You know, normally I take a bullheaded or lax side on a controversial issue that is my own. Usually, it’s the former, and usually, I acknowledge that there’s a reason for the controversy, and that my opinion is just that, and just that I’m probably not wrong.
On gun control. I don’t feel that way. This isn’t controversial. This is stupid.
And to frame myself clearly, I love guns. I’d never want to destroy the ability of someone who has lots of land to safely shoot in their backyard those fortunate times they’re possible. Gun ranges sound recreational AF. Guns are one of the developments that’ve impacted human history more than almost any other. I can respect and sometimes even appreciate the ability to shoot and kill. I’m proud to be a heck of a marksman, and I’ve got family who hunts regularly, and while dead animals strike me as a more morbid trophy than a piece of paper full of holes, I don’t hate on them for it.
But it goes farther,
I’m also strongly in favor of gun control, and think you’re a fucking idiot/nut if you’re not.
And let me make one more thing clear because saying that last line, often immediately makes some brains go into stupid: gun control means controlling how people get guns.
And America already has some gun control, it just varies by state. It’s also extremely, extremely lax in every state, compared to most of the modern world. And I’d be for tightening gun control legislation in most states, because I think it should NOT be more difficult to acquire and use a useful thing like a car, more than a gun.
To argue that people want to “Take away guns” is to argue like an idiot. It goes no where. Smart people don’t want that, and the smartest people know that’s impossible, and WILL leave guns in the hands of the crazies.
No. Not the solution.
Anyone who tries to frame anyone who thinks legislation should be tightened on guns as someone who wants to disarm and take your right to defense away, is arguing like a shill. They’re arguing like someone who do better to stfu, and listening.
So with that said, it’s time for some facts.
There’s an organization that’s awarded “Brady scores” – and those are evaluating how strict a state’s gun control legislation is. There’s a fast pamphlet summary thing here:
And, here’re the top ten states with the strictest set of gun laws, they are:
CA, CT, MA, NJ, NY, HI, MD, RI, DE, IL
Now, here are the states with the LOWEST rates of gun murders per 100k citizens, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state (and I’ll put the one’s mentioned just above in CAPS LOCK) :
HAWAII, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, NEW JERSEY, new hampshire, minnesota, CALIFORNIA, iowa.
This seems to imply, strongly, that the harder it is to obtain a firearm, the less likely people are to be shot by them. That’s a good thing.
Now, the states with the HIGHEST rates of gun murders are:
alaska, louisiana, mississippi, alabama, arkansas, montana, wyoming, okalhoma, new mexico, and tennessee.
And if you want to check, you can see the reverse is true.
There are also people who believe that guns stop violence. Yet those rates seem to be 3%. You can look up bullshit sites like https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm which declares from a (FAKE) peer reviewed, bullshit, 1995 “study” concluding absolute untrue garbage like 2.5 million violent crimes are stopped by guns a year and etc, etc, etc, that’s so wrong. It’s part of that firehosing rhetorical “technique” that if you can read the way through it without questioning what you’re reading, you’ve been effectively been made dumber. There’s not even that much crime in the country if you include traffic infractions. This type of “everyone should have a gun” propoganda is bullshitted. It should send people’s “common sense” detectors tingling.
Simple google searching will go to show how often my trend of “increased ease of accessibility of guns leads to less responsible or more psychotic gun use dur hur” is right.
This isn’t controversial.
I’d like to know how states with those tough “urban” areas associated with street crime — you’ve got former mob controlled counties like in A.C., NEWARK, southern chi-town, you’ve got other areas like the bronx, LA, santa cruz, etc – and those those states have much more reasonable rates of gun homicide compared to alabama, or alaska, which has legislation that’s comparatively REALLY lax.
Further, look at other countries. New Zealand’s vetting process for awarding a gun license is MUCH more diligent and strict than anywhere in my country, and their violent homicide rates are way better. Look at how often friendly fire happens in gun liberal regions. Then, compare that to areas that have offered to “buy back your gun” like Massachusetts, or countries that have disarmed like australia. (ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT PEOPLE IN RHODE ISLAND NEED GUNS MORE THAN PEOPLE IN THE OUTBACK?)
Then, look at areas where guns are rampant.
The gun nut argument (not pro-gun, the GUN NUT) seems to be a juvenile, man-childish “BUT I IS THE HERO HOW DARE YOU TELL ME I DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO HEROIC THINGS”
What if I told you: more violent crimes stopped by citizens are stopped with knives and bludgeoning weapons than guns?
Here’s my point. It’s not that “guns in the hands of citizens against citizens cause more harm than good” (although it also is)
It’s that if you look beyond any possible personal frustrations, and if you look at specific states gun control laws and don’t think they could be improved — that that would lead to more responsible gun usage in the hands of more responsible people – then you’re blindly ignorant.
You’re simply being ignorant.
Again, this isn’t controversial. Guns are tools that kill effectively, little else. That’s why murder rates go up when they’re prevalent. Reasonably collected data supports that. This makes grandstanding about “the right to bear arms not being infringed upon” seem fucking stupid. Grandstanding about how we have to be able to stand up to the government is crazy (your ar-15 is gonna do what against an army of drones?) I’d also love to know what kind of criminal underworld is trying to ravage your life if you need one to feel safe, because I think it’s worth bringing attention to again, friendly fire.
It’s just so easy to shoot down extreme gun nut arguments, but I suppose they get horded in the mind of people who’s lives exist in tiny collectives that gets into an “us vs them” mentality that gets ignorant.
Gun control means responsibly licensing, and making it just difficult enough to get guns that scary people have them less.
There are apparently people who think that if the government gave out a gun to everyone over 18, and 8 bullets, that violent crimes and mass murders where all types of people are culled, would decrease.
That’s amazing to me.
Last note: America is silly enough that words stop meaning what they mean. You can’t say a thing like “in areas that allow firearm possession liberally, gun related deaths are the highest” without confusing people.