>

I'm always impressed by the number of Ph.D level statisticians that come out of the wood work arguing why every single gun violence study is flawed.
Been in Japan 10 years never even seen or heard a gun outside of the internet/movies/tv. Can't have anything to do with their laws though. >

Wasn’t the prime minister recently assassinated by one? >

The killer made the gun himself. >

Exactly I get extremely frustrated when a single shooting is used as an example their laws do not work. You are never going to totally get rid of gun violence there is always going to be a crafty guy that can build one or at worse case a crossbow in his garage or some shit. You can make it to where it happens way less tho which is what they did. Japan has less shootings in a year then the US has in a single mass shooting. >

It is frustrating. An argument I've heard a thousand times is "if someone wants to kill somebody they'll just find another way, it's not the guns". Ok, let's see how many people blow themselves up making homemade bombs. Let's see how many mass stabbings occur in the absence of guns.
It seems to me that most pro-gun arguments amount to "nothing can be done, nothing will work, so let's not even try". >


An argument I've heard a thousand times is "if someone wants to kill somebody they'll just find another way, it's not the guns".

And then they always point to the UK as an example and claim that people there just use knives instead of guns.  In reality, the US has 8x the rate of stabbing deaths, PLUS all of the gun deaths. >

So its not the guns >

It just means that Americans are more violent AND have guns to help them kill more efficiently.
If guns disappeared overnight, there wouldn't suddenly be an additional 45,000/year knife deaths to make up the difference.  This has proved by pretty much every study on gun regulations. >

but there would be a significant uptick in knife crimes, and the country would lose some freedoms.  The question is whether or not a certain thing is worth the price. >


but there would be a significant uptick in knife crimes

Evidence from around the world doesn't support that.
That is a good question.  How many dead children is it worth for someone with a history of domestic violence to buy a gun without a waiting period and hundreds of rounds of ammunition?
My answer is zero, personally. >

This also my take. While it would make sense to have more restrictive gun laws, the second amendment is so deeply rooted in our culture I don’t see it going anywhere anytime soon. However, until we make some huge changes in our wealth inequality and social support systems we will continue to see people misuse guns. >

Unfortunately, there seem to be far too many people for whom the 2nd Amendment is the most, or in some cases only, important provision of the Constitution. >

You want fewer shooting? We need single payer healthcare allowing people to get the mental health treatment they need. We need minimum wage federally raised to a level providing minimum basic needs such as food and shelter security. These are things dems have campaigned on for my entire lifetime. These are things that have been within their power to do at times throughout my life and nothing came to fruition. I'm done watching rights being stripped away. I'm done watching the dems trying to disarm themselves while the right grows more and more violent. Get your fucking priorities straight. >


These are things dems have campaigned on for my entire lifetime. These are things that have been within their power to do at times throughout my life and nothing came to fruition.  

This is because Democrats are constantly falling all over themselves trying to die on the hill of gun control. If they didn’t think that gun control was more important than those other issues you mentioned, and instead fought exclusively for those issues and left the gun control topic alone for a while, we might actually have the votes to fix those issues. >

Virtually no matter what gun reform laws they try to enact, it will change nothing in reality with how deep the country's gun culture is. It makes so much more sense to just come out in support of the 2A, drop all the BS and try to win over the staggering amount of single issue voters that will never fold over what they believe to be a constitutional right to take up arms against tyranny, no matter how foolishly stupid that sounds on the outside.
Give up the crap and focus on what we know we can do for the better and quit giving the right more fuel to anger and rile up half the country agaisnt you. >

Show me a voter who votes for the GOP to be pro-2nd amendment, but would still vote for someone who champions marriage equality, abortion access, universal healthcare, and increasing corporate and wealth taxes. I'm not sure they exist. >

I'll show you a whole bunch of voters who stay home on election day or vote third party instead of voting Democrat due to their stance on gun control. The effect is the same. >

Gruesome photos of dead children killed in school shootings should be shown on mainstream news nightly.  Nothing changes until the actual blood and guts are shown.  Even then, hell who knows what it'll take.  After Sandy Hook, I just don't know what it's gonna take. >

Universal healthcare, lower wealth inequality, a general atmosphere where everyone feels like they have an opportunity to thrive.
Until these problems are solved you won’t be taking away the underlying cause, just one tool. In fact it’s going to get worse as individual outlooks in the US continue trending toward bleakness. We can ban guns, there’ll just be more cars driven through crowds.
Government is powerless at making the real changes because lobbyists like me make it impossible. We don’t care about guns so lawmakers can use feature bans to show the public they’re able to do something. Even though a semi-auto with a wooden stock is equally as deadly as one with an adjustable stock. It’s theater. >

Ya it’s not the guns it’s the lack of healthcare I’m sure you would come up with something else to blame if the US were to get universal healthcare. It’s always the fault of everything EXCEPT guns. >

Continue to make gun regulation the primary method of reducing gun violence, and you’ll watch as nothing changes. Address gun violence via underlying societal problems and you might just make a difference.
This is how to view the situation as a realist. We can continue to harp on guns and let people die while we argue, or we can address issues that have bipartisan support, and aren’t up against a constitutional amendment. >


Continue to make gun regulation the primary method of reducing gun violence, and you’ll watch as nothing changes.

Guns are the most powerful killing tool we have readily accessible to most people.  Bombs are not that easy to make.  Knives are less lethal.  Cars have overwhelming utility in society and also only work outdoors around large crowds, which can be protected against.  A self-professed realist should at least see those basic things.  Reduce the lethality available to people and it will make a difference.
That said, yes, it is absolutely harder in the current America to make these changes.  NRA propaganda, toxic culture, political dysfunction and delusional citizens all exist as obstacles to the real changes needed so it might be easier to make societal changes...but I don't see a country that fails on guns somehow magically getting their act together on societal issues.  How do we solve these societal issues?  With government spending?  More regulations?  Taxes?  All non-starters for half our politicians. >

Pretty sure bombs can be fairly easy to make these days. >

It’s really that simple. But we live in a capitalist country where corporations can buy off or “lobby” politicians into doing what’s best for the corporation, who only care about profits and not lives, not even elementary school kids lives. >

Those corporations can also incessantly frighten dumbasses into buying more guns than they could possibly need. Simple arithmetic would tell you that more than one gun will not make you any safer, assuming you pick the 'safest' gun. A person with 50 guns is the same threat to would-be interlopers as one single gun in competent hands. 
I've been to gun shops quite a few times, despite not owning any firearms at the moment. The literature is riddled with ads saying shit like "Get your man-card back!" Or "They're coming for you!" (the latter featuring some rural homestead no one would ever bother to rob). At this point, most of these gun hoarders have simply made themselves much higher-value targets for thieves (because, again, only the first gun acts as deterrent, the rest are loot). 
I really really wish our citizens were more wise to when they're being manipulated. Our consumerist culture works by first hollowing out your identity, then showing you the consumer item to make that identity whole again. That's the crux of the gun-nut crowd. Just a hobby to make you feel whole, but pressures you into paranoia and anthropophobia.
Kudos to the gun owners who manage to avoid that cultural trap. >


Moderate is our second highest evidence rating. 

 That sounds so sciencey!
USA Today decided not long ago that bullets should be regulated because some mass shooters stock up suddenly. This will allow police to identify "bad actors." But bulk purchases would not be interfered with and police would not surveil purchases, sez USA Today. >

Tougher gun laws worked for Australia ... >

Australia only experienced a 48% reduction of gun homicides from the early 90s to 2012. Would you really consider a reduction of only 1/2 over two decades to be a success? I genuinely want to know if you find that compelling evidence of success.
Edit: Per stats I reference in a follow up comment the US actually experienced the decline of 48% just like other countries did around that time. So if you think that was a success when Australia did it, then the US was also a success as well. Or you have to admit that gun policy likely had nothing to do with global trends in declining homicide rates at the time. >

I'd say a 50% reduction in people killed is pretty good. I'm sure the family of those 50% would agree too. >

Not who you were responding to, but I appreciate the skillful trolling.
The thing with Australia is that it never had much of a gun violence problem to begin with, and to the extent it did, the reasons for it were different from the unique issues that create the U.S. gun violence problem. Australia never had a particular high gun-per-capita ratio, and the U.S. has longtime been the highest in that category. 
That gun-per-capita ratio in the U.S. nonetheless managed to increase significantly since the 1990s, and so did the gun homicide rate. >

In the US the gun homicide rate had declined throughout the 90,s 2000,s,  2015 saw a slight uptick, and 2020 saw a huge increase but still below the pre 1990's levels. >

Yes and at every step of the way the rate was still way too high compared with peer nations, even during that 2000s decrease. >

Look, I know that Democrats and Republicans are heavily entrenched in their political parties,  and will defend their ideals vehemently; however,  y'all both should agree that the article is heavily biased, and didn't really proved any evidence,  like 40-44% were the result of homicides, and the other was suicide. 
Before you try to go on your rant foaming at the mouth, I have two questions.  First,  what sources would you find credible for this issue? And second,  what information do you need to change your mind? I can tell you mine,  which is mainly a couple sociological journals that are peer-reviewed, I'm pretty open,  and I like the PEW research center.  What information? If there are plans to curtail the governments at both the federal and state levels,  which will limit troop authorization,  repealing of qualified and absolute immunity,  getting rid of section 1033 of the NSA, Patriot Act, etc. Overall,  anything besides we must ban weapons and put our faith in the benevolence of law enforcement agencies and the federal government (both who don't have the best track record when acknowledging the rights of citizens). Ahh, Karl Marx and Engel's are crying at the state of the American "left." >


like 40-44% were the result of homicides, and the other was suicide.

A shooting is a shooting. And dead is dead. Homicide and suicides count. >

Really? Who would've thought?  If you're talking about gun violence and you include suicide,  then it skews the results and messes with the data. If I'm talking about drug overdid,  but with opioids specifically, would I add other drugs to the talk without highlighting the fact? No. Why? It would be dishonest. >


If you're talking about gun violence and you include suicide,  then it skews the results and messes with the data. 

Isn't suicide violent? I think it is. If you're talking solely about homicide, sure exclude suicide. But if the discussion is about the general level of gun violence in the US, suicides count. Domestic violence count. Accidental shootings count.
​

If I'm talking about drug overdid, but with opioids specifically, would I add other drugs to the talk without highlighting the fact? 

The title said "want fewer shootings?". Not "want fewer mass shootings" or "want fewer homicide by gun". Maybe you assume the article is about mass shooting. I skimmed the article and it doesn't limit itself to mass shootings.
In your analogy, if the title is "want fewer overdoses?" and you assume it's opioids    only and not prescription medicine, that's on you. >

Does California have lax laws? They just had 2 or 3 high profile mass shootings and that is after decades of passing almost every gun control law their legislature has come up with. Assault weapons bans, safe handgun rosters, ubcs, 10 day waiting periods, 1 gun a month purchase limits, etc. >

No gun law can stop someone with a gun from snapping and going on a rampage. Besides an outright ban.  And even then it won’t be 0.  Gun laws will reduce the amount of times it happens.  But it can still happen.  Plenty of mass shooters were legal gun owners.  The Las Vegas shooter was legal until he snapped… >

I still don’t understand how someone was able to bring that many weapons and that much ammo into a hotel, especially in places like vegas where extremely high tech cameras and surveillance are everywhere. >

If they were going in and out with a suitcase or two , would anyone bat an eye?  Separate the upper and lower receiver, and a couple of AR15s fit easily in a suitcase. As long as he was packing and unpacking them out of view of the cameras, and I assume there aren't cameras in rooms, it would be quite easy? >

It was 23 different weapons though that he had in his hotel room and over a thousand rounds of ammunition. >

Yea, it would take a few trips, but in a busy hotel, who's going to notice especially if they spread it out over several days? You could probably pack 3-4 (probably more) rifles into a suitcase at the same time if you don't care about scratches etc. And 1000 rounds of 556 is only like one ammo can.  
Unless he was awkwardly trying to hide assembled rifles under a trench-coat or something while walking in, there is no practical way of knowing unless they have metal detectors at the doors, or they are searching everyone. >

Just weirds me out, especially in Vegas with how active they are about security. >

Posts about the problem with gun violence are always brigaded by gun fetishists who either come to gloat about their right to murder people with the filmiest of excuses and gun fetishists who want more gun violence. This seems counterproductive. All it does is get the gun fetishists excited.