Guns are a catalyst for disaster. If you’re suicidal, a gun makes it a lot easier to commit suicide, and therefore a lot more likely that you’ll do it. If you’re a violent person, a gun being nearby makes it more likely that your violent actions will be lethal.
If it was simply and only [gun murder rise] -> [rise in gun sales for protection], that alone wouldn’t explain why gun deaths by suicide also rise. The explanation is that owning a gun makes death more likely. Which when you think about it, it is absolutely shocking that an item purpose built to kill makes death more likely.
Whelp, if you can’t convince people to get a vaccination for a virus that killed millions, you won’t convince people that giving up their guns will reduce their chance of getting killed.
I think a lot of people are convinced that there would be less crime overall if more people had guns and cc permits. But I bet if some wealthy philanthropist set up a foundation to subsidize affordable guns and ammo for low income families and immigrants there would probably be a lot more political will to regulate firearms.
The point of reducing gun availability isn’t to reduce instances of violence, it’s to reduce the carnage after it. The force multiplying effect of a knife is significantly less than most guns.
If we assume people are violent and dangerous, then we should limit the damage they can do.
If thsr were true, would we not see significantly higher rats of homicide and the like when guns are more prevalent? Or even any notable change whatsoever?
Ahh, yes. Because there’s absolutely zero other differences between countries. If you had a valid point and not just bullshit, countries like Switzerland and Finland would be the murder capitals of Europe and not some of the safest, no?
If thsr were true, would we not see significantly higher rats of homicide and the like when guns are more prevalent?
To which the answer is yes, we see significantly high rates of homicide where guns are more prevalent.
If you had a valid point and not just bullshit, countries like Switzerland and Finland would be the murder capitals of Europe and not some of the safest, no?
So you’re saying we should move our gun law to be closer in line with those two countries? I agree! Let’s start by instituting Finland’s requirement for a gun license to be able to own a gun.
While I’m sure that’s a small part of it, studies have already shown than owning a gun increases your risk for suicide, and the risk of homicide.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
Guns are a catalyst for disaster. If you’re suicidal, a gun makes it a lot easier to commit suicide, and therefore a lot more likely that you’ll do it. If you’re a violent person, a gun being nearby makes it more likely that your violent actions will be lethal.
If it was simply and only [gun murder rise] -> [rise in gun sales for protection], that alone wouldn’t explain why gun deaths by suicide also rise. The explanation is that owning a gun makes death more likely. Which when you think about it, it is absolutely shocking that an item purpose built to kill makes death more likely.
Whelp, if you can’t convince people to get a vaccination for a virus that killed millions, you won’t convince people that giving up their guns will reduce their chance of getting killed.
I think a lot of people are convinced that there would be less crime overall if more people had guns and cc permits. But I bet if some wealthy philanthropist set up a foundation to subsidize affordable guns and ammo for low income families and immigrants there would probably be a lot more political will to regulate firearms.
This is a rare and rational take. Thank you.
Because it won’t. This has been proven time and time again. Reducing guns doesn’t reduce violence.
The point of reducing gun availability isn’t to reduce instances of violence, it’s to reduce the carnage after it. The force multiplying effect of a knife is significantly less than most guns.
If we assume people are violent and dangerous, then we should limit the damage they can do.
If thsr were true, would we not see significantly higher rats of homicide and the like when guns are more prevalent? Or even any notable change whatsoever?
We do see that trend though. Compare the homicide rates of the U.S. with European countries.
Ahh, yes. Because there’s absolutely zero other differences between countries. If you had a valid point and not just bullshit, countries like Switzerland and Finland would be the murder capitals of Europe and not some of the safest, no?
You’re the one who asked this question:
To which the answer is yes, we see significantly high rates of homicide where guns are more prevalent.
So you’re saying we should move our gun law to be closer in line with those two countries? I agree! Let’s start by instituting Finland’s requirement for a gun license to be able to own a gun.
Yeah, except you’re literally just lieing out your ass.