The rest of the world that has similar issues with shit wages and shit mental health services but nowhere near the gun violence per capita beg to differ
Yeah, you’re gonna have to be, like, a lot more specific than “the rest of the world”…
Most of the world doesn’t enjoy the level of firearm freedoms that we do, so it should be unsurprising that they have a lower level of “gun deaths”. This does not mean they have a lower level of deaths, and still dozens of other countries that don’t enjoy any level of freedom at all because they lack the capacity to fight back against oppressive and tyrannical governments.
While gun grabbers like to microfocus on “gun violence”, sensible people take a holistic approach to “violence” in discussion.
It DOES mean more deaths when you are talking about the western world. Guns are a tool that are made specifically to KILL PEOPLE, they are remarkably good at it. Yes, you do have a higher level of firearm freedom from the rest of the world, and that is exactly why you have a spree shooting problem
60 years ago, US citizens could mail order guns to their doorstep and shooting clubs were common place in schools, yet mass shootings like we see today were unheard of. Violence in the US has slowly decreased over time, just as it has in other western countries, but gun violence hasn’t dropped at a faster rate than that, which indicates that gun control hasn’t impacted gun violence. Increased gun control =/= decreased gun violence.
The European countries that people point to as counter examples to this don’t have mass shootings or gun violence because gun ownership is nearly or outright impossible. Gun culture is vilified, self defense is basically illegal, and owning a gun (in countries that allow it) requires so many hoops to jump through that it’s hardly worth doing. Some people feel this level of government control is a good thing, but it’s inconsistent with the US 2nd amendment.
If the goal is to eliminate gun violence, then guns need banned. The US can’t do that without amending their Constitution. Gun control that maintains ownership will never eliminate gun violence, so calls for more gun control will never stop.
In order to maintain gun rights and decrease gun violence, people should ask what changed between now and 60 years ago.
Your northern Neighbor, where I live, has had ONE mass shooting in recent memory, and that was in the 1980’s. You can buy guns here for hunting, and even non hunting guns for shit like farms and shooting ranges. Yes its a LOT harder to get a gun here, but if you want one and dont have mental health or abuse issues that’d make people uncomfortable with you owning one, you can jump through the hoops to get one. Every SINGLE other country has shown that increased gun control means less gun violence. On the topic of amending the Constitution… you do realize your sacred gun rights CAME from an amendment? Its fucking batshit that you consider a system thay worked when we hadnt even flown a plane yet is still workable for this day and age. The times have changed, gun laws need to change with them.
Guns are a tool that are made specifically to KILL PEOPLE
And steak knives are tools that are designed to consume food but they still KILL PEOPLE all the same. Not sure what your point is.
Yes, you do have a higher level of firearm freedom from the rest of the world, and that is exactly why you have a spree shooting problem
Except we’ve ALWAYS had a higher level of firearm freedom. But these incidents have only been become popular in the last 30 years, in which time our firearm freedoms (and freedoms in general) have only seen more and more restrictions.
US states with the highest level of gun violence are ALSO the states with the highest level of gun restrictions.
My point is a gun can kill a LOT more people, a LOT faster, with LESS skill than any other comparable tool, which means more people can kill more victims before something is able to stop them, the kill count from a mass shooting is almost always higher than a mass stabbing. And good luck if you think your civilian firearms would be enough to take on your state of the art army. If the Army had the will to oppress its own citizens, it could, and whether or not its citizens were armed would factor very little in that will
To my knowledge, most countries require YEARS of training and certification in order to be able to drive a vehicle, for that very reason dumbass. Do mass vehicular murder incidents happen as much as mass shootings? No
The rest of the world that has similar issues with shit wages and shit mental health services but nowhere near the gun violence per capita beg to differ
Yeah, you’re gonna have to be, like, a lot more specific than “the rest of the world”…
Most of the world doesn’t enjoy the level of firearm freedoms that we do, so it should be unsurprising that they have a lower level of “gun deaths”. This does not mean they have a lower level of deaths, and still dozens of other countries that don’t enjoy any level of freedom at all because they lack the capacity to fight back against oppressive and tyrannical governments.
While gun grabbers like to microfocus on “gun violence”, sensible people take a holistic approach to “violence” in discussion.
It DOES mean more deaths when you are talking about the western world. Guns are a tool that are made specifically to KILL PEOPLE, they are remarkably good at it. Yes, you do have a higher level of firearm freedom from the rest of the world, and that is exactly why you have a spree shooting problem
60 years ago, US citizens could mail order guns to their doorstep and shooting clubs were common place in schools, yet mass shootings like we see today were unheard of. Violence in the US has slowly decreased over time, just as it has in other western countries, but gun violence hasn’t dropped at a faster rate than that, which indicates that gun control hasn’t impacted gun violence. Increased gun control =/= decreased gun violence.
The European countries that people point to as counter examples to this don’t have mass shootings or gun violence because gun ownership is nearly or outright impossible. Gun culture is vilified, self defense is basically illegal, and owning a gun (in countries that allow it) requires so many hoops to jump through that it’s hardly worth doing. Some people feel this level of government control is a good thing, but it’s inconsistent with the US 2nd amendment.
If the goal is to eliminate gun violence, then guns need banned. The US can’t do that without amending their Constitution. Gun control that maintains ownership will never eliminate gun violence, so calls for more gun control will never stop.
In order to maintain gun rights and decrease gun violence, people should ask what changed between now and 60 years ago.
Your northern Neighbor, where I live, has had ONE mass shooting in recent memory, and that was in the 1980’s. You can buy guns here for hunting, and even non hunting guns for shit like farms and shooting ranges. Yes its a LOT harder to get a gun here, but if you want one and dont have mental health or abuse issues that’d make people uncomfortable with you owning one, you can jump through the hoops to get one. Every SINGLE other country has shown that increased gun control means less gun violence. On the topic of amending the Constitution… you do realize your sacred gun rights CAME from an amendment? Its fucking batshit that you consider a system thay worked when we hadnt even flown a plane yet is still workable for this day and age. The times have changed, gun laws need to change with them.
And steak knives are tools that are designed to consume food but they still KILL PEOPLE all the same. Not sure what your point is.
Except we’ve ALWAYS had a higher level of firearm freedom. But these incidents have only been become popular in the last 30 years, in which time our firearm freedoms (and freedoms in general) have only seen more and more restrictions.
US states with the highest level of gun violence are ALSO the states with the highest level of gun restrictions.
My point is a gun can kill a LOT more people, a LOT faster, with LESS skill than any other comparable tool, which means more people can kill more victims before something is able to stop them, the kill count from a mass shooting is almost always higher than a mass stabbing. And good luck if you think your civilian firearms would be enough to take on your state of the art army. If the Army had the will to oppress its own citizens, it could, and whether or not its citizens were armed would factor very little in that will
You mean like…a truck? Like the French one that was used to kill and maim way more people than any gun in American history?
This is such a bad faith argument. If trucks were the supreme killing instrument then each soldier would be issued a truck.
The only “bad faith argument” is you pretending not to understand why that makes zero sense.
The difference is guns are better suited to destroying a specific target. But these people obviously aren’t targeting anyone at all.
If you lined up a street full of ISIL terrorists, the truck would be the far more effective weapon.
Then why aren’t these people using trucks?
To my knowledge, most countries require YEARS of training and certification in order to be able to drive a vehicle, for that very reason dumbass. Do mass vehicular murder incidents happen as much as mass shootings? No
Let me get this straight; You think driver training teaches you how not to murder people…? Is that right?
…and I’m the dumbass
Lmao you have the critical thinking skills of a salamander, its adorable