Guns per 100 people in US: 112. Gun deaths per 100k people: 10.4 (2014)
Guns per 100 people in Brazil: 8. Gun deaths per 100k people: 21.2 (2014)
Guns per 100 people in Serbia: 75. Gun deaths per 100k people: 3.49 (2011)
Guns per 100 people in El Salvador: 6. Gun deaths per 100k people: 45.6 (2011)
Wow. It's...it's almost like the number of guns alone is no direct indicator of number of gun deaths. As if things like environment, culture, mental health and economic factors mix with human nature in different ways in different places.
Now, my info is just quickly pulled off Wikipedia and I haven't had a chance to fully verify, but I'm pretty sure I pulled it out of my ass just as effectively as OP pulled this pic out of theirs.
I'd like to add that even things like gun control don't necessarily help as mexico has one of the highest gun crime rates while also having some of the strictest gun laws.
@f_kyeahhamburg But that's exactly the point. Sheer NUMBER of guns is a false correlation you all love to throw around. What you all are so careful to omit about US guns is that a) a full 50% of the gun total is in the hands of 3% of the population and b) 18% of gun ownership is for hunting (that's right, people still hunt food in the US, or are sport hunters with their guns locked up the rest of the time). Despite the numbers, only 39% of US households are thought to have any guns at all, and gun ownership in the US in 2016 was estimated to be at a 40 year low. Guns are NOT as pervasive as your cherry-picked newscasts would have you believe, and the numbers are not the problem.
The issue isn’t how many guns there are it’s how easy it is to get them. Factoring in things like criminal records and mental illnesses. In any case you shouldn’t just be able to walk into a Walmart and pick one up.
You can't just walk into a Walmart and get one. They sell them, but they're supposed to do background checks and even then those guns at Walmart are hunting guns, so not every Walmart has that section. There was a guy recently, I don't remember his name, but he tried to " prove " how easy it was to get a gun and got denied because of a previous record of violence ( I think it was domestic abuse? ) he then proceeded to throw a fit about it too.
And A LOT of gun violence is from illegally gotten guns, anyway.
Not to mention gun control won't work because the vast majority of gun related killings are criminals who got their guns illegally anyway. Gun control would only add stricter regulations or entirely take away the guns of law abiding citizens. By definition criminals do not obey laws so what makes you think they won't continue buying and selling guns that are already in circulation on the black market. The only thing gun control would achieve is disarming the law abiding population who wish only to defend themselves and their family.
However allowing guns to be sold commercially creates a market within the country and thus it's easier to transport weapons in to and inside of the country. Just because criminals get guns from the black market doesn't mean those guns were manufactured illegally or even delivered illegally. The legal market enables the illegal market.
There is no legal market for methamphetamine so what enables the illegal market? There is no legal market for prostitution (in most of the civilized world) so what enables the illegal market? If we extrapolate further; there is no legal market for murder, human trafficking, theft, etcetera so what enables these illegal markets?
The all-too-simple fact of the matter is that criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY COMMIT CRIMES. Crimes are crimes because there are ILLEGAL. Making an act illegal, or a tool which may be used in an act, does not and cannot prevent crimes due to the fact that that is what criminals do.
It should be obvious that guns do not cause crime, and since something is not a crime if there is no law against it, I would argue that it is actually LAWS which cause crimes!
First of all, prostitution is legal in parts of the US. Secondly, you are comparing things thay anybody can do/make (prostitution and meth) to goods that require sophisticated manufacturing (guns).
Ease of use/creation is what makes drugs and prostitutes accessible, while guns rely on manufacturing, which requires a demand for legal sales. And what everybody seems to miss is that stricter gun laws could allow us to catch criminals just for owning an illegal gun, before they get the chance to use it.
So people are just supposed to sit around without good defense?
And stricter gun laws wouldn't affect the criminals at all. Its against the law to have an illegal gun and taking legally owned guns isn't going to make it any easier or quicker to find illegal guns?
Guest is right about the manufacturing part though. Most ingredients for meth can be legally acquired while some are regulated but still accessible. To make a gun you need sophisticated machines and expensive materials. Guns made on an illegal market would be much less reliable and would cost a lot more since they're made by hand. Also: comparing murder and prostitution, services/deeds, to a product makes no sense.
Secure borders, almost zero cultural and racial diversity, and the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right to the United States that this process would completely undermine the intrntion of the, if not curtail it entirely
Racial diversity is irrelevant. It has everything to do with culture. Groups of people who have conflicting core beliefs and live in close proximity of eachother WILL HAVE CONFLICTS.
Skin color isnt the cause. Different beliefs is the cause.
Different beliefs isn't the cause either, but a lack of tolerance. If somebody else has a different belief or opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong. And even if he's wrong, in no case violence is the answer. Conflicts will always exist, but we all have the ability to talk and thus to discuss.
1
deleted
· 7 years ago
If someone believes it's okay to beat my family, that isn't a lack of tolerance on my part that's the problem.
If someone believes it's okay to kill their sons and daughters because they "disrespected their family," by dating a different group, that isn't a lack of tolerance on my part that's the problem.
Just because I don't tolerate everything that's different from my beliefs doesn't mean I should.
It's not a tillerance thing its a trust thing. If you want to get right down to it the cultural differences simply create a lack of trust. Trust develops when you share beliefs. You need to trust that the other person, family, or group will do what you would do if you're not there.
.
Two people with different religions can absolutely trust eachother but only if their core beliefs are in line.
.
You guys, most of the "racial hatred" and political divide that we perceive is manufactured. People in the US are NOT THAT DIVIDED! The last 30 years in this country have been controlled comfortably by two groups of people. Those two groups have disadvantaged the masses long enough that it allowed the election of a total outsider to gain power. That changed everything and now we have a three way tug of war for votes. Power means votes. Unfortunately the majority of our citizens are easily swayed by propaganda, clever manipulation and out right lies.
Everything from Trumps rediculous tweets to the evening news of your choice is designed to manipulate everyone into taking a side. We're intentionaly made to think that we have to accept all of the values of whatever side we choose. If you believe in a strong second amendment you must be a racist. If you believe in amnesty you must believe in universal healthcare. If you think the country's tax burdon is too high you must hate gay people etc. THIS IS NOT TRUE!
.
If they power struggle can pump hate into the people it will make them unable to rationally debate (and therefore learn) a different view. If they can convince you that disagreeing with a black president makes you racist they can achive the same result. Then they view the deciding population as pawns. I'm not a pawn, are you?
.
So lets dial back the hate. Dial back the steriotypes and demand that the leadership in this country start doing its job and deliver the tangible things we need.
Heres where we start. Demand presidential and congressional elections that give everyone a fair shot at winning! DNC rigged Hilary to win when Berny clearly heald the masses. GOP attemped the same but was unabke to deliver. Know fir sure that the GOP wont make that mistake again. We need a system that promots the election of the most capable president who shares the true beliefs of the masses.
Same laws and restrictions exist in many US states. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the country - highest murder rate in the country. Switzerland third highest gun to person ratio in the world, lowest rate of firearm related deaths. It’s not about number or storage, it’s about the society
They do work if you apply them everywhere. If you just need to cross the Chicago border to go to the next supermarket and buy a gun, well there.
And more importantly, in a federation of states where so many guns are in circulation, it always will be easy to get one.
In Switzerland the people have guns, but they don’t have ammunition.
1
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
" non-citizen cannot purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firerams dealer unless they have been a resident of their state for 90 days. So, no, tourists on short visits cannot walk into guns stores to get "protection" during their trip."
From what I see, gun culture in America is what's responsible for the high gun-crime rate, there's too much of a willingness to use guns, aside from hunting, a person should never want to have to use their gun, such as self defense situations
Why does it always come back to hunting? The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. The entire point of it is so that people can defend themselves from other people or hostile governments.
Oh yeah, and that is apparently what they're used for.
Every American I talk to is pissed about the corruption in government and the gap between rich and poor. The US have by far the highest imprisonment to citizen ratio in the world and it is mostly the poor nd the coloured portion being locked away.
And what is the outcome? People shoot each other for ridiculous reasons instead of changing the system that makes them nothing more but greedy and miserable.
And one more point about defending yourself, a gun doesn't prevent you from getting shot. That's what bulletproof vests are made for.
Bulletproof vests don't stop your throat from being slit. A gun can.
Bulletproof vests don't stop you from being raped. A gun can.
Bulletproof vests don't protect you from from being robbed. A gun can.
Bulletproof vests don't protect you from having your head bashed in. A gun can.
Bulletproof vests don't help you defend your family when a psycho breaks into your daughters room. A gun can.
You seem to think that a gun is meant to protect from only gun crimes. It isn't. It's meant to protect from all crimes.
A gun can also cause 59 deaths in Las Vegas, 49 deaths in Orlando, 32 deaths at Virginia Tech, 27 deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School, 25 deaths in Texas...
I love how each side looks at the number of deaths as a number and not individual lives. They were people. Relatives. Colleagues. Friends. But now they're just a number in an argument. And some would say it isn't as bad as some other country. How many prematurely ended lives is bad enough for you?
Here's your shitty argument OP:
IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ***RIGHT*** IN THE US! Simple as that.
Japan has no such right for it's citizens.
(And besides they're too busy fucking their anime girl pillows to shoot anyone)
The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when it took 15 seconds to load and fire a gun, then if you wanted to fire again you would have to waste another 15 seconds. Now, people can modify their guns to shoot around two rounds per second.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Excerpt from the majority opinion in DC vs Heller. AKA the law of the land.
And in those times you could own a literal cannon.
Pray tell what would be the modern day equivalent of a cannon?
Well thought and articulated response (and as accurate as a .223 with match-grade ammo)
The level of 18th century firearms technology is of no more consequence to the question of second ammendment rights than computers versus manual printing presses under the first amendment. There should be no ambiguity about the intentions of the Founding Fathers in framing our "bill of rights" simply because they spelled them out. One needs only to read their writings (they were all prolific writers and very clear in their opinions and beliefs) to understand what they meant in the Constitution. In particular, the Federalist Papers lay their opinions out quite clearly.
Ignorance is inexcusable when knowledge is so easily obtained.
This is exactly what it should be. I don't give a shit about the statistics, but mental health and gun training should be mandatory for all gun owners.
Logging the location of your gun is a bit far though...
Fuck yeah Japan.
If you are competent enough to have a gun, great! Have one!
If you're not, you're shit out of luck.
What a (wonderful) fucking concept.
Yea only Japanese citizens can obtain a gun. No foreigners living in Japan can own a gun under any circumstances . So I guess that's another restriction .
As a non-American, it's kind of scary how defensive some of you are about your guns. I know I'm bound to get loads of downvotes for this, but the US has a serious gun problem. The rest of us can't understand why such a developed country can be so BLIND. It makes me so sad
What scares us is that so many of you people are willing, no, eager to give up your own autonomy and liberty to forces that ultimately don't give a damn about you.
In america its a constitutional right. Its in the bill of rights, which are ones that can't be touched or changed. If we allowed them to take away our guns, besides the fact they're taking our means of defense, that opens a gateway to take away freedom of speech, and religion, and press, as well as the other eight. Them taking away our guns is a start to them taking all our rights away.
We recognize the gun problem, we're just tired of hearing stupid solutions like "Take them all away" and "Do what this low population island nation did because it works in that environment(ie: UK and Australia)" . I'm pro anything that will work but people get emotional and insisting on these stupid plans that we know won't work rather than taking time to come up with something that will. I actually like the Japan solution, except for storing things seperately and the police knowing where you store it. That also doesn't solve illegal owners and sales though, which is a whole other problem. Another ignored problem is federal restrictions work fine in a city where police and others who might help are close, but in rural locations where I live, police can be over an hour away, even in an emergency. What are we supposed to do? All in all the biggest thing holding reform back imo is people pretending it's an easy solution on either side.
Chicago has stricker gun laws...One in a million, (it's actually much higher than that) shouldn't dictate the laws for the law abiding Americans. If you want the government deciding the freedoms you may have, may I suggest England?
Reducing the issue to the tool used completely ignores the actual issue: Crime and Unnecessary Deaths.
It does not matter how the deaths are inflicted, what matters is that deaths are being inflicted.
Obviously the only thing they care about is gun death, not actual death. Priorities, I guess.
2
deleted
· 7 years ago
Number one suicide method in Japan is hanging (2014 stats). Hangings are rope deaths and we should pass laws regulating the selling and owning of ropes.
Except killing 200 people is difficult with a rope. Guns are easier to kill youself with.
1
deleted
· 7 years ago
I wasn't aware that anyone had killed 200 people with a gun.
But that is irrelevant considering that rope control could save up to 4,000 lives in Japan. Those lives are just important as suicides by gun. So why is government regulation the solution to one problem when it isn't the solution to another problem, if both problems could be fixed by nothing more than government regulation?
Don't worry, I'm sure that someone will get to 200 deaths eventually, but by all means be worried about regulating rope.
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
Why the double standard for rope then? If the goal is to save lives, and regulating one tool saves lives, why shouldn't we regulated rope as well? Why shouldn't we have screenings to keep rope out of the hands of suicidal people?
Dismissing an idea that's absurd when the purpose of such an absurd idea being stated is to show how absurd the original idea was is, you guessed it, absurd.
Guns per 100 people in Brazil: 8. Gun deaths per 100k people: 21.2 (2014)
Guns per 100 people in Serbia: 75. Gun deaths per 100k people: 3.49 (2011)
Guns per 100 people in El Salvador: 6. Gun deaths per 100k people: 45.6 (2011)
Wow. It's...it's almost like the number of guns alone is no direct indicator of number of gun deaths. As if things like environment, culture, mental health and economic factors mix with human nature in different ways in different places.
Now, my info is just quickly pulled off Wikipedia and I haven't had a chance to fully verify, but I'm pretty sure I pulled it out of my ass just as effectively as OP pulled this pic out of theirs.
And A LOT of gun violence is from illegally gotten guns, anyway.
The all-too-simple fact of the matter is that criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY COMMIT CRIMES. Crimes are crimes because there are ILLEGAL. Making an act illegal, or a tool which may be used in an act, does not and cannot prevent crimes due to the fact that that is what criminals do.
It should be obvious that guns do not cause crime, and since something is not a crime if there is no law against it, I would argue that it is actually LAWS which cause crimes!
And stricter gun laws wouldn't affect the criminals at all. Its against the law to have an illegal gun and taking legally owned guns isn't going to make it any easier or quicker to find illegal guns?
Skin color isnt the cause. Different beliefs is the cause.
If someone believes it's okay to kill their sons and daughters because they "disrespected their family," by dating a different group, that isn't a lack of tolerance on my part that's the problem.
Just because I don't tolerate everything that's different from my beliefs doesn't mean I should.
.
Two people with different religions can absolutely trust eachother but only if their core beliefs are in line.
.
You guys, most of the "racial hatred" and political divide that we perceive is manufactured. People in the US are NOT THAT DIVIDED! The last 30 years in this country have been controlled comfortably by two groups of people. Those two groups have disadvantaged the masses long enough that it allowed the election of a total outsider to gain power. That changed everything and now we have a three way tug of war for votes. Power means votes. Unfortunately the majority of our citizens are easily swayed by propaganda, clever manipulation and out right lies.
.
If they power struggle can pump hate into the people it will make them unable to rationally debate (and therefore learn) a different view. If they can convince you that disagreeing with a black president makes you racist they can achive the same result. Then they view the deciding population as pawns. I'm not a pawn, are you?
.
So lets dial back the hate. Dial back the steriotypes and demand that the leadership in this country start doing its job and deliver the tangible things we need.
And more importantly, in a federation of states where so many guns are in circulation, it always will be easy to get one.
Every American I talk to is pissed about the corruption in government and the gap between rich and poor. The US have by far the highest imprisonment to citizen ratio in the world and it is mostly the poor nd the coloured portion being locked away.
And what is the outcome? People shoot each other for ridiculous reasons instead of changing the system that makes them nothing more but greedy and miserable.
And one more point about defending yourself, a gun doesn't prevent you from getting shot. That's what bulletproof vests are made for.
Bulletproof vests don't stop you from being raped. A gun can.
Bulletproof vests don't protect you from from being robbed. A gun can.
Bulletproof vests don't protect you from having your head bashed in. A gun can.
Bulletproof vests don't help you defend your family when a psycho breaks into your daughters room. A gun can.
You seem to think that a gun is meant to protect from only gun crimes. It isn't. It's meant to protect from all crimes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/?utm_term=.81dec9014f46
edit
there's plenty of them out there, but no one over here has ever proposed them. Believe it or not, there's plenty that don't violate the second amendment either. Shocking I know, but it's possible.
edit 2
Hell, if you want I'll give you what solutions I support and we can shift into a debate about policy, and whether my solutions would work or if your solutions would work.
IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ***RIGHT*** IN THE US! Simple as that.
Japan has no such right for it's citizens.
(And besides they're too busy fucking their anime girl pillows to shoot anyone)
And in those times you could own a literal cannon.
Pray tell what would be the modern day equivalent of a cannon?
The level of 18th century firearms technology is of no more consequence to the question of second ammendment rights than computers versus manual printing presses under the first amendment. There should be no ambiguity about the intentions of the Founding Fathers in framing our "bill of rights" simply because they spelled them out. One needs only to read their writings (they were all prolific writers and very clear in their opinions and beliefs) to understand what they meant in the Constitution. In particular, the Federalist Papers lay their opinions out quite clearly.
Ignorance is inexcusable when knowledge is so easily obtained.
Logging the location of your gun is a bit far though...
If you are competent enough to have a gun, great! Have one!
If you're not, you're shit out of luck.
What a (wonderful) fucking concept.
It does not matter how the deaths are inflicted, what matters is that deaths are being inflicted.
But that is irrelevant considering that rope control could save up to 4,000 lives in Japan. Those lives are just important as suicides by gun. So why is government regulation the solution to one problem when it isn't the solution to another problem, if both problems could be fixed by nothing more than government regulation?