全 148 件のコメント

[–]shinypretty [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, the punctuation is the problem.

[–]Alexlincoln2Cruzio [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Geeze, which sub brigaded this time?

[–]quasidor [スコア非表示]  (36子コメント)

I think you're kinda missing the point. People don't generally have a problem with legal gun owners. They have a problem with guns.

[–]ollomulder [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, they have a problem with every gunowner who goes apeshit or endangers others by e.g. letting their toddler shoot someone.

[–]lemonparty [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

We don't have a problem with fat people and their ice cream.

We have a problem with THEIR SPOONS.

[–]thatEMSguy [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Especially when those fatty's walk into a crowded place and murder a dozen people with their ice cream spoon. Go jogging you fat fucks.

[–]JackBond1234 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

So you have a problem with fat people then

[–]Colonize_The_Moon [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

No, just the spoons. If we banned spoons we wouldn't have fat people murdering anyone anymore. Everything would be perfect!

[–]VLKN [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I mean...have you tried eating ice cream with a fork? Especially when it melts and gets all soupy? Its awful

[–]CntryBmpkn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Then just drink it like soup. Theres a million ways to eat ice cream and be a fatty. Idk why were blaming the spoons.

[–]thatEMSguy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I have a problem with everyone on earth that isn't me.

[–]ClassicCarPhenatic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So if we ban spoons, no one else will be killed by obesity?

[–]Shambi [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Tbh it isn't the same thing because a spoon can't kill hundreds in a matter of minutes. Idgaf if you kill yourself by eating because it doesn't endanger anyone. I'd understand if EVERY gun owner was responsible but their is always that one stupid person that decides to go and shoot civilans. We have to many shootings happening and we are becoming more and more desensitized to them. We really have to look in to gun reform.

[–]knabel88 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty certain gun related homicides have been on a downwards trend for a few years now. May want to check out FBI stats

[–]nicksvr4 [スコア非表示]  (22子コメント)

Yep. They'd like to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say they want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, and get rid of all guns, so that it becomes harder for criminals to get guns.

[–]kingwess [スコア非表示]  (21子コメント)

But that is a hyperbole. When and where did any of the democratic elites say anything close to taking away all of the guns? Actually, most are on record saying they don't want to do that, including Obama!

[–]Dorago1991 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Hillary wants to hold gun manufacturers liable for legally sold products, which basically would end them anyway with the incredible amount of lawsuits it would open up.

[–]kingwess [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

That is still a stretch to say it will take away all guns. And I just want it on the record that I don't support that measure in the slightest. Senator Sanders also voted against that bill

[–]Dorago1991 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I feel like if gun manufacturers can be sued for any single gun they manufacture no matter how careful they are of selling it, they would eventually stop selling guns here because of the insane legal fees. I consider myself generally liberal but guns are an issue I definitely lean right on. Hillary is out of her mind on this proposal.

[–]kingwess [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Again, I don't agree with this proposal, and there is a reason it didn't pass. It didn't have the support of a large portion of the Democratic Senate either. And the proposal itself was to protect gun manufacturers, and Hillary voted against that; it wasn't a separate bill made to grant people the right to sue manufacturers, it was more voting against a bill that provided special protections for gun manufacturing. I still don't agree with it either, but it is more understandable in context.

[–]albinoeskimo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Why would they go on the record saying otherwise? These guys make careers out of not saying things most people disagree with, so you have to look at actions instead of words.

[–]kingwess [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The point of it being on record is that they have come out with a directly contradictory position to the one that the person above was accusing them of; that is their position on the issue and to give them any other position is speculative at best, and flat out incorrect at worst.

[–]TeaPartyOverlordCruz Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When and where did any of the democratic elites say anything close to taking away all of the guns?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/01/reminder-sen-feinstein-said-she-wants-all-guns-banned/

[–]nicksvr4 [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Is it hyperbole if they believe it, but don't say it? That is the only logical conclusion I can come to. Ultimately they want to make gun violence go down by making it hard for criminals to get guns. No law will stop criminals from getting guns. The only thing that will hurt them is if the number of guns in the country start drying up and going away. In the mean time, law abiding citizens are jumping left and right through hoops and being discouraged from purchasing firearms. Starts with citizens not buying guns anymore, which makes legal gun purchases go down, which ultimately leads to a gun market that goes away and no more guns on the street. The criminals are the very last people affected by gun laws, when it comes to purchases.

[–]kingwess [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

There is a middle ground though between taking away all guns and having no restrictions whatsoever. I think it is unfair to paint a picture of Liberals as all on the side of taking away all guns, when the clear majority of liberals are not in favor of that. I myself am in favor of restrictions on some automatic rifles and magazine sizes, as well as getting rid of loopholes like the Charleston loophole. I think most liberals would agree you have a right to own a gun, but that doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be any laws put in place on who can buy and what can be bought. It's a very pessimistic outlook on the gun violence problem to say that it is too late in the game and therefore no measures can be taken to reduce it.

[–]Pictii476 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Automatic rifles are not sold to the general public without a special ATF process. What you are talking about are semiautomatic rifles. Legal gun owners should not be restricted to 10 round magazines. It will not lessen mass shootings and will do nothing to reduce crime. All gun control does is make life more difficult for legal firearms owners while enabling criminals. The second ammendment tells us the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arbitrarily banning certain types of weapons because they look scary and magazines because they hold too many bullets is infringement.

[–]kingwess [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I meant both semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Someone in another comment told me he was in favor of allowing automatic weapons to be sold the general public with a background check... And like I said earlier, that is a terrible outlook on gun violence; the problem is not so big that measures can't be taken to curtail it. And I think allowing any and all types of weapons is a recipe for disaster, as I think you probably would too; we just have a fundamental disagreement over what weapons should be allowed. I promise I don't hold my views to spite gun owners. I respect your viewpoint, and I hope you can respect mine.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

We are at that middle ground. It is not ad though there are no gun laws in America. America has quite a bit of gun laws in fact. There has never been a compromise on the issue. Gun rights have continuously been curtailed without ever gaining anything. Anti gun people claim to want pro gun people to "compromise". That word doesn't mean what they think it means. You want universal back ground checks? Reopen the machine gun registry and deregulate suppressors (they are safety devices, that's what they were designed for and that is their only function) THAT is a compromise I guarantee gun rights people would fully support.

[–]kingwess [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I know people love their guns, but lots of things have been regulated as time goes on. When the founding fathers wrote the Second amendment, some of the weapons we have today couldn't have been dreamed up in their wildest imaginations. I don't think it would be safe to give machine guns to the general public. You probably wouldn't think it would be safe to allow them to have RPGs and hand grenades. If you don't think people should be allowed to have those, we just disagree at where the middle is. Believe me, the vast majority of liberals are perfectly fine with people owning guns.

[–]TeaPartyOverlordCruz Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When the founding fathers wrote the Second amendment, some of the weapons we have today couldn't have been dreamed up in their wildest imaginations.

When they wrote the first amendment, today's communication capabilities were beyond their wildest dreams. Yet the first amendment applies to the internet.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Since 1934, there has been 1 murder with a legally owned machine gun. The registry closed in 1989. History clearly shows its perfectly safe.

To be clear, in case you don't know, the process to purchase an NFA firearm is enormously more strict than to purchase a regular firearm.

[–]wOlfLisK [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Getting rid of guns would make it harder for criminals to get guns but the issue is the viability of it. You're not going to make the US a gunless country overnight, not even the UK is gunless (In fact we actually have quite a few of them, we just have a lot of requirements for a license). They'll still find guns it will just be much more expensive. As you say, the only way the US would become gunless is if the citizens themselves stopped buying them but I can't see that happening any time soon.

But the fact of the matter is, the USA has the highest rate of gun violence in the western world and some of the highest overall. Something has to be done about it. I don't think anyone wants to get rid of guns completely but cracking down on guns in the hands of criminals or the mentally ill is definitely a good thing.

Serious question though, what's do you guys think of requiring a license to own a gun? It would be easy to get with only a simple background check based on mental health and criminal convictions and if someone is in possession of a gun without a license it gets confiscated, they get fined and have to prove they are able to legally own it before it's returned.

[–]TeaPartyOverlordCruz Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Serious question though, what's do you guys think of requiring a license to own a gun?

Do you need a license to speak? Or to go to church? Or to vote? It's a right, the same as those. You don't just lose your rights because of some bullshit statistical argument.

[–]wharpudding [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

Much in the same way that there are over a billion Muslims in the world with only a tiny percentage of them being a "bad guy with a bomb".

[–]Alexlincoln2Cruzio [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The people who claim all muslims are terrorists get argued with in this sub.

[–]GuitarWizard90 [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

But disturbing percentages of them cheer and support the guy with a bomb.

[–]RiffRaffDJ [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

As do a disturbing percentage of Christians, when one flies off the handle attacking an abortion clinic.

[–]GuitarWizard90 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's not even close to the numbers of Islamic people that support violence. Millions supported both Paris attacks, even ones that were polled in countries like England. Millions of them also believe that people like you and me need to be forced into Islam, or executed. And don't even get me started on how women are treated in Islamic countries. There's no way that anyone can objectively say that Christianity and Islam are both equal in terms of violence. Centuries ago, perhaps you could have made that argument, but no longer.

[–]A_Wise_Old_Monkey [スコア非表示]  (28子コメント)

What do you say to the argument that gun violence in the United States far exceeds that in other developed countries with stricter gun laws? Honestly curious.

[–]atomic1fireReagan Conservative [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

  1. We're next to Mexico, which has gangs and drugs. Not a great combination when it comes to murders.

  2. Background checks don't stop someone from stealing a gun or using a straw purchaser.

If anything, gun control is a bandaid to problems like drug addiction and unemployment. You can't fix people killing each other or themselves without fixing the problems of society, and laws that ban pistol grips or gun free zones don't give people a respect for human life, a decent job, or the mental help/counseling they may actually need.

Gun control is a knee jerk bandaid to actual issues that should be fixed.

I don't think you can simply fix intent to do harm by taking a weapon away. It wouldn't fix terrorist attacks, murders caused by someone getting ticked over their job or their wife, and it wouldn't fix gang violence or drug addiction.

[–]A_Wise_Old_Monkey [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

What you said about gun control measures being a knee jerk reaction rings true for me. I have read more than once that none of the current GC proposals would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings. I think the big question is: Short of living in a surveillance state, what would have?

[–]atomic1fireReagan Conservative [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Laws that make it easier for addicts to quit using may help, I know Rand Paul is working on a bipartisan bill that would allow doctors to treat more patients with addictions to opiates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/heroin-addiction-senate_n_7456492.html

I don't know what most people's opinions on the drug war, and in general I'm against total legalization, but removing a regulation on drugs that could be used to ween people off opiates so they aren't desperately stupid for a fix might help.

Removing Regulations on the market that drive up property prices and taxes could work for increasing employment. For instance Silicon Valley is apparently pretty expensive to live in due to demand, rent control (because people refuse to leave the cheap apartment for a different one elsewhere, which would meet demand by freeing up apartments), and a refusal to build more houses/apartments.

Prices are high and I'd assume that it makes some upward movement extremely difficult.

[–]A_Wise_Old_Monkey [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I agree that this legislation is a good step. (Off topic: Have you heard of Baclofen? It's possibly more effective.) Are there statistics that support the claim that addicts are a primary source of gun violence? Someone else here mentioned suicides are included in gun violence figures, which is problematic for GC, since substitution for a gun would be easy anyway.

I'm not as convinced by the rent / rent controls argument. I don't know enough to have an strong opinion on rent control regulation, but my gut reaction is that removing rent controls will just further concentrate the poor in ghettos, probably making the problem worse?

[–]atomic1fireReagan Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't know whether or not unscrewing california's housing costs and decreasing demand would drop gun violence, I'm just saying that it might open up more employment and decrease costs if demand went down, which could provide for more jobs and more tax dollars to address other problems.

Speaking on gang violence.

The National Institute of Justice suggests that when people look into Gun violence (which is a silly term), they often find problems with gang violence. In fact gangs members tend to commit more crimes then their peers. http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gangs/Pages/activity-prevalence.aspx#note3

http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gangs/Pages/welcome.aspx

And as to where they got guns? the NIJ also says that some researchers in atlanta discovered that the majority of guns were perchased illegally off the streets, ergo no background checks involved.

Researchers in Atlanta asked incarcerated youth how and why they obtained and used guns. Almost all said that they could easily obtain a gun, would most likely obtain guns illegally on the street, and that gun carrying was commonplace:

And in the same page

[They] had strong feelings about carrying guns — 29 percent of males and 75 percent of females said they did it to feel safer (for protection), and approximately 40 percent overall said it conferred status and made them feel more "energized" and "powerful."

While I don't doubt that some people purchase guns with ill intentions, wouldn't it make more sense to open up concealed carry laws so that people aren't breaking the law to feel safe?

In my opinion, education on gun ownership and laws like concealed carry seem like the better idea to me because if anyone can just buy guns illegally easily, than gun control seems like a lost cause, paired with the fact that American Citizens have the right to carry anyway and more gun control just seems like unnecessary infringement.

[–]blergasm909 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'd say that you first have to look at the specific numbers within the "gun violence rate." A huge proportion of gun-related deaths in the US are suicides.

What I say to the overall argument is that the US is not like every other developed nation in the world, and it was never created to be. You have to ask yourself what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the 2nd amendment. The overall goal of the US - and what makes this country different from every other country - is the ability to resist government tyranny.

The US was less than 100 years old when it had a civil war. It is not unthinkable that this could happen again. I'm not talking this week, this year, or perhaps even within my lifetime. But tyranny doesn't happen overnight either. It happens in a progression of tighter and tighter restrictions and bigger and bigger government expansion. Could the federal government overpower individual citizens? Sure. Could it overpower several states with their own militias, reinforced by opposing private citizens? Not as certain, especially considering that our national military is primarily made up of people who support states rights and conservativism, and could abandon the federal military to join their state militias. Don't know, but it is our constitutional right to defend ourselves against government oppression now and at any point in the future. To take away our right to own a gun forever because of current, multi-faceted issues could enact legislation that would effectively terminate that right, violating what some believe to be the basic principles upon which our country was founded and giving the government more power over our individual liberties. Freedom worldwide happens at the end of a bayonet; not a pen.

There are a bunch of other spinoff debates that I won't get into; I'm just replying to the general argument.

*edit: a word

[–]A_Wise_Old_Monkey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I guess the problem that I have with this argument is it seems far too hypothetical. In my opinion, America is a functioning democracy and I can't foresee the need for armed conflict to solve internal political problems. Also, I don't think there is any serious proposed legislation that actually takes away existing guns. My understanding of recently proposed legislation is that it amounts to fine tuning background checks to include people with criminal records, mental illness, or are on the terrorist watch list. Oh, and increasing the pool of sellers required to do these checks to eliminate loop holes.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

What do you say to the fact that the UK and Australia's gun laws had 0 positive impact on their gun crime?

What do you say to the fact that studies have shown there is no correlation between number of gun owners and crime/homocide?

What do you say to the fact that America's gun crime has dropped at the same rate it has in Australia since Australia passed their strict gun control while America has only loosened it's gun control since then?

What do you say to Sweden who has lots of guns and low crime?

What do you say to Russia who has extremely strict gun control and very high crime?

What do you say to the fact that crime is almost exclusively related to socioeconomic status and not the availability of firearms?

What do you say to the fact that most gun crime in America is gang related?

What do you say to the fact that guns in America prevent more crime than they are used in?

What do you say to the fact that the number of guns in America has sky rocketed while the gun crime has plunged?

What do you say to the fact that gun crime in the UK actually increased after they passed their strict gun laws?

[–]ApolloNaught [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Brit here, can I see a source for our supposed increase in gun crime

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

You sure can, sir/ma'am!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Despite the BBC's efforts. That first graph tells it all.

[–]doyouwantapizzaroll [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Does the graph really show that? Do we know what the rate would have been WITHOUT gun control?

I don't support gun control in the States, but I'm inclined to believe that it's much more effective in island nations

[–]friendlyfire [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Gun crime (and crime overall) is going down in the US despite the fact that there are more guns now than in the past.

They are not correlated at all.

The only thing crime (including gun crime) is correlated with is socioeconomic status.

Stop & frisk in NYC took a ton of weapons off the streets - but had zero impact on crime. Most of the weapons the police found and confiscated were from people in bad neighborhoods where the reason they had weapons was for personal protection.

In the process, honest citizens who only feared for their safety got a criminal record and it had zero effect on crime.

Fun times.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

That line of logic can be used to argue against anything though. It is demanding evidence that doesn't exist because it would require the ability to tell the future or view an alternate reality. The same argument could be made against seat belts or fire alarms as well.

I'm not trying to argue that the gun laws are responsible for the rise in gun crime. There is no evidence to indicate that. The only thing we know is that passing gun laws did not cause gun crime to go down.

[–]doyouwantapizzaroll [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The only thing we know is that passing gun laws did not cause gun crime to go down.

But that's the point, we don't know this because we don't know what crime would have been otherwise. You are looking at a graph that, at best, might tell us about correlation between the two, but this graph can tell us nothing about a theoretical CAUSAL relationship between the two

Edit: in short, correlation does not imply causation, and the absence of correlation does not imply an absence of causation.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No. We know, for a fact, that gun laws did not cause the gun crime to go down. Gun laws were passed, gun crime went up. Gun crime didn't go down.

What we can't say for sure is whether gun control mitigated some of the increase.

Similar, but different.

[–]FailedSociopath [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Over and over again in discussions I found none of that matters. Once the guns are confiscated, lack of real effect on saving lives and any further or continuing problems are ignored. The real point is getting rid of guns and being smug about it, not stopping murder. And, even if gun crime is still associated with gangs and poverty in their country, they don't really care about that and have often stated seemingly without much concern that the problem just continues with "those people".

[–]fuck_sal_hard [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You have to look at WHO is committing said crimes, first and foremost.

The phrase "gun violence" means nothing to me unless you provide some meaningful supporting stats along with it.

[–]_ALLLLRIGHTY_THEN [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

non US developed countries have inner cities that are nothing like the US.

It's really like comparing apples to oranges.

[–]GOTOSLEEPJAMIE [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

None of them have our border problems or urban blacks.

[–]jd428jd [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not that it accounts for all of it but some gun violence stats are skewed by suicides. If people are going to kill themselves then they will, if they use a gun then it is considered gun violence.

[–]beer_n_gunsMillennial Constitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

[–]A_Wise_Old_Monkey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The overall decrease in violent crime is an important point and one of the few unquestionable metrics we have. Do you think that the media over-hypes gun violence incidents, and thus creates an appetite for gun legislation that otherwise wouldn't be there?

[–]J_Schafe13 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Overall violence is no worse in the US than it is in other countries.

[–]unkz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Commonwealth and European countries are as violent as America? By what metric? Certainly not murders.

[–]albinoeskimo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I say that gun violence is a pointless metric made to force gun control on us. If you want to have an argument about the before and after effects on crime and violent crime then go ahead and present your evidence.

[–]J_Schafe13 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Liberals don't understand logic. You're going to confuse them.

[–]watery_planet [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

If we were a problem, you'd know it

How? Like large numbers of mass shootings? High rates of gun violence?

[–]J_Schafe13 [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

The only place that there are high rates of gun violence are inner cities which are overwhelmingly controller by anti-gun liberals whose gun bans have done nothing to stop crime.

[–]watery_planet [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

If only there were more guns in those areas. That would fix it.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Most places where high crime ghettos exist already have much stricter gun control than the rest of America. Like Chicago, Washington DC, California, etc. But hey, just because gun control has never worked before, it might this time right? Keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results right?

[–]J_Schafe13 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Liberals do the same thing with every issue. See socialism and it's repeated failures.

[–]TropicalAudio [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

As a Dutch guy living in a socialist state, you're right, my life is hell right now. My university tuition is sponsored by the state, meaning I won't have a crippling amount of debt when I graduate. This means I'll have to enter the job market without ever having the privilege of the life experience that being depressed by financial ruin brings. Honestly, it's a massive disadvantage.

On a more serious note, please know that I'm not taking the piss at you personally. It's just that this sentiment of pretending like "socialism" is something that will bring a nation onto its knees is kind of hilarious.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm not against socialism, it is a fundamental part of any nation. Bridges, roads, fire departments, police stations, militaries, a lot of research funding, etc, are all socialist. But a lot of European countries can more easily afford to higher degrees of socialism because they basically do not need to have a military, America provides that for them.

[–]TropicalAudio [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

While true to some extent, the US military expenditure budget has been about 4% of the country's GDP for the past few years compared to the 1.5% of GDP in the Netherlands source. It's significant, certainly, but I don't think it matters as much as you think it does.

The main factor is that the Dutch don't really mind the fact that the effective tax burden on the upper middle class is a bit over 60% of income. I know most Americans would go ape shit over that notion: It's just a different culture.

[–]Sellingpapayas [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm not gonna have crippling debt either when I graduate college because I actually worked for it. How can you call yourself an adult when you won't even take on responsibilities for yourself. American colleges are the best in the world. Look up the best colleges in the world and 8/10 of them are American. The other 2 are English (who also make you pay for your education). Imagine that, paying for a service results in better results. Socialism has brought the U.S.S.R, all of Latin America, many Asian countries like North Korea and Vietnam, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, etc. into financial ruin and even collapse in some. I've never heard of capitalism ruining a country.

[–]TropicalAudio [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How can you call yourself an adult when you won't even take on responsibilities for yourself

Let's please keep this civil: you're not going to convince anyone by calling them names. As for your actual point, I do pay for it: there's an effective tax burden of 60% over here. I'm pretty happy to pay that, as I know a big chunk of my money goes into funding the education of my fellow Dutchmen and making sure the amount of homeless people dying in a ditch somewhere is kept to zero or as close to it as possible.

[Spain is financially ruined by socialism], I've never heard of capitalism ruining a country.

Ever heard of the 2007 crash? If you're going to include Spain as "ruined country", you're going to have to include the US as well: US national debt is 114% of its GDP, Spain's is 94%.

[–]J_Schafe13 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Strict gun control ensures that only criminals have guns and that citizens can't defend themselves against criminals. This is common sense and has been proven over and over again in liberal run cities.

[–]Wensleydale_Gaming [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No murderer is going to stop in front of a 'no firearms' sign and say, "Well gee, I guess I can't go in here. They got me good!"

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

[–]unkz [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Those numbers are a bit problematic to interpret like that. They basically fall prey to the same fallacy that had people thinking that smaller schools produce higher test scores, when actually they just produce higher variance. Note that in those three countries, the fatalities come from 1, 1 and 2 incidents, compared to 133 in the US. It's pretty silly to extrapolate much from that.

[–]lightningsnail [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

While that may or may not be the case here. It is the only information we have to work off of. Besides, no matter how you feel about the relevancy of those facts, mass shootings are a negligible part of overall crime. According to studies done they seem to be more about suicide than anything (I will put the study here if I can find it again). They make up a tiny tiny fraction of homocide or crime and should definitely not be used as a measuring stick for anything as we don't really know what causes people to commit those acts. Passing gun laws to try to prevent mass shootings is, quite literally, flailing at the darkness in the hopes that something works. We should never pass laws in that fashion... IMHO anyway.

[–]wolfwon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Murder and violence culture is the problem, as well as other social issues and inexorable human selfishness. That is the root of violent crime as it relates to guns in this country. Of course, gun owners do not always perpetuate murder and violence culture.

However, sometimes they do. Just as it's unfair to color a whole group as responsible for the blight of gun violence, it is naive and disingenuous to ignore the extent to which it is a contributing factor.

Even this little bit of over-broad flim flam contains an implicit threat and childish machismo which serves no purpose other than to grandstand your beliefs to those with like minds in whatever echo chambers you insist on inhabiting.

The failure to approach gun ownership with a attitude of good sense and empathy for the admittedly knee-jerk reactions of people who do not have similar good experiences with guns is going to perpetuate anti-firearm attitudes just as much as misleading crime statistics and sensationalized public shootings.

If anything, this type of rhetoric effectuates everything contrary to what you desire. You're working against your own interests, but you'll sure show 'em on Facebook.

[–]beer_n_gunsMillennial Constitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh come on, it's a freakin meme. Of course it's oversimplified and facebook-worthy...'tis the nature of memes.

[–]catcatdogcat [スコア非表示]  (33子コメント)

You're not the problem at all. But can we get background checks to at least weed out the mentally unstable people?

[–]LawlosaurusTea Party Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They already do, if they've been adjudicated mentally deficient. Unless you want to rewrite the HIPAA laws, that's all you get.

[–]lemonparty [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

No problem! Can we have back NFA-free suppressors and full auto? (Neither of which has ever been used in a mass shooting).

That's what's called compromise! Not when you just keep proposing more and more gun regulation, we just have to accept some of it.

[–]J_Schafe13 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No you getting it wrong. When liberals say they want compromise they mean that they'll suggest something completely outrageous and then compromise to only do something half as outrageous.

[–]Chevy_Raptor [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Can we have back NFA-free suppressors and full auto?

Please!

[–]reallifebadassFar-Right [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

do you want a gun registry? because that's how you get a gun registry.

[–]mz6 [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

To cave in just a little bit? A reasonable approach right? Hell, we can't have machine guns or a Reaper drone so why not do some extra background checks if the first amendment is not absolute anyway, right..

As soon as we accept that we ought to do background checks regarding mental fitness than we have to haggle over who falls into this category. Is it 25%? How about low IQ? Maybe even if you're at risk you shouldn't have access to guns neither. What if both of your parents had mental illness? What if only one? What if both of your parents were violent criminals? Since prevalence of major depression is higher among women should we take a closer look at that gender also? Are transgenders mentally stable? Are communists mentally stable? Are tea party people mentally stable? Do we really want to give so much power to American Psychological Association, an organization with such huge political bias?

[–]RiffRaffDJ [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

The thing to understand here is that the Founders did actually envision the 2nd Amendment to mean any and all military grade weapons. However, at that time, germ theory did not exist. At that time Nuclear weapons did not exist. So, in our modern age, to remain completely compatible with the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, should we allow people to own weapons grade anthrax? Nuclear Weapons? Or have times changed sufficiently that letting anyone have access to that which can instantly kill everyone in a city not such a wise idea? If you agree that we should keep weapons grade anthrax out of peoples hands, then you are already arguing that the 'spirit' of the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid in our modern age. Even without such weapons, the US Military is the most powerful force on the face of the earth. In the face of such awesome power, is the pistol some people keep under their pillow, which they view as a guarantee to keeping 'the man' at bay, really a measure to ensure their liberty, or is it their right to vote that actually matters? In a democracy, the guns people keep in their closet isn't what really matters, it's their ability to change the status quo through voting.

[–]wOlfLisK [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The 2nd amendment is vastly outdated, tanks, planes and nukes didn't exist as you said. How is a population going to fight against the government? Unless 90% of the population turns against them, they're going to be wiped out. Guerilla warfare probably won't even work considering how the NSA probably knows what you had for breakfast this morning. The 2nd amendment only exists because when it was created, the war with England had only recently ended. There was genuine worry that eventually there could be another (And there kind of was in the Civil War). These days though, the population can't go up against the government, the best you can hope for is to change it.

If people want to own guns, let them but I think the entire concept as guns as a right should be rethought. In fact, having to fight the government shouldn't even be a worry in modern first world countries.

[–]RiffRaffDJ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So much this. When the government is able to with the push of a button, able to kill almost anyone on the face of the earth with drone fired missiles, able to kill all life in a region with nukes or biological weapons, how is your pistol under your pillow, which you claim is the only thing ensuring your liberty, actually a guarantee of anything at all? Once again, the power of the vote has always been the single greatest power the average person has. If the mass of slaves in the south had a guaranteed right to vote right from the beginning, would the Civil War have ever happened? A guaranteed right to vote for all people, right from the start, would have prevented so many problems our nation has endured.

[–]AcesMethod [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

How do you defend your right to vote?

[–]RiffRaffDJ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The only thing keeping voting going right now is tradition, the way it's always been. Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee ANYONE a right to vote. All it does is leave elections up to the States, that is all. Which is why I'm for an Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees an individual right to vote, something which would have settled so many problems in our nations history. With a guaranteed right to vote, your liberty can always be ensured. Without that, violence would be the only recourse. The Ballot or The Bullet, if you will.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F Kennedy

[–]Chevy_Raptor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

, it's their ability to change the status quo through voting.

And should that fail and people start being oppressed by a dictator?

[–]wOlfLisK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The two term limit and congress exist to prevent dictators. The president doesn't have absolute power and never will. Sure the US government may be getting more and more corrupt but there will never be an actual dictator.

[–]RiffRaffDJ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

A dictator that can either be impeached by our elected representatives or simply voted out of office when their term is up you mean? A dictator, who's power is constrained by the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution itself? Really, can you name a single President who actually was a Dictator? There's been dozens by now to choose from.

[–]AcesMethod [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Checks and balances that are ignored via executive order? War lasting over a decade without an official declaration from congress? Voting sure is working well to prevent the executive branch from dictating rather than following legislation. /s

[–]narcedmonkey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

get rid of the NFA 1934 and then maybe we can talk UBCs.

[–]MRB88 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Nice concern trolling. C- for effort. F for execution.

1) We already require background checks that eliminates people who have been involuntary committed at any point. These background cheeks apply to the overwhelming majority of firearms transactions in the United States, including those made by FFLs at gun shows and out-of-state transactions that need to go through FFLs.

2) What do you define as a mental unstable person? Severe untreated psychosis - I could get behind that given sufficient protections. What about people who are bipolar but have symptoms well controlled by medication? Generalized anxiety and depression? Where do you draw the line? What about doctors who are so firmly opposed to firearms that they declare their patients mentally unwell to limit ownership generally?

3) What do we do when those 'mentally unstable people' are expanded for political purposes? When people say 'climate change denial' is a mental illness, do we exclude them? What about people who have a fear of government overreach? What about dissents against the regime and activists in the opposing political party?

4) How can we require background checks for one right but not for others? Should we prohibit compulsive liars from publishing their ideas? What about prohibiting those below a certain threshold of intelligence from voting? What about removing freedom of movement for those with violent tendencies but who haven't committed any crime?

See how quickly rights erode when you go down this path? When you give the government more power at the expense of the citizenry, you are asking for tyranny. The founders created the second amendment as the ultimate check on government power for a reason.

[–]wOlfLisK [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Issue is, how effective do you think a citizen militia would actually be vs the US government? They have planes and tanks and missiles and high tech sniper rifles and rocket launchers and so many things. That's what spending billions on an army every year does. You have at best a rifle or an illegally obtained machine gun. The only thing you can really do is pull a Gandhi and hope they get tired of killing you and surrender. The second amendment hasn't been a power check since 1918.

[–]MRB88 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm not advocating any militia action but from a purely theoretical perspective....

Ask the Mujahideen, the French Resistance, or our own founding fathers. People forget that during the Revolutionary War, cast cannon and man of war ships were the power projection force that super carriers and main battle tanks are today. Hamilton stole cannon from the British in New York which served as a turning point early in the war.

I strongly recommend this article for more information on insurgency victories against superpowers.

[–]wOlfLisK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well if you could occupy an airbase then sure, you'd have a chance but this isn't the 1770s. You're fighting against the most powerful army in the world in it's homeland not an island nation on the other side of the world that didn't really care too much anyway. Perhaps a citizen's militia could make some gains, maybe even win but it wouldn't be because of the second amendment.

[–]wmegenney [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm saving this comment. It is to perfect. Thank you for summing this up. Great job

[–]TechnicolorMelody [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

A lot of us would probably be totally fine with UBC/some kind of training scheme if we knew you cocknuggets weren't going to use them to discourage gun ownership.

[–]narcedmonkey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A lot of us would probably be totally fine with UBC/some kind of training scheme if we knew you cocknuggets weren't going to use them to discourage gun ownership make confiscation lists.

[–]_ALLLLRIGHTY_THEN [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But can we get background checks

We already do....

[–]Gboy4496 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not good ones, and it's possible to just walk into some gun shows and buy one without a check.

[–]Slowhand09 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Most guns are purchased after background checks. You are busy believing what the media spoonfeeds you. And a background check is only as good as the info they have. VA Tech shooter passed background check. Psych records are private. Can you say HIPPA?

[–]BanditMcDougal [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'd rather not. The field of "mental health" is so squishy in terms of what is healthy, normal behavior and what is unstable. Once we go down this path, we're not too far away from "wanting a gun is a form of paranoia; therefore you can't have one."

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

mentally unstable people

So someone that normal 1 sec and snapped the next will show up on a background check?

[–]Gboy4496 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't see it as a problem with gun ownership and gun owners. I see it as a problem with safety. Mandatory training not only in handling but also keeping the gun out of the reach of children or dangerous individuals would be massively helpful. Also the people doing the training should be very competent and trustworthy.

[–]doyouwantapizzaroll [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm anti- gun control, because I don't think it accomplishes what it intends to, but this meme is pretty nonsensical. Aren't there tons of gun control activists who "know" there is a problem?

[–]Hyabusa2 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The point is valid but this is sort of a weak way to present it. About 85% of murderers are prior convicted felons and handguns outnumber rifles in murders at a 20:1 ratio. Considering felons are generally prohibited from owning handguns in most states the vast majority of murders is done by convicted criminals with illegally owned firearms. Most murders also happen in urban centers with very strict guns laws yet every time guns and murder come up in conversation people want to get mad at law abiding white NRA members and AR-15's.

Whites are also about 14 times less likely to commit murder than blacks. That statistic is 5-7x less likely when whites and hispanics are grouped into the same category.

I am a law abiding owner of a semi auto rifle. Anyone who thinks a conversation about gun control needs to start with me fails at statistics.

If we wanted to spend time one something that would actually curb gun violence that would actually matter we would put more effort in security systems that prevent handgun theft because the picture of murder in the united states is not a bunch of white NRA owners and rifle clubs, it's mostly criminal male urban youth with stolen handguns.

Despite blacks making up about 15% of the US population black urban youth are shockingly almost 70% of youth robbery arrests. If you want to focus on something that will actually matter then the people who live near high crime neighborhoods who own handguns have to do a more complete job at securing their property from theft because when their handguns get stolen they are extremely likely to fall into the wrong hands on the streets.

The demographic of young black male with prior felony is an extremely small percentage of the US population (probably less than 1%) but it represents nearly 45% of all murders in the United States. Stolen handguns in the hands of this demographic is indeed extraordinarily dangerous.

[–]loganlightcap [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What is going on in the comments of this sub lately?

[–]uniquecannon2nd Amendment Activist [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

One shooter doesn't represent all gun owners.

One terrorist represents all Muslims.

[–]Alexlincoln2Cruzio [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is /r/conservative, not /r/antipozi, I'd like to think most people here understand that terrorists don't represent all muslims

[–]Cryzgnik [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There's probably more overlap than you think

[–]schockergd [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The simple fact is that anti-gunners don't want to admit that there's a massive drug/gang problem that is the leading cause of gun related murders. Look up the stats, it's something like 80%+ of people murdered in the US by firearms are by people involved in a gang or the drug trade. Those two things are hard to track and mitigate, so it's easiest to just blame it all on 'guns' and call it at that.

[–]Gboy4496 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But most gun deaths are accidents right? What's the problem with instituting a mandatory training and education system for owners that teaches the ones who wouldn't otherwise know how to properly handle a gun and how to keep that gun out of the hands of children and dangerous individuals

[–]FlyingPasta [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Really stroking your own dick there, aren't you

[–]DEEP_SEA_MAX [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Ya, there might be a problem

I'm a gun owner, I'm pro gun, but you're delusional if you don't think there is a gun problem in this country