Reposting at the request of a Gay Parrot and a wyttle loser
why aren't non-gun murders wildly out of control in the usa?
Posts
Total:
25
guns are really easy to kill with. It's that easy. Same reason more people get killed with knives than fists. It's just easier, so if you decide to do a murder, you're more likely to choose a more deadly weapon and more likely to succeed if you do.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
guns are american, knives are brit*sh
You better not be talking smack about greyparrot.
You asian-hating, Roosevelt fanboy lover.
-->
@Greyparrot
This guy is calling you out.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
<3 <3
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Pm me please
Because guns are neither too stamina-consuming(such as knuckledusters, fists, knives even) nor too hard to get(such as landmines and grenades, missiles, etc). Guns are literally optimal at killing people. Dunno about the governmental revenues, but to an ethical and safety standpoint, stricter gun control is the way.
I think when it comes to the problem of mass shootings, we haven't seen this amount of mass shooting being done by younger people, for the literal past 60 years up until now. I think that mental illness, depression, anxiety and other things like that play a huge part, because things of that manner have also had a rise in recent years.
I think instead of stricter gun laws, we should focus on helping people suffering with mental health problems, and whilst doing that, upping the security in the school systems, and just in general.
The solution is to up law enforcement. In Texas, some law enforcement have literally made law enforcement systems just for schools. We know that shooters are less likely to go to a place where they know there is security. The Tennessee shooter literally decided to change the school she went to, because of the security at the original planned school.
In every mass shooting situation, the problem has been stopped with a gun.
Guns are not the problem, they are the solution.
yes, guns are more likely to be used than non-guns. but that doesn't explain why non gun murders are not wildly out of control in the usa. ya'll should just admit, that if your theory that this is just a bad person problem, that non-gun murders should be wildly out of whack too. ya'll should just admit, that the while it's possible your explanation explains the situation, the data goes against your theory.
it's not far fetched to think gun cause people to kill when they otherwise wouldn't... that's all this is getting at. look at two people arguing, and ask if they had a gun whether someone would be more likely to die or not.... of course someone is more likely to die. it's idiotic to suggest otherwise, and to pretend that the presence of so many guns makes no difference in the murder rate.
-->
@n8nrgim
it's not far fetched to think gun cause people to kill when they otherwise wouldn't... that's all this is getting at. look at two people arguing, and ask if they had a gun whether someone would be more likely to die or not.... of course someone is more likely to die. it's idiotic to suggest otherwise, and to pretend that the presence of so many guns makes no difference in the murder rate.
Guns are not the only threat.
People can bring knives, homemade bombs, etc. To schools and still kill a lot of people.
If you're reasoning for banning assault rifles is because it is a threat to schools, then you're going to also ban knives, any equipment that could be used to make a bomb, and any other kind of deadly weapon that could be used to cause harm to schools.
Then at that point you are infringing on the rights of American citizens.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
why aren't non-gun murders wildly out of control in the usa?
But they are. More people die every single year by hands, fists and feet than by rifles of any kind.
More people die every year by stabbing and blunt objects than by rifles of any kind.
More people die every year by shotguns than by rifles of any kind.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons.
-->
@n8nrgim
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons.
We have had gun rights for all of American history. Why is it we are facing this big problem only up until recently?
Maybe it has nothing to do with the guns. Maybe another factor is at play. Mental illness? Weak Law Enforcement? Bad court systems?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We have had gun rights for all of American history. Why is it we are facing this big problem only up until recently?
The problem of mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles began with Columbine in 1999.
The number of AR style rifles in private hands has continued to increase exponentially since then.
The 10-year Assault Weapons ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none have succeeded
People can bring knives, homemade bombs, etc. To schools and still kill a lot of people.
Columbine was supposed to be a bombing. But their bombs didn’t work. Because bomb making is difficult.
But killing with a semiautomatic rifle is easy and very reliable.
In every mass shooting situation, the problem has been stopped with a gun.Guns are not the problem, they are the solution.
That is so dumb. The shooting usually ends with a self inflicted gun shot to the head.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons.We have had gun rights for all of American history. Why is it we are facing this big problem only up until recently?Maybe it has nothing to do with the guns. Maybe another factor is at play. Mental illness? Weak Law Enforcement? Bad court systems?
this is why the gun debate never goes anywhere. i gave you guys objective science that says the presence of guns causes more murder. you ignore it. i gave you the above point that pinpoints that guns are objectively different than non guns. the guy i addressed it to ignored it, and you went to an unrelated point. why did you bother to quote me if you aren't going to specifically address what i said?
to your point, every other country has the same mental health problems that we do. they dont have the same murder problem. a person in this country isn't more likely to get mugged than in other countries, but they are more likely to get shot in the process when they do get mugged. we have tougher crime regulation than other countries too.
when there's mass knife attacks in other countrires, there are always way less victims than compared to our mass shootings. because guns kill more people than non guns. this isn't rocket science.
how about you actually address what you quoted? isn't a person more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife? aren't they more impulsive when all they have to do is push a button? if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife?
you guys are objectively idiotic on this issue... it's delusional the things you argue, because you can't be persuaded by the truth.
-->
@TWS1405_2
see last post, above quote that i argued to you and that you ignored.
-->
@n8nrgim
this is why the gun debate never goes anywhere. i gave you guys objective science that says the presence of guns causes more murder. you ignore it. i gave you the above point that pinpoints that guns are objectively different than non guns. the guy i addressed it to ignored it, and you went to an unrelated point. why did you bother to quote me if you aren't going to specifically address what i said?
First of all, guns don't kill people.
Guns can't shoot by themselves.
Guns don't have a moral conscience.
Guns can't hate, love, or do anything remotely human.
People can shoot.
People do have a moral conscience.
People can hate, and love.
The thing is that yes guns are a deadly weapon, but full government control of those weapons are even more deadly. Just look at history.
Hitler took the guns from his people. He took control of his people and caused mass genocide.
Stalin took the guns. Same concept.
Others like:
Mao Zedong
Fidel Castro
Hugo Chávez
All of them took the guns, and it didn't end well for any of the people that they took control of.
Guns are dangerous, and I believe that should be taught more.
But taking away guns is not the answer.
Think about this. If we ban AR-15s, then normal law-abiding citizens won't have AR-15s. Then you have the criminals. Criminals (especially school shooters) won't care about laws and get access to AR-15s anyways. Then, you have criminals with the advantage, and normal law-abiding citizens with a disadvantage.
If guns were a big problem in our country, then we would be seeing far more mass shootings, and way more death.
There are 81.4 million Americans who claim to own guns in the USA. If guns were really as big of a problem as the left is making it, we would be seeing people dying left and right.
In fact, there are more cases of Americans using guns to save people than there are of people using guns to murder people.
To prove this even further, cities and states which ban guns have drastically bigger homicide rates, and crime rates, than in places which guns are legal.
For instance:
- Fixed ammo (other than a caliber greater than 0.60)
- Cane guns
- Wallet guns
- Undetectable firearms
- Flechette darts
- Bullets containing or carrying an explosive agent
- Tracer ammo, except for those used in shotguns
- Armor-piercing ammo
- Unconventional pistols
- Machine guns
- Multi-trigger activators
- Short-barrel rifles or shotguns
- Silencers
- Zip guns
- Assault weapons (there’s a banned list). Assault weapon is also defined as any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that does NOT have a fixed magazine with any one of the following: pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding/telescoping stock, grenade or flare launcher, flash suppressor or forward pistol grip. Also includes any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding more than 10 rounds, any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle less than 30 inches in length. With pistols, any semi-automatic pistol that does NOT have a fixed magazine, but that does have one of the following is an assault weapon: threaded barrel, second handgrip, barrel shroud, or the ability to attach magazine anywhere outside of the pistol grip. Also includes any semi-automatic handgun with a fixed magazine holding more than 10 rounds. A semi-automatic shotgun is an assault weapon if it has a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a detachable magazine, or a revolving cylinder.
- .50 BMG rifles (without a permit); .50 BMG ammo is not outlawed
- SKS rifles made to use AK magazines
- Magazines holding more than 10 rounds (as of August 2020, this is being challenged)
- Handguns not certified for sale by the AG
Notes for California: ammunition checks for ammunition applies. There is also a melting-point law that effectively prohibits non-ferrous material in handguns. California in general is an incredibly strict state for gun owners; the roster of legal guns must be closely studied before ordering. While your FFL must be up to date on what is a legal transfer, you should not put them in the position for refusing a transfer.
This is a list of the types of guns banned in California.
The crime rate in California is 51.94 per 1,000 residents.
"The rate of crime in California is 51.94 per 1,000 residents during a standard year. People who live in California generally consider the west part of the state to be the safest. Your chance of being a victim of crime in California may be as high as 1 in 16 in the southeast neighborhoods, or as low as 1 in 32 in the west part of the state."
The homicide rate in California is 6.2 deaths per 100,000 population.
"There were 6,902 violent deaths to Californians in 2020. Thirty-six percent of these were due to homicide (2,480), including the 2% legal intervention deaths (deaths that result from law enforcement acting in the line of duty). The homicide rate was 6.2 deaths per 100,000 population."
Now if we compare this to rates in a state like Georgia, with no major gun restrictions at all, we get a very different statistic.
- "Georgia crime rate & statistics for 2019 was 1.93, a 13.35% decline from 2018."
Georgias homicide rate is 1.9 cases per 100,000 population.
"In 2019, homicide rate for Georgia was 1.9 cases per 100,000 population. Though Georgia homicide rate fluctuated substantially in recent years, it tended to decrease through 1996 - 2019 period ending at 1.9 cases per 100,000 population in 2019."
when there's mass knife attacks in other countrires, there are always way less victims than compared to our mass shootings. because guns kill more people than non guns. this isn't rocket science.
Crime rate in the USA:
Crime rate in Somalia (where gun owner ship is illegal):
Other countries where they ban guns have higher homicide rate or crime rate than America does.
you guys are objectively idiotic on this issue... it's delusional the things you argue, because you can't be persuaded by the truth.
Respond to this info and tell me what you think Albert Einstein.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
i dont know if you missed it, but i posted in one of these threads gun control science. if you do a literature review, locations with more guns correlate to more murder. places that have more gun control, correlate to less murder. the consensus of scientists, if you poll them, is that gun control decreases the murder rate. these are all based on literature reviews... which means that if you look at the trends in science study, the facts are as i state them.
women are more likely to die if her abuser has a gun than if he doesn't. we aren't more likely to get mugged in the usa compared to other countries, but we are more likely to get murderd overall, due to guns, when we do get mugged. police are more likely to die in places with more guns, and less likely to die with less gun control. people who own guns are more likely to murder someone than to use it in self defense.
these are all based on scientific studies. the underlying them on these things, is that the precense of a gun can cause someone to die when they otherwise wouldn't.
if you need me to dig up that info i can, but all you guys ever do is ignore it so i assume you are ignoring it.
i'm giving you literature reviews, and trends in science. all you give are exception examples and anecdotal evidence.
that is the science. here is the common sense,which you again ignore:
you responded to the wrong part of my post... respond to this.
"how about you actually address what you quoted? isn't a person more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife? aren't they more impulsive when all they have to do is push a button? if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife? " if they go on a rampage with a knife, aren't less people likely to die than if it was a gun?
having an AR doesn't give an advantage against a bad guy that has one, for practical purposes. you never see shoot outs with ARs. what you do see are people murdering with them, not infreuently. you dont see defensive gun use with AR in situations where a hand gun wouldn't have worked. so what is the end result? criminals are more efficient murdering people, but it's almost never the case that a person needs an AR. i strongly doubt you can find many real world examples of where an AR was needed over a handgun for defensive use.... but criminal use of AR happens every day.
-->
@n8nrgim
i dont know if you missed it, but i posted in one of these threads gun control science. if you do a literature review, locations with more guns correlate to more murder. places that have more gun control, correlate to less murder. the consensus of scientists, if you poll them, is that gun control decreases the murder rate. these are all based on literature reviews... which means that if you look at the trends in science study, the facts are as i state them.
CTRL-C then CTRL-V here and show me.
women are more likely to die if her abuser has a gun than if he doesn't.
But that woman is more likely to live if she has a gun to defend herself.
we aren't more likely to get mugged in the usa compared to other countries, but we are more likely to get murderd overall, due to guns, when we do get mugged.
If you looked at my data, you would see that this claim is wrong.
police are more likely to die in places with more guns, and less likely to die with less gun control.
Did you mean to say less guns, or less gun control?
people who own guns are more likely to murder someone than to use it in self defense.
Did you even read my post? There are more cases of people using guns for self-defense than murder. In other words, most people don't go around killing people. That's just not how humans operate. A large majority of the population is not going to go around killing others, in fact they will do the exact opposite.
these are all based on scientific studies.
Show me.
the underlying them on these things, is that the precense of a gun can cause someone to die when they otherwise wouldn't.
Ok, then government shouldn't have access to guns either.
Oh wait, they need them to defend us from other countries.
So, let's just take guns from other countries.
Oh wait, we can't do that.
See my dilemma here?
if you need me to dig up that info i can, but all you guys ever do is ignore it so i assume you are ignoring it.
I'm open ears.
"how about you actually address what you quoted? isn't a person more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife?
No. Killing is based upon the intent behind it. If you don't want to kill someone, you won't. If you do, then you will.
Humans are not always searching to murder people.
What you are suggesting is that we should ban guns, because just the plain fact of the guns being their will make someone want to kill more. That is not how humans' function. The big majority of humans would much rather not want to kill others.
Now if the question was is someone more likely to die if they have a gun than a knife, then the answer is based upon the situation.
aren't they more impulsive when all they have to do is push a button?
There has to be a motive to every kill. Humans don't kill other humans just for game. Not most humans. Most humans will usually have a moral conscience telling them not to do something.
if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife?
Guns are used for threatening more than killing. Think about it.
If your mad at a dude and you pull out a knife, you are committing to the murder, because once you pull it out, it's all hands on.
But if your mad at a dude and you pull out a gun, you are most likely using it as a threat more than an actual weapon.
if they go on a rampage with a knife, aren't less people likely to die than if it was a gun?
Yes, but if a bad guy gets a gun illegally and everyone else only has knives, then what then? More people are going to die because of that.
having an AR doesn't give an advantage against a bad guy that has one, for practical purposes. you never see shoot outs with ARs. what you do see are people murdering with them, not infreuently. you dont see defensive gun use with AR in situations where a hand gun wouldn't have worked. so what is the end result? criminals are more efficient murdering people, but it's almost never the case that a person needs an AR. i strongly doubt you can find many real world examples of where an AR was needed over a handgun for defensive use.... but criminal use of AR happens every day.
It's the basic principal dude.
Question:
Is it good for criminals to have a more advanced weapon than everyone else? Simple question.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
this link has the literature reviews that directly contradict your arguments. literatures are a lot more persuasive than he said she said or this example v that example. it also has all the other science that i posted on each fact. it also has the fact that non-gun murders aren't wildly out of control in the usa v other countries, when if this was a bad person problem, it would be, or should be.... i dont think any of ya'll are capable of acknowledging this, because ya'll have a glitch in your brains, similar to a delusion where you can't be reasoned with.
"It's the basic principal dude.
Question:
Is it good for criminals to have a more advanced weapon than everyone else? Simple question. "
it's irrelevant if bad guys have worse guys, if for practical purposes it doesn't change anything. the end result as it is now, is that criminals are more efficient in killing when defensive use is almost never needed with an AR. you're insisting on the principle, but it has no purpose. it's a non sequiter.
" if they go on a rampage with a knife, aren't less people likely to die than if it was a gun?
Yes, but if a bad guy gets a gun illegally and everyone else only has knives, then what then? More people are going to die because of that. "
you are changing the goal post. the point is that guns cause mass killings to be more deadly than without a gun. you are making an illogical point by changing the goal post, or at least deflecting and not acknowledging the truth. you have a good point to argue, about defensive gun uses... but that doesn't change that gun attacks are much more deadly than non gun attacks.
" if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife?
Guns are used for threatening more than killing. Think about it.
If your mad at a dude and you pull out a knife, you are committing to the murder, because once you pull it out, it's all hands on.
But if your mad at a dude and you pull out a gun, you are most likely using it as a threat more than an actual weapon. "
you dont understand human nature. maybe most of the time a gun will be used to threaten but not all the time. it's illogical for you to pretend like that's what always happens.... of if you aknowledge that that's not what always happens, then you are mentally glitching on the fact that sometimes a person is just impulsive and the ability to push a button will cause him to kill a group of others quickly, when if no gun was there, it woudln't have happened like that.
on the point of self defense with guns. you say 70000 defensive gun uses every year. well, we know the large majority of those are not involving actually shooting anyone. yet, we know that there are 100,000 gun shots taken care of at hosptials every year. that means most of the shootings that we actually see, are from an aggressor. also, only around five hundred people... five hundred only... are killed because they were the first aggressor. we know that there are over ten thousand murder per year, which means that compared to a bunch of defensive gun uses where the gun may have not even been needed, the rate of murder v using a gun is much higher.
cause the thing with all those defensive gun uses, we also know that a lot of them were just people who thought they needed the gun but really didn't... they might take a gun because they hear a noise, and assume they needed the gun in that sitaution. and maybe they did, but the gun didn't really change anything. you can give every one a gun, and the number of defensive gun uses would sky rocket... but that doesn't mean pepole are being safer all the time, it just means guns are being used more often. (i acknowledge that everyone having a gun would save some people, full stop, but that would come at a cost) sometimes the person who thinks they needed a gun were just being the aggresor themself, that's human nature to think they're always the victim. these 'defensive gun use' studies on based on surveys after all.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Think about this. If we ban AR-15s, then normal law-abiding citizens won't have AR-15s. Then you have the criminals. Criminals (especially school shooters) won't care about laws and get access to AR-15s anyways. Then, you have criminals with the advantage, and normal law-abiding citizens with a disadvantage.
False.
We banned automatic weapons back in the 1930s. Now you hardly ever see an automatic weapon used in a crime. It’s very, very rare.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
???
-->
@n8nrgim
it's irrelevant if bad guys have worse guys, if for practical purposes it doesn't change anything. the end result as it is now, is that criminals are more efficient in killing when defensive use is almost never needed with an AR. you're insisting on the principle, but it has no purpose. it's a non sequiter.
That wasn't an answer to my question.
Yes or no. Is it ok for criminals to have more advanced weapons that civilians? \
Just answer yes or no.
you are changing the goal post. the point is that guns cause mass killings to be more deadly than without a gun. you are making an illogical point by changing the goal post, or at least deflecting and not acknowledging the truth. you have a good point to argue, about defensive gun uses... but that doesn't change that gun attacks are much more deadly than non gun attacks.
Countries with gun control have a very bad knife attack problem. How are we going to solve that?
What I'm trying to say, is that if you take away one weapon from the public, then they are going to resort to another. Just like in prisons.
If your argument for taking away guns is that it kills a lot of people, then you're going to have to address more than just guns.
It's true, we do have a gun problem, now. But for all of American history we have had the right to guns, and we are only having these mass problems now. How are you going to blame guns for that?
Guns are not the issue. We have had guns ever since the beginning of America, yet you haven't seen these mass shootings up until recently.
Something else is at play.
You know what has also rising up in cases as well as gun violence cases? Mental health problems.
Maybe a smarter assumption is to say that the mentally ill people are taking the guns that they have a right to and using it for bad.
Again, guns don't kill people by themselves, it's the person behind the trigger.
I think that it's obvious that people who have mental problems, and depression, anxiety, suicidal problems in general are more likely to kill than everyday civilians.
Here's a solution. When you get a license for your firearm in the US, you are forced to take a mental health test, and if you pass it, then you are allowed a firearm. If you don't pass it, you have to wait for a year, then you can take the test again.
This won't stop the mass killings, but it will reduce it.
you dont understand human nature. maybe most of the time a gun will be used to threaten but not all the time. it's illogical for you to pretend like that's what always happens.... of if you aknowledge that that's not what always happens, then you are mentally glitching on the fact that sometimes a person is just impulsive and the ability to push a button will cause him to kill a group of others quickly, when if no gun was there, it woudln't have happened like that.
If someone has an impulse to kill, then they will use what they have, even if it isn't a gun. A gun doesn't change someone's wanting to kill.
on the point of self defense with guns. you say 70000 defensive gun uses every year. well, we know the large majority of those are not involving actually shooting anyone. yet, we know that there are 100,000 gun shots taken care of at hosptials every year. that means most of the shootings that we actually see, are from an aggressor.
Alright. What percent of that 100,000 is caused by self-infliction, accidental, police protecting civilians, and how many of those people die?
You can't assume that it is all aggressive shootings.
also, only around five hundred people... five hundred only... are killed because they were the first aggressor.
How many aggressors are detained and imprisoned?
500 are killed per how long?
we know that there are over ten thousand murder per year, which means that compared to a bunch of defensive gun uses where the gun may have not even been needed, the rate of murder v using a gun is much higher
Again, how many of those murders were guns and how many were not?
You have to look at all of the information.
Your taking evidence and saying killing = gun violence.
cause the thing with all those defensive gun uses, we also know that a lot of them were just people who thought they needed the gun but really didn't... they might take a gun because they hear a noise, and assume they needed the gun in that sitaution.
Are they hurting anyone buying a gun they might not use? No. They are protecting themselves.
and maybe they did, but the gun didn't really change anything.
So, hold on.........
You're saying that guns change someone's wanting to murder and changes the rate of murder by a lot.
But then you say guns don't change anything?
Which is it?
you can give every one a gun, and the number of defensive gun uses would sky rocket... but that doesn't mean pepole are being safer all the time, it just means guns are being used more often.
Ok?
Guns being used more often is not bad if it's stopping crime.
(i acknowledge that everyone having a gun would save some people, full stop, but that would come at a cost)
If everyone in the US had a gun then crime would go down, because there are a lot more law-abiding civilians in the world than bad guys who want to kill.
As for your info, I am still going through it. It's a lot. Some of them are reddit forums from 6 years ago.