Guns Aren't The Problem. . HOW ARE GUNS BEING USED BY CITIZENS in America each year? i. viii. ii: iiss homicide ' ' suicide, I = sell defense. Every year, guns  Guns Aren't The Problem HOW ARE GUNS BEING USED BY CITIZENS in America each year? i viii ii: iiss homicide ' suicide I = sell defense Every year guns
Upload
Login or register

Guns Aren't The Problem

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
HOW ARE GUNS BEING
USED BY CITIZENS
in America each year?
i. viii. ii: iiss
homicide ' ' suicide, I = sell defense.
Every year, guns are used over an more mien In protease a Me man to take we
270 Million 200, 000 3/ 5
APPROX. # OF CIVILIAN TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A FOLLED FELONS SAY THEY
FIREARMS IN AMERICA, an re DDN'
VICTIM:
an international perspective
Highest Gun Highest Intentional
Ownership Rate Homicide Rate
PER 100 . PER Tlm, 000 ' lsr
USA HONDURAS
YEMEN EL SALVADOR
SWITZERLAND COTE D' l\/ ORE
FINLAND JAMAICA
A racer“ study in the Harvard Journal s Public Po/ my concluded
that there IS a negative between gun ownership and violent
crime o countries intentionally more guns - less crime)
Nations with strict gun comm! laws have substantially higher murder rites A
than those who do not in general in an the 9 European unions min the . 8
lowest gun ownership vale have a combiner murder ma ax that om. g USA
European minus with the highest gun ownership urea.
d, UNITED KINGDOM
CASE STUDY
Most violent country in EU",
POSSESSION or 2, 034 we
is ILLEGAL PER 100, 000 PEOPLE IN UK, PER 100, 000 PEOPLE IN USA,
in the decade the Labor party' s mention Kitchen knives are being used " as many
and banning in my the number m as hams! all Stabbing: in the United
recorded WOVEN marks scared by 77% lol 2 Kingdom and has prompted a group or
in in or more man 2 attacks every tractors in can (or a nan among pointed
mimal kitchen knives. i.
CONCEALED CARRY
in America
An analysis mine PM crime statistic mine that states that adopted
conceded carry laws REDUCED:
Murders Rapes Aggravated Assaults Robberies
min just one exception, every public mus shooting in the
USA since 1950 has taken place where minus are banned from
carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulators Europe has had 3 m
the wars 6 semi shootings a
ENE
aronra q
p: CARTMENS,
POLICE ARMED CITIZEN
3010001000
mien police camers i. gun owning :mizzens. i
117. Pt.
error we ii error rate
avg deaths in a shooting avg deaths or a shaming
rampage slapped by poke i. rampage stopped by a citizen ii
one 1521
criminals killed each yearn criminals mien each year.
in 1962, Kennesaw Georgia passed a new requiring heads or
in keep at least one o the noose The
residential burglary rate mapped M% in
Kennesaw compared inns: in 4% drop in Georgia as a
whale " 89% Drop
may the violent crime me in Kennesaw is am: 557. IN summers: AFTER
Georgia‘; brine average i. MANDATORY ow LAW
sources
...
+143
Views: 12172 Submitted: 03/05/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (189)
[ 189 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#15 - apexhawk
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Okay, I saw finland quoted on the post, and as a finn, I want to point out a couple of things about our gun laws:

- The Firearms in Finland are all carefully regulated and registered. Most of them are hunting rifles, since hunting is a fairly popular hobby.
- Handguns have been carefully regulated, and regulations were tightened further a few years ago bacause of multiple cases of school shootings in Kauhajoki and Jokela.
- The sale of assault weapons is banned.
- Most importantly: Finland still uses conscription. This means that a large presentage of the male (and female) population is professionally trained to use, maintain and respect the weapon. this is not the case in, say, the united states.

The infographic also neglects the fact that the standard of living influences the country's homicide rate much more than gun ownership does. it also ignores positive examples of gun regulation like Australia.
User avatar #97 to #15 - martialacademic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
That is pretty much what happens in America as well. Or at least, that is the case in my state, California. We have a pretty damn bad crime rate though, compared to many other places. That's admittedly why I have a dim outlook on gun laws: I look at them and wonder how these are going to be different and stop crimes from happening when a hundred other laws don't look to be doing a thing.

I believe, though I could be quite wrong, that the laws say that you need a license to carry a gun now, and it can't have more than a 10 round capacity. You used to be able to openly carry an unloaded firearm, but they got rid of that. Honestly I haven't kept up on the gun laws here for a while, since it's hard to get a license in the first place and expensive to stay proficient with firearms. Bullet costs add up very quickly. But are Finland's laws very different compared to something like that? Minus the conscription thing of course, as we don't currently do that in the USA.

I was not aware of Australia being a good example of crime stats for gun bans, as a lot of the people I have talked to have used it in arguments against gun bans. Could you please give me more information about that? I don't mean "Gun crime" stats, just overall crime stats. Especially violent crime stats and crimes prevented by firearms if you have information about it, since that seems to be what most people talk about.
User avatar #51 to #15 - lean
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
The only unregulated sale of firearms in this country (USA) is secondhand sales. IE: your friend bought a gun and you bought it from him when he wanted some cash. To prohibit this kind of sale, gov't would have to be able to force people to keep their guns once they have bought them. You can't buy guns over the 'net without having a valid dealer's license. Virtually every retailer in this country does a background check before selling a gun as well. Many states do not even allow you to purchase a gun if you are not a citizen of that state.
The problem with gun crime is that these are not legally purchased guns, or the person using the gun is not the person who legally purchased the gun. Now, show me a law that will prevent that from happening.
#19 - testaburger
-13 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#112 to #19 - anon id: 10f5b38f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
hurr hurr so fahny
User avatar #20 to #19 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
What exactly are you trying to get at?
#21 to #20 - testaburger
-4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22 to #21 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
I get that, but how are you relating it to the content. It seems like your jut spewing out bs right now.
#23 to #22 - testaburger
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #24 to #23 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
K, have fun with that.
#2 - stripey
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #3 to #2 - bodox
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
the reaction pic you are of using is having explain the everything
User avatar #66 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
This is just one-side of it. Guns don't kill people on their own, sure, but they make it easier. I would much rather have more violent crimes but less homicides.
#80 to #66 - drtfgyhuj
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
This is literally the one point that anti gun control people ignore. Having a gun makes it so much easier to kill someone, or yourself.
User avatar #85 to #66 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Not that long ago, in China, something like 3 men attacked a crowd armed with knives. They killed 27 people and put another 100 or so in the hospital. They could have potentially been stopped by somebody with a gun.
User avatar #87 to #85 - monswine
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
In December 2012 a madman attacked an elementary school killing 20 students and 6 teachers. The same day a madman in China attacked a primary school stabbing 23 of them and killing no-one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing
User avatar #101 to #66 - hydraetis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure tommyguns were illegal for civillian use but the mafia sure didn't seem to care.
User avatar #126 to #101 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Yeah, and it defined a generation of crime and violence and the government devoted untold resources to stopping them which included the creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, It was a massive problem that had massive resources put behind it instead of the pussy-footing you see today with such issues.
User avatar #163 to #126 - hydraetis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
It just proves that no matter how much you restrict guns, there will ALWAYS be criminals who have them anyway.
User avatar #164 to #163 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
but a severe minority compared to those who had them before. Why is that any possible anti-gun legislation has to be 100% effective at eliminating all hypothetical crime before we even consider discussing it or implementing it. we're not this stringent about any other lawmaking.
User avatar #83 to #66 - Yardie
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
It may make it easier, but the fact is guns exist. Legislation will not get rid of guns.

They aren't that difficult to make and criminals will get a hold of guns or keep their guns if guns suddenly become banned, leaving them in an advantageous position.

It also allows the physically superior to oppress the physically weak a lot easier when it comes to crime. Guns are known as the great equalizer for a reason.
User avatar #86 to #83 - monswine
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I don't think guns should be eliminated, why would you eliminate them? I just want them to be tracked, some kind of database of who owns what that can be accessed by multiple agencies to keep people accountable. I'm not talking about hunting rifles and shotguns but things like hand-guns and machine guns, stuff designed to kill humans.I wouldn't be opposed to a little safety-lesson accompanying every purchase that's more than the guy over the counter doing his best in the few minutes he might have with the customer to instill a sense of responsibility.

It's true that in a world with fewer privately owned guns the criminals who own guns would be at an advantage over your average joe but they wouldn't need to resort to high-powered assault rifles to have that advantage if a simple revolver would do the trick. The arms race between criminals and police has gotten ridiculous in my opinion. And the vague scraps of information that enforcement agencies can actually put together point that the majority of weapons owned by inner-city gangs are purchased perfectly legally from sellers in areas with less stringent gun-sale legislation than those cities and then imported. So stricter laws in that regard would inherently reduce the supply of guns to criminals.

I think my aversion to fire-arms stems from a inherently unscientific place but I really welcome proper discussion of the topic that's free of that kind of gut-reaction hysteria because I don't like seeing people die and I like to hope there's a solution out there.
User avatar #161 to #86 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I understand the argument for gun control and I can sympathize with it to an extent, but in my eyes the costs do not outweigh the benefits.

Would the world be nice if people just got along? Sure, but of course it doesn't work that way so we need somebody to regulate it, right? It's a perfectly logical conclusion but it's also incredibly simplistic. There are lots of costs to gun control. It makes it inconvenient to be a law abiding citizen and convenient to be a criminal, the extent based on the harshness of the laws.

Even if there were an equilibrium where you could optimize peace and minimize the costs of regulations, how could one find such a number? There are too many unpredictable human factors for a small group of individuals to decide what the best course of action is.

The Market is an amazing force and that's something people have a grievous misunderstanding about. Individuals making choices that improve society around them is better than a group of individuals deciding on laws and monopolizing force when the individuals in charge are only getting paid when there's a issue they need to fix. There's a conflict of interest there. There are plenty of market forces that prevent the sale of weapons to mentally unstable people. The most obvious being you don't want to be the Company that sold a weapon to a madman who ended up going on a killing spree. It's certainly bad for business.

When there is an issue, people don't naturally throw their hands up clueless about what to do about it, they naturally find a way to fix it. This is only distorted when somebody convinces the public that they are capable of the inhuman feat of fixing all the Earth's problems with a pen and paper (and a Policeman's gun).

Force is not the way to deal with problems and should only be fallen back upon as a last resort. This is something we should have learned in Kindergarten or even Preschool.
User avatar #162 to #161 - monswine
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I reject the idea that collectivism through economics is the key to the world's problem about as strongly as you reject that government legislation can be a remedy to those problems.
User avatar #165 to #162 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I don't believe it's key, but I believe it's fundamental for progress.

This is not simply economics. It's philosophy as well. An understanding of human rights and the principles behind them.

Also it's easy to misunderstand, especially through my wording, but I do not say that legislation can never be a good thing. Instead I have come to an understanding that, at a fundamental level, initiation of force is not a justifiable means to an end, whether it be through Government, Religion, or anything else in life.
User avatar #166 to #165 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Then you reject warfare and capital punishment as well?
User avatar #168 to #166 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I reject initiation of war. Any rational person should.

I do not reject capital punishment in all cases. If they are the aggressor, then they forfeit their rights, as they have broken the fundamental moral code. People have a right to life. If a person has shown that they are incapable of respecting the right to life beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are incapable of living in society peacefully.
User avatar #169 to #168 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
hey, so long as your consistent I've got no problem.
User avatar #98 to #86 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
In most countries machine guns (fully automatic guns) are either prohibited to civilian ownership or tightly registered and controlled. You talk as though actual assault rifles are freely available to anyone off the streets but they aren't, a true assault rifle (capable of fully automatic fire) requires extensive procedures and lots of money to acquire legally in the USA and even then won't see much use. Crime is related to mental illness or civil unrest in spree events, and a large variety of socioeconomic factors when chronic. Banning guns doesn't get rid of them in any even, with people making guns out of their garages is fairly common.
And in response to your comment above, it shows more that it's the people that commit the crime and will do so regardless of what is easily available to them.

www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916
User avatar #125 to #98 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I don't believe gun-ownership equates to crime in any respect, that's as fallacious an argument as saying we need guns to protect ourselves from all the rapists and tyrants. Poverty is probably the single-most factor associated with crime-levels, especially in cities. I'm hesitant to chalk up every shooting and suicide to mental illness after-the-fact but I agree that people who go around murdering others aren't exactly sane. Really? I thought it showed the relative lethality of those crimes. Guns are very good at killing things, people won't stop trying to harm others if they don't have access to guns, I suppose, but they will be a lot less efficient at it. I'm not really concerned about the M-15's and P-90's roaming the streets as much as I am just plain-old handguns. I personally don't think people should own those weapons but that's my opinion and clearly not supported by legislation so I don't want to take away anyone's rights. I have nothing against the, presumably, millions of people who own firearms, I just want to see what we can do to stop the headlines before we completely overhaul the education, economic, healthcare, and defense systems to get at the root of the problem.
User avatar #127 to #125 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Problem is that guns are good at putting holes at things, at a distance, and this happens to be lethal to humans. Now the issue with gun control is that there are thousands-millions of people of all ages, races, and genders that responsibly and legally use guns without ever hurting other people or themselves, and follow all respective laws regarding their ownership and usage. Then there are people who completely ignore the law and will murder and hurt people anyways, regardless of legal access to guns. The motives of these people varies from person to person, and unfortunately does often mean mental illness or poverty, though other times it stems from anger or greed. Restricting gun ownership based on those comparatively few people who would do harm to others is totally unfair for the people who use guns for recreation, self defense and food. The real solution to limit crime, as it will never really go away, is to have better access to mental health care, better education available for all, and better staffed and funded police force for the ones that ignore the first two solutions. Will this be perfect? No. But the second link I posted above shows that even banning guns won't eliminate them, or crime, just like the prohibition era didn't eliminate alcohol usage.
User avatar #129 to #127 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I don't want to eliminate guns, that's a straw man. Nor do I think gun-owners are anything but by-and-large perfectly sane, healthy, reasonable, productive, kind members of society. Let's not pretend that guns were invented for anything else. People didn't build cannons, miniaturize them, apply rifling, refine blackpowder into gunpowder, and then distribute them to soldiers because they thought it was nifty. Accidents can happen, and crazies are out there. I just want to make it as difficult as possible for those crazies and accidents to turn into massacres. I don't want to strip your rights away to do that, making it slightly more laborious to acquire certain weapons and keeping track of them isn't equivalent to wiping off the right from your constitutions or charters. There's a lot we can do to try and reduce crime and I'm willing to try every possible solution including tightening gun legislation and giving more power to the agencies that enforce those laws.

From what I can tell you underestimate the ability of the government to prevent illegal activities from taking place and over-estimate the ability of criminals to acquire illicit goods through illegal means and I'm doing the opposite (over-estimating the cops and under-estimating the robbers). The problem with statistics is they can be misleading and the studies basically cancel each-other out. England, Switzerland, Israel, Australia, Canada, USA, there's always some new interpretation of the evidence that suggests the other side is full of ****. I don't know what the final answer is and who is right and who is wrong. I wish it were clearer and I could just fall on the side of science but alas the evidence doesn't seem to be pointing perfectly in one-direction.

We do a lot of things based on the comparatively few to protect the whole. Seatbelts, guard rails, no-smoking zones, traffic lights. Every illegal behavior, basically. Most people don't use Quaaludes so why are they illegal? Sudafed?
User avatar #172 to #129 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Well as a Canadian I can tell you a few stats about gun crime in Canada. First it is relatively low, despite roughly 3 guns per 10 people, and the something like 97% of all our crime is committed with handguns. Now out of those handguns around 95% are acquire illegally, a little bit from theft, mostly from smuggling. Right now there is massive controversy in Canada surrounding the attempts of the RCMP, a federal police force, to rewrite the laws regarding gun ownership, since they have made 2 popular guns illegal to own, potentially putting around 13000 Canadians in jail (doubling the prison population) and destroying about $15,000,000 worth of property with no compensation. These people have committed no actual crimes. Canadian citizens as a whole seem to be very mad about this because bureaucrats are trying to write the law now. Times are changing now, and it seems like gun control all over has lost it's wind, and will be reduced to background checks, or basic licencing, since that prevents criminals from owning them for the most part, as well as people who have been involuntarily committed to a psych ward. For everyone else, they are innocent until proven guilty.
User avatar #173 to #172 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Yeah, as a Canadian I'm aware of the attachment many people have to their firearms and I don't seek to deprive people of their legal weapons nor punish them legally for owning them but I thought the database was a reasonable solution though I might have excluded hunting guns from the registry.
User avatar #174 to #173 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Well what defines a hunting gun then? An AR15 is one of the most popular hunting guns at the moment, but fall under the prohibited category (can't hunt with it, must be registered) in Canada, the AK47 is totally prohibited (right from the start in this case), and then the ACR and mini14 are nonrestricted and the VZ58 is nonrestricted, while functionally they are all similar. Everyone's opinion on what a "hunting gun" is varies from person to person, which makes it extraordinarily hard to regulate such a law. If anything only handguns could be argued that they should be registered, and even then that would be near, if not totally, impossible in the USA and already happens in Canada. This once again brings up the point that the vast majority of crimes are committed with smuggled or stolen handguns which makes such a registry mostly useless anyways.
User avatar #175 to #174 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
smuggled or stolen from somewhere, a somewhere that is for the moment untraceable because keeping track of the data is illegal.

I guess I define a hunting weapon as a gun designed for hunting. As opposed to a weapon of war designed for killing humans. You're right there is plenty of disagreement and leeway but, you know, that's life.
User avatar #176 to #175 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
If you smuggle a gun from another country it won't have ever been on the registry, and if a gun is stolen then you will most likely find yourself at a theft report, not at the person who actually committed the crime. And once again you have to specifically name guidelines as to what a "hunting gun" is compared to a "war gun". You could consider that most guns are originally based off of guns designed for war, or are straight up military surplus rifles sold to civilians (SKS, Lee Enfield, Mosin Nagant etc) that are often used for hunting. I would like to point out again that civilians, especially in Canada, can't own fully automatic or burst fire rifles.
User avatar #177 to #176 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I'm perfectly aware of what I find to be the current deplorable state of gun-law in the US and Canada but I think the way forward is improved legislation and not throwing our hands up in the air and giving up because it's too complex.
User avatar #178 to #177 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I haven't said we should just give up on it, I've been saying that it's more complex than what you seem to realize, and that a lot of issues involving guns don't relate directly to gun control and could be mitigated elsewhere without infringing on the people that haven't and won't ever commit a crime.
User avatar #179 to #178 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
that's fine, but to you things like gun control and the registry seem useless because they wont ever stop 100% of crime and so there value to crime prevention or crime solution is unimportant?
User avatar #180 to #179 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying the cost:usefulness ratio is way too skewed towards cost, especially considering the long gun registry cost ~$2,000,000,000 during it's lifetime and didn't solve any crimes. This would registry included the following guns
frontierfirearms.ca/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1000x1000/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/sa-vz-58-sporter-carbine-223-rem-556-x-45-mm.png
www.theammosource.com/images/M305Black.JPG
cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/acr-featured-blk.jpg
You need to login to view this link
And yet no crimes were solved with it.
User avatar #181 to #180 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
it never had a chance.
User avatar #182 to #181 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
It was active for about 10 years, and was only accessed something like 2 or 3 times and none of the times it was accessed solved anything. It was also hacked several times, and potentially used by criminals to know where to go to steal guns for illegal usage.
User avatar #183 to #182 - monswine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
got to love all of those hypothetical crimes
User avatar #186 to #183 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
is this you admitting that the registry only caused harm and expense while doing nothing useful?
User avatar #184 to #183 - icedmantwo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
You mean a useless registry that was >supposed< to help prevent or solve crime being used to cause more crime?
User avatar #185 to #184 - monswine
0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
yes, the rash of Canadian gun thefts immediately following ''hacks''
User avatar #60 - awesomescorpion
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
A couple facts:
1. USA = #103 in homicide rates.
2. 192 countries exist.
Conclusion: 89 countries have lower homicide rates than the US.

I'd like to see how many of those 89 have pro-gun or anti-gun laws, respectively. THEN I'll look into pro-gun laws as a viable alternative to lower crime.

Update: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
1. Less people are killed by homicide in Palestine than in the US. That says stuff...
2. The UK has 1.2 compared to the 4.7 of the US. So much for an example of the negative effects of anti-gun laws.
3. The top 10 lowest homicide countries are either very, very wealthy or have extremely low population.

My theory: economic prosperity and/or small societies generate societal peace. I do not know WHAT is going on in the US, but in the rest of the world pro-gun laws are NOT helping.

Show me a table with three columns: country, percentage of inhabitants with guns, homicide rates per capita. THEN I'll take a serious look into it. I am too lazy and tired to make something like that now.
#78 to #60 - anon id: 1c23ceee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
The argument isnt (for the most part) that pro gun helps. Its that it doesn't hurt.
User avatar #61 to #60 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
But since looser gun laws have been enacted in many states, violent crime has gone down, especially since 1993.

www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx
#1 - GoldenBob
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
You kidding me? Just take look at how dangerous guns are.
You kidding me? Just take look at how dangerous guns are.
User avatar #4 to #1 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Lol, that's what I think goes through some anti-gun peoples mind when they call guns, "assault weapons of mass destruction" seriously. It's like their brainwashed sometimes.
#9 to #4 - leonidasking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Implying that non-brainwashed humans exists.
User avatar #5 to #4 - dragoonsorcerer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
they are
#6 to #5 - anon id: cf1a3a48
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
It's ironic that you say that.
User avatar #18 to #6 - dragoonsorcerer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
how?
#12 - stilanonymous
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
There is absolutely no way that america is #103 on the list of homicides. Everyone is also like hey 4.7 not bad, but when u say 5ish out of every 100,000 people are murdered well then it takes on a different view. Guns are the problem whether the states will admit it or not. You have gun totting redneck ***** and kids that are bullied so hey why not kill everyone. If the states had better gun laws and made guns less accessible then maybe people wouldn't be killing each other all the damn time. Its not even like you would use most of the guns for hunting anyways. I live in Canada and stabbings occur maybe twice a year where someone dies. Last time there was a gun murder was 2 years ago in my city anyways.
#13 to #12 - stilanonymous
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
also on top of that, that police thing and error rates. 800000 police officers at 11% or 80 millions at 2% error. if that were my options for banking id choose the 80 million because its a higher amount. Lets say the police **** up and there are 80 some thousand mess ups at 11% how about over a million **** ups by the average gun owning citizen.
User avatar #34 to #12 - phuckinthingsucks
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
come to Edmonton AB there was a fatal shooting not five blocks from where I work, no one could do anything about it and the guy just walked off still yet to be caught
User avatar #52 to #12 - lean
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Just ignoring the fact that you have completely missed the point that more guns =/= more murder, there are 270,000,000 guns out there right now. America can't even make handing out healthcare work, how do you plan on making guns "less accessible"?

Every purchased gun in America is perfectly suited to hunting, from small game to large game to fowling (small rifle, large rifle, shotguns) with the exception of pistols. Many pistols are still used for hunting, but less accuracy means you have to be closer. There are no legal "assault weapons" in this country as the idiot media would have you believe.
User avatar #16 to #12 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Where is your argument? Why should we have gun control when violent crime has been dropping for the long time now, and states that have less gun control have less crime?
#55 to #16 - anon id: 8f08a730
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
correlation does not equal causation
User avatar #56 to #55 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
But regular trends and successive trials do point to a causation.
User avatar #17 to #12 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
And if you didn't read, there was Harvard study that showed a negative correlation between guns and violent crime.
#57 - gurubear
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
As always i going to leave this
#123 to #57 - anon id: 7c4af086
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
i dont mind that, but dont limit the magazine size. noone really needs a V8, but when theres 4 or five people doing a smash and grab on your house and youre home alone, it helps to have more ammo.
User avatar #67 to #57 - vonspyder
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Sorry but there is no Right to have a car. There IS however a right to have a firearm.
User avatar #69 to #67 - gurubear
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
But don't the idea of maybe a little requirements for a gun sound a little appealing?
User avatar #81 to #69 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
That's why we have FBI background checks performed at the time of a weapons purchase.
User avatar #170 to #81 - gurubear
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Yes, i think that's a good idea, in my mind we need more of it.
User avatar #187 to #170 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I don't see why, it covers all of the federal and state requirements to buy a gun, including not being a felon or having a court recognized mental illness. The FBI also has the ability to put a 7 day waiting period on you if they think you are high risk to commit some sort of crime but still are legally allowed to purchase a gun.
User avatar #70 to #69 - vonspyder
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
No, actually I find the idea horrible.
User avatar #71 to #70 - gurubear
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Horrible?? What is so wrong about it?
User avatar #72 to #71 - vonspyder
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I like my freedom. I like others having freedom. Simple as that.
User avatar #73 to #72 - gurubear
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Given that you are a decent person, this will not affect you, other that you have to do some cheks and get an insurance, but no biggies..
User avatar #74 to #73 - vonspyder
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
It will affect me in the sense that I am essentially allowing someone else to decide who can and cannot have a firearm. I have an issue with that.
User avatar #75 to #74 - gurubear
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
But at the same time you will properly prohibit an idiot for killing someone! Is't that a fair tradeoff?
User avatar #76 to #75 - vonspyder
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Not to me it isnt.
User avatar #77 to #76 - gurubear
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
I see
User avatar #82 to #57 - oceanmist
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
But cars Don't need any of that unless you use them on public roads. Just like you usually need a training, permit , ect. to carry a gun in public areas.
#54 - nottoointeresting
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
This thing gets posted every now and then. Most of it is untrue and most of of the sources false. for example. The USA vs Britain violent crime thing. Thats because this graphic classes violent crime in the USA is only rape, murder and armed robbery. where as The British definition covers literally hundreds of other crimes. If you hold them both up to the same standerd the US clocks in between double and triple that of the UK
User avatar #58 to #54 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Your right that it is skewed by definitions, but the Harvard study still puts them as very close when comparing specific crimes. No where near your claim of double or triple in the U.S..
User avatar #68 to #54 - vonspyder
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/06/2014) [-]
Actuallly the one about Kennesaw at the end is 100% true. I live there. Safest ******* place I've ever been.
User avatar #43 - mugenchamploo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
One part is untrue. Here in Colorado, our gun laws are very relaxed, you can walk around with a firearm on your hip and no one will say a word, and we have had, just in the last decade, a number of mass shootings. I agree with this posts purpose. But that is just plain not true
User avatar #44 to #43 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
At schools and vagarious gun other gun free zones, that was part of the post I think. Also, whats in the water up there?
User avatar #46 to #44 - mugenchamploo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Even so, it has happened at movie theaters, and other places it is completely legal to carry one. Recently, too. Ummm, im gonna say Iron, Fluoride, and a **** ton of weed...
User avatar #47 to #46 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Actually that particular theater had a strict gun free policy, why do you think no one returned fire?

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-07-21/Aurora-shooting-Batman-Pendley-mountain-states-concealed-carry/56394526/1
User avatar #48 to #47 - mugenchamploo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
I was completely unaware of that. I know, and have gone to that theater with, multiple people with a conceal carry permit, and their firearm. Guess they dont enforce that too well. Or well didnt a few years ago at the very least
User avatar #49 to #48 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
Eh, I don't know. I just think we should focus on mental health instead of seeing guns as the problem.
User avatar #50 to #49 - mugenchamploo
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
I agree, i was simply pointing out what i saw as the one flaw in this post. Guns dont kill people. Husbands who come home early from work do
User avatar #45 to #44 - tealcanaan [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/05/2014) [-]
various other*