It should be noted that this chart compares gun homicides to gun ownership, which… of course those will correlate
If we plotted kangaroo injuries vs kangaroos per capita, we’d see a similar outlier in Australia
It would be more useful to see gun ownership compared to total homicides, to see if an overabundance of guns correlates with more murders. Even then, though, a correlation between the two might not be casual in that direction. It may instead be that in areas with a high homicide rate, people are more likely to own a firearm for defense.
What you would need to prove is that places with high gun ownership have significantly higher homicide rates, but places with high homicide rates don’t have significantly higher rates of gun ownership
Hold up. The US has over 100 guns per 100 people? 😳 So on average, everyone owns at least one gun? Tell me I’m reading that wrong!
It’s that the people who own guns tend to own gunnnsssss. Like an entire arsenal. Most people don’t own any.
Around 40% in the USA own at least one firearm. It’s probably higher now since trump is back in power.
That is higher than I thought, but still not most.
Still an insane amount 😐
Think of it this way. The majority of our gun deaths are from suicides, then the next largest amount is from gang/drug violence, after that it’s police (on average 1k a year) then it’s the rest. Meaning that around 4k deaths a year are from literally everything else (domestic/robberies/random acts). We don’t really have a gun problem, we have an issue with our society. 99.99999999% of all firearms in civ hands have never been used to harm another person.
Poverty creates the violence, lack of education, lack of social support, lack of opportunities, lack of healthcare. If we fixed those things, our guns violence would plummet overnight. But the owners of this country would rather have us fighting each other than them.
Close, but the best estimates are there are 470 million guns in US civilian hands. With a population of 338 million, you’re looking at approximately 1.4 guns per person in this crazy land of free-dumb. 😂
Jesus Christ.
If it makes you feel better, most gun owners own many guns, so there isn’t actually a gun in everyone’s hands.
Just a lot of them in a few hands… Much better…
Some people are collectors, but a lot of people just have some old guns around.
Also if guns are a hobby or interest of yours, you are likely to own several. Just like people who are into headphones, mechanical keyboards, vintage gaming consoles, bicycles, etc.
I was about to compare it to telescopes. Most people don’t have one, most people who have one only have one, but a few of us have upwards of five
Just like people who are into sarin, questionably stored viral samples, bombs, gillotines, etc.
You can call these things “collectables” but their nature doesn’t change because you put a friendly term to it. It is psychologically fucked up to stockpile lethal weapons that can only be used for taking life without even having a practical application in mind.
I’m going to push back a little bit. For one thing, have you ever gone hunting? Some would say that taking life (specifically deers and rabbits and stuff) is a practical application. For two, sport shooting is a thing. Being good at using a weapon can be rewarding in and of itself, whether you’re talking about guns, bows, slingshots, or throwing knives.
Arguing that the populace shouldn’t have guns, and pointing to the usa as an example, is arguing that our fascist government should have a monopoly on violence. Every successful “gun control” law has been put in place in response to persecuted minorities and activist groups having guns. For a famous example, see the Black Panthers.
Peaceful protests are impotent unless backed by a genuine threat of violence. See how little the recent “No Kings” protests have accomplished vs the death of that one health insurance ceo.
Now, I am in favor of fewer guns, but the order of operations is important. Let’s start with disarming the police and abolishing ice. So long as my friends/family/neighbors/whatevers are being abducted by masked thugs in broad daylight, it is my right and my duty to defend with lethal force.
And how does that gun protect you against the masked thugs? They are cops and hence, I assume, you cannot legally shoot them when they enter your home. So resistance is useless? As a non-US - american, correct me if I’m wrong here.
My gun doesn’t protect me. My gun protects you. Your gun protects me.
That sounds like a great bumper sticker for an NRA-meeting, but how does that actually apply?
I, also, cannot shoot your home-intruder, which is also a cop. So my gun does shit against ICE too. Just like yours.
Though I admit, I’d love to have a gun at home for actual intruders. We must not, the robbers don’t care (but probably aren’t armed either)
If I’m not willing to stick my neck out to help you when they come to take you away, who the hell will be left to do the same for me when it’s my turn?
Sure, you’re absolutely right. Be the change you want to see in the world and all…
But you fail to tell me HOW i am supposed to help your ass not being taken by ICE? Shoot the whole bunch that came to get you? (i assume those fuckers never come alone). And then other cops will take me for doing that after you are already gone? Threaten them with a gun will probably get ME killed. So what good does a gun do to anyone in that scenario?
The problem is that the 1/3 of americans who are actually opposed to this country being a fascist dictatorship are disorganized and scattered. You’re right, one or two or three guys with guns won’t accomplish much. Others in this thread have commented “where’s your militia?” or something like that, and it’s about time we make one.
I cannot blame you for wanting to keep your head down and waiting for all this to blow over. If I’m super lucky, maybe I can do that too. I’m rather pessimistic about the future though. To be honest, I talk a big game but I’m not doing shit until/unless I know I can make a difference.
It is my opinion that even if I had a perfect plan and was able to describe it perfectly, it wouldn’t work because it requires people to work together, and to make sacrifices for others. So things will slowly continue to get worse until I get put in a work camp over not being able to keep my mouth shut.
To loop this back to the original point, no having guns is not the solution. However, it is a critical part of the larger and more nuanced solution.
The problem is that the 1/3 of americans who are actually opposed to this country being a fascist dictatorship are disorganized and scattered. You’re right, one or two or three guys with guns won’t accomplish much. Others in this thread have commented “where’s your militia?” or something like that, and it’s about time we make one.
Another problem on top of the organisation itself, it the organisation itself. How? Whatsapp? Facebook? Or any other communication you guys mostly use, which is totally in control of those you want to organize against. You’d be eliminated as a thread before it even would become one. And not even knowing why…
I cannot blame you for wanting to keep your head down and waiting for all this to blow over. If I’m super lucky, maybe I can do that too. I’m rather pessimistic about the future though. To be honest, I talk a big game but I’m not doing shit until/unless I know I can make a difference.
I don’t want to keep my head down, I’m not in a country that is already there where you guys are. But we’re on the way though. Pessimistic? Nah, I’m more realistic, which sadly always sounds pessimistic. The future isn’t bright as those with power won’t give it away, and those without power mostly don’t even realise where the problem is until it takes them doggystyle. raw.
And, what else are your options beside “talking big game”. The resistance you can show is literally limited to that. The USA is the land of the free. Totally and absolutely! But it was meant like in “free corpos”, not “free individuals”. And it would not be wise to “act big game” when all you achieve is your own ending (See mr. mangione). If not even that stirs shit up ENOUGH, what would? another 9/11 initiated by your own people? Even that would do nothing except harden the system AGAINST oppression even more. IMHO capitalism already won, and it’s our own fault.
It is my opinion that even if I had a perfect plan and was able to describe it perfectly, it wouldn’t work because it requires people to work together, and to make sacrifices for others. So things will slowly continue to get worse until I get put in a work camp over not being able to keep my mouth shut.
For your own sake you should just STFU. Unless you’re totally unmonitored and big-tech-free. Sadly i have to second that. The only real way to counter the system is by throwing even MORE money at it than the opposition does. Which is already a fortune vast beyond anything even “rich” people could ever achieve or even dream of. If you can, pack your shit and piss off. You’re speaking english perfectly, which is already a foot in the door in almost all european countries. And you sound like a nice addition. A year later you wonder why you ever went to that cesspool of a country.
To loop this back to the original point, no having guns is not the solution. However, it is a critical part of the larger and more nuanced solution.
I have no personal feeling towards guns or no-guns, i just see the figures speaking for themselves. Countries with outlawed guns are doing better. Or even countries with highly regulated guns (switzerland afaik). We had ONE school-shooter so far. gun-incidents with cops are rare, homicide with guns is rare. And overall we don’t help put even more money to those that see us as cattle. I do see the value in being armed though. Unless everyone is armed, then it’s basically the same as when everyone just has a knife or a stone.
So where is the well-regulated militia defending the United States with their huge arsenal of guns? We’re not hearing anything about valiant protectors of the constitution taking up arms against the domestic enemies that are ICE, MAGA, etc…it’s almost as if the whole spiel about needing guns to resist a tyrannical government was BS all along. 🤔
Man, I see this sort of thing commented all the time as some sort of “gotcha” and really have to wonder what it is you’re envisioning.
Put yourself in the shoes of a firearm owner for a moment. Evidently, you believe the US has passed a tipping point where violent resistance is necessary.
Where are you going with your gun and who are you shooting at?
Are you saying you’re suffering a dearth of targets?
Again, if this is not the time to exercise your supposed God-given right to bear arms to ward off a tyrannical government then the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is moot.
I’ve said it before: You guys aren’t going to vote your way out of this pickle. I hate to say this (sincerely!) but this is going to end in violence one way or another. 🙁
You didn’t answer the question.
Am I to infer that you think that right now is an appropriate time to actively seek out and shoot ICE agents?
With how subtle you are you might as well work for the FBI.
And just like that, we went complete route from “without guns we can’t fight fascism” to “guns are actually completely useless in fighting fascism” in two comments.
US - 1765 to 1784
EU - 1939 to 1945
Vietnam - 1955 to 1975
Yes, I’m aware that only one of these cases was literal fascism.
You can see my other comment in this chain, but firearms are the “last stand” tools to fight oppression. We’re in the midst of a particularly sensitive stage and, in my opinion, haven’t crossed the “tipping point” where a violent response would be wise or justified.
Bloody hell, are you for fucking real, WWII, seriously? The global war fought by armies has something to do with public having guns?
Fucking Vietnam? US losing a military campaign on the other side of the world is a testament of how useful it is for Americans to have guns? And then american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in.
I just hope for the sake of sanity that you’re trolling.
Oh yeah, and all yours 1.2 guns per person are doing absolute wonders right now, when you pedo in charge is rounding up people to put in concentration camps and starting wars all over the world. All your guns will start working any time now, liberating you from fascism.
It would have already crumbled to the ground in the 1900’s if we didn’t have them.
The US government cares only about money. They don’t give a fuck about us, as evidenced by our healthcare system.
We are expendable to them. Had we not have the guns we have now I truly believe it would have all ended for us a lot sooner and be significantly worse than it is now.
I know other countries manage. Other countries aren’t managed by a bunch of rich pedophiles that will let children and people die for the sake of “saving” $50 on an insurance claim.
Tell you what how about this, how about they take the guns from the police and ice and IRS and dea and atf and then we can sure talk about getting rid of our guns. But that will never ever happen.
A “well armed militia” that is completely and willingly surveiled by private corporations that work with the government is fundamentally, critically impaired.
The fact gun nuts harp on about what is, at this point, a fantasy of rising against tyrannical government while being nearly completely blind to operational matters like communication, organisation, surveillance, etc. is frankly ridiculous.
If these people were serious about this, they’d be building infrastructure, communication systems, etc.
I agree communication and organization are key as well and I try to make that point to everyone I can. I try not to be too preachy about it but any chance I get to talk about Meshnetworks and E2E encryption I make sure to let people know it is the way.
Two things can be true at the same time, though. Organization is key but so is an effective way to defend yourself. And if necessary, kill those who are trying to kill you and the people you have organized.
I asked another guy this too but consider that nowhere in the history of humanity has any society ever overthrown an empire/government the size of the United States without many, many deaths and a lot of violence.
So you can call me a gun nut but if you want to talk about fantasy, let’s talk about how peaceful solutions don’t ever fucking work to get rid of oppressive governments. Literally, never. Not one single time in the history of humanity. Maybe like some small island nation or something but talking about your Roman Empires and your French Monarchy’s.
So at the end of the day dude your suggestion isn’t grounded in reality. I’m sorry that its that way, I wish it wasn’t either. But it is what it is.
I have no idea what the last four paragraphs are replying to.
Mate, I made no suggestions, you just went off on your merry horse there :)
It would have already crumbled to the ground in the 1900’s if we didn’t have them.
Remind me, what exactly did you do with your guns in the 1900s to prevent tyranny? I don’t remember any armed uprising against a dictator in 1900s.
If you weren’t so busy running around shooting each other with your precious guns, you might be able to see the depths your country fell into and maybe do something about it, but you didn’t, because you were hoping that when “the tyrant” comes you can just shoot him with your trusty remmington, but when tyrant comes, you only cheer him on
The utility of gun rights as a potential defense against tyranny isn’t proven to be zero by the existence of tyranny, because guns are not a complete solution. I think it’s likely they would be rounding up more people by now, with less expense and difficulty, if Americans didn’t have guns.
This is the same circular reasoning, with the added bonus of “all the countrepoints are actually points in my favour because I would like it to be so”.
The reason they are able to be so aggressive, the reason they’re so militarised, the reason they start interaction with people guns first is because they have an excuse of “well, everyone can be armed, we need to be prepared”. And now they used it to build an army against you, that you can’t do anything about.
You let them do it, thinking you can stop them using guns somehow, when the time comes, not realising that the time came long ago and you were very busy stroking your guns and killing each other to notice.
notice how in the graph on wikipedia, excluding USA, the correlation is really not that strong.
dont get me wrong, i agree with the general sentiment, but bad data weakens even the best of cases.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
Before I get dog-piled, I’d like to add that I know that there are too many guns in the US, and the process to buy a firearm is surprisingly lax. I do think there is a relationship between gun ownership and the murder rates, and the fact that most school shootings don’t even make the news anymore (and if they do, it’s for less than a day) indicates that the frogs have been completely boiled at this point.
I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.
Fair point but see below…
I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The United States has over 4 times more murders per capita than France, for instance.
And you really shouldn’t discount just how easy it is to kill someone with a gun. I don’t have the stats at hand right now but knife related killings (as an example) are way less likely to happen because victims have a comparatively good chance to survive a knife attack.
There are solid reasons for keeping weapons that are designed to kill human beings out of the hands of most of us.
The United States has over 4 times more murders per capita than France, for instance.
One thing a lot of people seem to forget is that the US has significantly more income inequality and significantly less social safety nets than France. Poverty drives crime.
What the US needs most is nationalized healthcare, deregulation of marijuana to cut down on mass incarceration (which breaks up families and drives poverty), actually taxing the rich, and better regulations and workers rights to prevent corporations from exploiting everyone
Yes, but also an easy access to guns enables crimes by itself, and makes existing crimes deadly. That happens on top of other social problems.
A random poor teen with nothing to lose might think about robing a store, but be too scared of being confronted and never actually do it, unless he gets a gun which gives him courage. If a random night robbers get confronted with surprised home owner, they might punch him, scream, and run away, unless they have a gun in which case they’re in a shootout and everyone is dead.That becomes moot if they aren’t motivated to commit crimes in the first place.
Even if removing guns from the US reduced crime rates, it wouldn’t be as much as doing what I described. Plus, there’s an opportunity cost, in that you only have so much political capital to spend on legislation.
How about we focus on improving the lives of 99% of the population instead of wasting political capital on trying to reclassify 50% of the population as criminals for owning guns.
Until we actually create post-scarcity luxury gay space communism, there is always someone who is at least somehow motivated to do some crimes. And when there are easy murdermachines lying around, that motivation just gets married with opportunity.
Your loaded language betrays your deep gun-related motivation so I don’t think you will actually hear me, but I will try to convey this anyway. Improving the lives of 99% of the population necessarily will have to include strict gun control, it is impossible without it, and it’s one of the prerequisites. Not the first one, not even top 5 maybe, but it’s up there.
Comics like this are just preaching to the choir, and only the ones so fervent they’re blinded by their own self righteousness. It’s so obviously cherry picked and slanted if you’ve looked into the issues at play. It shows no respect for the reader at all, and likely only hardens the opinions of those it disagrees with.
You can’t convince anyone of anything with this kind of trollish virtue signal. It only exists to get the author pats on the back from people in their own camp.
This kind of shitty rhetoric harms the cause. You can’t win hearts and minds with blatant disrespect.
Why all the side issues. Is it true, or not?
If it is true, and I believe that it is, it may explain why you are triggered?
I think it’s lying to try to get people to do a good thing.
Deception destroys credibility.
And it makes fun of people who disagree with it.
It alienates, not converts.
Ok, then what is the truth?
Well, it’s nuanced for one thing.
The USA has a violence issue, and legal civilian gun ownership is at most an exacerbating factor. The current regulatory climate towards guns likely causes the most harm in accidents and suicides. But it certainly causes some harm.
Criminals are using illegally sourced guns already, so bans will have no effect there.
Firearms safety courses before you get a license and access to mental health services would be far more effective than yet another weapons ban and more politically palatable to the population. But that doesn’t make for a good wedge issue to rally the faithful behind.
Or an actual social safety net and a living wage, because violence is far more strongly correlated with poverty and income inequality.
Hey, look, it’s divisive rhetoric!
Crimes and violence are caused by unjustified heirarchies, in particular, the ruling class ruling over the working class.
You know what would reduce school shootings? Publicly funded mental health services for young people.
This kind of post is aimed at dividing the working class into two groups, pro-gun, and anti-gun. Refuse to give in to their messaging. Solidarity across the WHOLE working class!
Sure, but know what else would reduce school shootings?
Less guns.
Would it? Is that the only solution?
Why do Yemen and Switzerland have such high ownership and no school shootings?
Don’t get me wrong, less guns would be good for many reasons. And I think we can get there, eventually. But right now, I have zero confidence that our government is fit to enforce any law fairly. Neonazis are openly running the DoD and ICE, this is not the time to dial back the Bill of Rights.
Which is more likely, funding for better mental health services as a whole or removing guns from the unwilling?
Right now? Neither.
Oh yes, gun nutters will murder people if you try and take their guns away. They will also just murder people period.
There is no mental help for these terrorists.
I’m a firm believer of firearm ownership, especially for the marginalized groups in the USA right now. That said we need better mental health services and people who have a distinct lack of empathy should not own one to begin with.
Yes, arm both sides like the fascist love to do. Clearly you have the wool pulled over your eyes.
Removal of firearms is also a fascist thing. I’d rather have an armed trans person next to me than a RWNJ. That trans person is higher likely to be mentally stable, trained, and practiced. As well given the targeting of trans people to marginalize them to the point that they can then be exterminated as is the Heritage Foundation’s plan, I’m going to say you have a lousy take.
Giving guns to trans isn’t going to solve the problem and you should be ashamed for suggesting it is anything other than setting people up to be killed. Your take is impossibly dumb.
I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.
It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
Well it’s a start.
You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.
Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.
In the end it will still require banning guns.
True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)
That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist.
This is a saturation issue. It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
Crimimals wouldn’t have so many unregistered guns in the first place if there weren’t that many guns available from the beginning.
Escalation has proven to not be the answer. You don’t solve the problem that saturation has caused by creating even more saturation.
Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it?
Well, Australia managed to disarm a significant portion of its population in the past, so it’s possible.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market. Don’t have to start taking away people’s emotional support collections yet, just make sure nobody can start a new one.
… guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes.
Guns are weapons. Weapons exist to threaten, bring harm, if not outright kill another living being.
In areas where hunting is common, maybe the argument for them being useful tools to have can be made. Outside of this specific niche there is no reason for the public availabity of any weapon.
Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
I consider it a symptom and a problem.
Weapons also exist to defend, but you only make the arguments that suit you.
You don’t need weapons.
Thats your opinion. I disagree.
It’s a fact. And you’re simply wrong.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist. You realize that even if guns are no longer sold in the U.S., they can still be smuggled in from other countries along with other contraband like drugs and counterfeit cash. That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned. This is what I mean when I say “violent black market”. Guns can also be 3D printed.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australia’s gun control as proof that “it’s possible”. Australia doesn’t have anywhere near the same history that the U.S. has with guns. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist.
It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market.
I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.
That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned.
Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.
It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.
You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…
Ah well…
Your comment quite quickly devolved into an ad hominem. If you had a strong argument against anything I said, you would have used it.
It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
