Let's talk about guns

  • Guns are ultimately impossible to ban within the United States. Completely taking away the second amendment (I can promise you this will never happen) will lead to a civil war. There are too many guns in circulation and die-hard gun owners that will fight for their right to bear arms down to their very last breath.

    I do believe, to a certain extent, in the "good guys with guns" argument. IIRC, the elementary school did not even have a resource officer on the campus at the time of the shooting. Had there been an officer, the events may have unfolded differently. Another factor to look at is the response time the police had (which is currently being heavily scrutinized by everyone). They took around 45 minutes before getting inside the building and killing the active shooter. Again, had they acted sooner, the events may have unfolded differently.

    It is really hard to say what solutions there are to this problem we are having in the United States, but I do not think banning guns is a viable option. There needs to be a focus on mental health and gun safety. Also, there should be some sort of red flag in some sort of system when a person legally purchases a ton of guns, ammunition, and body armor. Restricting the type of guns that can be purchased by U.S. citizens (i.e. banning AR-15s but allowing handguns and shotguns) is tricky and could lead down a similar path as banning guns altogether because doing so would require people to surrender (some of) their guns.

    OFT: Admins, of all people, should not be immature and shitposting on this thread, especially in response to Lyicx's moderation post. You are an admin and should be setting a good example.

  • ok time to write an essay
    first why the fuck are civilians allowed to have fucking guns without a correct fucking permet and having a fucking backround check done on them
    second these school shootings are really sad for the people involved and i hope that it will be better just yesterday i heird about someone in the netherlands threatening to do it to a school i dont get why we even allow guns but thats besides the point i hope everyone involved will get something to make up for what has happend with these shooting cause this is not normal human behavour if there is a god he would hate everyone who would do a school shooting

    third if you know anyone who is getting bullied or depressed who is thinking of ending it all help them it will cause something better in us all


    codium multimatter redanium sporres

  • Quote

      matscalle first why the fuck are civilians allowed to have fucking guns without a correct fucking permet and having a fucking backround check done on them

    It often depends on the region in regards to background checks for gun purchasing. In my part of the US, you have to get a purchaser's permit through the State Police and a part of the application process includes getting a background check and being fingerprinted to get a card that permits you to buy rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. Purchasing the gun requires a second background check before you can even go home with the gun from the store. You must be 21 to purchase a pistol and each permit is good for one and it expires after like 30 days regardless if you bought a pistol or not.

    A big problem is in states like Texas where it isn't as involved as it is in my area to purchase a firearm with some cases not requiring a background check needing to be done "if certain conditions are met."
    (Source: https://giffords.org/lawcenter/stat…dures-in-texas/)

    In general background checks is a requirement in most places as part of the purchasing process along with being at least 18 years old for rifles (federal law prohibits people under 21 from possessing a pistol unless it's in circumstances such as self-defence).

    You can read why universal background checks are important here.

    javaw_VqNRNZdU6Q.png
    image.png
    image.png

  • @'frontinside'

    Where did you source your figure from?

    Some interesting snippets from your source:
    "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

    "Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

    Quote

    Although there may be many firearm-related deaths yearly – albeit a small amount – this is compensated by the number of lives saved by guns being accessible.

    How do you quantify the amount of lives saved? Your sources don't give an estimate of this number, they instead tell how many times guns may have been used in self defence. Self defence doesn't =/= life saved, considering self defence also includes cases of theft, robbery and more.

    I think your claim here is misleading and inappropriate for the discussion.

    Quote

    Estimates project that only 20% of gun-caused violence is from legal guns, showing that the gun laws within the United States are effective enough to prevent shootings. (Source: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-just…iolence-america)

    Your source here also states:
    "5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.

    • Switzerland and Israel have much higher gun ownership rates than the United States but experience far fewer homicides and have much lower violent crime rates than many European nations with strict gun control laws."

    Do you then think the US should put more restrictions on gun ownership, like they have in Israel and Switzerland?

    I haven't had the time to read the entirety of the sources listed in the article. If I get the time I'll respond back.

    Quote

    School shootings in the United States

    What's your point here?

    Here's a response from Harvard researchers on some of the numbers you listed:

    "1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

    We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

    4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

    We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

    5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

    Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

    6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

    Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

    8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

    Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

    We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

    9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

    Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

    11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

    Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss."

    Source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms…ense-gun-use-2/

    A figure from on gun deaths per capita in developed countries.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-…rld-comparison/