4 ms·

1. The number of households that own a gun has actually declined, according to surveys (US law prohibits collection of gun ownership data). We may have added gu

by jljljl 5y ago

1. The number of households that own a gun has actually declined, according to surveys (US law prohibits collection of gun ownership data). We may have added guns, but the number of people + gun availability seem to be declining. If we look at just historic numbers like you say, I would argue that reduced availability of firearms _does_ seem to reduce crime. 2. Despite this decline, the US has a higher rate of gun ownership and availability than other high-income countries, and this correlates with one of the highest rates of homicide amongst those countries. So my naive read of the data would be that an even lower availability of firearms would lead to an even lower homicide rate.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
You clearly don’t understand this topic from the inside so allow me to explain the common trap you are caught in. You just pointed to bullshit. Not your fault, someone wanted you to think that. But I can promise no one even remotely associated to guns believes this. No. The number of firearm owning households has not decreased. That’s propaganda and you just don’t know any better. I’ve seen it as a competitor and a trainer, new gun owners are making up these records - not as Michael Bloomberg (the single biggest source of gun control money in the world) would have you think. The number of concealed carry permits are at record numbers. The number of training outfits has never been higher. The numbers of protestors for 2A civil rights has never been higher. The only place you’ll see otherwise are antigun outfits with extremely questionable methodology. The question you should be asking is why do you have your sources lying to you and what else have they lied about? So right off, you use a lie that is sold to you as comfort food. “Dont worry, it’s just the same few horders trading guns to each other, they aren’t a majority, you are”. Then you use that to make a completely evidencless assumption that less guns equals less crime - when we only have correlation of the opposite. So… while I really don’t like to apples and oranges… In 1997, Australia banned most all good defensive firearms. They also nearly doubled police per capita. Crime fell! But… in the USA crime fell by a greater amount over the same time period with no ban and only more guns added. So again; there is absolutely zero proof that less guns equals less crime, especially when faced that more guns hasn’t made more crime. > So my naive read Indeed. But the worse part is you don’t want the truth. You are looking for the lie. And going far to find it, why is that?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by jljljl 5y ago

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

You clearly don’t understand this topic from the inside so allow me to explain the common trap you are caught in. You just pointed to bullshit. Not your fault, someone wanted you to think that. But I can promise no one even remotely associated to guns believes this. No. The number of firearm owning households has not decreased. That’s propaganda and you just don’t know any better. I’ve seen it as a competitor and a trainer, new gun owners are making up these records - not as Michael Bloomberg (the single biggest source of gun control money in the world) would have you think. The number of concealed carry permits are at record numbers. The number of training outfits has never been higher. The numbers of protestors for 2A civil rights has never been higher. The only place you’ll see otherwise are antigun outfits with extremely questionable methodology. The question you should be asking is why do you have your sources lying to you and what else have they lied about? So right off, you use a lie that is sold to you as comfort food. “Dont worry, it’s just the same few horders trading guns to each other, they aren’t a majority, you are”. Then you use that to make a completely evidencless assumption that less guns equals less crime - when we only have correlation of the opposite. So… while I really don’t like to apples and oranges… In 1997, Australia banned most all good defensive firearms. They also nearly doubled police per capita. Crime fell! But… in the USA crime fell by a greater amount over the same time period with no ban and only more guns added. So again; there is absolutely zero proof that less guns equals less crime, especially when faced that more guns hasn’t made more crime. > So my naive read Indeed. But the worse part is you don’t want the truth. You are looking for the lie. And going far to find it, why is that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]