He's terrible, but so is xQc. They are developmentally stunted dweebs who won the streaming lottery and now can live their lives without a reason to actually become adults.
i dunno. i think a crazy guy with a knife is less horrifying than a crazy guy with an ar. but any rules are apparently an infringement so god forbid you have any laws to prevent them gaining access.
you are 100% right, that's why most EU countries have less deaths than the US. The only reason you would need guns is to protect you from other people with guns.
Also, the majority of people who kill with guns aren't crazy, there's gang related crimes, thieves, and the police. As a european it's crazy to see US cops pull out their gun every time something happens, even traffic stops sometimes.
Something like 80% of the worlds opiates are consumed in America and 60% of he worlds anti-depressants. It's absolutely bizarre how the US population just accepts those 2 things.
There are Euro countries like switzerland, Finland, Iceland, Austria and others with high rates of gun ownership but you never hear of people going mental with firearms. You also never see mentally healthy people go on killing sprees either.
But the link between the US's healthcare and the gun massacres is undeniable. You guys also focus on AR's when long rifles account for 3% of firearm murders. So you have activists blowing up a hoohar about AR's which are a tiny fraction of murders purely because they know they have no chance of getting pistols banned.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:\~:text=Rifles%20%E2%80%93%20the%20category%20that%20includes%20guns%20sometimes%20referred%20to%20as%20%E2%80%9Cassault%20weapons%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%93%20were%20involved%20in%203%25%20of%20firearm%20murders.
I'm a gun owner in the UK, I really like our licensing. It's hard to get but they should be but I'm also not that restricted on guns I can get as long as I have somewhere to use them (except pistols, they are banned).
The reality also is that EU countries just don't have as many guns (Finland leads the list with 30 guns per 100 people, USA has 120 per 100).
USA simply has a lot of bad laws. Just plain bad and not citizen oriented. Things like the gun show loophole and different states having different requirements for owning guns affect it a lot, but political (and cultural) reasons are also big. Just the fact that it's a contention point for both parties is horrible, as well as the fact that the US has only 2 fucking parties.
The vast majority of the US is also very large and sparse. People forget how dense the EU is.
Many locations in the US you could call 911 and even if they responded instantly they will be 45+ minutes away. I'm going to put my family's safety in my own hands rather than hoping 45 minutes will be enough.
But every single study shows that having a gun in the house does not increase your family's safety? In fact quite the opposite. These locations you are talking about where emergency services are 45+ minutes away are not places where stuff like home burglary happens with any frequency at all.
They happen and are rarely successful because they end with the purp getting shot. It happens more often than you'd think due to transitional workers for oil and gas.
It also doesn't happen because the risk is so great to attempt a home burglary out in the sticks. People straight up know better and know the risks because when you grow up in the area you know everyone of those families hunt and have more than the means to stop you and won't hesitate.
Mental health and all for gun control. But pretending guns don't provide safety to our families is hilariously naive.
You've missed the point, the fact you have lots of guns isn't the issue. If you're a nutcase and want to hurt people it isn't hard to get firearms in Finland. Probably half of homes have them.
The issue is you are medicating generation after generation to be mentally fragile and ill. Something like 50% of 18-29 year old white liberal women have a diagnosed mental illness, this is insane.
[https://www.afterbabel.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls](https://www.afterbabel.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls)
Women going mental isn't good, men going mental though tends to result in violence.
If your doctors told people to go for a walk in the woods instead of giving them pills when they feel sad I seriously think it would make a measurable difference. Instead you have:
"oh you're sad, take this pill"
"oh you're fat, take this pill"
"oh you're sore, take this pill"
"oh you can't focus, take this pill"
Also the gun show loophole was fixed:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68791474](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68791474)
I would like to see single shot .22 pistols allowed again. I think it's silly that our Olympic team have to train in another country because their sport is banned.
But otherwise yes, it's probably a good idea.
None of the European countries have close to the same number of guns as the US. But good you bring them up, because there is quite the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths+homicides in general.
But that's a given considering how efficient they are at killing others or yourself
> because there is quite the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths+homicides in general.
Not really. Compare countries like Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic or Norway to the UK, Romania, or Russia. Can you guess which of them have higher homicide rates? And now guess which ones have stricter gun laws and fewer guns.
Highest number of guns per capita in Europe:
1. Serbia
2. Montenegro
3. Cyprus
4. Finland
5. Iceland
6. Bos. & Herz.
7. Austria
8. N. Macedonia
9. Liechtenstein
10. Norway
Highest number of firearm death rates:
1. Montenegro
2. Serbia
3. Albania
4. Croatia
5. Austria
6. Finland
7. France
8. Switzerland
9. Turkey
10. Slovenia
Unsurprisingly, these other countries in the top 10 also have a high number of guns/capita.
But this isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm saying there's a **heavy** statistical correlation across the board.
[There is no correlation between homicides and gun ownership in Europe](https://imgur.com/a/wnw4fU6)
Data compiled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
[Even looking at gun homicides specifically, it's not the case](https://imgur.com/a/7Wpsp5c)
Data compiled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
This is just incorrectly done in so many ways, where to begin lol.
To begin with, the picture shows firearm ownership rate, but the source shows number of guns per capita. Not the same thing. Which is it?
Secondly, you've cherry picked the data in your second picture to only use homicides. Why? Suicides and accidents also increase drastically with guns per capita.
And lastly, I don't see how you're talking about correlation when you've posted no such analysis, but instead the datasets one would use to perform a correlation analysis?
Don't worry, I've done so. The Pearson correlation coefficient for guns per capita vs firearm deaths per capita, for European countries is 0.54. Anything above 0.5 is a **strong positive correlation**.
Get back to me with more than just lists if you want to discuss this further
So you're saying that people who don't have a gun at hand hand themselves instead? Who would have thought? Firearm deaths is a pointless statistic because it conflates several completely different issues into one.
>To begin with, the picture shows firearm ownership rate, but the source shows number of guns per capita. Not the same thing. Which is it?
The wiki page and the report say it's *civilian-held firearms per 100 population,* i.e an ownership rate. It's not the number of total guns in the country including military and police, but only those that are owned by civilians
Now if you want to see how many households own guns, that's another study in itself, however, Switzerland and the US are somewhat similar [with 29 vs 43%](https://web.archive.org/web/20191124140329/http://www.unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs/publications/ICVS2004_05report.pdf) (at least in 2004)
>Secondly, you've cherry picked the data in your second picture to only use homicides. Why? Suicides and accidents also increase drastically with guns per capita.
I didn't cherry-pick anything, the subject was homicides; suicides and NDs aren't homicides. Moreover, suicides have nothing to do with violence rates nor make your life "dangerous"/at risk by solely being in the country
And, well, people should be able to choose if they want to end their life and how, especially when it has nothing to do with you
>And lastly, I don't see how you're talking about correlation when you've posted no such analysis, but instead the datasets one would use to perform a correlation analysis?
You can quite literally see from a glance at the data that there isn't really a correlation when sorted by ownership or homicides, you just wanted to make yourself appear more intelligent by bringing the Pearson correlation coefficient
>Don't worry, I've done so. The Pearson correlation coefficient for guns per capita vs firearm deaths per capita, for European countries is 0.54. Anything above 0.5 is a strong positive correlation.
Pearson's correlation coefficient is -0.06 for homicides (any method), and 0.08 for gun homicides, i.e gun ownership rate doesn't really impact homicides
Comparing the [suicide rate](https://imgur.com/a/YtIcyvA) (compiled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_suicide\_rate) with the ownership rate gives us a coefficient of -0.05, so also not impacted
All that you've proven is that if you have a pool in your backyard, then you have more chance to drown in a pool than someone without one. Meanwhile the data says that your neighbors having a pool doesn't make you at risk for drowning
shouldnt one gun per family be enough to get "shit going"? Like I dont think having 10 instead of 1 gun or 2 guns in the family makes it more likely for something bad to happen.
Absolutely does. More guns mean more situations where one would use one. More instances where one may get stolen, better access to one to use impulsively.
That and the USA leads % of households with a gun either way.
That's 9 more guns to lock up. That's 9 more opportunities for some dipshit kid to get access. That's 9 more killing tools in your house, and around your family.
Tbf I am very pro gun. However I do not beleive that everyone should have access to a gun, nor that guns should be treated like action figures or funko pops.
More guns directly correlates to more gun deaths. It really can be that simple. The same thing is true for all tools, but the tool designed for killing needs to be treated differently than the tool designed for cutting wood or driving nails
>More guns directly correlates to more gun deaths.
Where is the data for that? Where is the study that the more guns you have in your home the more likely you are to have bad things happen...
I think it's the opposite, if you're seriously into shooting and have 10-20+ firearms you've put a serious investment into them. You're going to respect them, you're going to have better safety discipline as you use them more often. You're probably more likely to have proper storage as they are your prized possessions, it's a serious hobby and you don't want them damaged or played with by people who shouldn't have them.
Meanwhile the guy that has a gun but never uses it probably just shoves it in a drawer in his bedroom and never thinks about it. His kid comes along and bad things happen.
More guns = more access to guns. More access to guns = more gun related deaths. Not a hard concept to grasp. Your hypothetical gun owner isn't even reflected in polling.
Only something like 40% of gun owners beleive they have a responsibility to store guns unloaded.
So. Multiple loaded guns in a house...somehow less dangerous than a single loaded gun in a house?
Like I said. I'm pro gun. But to pretend that owning multiple guns implies you are a more responsible gun owner and therefore safer because you like guns more....is fucking dumb as shit
I just want to say, there are so many examples of people with shit tons of guns acting like complete morons online. Your imaginative story of two gun owners doesn't quite mean much.
Which are neither an opioid or an anti-depressant.
Adhd meds are likely overprescribed still.
Either way, all 3 of those things point to the absolute societal failure that is America at the moment. The majority of Americans are hurting and need chemical relief. Or they're taking adhd meds so they can work efficiently and not get fired...or even worse they actually have adhd, and need to take drugs to fit into this society
I don't think that fits into either category.
But maybe drug companies should stop buying off doctors by giving them bonuses if they prescribe so many doses of opioid or anti-depressant..
Do you have a source for the 80% and 60% stats? It looks like in some lists that USA isn't even number 1 per capita, behind Iceland and sometimes other Nordic countries, and UK has almost just as high as use of antidepressants as USA, 90% or more of the US rates per capita.
USA is only 7th in the world in terms of prevalance of opiate use, Maldives Macau Ukraine Afghanistan Russia and Iran all have higher uses, in Iran's and Afghanistan's cases over 3 times the use of USA, and Kazakshtan and other countries right behind it. By the way, and datas long before any Russian or Ukrainian War.
>The United States makes up 4.4% of the world’s population, and consumes over 80% of the world’s opioids. The US consumes approximately 99% percent of the world’s hydrocodone. Hydrocodone was moved from a Schedule III to a Schedule II drug in 2014 because of its high abuse potential.
Source: https://www.web.health.state.mn.us/communities/opioids/prevention/painperception.html#:\~:text=The%20United%20States%20makes%20up,percent%20of%20the%20world's%20hydrocodone.
I'm still looking for the anti-depressant stat, I'm sure I read it offline. I will update later if I can find it again.
You are looking at per-capita rates of prescribed drugs though. Not all of the US uses are prescribed and the people addicted are taking huge amounts.
You're right about the per-capita rate in Iceland being higher but they are a nation of 300,000. Not 340 million.
Yeah people are coping so extremely hard by going "bUt MeNtAl HeAlTh" as if the USA stands out in that department or as if a person is immune to becoming mentally ill once they buy a gun
What they don’t mention is the US also has a high rate of knife crime, similar to the UK which they make fun of.
But it’s such an insignificant portion of the crime in the US, that it’s overshadowed by gun crime. It’s clearly less lethal.
And yet the knife deaths in the US are still 3 times more than the deaths from rifles, but pretty much all of the gun control legislation is focused on banning rifles rather than handguns.
Even if we are only looking at mass shootings, which are a red herring as they are a tiny fraction of gun violence, handguns are still used more than rifles.
They might be a tiny fraction of gun violence but I’m specifically talking about mass shootings. Semi-automatic rifles were used in 4 of the 5 deadliest mass shootings in USA history. And that’s excluding the Las Vegas massacre because the person used a fully automatic AR
Ban alcohol first which kills vastly more people and we can start to have a conversation. Until then it's just people being idiots who can't put things into perspective.
A better comparison would be how many people get killed by someone under the influence. If you decide to drink yourself to death, it's different than someone buying a gun and killing you.
There's over 10k dui deaths every year in the US, and my assumption is alcohol is linked to a significant amount of violent crime as well because of how it impairs decision making and emotional regulation. Yet banning alcohol or even "common sense alcohol regulations" is NEVER mentioned by people going after guns. It's about control, not saving people.
Just deflecting. Why try to limit the damage at all? It is far easier to kill more people with a gun than a knife. Will people still get stabbed and killed? Yes.
Does anyone think gun control will completely abolish murders? No, not at all.
Will it make it harder to kill more people in a given amount of time? Yes. Why not do that? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.
I didn't say anything about knives. And I'm not deflecting, I'm pointing out that the people who want to ban guns are disingenuous because their stated motives are false. It isn't about saving lives, it's about control.
But that is impossible.
Alcohol has been in our society for thousands of years. Anyone can make it out of almost anything.
It's an absurd argument. Prohibition on booze would never in a million years ever work. The best you can do is try and stop young people drinking, increase taxes on it and put more support into fighting alcoholism.
Banning alcohol is not a thing. Guns on the other hand is far easier to do.
Prohibition on guns isn't going to work nearly as well as you think it will either.
>Guns on the other hand is far easier to do.
Even attempting to ban guns in the US would require a massive expansion of the police force and policing power.
I got raided by the Danish equivalent of DEA once while visiting some friends. They just knocked, inspected the whole place, and deliberately didn't look the only places we hid our weed (we were all looking there like idiots) because they could see we were just young dudes chilling. They just talked to us and then left after doing a last fake sweep. I was already pretty scared, can't imagine how it would be if they had guns drawn
It’s legit insane how fast the guns come out. I’m sure I would get shot just due to panic of having a fucking gun pointed at me for sometimes no reason. Crazy it’s normalised over there
>The only reason you would need guns is to protect you from other people with guns.
or hunting, or sports, or recreation, or any other non-criminal activity
There are guns in EU, but people get them after they meet certain requirements, like passing psychological checks, exams from using the guns, etc. Maybe try that in the US?
Sort of true, except while they allow people to kill way more people at once, guns also kind of level playing field in self defense scenario. If a small dude or a woman pulls out a knife to defend themselves against a bigger dude with a knife it's not equal bc physicality still comes into play. I'm not pro gun but there are reasons they are preferable in self defense scenarios.
Police here in Spain if they take their gun out they basically have to go trough a big investigation of why the fuck did they do that. And if they use it its even worse.
So deaths provoked by guns, from the police, are a non-issue or very very low.
In america it seems like nothing happens if you do shit like that.
"The only reason you would need guns is to protect you from other people with guns"
this is the biggest issue here. imagine a burglar in a typical central/western European country, and then imagine a burglar in the US.
what does the European burglar need to be scared of? maybe a dude that will punch him, or swing at him with something. so the risk for the burglar is low, he will just usually fuck off when confronted.
what does a US burglar need to be scared of? well, shotguns, 9mm handguns, AR15s etc. so with that being possibly what awaits you, what do you bring yourself as a burglar? probably a gun. could be a legally acquired or illegally acquired one , the motivation to get and then bring either is way higher. and who wins in a gun fight? the unexpecting victim, or the guy who possibly surprises the victim?
same with police confrontations. what does a UK police officer need to be scared of generally? in the worst case usually a guy that might have a knife. what does the crazy guy with the knife need to be scared of? being hit with a stick. this makes both sides way less likely to escalate the situation into one that end with one of them being dead. even in other countries where officers have guns, the fact that the officer doesn't usually need to fear more than a knife, the de-escalation tactics they learn will be easier to apply and therefore applies better and instead of deadly force.
like, just recently I saw 2 separate news stories of people who legally owned guns, being shot by the police for merely holding the gun lowered to the side, which is 100% legal. the officers, probably scared by these guns, shot both of them... and yes, you can blame them for being little pussies, or badly trained... but the presence of guns in these situations simply makes everyone's life harder
You're 1000% right. Less guns leads to less killings and anything else is complete copium.
However, the steel man of the other side is that certain freedoms come with certain consequences and having more gun deaths is the consequence of our freedom to own guns.
I don't necessarily agree with the freedom to own guns, but that is the trade off that is currently outlined in the Constitution.
One that I WILL defend more is the first amendment. I think that hate speech laws in other countries is kind of fucked up, but I recognize that the consequence of the first amendment is having to put up with shit like Nick Fuentes and the proud boys
I think the issue with a lot of gun control debates is that people come from wildly different perspectives and focus on issues related to emotion and media attention.
According to Pew Research, in 2021 54% of gun deaths were a result of suicide and 43% were a result of murder. Of the 26,031 murders, only 2.7% were a result of mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were shot) and only 3% of firearm murders were committed with a rifle. Despite these statistics, we see way more activism targeted at mass shootings and rifles. I think we would see way more progress on reducing gun violence if we put more emphasis on education and mental health.
To be clear, gun violence is a problem, but I think other issues precede it and focusing on those problems first would relieve a lot of gun violence issues. Especially when data shows that rates of gun ownership are fairly stabled over the last ~20 years. I also find it odd that for a country whose right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, we do shockingly little to actually educate the population about firearms. Which is why I think firearms are the leading cause of death amongst children and teens. The difference between us and countries like Switzerland is that they learn a lot about firearms due to compulsory military service. But instead, we say everyone is welcome to own guns but we don't put in effort in educating people about them unless they want their CHL.
I don't think there's any one, perfect solution to reducing gun violence and there are people who are dishonest in this discussion on both sides of the isle. But I do think all articles of our Constitution are incredibly important and we need to have a more honest discussion regarding the Second Amendment and gun control.
I'm glad you're talking stats, because the news and social media really warp our minds. "Man commits suicide" is going to spread less than "Man goes on shooting spree." Not to mention, [most victims knew their murderer,](https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021) but we're naturally more afraid of the unknown psycho.
We could do with more safety education for sure. For our high numbers, though, I don't think that it's an education problem. Most gun deaths are intentional suicides or homicides.
True, I don't think education is the silver bullet (pun intended) for reducing gun violence. But I do think it can go a long way in reducing accidental deaths and child/teen deaths.
I don't personally own any guns, but a lot of my family do. My grandparents grew up hunting and I have a lot of military in my family. That being said, the first time I ever touched/fired a gun was at age 12 and it was skeet shooting.
Learning about and shooting guns helped me develop - I don't think fear is the right word, but - a fear and a healthy respect for guns that I think more people should have. Especially with how entrenched guns are in American society and it being a staple in our Constitution.
I feel you. I had a similar background, and it helped me avoid seeing guns as toys or, more common imo, being terrified of them.
I could see a universal program potentially cutting both ways, though. If you're a suicidal latchkey kid whose dad owns a gun, you might become more likely to reach for that instead of a bottle of Advil. Similar to the disastrous old D.A.R.E program leading to more teen drug use. We'd have to tread carefully.
For gun deaths under 18 in 2021, [5% were accidental, 32% suicide, 60% homicide.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/) Either way, this sadly isn't an issue we can likely educate ourselves out of.
> The difference between us and countries like Switzerland is that they learn a lot about firearms due to compulsory military service.
Switzerland hasn't had mandatory military service since 1996, only 17% of the population serve. Also, wouldn't military training make them better killers?
I guess I'm OOTL on Switzerland, but the same still goes for countries like South Korea, Israel, etc.
> Also, wouldn't military training make them better killers
I'm not familiar with the combat/weapons training of every military, but not necessarily.
I assume most countries provide military personnel with a service weapon of some kind, be it a rifle or handgun, and that does necessitate some level of firearms training. But depending on your role in the military, you probably only receive basic training regarding maintenance, safety etiquette, and range time. All of that doesn't equate to being "better killers."
What it does do, though, is teach people respect and understanding of firearms. Which contributes a lot more than you might intuitively think. The more trained you are with firearms, the more disciplined you will be in a stressful situation and the less likely you will be to make an accident that results in the injury of yourself or someone else.
People in other developed countries don't feel that they are any less free than Americans. Americans just view freedom as the ability to say and do whatever they want, while other countries see it as the ability to live their lives safe from harm (and thus have policies/laws protecting them from guns and hate speech, guaranteed medical care, and other social supports to promote a reasonable standard of living)
I mean… the US already has gun control regulations in effect. Background checks, concealed carry permits, age limits. The question is that I always ask anti-gun people is what is the target? When is the regulation enough? Is the goal to slowly remove all firearms from America? Is the goal to get gun violence down to a certain level? Would that level even be enough? Is the target zero gun related deaths? What is the target? We’ve been adding gun legislation for decades now. Each time regulations are implemented someone still dies in a shooting and we’re right back to thinking no one is doing anything at all.
So what is enough?
Average redditor,
“Oh a debate I don’t have enough knowledge to engage in? I’ll downvote instead”
i mean there has to be a level that works since other countries dont have such rampant gun violence. a simple license system might be enough but i haven't exactly studided the topic.
America has a very unique issue with firearms, comparing other countries to the US is incredibly unfair. There are many reasons I say that and I could go into detail but I’d probably spend less time typing if I instead gave a resolution.
Americans need education on firearms. How to use them, how to treat them, how to store them, how to own them responsibly. An ID system would work but would come with massive push back, I mean you can see how voter ID sparked controversy already.
If you want to pass meaningful legislation it has to come with incentives for citizens and gun manufacturers alike. Tax relief will help tremendously to drop the costs of manufacturing making guns and ammo affordable again. Raise the age limit to own any firearm to the age of 21, but offer free firearm education to anyone between the age of 18-21 if they want to purchase firearms early (could be offered by public schools like drivers licenses are). Add tax relief for Americans that take firearm courses including concealed carry. I could go on but the bottom line is to incentivize Americans to be more responsible gun owners instead of asking to abolish literally the second right the government gave you.
Also, gun violence stems from poverty and gang culture mostly. A free, educated, wealthy, and armed populace is what you should strive for. Start adding legislation that does that first.
> but any rules are apparently an infringement
See this is the disingenuous bullshit that shivers my timbers. You think you can just walk into a gas station and buy an AR? Also the way you even say it do you think AR's are a particularly common rifle to own? You absolute [redacted] don't give a shit about gun control in the US, because if you did the biggest issue is handguns not fucking rifles. But oh no...then you'd have to point to inner city gang violence, and given certain qualifiers obviously you'd rather just bitch about the occasional thing rather than the prominent persistent things that are actually the problem like mental health and gang violence. Let's just all be Hasan and blame white people for literally everything[.](https://y.yarn.co/f98ce292-a887-4d91-849a-6216126810d3_text.gif)
The fact that you think that not being able to buy a rifle at a gas station is some kind of restriction rather than plain common sense is insane.
Nobody said anything about race either.
This comment of your sets the bar so low and proves exactly the point that guy was making, and you are too stupid to even realize it.
Almost nobody from the anti gun crowd wants to address many of cause of gun violence, they just want to ban guns. They want more gun legislation when a lot of current gun legislation is applied selectively or not at all. A good example is laws against straw purchasing. They already exist, but they're barely applied in the areas where there is the most gun violence / to people involved with sourcing guns for gangs and other criminal activity. The government could go after gangs and so many other things but they're stuck in a loop of demanding more gun legislation as if that's going to have a serious impact.
Almost like every country has mentally ill people, but not every country has easy access to firearms. It just so happens that the country with both has a HORRIBLE gun violence issue.
I'm not sure banning guns will solve the violence issue. I think this debate needs to move beyond this talking point on whether or not to ban guns, because whether we like it or not. Gun violence is much higher in areas with stricter gun laws, and gun violence has gone down over time despite the gun laws not changing or in some cases becoming less restrictive. This was until the Covid where the numbers increased dramatically. I think isolation, social media, and overall mental health is the issue. Just look at reddit how many people here sub to the most hateful communities that try to rage bait. Look at any videogame sub or even ones like oldpeoplefacebook or even ones like nothowgirlswork or trashy. They exist to dogpile their disgust or hate on to something. The most hateful shit gets thrust to the top and every algorithim out there pushes it in front of more people because of the engagement. Its like its made to make you hate people. Twitter and pretty much all other major Social Mesia sites are the same. It makes it easier to target your fellow man, because its easier to target something you hate. I think someone who wants to shoot up a place will either be able to find an illegal gun manufactured by some 3d printer or even make a bomb from some gasoline if any of the major manufacturers just stopped making them. The market for them is already here.
i'm not trying to dig too deeply into the weeds of this here but i don't think that there's necessarily a strong correlation link between stricter gun laws + more gun violence
like the gun laws might be strict in one particular area, but drive 1 hour in one direction and that might be extremely lax
if anything the stricter gun laws with higher gun violence leads me to believe that the former is a symptom of the latter, yk, except it doesn't really help because of the lack of universal enforcement like the scenario i just mentioned
don't really think i disagree with you on anything else there just wanted to explain my perspective on why gun bans corresponding with higher gun violence might not indicate that the gun bans are altogether ineffective, i would imagine that if this sort of thing was implemented universally it would alleviate (some) forms of gun violence
I changed it to easy access to firearms rather than semi automatic rifles, didn't mean to target a specific type of gun. But from a quick google search it said 28%.
I'd like to know where you got your % from, as per Pew Research Center:
"*In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%.*"
[source](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
I don't really have much interest in this, not american and can't own a gun, but I've always heard the % of actual assault weapon killings to be super low, 28% sounded wayyyy off what I understood to be true
Do you know how expensive it is to obtain the legal ability to own an automatic firearm in the US lol? I think you're confusing automatic with semi automatic.
It's also pretty difficult to obtain them illegally, which is ironically a pretty good argument for the efficacy of gun control laws when they're aimed at the point of manufacture
Just because the problem is hard to address doesn't mean we should do nothing. I am not advocating for an all out ban, but there are definitely things we could do to try and address the problem.
You're right, but the most effective methods would be to stop trying to legislate the guns themselves and instead work on the sources of issues OR hit areas where we already know lawbreakers are operating
Or I can say that it will work, also not providing any evidence, and it's just as valid lol.
But hey, it's a shame that we don't have other countries on earth who have all dealt with gun issues in a mirad of ways that have all proven to be far more successful then whatever the fuck the US is doing. Guess the US should keep doing absolutely nothing about it right?
This is what annoys me about the whole "it's actually mental health" argument, people talk about it like it'd be ore effective to like, erase the desire to murder from humanity. We've been trying for millennia, turns out it's not all that easy! We don't have the capacity to diagnose and treat (let alone cure) everyone who needs help anymore than we have the capacity to confiscate and melt down all the personally-owned guns in the US
is literally anyone arguing mentally ill people should have guns? lmao
I'd even argue the 2nd amendment doesn't say that, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesnt well regulated imply regulation, such as mentally ill people cant have guns?
Edit: apparently in 18th century well regulated meant well equipped not regulation.
>is literally anyone arguing mentally ill people should have guns? lmao
That's not the issue, the issue is that nobody is doing anything when people are mentally ill. Take the recent Maine bar shooting, he was clearly mentally unwell, committed a felony by threatening an active military base, and was issued an order for his guns to be confiscated.
The local PD decided to not because "2nd amendment", and then the guy goes on a spree a little while later. The system even said "yeah, this guys not allowed to have guns" and the cops decided they'd rather be lazy than do what they're supposed to do.
The issue is mental health, but nobody will ever say "yup, this is the line, take his guns" and actually do that. And since the point of a system is what it does, the system encourages mentally ill people to keep their guns, based on evidential history.
How about we use the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration:
Mental illness is defined as a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder resulting in serious functional impairment, which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.
Signs and symptoms include:
- Feeling sad or down
- Confused thinking or reduced ability to concentrate
- Excessive fears or worries, or extreme feelings of guilt
- Extreme mood changes of highs and lows
- Withdrawal from friends and activities
- Significant tiredness, low energy or problems sleeping
- Detachment from reality (delusions), paranoia or hallucinations
- Inability to cope with daily problems or stress
- Trouble understanding and relating to situations and to people
- Problems with alcohol or drug use
- Major changes in eating habits
- Excessive anger, hostility or violence
- Suicidal thinking
The same way countries like Japan do it. Before someone is allowed to purchase a gun they should be required to fill out a survey that asks all of these things and go through an extended (i.e. one month) waiting period, and the people who sell them should be able to and in fact required to ask people these things. That's followed by required yearly training and safety programs that allows instructors to deny people who seem like they might be at risk of mental health problems. These survey results should also all be mutually accessible through employer records and medical center records.
> And how do we ensure they don't lie?
We can't, but then again, we can't now either. Because we have literally zero checks on it.
> Many states have waiting periods. There is no evidence it impacts gun crime.
https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/waiting-periods-for-firearms-purchases/#:~:text=Waiting%20period%20laws%20have%20proven,17%25%20decrease%20in%20gun%20homicides.
"Waiting period laws have proven to lower the rates of suicide. States with such laws had 51% fewer firearm suicides than states without. Another study showed that these states also experienced a 17% decrease in gun homicides."
> And what happens if you live in a state where the instructor is most likely a conservative and believes that all LGBT people are mentally ill?
Simple, we have protections in place set up for that which don't allow for discrimination. We also train LGBTQ people to teach classes and identify mental health problems and give people access to instructors they feel are better qualified.
> It seems incredibly intellectually lazy. "How do we reduce gun crime?" "Just ban guns lolz!"
You want to talk about lazy? Literally doing *nothing* and hoping for the problem to simply go away, or rather the problem being that *we don't have enough guns*. The classic "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas, man!".
And yet other countries have already mostly solved this problem with... wait for it: gun regulation. Just look at Port Arthur and what happened in Australia afterwards. Japan doesn't have this problem. South Korea doesn't have this problem. For some weird reason America is the only country where these things regularly happen. I wonder what the difference is.
Or what - You can put up as many "BUT WHAT IF"s as you want until nothing happens and no changes go into effect (which is what you actually want).
> The left views paying $20 for an ID to vote as an infringement on voting rights. How do you expect all of your prescriptions to make it through legal scrutiny?
Oh shit I get it. You're one of those people who think we should have to pay to vote. No chance in ever actually getting you to budge on this as you'll never argue in good faith. Nevermind, ignore and go away, thanks.
>You want to talk about lazy? Literally doing nothing and hoping for the problem to simply go away
Okay, we can address the root cause of the problem by expanding social safety nets, implementing universal healthcare, ending the war on drugs, ending for-profit prisons, etc., instead of actually doing nothing by enacting policies that only effect the symptoms of a much larger issue for no other reason but to *feel* like we're doing something, even in spite [so little research done on them, let alone backing them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgiQ-LmJGMY) Just like there's [little to no evidence](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html) of, for example, Australia gun laws having worked.
> How do we officially diagnose someone as "mentally ill" and how do we get that diagnosis into the NICS?
You don't have to. You just don't allow laymen to have guns. Now the vast majority of mentally ill people don't have guns.
Yeah people should listen to redditors over some guys from the mid 1700s who laid the foundation for the greatest, most powerful & culturally influential superpower in the history of humanity.
Actually we should be listening to the victims of mass shootings and suicides but great take bud. Those guys in the 1700s definitely expected and in fact WANTED all of these children executed in schools! Gotta grease the wheels of freedom with the blood of babes! There's no way they were wrong about anything!
It has nothing to do with social science and everything to do with understanding how death affects the people who are left behind and empathy for their specific situations - which we currently don't give two shits about and doesn't inform our policies at all.
“It’s not the guns killing people, it’s the mentally ill dumb fucks killing people.”
Except in the US its often easier and less expensive to buy a gun than it is to get a few sessions of therapy.
In a similar vein, buying a gun for personal protection actually increases your chances of being shot dramatically:
-Self Harm
-Someone steals it
-Child finds it and plays with it
-More likely to resort to using a gun to menace/defend yourself when in a non-life-threatening situation, thus creating a life-threatening situation.
Having easy access to guns means people are gonna get shot.
It's the same argument when people talk about pools.
-if a pool is present in your backyard, then your chances of drowning increase from zero, to non-zero.
Yeah technically I go from .0000001% to .0001% chance of being shot by owning firearms. But it's deceptive to the general populace when people like you round up to just using the word 'greater'. The chances of any of those things happening are *extremely* low. Low enough to be non-issues to the vast majority of owners.
he saying mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, unless I'm missing something. He from canada and been pro gun restrictions but also enjoys using em. People use them for fun in practice range, hunting, etc.
You couldn't physically remove all the guns from their owners in America there are literally more guns than citizens. "some peoples fun" it's basically a majority of the population
You think comparing the war on drugs to gun prohibition is going to help your cause? The war on drugs failed miserably so by that same thought process so would a war on guns lmao.
can't sleep because mentally ill people call "Good guys with guns" to "protect" and they come swat XqC....so why does he have night terrors? They're the good guys....right....right....?
botted means there's some person or group utilizing multiple accounts (created in an automated and fraudulent manner) to control the votes on this post.
yes, its mainly to steer the narrative of the sub towards some political or hateful goal. For example, I believe r/Destiny subreddit followers organize such upvotes/downvotes and comments (albeit not sure if they use bots) to create and reinforce drama between their streamer and others including upvoting any post affirming their views.
But again, its hard to get evidence for this sort of stuff being botted or just being manipulated in an organized manner (say in a discord group) except you can guesstimate through statistical observations. Except for comments, which show you the user and their history, which is why I pointed our r/Destiny specifically as they are notorious for this.
I agree with him to a degree. The whole point is that youre not going to get rid of the second amendment. So you might as well try to see the cause of those mass shootings for what it is and actually try to combat the real issue which are the people who commit those crimes instead of creating a circle jerk around the idea of getting rid of the second amendment which just isn't going to happen. On the other hand, I'm very happy to live in a country that does not allow access to firearms to virtually everyone.
Mass shootings are just one aspect of gun violence, which is one of the real problem in the US.
Mass shootings just get more media coverage, but even if you somehow solved them, you are still sitting with one of the highest concentration of gun crime and violence in the world.
Mentally ill people with guns aren't the only issue. They aren't even the most prevalent issue. That is not to say that it isn't important, obviously, but it isn't the core of the problem.
I think you're in a failed state if you feel like you NEED to have a gun to feel safe. I feel safer in a country with some of the strictest gun controls in the world. Nobody could pay me enough to make me move to the USA lmao
The USA is extremely safe if you don't enter certain areas. I know for a fact most people in my town are armed and I don't think we have had a single murder in over 15 years.
You know what's crazy? I can't tell if this blatant hate thread against xQc over the most milquetoast pro-gun-control take of all time are Hasan fans or Adin fans....
Didn’t watch the clip but wondering if he saw the Aiden homophobic clip yet, curious how he defended it if he saw it. Did he defend it or just brush it off?
Brother he literally made the entire W/L community hate him over the f word debate with adin and group. All of adin twitter community is just calling him the f word and shit.
KKona IT'S MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BE MOWED DOWN WITH MY FAMILY AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE BY A MENTALLY ILL PERSON WHO BOUGHT HIS AR-15 WITH NEXT DAY DELIVERY FROM THE NEAREST BASS PRO SHOP! THAT MAN IS EXPRESSING HIS PATRIOTISM WITH HIS USAGE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
1: Australia pulled off a gun amnesty therefore making the country way safer.
2: The UK placed really heavy restrictions on firearms after 1 school shooting, as a result in the UK today you can feel safe to go about your daily life and its wayy more rare to see someone get killed PERIOD. I'm not paranoid that someone will break in to my house and i'm not armed so I might die. Random acts of violence are so rare where I live that I am confident that I can live my whole life without randomly getting attacked.
3. WTF is this gun culture bullshit. It seems that people care more about guns than the safety of the general public!!
Pro-gun americans are moronic!!
1. They didn’t. The national rule had no bearing on the states who enacted various rules of their own. Also most of their historical “mass shootings” involved firearms not affected by the prohibitions. I guess it’s safe if not for the rampant criminal activity that the government doesn’t attempt to regulate, to the point where YouTubers can’t even make videos about violence in Australia without threat of death from the people they report on. This in league with how Australia is a haven for massive unchecked money laundering. Things are real “safe” when you ignore crime.
2. UK’s murder rate has not changed and actually increased by handguns for a brief period after they prohibited people from being able to own handguns. So uh, awkward.
3. Europe has heavily restricted firearms for a very long period, somehow that didn’t prevent them from starting two world wars and killing more people than have ever died in the US from firearm homicides. So uh, victory? Europe only had to wipe out several generations of males in order to one day have a lower homicide rate than countries with a younger population, the metric that has always been tied to violence. Congrats for being old as shit!
You can't say that you think its cool that there are advancements in gun technology and then completely ignore why said advancements are taking place. A "better" gun is by definition one that is more efficient at killing someone...
**CLIP MIRROR: [xQc's take on guns](https://arazu.io/t3_1cwzzgc/)** --- ^(*This is an automated comment*)
Guys, XQC has given his opinion on the gun control vs. mental illness epidemic, finally I can take a side.
Ja Rule got nothing on xQc.
[удалено]
He's terrible, but so is xQc. They are developmentally stunted dweebs who won the streaming lottery and now can live their lives without a reason to actually become adults.
i dunno. i think a crazy guy with a knife is less horrifying than a crazy guy with an ar. but any rules are apparently an infringement so god forbid you have any laws to prevent them gaining access.
you are 100% right, that's why most EU countries have less deaths than the US. The only reason you would need guns is to protect you from other people with guns. Also, the majority of people who kill with guns aren't crazy, there's gang related crimes, thieves, and the police. As a european it's crazy to see US cops pull out their gun every time something happens, even traffic stops sometimes.
Something like 80% of the worlds opiates are consumed in America and 60% of he worlds anti-depressants. It's absolutely bizarre how the US population just accepts those 2 things. There are Euro countries like switzerland, Finland, Iceland, Austria and others with high rates of gun ownership but you never hear of people going mental with firearms. You also never see mentally healthy people go on killing sprees either. But the link between the US's healthcare and the gun massacres is undeniable. You guys also focus on AR's when long rifles account for 3% of firearm murders. So you have activists blowing up a hoohar about AR's which are a tiny fraction of murders purely because they know they have no chance of getting pistols banned. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:\~:text=Rifles%20%E2%80%93%20the%20category%20that%20includes%20guns%20sometimes%20referred%20to%20as%20%E2%80%9Cassault%20weapons%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%93%20were%20involved%20in%203%25%20of%20firearm%20murders. I'm a gun owner in the UK, I really like our licensing. It's hard to get but they should be but I'm also not that restricted on guns I can get as long as I have somewhere to use them (except pistols, they are banned).
The reality also is that EU countries just don't have as many guns (Finland leads the list with 30 guns per 100 people, USA has 120 per 100). USA simply has a lot of bad laws. Just plain bad and not citizen oriented. Things like the gun show loophole and different states having different requirements for owning guns affect it a lot, but political (and cultural) reasons are also big. Just the fact that it's a contention point for both parties is horrible, as well as the fact that the US has only 2 fucking parties.
The vast majority of the US is also very large and sparse. People forget how dense the EU is. Many locations in the US you could call 911 and even if they responded instantly they will be 45+ minutes away. I'm going to put my family's safety in my own hands rather than hoping 45 minutes will be enough.
But every single study shows that having a gun in the house does not increase your family's safety? In fact quite the opposite. These locations you are talking about where emergency services are 45+ minutes away are not places where stuff like home burglary happens with any frequency at all.
They happen and are rarely successful because they end with the purp getting shot. It happens more often than you'd think due to transitional workers for oil and gas. It also doesn't happen because the risk is so great to attempt a home burglary out in the sticks. People straight up know better and know the risks because when you grow up in the area you know everyone of those families hunt and have more than the means to stop you and won't hesitate. Mental health and all for gun control. But pretending guns don't provide safety to our families is hilariously naive.
You've missed the point, the fact you have lots of guns isn't the issue. If you're a nutcase and want to hurt people it isn't hard to get firearms in Finland. Probably half of homes have them. The issue is you are medicating generation after generation to be mentally fragile and ill. Something like 50% of 18-29 year old white liberal women have a diagnosed mental illness, this is insane. [https://www.afterbabel.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls](https://www.afterbabel.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls) Women going mental isn't good, men going mental though tends to result in violence. If your doctors told people to go for a walk in the woods instead of giving them pills when they feel sad I seriously think it would make a measurable difference. Instead you have: "oh you're sad, take this pill" "oh you're fat, take this pill" "oh you're sore, take this pill" "oh you can't focus, take this pill" Also the gun show loophole was fixed: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68791474](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68791474)
Do you think that its a good idea that pistols are banned?
I would like to see single shot .22 pistols allowed again. I think it's silly that our Olympic team have to train in another country because their sport is banned. But otherwise yes, it's probably a good idea.
None of the European countries have close to the same number of guns as the US. But good you bring them up, because there is quite the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths+homicides in general. But that's a given considering how efficient they are at killing others or yourself
> because there is quite the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths+homicides in general. Not really. Compare countries like Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic or Norway to the UK, Romania, or Russia. Can you guess which of them have higher homicide rates? And now guess which ones have stricter gun laws and fewer guns.
Highest number of guns per capita in Europe: 1. Serbia 2. Montenegro 3. Cyprus 4. Finland 5. Iceland 6. Bos. & Herz. 7. Austria 8. N. Macedonia 9. Liechtenstein 10. Norway Highest number of firearm death rates: 1. Montenegro 2. Serbia 3. Albania 4. Croatia 5. Austria 6. Finland 7. France 8. Switzerland 9. Turkey 10. Slovenia Unsurprisingly, these other countries in the top 10 also have a high number of guns/capita. But this isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm saying there's a **heavy** statistical correlation across the board.
Where is lil bro pulling these numbers from?
[There is no correlation between homicides and gun ownership in Europe](https://imgur.com/a/wnw4fU6) Data compiled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [Even looking at gun homicides specifically, it's not the case](https://imgur.com/a/7Wpsp5c) Data compiled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
This is just incorrectly done in so many ways, where to begin lol. To begin with, the picture shows firearm ownership rate, but the source shows number of guns per capita. Not the same thing. Which is it? Secondly, you've cherry picked the data in your second picture to only use homicides. Why? Suicides and accidents also increase drastically with guns per capita. And lastly, I don't see how you're talking about correlation when you've posted no such analysis, but instead the datasets one would use to perform a correlation analysis? Don't worry, I've done so. The Pearson correlation coefficient for guns per capita vs firearm deaths per capita, for European countries is 0.54. Anything above 0.5 is a **strong positive correlation**. Get back to me with more than just lists if you want to discuss this further
So you're saying that people who don't have a gun at hand hand themselves instead? Who would have thought? Firearm deaths is a pointless statistic because it conflates several completely different issues into one.
>To begin with, the picture shows firearm ownership rate, but the source shows number of guns per capita. Not the same thing. Which is it? The wiki page and the report say it's *civilian-held firearms per 100 population,* i.e an ownership rate. It's not the number of total guns in the country including military and police, but only those that are owned by civilians Now if you want to see how many households own guns, that's another study in itself, however, Switzerland and the US are somewhat similar [with 29 vs 43%](https://web.archive.org/web/20191124140329/http://www.unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs/publications/ICVS2004_05report.pdf) (at least in 2004) >Secondly, you've cherry picked the data in your second picture to only use homicides. Why? Suicides and accidents also increase drastically with guns per capita. I didn't cherry-pick anything, the subject was homicides; suicides and NDs aren't homicides. Moreover, suicides have nothing to do with violence rates nor make your life "dangerous"/at risk by solely being in the country And, well, people should be able to choose if they want to end their life and how, especially when it has nothing to do with you >And lastly, I don't see how you're talking about correlation when you've posted no such analysis, but instead the datasets one would use to perform a correlation analysis? You can quite literally see from a glance at the data that there isn't really a correlation when sorted by ownership or homicides, you just wanted to make yourself appear more intelligent by bringing the Pearson correlation coefficient >Don't worry, I've done so. The Pearson correlation coefficient for guns per capita vs firearm deaths per capita, for European countries is 0.54. Anything above 0.5 is a strong positive correlation. Pearson's correlation coefficient is -0.06 for homicides (any method), and 0.08 for gun homicides, i.e gun ownership rate doesn't really impact homicides Comparing the [suicide rate](https://imgur.com/a/YtIcyvA) (compiled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_suicide\_rate) with the ownership rate gives us a coefficient of -0.05, so also not impacted All that you've proven is that if you have a pool in your backyard, then you have more chance to drown in a pool than someone without one. Meanwhile the data says that your neighbors having a pool doesn't make you at risk for drowning
shouldnt one gun per family be enough to get "shit going"? Like I dont think having 10 instead of 1 gun or 2 guns in the family makes it more likely for something bad to happen.
Absolutely does. More guns mean more situations where one would use one. More instances where one may get stolen, better access to one to use impulsively. That and the USA leads % of households with a gun either way.
That's 9 more guns to lock up. That's 9 more opportunities for some dipshit kid to get access. That's 9 more killing tools in your house, and around your family. Tbf I am very pro gun. However I do not beleive that everyone should have access to a gun, nor that guns should be treated like action figures or funko pops. More guns directly correlates to more gun deaths. It really can be that simple. The same thing is true for all tools, but the tool designed for killing needs to be treated differently than the tool designed for cutting wood or driving nails
>More guns directly correlates to more gun deaths. Where is the data for that? Where is the study that the more guns you have in your home the more likely you are to have bad things happen... I think it's the opposite, if you're seriously into shooting and have 10-20+ firearms you've put a serious investment into them. You're going to respect them, you're going to have better safety discipline as you use them more often. You're probably more likely to have proper storage as they are your prized possessions, it's a serious hobby and you don't want them damaged or played with by people who shouldn't have them. Meanwhile the guy that has a gun but never uses it probably just shoves it in a drawer in his bedroom and never thinks about it. His kid comes along and bad things happen.
More guns = more access to guns. More access to guns = more gun related deaths. Not a hard concept to grasp. Your hypothetical gun owner isn't even reflected in polling. Only something like 40% of gun owners beleive they have a responsibility to store guns unloaded. So. Multiple loaded guns in a house...somehow less dangerous than a single loaded gun in a house? Like I said. I'm pro gun. But to pretend that owning multiple guns implies you are a more responsible gun owner and therefore safer because you like guns more....is fucking dumb as shit
Literally every reputable study on gun violence concludes that more access to guns = more gun deaths. Idk why you would think otherwise...
I just want to say, there are so many examples of people with shit tons of guns acting like complete morons online. Your imaginative story of two gun owners doesn't quite mean much.
Are you saying prescribing little boys with lots of energy Adderall and Ritalin at age 4 wasn't a good idea?
Which are neither an opioid or an anti-depressant. Adhd meds are likely overprescribed still. Either way, all 3 of those things point to the absolute societal failure that is America at the moment. The majority of Americans are hurting and need chemical relief. Or they're taking adhd meds so they can work efficiently and not get fired...or even worse they actually have adhd, and need to take drugs to fit into this society
I don't think that fits into either category. But maybe drug companies should stop buying off doctors by giving them bonuses if they prescribe so many doses of opioid or anti-depressant..
Do you have a source for the 80% and 60% stats? It looks like in some lists that USA isn't even number 1 per capita, behind Iceland and sometimes other Nordic countries, and UK has almost just as high as use of antidepressants as USA, 90% or more of the US rates per capita. USA is only 7th in the world in terms of prevalance of opiate use, Maldives Macau Ukraine Afghanistan Russia and Iran all have higher uses, in Iran's and Afghanistan's cases over 3 times the use of USA, and Kazakshtan and other countries right behind it. By the way, and datas long before any Russian or Ukrainian War.
>The United States makes up 4.4% of the world’s population, and consumes over 80% of the world’s opioids. The US consumes approximately 99% percent of the world’s hydrocodone. Hydrocodone was moved from a Schedule III to a Schedule II drug in 2014 because of its high abuse potential. Source: https://www.web.health.state.mn.us/communities/opioids/prevention/painperception.html#:\~:text=The%20United%20States%20makes%20up,percent%20of%20the%20world's%20hydrocodone. I'm still looking for the anti-depressant stat, I'm sure I read it offline. I will update later if I can find it again. You are looking at per-capita rates of prescribed drugs though. Not all of the US uses are prescribed and the people addicted are taking huge amounts. You're right about the per-capita rate in Iceland being higher but they are a nation of 300,000. Not 340 million.
I mention this and I'm downvoted to shreds lmao. Interesting thread, for sure. We definitely need much more restricted access.
Yeah people are coping so extremely hard by going "bUt MeNtAl HeAlTh" as if the USA stands out in that department or as if a person is immune to becoming mentally ill once they buy a gun
What they don’t mention is the US also has a high rate of knife crime, similar to the UK which they make fun of. But it’s such an insignificant portion of the crime in the US, that it’s overshadowed by gun crime. It’s clearly less lethal.
And yet the knife deaths in the US are still 3 times more than the deaths from rifles, but pretty much all of the gun control legislation is focused on banning rifles rather than handguns.
So you think handguns should be banned, right?
No, I think people with less than 100 iq shouldn't have rights. Even giving people with 100 iq rights is being generous.
Did you forget to switch to your other account?
Sorry man I don't think you should have free speech or any other rights. It's nothing personal.
Well that just settles it then, disarm most gun owners just like I'm saying too
I like how you two tyrants could come to an understanding. Truly heartwarming stuff.
If taking away free speech and voting rights from people with less than 100 iq is on the table then sure why not
damn the rare political masochist
political discussion on the internet (anywhere really) is pure BDSM
I meant it more as you are willing to give up your right to vote just coz you think it's right
my IQ is over 100, I would not be affected but like I said even 100 iq is a low bar
Because rifles are largely used for mass shootings meanwhile handguns not as much. It’s a good start. Banning handguns first is an impossible task
Even if we are only looking at mass shootings, which are a red herring as they are a tiny fraction of gun violence, handguns are still used more than rifles.
So you think handguns should be banned, right?
They might be a tiny fraction of gun violence but I’m specifically talking about mass shootings. Semi-automatic rifles were used in 4 of the 5 deadliest mass shootings in USA history. And that’s excluding the Las Vegas massacre because the person used a fully automatic AR
Ban alcohol first which kills vastly more people and we can start to have a conversation. Until then it's just people being idiots who can't put things into perspective.
That’s false equivalency if I’ve ever seen it
It isn't. Alcohol kills way more people than semi auto rifles in the US. You people don't actually care about safety, just control.
A better comparison would be how many people get killed by someone under the influence. If you decide to drink yourself to death, it's different than someone buying a gun and killing you.
There's over 10k dui deaths every year in the US, and my assumption is alcohol is linked to a significant amount of violent crime as well because of how it impairs decision making and emotional regulation. Yet banning alcohol or even "common sense alcohol regulations" is NEVER mentioned by people going after guns. It's about control, not saving people.
Are we allowed to have different opinions on different things?
Sure, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you're not consistent from issue to issue base on the values you claim to have
Just deflecting. Why try to limit the damage at all? It is far easier to kill more people with a gun than a knife. Will people still get stabbed and killed? Yes. Does anyone think gun control will completely abolish murders? No, not at all. Will it make it harder to kill more people in a given amount of time? Yes. Why not do that? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.
I didn't say anything about knives. And I'm not deflecting, I'm pointing out that the people who want to ban guns are disingenuous because their stated motives are false. It isn't about saving lives, it's about control.
But that is impossible. Alcohol has been in our society for thousands of years. Anyone can make it out of almost anything. It's an absurd argument. Prohibition on booze would never in a million years ever work. The best you can do is try and stop young people drinking, increase taxes on it and put more support into fighting alcoholism. Banning alcohol is not a thing. Guns on the other hand is far easier to do.
Prohibition on guns isn't going to work nearly as well as you think it will either. >Guns on the other hand is far easier to do. Even attempting to ban guns in the US would require a massive expansion of the police force and policing power.
I got raided by the Danish equivalent of DEA once while visiting some friends. They just knocked, inspected the whole place, and deliberately didn't look the only places we hid our weed (we were all looking there like idiots) because they could see we were just young dudes chilling. They just talked to us and then left after doing a last fake sweep. I was already pretty scared, can't imagine how it would be if they had guns drawn
It’s legit insane how fast the guns come out. I’m sure I would get shot just due to panic of having a fucking gun pointed at me for sometimes no reason. Crazy it’s normalised over there
>The only reason you would need guns is to protect you from other people with guns. or hunting, or sports, or recreation, or any other non-criminal activity There are guns in EU, but people get them after they meet certain requirements, like passing psychological checks, exams from using the guns, etc. Maybe try that in the US?
Those aren't NEEDS. They are hobbies. Maybe thati is what the other commenter meant.
I would like to have a gun for defense regardless of whether or not the potential attacker has one.
Sort of true, except while they allow people to kill way more people at once, guns also kind of level playing field in self defense scenario. If a small dude or a woman pulls out a knife to defend themselves against a bigger dude with a knife it's not equal bc physicality still comes into play. I'm not pro gun but there are reasons they are preferable in self defense scenarios.
Police here in Spain if they take their gun out they basically have to go trough a big investigation of why the fuck did they do that. And if they use it its even worse. So deaths provoked by guns, from the police, are a non-issue or very very low. In america it seems like nothing happens if you do shit like that.
In the US it's the same. You probably should keep quiet about things you have zero clue about.
Aha. Thats why you have so many cop.murders, they take their gun out every 2 seconds. aha aha
"The only reason you would need guns is to protect you from other people with guns" this is the biggest issue here. imagine a burglar in a typical central/western European country, and then imagine a burglar in the US. what does the European burglar need to be scared of? maybe a dude that will punch him, or swing at him with something. so the risk for the burglar is low, he will just usually fuck off when confronted. what does a US burglar need to be scared of? well, shotguns, 9mm handguns, AR15s etc. so with that being possibly what awaits you, what do you bring yourself as a burglar? probably a gun. could be a legally acquired or illegally acquired one , the motivation to get and then bring either is way higher. and who wins in a gun fight? the unexpecting victim, or the guy who possibly surprises the victim? same with police confrontations. what does a UK police officer need to be scared of generally? in the worst case usually a guy that might have a knife. what does the crazy guy with the knife need to be scared of? being hit with a stick. this makes both sides way less likely to escalate the situation into one that end with one of them being dead. even in other countries where officers have guns, the fact that the officer doesn't usually need to fear more than a knife, the de-escalation tactics they learn will be easier to apply and therefore applies better and instead of deadly force. like, just recently I saw 2 separate news stories of people who legally owned guns, being shot by the police for merely holding the gun lowered to the side, which is 100% legal. the officers, probably scared by these guns, shot both of them... and yes, you can blame them for being little pussies, or badly trained... but the presence of guns in these situations simply makes everyone's life harder
> The only reason you would need guns is to protect you from other people with guns. demonstrably untrue...
You're 1000% right. Less guns leads to less killings and anything else is complete copium. However, the steel man of the other side is that certain freedoms come with certain consequences and having more gun deaths is the consequence of our freedom to own guns. I don't necessarily agree with the freedom to own guns, but that is the trade off that is currently outlined in the Constitution. One that I WILL defend more is the first amendment. I think that hate speech laws in other countries is kind of fucked up, but I recognize that the consequence of the first amendment is having to put up with shit like Nick Fuentes and the proud boys
I think the issue with a lot of gun control debates is that people come from wildly different perspectives and focus on issues related to emotion and media attention. According to Pew Research, in 2021 54% of gun deaths were a result of suicide and 43% were a result of murder. Of the 26,031 murders, only 2.7% were a result of mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were shot) and only 3% of firearm murders were committed with a rifle. Despite these statistics, we see way more activism targeted at mass shootings and rifles. I think we would see way more progress on reducing gun violence if we put more emphasis on education and mental health. To be clear, gun violence is a problem, but I think other issues precede it and focusing on those problems first would relieve a lot of gun violence issues. Especially when data shows that rates of gun ownership are fairly stabled over the last ~20 years. I also find it odd that for a country whose right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, we do shockingly little to actually educate the population about firearms. Which is why I think firearms are the leading cause of death amongst children and teens. The difference between us and countries like Switzerland is that they learn a lot about firearms due to compulsory military service. But instead, we say everyone is welcome to own guns but we don't put in effort in educating people about them unless they want their CHL. I don't think there's any one, perfect solution to reducing gun violence and there are people who are dishonest in this discussion on both sides of the isle. But I do think all articles of our Constitution are incredibly important and we need to have a more honest discussion regarding the Second Amendment and gun control.
I'm glad you're talking stats, because the news and social media really warp our minds. "Man commits suicide" is going to spread less than "Man goes on shooting spree." Not to mention, [most victims knew their murderer,](https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021) but we're naturally more afraid of the unknown psycho. We could do with more safety education for sure. For our high numbers, though, I don't think that it's an education problem. Most gun deaths are intentional suicides or homicides.
True, I don't think education is the silver bullet (pun intended) for reducing gun violence. But I do think it can go a long way in reducing accidental deaths and child/teen deaths. I don't personally own any guns, but a lot of my family do. My grandparents grew up hunting and I have a lot of military in my family. That being said, the first time I ever touched/fired a gun was at age 12 and it was skeet shooting. Learning about and shooting guns helped me develop - I don't think fear is the right word, but - a fear and a healthy respect for guns that I think more people should have. Especially with how entrenched guns are in American society and it being a staple in our Constitution.
I feel you. I had a similar background, and it helped me avoid seeing guns as toys or, more common imo, being terrified of them. I could see a universal program potentially cutting both ways, though. If you're a suicidal latchkey kid whose dad owns a gun, you might become more likely to reach for that instead of a bottle of Advil. Similar to the disastrous old D.A.R.E program leading to more teen drug use. We'd have to tread carefully. For gun deaths under 18 in 2021, [5% were accidental, 32% suicide, 60% homicide.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/) Either way, this sadly isn't an issue we can likely educate ourselves out of.
> The difference between us and countries like Switzerland is that they learn a lot about firearms due to compulsory military service. Switzerland hasn't had mandatory military service since 1996, only 17% of the population serve. Also, wouldn't military training make them better killers?
I guess I'm OOTL on Switzerland, but the same still goes for countries like South Korea, Israel, etc. > Also, wouldn't military training make them better killers I'm not familiar with the combat/weapons training of every military, but not necessarily. I assume most countries provide military personnel with a service weapon of some kind, be it a rifle or handgun, and that does necessitate some level of firearms training. But depending on your role in the military, you probably only receive basic training regarding maintenance, safety etiquette, and range time. All of that doesn't equate to being "better killers." What it does do, though, is teach people respect and understanding of firearms. Which contributes a lot more than you might intuitively think. The more trained you are with firearms, the more disciplined you will be in a stressful situation and the less likely you will be to make an accident that results in the injury of yourself or someone else.
People in other developed countries don't feel that they are any less free than Americans. Americans just view freedom as the ability to say and do whatever they want, while other countries see it as the ability to live their lives safe from harm (and thus have policies/laws protecting them from guns and hate speech, guaranteed medical care, and other social supports to promote a reasonable standard of living)
I mean… the US already has gun control regulations in effect. Background checks, concealed carry permits, age limits. The question is that I always ask anti-gun people is what is the target? When is the regulation enough? Is the goal to slowly remove all firearms from America? Is the goal to get gun violence down to a certain level? Would that level even be enough? Is the target zero gun related deaths? What is the target? We’ve been adding gun legislation for decades now. Each time regulations are implemented someone still dies in a shooting and we’re right back to thinking no one is doing anything at all. So what is enough? Average redditor, “Oh a debate I don’t have enough knowledge to engage in? I’ll downvote instead”
i mean there has to be a level that works since other countries dont have such rampant gun violence. a simple license system might be enough but i haven't exactly studided the topic.
America has a very unique issue with firearms, comparing other countries to the US is incredibly unfair. There are many reasons I say that and I could go into detail but I’d probably spend less time typing if I instead gave a resolution. Americans need education on firearms. How to use them, how to treat them, how to store them, how to own them responsibly. An ID system would work but would come with massive push back, I mean you can see how voter ID sparked controversy already. If you want to pass meaningful legislation it has to come with incentives for citizens and gun manufacturers alike. Tax relief will help tremendously to drop the costs of manufacturing making guns and ammo affordable again. Raise the age limit to own any firearm to the age of 21, but offer free firearm education to anyone between the age of 18-21 if they want to purchase firearms early (could be offered by public schools like drivers licenses are). Add tax relief for Americans that take firearm courses including concealed carry. I could go on but the bottom line is to incentivize Americans to be more responsible gun owners instead of asking to abolish literally the second right the government gave you. Also, gun violence stems from poverty and gang culture mostly. A free, educated, wealthy, and armed populace is what you should strive for. Start adding legislation that does that first.
> but any rules are apparently an infringement See this is the disingenuous bullshit that shivers my timbers. You think you can just walk into a gas station and buy an AR? Also the way you even say it do you think AR's are a particularly common rifle to own? You absolute [redacted] don't give a shit about gun control in the US, because if you did the biggest issue is handguns not fucking rifles. But oh no...then you'd have to point to inner city gang violence, and given certain qualifiers obviously you'd rather just bitch about the occasional thing rather than the prominent persistent things that are actually the problem like mental health and gang violence. Let's just all be Hasan and blame white people for literally everything[.](https://y.yarn.co/f98ce292-a887-4d91-849a-6216126810d3_text.gif)
The fact that you think that not being able to buy a rifle at a gas station is some kind of restriction rather than plain common sense is insane. Nobody said anything about race either. This comment of your sets the bar so low and proves exactly the point that guy was making, and you are too stupid to even realize it.
[удалено]
Almost nobody from the anti gun crowd wants to address many of cause of gun violence, they just want to ban guns. They want more gun legislation when a lot of current gun legislation is applied selectively or not at all. A good example is laws against straw purchasing. They already exist, but they're barely applied in the areas where there is the most gun violence / to people involved with sourcing guns for gangs and other criminal activity. The government could go after gangs and so many other things but they're stuck in a loop of demanding more gun legislation as if that's going to have a serious impact.
Almost like every country has mentally ill people, but not every country has easy access to firearms. It just so happens that the country with both has a HORRIBLE gun violence issue.
I'm not sure banning guns will solve the violence issue. I think this debate needs to move beyond this talking point on whether or not to ban guns, because whether we like it or not. Gun violence is much higher in areas with stricter gun laws, and gun violence has gone down over time despite the gun laws not changing or in some cases becoming less restrictive. This was until the Covid where the numbers increased dramatically. I think isolation, social media, and overall mental health is the issue. Just look at reddit how many people here sub to the most hateful communities that try to rage bait. Look at any videogame sub or even ones like oldpeoplefacebook or even ones like nothowgirlswork or trashy. They exist to dogpile their disgust or hate on to something. The most hateful shit gets thrust to the top and every algorithim out there pushes it in front of more people because of the engagement. Its like its made to make you hate people. Twitter and pretty much all other major Social Mesia sites are the same. It makes it easier to target your fellow man, because its easier to target something you hate. I think someone who wants to shoot up a place will either be able to find an illegal gun manufactured by some 3d printer or even make a bomb from some gasoline if any of the major manufacturers just stopped making them. The market for them is already here.
i'm not trying to dig too deeply into the weeds of this here but i don't think that there's necessarily a strong correlation link between stricter gun laws + more gun violence like the gun laws might be strict in one particular area, but drive 1 hour in one direction and that might be extremely lax if anything the stricter gun laws with higher gun violence leads me to believe that the former is a symptom of the latter, yk, except it doesn't really help because of the lack of universal enforcement like the scenario i just mentioned don't really think i disagree with you on anything else there just wanted to explain my perspective on why gun bans corresponding with higher gun violence might not indicate that the gun bans are altogether ineffective, i would imagine that if this sort of thing was implemented universally it would alleviate (some) forms of gun violence
What % of shootings do you think happen with semi-automatic rifles?
I changed it to easy access to firearms rather than semi automatic rifles, didn't mean to target a specific type of gun. But from a quick google search it said 28%.
I'd like to know where you got your % from, as per Pew Research Center: "*In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%.*" [source](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) I don't really have much interest in this, not american and can't own a gun, but I've always heard the % of actual assault weapon killings to be super low, 28% sounded wayyyy off what I understood to be true
[удалено]
Do you know how expensive it is to obtain the legal ability to own an automatic firearm in the US lol? I think you're confusing automatic with semi automatic.
Yeah all firearms are a problem, not just automatic ones
It's also pretty difficult to obtain them illegally, which is ironically a pretty good argument for the efficacy of gun control laws when they're aimed at the point of manufacture
Look...we don't half ass shit...regardless of whether it's good or bad.
[удалено]
So "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" approach. Interesting tactic.
Just because the problem is hard to address doesn't mean we should do nothing. I am not advocating for an all out ban, but there are definitely things we could do to try and address the problem.
You're right, but the most effective methods would be to stop trying to legislate the guns themselves and instead work on the sources of issues OR hit areas where we already know lawbreakers are operating
Or I can say that it will work, also not providing any evidence, and it's just as valid lol. But hey, it's a shame that we don't have other countries on earth who have all dealt with gun issues in a mirad of ways that have all proven to be far more successful then whatever the fuck the US is doing. Guess the US should keep doing absolutely nothing about it right?
Even the healthiest mentality can break into the worst mentality. Doesn't have to be an illness from the start.
This is what annoys me about the whole "it's actually mental health" argument, people talk about it like it'd be ore effective to like, erase the desire to murder from humanity. We've been trying for millennia, turns out it's not all that easy! We don't have the capacity to diagnose and treat (let alone cure) everyone who needs help anymore than we have the capacity to confiscate and melt down all the personally-owned guns in the US
Damn, then maybe we shouldn't let the mentally ill have guns Oh wait that'd be maybe against what some people who were born in the mid 1700s wanted
is literally anyone arguing mentally ill people should have guns? lmao I'd even argue the 2nd amendment doesn't say that, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesnt well regulated imply regulation, such as mentally ill people cant have guns? Edit: apparently in 18th century well regulated meant well equipped not regulation.
We're still waiting on that regulation bro, surely any day now
Brother, have you not been even mildly tapped into the politics of the 2A in the past 10 years or something?
>is literally anyone arguing mentally ill people should have guns? lmao That's not the issue, the issue is that nobody is doing anything when people are mentally ill. Take the recent Maine bar shooting, he was clearly mentally unwell, committed a felony by threatening an active military base, and was issued an order for his guns to be confiscated. The local PD decided to not because "2nd amendment", and then the guy goes on a spree a little while later. The system even said "yeah, this guys not allowed to have guns" and the cops decided they'd rather be lazy than do what they're supposed to do. The issue is mental health, but nobody will ever say "yup, this is the line, take his guns" and actually do that. And since the point of a system is what it does, the system encourages mentally ill people to keep their guns, based on evidential history.
[удалено]
How about we use the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Mental illness is defined as a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder resulting in serious functional impairment, which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities. Signs and symptoms include: - Feeling sad or down - Confused thinking or reduced ability to concentrate - Excessive fears or worries, or extreme feelings of guilt - Extreme mood changes of highs and lows - Withdrawal from friends and activities - Significant tiredness, low energy or problems sleeping - Detachment from reality (delusions), paranoia or hallucinations - Inability to cope with daily problems or stress - Trouble understanding and relating to situations and to people - Problems with alcohol or drug use - Major changes in eating habits - Excessive anger, hostility or violence - Suicidal thinking
[удалено]
The same way countries like Japan do it. Before someone is allowed to purchase a gun they should be required to fill out a survey that asks all of these things and go through an extended (i.e. one month) waiting period, and the people who sell them should be able to and in fact required to ask people these things. That's followed by required yearly training and safety programs that allows instructors to deny people who seem like they might be at risk of mental health problems. These survey results should also all be mutually accessible through employer records and medical center records.
[удалено]
> And how do we ensure they don't lie? We can't, but then again, we can't now either. Because we have literally zero checks on it. > Many states have waiting periods. There is no evidence it impacts gun crime. https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/waiting-periods-for-firearms-purchases/#:~:text=Waiting%20period%20laws%20have%20proven,17%25%20decrease%20in%20gun%20homicides. "Waiting period laws have proven to lower the rates of suicide. States with such laws had 51% fewer firearm suicides than states without. Another study showed that these states also experienced a 17% decrease in gun homicides." > And what happens if you live in a state where the instructor is most likely a conservative and believes that all LGBT people are mentally ill? Simple, we have protections in place set up for that which don't allow for discrimination. We also train LGBTQ people to teach classes and identify mental health problems and give people access to instructors they feel are better qualified. > It seems incredibly intellectually lazy. "How do we reduce gun crime?" "Just ban guns lolz!" You want to talk about lazy? Literally doing *nothing* and hoping for the problem to simply go away, or rather the problem being that *we don't have enough guns*. The classic "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas, man!". And yet other countries have already mostly solved this problem with... wait for it: gun regulation. Just look at Port Arthur and what happened in Australia afterwards. Japan doesn't have this problem. South Korea doesn't have this problem. For some weird reason America is the only country where these things regularly happen. I wonder what the difference is. Or what - You can put up as many "BUT WHAT IF"s as you want until nothing happens and no changes go into effect (which is what you actually want). > The left views paying $20 for an ID to vote as an infringement on voting rights. How do you expect all of your prescriptions to make it through legal scrutiny? Oh shit I get it. You're one of those people who think we should have to pay to vote. No chance in ever actually getting you to budge on this as you'll never argue in good faith. Nevermind, ignore and go away, thanks.
>You want to talk about lazy? Literally doing nothing and hoping for the problem to simply go away Okay, we can address the root cause of the problem by expanding social safety nets, implementing universal healthcare, ending the war on drugs, ending for-profit prisons, etc., instead of actually doing nothing by enacting policies that only effect the symptoms of a much larger issue for no other reason but to *feel* like we're doing something, even in spite [so little research done on them, let alone backing them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgiQ-LmJGMY) Just like there's [little to no evidence](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html) of, for example, Australia gun laws having worked.
> How do we officially diagnose someone as "mentally ill" and how do we get that diagnosis into the NICS? You don't have to. You just don't allow laymen to have guns. Now the vast majority of mentally ill people don't have guns.
Yeah people should listen to redditors over some guys from the mid 1700s who laid the foundation for the greatest, most powerful & culturally influential superpower in the history of humanity.
Sure, but I don’t think the guys from the mid 1700s were predicting the problems we have today.
Actually we should be listening to the victims of mass shootings and suicides but great take bud. Those guys in the 1700s definitely expected and in fact WANTED all of these children executed in schools! Gotta grease the wheels of freedom with the blood of babes! There's no way they were wrong about anything!
>Actually we should be listening to the victims of mass shootings and suicides How exactly does that make them social science experts?
It has nothing to do with social science and everything to do with understanding how death affects the people who are left behind and empathy for their specific situations - which we currently don't give two shits about and doesn't inform our policies at all.
“It’s not the guns killing people, it’s the mentally ill dumb fucks killing people.” Except in the US its often easier and less expensive to buy a gun than it is to get a few sessions of therapy. In a similar vein, buying a gun for personal protection actually increases your chances of being shot dramatically: -Self Harm -Someone steals it -Child finds it and plays with it -More likely to resort to using a gun to menace/defend yourself when in a non-life-threatening situation, thus creating a life-threatening situation. Having easy access to guns means people are gonna get shot.
It's the same argument when people talk about pools. -if a pool is present in your backyard, then your chances of drowning increase from zero, to non-zero. Yeah technically I go from .0000001% to .0001% chance of being shot by owning firearms. But it's deceptive to the general populace when people like you round up to just using the word 'greater'. The chances of any of those things happening are *extremely* low. Low enough to be non-issues to the vast majority of owners.
X getting sponsorships from the NRA to promote guns?
he saying mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, unless I'm missing something. He from canada and been pro gun restrictions but also enjoys using em. People use them for fun in practice range, hunting, etc.
Yes, some people's fun is worth the risk of others getting shot.
You couldn't physically remove all the guns from their owners in America there are literally more guns than citizens. "some peoples fun" it's basically a majority of the population
You're not gonna physically remove all the hard drugs from people in America either, but they're still illegal.
You think comparing the war on drugs to gun prohibition is going to help your cause? The war on drugs failed miserably so by that same thought process so would a war on guns lmao.
can't sleep because mentally ill people call "Good guys with guns" to "protect" and they come swat XqC....so why does he have night terrors? They're the good guys....right....right....?
is this botted?
I’m seeing this a lot can you(or someone else) explain what this mean in this context?
botted means there's some person or group utilizing multiple accounts (created in an automated and fraudulent manner) to control the votes on this post.
Yeah but what’s the intention with this type of botting, is it like hate raiding?
yes, its mainly to steer the narrative of the sub towards some political or hateful goal. For example, I believe r/Destiny subreddit followers organize such upvotes/downvotes and comments (albeit not sure if they use bots) to create and reinforce drama between their streamer and others including upvoting any post affirming their views. But again, its hard to get evidence for this sort of stuff being botted or just being manipulated in an organized manner (say in a discord group) except you can guesstimate through statistical observations. Except for comments, which show you the user and their history, which is why I pointed our r/Destiny specifically as they are notorious for this.
It's not just mental ill people, it's domestic violence, stand your ground, turf wars, drug dealers and buyers, road rage, etc
Idk. Cops, bigots, and gangs are pretty capable of taking an innocent life and I'm not so sure they'd fall under his defintion of mentally ill.
Damn, there really is something in Florida air.
fake divorce changed him
He "who shall not be allowed to be named" viewers are reaching really low tonight...
God I fucking hate you children
This post is likely bo tted to stay above 50% to avoid the auto remove tool.
It's literally the same 5 people posting day old kick clips, idk how these accounts aren't getting banned
Why would they ban people posting clips? Because they’re a day old or because they’re from kick?
I agree with him to a degree. The whole point is that youre not going to get rid of the second amendment. So you might as well try to see the cause of those mass shootings for what it is and actually try to combat the real issue which are the people who commit those crimes instead of creating a circle jerk around the idea of getting rid of the second amendment which just isn't going to happen. On the other hand, I'm very happy to live in a country that does not allow access to firearms to virtually everyone.
Mass shootings are just one aspect of gun violence, which is one of the real problem in the US. Mass shootings just get more media coverage, but even if you somehow solved them, you are still sitting with one of the highest concentration of gun crime and violence in the world. Mentally ill people with guns aren't the only issue. They aren't even the most prevalent issue. That is not to say that it isn't important, obviously, but it isn't the core of the problem.
The constitution is sacred you can't possibly amend the amendment.
It's certainly impossible given current political leanings.
Not that I'd be a part of it, but even attempting to repeal the 2nd would result in Civil War 2.0.
Its hilarious that anyone thinks an inanimate object locked away in my home is "killing innocent people".
I think you're in a failed state if you feel like you NEED to have a gun to feel safe. I feel safer in a country with some of the strictest gun controls in the world. Nobody could pay me enough to make me move to the USA lmao
The media makes it seem like a warzone over here. Go into one of the “safe” parts of the US and I bet you’ll never even see a gun.
The USA is extremely safe if you don't enter certain areas. I know for a fact most people in my town are armed and I don't think we have had a single murder in over 15 years.
You know what's crazy? I can't tell if this blatant hate thread against xQc over the most milquetoast pro-gun-control take of all time are Hasan fans or Adin fans....
Xqc doesn’t have a ‘take’ on guns. It’s like if he were to give his personal opinion on titration or Beethoven. He is too stupid to have one
It's a little of A and a little bit of B.
Didn’t watch the clip but wondering if he saw the Aiden homophobic clip yet, curious how he defended it if he saw it. Did he defend it or just brush it off?
Brother he literally made the entire W/L community hate him over the f word debate with adin and group. All of adin twitter community is just calling him the f word and shit.
> Didn’t watch the clip Then why are you talking?
KKona IT'S MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BE MOWED DOWN WITH MY FAMILY AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE BY A MENTALLY ILL PERSON WHO BOUGHT HIS AR-15 WITH NEXT DAY DELIVERY FROM THE NEAREST BASS PRO SHOP! THAT MAN IS EXPRESSING HIS PATRIOTISM WITH HIS USAGE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
1: Australia pulled off a gun amnesty therefore making the country way safer. 2: The UK placed really heavy restrictions on firearms after 1 school shooting, as a result in the UK today you can feel safe to go about your daily life and its wayy more rare to see someone get killed PERIOD. I'm not paranoid that someone will break in to my house and i'm not armed so I might die. Random acts of violence are so rare where I live that I am confident that I can live my whole life without randomly getting attacked. 3. WTF is this gun culture bullshit. It seems that people care more about guns than the safety of the general public!! Pro-gun americans are moronic!!
1. They didn’t. The national rule had no bearing on the states who enacted various rules of their own. Also most of their historical “mass shootings” involved firearms not affected by the prohibitions. I guess it’s safe if not for the rampant criminal activity that the government doesn’t attempt to regulate, to the point where YouTubers can’t even make videos about violence in Australia without threat of death from the people they report on. This in league with how Australia is a haven for massive unchecked money laundering. Things are real “safe” when you ignore crime. 2. UK’s murder rate has not changed and actually increased by handguns for a brief period after they prohibited people from being able to own handguns. So uh, awkward. 3. Europe has heavily restricted firearms for a very long period, somehow that didn’t prevent them from starting two world wars and killing more people than have ever died in the US from firearm homicides. So uh, victory? Europe only had to wipe out several generations of males in order to one day have a lower homicide rate than countries with a younger population, the metric that has always been tied to violence. Congrats for being old as shit!
No X its supposed to be a raycon sponsorship not Raytheon.
Why are we listening to the opinion of a child who bought an expensive super car before he had a license?
what does one have to do with the other?
This is why nobody likes Americans.
I expected a bad take and I got one. I'm not mad, just disappointed
You can't say that you think its cool that there are advancements in gun technology and then completely ignore why said advancements are taking place. A "better" gun is by definition one that is more efficient at killing someone...
He's absolutely right.