[flagged]

> 12 deaths per day is VERY low

Assuming that the number is real, 12 children dying every day from guns is the opposite of VERY low. It's insane. What is your limit? How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to?

Unlike how most Americans want something done about guns, they don't want to be tracked. There is a lot of opposition to it once people are made aware of the issue. Censorship is pretty unpopular too, although while the majority tends to oppose it, it's far more popular with people in the US than is should be.

▲

wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-]

>How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to?

There are already plenty of gun laws. "Most Americans" are only in favor of more laws to the extent they don't understand what is already in place, except for those that want a blanket ban on guns. There are many millions of legal gun owners in the US, and you should be thankful for that.

Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real. How many bodies are worth our freedom? Millions die in wars, for far worse reasons than a few hundred as a natural consequence of being free. It is very hard to quantify the benefits of owning a gun because only crimes are reported.

Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick. They might not be able to do it so quick, but a deranged person can go John Wick on your ass with a sharpened pencil. If you walk alone without a gun, you also have no way to defend yourself against a gang of several thugs. But with a gun, even grandma has a fighting chance of escaping nearly any crime.

▲

autoexec a day ago | parent [-]

> Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real.

If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you because it's "just a rounding error" or because "You'd save more lives telling kids to tie their shoes than by stopping me"? Any number of children I threw into that woodchipper would be an unacceptable number of children and of course actions should be taken to stop or at the very least reduce those deaths. It's no different with gun deaths.

> Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick.

Once again, the facts don't support your argument. We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters. It's obvious why that is, you even said it yourself: Sharpened pencils and bricks are slow and far less effective at killing than guns. There's a reason why the militaries of the world arm their troops with guns and not just bricks and knives. People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns.

Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want.

	▲	wakawaka28 a day ago \| parent [-]
		>If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you In all aspects of life, risk is involved. Would you ban cars because some children are hurt by them? Would you ban playground equipment on those grounds? Keep kids in cages because they might get kidnapped if they go to the corner store? I can't put an exact number on it, but the potential victimhood of children and others does not invalidate our basic rights to self-governance and self-defense. Even if you could ascribe violence to guns solely (you can't really) there are many benefits to keeping the right to own guns. If safety comes at the cost of freedom, it's not worth it. >We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters. The stats on such things are unreliable. Many gang shootings are registered as mass shootings. >People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns. When it comes to murder, all of these methods are effective. Guns may be the worst because they draw attention. On the other hand, would-be victims are much safer when armed. >Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want. Again, we have laws that require background checks for buying guns. I'm in favor of that, or at least not strongly opposed. But I do not in any way support banning guns for ordinary law-abiding citizens.