jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
17,535 points (90% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

/r/news

unsubscribesubscribe11,668,130 readers
6,261 users here now
  1. Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.
Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews
Your post will likely be removed if it:
  • is not news
  • is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
  • primarily concerns politics.
  • has a title not taken from the article.
  • has a pay wall or steals content.
  • covers an already-submitted story.
  • violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
  • is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
  • is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
  • is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
  • is responding to spam.
  • violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria
/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting
/r/SavedYouAClick - making media more straightforward
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
Recommendations:
a community for
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]Deradius 125 points126 points127 points  (134 children)
I agree.
We need common sense gun legislation.
  • Mandatory firearms training in all public schools.
  • Nationwide constitutional carry.
  • Pass the hearing protection act, ending a useless tax on an important piece of safety equipment.
  • Concealed carry on college campuses nationwide.
[–]Examiner7 42 points43 points44 points  (1 child)
Restricting firearms suppressors is like banning helmets for bikes.
You can tell laws like that are written by people who've only seen guns in movies.
[–]peacemaker2007 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
banning helmets for bikes.
aka they're good for you, but make you look like a twat?
[–]Nathan346 20 points21 points22 points  (6 children)
Repeal whole NFA.
Make states recognize other states permits, like they do drivers licenses.
Lift every single ban on a anything .50 cal or under.
Let all ammo and guns .51 cal and under in, all parts.
Once you get approved for one gun, zero background waits, scan your ID and that's it. It's either go or no go, no reporting to any agency anywhere and no paperwork on any transfers at all
PUT GUN CRIMINALS AWAY. or deport them somewhere, just not here.
[–]TheRedgrinGrumbholdt 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
Is a background wait really so bad?
And the longer someone is alive, the higher their likelihood that their mental health has deteriorated or that they have committed a crime. Just about everyone would have passed a background check as a teen.
[–]Mr_Wrann 5 points6 points7 points  (4 children)
Well the point for a background wait is rather needless when someone has a gun already. The wait period isn't so they can run the check it's a "cooldown" period, but if I own a gun already I can just use the other gun, it's redundant and unnecessary.
[–]TheRedgrinGrumbholdt -2 points-1 points0 points  (3 children)
But you know guns are very different. The offensive capabilities of an M9 and an M40 are quite distinct.
[–]Mr_Wrann 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Yes but the cool-down is meant to stop crimes of passion or suicides possibly, either of which can be done with any gun. What if I own an M9 and want a M1911A1 or a revolver?
[–]A_Boy_And_His_Doge[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
M40
I'm confident that nobody looking to commit a crime of passion is going to drop 3000 dollars or more on a precision sniper rifle.
[–]incognito1600 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
If someone already has a gun but is in a state of mind they are going to snipe someone versus blowing them away with a pistol in front of little Jimmy... chances are they're going to wait the 3 days anyways.
[–]Thobias_Funke 29 points30 points31 points  (104 children)
Why do you guys fight gun laws when the USA has the loosest gun laws of any first world country that I'm aware of and yet they have the highest rate of gun violence? Even within the United States, the states with stricter gun laws have less gun violence. Am I missing something here? Because I am a Canadian who sincerely does not understand.
[–]AsterJ 106 points107 points108 points  (9 children)
The majority of "gun violence" in the US is suicides. The majority of the rest of the gun violence is gang on gang crime. The way you solve those is by fighting poverty.
[–]Heartdiseasekills 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
This needs to be higher.
[–]TedTheGreek_Atheos 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
Why? It's absolutely a false statement.
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States
[–]4jakers18 [score hidden]  (0 children)
That's not modern data it's almost 5 years old.
[–]molonlabe88 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
And fix the drug problem. Gang/drug problem. That would fix both of these issues.
[–]watMartin 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
people get addicted to drugs because they're in shit situations, remove the shit situations and you don't have anywhere near as much addiction
[–]molonlabe88 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
Yes. Legalize drugs and you won't have gangs fighting over territory. Brings drug use out of the shadows more and make it more likely someone would seek help.
[–]watMartin [score hidden]  (0 children)
yeah, spain and portugal have great rehab systems that are proved to work. but america makes money off of getting people in jail so it'll never happen there
[–]CheesewithWhine 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
That's a load of horseshit. "Gang on gang crime" is a lie used by the NRA and the right wing gun loons to deflect away attention from guns, and has ugly racial connotations (usually spoken with "Chicago" in the same sentence).
Here's why it's a gun problem, not a gang problem:
"There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011."
[–]johnboyjr29 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
or the purge
[–]Atlai 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
Citation needed for states with stronger gun laws having less violence.
That is just not true. It only holds when you include suicides in the gun deaths. There are plenty of countries that have much more restrictive gun laws than the US, yet still have much higher suicide rates, because people use the easiest means available.
[–]buickandolds 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
Why do you guys fight gun laws when the USA has the loosest gun laws of any first world country that I'm aware of and yet they have the highest rate of gun violence?
Not true. Higher than most euro yes. Lower rates of violent crime than some.
Even within the United States, the states with stricter gun laws have less gun violence.
Not true. State by state it varies.
Am I missing something here? Because I am a Canadian who sincerely does not understand.
Understand than violence is a function of socioeconomic conditions not laws. Poverty, lack of real education and lack of good paying job opportunities are what actually drive crime and violence. That is why in states like California that have strict laws and some social programs still have highly varying cities like san diego and oakland. Every city is different and has its own challenges.
Kinda like the war on drugs. The key to stopping drug use isnt banning them it is having treatment and education programs.
[–]THExLASTxDON 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
You do realize there is a huge difference between our culture and yours, right? Also you are completely wrong when you say that the states with stricter gun laws are safer, it's actually the opposite.
[–]goshmrjosh 18 points19 points20 points  (34 children)
We want them looser.
[–]Thobias_Funke 16 points17 points18 points  (33 children)
Ok, that didn't answer either of my questions... what would that solve?
[–]Jumaai 33 points34 points35 points  (4 children)
Not the guy you;ve asked, I think he missed the point a bit.
Strict gun laws in the current US situation will not change anything, and all they do is create issues for people that will actually abide them - the law abiding citizens. Politicians are banning random things based on looks that add utility to guns and change literally nothing for criminals. Also those politicians are constantly attacking rifles when I believe ~90% of crimes are commited with handguns - that receive close to no attention relative to evil rifles.
They are banning things like cheek risers, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, foregrips etc - that really changes nothing. Nothing.
They also limit magazine capacity - whats funny is that any person planning to commit a crime will just go out of state and buy some standard size ones or just remove a fin from a limited capacity one. It takes 2 min for anyone with half a brain and will not stop a dedicated terrorist or criminal.
To get to your question - what would that solve?
Loosening gun laws would stop stupid restrictions and turning legal gun owners into criminals. The only gun control measure that is good are the background checks, but thats not something anyone is disputing.
[–]Thobias_Funke 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
That makes a lot of sense! I figured there had to be some logic behind the loosening of gun laws. It I had never heard it explained before, thanks!
[–]Jumaai 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
This video expands on the stocks and pistol grips, its a major pain in the ass but really changes nothing, except, of course, for the legal gun owners.
[–]PlantedDerp [score hidden]  (0 children)
The point of ring around the rosy gun laws like 922r, import restrictions, SBR, suppressors, risers, shrouds, vertical foregrips vs angled, etc is to be a pain in the ass for the average person and if they can deter one person from being a gun owner, that's one more person in the future that is either ambivalent to completely banning them or against guns because all their social circles are or CNN tells them to be.
[–]CrzyJek 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
In terms of magazines, don't forget about the worst school shooting ever. Virginia Tech. If I'm not mistaken, the perp used a .22 and 9mm pistol and one had a 15 round mag and the other had a 10. Every law passes would never have prevented it.
[–]goshmrjosh 23 points24 points25 points  (20 children)
Instead of writing shitty one liners like I have been, imma try to answer your questions. Many people, myself included, think it's a right to self protection. This includes inside and outside of owned property. Effective modern protection means buying a gun. A lot of gun laws tend to be silly and limit things that help utilize firearms, while mostly ignoring underlying issues.
[–]Thobias_Funke 8 points9 points10 points  (18 children)
Thank you for actually answering. I do understand the logic behind that argument, but as a Canadian I have never felt insecure because I'm not carrying a gun and that's because we have restrictions on firearms that make me never feel like it would be a necessary way to protect myself, and I'm sure that there are people from many other countries who feel the same way. It's just baffling to me.
[–]halfar 5 points6 points7 points  (17 children)
it's a circular issue.
people don't feel safe because of guns, so they think they need guns, which makes people feel less safe. the ultimate difference between the US and other countries is that there's just too many of them, and a kind of fetishization about protecting them.
people want safety, but are unwilling to make the difficult transition into a low-gun society which would require guns being taken away, and the left is notoriously bad at crafting good laws for controlling guns.
honestly, i gave up on the issue a few years ago. the american public looked at an elementary school filled with murdered children, and decided "yeah, we're happy with this situation". what possible form of argument, or satire, or mockery, can break through that level of indoctrination?
like a fucking goddamned shit billion other issues though, i think things will get better once the war on drugs ends.
[–]hubblespaceteletype 5 points6 points7 points  (12 children)
How many people in the US do you think have been killed in mass shootings like Sandy Hook in the past 50 years?
I'll give you a hint -- it's as many people as have died from falling off a ladder in the past two years.
[–]halfar -4 points-3 points-2 points  (11 children)
How many people in the US do you think have been killed in mass shootings like Sandy Hook in the past 50 years?
12,562 people died from guns in 2014. No amount of "a lot were accidents and suicides" or "but i'm choosing to frame the argument as though this is only about mass shootings to bolster my defense" will rationalize those dead family members into being fewer lives lost than from falling off ladders. It's just twelve and a half thousand dead people that your arguments aren't going to bring back to live, and an untold number of lives that your arguments aren't going to save.
spare me the fucking bullshit for once in my fucking life. if you can't even do that much, just don't fucking try to rationalize the murder of 20 little kids to me, okay?
[–]hubblespaceteletype 5 points6 points7 points  (10 children)
12,562 people died from guns in 2014.
In a country of 320 million people. Occurring almost entirely in urban population centers that have been under Democratic administration for 40 years. With no correlation whatsoever to gun ownership rates, only crime.
spare me the fucking bullshit for once in my fucking life. if you can't even do that much, just don't fucking try to rationalize the murder of 20 little kids to me, okay?
Spare me your crocodile tears. Irrational hysteria isn't how we make policy or decide what freedoms to take away.
[–]Geddpeart 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
They looked at the school shooting and used it as a tool for looser gun control.
"Teachers should be armed, if they were packing this would have been prevented"
[–]halfar 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
in a world that arbitrarily refuses the logic of "almost nobody having guns is safer than almost everyone having guns", it almost starts to make a very small and vague amount of sense.
some of the worst, in my opinion, are the liars that insist they support it in order to defend themselves against the government (which in practice means "murdering people who work for the government"), but even those people are not as bad as the worthless shitfuckers who would do absolutely nothing to prevent another sandy hook.
[–]taws34 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
some of the worst, in my opinion, are the liars that insist they support it in order to defend themselves against the government
That view-point cracks me up. Especially hearing it from soldiers. These motherfuckers know our capabilities, a lot have deployed and exercised those capabilities, and they still think they can overthrow our government through violent action.
"But soldiers won't fight against us!"
I swore an oath against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I work for a democratically elected government. Your armed uprising is treason. You talking about an armed uprising is sedition.
Any order I receive to assist in putting down any armed rebellion would be lawful. And, let's face it... if I'm going to pick sides, I'm not picking the underdog.
It's all fun and games until you are staring down the business end of an M1 Abrams main gun.
[–]Little_Tyrant 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
A different shitty one liner: That sounds a bit like circular logic.
[–]Z7ZZ77Z 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
Honestly, at the end of the day I could give a fuck if some gangbangers want to kill each other in the inner city. It doesn't really affect me. I like owning guns, I don't do anything wrong, so why the fuck should I be punished?
[–]Thobias_Funke 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
I think it's pretty obvious that gang violence is only a fraction of the issue to worry about when it comes to gun violence in the states. Does it also not bother you when a gunman goes into a school and kills classrooms full of children because it doesn't affect you?
Edit: also, would it bother you if you did live in the inner city? Because not everyone living there is a "gangbanger"
[–]Z7ZZ77Z 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Does it also not bother you when a gunman goes into a school and kills classrooms full of children because it doesn't affect you?
Sure it does, I'd just rather see mental health be handled better than it is right now before we start thinking about punishing the >99.9% of law abiding gun owners for the actions of <0.1%. I also think eliminating soft targets like gun free zones would go a long way. If you're licensed to carry a firearm, you should be allowed to carry just about anywhere.
also, would it bother you if you did live in the inner city?
I live in a neighborhood right behind the projects, and I've never had a gun put in my face. I also have friends who live in the actual projects, and no one is sticking a gun in their face either because they're not involved in the illegal activities they're surrounded by.
[–]hubblespaceteletype 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I think it's pretty obvious that gang violence is only a fraction of the issue to worry about when it comes to gun violence in the states.
Mass shootings comprise <= 0.05% of gun deaths in the US.
Suicide and crime (particularly in urban areas) comprises the vast majority. The suicide rates are not unusual for similar countries; in other countries, they just use other methods.
That leaves crime in a very small number of dense cities that have been almost universally under Democrat/Liberal leadership for 40+ years.
[–]johnboyjr29 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
you ever watch a western? see every one carried back then and no one got shot (unless it was a killer sexy robot, but we need laws about them)
[–]v3n0mat3 -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
It's not nearly as lax as you think.
  • Most people can't go into a Gun store and walk out with most types of guns (there are exceptions that vary state to state and county/parish to county/parish), the common rule is background check/X amount of days until you can go back to pick it up, With the exception of certain gauges & models of shotguns.
  • There are very few places where you can actually open carry. And by few I mean there are only certain counties that allow that. Not whole states; Counties.
  • There are "Gun-Free" zones that specifically state that you cannot enter if you have a weapon, or an object that can be used as one. For example; Selfie Sticks are banned from some theme parks.
  • Convicted Felons (even non-violent Felons) cannot legally own a Gun [[Please note that I'm not saying that this rule should be changed. I'm just stating that there are certain people that are legally barred from owning one]]
[–]halfar 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
the issue, i think, is more that there are too many guns, not that the laws about guns are necessarily bad.
i think things would be pretty great if 9 out of 10 or more guns just suddenly disappeared overnight, but such a thing is basically impossible to do, given our gun culture, which is also an extremely major factor in the problem.
it's why places like vermont can have really really lax gun laws without the problems the rest of the country has.
[–]Draskuul 12 points13 points14 points  (19 children)
"...shall not be infringed."
Shall not FUCKING be FUCKING infringed. Sorry, but that really says it all. Almost every gun law in the US is incredibly unconstitutional. If the 1st amendment was as restricted as the 2nd amendment then we'd have probably utilized the ultimate level of intent of the 2nd amendment already--armed revolt against a government violating our rights.
[–]donotry 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Shall not be infringed. So criminals who have a history of gun violence should be allowed to purchase any gun they wish at any time. Any citizen should be allowed to purchase a nuclear weapon if they have the money available to do so. Mentally handicapped people should be allowed to purchase tanks. Children should be able to purchase assault rifles.
No room for nuance in this discussion, because people from 250 years ago who had no idea what modern weaponry, modern technology, and the modern world in general would look like have solved this problem already.
[–]newoldschool 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
Amendment definition
amendment ‎(plural amendments)
An alteration or change for the better; correction of a fault or of faults; reformation of life by quitting vices. In public bodies; Any alteration made or proposed to be made in a bill or motion that adds, changes, substitutes, or omits.
A change that was made
It can be changed again
[–]Valkonn -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
That's not how it works. A Constitutional amendment changes the Constitution and thus becomes the supreme law of the land. As of now, we have many unconstitutional gun laws. In order to make them legal, we would have to pass another amendment. And that's never going to happen.
[–]taws34 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
Read all the historical rulings by the supreme court on the issue before the 1990's.
[–]Mephistopholees 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
Good thing you definitely know better than every Supreme Court ruling because you read the last 4 words and added some expletives
[–]mittromniknight 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
You know the best thing about an "amendment"? It can be amended.
[–]Thobias_Funke comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points  (12 children)
That's such a barbaric mindset in my opinion. You want to allow events like sandy hook to continue to happen because you refuse to let your right to carry a firearm be infringed upon? Seriously?
[–]Brackenside 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
allow
Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone lined up, gave the guy a salute and just allowed it to happen. If any of those teachers were allowed to carry a gun, it may not have happened at all. Their right to bear arms was infringed upon and they died likely as a result of that.
Criminals do criminal things. Lanza broke quite a few laws doing what he did. Bringing guns into a gun-free zone, discharging a firearm within city limits, murder, probably a few others. These are laws already in place.
Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens in an attempt to staunch the wilful lawbreaking of a minority of the population is not wise action, nor an effective one. Those laws that supposedly prevent them from acting haven't helped, have they?
[–]hubblespaceteletype 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
More people in the US have died in ladder-related accidents in the past two years than have died in mass shootings in the past 50 years.
You need to approach this issue with a sense of perspective.
[–]taws34 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Cool numbers bro. Since we are talking about ladder accidents, let's add in accidental gun deaths.
505 of those within 1 year. 113 ladder deaths in 1 year.
So, we have OSHA and safety regulations in place for ladders.
Maybe we should have some safety rules and regulations in place for firearms.
[–]Draskuul 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
That's such a barbaric mindset in my opinion. You want to allow events like sandy hook to continue to happen because you refuse to let your right to carry a firearm be infringed upon? Seriously?
If the teachers were allowed to conceal carry (and encouraged to) then there would have almost certainly been fewer deaths. Besides, guns are far from the only means for a demented person to carry out an attack. Just look at the crap at Ohio State. Everyone was quick to jump on the "OMG mass shooting!" bandwagon when the asshole used a car and a knife. He was stopped by a gun.
[–]Thobias_Funke 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
He was stopped by a gun from a police officer I believe, and also he didn't manage to kill anyone because he didn't have a gun.
[–]Droidball 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Now imagine if there was a contingent of people trained in the use of a firearm in schools during school shootings - like cops? Or, better yet, we could encourage teachers and faculty to carry and know how to shoot!
[–]tardistein 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
Are you dense?
If every school had armed teachers had a firearm how many school shootings do you think would happen?
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
You people always like to look at mass shoots while not taking into account the hundreds of thousands of people who have used guns to save their life.
[–]natiice 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
What happens when a student ends up with a gun? Or a teacher makes a poor decision during an attack?
I'm not anti-gun. Having a gun is a responsibility. It deserves respect. You can't just arm a bunch of teachers and expect them to make a good decision in a moment of adrenaline. Even people in law enforcement, who have been trained extensively, make mistakes.
[–]Arkiasis 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
If every school had armed teachers had a firearm how many school shootings do you think would happen?
If every school had armed teachers that would say a lot about the state of things in the country.
[–]Thobias_Funke 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
School shootings almost never happen anywhere except for the states and that is directly related to your gun laws, the easiest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to not make it so easy for him to get a gun in the first place
[–]hubblespaceteletype -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Sort by date, and remember that US has the third largest population in the world. Also take a close look at the murder weapon column.
This is the most recent school shooting. It was in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Loche_shootings
[–]dyslexda [score hidden]  (0 children)
I mean...yes? If you ask how many would have to die before I gave up the right, I'd answer: All of them. Because that's what rights are. We aren't debating if we should be going 55 or 70 MPH on the highway, we're discussing a fundamental natural right.
[–]KRosen333 21 points22 points23 points  (22 children)
Why do you guys fight gun laws when the USA has the loosest gun laws of any first world country that I'm aware of and yet they have the highest rate of gun violence? Even within the United States, the states with stricter gun laws have less gun violence. Am I missing something here? Because I am a Canadian who sincerely does not understand.
Countries without cars have such a low amount of car fatalities. What's your point? And don't try saying vehicles aren't used in attacks - 80 people died in Nice, France.
[–]Arkiasis 29 points30 points31 points  (1 child)
Countries without cars have such a low amount of car fatalities.
Ummm no. Look at this page.
The major countries with the lowest rate of fatalities per person are Sweden, the UK, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark.
Last time I checked those countries had a lot of cars. So your argument makes no sense and is wrong.
And fun fact. A country that's near the top of the list of least traffic accidents is San Marino, a country with more cars than people.
[–]Thobias_Funke comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (17 children)
Cars are different though because they provide a major convenience in society for transportation, apart from hunting I don't see how guns serve our society at all.
[–]cultural_dissenter 30 points31 points32 points  (14 children)
They serve society by serving as a means to balance power.
I am gay. My spouse and I have been victims of anti-gay bias. There's a big difference between 4 on 2 (or 1) with and without a firearm.
Without a firearm, we have rule of the strong over the weak, and the many over the few. My grandmother isn't able to defend herself physically, and neither am I (joint and asthma issues). If someone wants to do me physical harm, a weapon is the only means at my disposal to stop them most of the time.
With a firearm, worst case scenario, I'm on equal footing (assuming they have a firearm, too). Without one, I lose - whether they have a kitchen knife, a 2x4 (piece of wood), or fists.
A friend was raped. By a stranger. I consider a dead rapist morally superior to the trauma she had to go through. Taking a life is not an easy matter, but a) 80% of handgun wounds are survivable, and b) the majority of the time, pulling a gun ends the attack.
Even if she had needed to shoot and kill him, it very well might have been less traumatic. It certainly would have been for his other victims.
[–]Thobias_Funke 7 points8 points9 points  (3 children)
I've never thought of it that way! That's interesting, thanks for sharing
[–]cultural_dissenter 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
You're welcome.
I wasn't pro gun for most of my life - being a victim of crime really helped open my eyes. The truth is that I (and many other people) aren't in a position to physically resist, and there have been people killed just for being gay.
[–]Droidball 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
/u/Thobias_Funke , I'm tagging you because I think this will affect your perception of this discussion.
My wife is transgender (Male to Female). She passes very well (Meaning, she is very rarely 'clocked' as having been born male). But transgender people are one of the biggest at-risk groups to be victimized or subjected to malicious violence in America, or anywhere else in the world.
My wife may be an inch taller than me at 5'10", but she weighs a whopping 140lbs. She's a size 000. Triple zero, that's not a typo.
If someone attacks her - as a woman, or as a transgender woman - how is she supposed to defend herself? She's got some crazy nails and might claw a motherfucker's eye out...But there's no way she can physically fight them off.
And now let's change lanes. Take your grandma. If she's no longer here, I apologize, but please bear with me. What was she? Short? Overweight or frail and underweight?
How does she stop an attacker from victimizing her? Whether it be robbing her, or something much worse?
That's why firearms are important.
The United States does not have the police presence per capita that many other Western nations have, much of the time it is still a 'wild west' thing, where someone needs to protect themselves, and then wait for the cops to show up after to process the incident.
EDIT: The Second Amendment may have been originally intended to help Americans protect themselves from an oppressive government, but in modern days, organizations like Pink Pistols are the epitome of how the Second Amendment serves and helps the American citizenry.
[–]518Peacemaker 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Many people just enjoy it as one would enjoy building a hot rod in the garage and driving it fast. Its a fun hobby. Tons of different ways to get specific about the hobby too. I like to shoot long range.
[–]Computer_Sci 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Self defense against an unsuspecting attacker is ideal, I agree, a firearm gives us a greater chance of surviving. I'm not arguing that and I take your side on it. However, you cannot defend yourself against an attacker who's goal is to simply murder.
Murder that is premeditated is especially disastrous. For example, murderer B plans to hurt victim C. B takes his gun and follows C to the grocery store. B parks his car and is about to get out and head in. C simply walks out of his car, walks up the same car aisle B is in (he's just a normal customer to) and C simply lifts his gun to B's head and executes him right there. There is no fair fight, there is no duel, when someone is out for blood. However, I can guess at least murderer C, after what just took place, would be shot on the spot by nearby armed civilians.
This 30 second clip demonstrates the gravity of what I am trying to describe. There is no gore or anything, but it's very clear what takes place.
This is what I am scared of cultural_dissenter. I am terrified because I have no control over something like this. If someone wants me dead (without my knowing) then I'll be dead, a fraction of a second is all it would take.
That's my only quarrel with firearms.
[–]KaseyKasem 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
For example, murderer B plans to hurt victim C. B takes his knife and follows C to the grocery store. B parks his car and is about to get out and head in. C simply walks out of his car, walks up the same car aisle B is in (he's just a normal customer to) and C simply lifts his knife to B's head and cuts his throat right there.
There's your story, rewritten. Not particularly different. Premeditated murder is notoriously hard to prevent, because there's a million ways to kill somebody. This isn't Minority Report, unfortunately.
[–]fuzzlebuzzle -2 points-1 points0 points  (7 children)
What if the other 4 have guns
[–]Droidball 1 point2 points3 points  (6 children)
Yes, what if the other 4 have guns? Could you please expand upon your hypothetical?
[–]fuzzlebuzzle -2 points-1 points0 points  (5 children)
Well then you'd be out gunned. Taking away the advantage of having a gun against people that don't. If no one has guns less people die
[–]Droidball 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
If my grandma is facing four people with guns, and she has a gun, she has a fighting chance.
If my grandma is facing four people without guns, and she doesn't have a gun, she's fucked.
Not meaning this in a snarky or aggressive tone, but does that make sense to you?
[–]Computer_Sci -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
So why aren't citizens allowed machine guns?
My pistol is no where near as powerful as a monstrous machine gun.
[–]fuzzlebuzzle -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
If your grandmother had a gun and she fired it. Her shoulder or wrist would shatter from the recoil
[–]potpro 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Still better for him to have a gun right? He is more outgunned without
[–]tardistein 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
Protection...?
Hundreds of thousands of people have used a gun in self defense.
Hundreds of thousands other people have been beaten, raped, killed, robbed, kidnapped because the DIDN'T have a gun.
[–]KRosen333 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Funny someone else is crying that's wrong and you're saying "its different"
they provide a major convenience in society for transportation,
In your opinion. Someone who is crippled and cannot drive has no care if you do.
apart from hunting I don't see how guns serve our society at all.
Its not like the world drastically changed with their invention or anything like that.
[–]flamedarkfire 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Some dude tried to run students over just a few weeks ago on a college campus here in the US as well. Then he attacked officers who were already on the scene and guess what? He got his ass killed. Good guys with guns stopped a bad guy.
[–]KRosen333 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
but if cars were banned then we wouldn't have had the attack in teh first place. i just want common sense car regulation.
[–]SomehowBoat 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Even if that were the case, not everyone prioritizes decreasing gun violence rates.
[–]01020304050607080901 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
'Gun violence' is a false equivalence. Look instead at violent crime rate. Now look at cities and countries that implemented strict gun laws/ bans: Chicago, England, Australia- immediate spikes in violent crime that never dip below previous crime rates.
Most of us aren't against sensible legislation like background checks.
[–]winkw 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Your second sentence is false.
[–]DozeAgent 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Even within the United States, the states with stricter gun laws have less gun violence. Am I missing something here?
Chicago, Illinois. It has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation, and is currently plauged with the highest rate of gun violence.
[–]Deradius 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Are you aware that Canada allows cars, and surprise surprise, their rate of car deaths is far higher than that in third world countries? I think this makes a good case for banning cars in Canada.
Citing only gun deaths neglects the likelihood of method substitution, neglects rational suicides (we need better right to die laws), and neglects deaths due to justified defensive gun uses.
Even if that statistic had weight, the answer would be that all liberties come with associated costs, and the right of responsible citizens to protect their lives is worth the cost incurred by an irresponsible but small subset.
[–]bond___vagabond 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Vermont has constitutional Carry, those loose gun laws are probably why everyone thinks of Vermont when they think of rampant gun crime. Try again dude.
[–]Diathan 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Actually states with the highest per capita gun ownership have the lowest gun crime. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming.
[–]vertigo42 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
States with stricter gun laws have the highest rates? What are you talking about? NY, Illinois and cali have worse gun violence than the states that are freer.
Most gun violence is propagated by gang violence outside of suicides and the gang violence only grew with the drug war.
End the drug war and opioid addiction and gun violence will decline.
Double edged sword.
[–]Ventghal 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Chicago has strict gun laws. The city's nickname is Chiraq because of the violence.
Gun control laws only work when people choose to follow them. The US could make all guns illegal tomorrow, and still have gun violence. Even if everyone one that legally owned their gun turned them in, still gun violence. Because guns have been around so long in the US that it would be impossible to account for all of them, not to mention smuggled guns, and because criminals don't obey the laws already, that number would hover pretty close to where it is with suicides removed. Someone wanting a gun for an illegal purpose isn't going to give it up.
For the record, Canadian Gun owner.
[–]TehNumberTwo 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
The states with the most stringent gun control do not have lower rates of gun violence. Look at cities like Chicago which arguably has some of the most strict gun laws in the country. The homicide rate is extreme. Newark, NJ also has an exorbitant gun crime rate in a state with (arguably) the most strict gun control in the nation. Baltimore, MD., Oakland, CA. ... there are many examples.
[–]Scottmk4 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Gun violence is overwhelmingly sucIide or gang / drug related.
If you don't kill yourself, or participate in the drug trade, America is as safe as anywhere in the world.
Further gun violence has been steadily declining for decades.
Additionally, gun banners always target guns which are virtually never used in crimes.
Peaceful law abiding Americans resent having their rights attacked by blatantly dishonest politicians.
[–]war_within_a_breath [score hidden]  (0 children)
Places with stricter gun laws have less gun violence? Ask Chicago about that one...
[–]Illpontification 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Along with mental health and criminal background checks, and loophole closing, sure. I say this as someone diagnosed bipolar with no history of violence or extreme mania. My background would show hospitalization for severe depression, and I'm not sure I'd want me or people like me getting a gun without extra scrutiny.
Also, I can open my phone with a swipe of my fingerprint. Would you be against trigger locking weapons to makes sure that only the registered owner is pulling the trigger? The technology is there.
[–]nullcrash 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Also, I can open my phone with a swipe of my fingerprint. Would you be against trigger locking weapons to makes sure that only the registered owner is pulling the trigger?
Anyone sane would be against that.
Or at least anyone even mildly familiar with defensive gun use.
[–]Deradius 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
If I'm pulling a trigger, it's entirely possible that something has gone horribly wrong and my hands are slicked with blood, covered in dirt or gravel, injured substantially, or otherwise obstructed.
And I may need to discharge the gun right now, not several seconds from now.
Rarely is unlocking your phone quickly a matter of life and death.
[–]TheLagDemon 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Just an FYI. The current background check includes mental health. If you've been hospitalised for a mental health issue then I wouldn't plan on passing the background check. In addition to it being a part of the background check performed, you are also specifically asked about mental health on the paperwork you have to fill out. Here's that question if you are curious.
  • Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? 

[–]DecentChanceOfLousy 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I'm not sure about the fingerprint part. How would you educate people with a gun that can only be fired by the registered owner? My father taught me to shoot with his guns, but that would be impossible if only he could fire them.
Also, would it not be fairly easy, if someone stole it (or it was sold illegally), to remove that restriction?
[–]aprilfools411 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
Concealed carry on college campuses nationwide.
Depending on how well they did in their mandatory firearms training would be the caveat to add.
[–]tardistein 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
Anywhere else it is ok. Why is a gun owner all of a sudden to dangerous on a college campus.
If I'm at a coffee shop with my cc weapon or sitting in my class room what difference does it make?
[–]aprilfools411 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Sorry I quoted too much of your statement. I meant getting the right to concealed carry based on how well the person did in their mandatory firearm training.
[–]Deradius 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Shall not be infringed.
[–]themanfromBadeca 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Are you being sarcastic?
[–]Evinceo 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
constitutional carry
Enlighten me
[–]Deradius 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
The second amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms. Rights (free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure) do not require licensure. By definition, something licensed is a privilege.
For the guy zooming in on the 'well regulated militia' clause, history supports and Heller vs. DC recognizes that:
  1. This is a prefatory clause the provides clarification and support for but does not limit the following clause. e.g. "Fresh breath being necessary to a successful date, I should brush my teeth" does not limit the purposes of teeth brushing to dating or negate the importance of cavity prevention. It does not necessarily follow that if I do not have a date I need not brush my teeth.
  2. 'Militia' referred not to a formal military but to all fighting aged individuals. The militia is a counterbalance to the military, because it acts as a final check and line of defense against government authority. This is why the militia is necessary to the 'security of a free state'; the founders had reason to be concerned about tyranny.
  3. 'Well regulated' does not mean 'lots of rules'; it means 'well equipped'. In other words, you want a militia with more than sticks and rocks.
[–]loudnoises461 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Who pays for the class?
[–]Deradius 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
The same people who pay for trigonometry.
The average person is far more likely to encounter a gun than they are to encounter a cosine that needs calculating.
On a side note, we should also have courses in logic, probability, and personal finance.
[–]CheekyTrees 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Australian here, i used to think that the US should follow in Australia's footsteps in regards to the buy back after the massacre but due to the large amount of guns over there, I honestly think a good education on how to handle a gun responsibily and safely is the way to go.
[–]LoLFlore 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
I honestly don't understand why your nation has so restricted guns, when more than anywhere else on the planet I see them as being needed for protection from your awful wildlife.
[–]Azazael -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Because the vast majority of us live in cities and built up areas. Farmers can have guns to protect their stock, but for the average citizen, the biggest wildlife threat we face is spiders in our shoes and using firearms to deal with that would lead to a lot of ruined shoes and holes in the floor.
That said I would like to be able to open carry some sort of rifle during magpie season.
[–]baddoggg comment score below threshold-9 points-8 points-7 points  (2 children)
The comments so far have been of such low quality that i can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
If it's not, may god have mercy on your soul.
[–]goshmrjosh 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Explain ur reasoning
[–]IBlazeMyOwnPath -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Every single one of these things would be great wins for individual liberty and increase safety ten-fold.
Would a child who knows what a gun is and how to use it be less likely to shoot themselves in the face when snooping in dad's study? yes
Drivers licenses are cary over state by state so CCL should too
As op said, increased safety during use of a firearm without stupid regulations that solve nothing
Decrease likelihood of shootings at campuses

More from r/news

  Hide
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 20456 on app-42 at 2016-12-11 16:46:11.108482+00:00 running 6fb5a01 country code: DE.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%