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You literally asked what if we took all he guns away and I gave a counterpoint why i think that would be bad. If you doubt my sources (which is impressive since i hadn’t provided any yet) say so instead of jumping to insults. If you want to start ad hominem attacks, just reply to yourself cause I’m not interested in continuing the conversation.

              • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So your answer to “What if we took your guns away?” is “Because guns in America are used defensively”?

                Lie better.

                • sudo22@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hey if being such an asshole to someone who’s done nothing to you make you feel good, have fun. Not letting people provide evidence and going strait to being rude is a great way to think you’re always right.

                  • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    If even if I were that, I’d still have the moral high ground over someone who insists the deaths of hundreds of innocent people is just the price society has to pay for their hobby.

                    Because do you know what’s far more offensive than someone “being rude” on the internet? Children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero

      The US isn’t far removed from homicide rates of other countries when comparing the rates.

      Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fun little exercise for anyone clicking that link: Sort by highest homicide rate and scroll down until you hit “United States”, counting the number of countries along the way that you’d be comfortable moving to and would expect to have a reasonably comparable quality of life to the USA.

        Was the number zero? Probably, because most of those countries are not doing well. Wars, widespread poverty, corruption, exploitation, poor educational and medical outcomes.

        I’m sure plenty of them are full of amazing people and cultures and would be great for a holiday, but they’re not exactly nipping at the USAs heels when it comes to GDP.

        Anyway, we’ve identified all the countries that are worse, what about the ones that are better? Keep scrolling down past the USA, still looking for that country you’d actually want to live in.

        Takes a while huh? You’d think with all the promises the pro-gun people make and comparative wealth of America, it would be firmly in the #1 spot.

        Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

        Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop all violence. But the existence of violence doesn’t obligate us to provide quick, easy access to the means to escalate violence and maximise damage, even to people with a long history of red flags.