Good. If you try to break into someone else's shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
It is worrying to me that the supposedly highest trained security guards in the world couldn't actually hit their target. I would expect better in terms of both accuracy and fire discipline.
It is also worrying that if a citizen like you or me tried to defend ourselves and our property in the same way in much of these nation including DC, we would go to jail. I think we deserve the same rights as 'important people'.
Imagine living in a country where people are so obsessed with guns that everybody has guns and everyone is a potential threat or one insult away from doing a mass shooting. It's gotten so bad that America has become a parody of Grand Theft Auto, where you can actually feel safer as a character in a video game that glorifies violence and crime.
Your nation has gone beyond ape shit.
There isn't another developed nation in the world where gun violence is as big a problem as in America.
This ISN'T NORMAL.
Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany. Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
Break out the 'firearm deaths of under 20yos' stat by income, or average income of residential area where they live. You'll see a STRONG correlation. That's because an awful lot of our gun crime is by violent drug gangs in inner city areas.
That link has a great breakdown though of firearm homicide rate by state. I'll point out there's little or no correlation between gun control policy and firearm homicide rate there. Washington, DC and Maryland have some of the strictest gun control in the country, and the most firearm homicides. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Utah have among the least gun control and highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest firearm homicide rate. Then there are states that have the expected effect- Hawaii (very anti-gun) with low gun death rate, Alaska (lots of guns) with high gun death rate.
But what that all says is that there's not a causation between gun ownership or gun policy and gun homicide rate. I suspect you'd find a better correlation with poverty than with gun ownership.
What about the other two more important statistics? Stop killing kids with your emotional support weapons you fucking cowards.
the 'key statistics' at the top--
I addressed the which state is which, I addressed the under-20s dying of gun homicide. If I didn't address them enough please feel free to ask for detail on whatever part of it you wish to focus on.
As for the other key point (US has more gun homicide than Germany or AU)- that one's more complicated.
There's an obvious answer that there's more guns in USA, thus more gun homicide- much the same as you get more drownings in Miami (where everyone's at the beach) than Kansas (where there's no water).
However I think focusing on homicide rate by weapon is of limited use. I think overall homicide rate is more important-- if in one place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are stabbings and in another place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are shootings, neither one is safer than the other.
I suspect USA has higher overall homicide rate than either of those two places. But I think the root causes for that are the 'hard problems' we ignore- poverty, drugs, gangs, hopelessness, etc. DE and AU have decent modern health care systems and actually take care of their population. Mental health care is available and affordable. Strong social safety net keeps people out of extreme poverty. Thus- less drug use, less gangs, and of course less violence from the gangs.
I'm sure there's some part of that difference that comes from side effects of our gun policies, so don't think I'm being obtuse. Just that I don't think it's anywhere near the direct causation you seem to be claiming.
It doesn't matter what you think when there's evidence of what works.
"We've tried nothing, and it hasn't worked!" Says only country where this happens regularly.
Are you from the US? I'm assuming not. I mean no offense by this.
What most people from other places don't recognize is that the US is in effect 50 different countries. Each state has their own regulations, that in some cases are wildly different from the next.
That applies to gun laws also.
So it's most incorrect to say 'we tried nothing and it didn't work', when in reality we've tried 50 different things. That is the beauty of your link, if you look at the state by state data. There's 50 different visions of what gun policy should be, and 50 different outcomes. And this really does run the gamut. There are a few national-level laws, for example every gun store purchase must have a background check, and some case law that has defined what the government can and can't do to regulate, but for the most part it's up to each state to write their own policy.
In DC for example, you had a scheme that would fit in well anywhere in Europe- you need training and licensing to even get a permit to buy a gun, each gun has to be registered and test-fired before it can be delivered to the buyer. From beginning to end the process of buying a gun (which you couldn't even carry) took months and a dozen visits to various government agencies. I've heard it's since gotten a bit less strict, but it was like that for a LONG time.
DC has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation and has for a very long time.
Hawaii has gun control that's similarly strict, and has among the lowest gun homicide rate in the nation.
In Vermont for example you have what everyone accuses the entire USA of having- anyone can buy as many guns as they want with no training or licensing, and you can carry your gun loaded without a permit or proof of training. This is sometimes called 'Constitutional Carry' (the Constitution is your carry permit). Buying a gun is easy, other than the Federally-mandated background check, you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in less than an hour.
Vermont has among the highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest gun homicide rate.
Alaska is similar to Vermont (Constitutional Carry, high gun ownership rate) but among the highest gun homicide rate.
What those 4 states should tell you, is that gun policy or gun ownership rate are not necessarily drivers of gun homicide rate. Something else is going on that drives gun homicide rate.
So's the E.U. they got it to work. The excuses Americans will make for allowing themselves to ignore the dead kid problem is astounding. And you're right, there is more that drives homicide rate, like lack of social services, 10% of your population living without food security on an annual basis, 54% of your adult population reading below a 6th grade literacy level, there's a lot of big problems and you aren't fixing any of them.
And you’re right, there is more that drives homicide rate, like lack of social services, 10% of your population living without food security on an annual basis, 54% of your adult population reading below a 6th grade literacy level, there’s a lot of big problems and you aren’t fixing any of them.
And on this I am in 100% agreement. It's fucking shameful that we don't take care of our own people. But our government spends money it doesn't have like there's no tomorrow; our military is bigger than the next 10 in the world combined (including all of our enemies) and we continue to fund it at absurd rates, we have billions of $ worth of domestic spying invading our privacy. And while we fight over whether we protect kids with more guns or less guns, we then throw them in schools where teachers are barely able to scrape by, send them into a cutthroat society where corporations fuck over the employees with no remorse, and where if you're not rich you probably can't afford much in the way of decent health care.
Quite frankly it's shameful. It's appalling. If it or any part of it was imposed upon us by force by another nation, we'd all go to war and support using nukes against them. But we do it to ourselves so we smile and nod and say 'oh he got cancer and went bankrupt and couldn't afford treatment and died' like that's the way things are supposed to be.
And then in our politics we fight over should we elect this loser or that psycho, should we have more guns or less guns, should we have more immigration or more border security, meanwhile upward mobility is down, quality of life is down, the wealth of the nation is being extracted by big companies, and we're too distracted by random shit to fix the underlying problems.
So if you think I'm one of the 'Murica, fuck yeah!' people, I'm not. I love my country and I'm proud to be American, but I'm not proud of what my nation has become lately.
So’s the E.U. they got it to work. The excuses Americans will make for allowing themselves to ignore the dead kid problem is astounding.
I would agree with this, but it's not about guns (especially since most of those kids are shot with illegal guns by people who can't legally own guns).
The problem is poverty. And we do fuck all about that.
No, it's "not about guns". We still have guns, I have friends who have guns, I've shot and hunted. It's about having the adequate systems in place for BEFORE people get the guns. And yes there are lots of guns already, but not putting in limitations won't make that number drop will it? Not trying voluntary buy-backs won't get unwanted guns out of normal citizens homes. Not having adequate food, wealth, and access to education isn't going to reduce the amount of crime that scared regular Americans into thinking they need emotional support weapons. Just do something, fucking anything. It's not that nothing works, it's that you refuse to try what works elsewhere because you've been fooled into thinking you're special individual snowflakes, but your ravenous individuality has eroded any capacity you have for co-operation with your fellow Americans in securing your right to live.
There's 500 million legal privately owned guns in the US. If you assume an average value of $450, that's $225 billion.
If I had $225 billion to spend, I sure as fuck wouldn't spend it buying back guns. I'd fund mental health care, I'd fund education, I'd fund jobs programs.
Not trying voluntary buy-backs
These DO happen in a lot of places, on a local or state level. Doesn't have much effect because the people who commit the crimes are the ones with illegal guns who aren't gonna sell them.
you refuse to try what works
We are stupid in that we refuse to try things like single payer health care.
But I suspect almost any gun policy you'd come up with has been tried somewhere in the USA.
What you're really missing is there are two kinds of gun owners in USA- law-abiding and criminal. The law-abiding ones aren't committing most of the gun crime. Look at the stats for defensive gun use (when a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime)- they aren't tracked by government so the data has to come from statistical surveys, but even the anti-gun people agree that DGUs happen 5-6x more often than firearm homicide.
Most DGUs end with no shots fired- criminal sees gun and runs away.
It’s not that nothing works, it’s that you refuse to try what works elsewhere because you’ve been fooled into thinking you’re special individual snowflakes, but your ravenous individuality has eroded any capacity you have for co-operation with your fellow Americans in securing your right to live.
And with respect, this is a totally ignorant comment that's based on an anti-gun talking point and not any actual knowledge of American gun policy, gun ownership culture, stated reasons for owning guns, or anything other than conjecture and accusation.
You say 'try what works' (presumably referring to European-style gun control) but show no concept of understanding how truly difficult (damn near impossible) it would be to implement, even if a majority of the nation wanted it (which they don't). And you ignore the fact that much of what you call 'what works' HAS been tried, or is currently being tried.
I don't mean to insult you or personally attack you. But the fact is your accusations show little understanding of the REALITY of American gun ownership, why Americans buy and own guns, and what they do with them.
I'm happy to share what I know. But if your mind is concluded and closed, if you've just decided 'Americans are ammosexual hicks who refuse to give up their penis extenders to keep their own kids safe' and you are not open to even entertaining the possibility that reality is much more complex than that, then there's nothing I or anyone else can say.
If you want to understand, at least from one American's POV, like I said I'm happy to share. And IMHO it's fascinating- I wasn't always pro-gun, I wasn't raised around guns or gun culture, so what I know comes from my own independent research without most of the emotion you see in many gun arguments.
So my friend, can you try an open mind?
Boohoo, gun control is hard so we aren't gonna do it. Dead kids just gonna keep piling up till you do. Stop killing kids with your emotional support weapons you fucking cowards. How about that for opening your goddamned mind, or is the only mind opening you know the sort that happens with lead in American schools.
Imagine living in a country where people are so obsessed with guns that everybody has guns and everyone is a potential threat or one insult away from doing a mass shooting.
I don't know what nation you're from but America is nothing at all like this. Gun owners aren't like this.
People who don't understand American gun culture expect it's like GTA- everybody's strapped, fender-benders at traffic lights turn into firefights, don't dare tell anyone anything negative because they'll shoot you if they don't like what you say. This isn't at all the case though. Not even close.
Gun owners who carry guns look at it like a seat belt or fire extinguisher-- you hope to god you never need it, but if ever you do, having it might save your life. There is no action movie attitude of 'who do I shoot today?'. Gun owners recognize how serious a responsibility it is, and petty arguments rarely involve weapons fire, even in situations where everyone involved is armed.
We have a big problem with gun violence- but the majority of it is caused by our bigger problem of poverty and hopelessness in many areas. People turn to drugs, that are supplied by violent gangs who are all armed with illegal guns. Those guys commit the lion's share of our gun homicide.
Problem is, fixing it is a slow and expensive generational process. You need better schools, mental health care, child care, reproductive care, and real jobs for people to aspire to (not just flipping burgers). This costs billions.
If you want to criticize us for something- criticize us for spending billions/trillions on military (we have more military force than the next 10 nations combined, including all our major enemies) when our budgets are fucked and we can't even seem to take care of our own citizens. THAT is worthy of your criticism (and mine).
I'm not aware of another developed nation where getting cancer means you've got a good chance of going bankrupt. THAT ISN'T NORMAL and we should be fixing that shit.
What you say in this comment seems inconsistent with what you said in the previous one, namely that if you try to break into someone's stuff (e.g. an unoccupied parked car in this case) you should expect to be shot at. Going straight to deadly force to protect one's property is the bit people (at least, many non-Americans) think is not normal.
Finally a somewhat intelligent comment that isn't just restating a talking point.
You're (understandably) conflating as one position what is actually two
I think in general it should be legal to use deadly force to defend major property. IE I don't think it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum, but I think in many cases it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing larger items that make up a person's livelihood. I take this position not because I think human life is worth less than tools or cars (I don't feel that way) but because if you take any other position, you have a situation where the lawful owner of said property is legally required to basically sit there and watch while a criminal steals their shit.
Police aren't always seconds away. In much of the USA, police are tens of minutes or hours away.
What should be legal is one half of the coin, the other half is what I as a gun owner want to actually do.
To make an extreme example- I'm a strong advocate of the 1st Amendment (free speech). I believe I should have the right to take off all my clothes, cover the bare minimum in duct tape and cardboard, and walk down public streets telling all passers-by that I am the reincarnation of Napoleon and they should join my new army and help take over the world.
But while I support the right to do that, while I'd strongly advocate for that right, I have no desire to do such a thing myself.
As a gun owner, I have no desire to kill anyone ever. The same is true of virtually all gun owners I know, both online and off. (The one notable exception is a slightly nutty friend of mine who ended up joining the military and volunteered to go fight in Iraq/Afghanistan). There is nothing in my car that's worth taking a life for- even if the perpetrator is a lowlife criminal.
But I also take that as my choice to make for myself. Millions of gun owners would make the same choice- go on any gun forum or subreddit that deals with such things and you'll find few if any people suggesting that just shooting a guy who's stealing your unoccupied car is a good plan.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the reply. It makes sense, though I would jump off at a different point from you. I tend to feel that if it comes to life vs property, even the life of a robber who is making others miserable and afraid, life generally wins no matter what the property is. That is, I don't myself feel like it is ever worth taking a life to preserve property, and I hope that if I found myself in the situation of being robbed of something dear to me, I would be able to let the property go and the robber live, painful though it would be. But I also don't believe ethical questions can arrive at a final answer. There's too much nuance in every situation so I wouldn't propose this as "the right answer". It's just how I currently feel on the matter. Another aspect of this view is that while I wouldn't condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I'd understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
Thankfully I'm not a legislator so I don't need to try to codify this into law, and I appreciate your position, which seems that be that although you probably wouldn't yourself shoot in this situation, you don't think others should be branded criminals for doing so. I don't want to pronounce on that matter, but just to observe that your position is probably more common in the USA than in, for example, many European countries, hence it seeming unusual to many of us non-Americans.
while I wouldn’t condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I’d understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
And that is my position exactly.
Go on various self-defense subreddits or online forums, like /r/CCW, and you'll find a very similar attitude. There will be a couple who'd say 'shoot the thief' but the overwhelming majority take the position of 'you shoot to stop the threat, in self defense, only when necessary' and many would even take the position that it's a 'bad shoot' to shoot someone just breaking into a car. Confront them maybe, shoot them if they move to attack, but don't just shoot the guy in the back as he's stealing your MacBook.
The other issue is- while I'm not a legislator, I am a citizen of a representative democracy. So in a sense, it is my job to write the law, or at least, to make educated choices in what laws and policies I advocate for and against.
To that end, anyone making any law must consider that there will be times it backfires, doesn't apply correctly, etc. And whenever that happens, I'd always rather err on the side of giving the citizen defending themself or their property more leeway than providing additional protections to a criminal who's engaged in clearly illegal acts against said citizen (which necessarily means punishments for the citizen defending against said criminal).
Right. Except everybody leaves their fire extinguishers at home. And their fire extinguishers don't cause other fires. And they're not widely used by stupid incompetent people to cause harm either.
Your argument doesn't make any sense to any other normal sane person outside of the United States.
Using deadly force to kill someone should be hard to access and only be used when your own life is in danger. Which can be anytime, anywhere by anybody in the US because of how accessible it is.
Ending a life shouldn't be something anybody can do.
"It is not the tool that determines it's work, it is the mind of the man that holds the tool that does." --Brannon LaBouef
Like any tool, a gun can be used for good or evil. The vast majority of gun uses in the USA are 'defensive gun uses', which are legal gun owners stopping or preventing a crime. There's minimum 10x more DGUs than firearm homicides, perhaps 100x or even more.
Ending a life shouldn’t be something anybody can do.
But ending a life IS something anybody can do, and you don't need a gun to do it.
Good. If you try to break into someone else's shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
In many other contexts this would be downvoted to oblivion on Lemmy.
Good. If you try to break into someone else’s shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
In many other contexts this would be downvoted to oblivion on Lemmy.
In many other contexts, this is fucking insane.
Why? Serious question.
I'm getting down votes, if you disagree, then please engage and tell me why?
I’ve noticed a significant correlation between people who reject all contemplation of violence as ethical behavior, and those who refuse to engage in debate with those holding differing beliefs about ethics.
Well said.
In the words of Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Lot of not very educated minds in the world these days :(
And robbing someone's car isn't insane?
Exactly right. If the article says "home owner shoots armed robber attempting to kidnap children" you'd have people losing their minds about guns and violence. Also people would be upset that the person owned a home...
Who has ever been upset at people owning their own home?
Yeah I've noticed :-( Lemmy overall seems much less tolerant of gun ownership or use of force than Reddit. Even when it is obviously justified.
The headline could be, "Good Samaritan opens fire to defend disabled orphan POC child and her blind 3-legged rescue kitten from white supremacist pedophile rape gang" and half the comments would be how the stupid hick Republican ammosexual who wants more school shootings is so worthless he needs to carry around a lethal penis extender.
But throw in a little criticism of government or police... Heh
Because a world where people are firing guns at each other all the time is INSANE, regardless of the context. Most of the developed world has figured this out.
If you look at the data, the vast majority of people who are 'firing guns at each other all the time' are gang members in low-income inner cities.
To distill a bunch of stats, half the people of the US own guns, and they own enough guns to arm the other half and have plenty left over.
Per FBI, there's about 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. That means on average an American has a 0.005% chance of being killed by a gun in any given year.
If we truly were 'firing guns at each other all the time' that number would be WAY WAY WAY WAY higher.
The whole point of equality is that we’re all supposed to have the same rights and responsibilities.
Couldn't agree more. Biden gets to protect his family with guns. I think you and me should have that right also.
If I take a shot without being sure I'm gonna hit a criminal, I'm in big trouble. But if a cop/guard does the same, oh well.
Good. If you try to break into someone else's shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
It is worrying to me that the supposedly highest trained security guards in the world couldn't actually hit their target. I would expect better in terms of both accuracy and fire discipline.
It is also worrying that if a citizen like you or me tried to defend ourselves and our property in the same way in much of these nation including DC, we would go to jail. I think we deserve the same rights as 'important people'.
Imagine living in a country where people are so obsessed with guns that everybody has guns and everyone is a potential threat or one insult away from doing a mass shooting. It's gotten so bad that America has become a parody of Grand Theft Auto, where you can actually feel safer as a character in a video game that glorifies violence and crime.
Your nation has gone beyond ape shit.
There isn't another developed nation in the world where gun violence is as big a problem as in America.
This ISN'T NORMAL.
Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany. Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
Break out the 'firearm deaths of under 20yos' stat by income, or average income of residential area where they live. You'll see a STRONG correlation. That's because an awful lot of our gun crime is by violent drug gangs in inner city areas.
That link has a great breakdown though of firearm homicide rate by state. I'll point out there's little or no correlation between gun control policy and firearm homicide rate there. Washington, DC and Maryland have some of the strictest gun control in the country, and the most firearm homicides. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Utah have among the least gun control and highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest firearm homicide rate. Then there are states that have the expected effect- Hawaii (very anti-gun) with low gun death rate, Alaska (lots of guns) with high gun death rate.
But what that all says is that there's not a causation between gun ownership or gun policy and gun homicide rate. I suspect you'd find a better correlation with poverty than with gun ownership.
What about the other two more important statistics? Stop killing kids with your emotional support weapons you fucking cowards.
the 'key statistics' at the top--
I addressed the which state is which, I addressed the under-20s dying of gun homicide. If I didn't address them enough please feel free to ask for detail on whatever part of it you wish to focus on.
As for the other key point (US has more gun homicide than Germany or AU)- that one's more complicated.
There's an obvious answer that there's more guns in USA, thus more gun homicide- much the same as you get more drownings in Miami (where everyone's at the beach) than Kansas (where there's no water).
However I think focusing on homicide rate by weapon is of limited use. I think overall homicide rate is more important-- if in one place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are stabbings and in another place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are shootings, neither one is safer than the other.
I suspect USA has higher overall homicide rate than either of those two places. But I think the root causes for that are the 'hard problems' we ignore- poverty, drugs, gangs, hopelessness, etc. DE and AU have decent modern health care systems and actually take care of their population. Mental health care is available and affordable. Strong social safety net keeps people out of extreme poverty. Thus- less drug use, less gangs, and of course less violence from the gangs.
I'm sure there's some part of that difference that comes from side effects of our gun policies, so don't think I'm being obtuse. Just that I don't think it's anywhere near the direct causation you seem to be claiming.
It doesn't matter what you think when there's evidence of what works.
"We've tried nothing, and it hasn't worked!" Says only country where this happens regularly.
Are you from the US? I'm assuming not. I mean no offense by this.
What most people from other places don't recognize is that the US is in effect 50 different countries. Each state has their own regulations, that in some cases are wildly different from the next.
That applies to gun laws also.
So it's most incorrect to say 'we tried nothing and it didn't work', when in reality we've tried 50 different things. That is the beauty of your link, if you look at the state by state data. There's 50 different visions of what gun policy should be, and 50 different outcomes. And this really does run the gamut. There are a few national-level laws, for example every gun store purchase must have a background check, and some case law that has defined what the government can and can't do to regulate, but for the most part it's up to each state to write their own policy.
In DC for example, you had a scheme that would fit in well anywhere in Europe- you need training and licensing to even get a permit to buy a gun, each gun has to be registered and test-fired before it can be delivered to the buyer. From beginning to end the process of buying a gun (which you couldn't even carry) took months and a dozen visits to various government agencies. I've heard it's since gotten a bit less strict, but it was like that for a LONG time.
DC has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation and has for a very long time.
Hawaii has gun control that's similarly strict, and has among the lowest gun homicide rate in the nation.
In Vermont for example you have what everyone accuses the entire USA of having- anyone can buy as many guns as they want with no training or licensing, and you can carry your gun loaded without a permit or proof of training. This is sometimes called 'Constitutional Carry' (the Constitution is your carry permit). Buying a gun is easy, other than the Federally-mandated background check, you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in less than an hour.
Vermont has among the highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest gun homicide rate.
Alaska is similar to Vermont (Constitutional Carry, high gun ownership rate) but among the highest gun homicide rate.
What those 4 states should tell you, is that gun policy or gun ownership rate are not necessarily drivers of gun homicide rate. Something else is going on that drives gun homicide rate.
So's the E.U. they got it to work. The excuses Americans will make for allowing themselves to ignore the dead kid problem is astounding. And you're right, there is more that drives homicide rate, like lack of social services, 10% of your population living without food security on an annual basis, 54% of your adult population reading below a 6th grade literacy level, there's a lot of big problems and you aren't fixing any of them.
And on this I am in 100% agreement. It's fucking shameful that we don't take care of our own people. But our government spends money it doesn't have like there's no tomorrow; our military is bigger than the next 10 in the world combined (including all of our enemies) and we continue to fund it at absurd rates, we have billions of $ worth of domestic spying invading our privacy. And while we fight over whether we protect kids with more guns or less guns, we then throw them in schools where teachers are barely able to scrape by, send them into a cutthroat society where corporations fuck over the employees with no remorse, and where if you're not rich you probably can't afford much in the way of decent health care.
Quite frankly it's shameful. It's appalling. If it or any part of it was imposed upon us by force by another nation, we'd all go to war and support using nukes against them. But we do it to ourselves so we smile and nod and say 'oh he got cancer and went bankrupt and couldn't afford treatment and died' like that's the way things are supposed to be.
And then in our politics we fight over should we elect this loser or that psycho, should we have more guns or less guns, should we have more immigration or more border security, meanwhile upward mobility is down, quality of life is down, the wealth of the nation is being extracted by big companies, and we're too distracted by random shit to fix the underlying problems.
So if you think I'm one of the 'Murica, fuck yeah!' people, I'm not. I love my country and I'm proud to be American, but I'm not proud of what my nation has become lately.
I would agree with this, but it's not about guns (especially since most of those kids are shot with illegal guns by people who can't legally own guns).
The problem is poverty. And we do fuck all about that.
No, it's "not about guns". We still have guns, I have friends who have guns, I've shot and hunted. It's about having the adequate systems in place for BEFORE people get the guns. And yes there are lots of guns already, but not putting in limitations won't make that number drop will it? Not trying voluntary buy-backs won't get unwanted guns out of normal citizens homes. Not having adequate food, wealth, and access to education isn't going to reduce the amount of crime that scared regular Americans into thinking they need emotional support weapons. Just do something, fucking anything. It's not that nothing works, it's that you refuse to try what works elsewhere because you've been fooled into thinking you're special individual snowflakes, but your ravenous individuality has eroded any capacity you have for co-operation with your fellow Americans in securing your right to live.
There's 500 million legal privately owned guns in the US. If you assume an average value of $450, that's $225 billion.
If I had $225 billion to spend, I sure as fuck wouldn't spend it buying back guns. I'd fund mental health care, I'd fund education, I'd fund jobs programs.
These DO happen in a lot of places, on a local or state level. Doesn't have much effect because the people who commit the crimes are the ones with illegal guns who aren't gonna sell them.
We are stupid in that we refuse to try things like single payer health care.
But I suspect almost any gun policy you'd come up with has been tried somewhere in the USA.
What you're really missing is there are two kinds of gun owners in USA- law-abiding and criminal. The law-abiding ones aren't committing most of the gun crime. Look at the stats for defensive gun use (when a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime)- they aren't tracked by government so the data has to come from statistical surveys, but even the anti-gun people agree that DGUs happen 5-6x more often than firearm homicide.
Most DGUs end with no shots fired- criminal sees gun and runs away.
And with respect, this is a totally ignorant comment that's based on an anti-gun talking point and not any actual knowledge of American gun policy, gun ownership culture, stated reasons for owning guns, or anything other than conjecture and accusation.
You say 'try what works' (presumably referring to European-style gun control) but show no concept of understanding how truly difficult (damn near impossible) it would be to implement, even if a majority of the nation wanted it (which they don't). And you ignore the fact that much of what you call 'what works' HAS been tried, or is currently being tried.
I don't mean to insult you or personally attack you. But the fact is your accusations show little understanding of the REALITY of American gun ownership, why Americans buy and own guns, and what they do with them.
I'm happy to share what I know. But if your mind is concluded and closed, if you've just decided 'Americans are ammosexual hicks who refuse to give up their penis extenders to keep their own kids safe' and you are not open to even entertaining the possibility that reality is much more complex than that, then there's nothing I or anyone else can say.
If you want to understand, at least from one American's POV, like I said I'm happy to share. And IMHO it's fascinating- I wasn't always pro-gun, I wasn't raised around guns or gun culture, so what I know comes from my own independent research without most of the emotion you see in many gun arguments.
So my friend, can you try an open mind?
Boohoo, gun control is hard so we aren't gonna do it. Dead kids just gonna keep piling up till you do. Stop killing kids with your emotional support weapons you fucking cowards. How about that for opening your goddamned mind, or is the only mind opening you know the sort that happens with lead in American schools.
I don't know what nation you're from but America is nothing at all like this. Gun owners aren't like this.
People who don't understand American gun culture expect it's like GTA- everybody's strapped, fender-benders at traffic lights turn into firefights, don't dare tell anyone anything negative because they'll shoot you if they don't like what you say. This isn't at all the case though. Not even close.
Gun owners who carry guns look at it like a seat belt or fire extinguisher-- you hope to god you never need it, but if ever you do, having it might save your life. There is no action movie attitude of 'who do I shoot today?'. Gun owners recognize how serious a responsibility it is, and petty arguments rarely involve weapons fire, even in situations where everyone involved is armed.
We have a big problem with gun violence- but the majority of it is caused by our bigger problem of poverty and hopelessness in many areas. People turn to drugs, that are supplied by violent gangs who are all armed with illegal guns. Those guys commit the lion's share of our gun homicide.
Problem is, fixing it is a slow and expensive generational process. You need better schools, mental health care, child care, reproductive care, and real jobs for people to aspire to (not just flipping burgers). This costs billions.
If you want to criticize us for something- criticize us for spending billions/trillions on military (we have more military force than the next 10 nations combined, including all our major enemies) when our budgets are fucked and we can't even seem to take care of our own citizens. THAT is worthy of your criticism (and mine).
I'm not aware of another developed nation where getting cancer means you've got a good chance of going bankrupt. THAT ISN'T NORMAL and we should be fixing that shit.
What you say in this comment seems inconsistent with what you said in the previous one, namely that if you try to break into someone's stuff (e.g. an unoccupied parked car in this case) you should expect to be shot at. Going straight to deadly force to protect one's property is the bit people (at least, many non-Americans) think is not normal.
Finally a somewhat intelligent comment that isn't just restating a talking point.
You're (understandably) conflating as one position what is actually two
I think in general it should be legal to use deadly force to defend major property. IE I don't think it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum, but I think in many cases it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing larger items that make up a person's livelihood. I take this position not because I think human life is worth less than tools or cars (I don't feel that way) but because if you take any other position, you have a situation where the lawful owner of said property is legally required to basically sit there and watch while a criminal steals their shit.
Police aren't always seconds away. In much of the USA, police are tens of minutes or hours away.
What should be legal is one half of the coin, the other half is what I as a gun owner want to actually do.
To make an extreme example- I'm a strong advocate of the 1st Amendment (free speech). I believe I should have the right to take off all my clothes, cover the bare minimum in duct tape and cardboard, and walk down public streets telling all passers-by that I am the reincarnation of Napoleon and they should join my new army and help take over the world.
But while I support the right to do that, while I'd strongly advocate for that right, I have no desire to do such a thing myself.
As a gun owner, I have no desire to kill anyone ever. The same is true of virtually all gun owners I know, both online and off. (The one notable exception is a slightly nutty friend of mine who ended up joining the military and volunteered to go fight in Iraq/Afghanistan). There is nothing in my car that's worth taking a life for- even if the perpetrator is a lowlife criminal.
But I also take that as my choice to make for myself. Millions of gun owners would make the same choice- go on any gun forum or subreddit that deals with such things and you'll find few if any people suggesting that just shooting a guy who's stealing your unoccupied car is a good plan.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the reply. It makes sense, though I would jump off at a different point from you. I tend to feel that if it comes to life vs property, even the life of a robber who is making others miserable and afraid, life generally wins no matter what the property is. That is, I don't myself feel like it is ever worth taking a life to preserve property, and I hope that if I found myself in the situation of being robbed of something dear to me, I would be able to let the property go and the robber live, painful though it would be. But I also don't believe ethical questions can arrive at a final answer. There's too much nuance in every situation so I wouldn't propose this as "the right answer". It's just how I currently feel on the matter. Another aspect of this view is that while I wouldn't condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I'd understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
Thankfully I'm not a legislator so I don't need to try to codify this into law, and I appreciate your position, which seems that be that although you probably wouldn't yourself shoot in this situation, you don't think others should be branded criminals for doing so. I don't want to pronounce on that matter, but just to observe that your position is probably more common in the USA than in, for example, many European countries, hence it seeming unusual to many of us non-Americans.
And that is my position exactly.
Go on various self-defense subreddits or online forums, like /r/CCW, and you'll find a very similar attitude. There will be a couple who'd say 'shoot the thief' but the overwhelming majority take the position of 'you shoot to stop the threat, in self defense, only when necessary' and many would even take the position that it's a 'bad shoot' to shoot someone just breaking into a car. Confront them maybe, shoot them if they move to attack, but don't just shoot the guy in the back as he's stealing your MacBook.
The other issue is- while I'm not a legislator, I am a citizen of a representative democracy. So in a sense, it is my job to write the law, or at least, to make educated choices in what laws and policies I advocate for and against.
To that end, anyone making any law must consider that there will be times it backfires, doesn't apply correctly, etc. And whenever that happens, I'd always rather err on the side of giving the citizen defending themself or their property more leeway than providing additional protections to a criminal who's engaged in clearly illegal acts against said citizen (which necessarily means punishments for the citizen defending against said criminal).
Right. Except everybody leaves their fire extinguishers at home. And their fire extinguishers don't cause other fires. And they're not widely used by stupid incompetent people to cause harm either.
Your argument doesn't make any sense to any other normal sane person outside of the United States.
Using deadly force to kill someone should be hard to access and only be used when your own life is in danger. Which can be anytime, anywhere by anybody in the US because of how accessible it is.
Ending a life shouldn't be something anybody can do.
Like any tool, a gun can be used for good or evil. The vast majority of gun uses in the USA are 'defensive gun uses', which are legal gun owners stopping or preventing a crime. There's minimum 10x more DGUs than firearm homicides, perhaps 100x or even more.
But ending a life IS something anybody can do, and you don't need a gun to do it.
In many other contexts this would be downvoted to oblivion on Lemmy.
In many other contexts, this is fucking insane.
Why? Serious question. I'm getting down votes, if you disagree, then please engage and tell me why?
I’ve noticed a significant correlation between people who reject all contemplation of violence as ethical behavior, and those who refuse to engage in debate with those holding differing beliefs about ethics.
Well said.
In the words of Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Lot of not very educated minds in the world these days :(
And robbing someone's car isn't insane?
Exactly right. If the article says "home owner shoots armed robber attempting to kidnap children" you'd have people losing their minds about guns and violence. Also people would be upset that the person owned a home...
Who has ever been upset at people owning their own home?
I think it was a joke, made me laugh anyway.
Communists?
Yeah I've noticed :-( Lemmy overall seems much less tolerant of gun ownership or use of force than Reddit. Even when it is obviously justified.
The headline could be, "Good Samaritan opens fire to defend disabled orphan POC child and her blind 3-legged rescue kitten from white supremacist pedophile rape gang" and half the comments would be how the stupid hick Republican ammosexual who wants more school shootings is so worthless he needs to carry around a lethal penis extender.
But throw in a little criticism of government or police... Heh
Because a world where people are firing guns at each other all the time is INSANE, regardless of the context. Most of the developed world has figured this out.
If you look at the data, the vast majority of people who are 'firing guns at each other all the time' are gang members in low-income inner cities.
To distill a bunch of stats, half the people of the US own guns, and they own enough guns to arm the other half and have plenty left over.
Per FBI, there's about 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. That means on average an American has a 0.005% chance of being killed by a gun in any given year.
If we truly were 'firing guns at each other all the time' that number would be WAY WAY WAY WAY higher.
The whole point of equality is that we’re all supposed to have the same rights and responsibilities.
Couldn't agree more. Biden gets to protect his family with guns. I think you and me should have that right also.
If I take a shot without being sure I'm gonna hit a criminal, I'm in big trouble. But if a cop/guard does the same, oh well.
I don't like double standards.