5 ms·

Guns don’t cause injury and disability more than they prevent it. Sorry, but that’s the truth. We have 340,000,000 people, more guns than that. And 10,000 homi

Guns don’t cause injury and disability more than they prevent it. Sorry, but that’s the truth. We have 340,000,000 people, more guns than that. And 10,000 homicides where the vast majority are drug and gang related. We have a problem, but it’s not with guns. Edit: more truth, more downvotes. I’m curious as to why there is such effort against an enumerated right - when putting even 1/10th the effort into fighting heart disease which kills 700,000 a year would have such a greater impact?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lordnacho 9y ago
Guy says it's an area of partisan dispute, and you write a post that proves it. Yes, it's partisan. Your facts may be right, but the argument is one sided.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  It’s not partisan to me, i could care less how fellow gun owners vote. One side has emotional plees, logical fallacies, or stubborn ignorance of the topic - I won’t appologoze for not being on that side.
kharms 9y ago
Guns have an amplifier effect on suicides, domestic violence.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  Guns have a force multiplier effect on self defense. Guess which one of our arguments happens more frequently?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Pretty sure it's domestic violence.
xt00 9y ago
Many countries that have essentially completely banned guns somehow have also managed to have low injury / death rates. Yes crimes still occur but are much less lethal with knives or other weapons compared to guns. So saying guns cause less injury vs preventing it sounds like it could be true but also is a symptom of our current culture in the US that has zillions of guns.
- benjohnson 9y ago
  >>Many countries that have essentially completely banned guns somehow have also managed to have low injury / death rates. As long as you go back only a few years - many of those same countries have experienced genocides and holocausts from their powerful governments acting against a disarmed citizenry and driving their long-term violent death rates to astronomical levels. I would say that this observation is relevant because the argument for citizens being armed is to curtail the abuse of a powerful government.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Sadly this is true. This is what guns are supposed to protect you against.
  - archagon 9y ago
    At this moment in history, I am way more concerned about the thread of far-right violence than of a derelict government that needs to be put down. What if the people hoarding the guns end up allying with an authoritarian regime instead of rising up against it?
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      In that case the authoritarian regime already has all the guns it needs and the threat is not significantly bigger than before.
  - acdha 9y ago
    > many of those same countries have experienced genocides and holocausts from their powerful governments acting against a disarmed citizenry More from the fact that a few armed citizens aren’t a match for an industrial state’s military. The Jews in the Warsaw uprising had guns, grenades, etc. but nowhere near enough people to defend against an army. If you want to avoid atrocities, strong civil institutions matter a lot more than fantasies about LARPing Somalia.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lordnacho 9y ago

Guy says it's an area of partisan dispute, and you write a post that proves it. Yes, it's partisan. Your facts may be right, but the argument is one sided.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
It’s not partisan to me, i could care less how fellow gun owners vote. One side has emotional plees, logical fallacies, or stubborn ignorance of the topic - I won’t appologoze for not being on that side.

kharms 9y ago

Guns have an amplifier effect on suicides, domestic violence.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
Guns have a force multiplier effect on self defense. Guess which one of our arguments happens more frequently?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Pretty sure it's domestic violence.

xt00 9y ago

Many countries that have essentially completely banned guns somehow have also managed to have low injury / death rates. Yes crimes still occur but are much less lethal with knives or other weapons compared to guns. So saying guns cause less injury vs preventing it sounds like it could be true but also is a symptom of our current culture in the US that has zillions of guns.

benjohnson 9y ago
>>Many countries that have essentially completely banned guns somehow have also managed to have low injury / death rates. As long as you go back only a few years - many of those same countries have experienced genocides and holocausts from their powerful governments acting against a disarmed citizenry and driving their long-term violent death rates to astronomical levels. I would say that this observation is relevant because the argument for citizens being armed is to curtail the abuse of a powerful government.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Sadly this is true. This is what guns are supposed to protect you against.
- archagon 9y ago
  At this moment in history, I am way more concerned about the thread of far-right violence than of a derelict government that needs to be put down. What if the people hoarding the guns end up allying with an authoritarian regime instead of rising up against it?
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    In that case the authoritarian regime already has all the guns it needs and the threat is not significantly bigger than before.
- acdha 9y ago
  > many of those same countries have experienced genocides and holocausts from their powerful governments acting against a disarmed citizenry More from the fact that a few armed citizens aren’t a match for an industrial state’s military. The Jews in the Warsaw uprising had guns, grenades, etc. but nowhere near enough people to defend against an army. If you want to avoid atrocities, strong civil institutions matter a lot more than fantasies about LARPing Somalia.