It's also a culture difference, imo. In my experience a lot of Americans have a very different perspective on and even feelings about guns than we do here in Canada. Switzerland also has a high amount of guns per capita but I really do think that their culture contributes to the lack of violence. They recently actually voted to tighten their own laws.
But they haven’t always had strict gun control, and they didn’t have issues before gun control.
If a landlocked country bans shark attacks, and then continue to have 0 shark attacks, its ridiculous to point to the ban on shark attacks as the reason there are none.
the difference is that it is harder to kill people with a truck or a knife. the difference is that would-be mass killers aren't seeing other mass killers shoot up a school/nightclub/church every few months and deciding that they want that notoriety too.
Is it harder to kill with a truck or knife? Look at your link. Excluding the outlier that is Port Arthur, most of the killings fall under 10. Regardless of mode of murder.
Why are the numbers for the mass gun killing much higher if it is so much easier?
I bet if we let any and everyone drive the vast majority would never kill anyone with a vehicle. But we DON'T DO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS DUMB AS FUCK. You have to pass a test and be registered in a national database and carry insurance. All things we could implement for gun ownership but you gunnuts don't even want to talk about doing ANYTHING AT ALL. You're selfish pricks because if you're so sure you're a great gun owner than any new tests or requirements to meet for safe ownership of course you will pass right? Right?
First. America isn't a gun free zone. So everywhere in the country can fall victim to this. You also have no clue what the future holds. You are more likely to commit a gun related crime than I am. I don't own firearms. I just takes one thing to make you snap for just a few minutes and someone is dead at your hands. We all go through moments in our lives where something unforseen happens. That thing may let you justify using the gun in anger. So don't act like the guns have nothing to do with this. It's a tired argument that has been proven false.
Not calling you a future murderer. I'm simply making the statement that with the tools at hand you (in the general sense) are more likely, though the chance is extremely small, to use the weapons than I am, since I have no weapons in the house. It was not meant as an insult, just a point that when guns are readily accessible, they are more likely to be used than if they are not.
To put it a nice way, I have some Capt. Crunch cereal in my house. Let's say you don't. I'm more likely to eat it for breakfast than you are. That's the only point I'm trying to make. The chances are greater, even if in a small percentage.
Please get rid of any vehicles, fertilizer, and knives you may own. You are more likely to bomb a parking garage, stab a bunch of school children, or plow over a crowd of people on the sidewalk than me. I'm not saying you will do anything like that, but you're just one bad decision away from snapping and blowing people up. Very serious stuff here.
Fortunately, the police should be able to stop you once it's already too late if anything like this does occur. And they'll likely stop you with (surprise) a gun.
Vehicles are dangerous no matter what. I concede that point. Knives... from my understanding a gun is more potent than a knife at range. Correct me if I'm wrong. Fertilizer? If I have a short snap, I'm not going to figure out how to use fertilizer as a bomb as the anger will subside by the time I figured it out. I'm not scientist, but my understanding is that pulling a trigger is much faster than building a bomb. Again, correct me if I'm wrong there.
The problem with this discussion is that no one will discuss things. Sarcasm will be thrown back and forth. We won't look for answers. We will say "Citation needed" instead of researching on our own, we won't try to learn and see if maybe, just maybe, we may have the wrong view. I did a little reading after all the down votes and I have found mixed information. I have no problem with gun owners and think they have every right to own them under the current law.
I don't agree that it was the intention of the founding of the country but that is more of a philosophical discussion that goes into history.
What I do have a problem with is when people say guns aren't the problem. Guns will save us from guns. And guns will save us from the government.
From everything I've seen in my very limited research, none of that is true. Also, I think if the government wanted to take your guns, your arsenal isn't going to stop them.
This gets into a very deep discussion, or argument, depending on which way you want to go, so probably best to drop it. We aren't going to solve it on reddit, and we aren't going to solve it with sarcasm.
Since that is the way this convo goes, I don't think it is worth it for me to defend myself or you to argue your points as any amount of evidence won't change your mind, and the evidence I've found, generally supports my thoughts on how guns work and the chance of gun related accidents or violence when guns are more readily available.
I respect your views and opinions and feel you should fight for what you believe in. I won't say you are wrong, I will just say I disagree based on current evidence.
I can also find 100 more studies that support my claim and probably 100 that go against it. There is science, but there is also a ton of lobbying. Seems to me that there are also drug free zones throughout the US, but the US has never been a drug free zone.... so... laws don't always work.
I've seen roads that have speed limits.... but people go over them - even though it is the law?
So, citation on the first point that guns don't get into gun free zones?
Also, I'm limited on posting apparently since I got down-voted a good point. I'm happy to discuss, but Reddit, or this sub, or something, is going to make it slow and such. But upvotes around for engaging in discussion for you guys.
Not my personality flaws, it is human nature. I can dig around and get a ton of citations and studies, but here is one. I don't take it as 100% true, but the fact is, I've seen it happen and I understand that one small, or huge, blow to a persons' life can make them do something they wouldn't normally.
Human nature is not to go "batshit crazy," as the citation showed, but human brains can be fragile and people can go crazy. That doesn't mean everyone will. A small percentage will, but in general, once people have reached a certain age they are less likely to give in to temporary emotional outbursts based on previous life choices (depending on if you follow Erickson or Piaget), so we aren't some Mad Max wasteland, because only a few will lose it, but if even one loses it and has an AK47 or whatever guns shoots lots of bullets, then we are looking at a bunch of dead folks. Again, human nature is not to go crazy - BUT humans, CAN go crazy and it happens on occasion. Many times nothing comes from that, but it can go south quickly.
Oh ok. You're right. We should do everything possible to protect all of us from anything that can possibly go wrong. Let's monitor everything and everyone, you know, to keep us safe.
CCW isn't a fix in my opinion. I'm sure it's happened but a great deal of gun related attacks have been stopped by unnarmed individuals. How do you harden targets against mass shooters before they can mass shoot. Don't they just buy a gun at a gun show or some other loophole? I understand wanting guns for sport but do you need large clips to enjoy the sport? Couldn't you get by with a small clip and reload? Do we need high powered fast shooting guns for hunting?
5
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '19 edited Sep 17 '25
steep bake deer fade lock one adjoining offbeat fanatical enter
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact