Roughly 10-15 thousand gun homicides per year in America. Between 500 thousand and 2 million lives saved per year by guns in America. Nuff said
@Fordfreak24, is the 10-15 with or without suicide or self inflicted wounds?
@Grantj77, about 30 thousand total deaths per year(including suicides), about 10-15 thousand of those are homicides. Obama made the CDC do a very complex study on gun violence, the results inevitably backfired. Give it a read
@Fordfreak24, citation please
@Jakobian, he just said it’s the CDC study. They have a few of them.
@Fordfreak24, 10,000 homicides with guns. 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year. But no ones trying to ban alcohol again lol
@Fordfreak24, I thought the CDC were prohibited from doing research on guns/gun violence as part of their federal funding restrictions?
@Nellybert , That's not true, they are prohibited from propogandizing essentially. They are not allowed to make up a report and partner with the Brady campaign or for that matter the NRA to push for legislation.
That came about right after the 1994 assault weapons ban where they did basically that same thing in support of the ban, which ended up having a statistically insignificant effect on crime rates I might add.
@Kliment Voroshilov, I’m not taking a position on firearms legislation, just curious as Fordfreak24 said that Obama had the CDC do a study on gun violence and I didn’t think that was allowed.
@Fordfreak24, love you buddy
@Jakobian, it’s a 121 page study called “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” and no, if anything the study proved that the CDC needs to conduct more research, which is nearly impossible due to the Dickey Amendment
@Jakobian, "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence" Page 15, defensive uses of guns
@Medic135, which part of my response caused the downvote? The paper was literally intended to identify topics for future researchers to focus on, and the Dickey Amendment decreased the CDC’s gun violence research funding astronomically. Where am I mistaken?
@Blue Shirted Guy, a much more comprehensive study on lives saved by guns(probably the best that's ever been done) is "Armed resistance to crime: the prevelance and nature of self-defense with a gun"
@Blue Shirted Guy, it also literally admits that there are between 500 thousand and 3 million defensive uses of guns each year
@Fordfreak24, I’m not making any argument against the usage of guns for self-defense, if that’s what it seems like. But I’ll look that up (the armed resistance study, typed this before I saw your 2nd response!)
@Nellybert , I understand that and I don't think I implied that you were. I was staying why the idea that the CDC can't research gun violence is false. That explanation happened to coincide with the passing of the first assault weapons ban.
@Kliment Voroshilov, Ok. I just really over-emphasise that part as I know what a sensitive topic it can be and I’m (usually) not looking to get in to a fight.
If guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns.
@Grantj77, I think you forgot about the police
@K1l, i dont trust their response times, just look at the recent shooting...even the so called scared cop was actually there too late and the shooter had exited the building already
@Draconis, call the cops then order a pizza see who gets there first.
You're right and there where actually 4 officers there at the time of the shooting and none of them tried to stop the gunman.
@Grantj77, Yeah, but it'll be harder for them to get them.
@Draconis, Yeah because armed citizens got to him instead
@K1l, they said criminals, didn't they?
@K1l, in the UK most cops do not carry firearms
@K1l, he said criminals already tho
@K1l, no offense to the blue bois, but when it comes to protection, they're pretty damn useless. They basically only show up after the crime is done and the dude got away, or even if they're there, don't do shjt (like what happened now, and Joseph Lozito stopping a guy with a knife in a subway while police on board did nothing until he single handedly subdued him, and on personal experience). That, coupled with how the Supreme Court ruled that they don't have a duty to protect someone from harm, really doesn't make me willing to put my life in their hands.
@K1l, The police job is not to protect you. It is to arrest the criminal, after the crime is committed. They will try and protect you, given the chance, but the funding for police departments keeps their response times too slow to be a reliable protector.
@Grantj77, The makes no sense why make anything illegal if criminals are going to have the substance anyways. Btw criminals aren't the ones shooting up schools
@Grantj77, not if you make it hard to get guns. Barely criminals have guns in the UK or Australia
@Unkle77, 16 people liked your post and yet you pulled those figures out of your bumhole
I don't understand the joke. Is this NOT what happens when guns are banned?? Maybe I need to reconsider my political views on gun..
@VibratingButtChomper, it is playing on the whole "you can't shoot me, this is a gun free zone" thing.
@VibratingButtChomper, Look at it from a non-US perspective - don’t think of a gun ban retrospectively making something you already own illegal, think of it as the weapons never having been legal and so the would-be shooter never possessing it. So, for example, if you came to the UK wanting to shoot someone, you’d have a real problem because of the lack of availability of guns. Which is how I take this - not as a statement on US gun control.
@Nellybert , I'm 87% sure I could get a gun in the UK if I tried moderately hard. If all else fails I'll just make a bomb out of fertilizer and nails
@Medic135, That is a very specific level of surety. You could get a shotgun or rifle (.22 max, rimfire only) with a 2 round clip legally if you could convince the police that you are fit & proper and have good reason to own it (process includes face to face interviews, visiting your home and even talking to your doctor). Illegally is pretty damned tough - why do you think our gangsta-wannabes use kitchen knives or drain cleaner? F**kers can’t even get a ‘proper’ knife, let alone a gun.
Not saying it’s impossible, just very difficult. And you run a serious risk of losing fingers from a misfire caused by homemade ammo in a badly reactivated old gun.
@Nellybert , I also didn't say legally
@Medic135, I know, that’s why I touched on both legal and illegal.
Also trying to put it in to context - in America there are millions of guns in circulation, so it’s probably relatively easy to get one illegally simply through sheer mass availability. In the UK, most guns were never legal and so simply aren’t here. A pistol, for example, would either have to be smuggled in or be a reactivated replica as there just aren’t any legal ones to end up in the black market.
Again, not impossible, just a lot more difficult. Basically the same reason that a gun ban would never work in the US.
@Nellybert , the bulk of our "illegal" guns are smuggled in from South America
@Medic135, I guess it depends how you define an ‘illegal’ gun. You could own an AR-15 and it’s perfectly legal - but if you gave it to me (or I broke in to your house and stole it while you were out) it’s now an ‘illegal’ gun because I’m not allowed to own it. So when I say illegal gun in the context of America, I guess I mean something like ‘federally permitted gun, in the possession of someone not legally entitled to it’ - rather than meaning a banned model. In the UK, ‘illegal’ gun means pretty much anything you could buy in Walmart but was basically never on sale here. Ugh, this gets complicated! 😋
@Medic135, Also, remember that we have no land borders - so it’s a lot more difficult to smuggle stuff in. (Again, not saying impossible).
Bt srsly america how many school shootings have there been this year already?
@TheBigJ, now let the bait flow through you
@TheBigJ, "no u." -America
@TheBigJ, *pops popcorn and leans back in lawn chair*
@TheBigJ, how many queens does America have?
@Blargetha, quite a few and they’re all fabulous
@TheBigJ, we like our active shooter drills to be as authentic as possible
@Jolee Bindo, yassss!
@Blargetha, Depends on where you are in the country.
@TheBigJ, Britain yelling at us about guns and the second amendment amuses me, since their country is the reason the second anyway. (Rather simply put, I know)
@Jolee Bindo, practice makes perfect?
@TheBigJ, How many women in London have been raped this year by refugee gangs?
@Benedick Cumberblast, don’t you dare represent us with that attitude.
@Benedick Cumberblast, According to the most recent figures I can find (2015) - 34 foreign nationals were charged with murder and 186 with rape. Can’t find the conviction levels, but as it’ll be less that 100% and those figures are for all suspects born outside the UK (not just refugees) we can say it’s going to be less than 186 per annum.
Not saying that’s ‘good’ or ‘low’ - just trying to give an empirical answer to the question.
@TheBigJ, how many acid attacks and bombings have there been this year?
@Medic135, a lot fewer than we’ve had shootings, that’s for sure (we being the US)
*Australia laughs in the distance*
When all the thoughts and prayers finally come through and you channel them to protect yourself
Yes because being somewhere that allows guns magically stops those bullets. No fückwit, no guns means that there's a much smaller chance that you get shot at. Studies have also shown that 99.9% of the time even if you have a gun during a school shooting or something like that, it's practically useless as with all the panic and confusion, you'll probably be shot before you can even see where from, never mind shoot back. People want easy access to guns to protect against these kinds of massacres not realising or not caring that it's easy access to guns that causes them.
@Frighthound, no guns is impossible in the US, the ATF have a hard enough time enforcing the current regulations and catching black market dealers that disarming citizenry would just make everyone as easy a target as a law abiding citizen in a gun free zone. Notice how most mass shooting happen to be soft targets in gun free or carry stigmatized areas, there is a reason for that. Also, please cite your source as most pistol owners I know have spent at least as much time as a rookie cop training
@Jakobian, roughly 90% of recent mass shooting in the us were in “gun-free” zones, at least as of 2017, haven’t looked for updated stats in a few months.
Also, there are more guns than people in and around the US, and roughly one-third to almost half of them are illegal, untraced, and in underground or criminal markets.
You can’t just ban them, take the 150-200 million guns away from lawful citizens who have done no wrong, broken no law, in violation of the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and then so “oh oops, let’s just forget about those,” to the 150,000,000 illegal weapons that leaves. Nor is there any feasible method to locate and secure that many fvcking guns.
Obama ostensibly tried, then failed to go after the gangs and criminals they sold tracked weapons to, after selling them a few thousand or so, including some heavier weaponry that has since been seen across Latin and South America.
Basically, the guns aren’t leaving any time soon.
@PB2, that is a better way of explaining what I meant
@PB2, Can I ask you a totally hypothetical question which I promise won’t lead to me arguing about your position on gun ownership.
If someone in a lab invented laser guns - proper Star Wars stuff, no physical connection to any current or past firearms tech - where would you stand on the idea of legislation (relating purely to them, not to anything firing a bullet) to stop them being made publicly available? If it had no bearing on guns already available, would you vote for or against preemptively banning them from public sale? Again, I promise not to turn this in to a debate on gun control or the 2nd Amendment. I’m just curious.
@Nellybert , I'll answer that even though it wasn't asked of me.
If the government purchased said laser weapons (which they absolutely would) then no I would never support them being restricted from the public. As the second amendment is not about home or personal defense, it's defense against tyranny from all threats foreign and domestic
@Medic135, Fair enough. Like I said, just curious. Not being American, I don’t have the personal experiences to put the various arguments on each side in to context - just trying to get a broader understanding of it all.