So I’m going to explain this to you like you’re the 5 year old I assume you are.
Guns don’t pull their own triggers. That’s correct. It is because they are what people call an “inanimate object.” What is an inanimate object? Glad you asked.
And inanimate object is something that does not and cannot move on it’s own. Such as, a pitcher of PBR, or an unused toothbrush.
Now, with this new knowledge, we can arrive at the point where we understand how a gun cannot pull its own trigger. And not only that, but we csn understand how not only thinking so is wrong, but to think anyone would think it’s even possible… is wrong as well.
(Bonus lesson: This is also known as a bad faith argument! But don’t use these. They’re easily to spot and make you look incredibly foolish)
Now that that is out of the way-
It’s because of the fact that people are dying in record numbers- DESPITE guns not being able to pull their own triggers- that it is suggested that stronger laws need to be placed on the PEOPLE that are firing them at one another, instead of the guns themselves, which as we just learned, are inanimate objects that are incapable of firing themselves.
Your trusted mentor puts a gun in your hand and tells you to kill a rival. You do it, and your mentor praises you for it.
Is the problem the gun? You? Or is it the gang mindset learned by your mentor and shared with you?
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs, whose leaders are actively seeking these murders. Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
And yet, the zip codes with the highest rate of gang activity are consistently the zip codes with the highest homicide rates, and there is a strong social correlation between murderers and victims.
I wonder why all these non-gang members go to areas of high gang activity to kill and be killed. I guess they’re just trying to frame innocent, hard-working criminals.
Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
If only there were other countries on earth that had both criminals AND stricter gun laws where we could see if reducing the number of guns saves children’s lives despite not eradicating criminal activity. And only if, I don’t know, social scientists had analyzed it systematically.
Among comparably large and wealthy countries, Canada has the second highest child and teen firearm death rate to the U.S. However, Canada generally has more restrictive firearm laws and regulates access to guns at the federal level.
If the child and teen firearm mortality rate in the U.S. had been brought down to rates seen in Canada, we estimate that approximately 30,000 children’s and teenagers’ lives in the U.S. would have been saved since 2010 (an average of about 2,500 lives per year). This would have reduced the total number of child and teenage deaths from all causes in the U.S. by 13%.
If the problem was just “guns”, we should expect to see their unarmed crime stats be similar or even greater than US numbers. Canadian violent crime stats are lower across all categories, not just the “gun” categories.
Canada has a vastly superior social safety net. They address poverty conditions far better than the US. Gangs thrive in poverty, so when Canada attacks income inequity, they greatly reduce their gang problems relative to the US. Their social programs - including a universal healthcare provision - reduce their crime rates across the board.
The single most effective thing we could do to reduce gun deaths (and all forms of criminality, violent and non) in the US would be to adopt Medicare for all.
Sure, income inequality and poverty are drivers of all forms of crime. And the US in addition to uniquely lax gun restrictions also has uniquely terrible social support.
But if you look at the above article you’ll see this:
Even so, the child firearm mortality rate in the U.S. (3.7 per 100,000 people ages 1-17) is 5.5 times the child and teen mortality rate in Canada (0.6 per 100,000 people ages 1-19).
Guns kill children in the US at a rate 5.5 times higher than all causes of child death in Canada. And it is our closest peer, in other wealthy countries this would be even more lopsided. We can talk about why that is, and there are many reasons including social inequalities, but if you’re not considering access to guns a driver of gun deaths plus the abundance of published scientific evidence that supports this, you’re not approaching this issue honestly.
I reject your claim that Canada is our closest peer in anything but geographical proximity.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe. Neither Canada nor Europe have areas with economic conditions comparable to our high crime areas. Nations like Mexico and Brazil have areas economically similar to our high crime areas, and similar crime rates.
But let’s set all that aside for a moment, and look at the math. 48,000 people die to guns in the US per year, 2/3rds are suicides. Absolutely perfect gun control can save a maximum of 48,000 people, and it certainly won’t be perfect.
Conservative estimates put the number of lives saved from universal healthcare at 335,000 per year.
Now, the politics: gun rights have been steadily expanding for the past 30 years. CCW permits have expanded from fewer than 1 million to more than 30 million. A majority of states have adopted permitless “constitutional carry”. The last time a significant gun control measure passed was 1994, and it sparked an event known as the “Republican Revolution” in 1996.
If you think “perfect” gun control has a chance at being adopted in the US, “you’re not approaching this issue honestly”. The only thing that a serious push for gun control will certainly accomplish is to drive the country toward the GOP, which opposes universal healthcare.
The options in front of you are a Quixotic attempt at saving a small fraction of 48,000 people that will prevent us from saving 335,000 people; or, push for universal healthcare and similar social programs that will save an order of magnitude more.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe
This is not true. Our state with the lowest gun death rate (Massachusetts 3.4/100k) still has an over 50% higher rate than all of Canada (2.1) and fairs worse when compared to other wealthy nations Source
I’m not going to argue on any other point because I’m not going to argue against universal healthcare? It’s ok to want two good things.
It is absolutely true, and you would see that if you drilled down to zip codes instead of looking broadly at the state level. We have some zip codes with homicide rates near 200 per 100k, and some cities over 80 per 100k. The economic conditions in those areas are more comparable to third-world countries and active war zones than wealthy nations. These poverty-stricken hellholes are where our violence comes from. They also happen to boast some of the lowest rates of gun ownership and strictest firearms laws and enforcement in the nation. Guns are an expensive luxury item: poor people don’t tend to own them, unless they are actively engaged in criminal behavior.
The “50% higher” statistic is interesting. We should not see a drop in unarmed crime if the cause for the drop in gun crime is strict gun control. And yet, your “50% higher” statistic applies to all crime, not just gun crime. This is inconsistent with your “gun control” theory, and perfectly consistent with my “poverty control” theory.
It’s ok to want two good things.
Your position is like that of a little kid, pestering his mother while shopping. She’s got a new game console in the cart, but he’s begging for a slushie. She asks him to stop. She tells him to stop. His brother warns him that Mom is getting pissed off and is about to leave without buying anything, and that he can have the first turn on the new console, but he goes ahead and throws a temper tantrum about that goddamn slushie. So we all go home, no game console, no slushie, and we’re both grounded for good measure. (The events of this analogy may or may not have happened on my 8th birthday, and I may or may not still be salty about it.)
I swear so many of these people can’t tell the difference between reality and what they see in TV and movies. QAnon even posted previously that were living in some giant movie production so these people must have taken that to heart.
The “mentor” scenario which you have dreamed up and repeated ad nauseam in this thread, does not provide an actual explanation for by far the majority of gun deaths mentioned in the article.
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs,
This is a blatant lie, and it does not get more true just because you repeat it countless times.
So I’m going to explain this to you like you’re the 5 year old I assume you are.
Guns don’t pull their own triggers. That’s correct. It is because they are what people call an “inanimate object.” What is an inanimate object? Glad you asked.
And inanimate object is something that does not and cannot move on it’s own. Such as, a pitcher of PBR, or an unused toothbrush.
Now, with this new knowledge, we can arrive at the point where we understand how a gun cannot pull its own trigger. And not only that, but we csn understand how not only thinking so is wrong, but to think anyone would think it’s even possible… is wrong as well.
(Bonus lesson: This is also known as a bad faith argument! But don’t use these. They’re easily to spot and make you look incredibly foolish)
Now that that is out of the way-
It’s because of the fact that people are dying in record numbers- DESPITE guns not being able to pull their own triggers- that it is suggested that stronger laws need to be placed on the PEOPLE that are firing them at one another, instead of the guns themselves, which as we just learned, are inanimate objects that are incapable of firing themselves.
Savvy?
Your trusted mentor puts a gun in your hand and tells you to kill a rival. You do it, and your mentor praises you for it.
Is the problem the gun? You? Or is it the gang mindset learned by your mentor and shared with you?
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs, whose leaders are actively seeking these murders. Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
If you need to create scenarios that are provenly not common just to make your point, you don’t have a point.
READ
If you don’t recognize the simplistic motivations behind gang violence, you should consider yourself exceedingly fortunate.
Check your privilege.
Your claim is a blatant lie. That is a fact. Your feelings have made you concoct a blatant lie which you have repeated countless times in this thread.
You’re entirely wrong, but you already know that, don’t you? You clowns just love your distractions from the truth.
@Rivalarrival @Pratai
Please show your proof for this statement.
“… the simplistic motivations behind gang violence …”
Considering they won’t have proof to offer, this should be enough to satisfy my point:
https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/gangs/
And yet, the zip codes with the highest rate of gang activity are consistently the zip codes with the highest homicide rates, and there is a strong social correlation between murderers and victims.
I wonder why all these non-gang members go to areas of high gang activity to kill and be killed. I guess they’re just trying to frame innocent, hard-working criminals.
Dude… you’re wrong. I get your impulse to entrench yourself in your sad cognitive dissonance, but just let it go- you’re wrong. Case closed.
Project much?
If only there were other countries on earth that had both criminals AND stricter gun laws where we could see if reducing the number of guns saves children’s lives despite not eradicating criminal activity. And only if, I don’t know, social scientists had analyzed it systematically.
Oh, wait.
If the problem was just “guns”, we should expect to see their unarmed crime stats be similar or even greater than US numbers. Canadian violent crime stats are lower across all categories, not just the “gun” categories.
Canada has a vastly superior social safety net. They address poverty conditions far better than the US. Gangs thrive in poverty, so when Canada attacks income inequity, they greatly reduce their gang problems relative to the US. Their social programs - including a universal healthcare provision - reduce their crime rates across the board.
The single most effective thing we could do to reduce gun deaths (and all forms of criminality, violent and non) in the US would be to adopt Medicare for all.
Sure, income inequality and poverty are drivers of all forms of crime. And the US in addition to uniquely lax gun restrictions also has uniquely terrible social support.
But if you look at the above article you’ll see this:
Guns kill children in the US at a rate 5.5 times higher than all causes of child death in Canada. And it is our closest peer, in other wealthy countries this would be even more lopsided. We can talk about why that is, and there are many reasons including social inequalities, but if you’re not considering access to guns a driver of gun deaths plus the abundance of published scientific evidence that supports this, you’re not approaching this issue honestly.
I reject your claim that Canada is our closest peer in anything but geographical proximity.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe. Neither Canada nor Europe have areas with economic conditions comparable to our high crime areas. Nations like Mexico and Brazil have areas economically similar to our high crime areas, and similar crime rates.
But let’s set all that aside for a moment, and look at the math. 48,000 people die to guns in the US per year, 2/3rds are suicides. Absolutely perfect gun control can save a maximum of 48,000 people, and it certainly won’t be perfect.
Conservative estimates put the number of lives saved from universal healthcare at 335,000 per year.
Now, the politics: gun rights have been steadily expanding for the past 30 years. CCW permits have expanded from fewer than 1 million to more than 30 million. A majority of states have adopted permitless “constitutional carry”. The last time a significant gun control measure passed was 1994, and it sparked an event known as the “Republican Revolution” in 1996.
If you think “perfect” gun control has a chance at being adopted in the US, “you’re not approaching this issue honestly”. The only thing that a serious push for gun control will certainly accomplish is to drive the country toward the GOP, which opposes universal healthcare.
The options in front of you are a Quixotic attempt at saving a small fraction of 48,000 people that will prevent us from saving 335,000 people; or, push for universal healthcare and similar social programs that will save an order of magnitude more.
This is not true. Our state with the lowest gun death rate (Massachusetts 3.4/100k) still has an over 50% higher rate than all of Canada (2.1) and fairs worse when compared to other wealthy nations Source
I’m not going to argue on any other point because I’m not going to argue against universal healthcare? It’s ok to want two good things.
It is absolutely true, and you would see that if you drilled down to zip codes instead of looking broadly at the state level. We have some zip codes with homicide rates near 200 per 100k, and some cities over 80 per 100k. The economic conditions in those areas are more comparable to third-world countries and active war zones than wealthy nations. These poverty-stricken hellholes are where our violence comes from. They also happen to boast some of the lowest rates of gun ownership and strictest firearms laws and enforcement in the nation. Guns are an expensive luxury item: poor people don’t tend to own them, unless they are actively engaged in criminal behavior.
The “50% higher” statistic is interesting. We should not see a drop in unarmed crime if the cause for the drop in gun crime is strict gun control. And yet, your “50% higher” statistic applies to all crime, not just gun crime. This is inconsistent with your “gun control” theory, and perfectly consistent with my “poverty control” theory.
Your position is like that of a little kid, pestering his mother while shopping. She’s got a new game console in the cart, but he’s begging for a slushie. She asks him to stop. She tells him to stop. His brother warns him that Mom is getting pissed off and is about to leave without buying anything, and that he can have the first turn on the new console, but he goes ahead and throws a temper tantrum about that goddamn slushie. So we all go home, no game console, no slushie, and we’re both grounded for good measure. (The events of this analogy may or may not have happened on my 8th birthday, and I may or may not still be salty about it.)
CDC numbers say that is patently untrue (scroll up to see the comment posting actual data), so where are you getting that from?
I swear so many of these people can’t tell the difference between reality and what they see in TV and movies. QAnon even posted previously that were living in some giant movie production so these people must have taken that to heart.
The “mentor” scenario which you have dreamed up and repeated ad nauseam in this thread, does not provide an actual explanation for by far the majority of gun deaths mentioned in the article.
This is a blatant lie, and it does not get more true just because you repeat it countless times.
The problem is the free and unchecked availability of guns.