But see, I live in Spain, most of Spain is “rural areas” except on the coast and a few larger cities inland:
USA: 120.5 guns per 100 people, 17.3% living in rural areas
Spain: 7.5 guns per 100 people, 18.8% living in rural areas
There are maybe 1 gun per 3 people in rural areas in Spain, probably fewer because some city folk also have them, yet those are enough to protect against the wildlife.
What kind of aggressive wildlife would the US have, that would require 6 guns per person? A velocirraptor infestation? 😉
(actually… wasn’t one of the dangers in the US, to meet a bear or a cougar… which guns do nothing against?)
“We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects” from living in a home with a handgun, said David Studdert, a Stanford University researcher who was the lead author of the Annals of Internal Medicine study.
It is quite literally more likely that:
(1) You’ll use that firearm on yourself.
(2) You’ll use that firearm illegally on somebody else, homicidally.
(3) The firearm will be stolen and drop into the hands of a criminal
(4) The firearm will be accidentally discharged by your kids or yourself, either maiming or killing.
(5) The firearm will be wrongly used to harm someone in perceived but wrongful self-defense.
… By the way. America has by far the highest firearms per capita and yet still has some of the worst statistics. They are not deterrents. They do not make people safer. Neither was the Wild West a utopia — in fact Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun control laws near the end of the era and reduced homicides. Neither are inner-cities when gangs know other gangs are armed.
Statistics don’t lie. Every single person who had these things happen to them thought they were more responsible and wise, etc.
I’m not a child or mentally challenged. I don’t require every tiny minute thing around me to be idiot proof.
If you were, would you know? I’ve known so many people who claimed they were good drivers but were absolutely horrible. False confidence runs rampant in America.
Sorry brother, but this reads like you want the world to be this perfect safe space. And it never will be. Work with what you got, and do what you can. I would much rather have some “statistical risk” in my home, than face a situation where I had no tools to protect myself because I was relying on an organization to do that for me.
The math doesn’t lie. You aren’t safer. Even in an emergency, there are a range of options that don’t involve cops that improve your odds of surviving, including fleeing, hiding, and even cooperating. Funnily-enough, all lead to a better outcome than thinking you’re some kind of badass hero.
You want to protect yourself? Get good locks, some cameras, and a large dog or two. Convicted burglars note they were deterred more from a large dog.
Change can come, but we need to advocate for what other countries already have: A reduction of firearms on the streets. Reducing supply increases cost. Reducing firearm concentration means the effective lethality of the average criminal drops. Simple economics.
By the way: Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let’s pretend we’re in a game and all armed with squirt-guns and I just so happen to be playing the ““bad guy with a squirt-gun.”” At any given moment, it’s my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe…Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I’d fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it’s a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market.
Even if you got the drop on me in that 1 in 100 times, it doesn’t matter because it still benefits the offensive individual an order-of-magnitude. I mean if I’m being mugged with or without my family, I’m just going to give them my stuff. It’s meaningless compared to my life or loved ones and now I run the risk of making myself a target as opposed to my property. Do I really think I can react even if I have my firearm holstered on my side while someone else already has the draw on me? If you feel this confident, I’d love to play that game with you and and make a betting-game out of it.
If I am a mass-squirter (don’t.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
Now you understand why our firearm-related homicides are higher than any other Western OECD nation.
Now you understand why our total homicides are an outlier among Western OECD nations.
There is no correlation with reducing homicides and firearm possession / ownership
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you’re addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
And when minorities are threatened by cops, what’s your solution then? What is the exact moment you’re advocating that people fire on police?
Gun owners don’t give a fuck about minorities, they just want to sell more guns and look cool on the internet with their “need it and not have it” catch phrase.
How do your family members rate on the “not needing” scale? Because a record number of teenagers are blowing their brains out with daddy’s gun that he wanted to “have but not need”.
Because a record number of teenagers are blowing their brains out with daddy’s gun that he wanted to “have but not need”.
How would not having a gun at home have prevented it? You don’t need a gun to kill yourself and assuming, that those people would have lifed a happy life if they wouldn’t have had acces to a gun is simply wrong.
All you’re doing is demonstrating how little you know (or care) about how suicide works.
Of course, it’s not exactly uncommon for gun owners to just assume the world aligns to their “gut feeling”, no fact checking required.
Means reduction is a huge part of suicide prevention. Methods that require more planning or are more survivable result in thousands of lives saved every year, with only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt going on to die by suicide.
But what’s a few more bodies for gun owners to sweep under the rug right? Surely it will never be your children. It’s just another consequence that other people have to suffer for your hobby.
So don’t worry about the actual studies or statistics. Just go with how you reckon it works – it’s not like it will kill anyone.
Edit: Quick reminder for the pro-gun community that votes are public on Lemmy and instance admins can see your sock puppets. Reddit style brigading isn’t going to work here.
Again a foolish answer, I know of more than one case, where people who failed at their suicide attempt just tried it a second time. You can’t really blame guns for social factors. No one pulls the trigger by accident.
EDIT: I think it’s also important to note, that I think people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way.
people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way
Guns are only about 80% effective at suicide attempts. There are some 100% effective ways that are barely more complicated… yet pulling a trigger is still the most popular in the US.
Again a foolish answer, I know of more than one case, where people who failed at their suicide attempt just tried it a second time
Thank you for this perfect answer – I couldn’t have asked for a more perfect demonstration of how deeply flawed and self-centered pro-gun logic is.
There is an entire world’s worth of suicide statistics and study out there, because it’s allowed to be studied without an American death-cult opposing it. In most countries, that research is actively encouraged since it saves lives.
But don’t worry about those mountains of evidence, you “know a couple of people” so it must all be wrong.
No one pulls the trigger by accident.
Sure they do. In America, legal gun owners routinely kill people by accidentally pulling the trigger. From toddlers getting hold of a gun and killing themselves to hunters throwing a loaded gun into the back seat and blowing away a passenger, it happens about as often as mass shootings do.
EDIT: I think it’s also important to note, that I think people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way.
I was worried that people would claim my “they’re just doing it for attention” comment was putting hyperbolic words into your mouth but nope, you’re just going to actually say it.
Sure they do. In America, legal gun owners routinely kill people by accidentally pulling the trigger. From toddlers getting hold of a gun and killing themselves to hunters throwing a loaded gun into the back seat and blowing away a passenger, it happens about as often as mass shootings do.
I’m sorry for the missunderstanding, I meant that very little people pull the trigger on thenself by accident.
I was worried that people would claim my “they’re just doing it for attention” comment was putting hyperbolic words into your mouth but nope, you’re just going to actually say it.
That’s neither what I said, nor what I intendet to say. I just said, that people tend to choose the most efficient and painless method of suicide, and that a gun ban wouldn’t prevent them from commiting suicide, because most of them will just choose the next efficient method. No one prepares a hanging for attention, but more people preffer a bullet over a rope.
EDIT: I forgot to specificly reply to your first point, but I think it’s kinda covered in my second part. For clarification tho: I life in a country with a lot less gun ownership than in the US, thereforce people just choose other methods.
That’s neither what I said, nor what I intendet to say. I just said, that people tend to choose the most efficient and painless method of suicide, and that a gun ban wouldn’t prevent them from commiting suicide, because most of them will just choose the next efficient method. No one prepares a hanging for attention, but more people preffer a bullet over a rope.
Which shows you’re not really listening.
Yes, people do have a preferred method. That’s what “means reduction” is, and it’s been repeatedly shown to reduce the suicide rate, because it turns out that people often don’t just choose another method.
When they do choose another method, methods with lower lethality than guns result in more survivors, only 10% of which will go on to die by suicide.
While all of this might feel unintuitive, it all remains demonstrably correct.
I’m interrested where the 10% are from, but I assume they are data points from the current state where people preffer suicide by guns. I do think that if people had to choose different methods than guns the statistic would look different. Also I think that gun ownership is rather one of the less important influences on the suicide rate, if most people can’t afford therapie not having accses to a gun probably won’t stop them from doing it.
deleted by creator
I would rather… live in a country where cops are there to protect me.
deleted by creator
Rural areas… that’s reasonable.
But see, I live in Spain, most of Spain is “rural areas” except on the coast and a few larger cities inland:
There are maybe 1 gun per 3 people in rural areas in Spain, probably fewer because some city folk also have them, yet those are enough to protect against the wildlife.
What kind of aggressive wildlife would the US have, that would require 6 guns per person? A velocirraptor infestation? 😉
(actually… wasn’t one of the dangers in the US, to meet a bear or a cougar… which guns do nothing against?)
I said not one word about cops, buddy.
When those tools predispose you to a greater risk than the thing it’s alleged to resolve, then you’re quite literally shooting yourself in the foot.
I’d rather use science and statistics as opposed to these heroic fairy tales not grounded in reality.
deleted by creator
You are actually in more danger.
It is quite literally more likely that:
… By the way. America has by far the highest firearms per capita and yet still has some of the worst statistics. They are not deterrents. They do not make people safer. Neither was the Wild West a utopia — in fact Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun control laws near the end of the era and reduced homicides. Neither are inner-cities when gangs know other gangs are armed.
Statistics don’t lie. Every single person who had these things happen to them thought they were more responsible and wise, etc.
If you were, would you know? I’ve known so many people who claimed they were good drivers but were absolutely horrible. False confidence runs rampant in America.
The math doesn’t lie. You aren’t safer. Even in an emergency, there are a range of options that don’t involve cops that improve your odds of surviving, including fleeing, hiding, and even cooperating. Funnily-enough, all lead to a better outcome than thinking you’re some kind of badass hero.
You want to protect yourself? Get good locks, some cameras, and a large dog or two. Convicted burglars note they were deterred more from a large dog.
Change can come, but we need to advocate for what other countries already have: A reduction of firearms on the streets. Reducing supply increases cost. Reducing firearm concentration means the effective lethality of the average criminal drops. Simple economics.
By the way: Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let’s pretend we’re in a game and all armed with squirt-guns and I just so happen to be playing the ““bad guy with a squirt-gun.”” At any given moment, it’s my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe…Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I’d fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it’s a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market.
If I am a mass-squirter (don’t.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you’re addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
And when minorities are threatened by cops, what’s your solution then? What is the exact moment you’re advocating that people fire on police?
Gun owners don’t give a fuck about minorities, they just want to sell more guns and look cool on the internet with their “need it and not have it” catch phrase.
How do your family members rate on the “not needing” scale? Because a record number of teenagers are blowing their brains out with daddy’s gun that he wanted to “have but not need”.
A gun didn’t save Philando Castile. A gun didn’t save Breonna Taylor. Maybe guns don’t protect minorities from cops.
How would not having a gun at home have prevented it? You don’t need a gun to kill yourself and assuming, that those people would have lifed a happy life if they wouldn’t have had acces to a gun is simply wrong.
All you’re doing is demonstrating how little you know (or care) about how suicide works.
Of course, it’s not exactly uncommon for gun owners to just assume the world aligns to their “gut feeling”, no fact checking required.
Means reduction is a huge part of suicide prevention. Methods that require more planning or are more survivable result in thousands of lives saved every year, with only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt going on to die by suicide.
But what’s a few more bodies for gun owners to sweep under the rug right? Surely it will never be your children. It’s just another consequence that other people have to suffer for your hobby.
So don’t worry about the actual studies or statistics. Just go with how you reckon it works – it’s not like it will kill anyone.
Edit: Quick reminder for the pro-gun community that votes are public on Lemmy and instance admins can see your sock puppets. Reddit style brigading isn’t going to work here.
Again a foolish answer, I know of more than one case, where people who failed at their suicide attempt just tried it a second time. You can’t really blame guns for social factors. No one pulls the trigger by accident.
EDIT: I think it’s also important to note, that I think people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way.
Guns are only about 80% effective at suicide attempts. There are some 100% effective ways that are barely more complicated… yet pulling a trigger is still the most popular in the US.
Thank you for this perfect answer – I couldn’t have asked for a more perfect demonstration of how deeply flawed and self-centered pro-gun logic is.
There is an entire world’s worth of suicide statistics and study out there, because it’s allowed to be studied without an American death-cult opposing it. In most countries, that research is actively encouraged since it saves lives.
But don’t worry about those mountains of evidence, you “know a couple of people” so it must all be wrong.
Sure they do. In America, legal gun owners routinely kill people by accidentally pulling the trigger. From toddlers getting hold of a gun and killing themselves to hunters throwing a loaded gun into the back seat and blowing away a passenger, it happens about as often as mass shootings do.
I was worried that people would claim my “they’re just doing it for attention” comment was putting hyperbolic words into your mouth but nope, you’re just going to actually say it.
I’m sorry for the missunderstanding, I meant that very little people pull the trigger on thenself by accident.
That’s neither what I said, nor what I intendet to say. I just said, that people tend to choose the most efficient and painless method of suicide, and that a gun ban wouldn’t prevent them from commiting suicide, because most of them will just choose the next efficient method. No one prepares a hanging for attention, but more people preffer a bullet over a rope.
EDIT: I forgot to specificly reply to your first point, but I think it’s kinda covered in my second part. For clarification tho: I life in a country with a lot less gun ownership than in the US, thereforce people just choose other methods.
Which shows you’re not really listening.
Yes, people do have a preferred method. That’s what “means reduction” is, and it’s been repeatedly shown to reduce the suicide rate, because it turns out that people often don’t just choose another method.
When they do choose another method, methods with lower lethality than guns result in more survivors, only 10% of which will go on to die by suicide.
While all of this might feel unintuitive, it all remains demonstrably correct.
I’m interrested where the 10% are from, but I assume they are data points from the current state where people preffer suicide by guns. I do think that if people had to choose different methods than guns the statistic would look different. Also I think that gun ownership is rather one of the less important influences on the suicide rate, if most people can’t afford therapie not having accses to a gun probably won’t stop them from doing it.
Take for example Japan, it has one of the lowest estimated gun ownership rate in the world but also unfortunatly one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Suicide is considered a major social issue in Japan and it is exacly that, a social issue, not a gun issue.