It could be that the increase in gun related murders may be a factor in motivating people to purchase guns for protection. And the increase in ownership may also be a reflection of the number of people who purchased guns for a planned suicide, as evidenced by the rise in that number too.
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.
The issue still starts with people using guns to take lives (as this is the point of guns), so inevitably more guns will mean more deaths by guns. The correlation sort of implies a causality in any case. If you want to kill someone and you have access to a gun or a knife, you will use the gun.
Except this is verifiable bullshit, as you’ve been told numerous times. Increases in guns do not cause increases in homicide, nor does your gun grabbing bullshit reduce it.
Lmao funny how you have to cite bullshit from a known propaganda factory that intentionally ignores the overwhelming majority of data just to find the one place the stats line up in your favor.
I have, multiple fucking times, and all you do is dismiss them out of hand and try to pivot back to your constructed narrative, so why would I keep trying when you’ve overwhelmingly proven facts are irrelevant to your narrative?
It could be that the increase in gun related murders may be a factor in motivating people to purchase guns for protection. And the increase in ownership may also be a reflection of the number of people who purchased guns for a planned suicide, as evidenced by the rise in that number too.
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.
The issue still starts with people using guns to take lives (as this is the point of guns), so inevitably more guns will mean more deaths by guns. The correlation sort of implies a causality in any case. If you want to kill someone and you have access to a gun or a knife, you will use the gun.
And in doing so, you’ll be able to kill a lot more people. A gun will almost always be able to kill more people than a knife.
Except this is verifiable bullshit, as you’ve been told numerous times. Increases in guns do not cause increases in homicide, nor does your gun grabbing bullshit reduce it.
It isn’t bullshit:
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
Lmao funny how you have to cite bullshit from a known propaganda factory that intentionally ignores the overwhelming majority of data just to find the one place the stats line up in your favor.
It’s Stanford…
For there being an “overwhelming majority of data” that supports your conclusion, you have yet to cite a single source. How strange.
I have, multiple fucking times, and all you do is dismiss them out of hand and try to pivot back to your constructed narrative, so why would I keep trying when you’ve overwhelmingly proven facts are irrelevant to your narrative?
If I am being honest, I don’t remember the things you’ve cited in the past. I was talking about this thread.
You using slurs and getting banned for it has been way more memorable.