Remix.run Logo
AlexandrB 2 days ago

[flagged]

paulryanrogers 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

What's it matter if shooting victims are gang members or just too poor/unlucky to live somewhere with sane gun control?

Dead kids are dead kids.

wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-]

Well, gang members go out looking for trouble, for one thing. For another, they would just as well use knives, bats, chains, hatchets, or any other terrible implement to commit crime. Banning guns just makes it difficult or impossible for non-gang members to defend themselves.

ToucanLoucan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Fucking AI summaries. Correct you are, 12-per-day is the combo shot of all gun deaths in children in totality, which includes much more banal things like unsecured firearms in the home.

That being said, my point remains: the #1 threat to children in this country is guns, wielded by classmates, road-ragers, gang members, or stored improperly. We still have no meaningful gun regulation in huge areas, and no public will to see it done. And this kind of insipid bullshit is what we're doing instead.

wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-]

If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws. Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons. It also doesn't work. The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding.

autoexec 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws.

Highly populated areas tend to be Democrat-run. People commit crimes so places with more people = more crimes. More gun crimes cause people to push for more gun laws. Gun laws limited to cities (or even states) have limited impact when it's trivial to get guns from neighboring areas without those laws. Gun laws with limited impact can still be helpful.

It's not as if we don't know for a fact that legislation works (since it works for many many other counties) but a patchwork system of laws that only applies to some areas and not others is bound to perform worse than federal systems. Even federal systems need to be smart and actually managed and enforced correctly to work well.

> Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons.

Disarming people is an acceptable solution for many reasons. We already do it to all kinds of people in many circumstances. It's just a question of when/how much is appropriate for which circumstances.

> The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding.

Only if you're a gun/ammo manufacturer. Real world evidence has shown over and over that the best solution is laws placing legal regulations on firearms. We can point to nation after nation whose gun problems are drastically lower than ours because of the laws they enacted.

On the other hand, there exists only fantasy world evidence that giving every man woman and child a gun would solve the problem. Arguably it's already been tried in the US and the result was complete failure.

wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-]

>Highly populated areas tend to be Democrat-run. People commit crimes so places with more people = more crimes. More gun crimes cause people to push for more gun laws.

Are you suggesting that there are no red cities? The only sense in which this is true is that more laws = more crimes lol.

>It's not as if we don't know for a fact that legislation works (since it works for many many other counties) but a patchwork system of laws that only applies to some areas and not others is bound to perform worse than federal systems. Even federal systems need to be smart and actually managed and enforced correctly to work well.

The federal gun laws are dumb and unconstitutional. I could be on board with disarming children, violent criminals, and nutcases. Anyone else should be able to own a gun if they want to, through a convenient process. That is to say, the current federal laws are at the limit of where I want them to be, if not beyond.

I don't care about other countries. They let themselves be disarmed, and they will ultimately suffer tyranny as a result.

>On the other hand, there exists only fantasy world evidence that giving every man woman and child a gun would solve the problem. Arguably it's already been tried in the US and the result was complete failure.

It's a fact that guns curb certain kinds of crime. The mere possibility that a thug might not survive an encounter with granny means he will think long and hard before making a move on her. The fact that normal people might lose their shit keeps politicians in line. Give up your rights, and evil will follow.

autoexec a day ago | parent | next [-]

> They let themselves be disarmed, and they will ultimately suffer tyranny as a result.

There's plenty of tyranny in the USA today and guns have done nothing to stop it. There are countless videos on youtube right now of government tyranny in America, how many videos have you seen of tyranny by the State being stopped because someone pulled out a gun or opened fire? I'm not saying that rhetorically, if you've got a bunch of youtube videos of people shooting police or politicians engaged in tyranny which successfully stopped that tyranny from taking place please respond with links. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing them.

> The mere possibility that a thug might not survive an encounter with granny means he will think long and hard

This is demonstrably false. Everywhere in the US there is a possibility that grannies can have a gun, but nowhere, even the places where there is concealed carry and a large number of gun owners, has crime been stopped as a result. Muggings still happen. Beatings still happen. Rapes still happen. Thugs don't "think long and hard" period. Guns don't make a difference. Gang members in particular aren't scared of guns. They have guns too. They've been shot, or been shot at, many times. They've watched their friends be killed by gunfire. None of that stops them.

> The fact that normal people might lose their shit keeps politicians in line.

Where do you live where your politicians are kept in line at all, or by anything except maybe fear of not being reelected? Again, there are countless examples of politicians out of line all over this country. The number of guns/gun owners has zero impact on government corruption. It's everywhere.

> Give up your rights, and evil will follow.

I, like most Americans, don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but like with all of our rights, there are reasonable restrictions and limits that can be placed on it which would still allow people to defend their homes and hunt and shoot while still bringing gun deaths closer to what we see in other counties.

wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-]

>There's plenty of tyranny in the USA today and guns have done nothing to stop it.

Guns stop crime which is a form of tyranny. As for government tyranny, you are not going to be able to fight a heavily armed tyrant without guns. We didn't win independence from the British via debate. Guns are a factor in reigning in deranged politicians. That is why they want to disarm everyone.

>This is demonstrably false. Everywhere in the US there is a possibility that grannies can have a gun, but nowhere, even the places where there is concealed carry and a large number of gun owners, has crime been stopped as a result.

Crime has been reduced by gun ownership.

>Thugs don't "think long and hard" period. Guns don't make a difference. Gang members in particular aren't scared of guns. They have guns too. They've been shot, or been shot at, many times. They've watched their friends be killed by gunfire. None of that stops them.

They do fear guns. They have guns because they are effective for self-defense, even for criminals. Hard-boiled criminals fear guns. Even if you find some that are so calloused and/or stupid that they don't fear guns, the guns will protect you from those criminals anyway. The gun does not care what its target thinks of it.

>Where do you live where your politicians are kept in line at all, or by anything except maybe fear of not being reelected?

Like I said, it is a factor. The people who want to take our guns are heavily guarded by men with guns. Take the hint.

>I, like most Americans, don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but like with all of our rights, there are reasonable restrictions and limits that can be placed on it which would still allow people to defend their homes and hunt and shoot while still bringing gun deaths closer to what we see in other counties.

We already have background checks on every legal gun purchase and extra unconstitutional laws restricting many types of firearms. There is a de-facto and illegal national gun registry.

For all the benefits we get from government, it remains the biggest domestic menace to all of us and we must take steps to not allow ourselves to be defenseless against the state. How do you think genocides happen? The second amendment is not for hunting, or for warding off low-level thugs, though it might be useful for those purposes. It is there to give normal people a real chance to reign in evil in government. A standing professional army would not win against a well-armed majority standing up for their own rights. Even if they did win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

exasperaited a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's a fact that guns curb certain kinds of crime.

It's not.

exasperaited 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas

The most full stop, yes. But that's not surprising, is it? Since densely populated places disproportionately vote blue.

But not the most per capita:

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116676/documents/...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/04/28/red-s...

wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-]

I haven't read that but "gun death rate" is not the same as "gun crime rate"... Of course I expect guns to be used more in areas where they are available. Many legitimate self-defense cases are imperfect as well, and technically count as crime for BS reasons. Gun suicide rates probably would be higher with more guns owned by the public.

In summary, I don't think you are right and I would still support broad gun ownership rights even if you were correct about per capita. I am more worried about the public not having guns than having guns.

exasperaited a day ago | parent [-]

OK. There isn't any arguing with anyone who doesn't have a problem with the idea that someone else's right not to be murdered is less important than their unlimited gun ownership rights, which is the only conclusion I can draw from what you are saying. So I will leave you to the hell of your own making, I guess.

wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-]

Guns prevent murder. There's not much you can do besides using a gun to defend yourself against physically superior individuals or groups of people. Banning guns does not prevent murder, it just changes the methods. If you are worried about being murdered, you should probably get a gun lol.

kmeisthax 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

https://xkcd.com/1138/