lilmamabear9:

guns-and-freedom:

amonsteronmaplestreet:

horsefly7553:

evil-shenanigans-alpha:

arizonagunguy:

guns-and-freedom:

vibrant-vivacious:

People talk about gun control in the abstract like it only affects their weekend entertainment of shooting cans and negroes (I mean let’s be honest about who is truly pro-gun heh) but honestly if guns were readily available and affordable to everyone the odds of me being alive a week from today are about 0.1%.

You know who is for gun rights? American citizens including but not limited to:

White people

Black people 

Asian people

Religious people 

LGBT+

You know who really is for gun rights, America is for gun rights 

There are over 330,000,000 legally owned firearms in this country, the least you could do is get our community properly represented. 

Op. why do you open your mouth?

Because they need a place to keep their foot.

If guns were legal and affordable to all, your chances of being alive next week with a gun of your own are a lot better than they’d be if you just whined about guns and didn’t buy one. Firearms are tools for defense. Like any other tool, they can be abused. Unlike most other tools, guns have tons of laws regulating how you can use, store, transport, sell, and what kind of guns we can own in America, and that level of regulation is not only patently absurd, it’s insulting to the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Alright.

Let’s look at the facts then; with sources!

Keep in mind that gun violence in America cannot be investigated by the CDC, so I’ll have to go off non-government reports here. But keep that little detail in mind, please. I’ll most definitely be coming back to it.

It seems over 30,000 people in the US are killed by guns each year. Of these deaths, only about 1/3 are homicides. Under 2% are the result of accidental firings. And whopping 2/3 are suicides. (source 1) (source 2)

Turns out most methods of suicide are either unreliable or take too long, giving time for the attempter to rethink things and back out. This is good because suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Guns, however, are the single most effective form of suicide, and are instantaneous. This has resulted in a weird statistical correlation wherein you are more likely to kill yourself if you own a gun. I’ve commonly seen it argued that owning a gun makes you twice as likely to kill yourself, but some sources I’ve seen put it at 3 times as likely. (source 1) (source 2) (this is a personal point for me, btw. I’m a suicide risk, and it is for this reason that I refuse to own a gun. When my rommate said she was considering getting one, I asked her that she never tells me where she keeps it)

I want to draw attention to source 2 there. I was only looking for the suicide figures, but it turns out there’s a statistical correlation between owning a gun and getting murdered with one too. I’m not sure why, other than perhaps if you own a gun, you’re more likely to be around other people who own guns?

Regardless, the argument that owning a gun makes you safer seems to not hold up when looking at the statistics. It actually correlates with increased risk of violent death, which supports the OP’s claim.

Of course, now we come to the big question: does more gun control lead to less gun deaths? And the answer, it seems, is a resounding “Sometimes?”.

This is where it gets murky. Different countries/states have implemented different kinds of gun bans and regulations, with wildly different results. In US cities like DC and Chicago, gun bans have had pretty much zero effect on violent crime rates. In the UK, violent crime actually rose following the institution of stricter gun laws. Meanwhile, in places like Germany, Japan, and Australia, gun control has been wildly successful, and led to massively reduced deaths. This doesn’t even get into the difficulties presented to gun control by a global economy. (source 1) (source 2) (source 3)

None of the countries with successful gun control laws have blanket gun bans. While Japan bans handguns to civilians, there are certain kinds of firearms you may purchase, so long as you pass a weeks-long class to get a license. Australia instituted a buy-back program, wherein the government purchased guns from its citizens, but allows multiple classes of firearms to be still be legally purchased. Germany, as far as I can tell, outright bans very few types of firearms, but heavily regulates the buying and selling of all guns. In terms of gun violence, it is one of the safest countries in Europe.

This brings me to the topic of regulation in America, and the vaunted Second Amendment. Surely it bans such draconian measures, yes? Well, no. It takes a very liberal (that’s general “liberal” not political “liberal” obviously) reading of the Second Amendment to get “Gun regulations are verboten” out of it.

And of course, there’s the question of whether or not the Second Amendment even actually promises individual ownership of firearms to American citizens. That has actually been the subject of much debate. While individual ownership is a common interpretation, others (including Supreme Court Justices) believe that the “well regulated militia” bit is the important part. In fact, the idea that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership was only accepted by SCOTUS in 2008. Prior to that, Supreme Court rulings had not come down in favor of that interpretation. The individual ownership interpretation only became dominant in the latter half of the 20th century thanks to the efforts of the NRA. (source 1) (source 2) (source 3) (yes, Wikipedia is cited there, but the section I cited is heavily cited itself, so I’m comfortable enough in the information presented to cite it)

Which brings me to those guys. The National Rifle Association. Whoo boy. I’ve tried to keep this relatively unbiased, but I’m only human, so biases naturally leak into my writing (protip: there is no such thing as an unbiased source). So by now, you can probably tell that I’m on the Pro Gun Control side of this debate. With that said, in this context, I am grateful to the NRA. Every narrative needs a villain, and the with the NRA I don’t even need to try to spin things.

First, let’s dispel the notion that the NRA represents gun owners. They do not. The NRA is a lobbying group funded by gun manufacturers. To the NRA, gun owners are convenient stooges. After all, everyone likes fighting for Rights, right? How can you go wrong if you’re fighting for Rights? So there’s an easy way for them to fire up support for policies that exist primarily for their corporate masters to sell more guns. (source)

Further evidence that the NRA doesn’t give a shit about you, the responsible individual gun owner: the NRA opposes actions that even if its own “members” support, and less than 10% of all gun owners in the country are members anyway. But there they are, pushing the narrative that more guns make you more safe (see above) and that all regulation is evil. You’ll note both of these are pretty convenient for gun manufacturers.

Oh, and their finances are shady as fuck.

So, in conclusion, guns are dangerous (no shit), a higher number of guns does not make you safer, owning a gun actually makes you less safe, and the Second Amendment doesn’t offer blanket protections for one industry.

I leave you with a link to an explanation of “Truthiness”, since that concept seems to form the basis of pretty much every argument I see put forward by gun advocates.

Well you put a lot of work into this post it would be a shame if 

Keep in mind that gun violence in America cannot be investigated by the CDC

This is entirely false, as a matter of fact the CDC did conduct research on gun violence under the Obama administration. [link to the study itself] Truth is the study backfired in the face of Obama and gun control advocates, the fact that you are willing to openly make this claim shows how little research you put into this post.  Oh yeah one small little tick about the study, the CDC found there was roughly 500,000-3,000,000 firearms used to protect people. 

But keep that little detail in mind, please. I’ll most definitely be coming back to it.

Don’t bother, I got you covered. 

It seems over 30,000 people in the US are killed by guns each year. Of these deaths, only about 1/3 are homicides. Under 2% are the result of accidental firings. And whopping 2/3 are suicides.

One of the few things you said that is actually objectively true; however, here’s the difference between your sources and mine, other than I can use the CDC as a source it also shows automobiles kills more people than firearms do. [CDC source 1] [CDC source 2]

Turns out most methods of suicide are either unreliable or take too long, giving time for the attempter to rethink things and back out.

This statement alone disproves your claim, regulating the tools will never be able to regulate the action. Rather than proposing ideas that would actually regulate the actions; you’re proposing we regulate the tools used in the action. While it may seems like a good idea in theory, but there are all ready over 330,000,000 legally owned firearms in circulation as it stands. No amount of legislation will change that number. We also know in a perfect bubble there is no amount of legislation that will change the course of actions people take, like in suicide. If one is truly committed to it, they will go through with it. 

This has resulted in a weird statistical correlation wherein you are more likely to kill yourself if you own a gun.

Correlation =/= causation. 

want to draw attention to source 2 there. I was only looking for the suicide figures, but it turns out there’s a statistical correlation between owning a gun and getting murdered with one too.

According to the NCS one is more likely to die from being in a car than dying at the hands of a firearm. See how this works? Simply being around something increases the odds of dying from it, but doesn’t mean anyone is more likely to die from is, unless they have other external or internal factors. The missing X factors both of your sources is choosing to ignore. 

Regardless, the argument that owning a gun makes you safer seems to not hold up when looking at the statistics.

Remember that CDC study I referenced previously, yeah more people use firearms to protect themselves than those who fall victim to the declining gun violence in our nation. 

now we come to the big question: does more gun control lead to less gun deaths?

The question never was if it would reduce gun violence, the question is if will it reduce the overall violent crime rate. The entire argument you make here you are interchanging the terms of gun violence, and the violent crime rate. Allow me to educate you on the difference, gun violence is only part of the overall violent crime rate. In all of those countries where you make the claim gun death went down, while that is true, but their overall violent crime rates remained the same after increasing immediately after the the implications of their strict gun control. 

None of the countries with successful gun control laws have blanket gun bans.

You know what all of those countries also don’t have? A Second Amendment, Heller v. DC, or 

McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill. See the difference is we have multiple law cases that support one’s right to keep and bear arms inside and outside their homes. 

And of course, there’s the question of whether or not the Second Amendment even actually promises individual ownership of firearms to American citizens.

This isn’t even a question anymore. There are multiple citations to federalist papers staking the claim that is it the people (in laymen terms the general public) who have the right to keep and bear arms.Let;s change the text of the Second Amendment ever so slightly, but keeping the original context.

There’s also an English professor who proved through English that the Second Amendment pertains to the people. 

While individual ownership is a common interpretation, others (including Supreme Court Justices) believe that the “well regulated militia” bit is the important part.

I all ready addressed this in my previous points talking about the two foundation court cases ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, this point is erroneous, but I’ll still address it. Well regulated was defined at the time the Second Amendment was written as: to be in working order. Then there’s the rebuttal to your Cracked video

First, let’s dispel the notion that the NRA represents gun owners. They do not. The NRA is a lobbying group funded by gun manufacturers. 

Let’s have a lawyer refute this claim

the NRA opposes actions that even if its own “members” support

Remind me again how ever gun owner is a member of the NRA. I honestly don’t think the NRA is doing enough to fight for my gun rights and have yet to become a member; however, let’s not pretend that the NRA also hasn’t help fund groundbreaking court cases for gun rights. 

Oh, and their finances are shady as fuck.

I honestly couldn’t care. Not my circus, not my monkeys. 

So, in conclusion, guns are dangerous

Yeah we’re aware, but carrying a firearm is a passive act, owning a firearm is a passive act, me having a firearm puts no one in any danger until that firearm is used in a dangerous manner. 

a higher number of guns does not make you safer

No different than have no firearms makes one a safer nation to live. 

owning a gun actually makes you less safe

Entirely false, I own two firearms, live with many more and am in no more danger to myself or other than before I owned firearms.

the Second Amendment doesn’t offer blanket protections for one industry

Kind of does.

I leave you with a link to an explanation of “Truthiness”, since that concept seems to form the basis of pretty much every argument I see put forward by gun advocates.

Each one I refuted, and will refute time and time again. 

@guns-and-freedom
Preach! 🙌