Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC
704 replies, posted
lol people are just spamming FAKE
According to Gun Violence Archive there are only 3,178 gun homicides so far in 2018. We can assume that this will be around 7,000 (.02% of the population) by the end of the year, which is such an insignificant number compared to other causes of death in the US. Most of those gun related deaths are concentrated in cities like Baltimore, Chicago, and Detroit anyways.
I get that mass shootings are tragic, but the statistics show that gun violence isn't that big of a problem.
I wouldn't say it's not a problem, but rather the nature of the problem is different than what I usually see gun-control advocates saying it is.
It's a big problem to those who they affect - and those who they traumatize.
A bullet causes far more carnage than just its physical damage.
How about we not look at people's lives like a statistic and think about how we can prevent as many as these deaths as possible instead of brushing it off and go "Oh well, not that big of a problem."
It's really not that big of a problem. If you want to focus on saving more lives you're better off investing in cancer and heart disease.
I think gun legislation is a little more realistic a goal than curing cancer.
How about you advocate for better mental health care as suicide causes 6x more deaths than gun homicides.
How about we all advocate rather than debate? How about we all demand, in fact?
I would advocate for that but you didn't mention mental health care, you said cancer and heart disease.
So you believe a random internet user has more insight into a study than the reputable authorities that did the study? Whatever floats your boat.
I'm going off of the actual study that they published. I read the study. It's sloppily done. Shitty science papers get published all the time dude. Academics are not infallible creatures.
You...you are aware people can advocate for multiple things at once right?
It's not hard to be a believer in stronger gun control, whilst also believing that better social care like universal healthcare, better school systems, etc. would be a good idea.
I think the problem here is that you miss the key words "may have" in the article's title.
So you don't have any actual rebuttal to the fact that they made a sloppy study. Saying it "may have" doesn't excuse a poor study or analysis.
Just because it could've been done in more detail to get a more accurate outcome, doesn't mean it should be disregarded.
It should because the best way to describe it is, "Bullshit, bad science."
Look, here's my take, and I don't profess to be an expert on guns or gun laws:
The law hasn't kept pace with technology in regards to firearms, and that has allowed gun owners to assume a lot of liberties that may have never even been granted to them if it had kept up. Now that scenario has happened in other forms and turned out to be a blessing - like how we enjoy an internet that is as free and open as it is because lawmakers have been largely hands-off with it - but the simple fact is that people don't DIE because the internet hasn't had a closer eye kept on it by politicians over the years (and yes, I'm sure you can circuitously argue that a few people probably have in some indirect way, but I'm talking generally). Gun owners should be far more grateful to be permitted many of the liberties they currently take for granted or as god-given rights, because in another timeline - and not necessarily a worse one, either - they wouldn't have those liberties.
The fact is that guns are made to kill. That is literally their one and only immediate purpose, and other derived purposes such as self-defense, hunting, or military use are all larger ends that killing is used as the means to achieve. Sure, it may even be the best means to achieve those ends depending on the situation (hell, I'll concede it's the only means in hunting's case), but in the end it's just one means, and considering its gravity, should never be used unless no other options exist. And since killing is the one and only purpose of a gun, It's why I believe that the starting point for all gun laws is to treat every firearm of every type as forbidden, and to work backwards from that baseline in the form of exceptions for certain types of guns in certain cases - taking into account available alternatives - and to heavily regulate what firearms are allowed.
To me, the ideal firearm in any situation is that which maximizes stopping power but minimizes lethality to what is absolutely necessary. For personal defense, that means potential lethality should be at or near zero, and it's why I've always been for putting more resources into improving and promoting less-lethal alternatives like pepper spray and tasers. For hunting, it means - yes - something that can decisively put down the animal (but also as humanely as possible), but that doesn't also have the potential to easily take out several people: a high-caliber break-action shotgun, off the top of my head. Military use is a different beast from civilian use and I wouldn't claim to be qualified enough to really offer an opinion, although I'm aware that automatic weaponry is useful for things like suppressive fire.
Point is, guns should always be a last resort in my opinion. They kill, they only kill, and that's why we should regulate them as much as we can and pursue alternative means to whatever we're using them for when at all possible. And that kind of stance, if adopted, would certainly seem unfair to a lot of current gun owners, but like I said: many of the liberties you enjoy, you probably never should have had in the first place, and if you have a legitimate need for a gun, you should have no problem going through whatever hoops are necessary to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Sure, some will inevitably end up in the wrong hands, but we should minimize that number as much as we can.
And if you're gonna complain solely because this would interfere with your hobby of shooting at the gun range... Honestly, get over yourself. No one cares but you.
Know what it's called when you listen to who is arguing over what's being argued? An appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.
There's a fundamental hypocrisy in advocating for Assault Weapon Bans that I rarely see effectively brought up.
According to FBI statistics on murder victims by weapon, an average of 9,289 were killed by firearms per year between 2012 and 2016. All numbers listed from this point on will be the averages of the values listed from 2012 to 2016. Of these murders, the per year average committed using rifles of any kind at all, bolt action hunting rifles as well as semi automatic rifles, was 295. Now, for 2,265 of these murders by firearm, the type of weapon was not reported. So by subtracting that from the total number of deaths, you are left with 7,024, of which 295 is 4 percent. Meaning we can extrapolate that approximately 90 extra deaths were caused by rifles where the type of firearm was not known.
This means that approximately 385 people are murdered per year by a rifle of any kind.
And also means that the amount of people who are killed per year by "assault weapons" is logically even less. For comparison, following the same process, we find that 8,346 are killed by handguns per year, which cause 90% of all firearm deaths.
Now, before you say "But wait! Preventing any deaths is a worthwhile goal! It could be 1 death or 5 billion deaths, your hobby is less important!", lets compare this to other causes of death:
In 2015, 10,265 died as a result of alcohol-impaired car crashes.
In 2010, 32,999 died due to car crashes in general.
Between 2005 and 2014, an average of 3,536 people drowned per year.
And through 2012-2016, 1,622 were stabbed to death annually.
I will never be in support of any attempt at banning rifles of any kind until I have a sufficient answer to this question:
Why is it not okay for me to own a rifle because 385 people are killed by them per year, but it's perfectly okay for me to own a car, drink alcohol, swim in water, and own a knife, when these things kill at the minimum 4 times as many people as rifles?
And even if you banned all rifles, not just scary military-style assault weapons, and magically prevented every single death caused by them, you would have still failed to stop 96% of gun deaths, while turning millions into paper criminals! Where is the logic in that? It is the definition of feel good legislation.
Now, licensing? Improved background check system? Mandatory safety classes? Subsidized gun safes? Those are all examples of things I'm willing to discuss. But bans? Never.
I believe the news media is infinitely more responsible for the proliferation of mass school shootings than the mere presence of semi-automatic rifles. Every single shooting is turned into a media circus that lasts for weeks. The shooter's name and face are plastered over every TV in America. They get talked about for days. They become infamous. Other troubled individuals see this, and think "Hey, I want to go out in a blaze of glory like that!" and decide to commit a copycat atrocity. For example, there are a known 74 Columbine copycat cases, 21 of which resulted in an attack.
School shootings only started to become a prominent phenomenon in the past two decades, with a sharp increase in frequency after 2011. Meanwhile, semi-automatic rifles have been common and available since the 1950's. That scary evil AR-15? Was originally marketed as a civilian sporting rifle in 1964. We went nearly half a century before school shootings using semi-automatic rifles started to become a problem.
If you want to stop school shootings, the answer does not lie in gun bans.
Simply put: would you ever consider any answer sufficient?
Gun control advocates go about the whole thing the worse of ways.
Instead of pushing "these are what we want to push on you gun owners", why have none gone to them and said "This is a problem for us, what solutions would you gun owners suggest"
Because from what I've seen on this site, pro-gun advocates have a huge amount of options and ideas for effective gun control, but are wholly rejected.
Why would I not? I don't believe that there is no solution to this issue, but I do believe that doing nothing is better than doing something harmful.
I literally just listed examples of gun legislation that I think are worth discussing. I also stated that I think the media is primarily responsible for the repetition of these school shootings, implying that I'd want to regulate media coverage of shootings. Those are places to start. I'm not a legislator or researcher, it's not my job to come up with a fully workable and realized solutions, and I'm not capable of doing that. I am merely trying to steer the discussion towards something productive.
For too many people, the discussion starts and ends at BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS, and I am going to call that out as the horseshit it is whenever I see it.
I meant a sufficient answer to this, as you asked:
Again: would you ever consider any answer to that question sufficient? Because I don't think you ever would.
Doubtful. Which is why I am against assault weapon bans.
Against it or not, it's going to happen eventually. Which - in my eyes - is a good thing.
Why do you think it would be a good thing? More specifically, what positive effects would it have, how would they happen, and what would be the cost?
In my eyes, it's more effective to just ban murder instead.
"Hey, Guys, so not a lot of people are dying due to firearms, compared to other things, so we shouldn't regulate them whatsoever even with a lot of school and mass shootings going on !"
/Every quoted statistic argument ever/
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
