Finally, proof that homicides cause gun ownership
I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.
It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
Comics like the one in OP always ignore the primary underlying difference between US and the other developed nations: free, nationalized healthcare vs the Insurance Apocalypse that is the American healthcare system
Yup. If Americans struggling with poor mental health had better access to professional help, crime as a whole would go down. But it’s not the only factor. Things like financial strain and environment also contribute. Crime is a slippery slope. Not a leap.
Agreed, but financial strain is part of what keeps people from getting care in the USA
Free healthcare would alleviate some of that
Well it’s a start.
You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.
Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.
In the end it will still require banning guns.
True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)
That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
Not making a specific argument for or against your argument, but I’d like to object to this like:
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
I’ve seen this argument used a lot, but it’s a broad generalization. You are assuming all criminals are the hardest criminals who will disobey any law, but a lot of law breakers and a lot of gun violence perpetrators are first time offenders, or someone who thinks they can get away with minor things.
A lot of people will do legally ambiguous stuff if there’s a low chance of being caught and punished but wouldn’t put themselves on the line for more heavily enforced things, plus even just the hint of illegality will put a type of social pressure on someone.
Will hardcore criminals still get and use guns? Absolutely. Are all gun deaths perpetrated by hardcore criminals? Absolutely not. Even that annoying brandishing couple at the BLM protests a while back would likely not have had the courage to bring out their weapons were it illegal to do so, since they tended to abuse law and loopholes rather than outright break them. They’re a milder case, but the point works with others who carry for “personal protection” but are a little too trigger happy. Plus stuff like legally owned but carelessly stored etc.
Are you saying that committing a mass shooting is legally ambiguous and people think they are likely to get away with it? Because buying a registered firearm in the U.S. Isn’t illegal. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You’re also kind of implying that people who do shootings are mostly opportunistic, when in reality there are likely other factors at play.
Nah, I’m mostly saying it isn’t black and white. It will have some effect on all layers, but I agree it wouldn’t stop all violence. To take your note about school shootings; yes, many of them are from legally purchased firearms, often a parent or something. Not all of course, so a gun ban would probably reduce, but not eliminate, school shootings. Plus outright bans aren’t the only form of gun control the US hasn’t tried, there are multiple things that can be done to limit without outright ban guns.
That’s true, and I can’t argue with you there. Banning guns would solve some problems, but you’d also be opening pandora’s box.
Given the US’ history with guns, banning them would almost certainly fuel a violent black market, making it easier than it already is for criminals to illegally obtain unregistered firearms. And with an estimated 400 million guns already in existence in the US, it would be really difficult to enforce, even if you did manage to pass a law. And loopholes exist like gun shows and private sales.
Regulating but not banning outright would be a slightly better solution, but it wouldn’t be a silver bullet (pun not intended).
I’ve always said banning guns doesn’t make violent people incapable violence. Trying it during a time where we can 3D print guns isn’t really realistic. Its a cultural issue.
Well said
…also tho, it would appear to me, that at some point NOT owning a gun is the bigger risk
once civil society and the rule of law diminishes to a certain violent bottom, arming oneself not only makes sense, but becomes a survival imperative
I know that if I lived in the US, I would be armed and proficient in its use
You are hopeless as a country.
What country are you saying is hopeless? The US? I agree, I think all that remains is how violent the fall will be.
…also, am not American fortunately
Arguing that the populace shouldn’t have guns, and pointing to the usa as an example, is arguing that our fascist government should have a monopoly on violence. Every successful “gun control” law has been put in place in response to persecuted minorities and activist groups having guns. For a famous example, see the Black Panthers.
Peaceful protests are impotent unless backed by a genuine threat of violence. See how little the recent “No Kings” protests have accomplished vs the death of that one health insurance ceo.
Now, I am in favor of fewer guns, but the order of operations is important. Let’s start with disarming the police and abolishing ice. So long as my friends/family/neighbors/whatevers are being abducted by masked thugs in broad daylight, it is my right and my duty to defend with lethal force.
Peaceful protests are impotent unless backed by a genuine threat of violence
Eastern europe (exluding Romania) would like to have a word.
Oh yeah, and all yours 1.2 guns per person are doing absolute wonders right now, when you pedo in charge is rounding up people to put in concentration camps and starting wars all over the world. All your guns will start working any time now, liberating you from fascism.
It would have already crumbled to the ground in the 1900’s if we didn’t have them.
The US government cares only about money. They don’t give a fuck about us, as evidenced by our healthcare system.
We are expendable to them. Had we not have the guns we have now I truly believe it would have all ended for us a lot sooner and be significantly worse than it is now.
I know other countries manage. Other countries aren’t managed by a bunch of rich pedophiles that will let children and people die for the sake of “saving” $50 on an insurance claim.
Tell you what how about this, how about they take the guns from the police and ice and IRS and dea and atf and then we can sure talk about getting rid of our guns. But that will never ever happen.
A “well armed militia” that is completely and willingly surveiled by private corporations that work with the government is fundamentally, critically impaired.
The fact gun nuts harp on about what is, at this point, a fantasy of rising against tyrannical government while being nearly completely blind to operational matters like communication, organisation, surveillance, etc. is frankly ridiculous.
If these people were serious about this, they’d be building infrastructure, communication systems, etc.
You’re a big tough guy, so I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of The Art of War by Sun Tzu. One of the premises of that book is that you should attack your enemy where they’re weakest, not where they’re strongest. Makes sense, right? Well where do you think the Trump regime is strongest? Put another way, who do you think would win in a shootout between, say, the U.S. Army and a ragtag bunch of armed leftists?
So if we can’t fight the regime where they’re strongest, where can we fight them? Economically. We can stop giving our hard-earned money to the companies that prop up the regime. We can do work stoppages to halt the engines that power the regime. And we can raise awareness of these issues (yes, sometimes by protests but also with other tactics) so this becomes a mass movement that has the power to actually topple the regime’s pillars of support.
Yeahbwe should just make a campfire and talk to them while we are at it maybe get scoutmaster Dan to play the guitar for us while we all figure our peaceful solutions together.
They murder us in the street at protests, idk if you have seen it on tv. They are singlehandedly crashing the economy on purpose so they can extract as much from it for themselves as they can.
I would love for school shootings to stop and I think if a kid gets a gun there is an adult or likely a few that fucked up and shouldn’t have given the kid a gun.
But taking them away from all of us isnt going to get the north side of Saint Louis or the south side of Chicago to just give them up this is what I don’t get you think when they made method illegal it just disappeared? Can’t find it anymore right?
This whole take the guns away stance is them brainwashing you into believing that they will do right once you don’t have guns anymore.
They aren’t raking them away from the police. They aren’t taking them away from ice. And the IRS. Until they do that, fuck them I will have guns and I will suggest others do too. Just keep them away from your kids
Wow. How’s that gun ownership working against the fascist takeover of the US?
It isn’t?
Gun ownership has, in fact, been usurped by fascists and their supporters in furtherance of the takeover?
Next argument, please.
And how does that gun protect you against the masked thugs? They are cops and hence, I assume, you cannot legally shoot them when they enter your home. So resistance is useless? As a non-US - american, correct me if I’m wrong here.
So where is the well-regulated militia defending the United States with their huge arsenal of guns? We’re not hearing anything about valiant protectors of the constitution taking up arms against the domestic enemies that are ICE, MAGA, etc…it’s almost as if the whole spiel about needing guns to resist a tyrannical government was BS all along. 🤔
You didn’t see the like 3 or 4 multiple attempts at taking the pedophilic orange man out?
They tried. Maybe one of them will eventually succeed.
Also I’d like to point out that I noticed the ICE goons haven’t went to the hood yet. Let’s see how that plays out for them.
The option going unused doesn’t invalidate the need for the option to be there, moron.
Some people make it pretty clear that the only thing they understand is forced behaviors. Almost like what they’re really after is eradication of individual choices on favor of top-down uniformity.
I’m pretty sure there’s a name for that kind of centrally held power…
Man, I see this sort of thing commented all the time as some sort of “gotcha” and really have to wonder what it is you’re envisioning.
Put yourself in the shoes of a firearm owner for a moment. Evidently, you believe the US has passed a tipping point where violent resistance is necessary.
Where are you going with your gun and who are you shooting at?
And just like that, we went complete route from “without guns we can’t fight fascism” to “guns are actually completely useless in fighting fascism” in two comments.
US - 1765 to 1784
EU - 1939 to 1945
Vietnam - 1955 to 1975
Yes, I’m aware that only one of these cases was literal fascism.
You can see my other comment in this chain, but firearms are the “last stand” tools to fight oppression. We’re in the midst of a particularly sensitive stage and, in my opinion, haven’t crossed the “tipping point” where a violent response would be wise or justified.
Are you saying you’re suffering a dearth of targets?
Again, if this is not the time to exercise your supposed God-given right to bear arms to ward off a tyrannical government then the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is moot.
I’ve said it before: You guys aren’t going to vote your way out of this pickle. I hate to say this (sincerely!) but this is going to end in violence one way or another. 🙁
You didn’t answer the question.
Am I to infer that you think that right now is an appropriate time to actively seek out and shoot ICE agents?
With how subtle you are you might as well work for the FBI.
no he got a point. If someone started doing that they would just get captured and tortured or killed. What can you meaningfully achieve with random violence, alone? Owning a gun will not help you protect yourself against force that can hunt you down and use your loved ones as leverage. Its just copium so people dont organize thinking they have power to protect themselves if things get bad but they never will use it because they are alone and scared, rightfully so.
I see that as a cop-out to engagement in discourse, an alt account and VPN/privacy technologies would be enough to shield someone from “taking the bait”
My own opinion is that we have not reached a point where that level of response is justifiable, and I think it’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to suggest that it is.
The administration’s current rhetoric revolves around the domestic terrorist threat / violent insurrectionist motif that, while some people may buying into, is not being substantiated with strong evidence.
At this time, violent response / uprising by those perceived to be “on the left” will add fuel to validate that propaganda machine, it will firmly entrench the beliefs of those who might otherwise have a chance of moving away from it, and it will likely trigger a heavy-handed response leading to a substantial and catastrophic loss of life and liberty.
Hypothetically, “with how subtle you are, you might as well” be an agitator seeking to be a catalyst to what I just described.
Children getting shot up at school is just a way of life we all have to accept according to American leadership.
Nothing some good old thoughts and prayers won’t fix.
notice how in the graph on wikipedia, excluding USA, the correlation is really not that strong.
dont get me wrong, i agree with the general sentiment, but bad data weakens even the best of cases.
Because it’s not a gradual response curve. It doesn’t really matter is it 10 guns per 100 people, or 15, if there is a strict gun control policy, and you can’t easily get a gun at the age of 18 in a fishing shop. The problem is ubiquity that comes when the society is saturated and there is very little regulations.
yeah I think the real world is more complicated. Like, its not just about numbers, but also how control is implemented and even culture.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
Before I get dog-piled, I’d like to add that I know that there are too many guns in the US, and the process to buy a firearm is surprisingly lax. I do think there is a relationship between gun ownership and the murder rates, and the fact that most school shootings don’t even make the news anymore (and if they do, it’s for less than a day) indicates that the frogs have been completely boiled at this point.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
Fair point but see below…
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The United States has over 4 times more murders per capita than France, for instance.
And you really shouldn’t discount just how easy it is to kill someone with a gun. I don’t have the stats at hand right now but knife related killings (as an example) are way less likely to happen because victims have a comparatively good chance to survive a knife attack.
There are solid reasons for keeping weapons that are designed to kill human beings out of the hands of most of us.
Well done. No notes.
another way these facts get skewed: most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides
in the US, states with the strictest gun laws do also have the lowest suicide rates, maybe because when there isn’t an easy way to quickly exit, fewer people do - and the same reasoning probably applies to homicides
either way, there are also accidental gun deaths (kids accidentally shooting themselves or others because they’re playing with daddy’s gun, etc.) - so gun policies absolutely do save or cost lives
Also, if everyone’s out there getting shot, then of course I need a gun to protect myself.
A gun doesn’t stop you from getting shot, it just gives you a chance to shoot back.
Yes, I know you were being sarcastic.
Having a gun probably also gives you a better chance of being shot either by suicide, accident, or making yourself seem like more of a threat.
That largely depends on if you’re their intended target.
But anyone fetishizing being the “good guy with a gun” would just piss their pants.
If I was carrying and there was an active shooter, I sure as hell would run or hide before fighting.
You don’t know who the active shooter actually is. Maybe the guy you saw with a gun is a plainclothes or off duty cop who is responding to the actual active shooter. Maybe there is more than one shooter, and confronting the one you see makes you a target for the one you don’t. Maybe the cops find you after shooting the active shooter, and assume you are the perpetrator.
For clarification, I don’t carry a gun, I just used myself as an example to simplify the text.
And the gun manufacturers are literally making a killing.
You know it’s illegal to study gun violence in America, correct?
That is absolutely fucked up, but whats the relevance?
The data are inaccurate
oh, well, luckily its not illegal for researchers in the rest of the world to study gun violence in America.
True enough, but good luck getting the data.
Gets even more interesting when looking at kills by police.
Like Lee Camp did recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxoOAArudgI
While the data might be cherry picked, one thing that can’t be displayed here is motivation. In Canada, a decent number of people have guns, but you can’t carry firearms with you, you have to take highly specific routes while transporting any restricted hand guns. The role of guns is sport shooting and hunting and it’s highly regulated for those.
In the USA, guns are intended to be used to kill other civilians. Owning a gun for self-defense purposes is buying with the intention that you may one day use it to kill another human. Not an enemy combatant in war, but a fellow citizen with a gun.
It’s only a feeling, but I feel like that might be the biggest distinction between the USA and other (omitted) high-gun-per-capita countries. Guns in the USA aren’t for mitary drafting or protection against a national invasion.
There’s also the matter of training and licensing. A buddy in the USA was staunchly opposed to gun licensing. When I said that in Canada, it just helps ensure that people know how to maintain their gun and use it safely, he said, “Well the people who don’t take the time to learn how to maintain it and use it safely just shouldn’t get it in the first place”, which I’m sure is a popular enough sentiment, but it’s also the argument for licensing. The zero barrier for entry approach is also a problem.
I’d love to see more nuanced stats than this 4-panel comic is presenting.
Guns in America, to me, are a perfect representation of the fallacy of personal responsibility.
Let’s take a scenario that, while tragic, has happened in the USA; a small boy of less than 6 finds a gun, plays with it, and shoots their baby sibling. The common refrain from responsible gun owners is: “You should’ve kept it locked and trained your family to use it responsibly!”
But who’s “you”? The shooter? The victim? One was killed and one was traumatized. The parent? They didn’t suffer nearly as much as the others.
So it’s not even the only issue where I hear “We need parents to be more responsible!” but simply saying that won’t change the number of drunk deadbeat parents putting zero effort into their children; and potentially leading other real human beings to suffer for it.
In terms of assigning responsibility, this is an easy one.
“You” refers to the firearm’s owner. Firearm ownership comes with a high degree of responsibility. It means knowing and following the four rules, at least two of which must be broken at the same time for someone to get hurt. It means maintaining a reasonable degree of control over that firearm at all times, whether it’s on your person or being stored.
If anyone is “finding” a firearm, reasonable precautions were not taken to secure that firearm.
These cases all boil down to gross negligence on the owner’s part. Legally and logically, the owner should be the one to suffer the consequences.
Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, the incident gets treated as a “tragedy” and legal consequences do not get applied.
So yeah, haul the parent to court, and then sit the traumatized child down and tell them “Good news! The law has correctly identified the negligent party in this incident. You may be eligible for up to $1mil in damages!”
while he’s sitting there crying over his dead sibling. Better, you want to extend this case to a school shooting? Go announce to 30 parents that “We worked out who is negligent!” You discover common, repeating human ignorance after the fact, and nobody is saved.
The fact that some people in our society are negligent is an expected outcome. That’s why your friend will yell at you one night when you take his car keys away, and then thank you the next day when he’s sober. The point is that society can plan better for that negligence, rather than just pat themselves on the back for spotting it.
I think there is a distinction between responsibility and blame. I don’t think blame is easy to assign here, but responsibility is, the parents are responsible. Doesn’t really change anything after the fact, but I also wouldn’t say that the idea of personal responsibility is a fallacy. But just saying that people should be more responsible doesn’t actually change the situation, you’re right.
I live in Jersey and based on what you’ve written we have similar laws regarding guns, and you’re not going to believe this, but we consistently end up as one of the states with the least gun-related crimes. It must just be some crazy coincidence.
Seeing that reminds me, as atrocious as that is… the numbers are miniscule compared to the biggest killer. Pharma.
Looks to me like the United States of Epstein is Firearms Georg. The correlation is pretty weak for the rest of the data.
Though you shouldn’t listen to me, I’m not a stasts- statitcis- uh, data ninja
Oh but the 2nd amendment’s to protect from invaders foreign and domestic, to protect people and freedom…
USA, how’s that working out for you?
Highest prison population, highest rates of asset forfeiture (legalised theft by cops), highest health costs with worst health outcomes, highest rates of poisonous pollutants in “food” supply, countless ways the “democracy” is a sham with lobbying (legalised bribery) and voter suppression just the tip of the iceberg, education system and media dumbing down the population into totalitarianism, groupthink manufactured to keep people divided and conquered, false flag operations to manufacture emergencies to give government the right to rescind your rights, the orwellian named SAVE, GENIUS, CLARITY statutes and more to do the opposite continuing to worsen the situation… on and on and on it goes…
Keep repeating “we are free”, harder! XD
Those guns will start to protect you soon. Just like the wealth will begin to trickle down… annnny minute now…
deleted by creator
Oh yeah let’s shot the scorpion, snake, spider, whatever with a gun because shovels or something handy that everyone has at home and doesn’t destroy half the house when you try to kill the creature is overrated.
Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated
Let’s discuss how the number of arms per capita correlates with workers’ rights?
The problem is that every single gun law made in modern day is explicitly made to empower the police and protect the bourgeoisie.
that’s a load of crap… australia had a mass shooting, we banned guns, now we have no more gun problem… the police have literally nothing to do with it
Ask an aboriginal what they think of the police.
Do you have an example of this?
Tax stamps (recently repealed)
For the longest time, if you wanted certain types of weapons, you had to pay a $200 tax to own that weapon. These include surpressors, full auto guns, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shotguns
The point wasn’t to ban these things it was to make them prohibitively expensive because “its the poor’s who vomit violence”. And this tax was implemented in the 1940’s where $200 was off 2 or 4 times the cost of the gun itself.
A different example is gun registries and concealed carry license databases. I don’t trust the police to act calm when interacting with me when they know I have a gun. There are special classes that CCL holders take often so that they know how to read a cop and keep them calm during a traffic stop or a welfare check because cops are trained to shoot first and are very scared of the masses.
Think of Paretti here. Shot dead for having a gun. People blamed it on the ICE agent being a violent fascist thug trained like that. I don’t see it that way. I think he operated like a cop who was told no consequences.
We have videos of cops approaching black men, committing the crime of being in white people spaces, who ask them if they have a gun, the man says yes, the cop tells them at gun point to pull it out and drop it, and then shoost the man when he touches the gun.
I don’t trust police to use surveillance state information like who owns what guns in a way that won’t get me killed. Its why I’m still hesitant to get any tax stamp items. I’d love an SBR, but then I am legally required to let the ATF “inspect” my home if they ask me to. I have to tell the ATF when and where I’m moving to if I change states.
Have you looked at every gun law drafted in the last 20 years? Every single one banning certain classes of guns only targets “assault weapons”, and every time, they have exemptions for cops or ex-cops. Handguns kill significantly more people, but “assault weapons” are scary and make liberal suburbans feel mortal for once so they irrationally hate them.
Handguns kill significantly more people, but “assault weapons” are scary and make liberal suburbans feel mortal for once so they irrationally hate them.
Because assault weapon are, like you said, being banned left and right, so handgun are more accessible than assault weapon.
Anyway here’s the full meme for those ignorant. Guns on the hands of workers are an important part of worker’s rights.
Thousands of children may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
Cops (aka class traitors) have killed 33x more people than mass shootings since 1982. But sure, we’re the ones sacrificing children.
A. This is obvious whataboutism. Yes, you are literally the ones sacrificing children. The fact that you are sacrificing less children doesn’t let you off the hook.
B. Cops in the UK don’t kill nearly so many children because most of the cops are unarmed. They are unarmed because mostly everyone is unarmed. Cops killing more children (not to mention everyone else) is literally a consequence of everyone having guns.
Come on my dude, if you think the dead kids are an acceptable cost, then just admit it. Even the right wing talking heads can do that.
Cops in America don’t need guns for 90% of the stuff they do, no matter how armed the population is. They’re the actual nutjobs with guns. They’re the ones killing people over getting talked smack back or over a fucking wallet. And even if cops started getting killed from not having guns, so what? THEIR JOB is to sacrifice themselves for the public good. They can just have SWAT at the ready and have unarmed cops do almost everything. You don’t need a fucking gun to radar cars in the highway, write tickets, go to someone’s burgled house to take a note they’ll eventually lose, or bother someone over the position of their stereo knob.
What’s your point exactly? Why the fuck are you talking about cops? The simple proposition being discussed is “it would be better if there were fewer guns”. I never said there should be a special exemption for cops. No one mentioned cops until you did.
“it would be better if there were fewer guns”
There are 470 million guns in the US. This conversation is a non-starter. You are not putting that ketchup back in the bottle. Not without causing millions of deaths. It would be exactly what ICE is doing, except everyone’s got guns.
Okay, but where are these American arm-bearing workers? What are they waiting for?
They don’t shoot first.
So they just sit on the gun for no purpose? Last i checked the worker is extra fucked right now, while ICE is often defeated not with gun, but continuously harassment from the public. Last i checked Charlie Kirk aren’t killed by some frustrated worker.
There’s something that most resistance groups know about that is called “winning the narrative”. If you open fire first, it’s easier for the government to justify cracking down on you as a “violent terrorist”.
We really need to work on that. But, irresponsibility and violence is not a them vs us problem. Stockpile guns and there’s still the potential that no matter how just your cause, when you use them innocents will get caught in the crossfire. So, what’s your angle? Do you want American workers to disarm or do you want American workers to take up arms against fascism?
Well the state of New York claims they have one in prison, but I think they’re wrong.
Silence peasant. You lack the necessary qualifications to interpret the old texts, leave that to your betters.
Ew wtf
I say this as strong 2nd Amendment advocate; firearms aren’t the cause of our violence they are a symptom. The truth is that the United States is a violent country and it always has been.
Still, if you start tearing the Gun Homicide rate apart you’ll quickly run into some problematic details.
where is switzerland? on the chart, this often gets touted as the counterpoint
On this chart Norway would also be listed with 29 guns per person. These are owned by only 10% of the population however, and automatic rifles are banned for civilians. I don’t disagree with the sentiment of this meme, but it’s cherry picking data in exactly the same manner as “the other side” would do just for a cheap gotcha argument.
These are owned by only 10% of the population however
Thats the case in America too, iirc like 30% of households have at least 1 gun, and if you assume 4 people per household, and 1.25 gun per American, that means the average gun-owning household has 16 guns.
It makes a lot of sense to own more than one gun. For self defense you might own one shotgun, one handgun, and a smaller handgun for concealed carry. If you’re a hunter, you likely want two rifles in different calibers, a shotgun, and a hand gun. In addition to that you might have an old gun laying around or grandpa’s old hunting gun, a range toy, some historic gun you like for some reason. Sport target shooters will have a few different guns, depending on what disciplines they shoot. Then there are also more serious collectors who might have dozens or hundreds of different firearms.
Yes. What’s the point of owning a firearm if you can’t have a gun for when you’re sleeping in your bedroom, a gun when you’re on the toilet, a gun when you’re on the couch watching the TV, a gun when you’re at the front door greeting guests, a gun when you’re driving your F150, a gun for that second amendment right, a gun when you go grocery shopping, a gun when you go buying clothes, a gun to go with your Tony Montana cosplay and you know, a gun just for fun. What are you supposed to do? Go outside without a gun? Use one gun for all those things? Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
You don’t need all those guns. You want all those guns.
Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
We call this the New York Reload and strapping down with like six pistols is a legitimate tactic.
Very true. People have all kinds of stuff they don’t actually need, but just like having.
I’m not sure the number of guns someone owns makes a difference regarding public safety and gun crime.
I support stricter gun laws in the US, registered ownership, some kind of license, sales only through licenses dealers, restricted advertising, waiting times, safe storage requirements, etc. A lot of gun regulations in the US are not very effective and more symbolic. Bothering legal owners more doesn’t necessarily help with violent crimes using firearms.
Fundamentally the main reasons for gun crime are social and can improved without changing gun regulations.
I agree. The main reasons for crime are social and in America that should definitely be improved upon, but have you questioned why specifically gun related crimes are so high compared to let’s say knife-related crimes? Because in Europe it’s probably the opposite, knife-related crimes are higher than gun-related crimes.
Yes, easy gun availability makes gun crime more likely. If you think your victim might have a gun, you want to use a gun to rob them. Knives are very deadly weapons as well and very hard to regulate.
In many European countries it’s easier to get a gun illegally than legally.
Any kind of registration of ANYTHING in the US is a bad idea. Especially at a time where the federal government is openly genocidal towards certain minorities, especially trans people. Having a list of trans people who own guns would be free eats for them if they declared every single one a terrorist or enemy of the state.
A valid concern.
A gun registry wouldn’t list if people are trans or not though. A list of trans people you would get through healthcare and insurance. Changes of a legal name is probably registered somewhere as well. So they would need to cross reference.
If they want to go after trans people individually, they would go for leaders and activists first. They are easily found on social media nowadays. Then go after organized groups.
An individual armed trans person is much less of a concern, than organized groups armed or not.
Who are you to tell how many of those someone needs? If someone isn’t a murderous psychopath it does not matter how many guns they have cause exactly none of them will be used on a person.
Let’s me rephrase it then. You can want to have all those guns but it’s not sensible to have all those guns.
The argument here is that it’s sensible to have so many guns. It’s not sensible because even among Americans the median gun owner owns 2 guns. You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
What you described in the first sentence is entirely reasonable, you just don’t understand it.
Here’s an evaluation based strictly on cost.
My hunting rifles cost something like $2 per round or more to fire. If I want to go to the range and practice technique firing 50 to 100 times is normal. This is a cost of $100 to $200 dollars.
My plinking, or training, rifles on the other have a cost of about 4 cents per round to fire. So now a practice day at the range is below $5.
However I cannot hunt with a training rifle, it’s caliber is far too small.
It’s the same with shotguns and handguns. The heavier ones are necessary for real activities but they cost a lot to train with. The smaller caliber ones are much less expensive to train with but aren’t useful for real work.
What you are missing, IMO, is that firearms are tools and people who use their tools tend to own more than one of each.
TBH if you’re a hunter you DO need different guns, because a gun for deer is overkill for something like wolves/boars but mostly useless against something like a bear. But aside from that, if I did live in the US I would be a collector, but the only guns I’d seriously plan to buy brand new would be a carry pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. And as long as they’re following the law and no one’s getting hurt, I don’t think it matters how many guns one could have.
Ah yes, the two genders, completely sane “piles of guns” owner and raging psychopath.
Nuance doesn’t exist, accidents don’t happen and a mostly overlooked societal mental health crisis is woke DEI propaganda.
I think carrying the guns around plays a big role too
Also the social safety net and availability of (mental) healthcare, it’s not like Europe doesn’t have some glaring problems in that regard but holy shit is it better than whatever the US is doing.
yeah the type of firearm would be very useful data
Switzerland distributes a lot of firearms, particularly through their mandatory military service. But Switzerland also very tightly controls the supply of ammunition for all of those firearms they issue.
Uhm not really, I have multiple family members which store quite a bit of ammunition at home and while noone might get them by accident you could easily get the guns and the ammo if you wanted to.
Can’t shoot your gun if you don’t have ammo.
Which get very stricktly regulated in Switzerland
next to germanybetween Portugal and Canada. according to small arms survey, which supplied the data, switzerland has about 25 guns per 100 people and .5 deaths per 100k people..5 deaths per 100 people.
You mean per 100,000 people, right?
yeah, fixed
Thank god 😅
Alright, thanks for confirming!
Total homicides, total deaths, firearm homicides, or firearm deaths? Because the graph in the comic is intentionally misleading that way.
violent killings involving firearms, i think it said
So mostly suicides then
don’t think so actually, have a look.
Czechia and Austria are also worth putting on this chart.
They only understand scattershot, not scatter plots.
