Anon breaks up
-
Funny to read the comments. I don't want to judge anyone as Im not american and I grew up without even touching a real gun.
Its just amazing how big role guns play in US culture. I can't imagine owning one, but most americans can't live without them. Its very bizarre.
It perpetuates itself. If someone thinks there is a significant probability a burglar might have a gun, getting a gun themselves can increase their chance of survival. This is even ignoring the actual culture around it, where people want guns "just to have them".
-
I think we just don't like guns.
Speak for yourself. God forbid men should have a hobby.
-
but I'm 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this. When the police recieve a report, they end up seizing the guns without any due process, and the owners has to sue to get them back.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this.
It's my understanding that every state with a red flag law imposes a procedure similar to involuntary commitment: a court weighing evidence presented to it under penalty of perjury, with a heavy presumption that these orders are only for extremely rare situations.
Florida's procedure, for example, requires a petition from the police to the court, and requires the police to show the court that the person is suffering from a serious mental illness, has committed acts of violence, or has credibly threatened acts of violence (to self or others). In ordinary cases the person whose guns are being taken away has an opportunity to be heard in court before the judge decides, but in emergency cases the court can order the guns be taken away for up to 14 days, and requires an opportunity for the person to be heard in court.
So in practice, in Florida, someone would have to convince the police they're a danger, and then provide enough evidence that the police can persuade a judge. Private citizens aren't allowed to petition the court directly, and the process requires proof of a serious enough set of facts to justify taking guns away.
-
If you think before posting, ask yourself: is it normal to break into people's homes?
And even then, here we don't worry about criminals with guns that much. The USA is idiotic in that regard, with its pervasive gun culture, resulting in weekly mass shootings.
I didn't ask to be born in a country where burglars are likely to have firearms. But now that I am, I have to react to that fact myself.
-
If you think before posting, ask yourself: is it normal to break into people's homes?
And even then, here we don't worry about criminals with guns that much. The USA is idiotic in that regard, with its pervasive gun culture, resulting in weekly mass shootings.
What a terribly privileged take. Not everyone can live up in that ivory tower with you.
-
Lot of US leftists and liberals hate guns, as a reaction to the right’s obsession with them.
It is a stupid and dangerous reaction, because they give up their means of self-defense against far right militias and a fascist government.
No, lots of liberal hate guns. Lots of leftists are either anarchist or communist, both of which support arming the populace. Many socialists support gun ownership as well.
-
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It's origin lies in emotion, not reason. It's filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
The gun control movement is not left-wing. The left supports gun ownership overwhelmingly.
-
It's very amusing to read such things from outside the American hellscape. Well, "amusing."
Let's say eventually there comes a government overreach that a popular armed uprising puts down. Every day until that day, children die. Accidental death from firearms is one of the leading causes of death of children in your country. (Do you feel that pricking sensation in your neck and face or are you immune to shame?) If the rebellion doesn't come soon enough (or at all) then you are underwater in terms of dead children. So, how long is that runway? How long do you get to keep killing children until you have to admit, fuck, this is costing us more than it's worth?
HAVE YOU EVEN DONE THE MATH, or are you just working from feelings?
Accidental deaths from firearms can be reduced by making people get obligatory training and requiring storage in a gun safe, when not carried.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Guys hi, just looking for some support share, a Fantasy Adventure Story, for all ages : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVIvQ1wsgg - maybe you are curious
-
Guerilla tactics in foreign countries on the other side of the planet, where they needed to overcome giant logistics problems.
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
It may not, but then the logistics becomes an even more insidious problem- how do you determine who is loyal to the government/military and who will disclose shipping routes or guard routines or other classified info. Further, because it is within the US, and the families of the loyalists are impacted, how do you guarantee their loyalty?
-
Look up overall crime statistics for both countries that restrict firearm access and those who don't. You'll find that overall violent crime ends up being proportional to the countries' midi coefficient (a measurement of economic inequality). Firearm availability mainly changes the proportion of violent crimes involving firearms vs overall violent crime.
Like I said, most of the statistics you see are cherry-picked to give an overly simplistic view of crime to distract from the fact that economic inequality is a huge correlating factor
wrote last edited by [email protected]While income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is positively correlated with violent crime, firearm availability has been shown to independently influence both the rate and lethality of violence.
According to Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza (2002, The Journal of Law and Economics), there is a significant cross-national association between income inequality and homicide rates. However, firearm access is not merely a determinant of the method used in violent crime—it also affects the frequency and outcome of such incidents.
Data from the Small Arms Survey and the Global Burden of Disease project indicate that countries with high rates of civilian firearm ownership (e.g., the United States) experience substantially higher rates of firearm homicide, suicide, and accidental gun death than peer nations with stricter gun regulations (e.g., the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia), despite similar or lower Gini coefficients.
For example, the U.S. firearm homicide rate was 6.1 per 100,000 in 2021 (CDC WONDER), compared to 0.5 per 100,000 in Canada and less than 0.1 in countries like Japan and the U.K. This disparity persists even when controlling for overall violent crime or economic inequality.
Moreover, studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have found that the presence of firearms in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide and suicide, particularly among women and children (see Kellermann et al., 1993; Anglemyer et al., 2014).
Therefore, while inequality is an important factor, firearm regulation has a demonstrable and independent effect on both the incidence and deadliness of violent crime. The distinction between type and frequency does not eliminate the public health implications of firearm prevalence.
You present yourself as rational while dismissing emotion as weakness. But emotions like shame, fear, and the impulse to protect others are not failures of reason. They are essential to moral awareness.
The need to maintain rigid rational detachment is itself emotionally driven. It often reflects a desire to avoid guilt or to preserve control. That isn’t objectivity, it’s fragility disguised as discipline.
-
Speak for yourself. God forbid men should have a hobby.
Are you really pretending this is about men having hobbies?
-
I mean they already own the guns. They can’t even sell them to hire a lawyer because they were taken.
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you.
️If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
You're off by an order of magnitude. I'm saying the lawyer would cost between 3 to low 4 figures, generally less than a single gun.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you.
The ownership of the gun hasn't changed. That owner can sell the gun even if they can't physically possess it. Federal law requiring relinquishment of firearms (like upon conviction of a disqualifying felony or domestic violence misdemeanor) explicitly provides for selling the guns as a way to comply with the order. Each state is different in their rules on selling weapons already in the police's possession, and states require that transfer to go through an FFL, but most do not.
Look, I'm a gun owner. And I think part of being a responsible gun owner means having the financial means to actually deal with the consequences of owning, and potentially using, that firearm. I think it's a defect of American gun culture that there are so many people with concealed carry licenses who wouldn't even know how to contact a lawyer if they were to actually fire a gun in a real situation, whether it's a legitimate self defense situation or a negligent discharge. Gun ownership carries important responsibilities, and there is such a thing as someone who is too poor to responsibly own a gun (much less enough to where the phrase "all my guns" carries its own implicit meaning).
-
Funny to read the comments. I don't want to judge anyone as Im not american and I grew up without even touching a real gun.
Its just amazing how big role guns play in US culture. I can't imagine owning one, but most americans can't live without them. Its very bizarre.
It's not most Americans. It's about a third (which is still huge) and less than half of the population living in a gun owning household.
Then there's a spectrum of how "important" guns are culturally. There are in my experience 3 categories of gun owners.
- People who own a gun or two. They may take it to the range or hunt, but mostly it's tucked securely away and they don't think about it or use it.
2)Then there are collectors and enthusiasts. They enjoy firearms as a hobby. They have multiple. They watch firearms videos on social media. They go to gun shows and might join a club related to the hobby.
3)Then there are the paranoid psychopaths for whom gun ownership and the insistence that they could have to defend themselves at any time is constantly at the forefront of their mind. They wish they had a reason to shoot someone and may end up shooting someone anyway.
-
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
You're off by an order of magnitude. I'm saying the lawyer would cost between 3 to low 4 figures, generally less than a single gun.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you.
The ownership of the gun hasn't changed. That owner can sell the gun even if they can't physically possess it. Federal law requiring relinquishment of firearms (like upon conviction of a disqualifying felony or domestic violence misdemeanor) explicitly provides for selling the guns as a way to comply with the order. Each state is different in their rules on selling weapons already in the police's possession, and states require that transfer to go through an FFL, but most do not.
Look, I'm a gun owner. And I think part of being a responsible gun owner means having the financial means to actually deal with the consequences of owning, and potentially using, that firearm. I think it's a defect of American gun culture that there are so many people with concealed carry licenses who wouldn't even know how to contact a lawyer if they were to actually fire a gun in a real situation, whether it's a legitimate self defense situation or a negligent discharge. Gun ownership carries important responsibilities, and there is such a thing as someone who is too poor to responsibly own a gun (much less enough to where the phrase "all my guns" carries its own implicit meaning).
wrote last edited by [email protected]You do you. But I challenge you to go and look at gun prices at your local Walmart in the USA. Not every guy you buy has to be an FN-Scar 17 in pricing.
Turn around a look at how much it costs to defend yourself criminally in the USA.
Guns are about $200 at Walmart.
Robust criminal defense is about 30-40 hours.
Also good luck selling a gun you don’t have in your possession. Try going to a gun shop and saying “give me the cash now, I promise to give you the gun when the police give it back to me”
You might legally have that right but practically… good luck.
We do agree that you should be responsible for your actions. But looking at the meme here nothing wrong was done.
-
Accidental deaths from firearms can be reduced by making people get obligatory training and requiring storage in a gun safe, when not carried.
Okay? So how many years does that push the "break even point"? Do you see how this doesn't engage with my point in the slightest?
-
Are you really pretending this is about men having hobbies?
I use my rifles for hunting. Some people like collecting and sport shooting. Some have theirs for self defense in higher crime areas because they can't afford better. So yeah?
-
Not true, "pro-life" is actually "anti-woman's life". Those people would rather have an adult person die from an ectopic pregnancy than have a clump of cancer removed.
A foetus isn't a clump of cancer. No need to use a Eugenicist dog-whistle, Nazi.
-
Lot of US leftists and liberals hate guns, as a reaction to the right’s obsession with them.
It is a stupid and dangerous reaction, because they give up their means of self-defense against far right militias and a fascist government.
right! Like the fascist government that is now taking hold of the US. Not fascist enough to defend themselves yet? -
This. Pro-life supporters don't care if the mother dies. Hell, corpses get more rights than pregnant women, because at least people can refuse to be organ donors
So you nazis have mind reading technologies now?
