- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmit.online
You must log in or # to comment.
This may be referencing a chart from CNN’s report on Small Arms Survey data, which includes many other statistics making the same point. Here’s another:
the data is taken directly from the small arms survey site.
This would be much more impactful if it actually balanced it compared to total suicide rates to demonstrate guns create a meaningful increase in suicide. Otherwise viewers will simply thing people are doing the same amount by other methods in other countries
It would help if you name these countries and their stats. Not giving you homework to do, but it is an empty statement to make after the OP posted actual data.
Happy to accept that the US isn’t a standalone if we see your information.
If we include many other countries, USA will be among the developing nations for high homicide rate due to guns. And I hope you get I’m trying to say because USA is supposed to be a safe and prosperous country. If the gun crime and homicide rate is on par with poorer countries…well…it’s not something to proud of or known as, for the self-declared best country in the world.
The only is a stop a good gun with a guy, is a bad gun with a guy! Two guns! Both guys.
Amazing how this topic/narrative surges whenever the chances of leftists and minorities arming themselves and/or actually doing something peak.
So what happened this time? Recent Performative Resistance/“No-Kings Protest” turn-out lower than expected? Higher? Someone show up armed and people talked to them instead of assuming they were a counter-protestor? Police and other local morons particularly brutal in a way the press couldn’t gloss?
Hmm, why did you exclude Switzerland, Mike?
it’s in there, it’s one of the unnamed blobs. 25 guns per 100 people, .5 deaths per 100 000 people. on par with portugal.
Because Americans don’t know where the continent of Switzerland is?
Comics like this are just preaching to the choir, and only the ones so fervent they’re blinded by their own self righteousness. It’s so obviously cherry picked and slanted if you’ve looked into the issues at play. It shows no respect for the reader at all, and likely only hardens the opinions of those it disagrees with.
You can’t convince anyone of anything with this kind of trollish virtue signal. It only exists to get the author pats on the back from people in their own camp.
This kind of shitty rhetoric harms the cause. You can’t win hearts and minds with blatant disrespect.
Why all the side issues. Is it true, or not?
If it is true, and I believe that it is, it may explain why you are triggered?
I see no disrespect. I see a good and valid point being made that a huge amount of Americans are oblivious to the obvious.
That is a cherry picked statistic. It is blatant propaganda.
Explain which bit is cherry picked and why? Is it disputed that the US has very high gun ownership and very high gun deaths when compared to other first world countries?
It doesn’t include countries with high gun ownership and low deaths. Gun ownership doesn’t actually necessarily correlate with gun violence. USA is a violent country for various other reasons.
I did a bit of research myself. A few Nordic countries, and New Zealand, have high gun ownership and low gun death rates.
It seems that the difference is that these countries have very high gun regulations, strict purchase and permit laws and restrictions on storage. I’m not an American, but in truth, is this the case in the US? For instance, none of these countries permit handgun open carry. In Australia owning a handgun at all is next to impossible (almost) and the requirements hardly make it worthwhile for target shooters.
You’re totally right
What’s missing here are all the counties where guns are prohibited, period, and where basically there are no gun deaths because doh.
It’s easy to just throw this as “cherry picked” but it’s a basic fact that the US has ab insane amount of gun violence whereas counties with strict gun laws have little gun violence and countries with extremely strict gun laws have practically no gun violence because there aren’t any guns to use to begin with
You bad guns, you ban gun violence, period
The mental health issue that is constantly brought up is a separate issue that should of course also be fixed, it’s just that the US thinks it’s a good idea to have extremely bad mental health support mixed with free guns when you open up a bank account.
Hey, look, it’s divisive rhetoric!
Crimes and violence are caused by unjustified heirarchies, in particular, the ruling class ruling over the working class.
You know what would reduce school shootings? Publicly funded mental health services for young people.
This kind of post is aimed at dividing the working class into two groups, pro-gun, and anti-gun. Refuse to give in to their messaging. Solidarity across the WHOLE working class!
Nah dude, I’m sure we will all be drowning in peace once only ICE, police and the US military have all the guns :D
nothing on this comic advocates against publicly funded mental health services
My point is that we can fight together to advance our mutual goals instead of arguing amongst ourselves while the tides of a far greater battle are turning against us.
Fight the ruling class, the rest of our problems will be much easier to solve once they are removed from power.
Sure, but know what else would reduce school shootings?
Less guns.
Would it? Is that the only solution?
Why do Yemen and Switzerland have such high ownership and no school shootings?
Don’t get me wrong, less guns would be good for many reasons. And I think we can get there, eventually. But right now, I have zero confidence that our government is fit to enforce any law fairly. Neonazis are openly running the DoD and ICE, this is not the time to dial back the Bill of Rights.
As well some of those numbers tend to skew. There’s those who have a shotgun as opposed to the images of Republicans during the holidays where everyone in the family has their own AR and we don’t know what else they own.
Which is more likely, funding for better mental health services as a whole or removing guns from the unwilling?
So, Australia doesn’t publicly fund mental health treatment and still hav3 way, way less gun deaths.
We also have way less guns.
You guys have stock standard excuses. None of them are true.
Boy, I bet it’s that simple of a solution and not multifaceted of a problem. Not to mention I don’t think Australia is in the middle of a literal fascist take over, so you know, might as well disarm to be helpless, right? Seriously, the child like mentality of guns being bad when there’s social ills that plague society that results in more violence overall, not just gun violence, is annoying.
How about both? Why do you pretend it’s one or the other?
Give free mental health support AND prohibit guns. Best of both worlds
Oh yes, gun nutters will murder people if you try and take their guns away. They will also just murder people period.
There is no mental help for these terrorists.
I’m a firm believer of firearm ownership, especially for the marginalized groups in the USA right now. That said we need better mental health services and people who have a distinct lack of empathy should not own one to begin with.
Yes, arm both sides like the fascist love to do. Clearly you have the wool pulled over your eyes.
Removal of firearms is also a fascist thing. I’d rather have an armed trans person next to me than a RWNJ. That trans person is higher likely to be mentally stable, trained, and practiced. As well given the targeting of trans people to marginalize them to the point that they can then be exterminated as is the Heritage Foundation’s plan, I’m going to say you have a lousy take.
Giving guns to trans isn’t going to solve the problem and you should be ashamed for suggesting it is anything other than setting people up to be killed. Your take is impossibly dumb.
Right now? Neither.
It’d be a good start to just conduct proper tests before handing people firearm permits. People who can barely read or who rage when you honk at them should never be allowed to own, let alone carry firearms.
It should be noted that this chart compares gun homicides to gun ownership, which… of course those will correlate
If we plotted kangaroo injuries vs kangaroos per capita, we’d see a similar outlier in Australia
It would be more useful to see gun ownership compared to total homicides, to see if an overabundance of guns correlates with more murders. Even then, though, a correlation between the two might not be casual in that direction. It may instead be that in areas with a high homicide rate, people are more likely to own a firearm for defense.
What you would need to prove is that places with high gun ownership have significantly higher homicide rates, but places with high homicide rates don’t have significantly higher rates of gun ownership
Well for most of the named countries using all homicides versus gun homicides makes little difference.
australia 0.8 belgium 1.08 canada 1.8 france 1.3 portugal 0.72 spain 0.69 usa 5.76
What you should look up is homicides/non-homicide crimes against gun ownership. You will find that the US does not in general have more crime except for homicides.
You also are not going to find a country with anywhere near the gun ownership that the US has, so I suppose your are safe there.
My problem with this dataset is, it combines US in one dot, while all other countries crowd at the corner. I failed to see a trend saying “more guns = more gun homicide”.
If there is a chart showing that state by state, presumably regresses to a line, that I can get behind.
That’s exactly the point! The whole, “it’s the owner, not the gun” argument is dumb. If you have more guns, you have more gun-related homicides – as simple as that.
When the populace don’t have easy access to guns, then that’s one weapon less they can use to hurt others.
Another interesting tidbit is that homicides (among all violent crime) have fallen steadily since 1993 in the US, while firearms ownership has increased.
Don’t think everyone needs or should own a gun. But of course if you compare gun ownership to gun related deaths it’s generally going to be higher when more guns per capita are present. You can do the same thing with cars, lawn mowers, dogs and even vending machines. The more of a thing there is, of course there is going to be more deaths and injuries related to it.
Finally, proof that homicides cause gun ownership
I know you mean this as a joke but does that not make sense with US history?
A lot of killing causes people to own guns, a lot of guns causes a lot of killings, and repeat.
The chicken or the egg
Yes, just a joke.
I’d have a hard time preparing for a school shooting or similar, simply based on the mere lack of guns in my environment. I think I held an actual gun in my hand once in my life and that was in Murica. And it was a civil war times rifle. Not sure I’d even be able to do a shoot without hurting myself.
Fucking liberals. It’s a graph showing “gun deaths” which you’re conflating with “murders.” Which is intentional; you’re being deceived, and propagating the deception.
Here’s a simple breakdown from an anarchist responding to this standard milquetoast liberal argument a few years ago:
Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.
And according to the defensive gun use (DGU) data The Violence Policy center (which is extremely anti-gun fyi) gives the low range estimates at ~67,000 DGUs per year. Consider this the extreme low:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
FYI most estimates put it far higher, including the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
So how about guns killing? Statistics show only .0005% of gun owners commit a gun related crime. Best estimates put gun ownership at 37% in America, and that was in 2013, the number today is estimated to be closer to 45% but lets go with the smaller number to do the math conservatively. So America has population of 318 million people. So the number of gun owners is 318,000,000 x .37 = 117,660,000 Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ So we have ~117,660,000 gun owners. What is the latest FBI statistic on violent crime? FBI database shows ~11,000 fatal gun crimes a year. The study linked in the OP including suicides is beyond BS. So 117,660,000 / 11,000= .0000934897 = 99.99065% But there is a problem with this number, it doesn’t take into account illegal gun ownership and assumes the legal gun owners are the ones causing all the crime. This source shows 90% of homicides involved illegally bought or sold guns, or owners who where previously felons: Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html So for fun lets re-run the numbers to differentiate between criminals and non criminals. Since a felony record disbars you from legally owning a firearm, yet 90% of murders are committed by those with felony records, we know only 10% of murders are committed by legal gun owners. So we have ~11,000 murders, ten percent of which are committed by previously law abiding gun owners. So that is 1,100 murders. So we have 117,660,000 law abiding gun owners commenting 1,100 murders, which comes out to 99.999065% So yes 99.999065% of Legal gun never murder someone. Only .000045% of them become murders. So as you can see, the stats clearly show that guns do not increase the likelihood of violent crime, or cause anyone to be less safe, quite the opposite as the DGU data shows.
So using the high estimates for gun violence, and the low estimates for DGUs, DGUs outnumber use of a legally held weapon in a deadly violence by ~60 times.
Also: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F13504851.2013.854294 & http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013
&
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
&
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294
&
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/01/using_placebo_l.html
&
&
https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/2#2
You are just wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. If you want an even more simple summary, the “moar guns moar death” BS is just hilariously wrong on the face of it. According to the Washington Post, civilian firearms ownership has increased from ~240 million (1996) to ~357 million (2013) (For reference to the figures below, it shows about 325 million guns in 2010). According to Pew Research, the firearms homicide death rate fell from ~6 per 100,000 persons (1996) to 3.6 per 100,000 (2010). So according to these figures, between 1996 and 2010, the number of civilian firearms increased by ~35%. Over the same time period, firearms homicide deaths decreased by ~40%. If you want to focus on ccw specifically, fine that shows the same thing. Rather do murder per 100,000 globally? Sure thing. And that is where you get your GINI connect fyi. The correlation is a lot stronger than gun ownership. This has been looked at and somehow keeps getting forgotten. You don’t pick up a gun to hurt someone because it is your first choice, you generally do it because it is your last. Inequality, desperation, the effects of capitalism in the third world and increasingly the first, drastically increase this.
Real anarchists know this, and know that anything attempt to restrict the rights of the proles is class war.
“i mean, you don’t really think a popular army could challenge the authority of any sovereign great power state like US or China do you???”
I’m sorry but if you think this, you simply do not understand military conflict in the 21st century or historically. Allow me to give you a few examples that will quickly show you the reality of the situation ( which is that the U.S. military stands no chance what-so-ever against even a moderate proportion of the population rising en-mass).
Iraq and Afghanistan: In over 10 years resistance has never been stamped out, in countries with much smaller populations than ours (both <1/10th), despite our massive technological advantages. This is with significant infighting in both countries.
Vietnam: A country of less than 1/10th our population was subjected too more bombing than was used in all of WWII and began the conflict less well armed than the US public is now. We lost handily.
There are countless more examples from all across the globe (From Russia to Nicaragua, From Columbia to Kurdistan, etc.) that unequivocally show armed populations can crush organized militaries, or at the very least resist them effectively for extended periods of time.
This is not even count the even more obvious problem with your statements: Almost 100 million Americans are armed (the number of which would likely grow in this event) armed with over 300,000,000 guns including almost 500,000 machine guns (although to be fair most are sub-machine guns). You’d have to do this with a combined army and police force (including reserves) of a little over 2million (with no desertion or refusal of orders). Mass defection and resistance from within the military and police would be very common. These US soldiers have families and friends in the civilian world, and many (like the oathkeepers) are dedicated to NOT engaging those targets with violence. There would be massive resistance in the ranks, it would be at best chaos. However even if this were NOT the case (which it is) and it was an army of automatons, the sheer number of armed citizens would be so overwhelming as for it not to matter much. That’s not to say any conflict wouldn’t be a BRUTAL and costly affair, but with enough participants from the public the conclusion would be forgone.
An armed proletariat obviously helps to balance the power equation between the public and those in power, to the point that exploitation beyond a certain point and conflict becomes EXTREMELY unattractive to those in power. In a similar manner to nuclear weapons an armed populace acts as a DETERRENT to elite exploitation and violence. In other words this conflict (that the people would likely win all things considered) isn’t likely to occur and for good reason. Those in power squeeze any opportunity to do so as much as they possibly can, and if you give an inch, they take a mile. I wish it wasn’t so but that is just the way they operate. In addition, taking away weapons from the population while leaving them in the hands of the government of almost ANY kind of weapon (AR to SAW to whatever) is a horrible idea, given that the government has proven they are far less responsible than it’s citizens. My entire post gives all the reasons why removing power from citizens and giving it to those in power is a horrific idea with terrible historic consequences.
All revolutions historically had bloodshed, and those in power do not give it up without a fight.
4,000+ child deaths this year compared to zero everywhere else. Keep telling yourself guns aren’t the problem when it is now the number one killer of children. Impossibly dumb.
“Defensive gun use” is horseshit. Statistics clearly show that owning a gun increases the risk that anyone in the household (including children) will die by homicide, suicide or unintentional injuries. The amount of successful defensive uses of a gun pales in comparison to the number of preventable injuries and deaths that gun ownership brings.
The only defensive weapon is a ballistic shield.
If you actually looked at the statistics, you’d know that’s not the case. Defensive gun use is not horseshit, but being a privileged liberal is.
Guns are a tool of equality for all manner of marginalized and dispossessed people.
How frightening it is that the statistical likelihood of accidental injury goes up for a family when a parent goes from carless to owning a car. It’s bullshit that we don’t have ubiquitous, safe public transit, but it’s also bullshit to demonize the most effective tool for the family’s to thrive in capitalism.
Oh look the liar lies.
Yikes capitalist apologist liberals get real mask off around guns
Oh look another bootlicker for the gun industry.
Sure, just like Guevara, and the anarcho-syndicalists of the CNT, we care for nothing more than the corporations? The fuck. Get class conscious, you’re clearly a boot-licking liberal
Listen, gun manufacturers pushing death on our society is not about class solidarity. Keep telling yourself that as you lick their boots.
no
The US seems to be a huge outlier on both axes. You would have to exclude it to make any sense of the data.
Don’t worry, they instead excluded countries like Switzerland that have high gun ownership with nonexistent homicide rates. So is all good. Also, including only gun homicides instead of all homicides, as if it is suprising that people use the weapon available to them. I guess as long as people are stabbed to death instead of shot, is all good.
I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.
It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
Comics like the one in OP always ignore the primary underlying difference between US and the other developed nations: free, nationalized healthcare vs the Insurance Apocalypse that is the American healthcare system
It’s not just heathcare.
It’s social services period. Safety nets. Security.
The US tells people to get fucked then arms them and wonders why this shit happens.
Yup. If Americans struggling with poor mental health had better access to professional help, crime as a whole would go down. But it’s not the only factor. Things like financial strain and environment also contribute. Crime is a slippery slope. Not a leap.
Agreed, but financial strain is part of what keeps people from getting care in the USA
Free healthcare would alleviate some of that
Agreed, but it’s a vicious cycle.
It does cost money to provide healthcare. Funding doesn’t come from thin air. But healthcare in the U.S is also ridiculously expensive. A lot of people can’t afford it without insurance (if your insurance even covers what you need). The system needs fixing.
Americans pay 10x per capita for their healthcare, compared to other countries like the Nordics or Germany. Still, the costs of the war on Iran would have funded public healthcare for all for how long? Decades?
Americans subisdize Israelis free healthcare that includes access to abortion care
It does cost money to provide healthcare. Funding doesn’t come from thin air.
Then tax the rich. There’s no reason for Jeff Bezos to pay less money than someone flipping burgers at McDonald’s.
Unfortunately we’re caught in a Republican scheme to remove government benefits by gutting taxes that was started during Nixon’s adminitration
I don’t disagree with you there
Exactly this. If the US had proper social safety nets and low income inequality, all violence (which includes gun violence) would drop.
Also note that the arguments like in the OP only ever mention gun violence. It seems dishonest that they need to be that specific to get the narrative they want.
Well it’s a start.
You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.
Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.
In the end it will still require banning guns.
True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)
That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
Not making a specific argument for or against your argument, but I’d like to object to this like:
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
I’ve seen this argument used a lot, but it’s a broad generalization. You are assuming all criminals are the hardest criminals who will disobey any law, but a lot of law breakers and a lot of gun violence perpetrators are first time offenders, or someone who thinks they can get away with minor things.
A lot of people will do legally ambiguous stuff if there’s a low chance of being caught and punished but wouldn’t put themselves on the line for more heavily enforced things, plus even just the hint of illegality will put a type of social pressure on someone.
Will hardcore criminals still get and use guns? Absolutely. Are all gun deaths perpetrated by hardcore criminals? Absolutely not. Even that annoying brandishing couple at the BLM protests a while back would likely not have had the courage to bring out their weapons were it illegal to do so, since they tended to abuse law and loopholes rather than outright break them. They’re a milder case, but the point works with others who carry for “personal protection” but are a little too trigger happy. Plus stuff like legally owned but carelessly stored etc.
Are you saying that committing a mass shooting is legally ambiguous and people think they are likely to get away with it? Because buying a registered firearm in the U.S. Isn’t illegal. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You’re also kind of implying that people who do shootings are mostly opportunistic, when in reality there are likely other factors at play.
Nah, I’m mostly saying it isn’t black and white. It will have some effect on all layers, but I agree it wouldn’t stop all violence. To take your note about school shootings; yes, many of them are from legally purchased firearms, often a parent or something. Not all of course, so a gun ban would probably reduce, but not eliminate, school shootings. Plus outright bans aren’t the only form of gun control the US hasn’t tried, there are multiple things that can be done to limit without outright ban guns.
That’s true, and I can’t argue with you there. Banning guns would solve some problems, but you’d also be opening pandora’s box.
Given the US’ history with guns, banning them would almost certainly fuel a violent black market, making it easier than it already is for criminals to illegally obtain unregistered firearms. And with an estimated 400 million guns already in existence in the US, it would be really difficult to enforce, even if you did manage to pass a law. And loopholes exist like gun shows and private sales.
Regulating but not banning outright would be a slightly better solution, but it wouldn’t be a silver bullet (pun not intended).
I’ve always said banning guns doesn’t make violent people incapable violence. Trying it during a time where we can 3D print guns isn’t really realistic. Its a cultural issue.
Well said
Trying it during a time where we can 3D print guns
Firstly, you don’t need a 3D printer to make a gun. Any plumbing store in America can sell you the supplies you need to make a gun.
Secondly, 3D printers make shit guns. Plastic has a low melting point and high elasticity. You’ll get off two shots if you’re lucky, before your bullets are firing sideways.
Thirdly, you don’t just need a gun. You need ammunition. And ammunition is much more difficult/hazardous to produce.
If you’re crazy enough to decide you want to become a revolutionary/reactionary anti-government insurgent, you’d be stupid to try and make your own gun from scratch. Bombs are easier to manufacture, simpler to deploy, and much more effective against the kind of people an anti-government activist has beef with.
I think you’re really underestimating 3d printed guns. There are some alarmingly reliable 3d printed 9mm semi-auto carbines that can be constructed with zero gun parts (source: I built one back when it was still legal in my state, but destroyed the receiver when registration became mandatory)
You’re correct about ammo, but I’m pretty sure making a bomb without reliable, stable explosive compounds is extremely dangerous
There are some alarmingly reliable 3d printed 9mm semi-auto carbines that can be constructed with zero gun parts
I have seen 3D guns in action and they have never failed to disappoint.
Maybe a professional gunsmith can turn cheap extruded plastic into something useful. But then they can just make a real proper gun.
You’re correct about ammo, but I’m pretty sure making a bomb without reliable, stable explosive compounds is extremely dangerous
Sure. Both of these hobbies are of dubious benefit and serious safety issues
There are many different polymers with a much higher thermal resistance and elasticity. You wouldn’t use PLA.
The gun used to take out UHC CEO was 3d printed. Wired did a cool video on it
Was it? I don’t believe they ever actually recovered the murder weapon
The people of Myanmar used 3D printed guns to overthrow their government.
I’m starting to think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
The people of Myanmar used 3D printed guns to overthrow their government.
No they didn’t. They’re in the midst of a horrifying civil war with no end in sight. The current military junta is massacring people by the score with airstrikes. Over 5M people have been displaced.
I’m starting to think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Are you looking into a mirror?
While the data might be cherry picked, one thing that can’t be displayed here is motivation. In Canada, a decent number of people have guns, but you can’t carry firearms with you, you have to take highly specific routes while transporting any restricted hand guns. The role of guns is sport shooting and hunting and it’s highly regulated for those.
In the USA, guns are intended to be used to kill other civilians. Owning a gun for self-defense purposes is buying with the intention that you may one day use it to kill another human. Not an enemy combatant in war, but a fellow citizen with a gun.
It’s only a feeling, but I feel like that might be the biggest distinction between the USA and other (omitted) high-gun-per-capita countries. Guns in the USA aren’t for mitary drafting or protection against a national invasion.
There’s also the matter of training and licensing. A buddy in the USA was staunchly opposed to gun licensing. When I said that in Canada, it just helps ensure that people know how to maintain their gun and use it safely, he said, “Well the people who don’t take the time to learn how to maintain it and use it safely just shouldn’t get it in the first place”, which I’m sure is a popular enough sentiment, but it’s also the argument for licensing. The zero barrier for entry approach is also a problem.
I’d love to see more nuanced stats than this 4-panel comic is presenting.
Guns in America, to me, are a perfect representation of the fallacy of personal responsibility.
Let’s take a scenario that, while tragic, has happened in the USA; a small boy of less than 6 finds a gun, plays with it, and shoots their baby sibling. The common refrain from responsible gun owners is: “You should’ve kept it locked and trained your family to use it responsibly!”
But who’s “you”? The shooter? The victim? One was killed and one was traumatized. The parent? They didn’t suffer nearly as much as the others.
So it’s not even the only issue where I hear “We need parents to be more responsible!” but simply saying that won’t change the number of drunk deadbeat parents putting zero effort into their children; and potentially leading other real human beings to suffer for it.
In terms of assigning responsibility, this is an easy one.
“You” refers to the firearm’s owner. Firearm ownership comes with a high degree of responsibility. It means knowing and following the four rules, at least two of which must be broken at the same time for someone to get hurt. It means maintaining a reasonable degree of control over that firearm at all times, whether it’s on your person or being stored.
If anyone is “finding” a firearm, reasonable precautions were not taken to secure that firearm.
These cases all boil down to gross negligence on the owner’s part. Legally and logically, the owner should be the one to suffer the consequences.
Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, the incident gets treated as a “tragedy” and legal consequences do not get applied.
So yeah, haul the parent to court, and then sit the traumatized child down and tell them “Good news! The law has correctly identified the negligent party in this incident. You may be eligible for up to $1mil in damages!”
while he’s sitting there crying over his dead sibling. Better, you want to extend this case to a school shooting? Go announce to 30 parents that “We worked out who is negligent!” You discover common, repeating human ignorance after the fact, and nobody is saved.
The fact that some people in our society are negligent is an expected outcome. That’s why your friend will yell at you one night when you take his car keys away, and then thank you the next day when he’s sober. The point is that society can plan better for that negligence, rather than just pat themselves on the back for spotting it.
I think there is a distinction between responsibility and blame. I don’t think blame is easy to assign here, but responsibility is, the parents are responsible. Doesn’t really change anything after the fact, but I also wouldn’t say that the idea of personal responsibility is a fallacy. But just saying that people should be more responsible doesn’t actually change the situation, you’re right.
I live in Jersey and based on what you’ve written we have similar laws regarding guns, and you’re not going to believe this, but we consistently end up as one of the states with the least gun-related crimes. It must just be some crazy coincidence.
Seeing that reminds me, as atrocious as that is… the numbers are miniscule compared to the biggest killer. Pharma.
where is switzerland? on the chart, this often gets touted as the counterpoint
On this chart Norway would also be listed with 29 guns per person. These are owned by only 10% of the population however, and automatic rifles are banned for civilians. I don’t disagree with the sentiment of this meme, but it’s cherry picking data in exactly the same manner as “the other side” would do just for a cheap gotcha argument.
These are owned by only 10% of the population however
Thats the case in America too, iirc like 30% of households have at least 1 gun, and if you assume 4 people per household, and 1.25 gun per American, that means the average gun-owning household has 16 guns.
It makes a lot of sense to own more than one gun. For self defense you might own one shotgun, one handgun, and a smaller handgun for concealed carry. If you’re a hunter, you likely want two rifles in different calibers, a shotgun, and a hand gun. In addition to that you might have an old gun laying around or grandpa’s old hunting gun, a range toy, some historic gun you like for some reason. Sport target shooters will have a few different guns, depending on what disciplines they shoot. Then there are also more serious collectors who might have dozens or hundreds of different firearms.
Yes. What’s the point of owning a firearm if you can’t have a gun for when you’re sleeping in your bedroom, a gun when you’re on the toilet, a gun when you’re on the couch watching the TV, a gun when you’re at the front door greeting guests, a gun when you’re driving your F150, a gun for that second amendment right, a gun when you go grocery shopping, a gun when you go buying clothes, a gun to go with your Tony Montana cosplay and you know, a gun just for fun. What are you supposed to do? Go outside without a gun? Use one gun for all those things? Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
You don’t need all those guns. You want all those guns.
Don’t you know switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading?
We call this the New York Reload and strapping down with like six pistols is a legitimate tactic.
Very true. People have all kinds of stuff they don’t actually need, but just like having.
I’m not sure the number of guns someone owns makes a difference regarding public safety and gun crime.
I support stricter gun laws in the US, registered ownership, some kind of license, sales only through licenses dealers, restricted advertising, waiting times, safe storage requirements, etc. A lot of gun regulations in the US are not very effective and more symbolic. Bothering legal owners more doesn’t necessarily help with violent crimes using firearms.
Fundamentally the main reasons for gun crime are social and can improved without changing gun regulations.
I agree. The main reasons for crime are social and in America that should definitely be improved upon, but have you questioned why specifically gun related crimes are so high compared to let’s say knife-related crimes? Because in Europe it’s probably the opposite, knife-related crimes are higher than gun-related crimes.
Yes, easy gun availability makes gun crime more likely. If you think your victim might have a gun, you want to use a gun to rob them. Knives are very deadly weapons as well and very hard to regulate.
In many European countries it’s easier to get a gun illegally than legally.
Any kind of registration of ANYTHING in the US is a bad idea. Especially at a time where the federal government is openly genocidal towards certain minorities, especially trans people. Having a list of trans people who own guns would be free eats for them if they declared every single one a terrorist or enemy of the state.
A valid concern.
A gun registry wouldn’t list if people are trans or not though. A list of trans people you would get through healthcare and insurance. Changes of a legal name is probably registered somewhere as well. So they would need to cross reference.
If they want to go after trans people individually, they would go for leaders and activists first. They are easily found on social media nowadays. Then go after organized groups.
An individual armed trans person is much less of a concern, than organized groups armed or not.
Who are you to tell how many of those someone needs? If someone isn’t a murderous psychopath it does not matter how many guns they have cause exactly none of them will be used on a person.
Let’s me rephrase it then. You can want to have all those guns but it’s not sensible to have all those guns.
The argument here is that it’s sensible to have so many guns. It’s not sensible because even among Americans the median gun owner owns 2 guns. You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
You don’t need a shotgun, a handgun, a concealed carry gun and a whole other set of guns for hunting and whole other set of guns for the shooting range etc. That is not sensible, that is just someone wanting a whole lot of guns.
What you described in the first sentence is entirely reasonable, you just don’t understand it.
Here’s an evaluation based strictly on cost.
My hunting rifles cost something like $2 per round or more to fire. If I want to go to the range and practice technique firing 50 to 100 times is normal. This is a cost of $100 to $200 dollars.
My plinking, or training, rifles on the other have a cost of about 4 cents per round to fire. So now a practice day at the range is below $5.
However I cannot hunt with a training rifle, it’s caliber is far too small.
It’s the same with shotguns and handguns. The heavier ones are necessary for real activities but they cost a lot to train with. The smaller caliber ones are much less expensive to train with but aren’t useful for real work.
What you are missing, IMO, is that firearms are tools and people who use their tools tend to own more than one of each.
TBH if you’re a hunter you DO need different guns, because a gun for deer is overkill for something like wolves/boars but mostly useless against something like a bear. But aside from that, if I did live in the US I would be a collector, but the only guns I’d seriously plan to buy brand new would be a carry pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. And as long as they’re following the law and no one’s getting hurt, I don’t think it matters how many guns one could have.
Ah yes, the two genders, completely sane “piles of guns” owner and raging psychopath.
Nuance doesn’t exist, accidents don’t happen and a mostly overlooked societal mental health crisis is woke DEI propaganda.
It makes a lot of sense to own more than one gun
It’s hard to tell for me if this is meant as satire.
On this chart Norway would also be listed with 29 guns per person. These are owned by only 10% of the population however
Wait, so you’re saying the average Norwegian gun owner owns 290 guns? That sounds very implausible.
Yeah, the numbers seem wild to me. I live in Norway. I have family who lives up north among polar bears, so they have gun for bear protection. My in-laws do some hunting, so they have a few hunting rifles. I feel like my family and in-laws are far above the regular citizens when it comes to gun count per person, but it still averages to around 0.5 guns per person among us. I don’t know anyone in Norway who owns a gun to defend against other humans. Who are these 10%?
I think carrying the guns around plays a big role too
Also the social safety net and availability of (mental) healthcare, it’s not like Europe doesn’t have some glaring problems in that regard but holy shit is it better than whatever the US is doing.
yeah the type of firearm would be very useful data
next to germanybetween Portugal and Canada. according to small arms survey, which supplied the data, switzerland has about 25 guns per 100 people and .5 deaths per 100k people..5 deaths per 100 people.
You mean per 100,000 people, right?
yeah, fixed
Thank god 😅
Alright, thanks for confirming!
Total homicides, total deaths, firearm homicides, or firearm deaths? Because the graph in the comic is intentionally misleading that way.
violent killings involving firearms, i think it said
So mostly suicides then
don’t think so actually, have a look.
Switzerland distributes a lot of firearms, particularly through their mandatory military service. But Switzerland also very tightly controls the supply of ammunition for all of those firearms they issue.
Uhm not really, I have multiple family members which store quite a bit of ammunition at home and while noone might get them by accident you could easily get the guns and the ammo if you wanted to.
Controlling supplies doesn’t mean they can’t get some, just that they had to jump through quite a few hoops to get it.
What hoops? Being 18? Not having psychological issues, not having been in serious legal trouble before? That’s about it.
The issue the USA has is how they treat weapons, as toys, not as deadly tools we can appreciate and yet should respect and only handle safely.
Can’t shoot your gun if you don’t have ammo.
Which get very stricktly regulated in Switzerland
Czechia and Austria are also worth putting on this chart.
