this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
-14 points (25.0% liked)
Progressive Politics, Gun Control, Single Payer Healthcare and Free Abortions for All!
589 readers
1 users here now
We like leftists and liberals.
We want to ban all guns.
We want free healthcare.
We want UBI.
We don't mind being taxed.
We want to give everyone a free abortion!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I'm sure that's a small part of it, studies have already shown than owning a gun increases your risk for suicide, and the risk of homicide.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
Guns are a catalyst for disaster. If you're suicidal, a gun makes it a lot easier to commit suicide, and therefore a lot more likely that you'll do it. If you're a violent person, a gun being nearby makes it more likely that your violent actions will be lethal.
If it was simply and only [gun murder rise] -> [rise in gun sales for protection], that alone wouldn't explain why gun deaths by suicide also rise. The explanation is that owning a gun makes death more likely. Which when you think about it, it is absolutely shocking that an item purpose built to kill makes death more likely.
Whelp, if you can't convince people to get a vaccination for a virus that killed millions, you won't convince people that giving up their guns will reduce their chance of getting killed.
I think a lot of people are convinced that there would be less crime overall if more people had guns and cc permits. But I bet if some wealthy philanthropist set up a foundation to subsidize affordable guns and ammo for low income families and immigrants there would probably be a lot more political will to regulate firearms.
Because it won't. This has been proven time and time again. Reducing guns doesn't reduce violence.
The point of reducing gun availability isn't to reduce instances of violence, it's to reduce the carnage after it. The force multiplying effect of a knife is significantly less than most guns.
If we assume people are violent and dangerous, then we should limit the damage they can do.
If thsr were true, would we not see significantly higher rats of homicide and the like when guns are more prevalent? Or even any notable change whatsoever?
We do see that trend though. Compare the homicide rates of the U.S. with European countries.
Ahh, yes. Because there's absolutely zero other differences between countries. If you had a valid point and not just bullshit, countries like Switzerland and Finland would be the murder capitals of Europe and not some of the safest, no?
You're the one who asked this question:
To which the answer is yes, we see significantly high rates of homicide where guns are more prevalent.
So you're saying we should move our gun law to be closer in line with those two countries? I agree! Let's start by instituting Finland's requirement for a gun license to be able to own a gun.
Yeah, except you're literally just lieing out your ass.
The U.S. has 120 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate or 6 per 100,000.
Finland has 32 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000
Germany has 20 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000.
The U.S. has the most lax gun law, followed by Finland. Germany is by far the most strict of these three. I didn't pull this information out of my ass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
Funny how you link datasets that basically have zero correction whatsoever when actually analyzed. Ty for proving my point
Then put in the work and show you're correct with a dataset you trust.
You literally linked it. I'm not opening fucking excel for an internet argument with a troll
Then stop complaining over data sources that you can't be bothered to look at.