3 ms·

At the cost of otherwise disarming a much, much larger segment of the population who have never committed a crime with a firearm and are much better protected a

At the cost of otherwise disarming a much, much larger segment of the population who have never committed a crime with a firearm and are much better protected against crimes of many various types, including those with firearms.

krapp 4y ago
No, at the cost of disarming everyone, including the population intent on committing a crime with a firearm.
- lax4ever 4y ago
  That's a pretty big assumption, considering someone intent on committing a crime isn't exactly pre-disposed to follow the law in the first place and all you are really doing is disarming someone who does follow the law and placing them at a greater disadvantage.
  - krapp 4y ago
    I suspect harsher sentencing for possession of a gun during a crime is a deterrent, but I'm not invested enough in this conversation to try to find stats. I would also point out that in other countries with effective gun control - which is to say the rest of the civilized world - there isn't the expected rampage of gun crime your comments imply should be taking place due to gun laws only being effective against citizens but not potential criminals.
    - lax4ever 4y ago
      Harsher sentencing for violent crimes with a weapon already exist and I would love if they were applied more often. But that's a different discussion. It's not about an expected rampage, of which I doubt there would be because we are not facing a rampage of gun crime as it is. On average in the US, of the approximately 35,000 gun related deaths every year (and considering an estimated 8 out of 10 Americans owns a firearms less than 0.01% of the population is killed in a firearm related death is another thing), on average 60% of that is suicide, not homicide. Roughly 14k. This doesn't even break the top 10 causes of death in the US and of the 805k deaths by other causes per the CDC [1] we're talking 2%. That's not exactly a rampage despite the voluminous amount of media attention this gets. No, the point is that the volume of those killed by guns (even if you include suicides in that number) is miniscule compared to the potential of a firearm to stop a violent crime in process, even without the firearm being discharged. There is an estimated 300,000 to 3,000,000 defensive uses of firearms in the US. Even if you attribute all gun homicides (including suicide) to defensive firearms uses (which is absolutely not the case), death by firearms would be a mere 12% of even the smallest estimated number. This is why you allow firearms with as minimal restrictions as possible, because the number of people who will properly use them vastly dwarfs the number of people who will misuse them. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427-tables.pdf#4 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427-tables.pdf#4
tacheiordache 4y ago
Self defense is okay, especially in the rural parts where police has a harder time covering the area. But why do they need machine guns for or war weapons? Just because they can it seems, it is really not very useful otherwise. And don't even get me started on the second amendment. The way the constitutions' interpretation is stretched out nowadays borders insanity.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

krapp 4y ago

No, at the cost of disarming everyone, including the population intent on committing a crime with a firearm.

lax4ever 4y ago
That's a pretty big assumption, considering someone intent on committing a crime isn't exactly pre-disposed to follow the law in the first place and all you are really doing is disarming someone who does follow the law and placing them at a greater disadvantage.
- krapp 4y ago
  I suspect harsher sentencing for possession of a gun during a crime is a deterrent, but I'm not invested enough in this conversation to try to find stats. I would also point out that in other countries with effective gun control - which is to say the rest of the civilized world - there isn't the expected rampage of gun crime your comments imply should be taking place due to gun laws only being effective against citizens but not potential criminals.
  - lax4ever 4y ago
    Harsher sentencing for violent crimes with a weapon already exist and I would love if they were applied more often. But that's a different discussion. It's not about an expected rampage, of which I doubt there would be because we are not facing a rampage of gun crime as it is. On average in the US, of the approximately 35,000 gun related deaths every year (and considering an estimated 8 out of 10 Americans owns a firearms less than 0.01% of the population is killed in a firearm related death is another thing), on average 60% of that is suicide, not homicide. Roughly 14k. This doesn't even break the top 10 causes of death in the US and of the 805k deaths by other causes per the CDC [1] we're talking 2%. That's not exactly a rampage despite the voluminous amount of media attention this gets. No, the point is that the volume of those killed by guns (even if you include suicides in that number) is miniscule compared to the potential of a firearm to stop a violent crime in process, even without the firearm being discharged. There is an estimated 300,000 to 3,000,000 defensive uses of firearms in the US. Even if you attribute all gun homicides (including suicide) to defensive firearms uses (which is absolutely not the case), death by firearms would be a mere 12% of even the smallest estimated number. This is why you allow firearms with as minimal restrictions as possible, because the number of people who will properly use them vastly dwarfs the number of people who will misuse them. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427-tables.pdf#4 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427-tables.pdf#4

tacheiordache 4y ago

Self defense is okay, especially in the rural parts where police has a harder time covering the area. But why do they need machine guns for or war weapons? Just because they can it seems, it is really not very useful otherwise. And don't even get me started on the second amendment. The way the constitutions' interpretation is stretched out nowadays borders insanity.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]