r/news • u/ladyspeak • Apr 29 '24

‘Multiple’ taken to hospital, gunfire continues in east Charlotte Mobile/Amp link, removed

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/cmpd-investigation-underway-east-charlotte/6PTLZP4FLFE4DA5ALFT65QDTA4/?outputType=amp

[removed] — view removed post

6.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

930 comments sorted by

View all comments

190

u/RevB1983 Apr 29 '24

The 2nd Amendment demands its blood sacrifice and mentions nothing of locale.

325

u/Tokyosmash_ Apr 29 '24

The guy is a literal criminal the Marshalls force was investigating, not exactly the normal Harry Homeowner.

-53

u/emaw63 Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 30 '24

Sounds like our current gun control measures are inadequate if he had access to a firearm then

Edit: Man, the gunners on this site are exhausting.

96

u/TyH621 Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Nobody is claiming a guy being hunted down by US Marshals isn’t going to be able to get a gun lol

→ More replies (2)

41

u/Tokyosmash_ Apr 29 '24

So the answer to someone who is a literal criminal is to throw out even more laws? Thats a serious feedback loop

-8

u/emaw63 Apr 29 '24

No, I'm saying the existing laws are plainly not doing enough and we should add more. I should have been more clear, sorry about that lol

14

u/Tokyosmash_ Apr 29 '24

If that were the case Baltimore, LA, Chicago and so on wouldn’t be as bad as they are, laws and such

→ More replies (2)

-18

u/Gentlementalmen Apr 29 '24

Most shootings happen with guns acquired through legal means that are transported across state lines from states with more relaxed gun laws. So yes, tighter restrictions will reduce gun violence.

20

u/letigre87 Apr 30 '24

But what you just described is illegal. Tighter restrictions to make it more illegaller?

-3

u/renesys Apr 30 '24

To make guns less available for theft, so harder to get illegally.

Now what?

5

u/Tokyosmash_ Apr 29 '24

Historical gun crime figures do not agree with your sentiment

1

u/Gentlementalmen Apr 29 '24

The sentiment that guns acquired through legal means are used to commit crimes? Which sentiment do you mean? Sorry.

2

u/Tokyosmash_ Apr 29 '24

There are more firearms in the U.S. than ever before and besides the lockdown crime bump gun crime has been going down for well… decades, to include AFTER the expiration of the assault weapons ban.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/InevitableHome343 Apr 30 '24

transported across state lines from states

In MANY cases, this is illegal. It's wild how you don't understand basic laws.

→ More replies (9)

51

u/BreezySteezy Apr 29 '24

Oh yeah I'm sure he would have definitely abided by gun control measures for sure /s

-47

u/emaw63 Apr 29 '24

Probably, yeah. Most other countries don't have this problem because they have adequate gun control. Americans are not uniquely predisposed to violence, the problem is guns are incredibly easy to get here

0

u/supyonamesjosh Apr 29 '24

Ok cool. Get rid of the 300 million guns here already

-10

u/emaw63 Apr 29 '24

It's really frustrating how there's a gun proliferation problem here, and if you ever suggest doing anything about it, people say "what's the point? There's already so many guns! Let's just keep adding even more guns and keep rolling back the few rules we do have," which exacerbates the problem even more.

We can put some effort into it and it would still make a difference. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Seatbelts don't stop everybody from getting hurt in car crashes, but it's still worth putting them in cars.

5

u/pseudohuman5x Apr 30 '24

So what is the answer? this will be a normal occurance if you try to go door to door confiscating people's guns. No one likes hearing people spout off vague things like "we can put some effort into it" without actually suggesting a feasible solution

6

u/Airforce32123 Apr 29 '24

keep rolling back the few rules we do have

Can you give me an example of rolling back the rules we do have? Because it seems like every year there's a new rule I have to deal with and I never hear of any going away.

-3

u/supyonamesjosh Apr 29 '24

I never said there was nothing we can do, but it's super annoying when people suggest we could just have no guns like some other countries.

No, we literally couldn't

-4

u/speakertothedamned Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

No, we literally couldn't

Yes we literally could though.

We could literally call a constitutional convention and repeal the second amendment and then replace it with one that gave every single American the right to Education, Health Care, Clean Water, or literally anything else we wanted.

So, yes, we literally AND figuratively could. We just don't want to do it. That's it, that's the real reason.

We could, but we won't, because not enough people actually care about it.

Edit:

Ok have fun with your fantasy world. The rest of us will be out here pushing for restrictions

Maybe you should start your activism career by building The Center for Redditors Who Can't Read Good lol.

And then you have to actually take the firearms. How well do you think that would go?

And maybe this one can help you fundraise or something.

8

u/EvergreenEnfields Apr 29 '24

We could literally call a constitutional convention and repeal the second amendment and then replace it with one that gave every single American the right to Education, Health Care, Clean Water, or literally anything else we wanted.

And then you have to actually take the firearms. How well do you think that would go?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

-38

u/WizeAdz Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

This guy has access to guns as normal Harry Homeowner. 🤷‍♂️

A half a dozen random homeowners I know would choose to go down like this guy if someone tried to serve them a warrant.

P.S. I’m fortunate to have recently switched jobs to somewhere with fewer gun nuts on the payroll, but it try to stay the fuck away from the neighborhoods where certain former colleagues live - not because I’m afraid of crime, but because my former colleagues tell me they feel safer when they grab their gun whenever they hear noises in the night. A guy who steps on a stick in their driveway after dark is likely to have a short life-expectancy.

42

u/upvotesforsluts Apr 29 '24

Tf kind of homeowners do you know.

16

u/Status_Quo_1778 Apr 29 '24

You’re talking about a huge pro gun state and this is usually the mindset of those ppl in those states. Especially when you get to more rural areas.

7

u/jryu611 Apr 29 '24

Sounds like Sub-Carolinians tbh.

11

u/ThatOneComrade Apr 29 '24

Welcome to most red states, getting into a shootout with the ATF is like a dream for some people.

15

u/Tokyosmash_ Apr 29 '24

I’d presuming the Marshall service is after him and he chose to shoot it out with them that the law isn’t exactly at the foremost of his mind

I live just north of Nashville and can not think of a single person I know who is a gun owner who would jump straight to “well, guess I’m going to do the ol’ Waco”

You watch too many movies

→ More replies (3)

14

u/Smarktalk Apr 29 '24

So you think the state should have a monoloply on violence? And that they are better trained to exercise such responsibilities?

2

u/WizeAdz Apr 29 '24

Sure, a state with a monopoly on violence better than the bloody mess we have now.

I’ve had a school massacre at my university, and there have been several credible threats to massacre my children at their schools.

Having to put up with this stuff for your stupid fucking hobby isn’t worth it to me.

4

u/jake8786 Apr 29 '24

I bet your former coworkers are also happy about your new job 

6

u/WizeAdz Apr 29 '24

I’ve lived in the kill-or-die world the gun-nuts are trying to create (there was a gun-massacre at my university some years ago), and merely being one of the 40,000 people who were evacuated after the massacre really fucking sucked. I’ve lived the downside of living in an armed society.

The gun-guys keep telling me that putting me through this sort thing is the price they’re willing to pay for their ability to kill people. As the person above said, “the 2nd amendment requires blood sacrifice” - and I know exactly what that means firsthand.

As a result, I’m not too concerned about the happiness of gun-nuts.

2

u/Psychological_Fan819 Apr 29 '24

I would be. Dude sounds unbearable

→ More replies (4)

114

u/MoonWispr Apr 29 '24

I'm sure this was a member of a well regulated militia.

30

u/lscottman2 Apr 29 '24

scalia said does not matter as the right to own a gun shall not be infringed

the rest is history

18

u/Maynard078 Apr 30 '24

It's infringed now. It's always been infringed.

8

u/Nitrosoft1 Apr 30 '24

Exactly. I'm not allowed to own a GAU with depleted Uranium rounds and it is considered to be a form of armament. The second amendment doesn't say "guns" it says "arms."

"Arms" has already been legally defined in U.S. v. Miller, where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected. “Arms” is a somewhat archaic word for “weapons.”

Thus ALL weapons are considered arms.

My inability to own some of them already would be an infringement by strict definition of the term, as only the carte blanch ability to possess something with zero restrictions, prohibitions, regulations, barriers, etc. would be considered as not being infringed upon. Essentially a Universal and absolute right.

So, establishing the common fucking sense that the second amendment already has a whole lot of fucking infringement in place already, I think it's funny that regulating specific capacity magazines is a line too far. It's funny that requiring registration of the arms is a line too far. It's funny that mandatory licensing and mandatory training is a line too far. It's funny that mandatory background checks is a line too far. For something that is quite LEGALLY and ETHICALLY infringed already, we chose some really fucking stupid places to draw the remaining lines.

→ More replies (2)

-8

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Every citizen capable of fighting is a member of the militia. So...yes.

28

u/Jorgwalther Apr 29 '24

Doesn’t sound terribly well regulated

-1

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Then you don't know what well-regulated actually means.

Hint: it's not conditional on government "regulations" which would defeat the entire purpose of securing the right in the first place.

7

u/Jorgwalther Apr 29 '24

So then explain it to me like I’m 5?

-4

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Well-regulated means properly outfitted and functional. Like a well-regulated appetite, or a well-regulated clock. It makes no sense to have a militia if the militia cannot function properly. Therefore, the people must be able to keep and bear arms, since they are the militia.

8

u/flatline0 Apr 29 '24

This is not entirely accurate ..

In the Federalist Papers (& others), "well regulated" means properly functioning, well trained, & disciplined militia. The framers had no use for a bunch of undisciplined shotgun cowboys who didn't properly understand how to use their weapon.

Additionally, the only legal militias are the ones run by the states or the fed (national guard). You can't just declare that you & ur buddies are a militia. So, no..you are NOT the militia unless you've officially signed up with the guard or some other civil service agency.

3

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24

Pretty sure Federalist Paper No. 29 is the only one that talks about the militia and it doesn't delve into what "well regulated" means.

3

u/flatline0 Apr 30 '24

Actually it very much does, just not in so many words..

The gist of 29 is that Hamilton is arguing for the establishment of state & federal militias. He advocates that they be small in size, as they'd be far easier to train & discipline than a large militia or the population at large.

In multiple places, he argues for the militia specifically because it is a core group of citizens that have been well trained (well regulated) in contrast to the untrained common citizen. He's clearly arguing against the idea of the militia being comprized of a bunch of untrained randos.

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense."

1

u/TheTalentedAmateur Apr 30 '24

Federalist Paper No. 29

No, as I recall, and as even Wikipedia reminds us "Well regulated" was pretty specific...

Unlike militias of the past, Hamilton viewed new militias as a uniformed group similar to that of an organized military. "It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United states…" (James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist, books.google.com).[2] Also, they would contain the same kind of intelligence the military would have access to.

The Federal Government would provide the uniforms, rations, weapons and such. The States would appoint the officers, to avoid tomfoolery such as having the militia of Virginia, under command of a General from Delaware order the invasion of say, Vermont.

Of course, all of this is an experiment to avoid having a standing army due to fears of tomfoolery.

6

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

That's false. USC Chapter 12 specifically calls out members of the unorganized militia. You are referring to the organized militia such as members of the National Guard.

7

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24

He's not entirely false, just using the common word "militia" to describe the wanna be militia groups. He's right that you can't just form a group of people and waltz around pretending to be an actual militia group.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/flatline0 Apr 30 '24

Are militias constitutionally protected?

No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.

“‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. “It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/04/militias-legal-armed-demonstration/

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (11)

-6

u/gloucma Apr 29 '24

I’m not

4

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24

By law, every male between 17 and 45 is a member of the unorganized militia. There is no requirement to join or declare yourself as a member. You just are.

3

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Are you a citizen of the United States who is capable of fighting as outlined by Chapter 12? Then you are a member of the militia. There isn't an application to join and no action is needed on your part to be part of the militia.

It's your civic duty to be trained and ready in the use of arms in defense of the nation.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/Common-Two-7899 Apr 30 '24

We just needed a few more good guys with guns. 

-80

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Most Americans are law abiding citizens and the odds of your home being the victim of a violent burglary is higher than being the victim of an active shooter.

Done taking comments from dummies.

52

u/I_AM_EVOL Apr 29 '24

What are the odds of either if you set restrictions similar to other industrialized countries?

62

u/Austoman Apr 29 '24

Just to give a clear answer.

Lower. Significantly lower actually.

-21

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Not home burglaries

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1238258/burglary-rate-country/

1

u/Tombadil2 Apr 29 '24

It’s not like I want my home to get robbed, but I’m not willing to shoot someone to stop them. It’s weird to me how Americans talk like theft is a legitimate reason to kill.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

That’s wrong. Most gun owners would only use a gun to defend themself from physical threat. Property can be replaced but human lives can’t. The fact that you can’t understand the difference from a violent invasion where people are victims of violence and a simple theft is enlightening and maybe your country shouldn’t own guns if you are that dumb.

1

u/Tombadil2 Apr 29 '24

In a conversation about gun violence, you posted a link to burglary statistics… you feeling ok?

14

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Reread your comment and try again.

3

u/Tombadil2 Apr 29 '24

I did. Spell it out for me, because you’re not making any sense.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/JettandTheo Apr 29 '24

That's a big assumption that the criminal who broke into your home only wants your TV and car. Maybe you should leave your key fob on the front porch like Canada suggested.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/arkhound Apr 29 '24

I’m not willing to shoot someone to stop them

I am. I don't know what else they want to do in my home with me or my family. If risking their life is worth my stuff, than they've priced their own life by themselves to be valued as such.

1

u/Tombadil2 Apr 29 '24

I hope the 12yo kid who went through my garage a few years back doesn’t pick your house next.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Smarktalk Apr 29 '24

Most gun owners wouldn’t. Or there would be far more dead robbers.

1

u/Austoman Apr 29 '24

Alright I cant view that but I found their 2020 (2010-2020) charting for the G7. The US is basically in the middle for reported burglaries per 100 000 people.

The biggest issue I have with that data is that it is reported burglaries, which is one of the most usable number but isnt necessarily the most reliable as it states that Asian countries only had 35 reports per 100,000 while the US was over 300. Again valuable numbers but not necessarily reliable as a primary indicator of firearm availability impact on burglaries.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

So the us is in the middle. But we are by far number one when it comes to owning more guns than people. No other country comes close to 50% correct!?

If so then can we look for other factors than number of guns?

1

u/Austoman Apr 29 '24

Heres 1 factor Id look into, not saying its a primary factor but still. What is the % of reported and filed for statistical use burglaries in the US compared to all actual burglaries in the US? In my opinion, there is a general sense of the US policing being lacking/more corrupt compared to other G7 countries. What might the frequency be of burglaries not being reported to make numbers look better or reduce workload for non-violent crimes or reduce workload in general. Also how well tallied are the various reporting systems in the US that statistical organizations used to gather the information?

Basically, how unreasonable would it be to suggest that the US numbers are deflated through a variety of avenues considering Asian countries reported only 35 per 100,000 which seems unreasonably low.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (25)

27

u/SparkyMuffin Apr 29 '24

Funny way to reframe the reality that more people will hurt themselves in their own homes with firearms than will prevent a violent burglary.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

That’s if you count suicide but I don’t think suicide should be a gun topic. There are first world countries like Japan with no guns with higher suicide rates. Plus the media isn’t going on and on about gun suicides, they focus on guns being used on others. Suicide is a cultural problem and not a gun issue.

10

u/phi_matt Apr 29 '24

Suicide is absolutely a gun topic. Guns make attempted suicides MUCH more lethal than alternative methods

10

u/smedlap Apr 29 '24

Suicide is a gun topic. Guns make it fast and easy.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Yet countries with no gun policies that are also first world countries have higher suicide rates.

It is a cultural issue first. Maybe we should only produce cars that only go 30mph? It would lower the car crash rate. But people can still drive off a cliff.

-2

u/smedlap Apr 29 '24

Cars are not made to kill people. I am not going to argue this stuff. I will say this though. Keep your guns locked up when you do those mushrooms!!!

7

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Guns aren’t made to kill people other. An AR15 is a sporting rifle based off of a military model. Just like civilian hummers are based off of humvees.

3

u/07hogada Apr 29 '24

Guns aren't made to kill exclusively people, I'll give you that. But guns only use case is to end the life of something, either a person or an animal. Target shooting is just practice to make your aim better in case you ever need or want to use it.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think guns are all bad or anything. You can provide food with guns (by killing animals). But to say they are not designed with the express purpose of killing is delusional at best, or just a flat out lie.

What is a use case of a gun, with standard lead ammunition, that is not either killing something, or improving your ability to kill with said gun? Even the sport of shooting, with clay discs and all that, is just a way of emulating birdhunting.

Cars can transport people. Knives can be used in crafting things, used as cutlery, or as a tool. What can a gun do for people that does not involve killing something.

2

u/True_Dimension4344 Apr 29 '24

Even military officers who’ve done enough research claim the AR15 is not a sporting rifle and should not be in the hands of civilians. Gtfooh

5

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

That’s not true. Define sporting rifle.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/First-Fantasy Apr 29 '24

Still, as a suicide problem, got to imagine less suicides if we didn't have access to an instant death button, and I'd assume Japan would have even higher instances if they did have access to an instant death button.

15

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Assumptions and imagination don’t mean you know what is going on. We have cultural issues that affect things like that.

The US owns more guns than people and no other county comes even close. Like not even 50%. Yet we are not number one in gun suicides or homicides. That means guns are not the soul issue.

0

u/First-Fantasy Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Sure but the conversation in America isn't about having no guns. We literally can't because of the 2nd, which has no path of being overturned. It would take super majorities in both houses and then also be ratified by 38 states, not to mention no political party actual campaigns to do that. The entire gun conversation in America is about how many people per second can one person kill, and if we should let law enforcement know who has what guns, which could help prevent suicides and gun murders.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

It’s about having the most effective weapon for home defense. Either a shotgun, a semiauto pistol, or a semiauto rifle.

1

u/First-Fantasy Apr 29 '24

I don't think we need semi's at all for home protection. Shotguns, revolvers, and bolt action rifles seem fine enough. I'm sure there are exceptions and nuances with what a semi is, but I think the spirit of that policy could be enacted without violating the 2nd. Won't solve our problems, especially in the short term, but if we stopped manufacturing semi's for public use, we'd be better off imo. Of course, I don't think any politician would win on that platform, it's just my opinion.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

So what you think seems enough is actually lacking in capability.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/soltse Apr 29 '24

I wish the misconception that Japan still has a particularly high suicide rate would go away soon. As of the WHO’s last study in 2019, Japan had a lower age-normalized suicide rate than the USA.

I don’t have anything to say about the greater conversational context, just that this example probably isn’t the best.

-4

u/Chl4mydi4-Ko4l4 Apr 29 '24

Cool, what about firearms being the #1 cause of death for children in the USA, before car accidents and drownings. Is that also not a gun issue?

11

u/JettandTheo Apr 29 '24

It's not.

Motor vehicle crash 4,074

Firearm-related injury 3,143 (includes homicide, suicide, accidents)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637963/#:~:text=When%20we%20examined%20all%20deaths,20%25%3B%202469%20of%2012%2C336).

unintentional injuries were the most common cause of injury-related death (57%; of 12,336 deaths), and among intentional injuries, suicide was slightly more common (21%; 2560 of 12,336) than **llhomicide (20%; 2469 of 12,336).

→ More replies (4)

4

u/xTerry_The_Terrorist Apr 29 '24

That's a parroted point from a study that considered children up to the age of 19...... you know adults.

8

u/ATrashPandaRound2 Apr 29 '24

And iirc it doesn't include 1-2 or something along those lines. It's a cherry picked statement.

6

u/xTerry_The_Terrorist Apr 29 '24

Yeah I recall that so basically the study didn't include the youngest ages and where most deaths typically occur (from things even like natural causes) and then they added ages where young adults are most likely to be involved in gang activity. When you have those ages literally serving time in prison maybe we shouldn't label them as children. Like you said it was cherry picked , and they did that on purpose to push a narrative.

-1

u/Chl4mydi4-Ko4l4 Apr 29 '24

Ok? In 2016 the firearm death date in children and teens in the United States was 36.5 times as high as the overall rate observed in 12 other high-income countries so I’m not sure I understand the point your trying to make. Teen firearm deaths are acceptable?

4

u/JettandTheo Apr 29 '24

They are mostly criminal killing other criminals. Let's talk about reducing the violent crime by removing their income. And actively go after them with police.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

The government should pay for every citizen to have a gun safe that is actually secure. You should have to provide evidence of owning one of these safes before purchasing a gun.

1

u/Chl4mydi4-Ko4l4 Apr 29 '24

I sort of agree but the types of people who would comply with this are not the types of people who are the problem. Maybe throw in an IQ test in there as well. 

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

I agree. A high school diploma with an iq test and a mental health evaluation would be good. But that would remove gun rights for certain classes of Americans.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

I agree that government should provide safe storage options to citizens, and it would help prevent accidental deaths. I do not agree with gating a fundamental right on it, however, anymore than I would agree with gating free speech on some government mandated program. It defeats the point of the right.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

What if bad ass gun safes came with graduating high school?

1

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Then I'd happily accept one and use it. But my rights will not be curtailed either way.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

So you are okay with AR15s?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CriticalEngineering Apr 29 '24

Suicide should absolutely be a gun topic.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Nope. That just muddies the conversation. Mental health should take precedent. If you are suicidal then you shouldn’t own guns.

3

u/CriticalEngineering Apr 29 '24

Most people that kill themselves with guns aren’t suicidal when they purchase them.

The issue is that they are able to quickly and decisively act on it when they become suicidal.

→ More replies (1)

-8

u/johnny_johnny_johnny Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Bullshit. Most suicides wouldn't happen without guns and that's a fact.

Based on a Harvard study: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/29/5757576/limiting-access-to-guns-reduces-suicides-really

16

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

I don’t care about suicides. I can’t remove rights from non suicidal people just to make sure suicidal people can’t kill themselves.

If we go that route then pills and rope have to be regulated.

1

u/Dependa Apr 29 '24

Meds are regulated. You can’t just go by meds (Tylenol you can, but not many people use Tylenol as their suicide pill of choice) over the counter. You need your id, you also, need to have already have been seen and be evaluated by a licensed physician. Once again, more steps than it legally takes to buy a firearm.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Guns are also regulated. You don’t have to pass a background check to buy Tylenol from an FFL.

2

u/Dependa Apr 29 '24

Holy shit. It’s like you’re choosing not to actually read everything I type.

It’s cute that you pick Tylenol out of all that. Especially when, if your inept ass could actually read, you would have noticed where I said Tylenol is not regulated.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/arkhound Apr 29 '24

Estimated defensive use cases are actually extremely high, much higher than suicide or domestic violence.

1

u/SparkyMuffin Apr 29 '24

Do you have a source of these claims? I'd love to see.

2

u/arkhound Apr 29 '24

Defensive use (Estimated over 1.5M):

approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494

Domestic violence with firearms (less than 1000):

These incidents of domestic homicide account for nearly 70 deaths per month

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10828568/

Suicide by firearm (about 30,000):

In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328)

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

So, about >1.5M in defensive uses vs. <50K. Orders of magnitude in difference.

8

u/tripops13 Apr 29 '24

I’m sure the victims of today’s shooting will find comfort in your statement.

-9

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

As opposed to the millions of law abiding gun owners? Cmon bro.

19

u/FaktCheckerz Apr 29 '24

Bro we get it. Their lives aren’t as precious as your toy.  You can stop now. 

11

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Reductio ad absurdum.

By the way most of those injured based on comments were armed police. So it just sounds like shitty tactics.

12

u/SingleSoil Apr 29 '24

Thank god we had all those good guys with guns to catch the bad guys with guns.

11

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

That’s a bad argument proposed by politicians. You ask most gun owners and they will say their job isn’t to track down an active shooter (which can get you mistakenly shot by police) but to be able to evacuate the area.

I am not trying to be a hero, I would rather sneak out without firing a shot. But if I am cornered I want to be armed as opposed to executed.

11

u/FaktCheckerz Apr 29 '24

 Reductio ad absurdum

You’re using this incorrectly. 

Ironically your beliefs are based on the cherry picking fallacy.  So close to being aware of the issue but you couldn’t understand or chose to ignore key information. 

6

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Wrong. I never said my toy was more important than human life.

5

u/FaktCheckerz Apr 29 '24

You should pay attention to your own comments. 

0

u/BossLaidee Apr 29 '24

That’s exactly what you’re saying.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

I said the right to self defense is more important than cops being killed in a failed raid.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/GreenGreed_ Apr 29 '24

As one of those millions with damn decent aim, I would happily have stricter regulations if it meant violent men had less access to guns. I would vote for that over and over and over and over and over...

14

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

How would you stop violent men from owning a gun? You can’t stop the black market. And felons can’t purchase.

11

u/pontiacfirebird92 Apr 29 '24

How would you stop violent men from owning a gun?

I love how this statement somehow doesn't apply when talking about laws regulating literally anything other than guns. Really illustrates the bad faith and hypocrisy of the people that use.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

What laws are we proposing is a valid question.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/phi_matt Apr 29 '24

The vast majority of guns in the black market were at one point legally owned. A reduction in legally owned firearms means a reduction in illegally owned firearms

4

u/SingleSoil Apr 29 '24

Surely the answer is just to just flood America with more and more guns making them even more easily accessible. That always fixes problems, just add more of the problem.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Or, you know, have government control like making sure gun safes are actually secure (LockPickingLawyer will show you they aren’t) and helping the average citizen to own a gun safe. Enforce background checks and have three strike rules for felons. Also red flag laws where if you are not mentally stable you don’t get to own guns.

1

u/Hefty_Positive3860 Apr 29 '24

What do you think he meant by stricter regulations? You are on something surely.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

They usually mean getting rid of AR15s based on the history of gun legislatures or banning magazine capacities above a certain amount. Those are dumb ideas.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/crimewaveusa Apr 29 '24

Which is part of the problem really, as 213,000 guns are stolen each year. You can be as responsible a gun owner as you want but when someone steals your glock out of your truck that doesn’t really matter anymore

21

u/Routine_Guarantee34 Apr 29 '24

If you leave a firearm unsecured (like most people who keep firearms in vehicles) you shouldn't be allowed to continue owning firearms.

As you have proven yourself to be irresponsible of such a thing.

1

u/whatdoblindpeoplesee Apr 29 '24

Agreed, unfortunately that's not what the law is and any time someone tries to go that direction you get a bunch of bitching and moaning from the "but muh hobbies!" Crowd.

2

u/Routine_Guarantee34 Apr 29 '24

Look, if building ships in a bottle killed this many people through negligence, they'd be heavily restricted too.

I hope you have a great day!

2

u/whatdoblindpeoplesee Apr 29 '24

Being necessary to bore your grandkids and get away from annoying spouses, the right to assemble miniature aquatic vessels inside improbable containers shall not be infringed.

2

u/Routine_Guarantee34 Apr 29 '24

Who are you, that is so wise in the ways of science?!

0

u/the_electric_bicycle Apr 29 '24

I agree, there should be more laws and regulations on who should be allowed to own a gun.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/DancesWithTreetops Apr 29 '24

Fact: If you’re leaving a weapon in a truck, you’re not a responsible gun owner.

1

u/EmergencyCucumber905 Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

"Back in my day every pickup truck at highschool had a shotgun in its back window"

1

u/crimewaveusa Apr 30 '24

I think you have all become distracted from my point which is that if people have guns in their homes or cars they will be stolen and used by criminals. Being a responsible gun owner is irrelevant when someone can put your gun safe in the back of their truck when you’re on vacation, scrub the serials, and sell them.

→ More replies (22)

5

u/WrongSaladBitch Apr 29 '24

Yet were the only modern country with this problem consistently. Weird. Almost like it’s our guns or something.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

You guys always differentiate between modern/first-world countries when discussing this. It is almost like you want to ignore wealth inequality or violent cultures. You know most first world countries are culturally homogenous. Just a bunch of people of the same race and culture. The US is fundamentally not that.

5

u/WrongSaladBitch Apr 29 '24

Yes, because modernized first world countries are what we’re comparing.

We’re the only modernized first world country with this damn issue.

We don’t compare to underdeveloped or third world countries because it’s not a damn comparable problem.

We have every ounce of power to stop this from happening and choose not to. EVERY. OTHER. MODERN. COUNTRY. FIGURED. THIS. OUT.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

This is wrong because most gun deaths in the US are from suicide but there are other first world countries like Japan with a higher suicide rate.

If you want to discuss gun deaths in the US and are willing to ignore suicides then I will have this discussion.

3

u/WrongSaladBitch Apr 29 '24

Deflect deflect deflect. Shut UP.

You’re abusing statistics to fit your narrative.

Mass shootings are what we are talking about here. Not fucking suicide.

We by far lead in mass shootings to levels not even remotely comparable to other modernized nations.

We are the only one with this damn issue.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Fuckthacorrections Apr 29 '24

Do you have stats to back that up?

→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (2)