Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?
Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese
Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby.
There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.
This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine. Let’s do this.
There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen
should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to
kill human beings.
I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature. Huh… I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.
A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every
month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your
ill-chosen hobby.
Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013. While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things. There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in
America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot
effectively track. This means that, even if we use conservative
estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a
single person in 2013.
When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.
Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:
Death by gun, suicide excluded: 0.0032%
Death by gun, suicide included: 0.0095%
Death in a mass shooting alone: 0.000032%
Injury by gun, no death: 0.024%
Death of injury by gun including suicide: 0.033%
Gun
deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun
people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and
easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little
change to the average numbers used above.
Guns compared to other ways you can die:
Unintentional fall deaths:
Number of deaths: 26,009
Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,041
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
All poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 42,917
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9
All Drug poisoning deaths:
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)
All firearm deaths (suicide included):
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):
Number of deaths: 12,664
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
Firearm deaths broken down completely:
3.6 for homicide 6.3 for suicide 0.30 for unintentional 0.10 undetermined
10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more
likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns
but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and
are less regulated than guns!
Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective. While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible,
you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these
attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s
overall murder rate. About 0.2% to be more exact.
Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.
Guns help protect
innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this
country alone every single year.
Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often
than they hurt them. When guns are harming more innocent lives than
they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to
further limit guns.
But for now, it’s not even close. Moving on…
There is no solution better than the one that several European countries
and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a
less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a
literal killing machine.
Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried. It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates. It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society. It is, and always will be, a complete failure.
The total firearms death rate in 1995 -
the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per
100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was
0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from
4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws.
This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at
1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that
the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s
passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior
to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1).
This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably
affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease
gun crime.
It should also be noted that around the same time,
New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change
their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than
some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite
this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well,
and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.
The “australia banned guns and now they’re fine”
argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is
little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is
America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by
politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem
in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of
opportunities, and lack of education.
You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[37]
noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent
years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on
violence
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996
firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology.
Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no
evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[40]
A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related
deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total
firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm
homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional
firearm deaths, which increased.[43]
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of
mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a
rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size
between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were
compared between countries. That study found that in the period
1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not
differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country
has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued
availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors
conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain
types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country
since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to
certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in
Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the
absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still
allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to
experience mass shooting events.”[44]
We see the same trend in The UK.
And Ireland and Jamaica…
And on and on and on… Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.
All
of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost
of implementing Australian style gun control in America.
I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun
control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big
picture of that plan.
Australia had far less guns per person and
people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up
respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very
different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun
ownership and self defense.
There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers ($792.39 per gun), these guns would cost our government $285,261,489,698.89 to buy back. Almost 300 BILLION dollars, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.
Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.
So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars AND has
already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at
protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?
Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.
Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.
Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no. But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.
Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.
You know that guns are not cars, right?
Gun shows have too many loopholes.
What loopholes would those be? Please enlighten us.
Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable
measures are worth a try.
The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.
Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone? Anyone?
From
1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in
America. They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.
An “assault weapons” ban. Magazine capacity limits. All of that.
We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.
Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.
Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.
but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?
A hobby? Sure. No problem.
However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby. It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me. I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.
Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates. They do not create safer societies. Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.
hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns
No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.
So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.
oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s not going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k
Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America. They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…
If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.
