MeanwhileBackOnEarth
218511
4790
550
Mar 18, 2018 2:10 PM
MeanwhileBackOnEarth
218511
4790
550
mixylodian
Hello, Patriot Act.
amaboateng1006
Like regulation for bridges?
NightOfTheLivingKells
How about my right to be safe in school or a public place and not get shot?
justvenomcake
Unless you're suicidal, at odds with the law or in a gang. It's highly unlikely that you will ever be shot.
SwarleysQuinntervention
Is that the guy who sold the V encyclopedia to Joey in Friends for 50 dollars?
ImgurIsPrettyNeat
Who else always looks for the most downvoted comment in a political post?
Thawkization
The whole idea of government is that we give up certain rights so that we as a species CAN be much more safe and organized. 1/2
Thawkization
This is high school government 101, some of you might wanna retake the class. 2/2
nopinky
Which rights are acceptable to give up though? Would you give up the 1st ammendment if it meant less crime?
Cowfister
Gun control, amounts to punishing the innocent.
SlurpGod
Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might. - Timothy McVeigh
tracereading
Yeah, because fuck people for not wanting their kids to get massacred, right?
notCringeybut
Yeah fucking selfish huh!
JamieSmyth
BUT MUH GUNS!!!!
magicrhombus
A quote good for any occasion and any political orientation. A righty can read it and think he's talking school shootings and gun control 1/
magicrhombus
...A lefty can read it and think he's talking about terrorism and the patriot act / constitution free zone /etc. 2/2
MericanNightmare
This quote was actually referencing the patriot act though.
magicrhombus
That's the beauty of an out of context quote though, it doesn't matter. Reader sees what they want to see.
ashackatak
I almost detached my retinas rolling my eyes at this. Yeah, let’s take down all of the stops signs...well, because freedom!
AnAccountToPostThis
If you have to stretch an idea to the nth degree of retardation before you even try to argue against it you are sitting on a VERY weak point
ashackatak
No stretch. Cars and guns kill people. Speed limits and stop signs make sense, but preventing mentally ill ppl from buying guns doesn’t?
AnAccountToPostThis
Stop signs don't infringe on constitutional rights. The conversation gets much more tricky when you factor in that tidbit.
ashackatak
Yeah, well I’m pretty sure you’re not part of a “well regulated militia”. Which is also where the argument gets tricky ...read: REGULATED
AnAccountToPostThis
A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day,the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
HumanWhoHasAPet
The acoustics in this echo chamber are amazing.
MenaceToSobriety
Whenever I find a group of people who disagree with me, I make that comment too, so I can feel better 'til I retreat to my own echo chamber.
SaltyInternetPirate
Well, no, it isn't. More often they answer by doing nothing or something completely stupid. Some libertarian now wants to arm the homeless.
SaltyInternetPirate
He's a Michigan US senate candidate, and thinks since the homeless are often targeted, give them guns!
reddenbocker
Is this about gun laws? Because the way I see it, all those dead people ALSO lost their freedom. Because they're dead. If people who own 1/2
justvenomcake
Do you even know the current gun laws, or even the current regulations?
reddenbocker
2/2 guns really don't see the point in controlling who gets the guns and how, then they're just asking for general lawlessness.
reddenbocker
If there is no control over how things are done, both the legal and illegal aspects of it, then making more rules and laws won't matter 1/2
reddenbocker
2/2 What needs to happen is a fair and balanced effort on all fronts to prevent crazy and lawless types from getting them.
LiterallyHitlersLeftNut
What you are suggesting is that America has no gun laws and regulations whatsoever, have you ever tried getting a gun
Fedotia
Tigher gun control is precisely the debate.
Crossark
Can we stop using "reactionary" as if it's not how the universe naturally works? Cautionary measures are usually only ever implemented (1/2)
Crossark
after the thing they're meant to caution against has occurred at least once. It's cause and effect. (2/2)
FirstEdition
The problem is that they are -always- recommended after a bad event. If another plane hijacking took place we would see calls for more TSA
FirstEdition
Not because the current TSA protocols are ineffective (17 years since 9/11 with no major incident) but because people react out of fear
FirstEdition
No one is ever content to say "bad people do bad things sometimes" we just assume these events should NEVER happen (which is unrealistic)
FirstEdition
There has to be a balance between how often bad events happen and the intrusion on our lives required to reduce that number
TheGhostofElizabethShue
Um, no, it ain't. Massacres have been a depressingly regular occurrence, while gun rights have continued unabated, and still will.
ArmedandOverclocked
After 9/11 we demanded more safety. Now we watch as a TSA agents gets to 2nd base with grandma.
WimpyTheKing
Grandma doesn’t mind. It’s the most human interaction she’s gotten in a long time because her family won’t hug her! Monsters.
kr18
In the most crowded congested part of the airport.... perfect place for a dude with a bomb
o4kill
Remember, No Russian. (I am legitimately surprised that no one has attempted that for real.)
afriendofmine
I will never understand the outcry over that game, tbh.
o4kill
People didnt like the idea that undercover agents would be committing crimes… smh
Splinthar
No for comparison's sake lets pretend that 9/11 happened every 3 weeks. Instead a once in the history of the country.
armandraynal
You mean turd base?
armandraynal
*third
TheCeilingIsLava
And they still let a dude fly with a live round in his shoe. He found it later and reported it to the news.
thewarinvietfuckingnam
Round of what?
TheCeilingIsLava
Ammunition for some rifle. He was in the military.
thewarinvietfuckingnam
Although they should have found it, not much you can do with one stray rifle bullet. Even if you could find a way to make it go off,
thewarinvietfuckingnam
More than likely no one is getting more than a scratch or two.
Beeseik
We didn't ask for this. The bill was loaded beforehand and consent was manufactured.
Shrekhead
Exactly why its dangerous to ask for a simple gun control bill
Beeseik
We would never get anything comprehensive from bought and sold politicians. The banks are behind all of them and they want us all disarmed.
AnAccountToPostThis
Were you alive in 2001?... There were a TON of people asking for it.
ForgotMyOtherAcct
There wasn't a clear and obvious majority as I remember. There are a ton of people calling for all the things all the time
PossibleSarcasm
I was, and most people I knew were against the military action, pointing out that there are other agendas at play, such as oil
EveryonesCousin
I remember my 3rd grade teacher doing a vote... I was shamed for being the only kid that thought the war was a bad idea. Moved 1200mi later
PossibleSarcasm
That's a pretty intense thing to ask 3rd graders to vote on.
misho
It is interesting how conservatives will agree with this regarding gun laws, but disagree regarding surveillance and detention of suspects.
misho
While liberals will of course do the exact opposite.
Cheomesh
Neoliberals, you mean.
corvuscorax501
I think real conservative as well as real liberal think negatively of surveillance it just the cancerous neo-con/lib that push that crap.
jcarmona
I don't care it is a celeb saying it. We've been saying it at home for years. I've seen ppl get alienated and lose jobs for saying it @ work
Allworknoplay82
" " - Raymond Teller
WanderingCapybara
Haha, yes
NotHardly
brilliant!
mcd0g
SlurpGod
He's clearly the smarter of the two.
theimgurappsucksballs
MarkyBoyAce
This. This is why I imgur.
tirusr
"Penn, Shut up." ~ Teller
InRussiaMemeMakesYou
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people assume you're an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."
sombrerohorsewagon
~Michael Scott
pres2pond
I've heard him speak, he is as smart as he looks. Look it up, there are youtube videos. Or don't to keep the magic.
SmigglingWigglesbum
Like Penn
Notme68
If you use quotes, at least get it right. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak an remove all doubt."-Lincoln(?)
push2thefelt
Mark Twain
Notme68
Questionable for him too. I researched it and it was originally attributed to Lincoln, but quite a few years after his death so it's ???
afriendofmine
Ah, the same man who said not to trust everything you read on the internet. What a great soul.
Notme68
Thus the question mark. The accuracy of the quote from the late 1800s still stands.
InRussiaMemeMakesYou
I apologize. It’s Sunday and I’m being a lazy twat today. You’re the real mvp.
macbi
I think he changed his name to just "Teller"
SympatheticParamedic
manofculture.jpeg
crookednixon
Yup, he's one of handful of people with a US passport that only lists one name.
macbi
Which, if you think about it, is sort of an ironic name for a mute
Allanonshea1
I don't think he's actually mute. I swear he's talked before
macbi
Maybe it was an illusion :-o
Notme68
100% not a mute. It's part of the act.
OriginalNameDoNotSteal
It's not a secret, it's just part of the act
Allanonshea1
Oh.
Allanonshea1
I've never actually seen their act, just the can you fool me show they have
Chrisboy
What do you propose we do?
TygrF
Stop assuming there's a single fix to stop bad things from happening, for starters.
Chrisboy
No shit
jrntn
Next step: Accepting that some things are worse than other things and constant school shootings is worse than not owning guns for no reason
TygrF
"constant" - stop misrepresenting the truth to push your need to restrict other's rights.
jrntn
If you don't look at the terrifying, completely without comparison anywhere else rate and consider it constant, you are very, very cold.
albertkaholic
That`s what governments are there for, to limit behaviors. Its just about knowimg where to draw the line.
TheNotoriousMastermindLeBones
The US government was never meant to limit behaviors. It was specifically designed to be limited by the people. Not the other way around.
albertkaholic
I disagree...but I don't mean it in a bad way. Isn't the Bill of Rights actually a list of restricted behaviors? All laws represent such.
TheNotoriousMastermindLeBones
I’m not trying to be a jerk. Genuinely asking. The bill of rights is pretty heavily covered in US schools. Then ignored later.
TheNotoriousMastermindLeBones
It’s a list of behaviors that cannot be restricted, by the government anyway. Are you not from the US?
albertkaholic
Is it not a restriction on governmental behavior? Or the people that act on behalf of the government?
TheNotoriousMastermindLeBones
Yes. It’s restrictive of the government, not the people. People acting on behalf of the government ARE the government.
Alecholic
1984 - George Orwell
Gunthex
Do it to Julia.
BlunderbussVigilante
Orwell in the streets, Huxley in the sheets.
AquaLeaderArchie
Brave New World was fucked up
kambojah
I feel like his book scared the readers but some took it as inspiration.
fatherted
This is fine https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence
TheNotoriousMastermindLeBones
Right, it’s a problem. But are guns causing the problem? And will “trying” to take them away solve it?
TheAccursedHamster
Better than sitting on your ass and not trying anything at all, or thinking "give everyone a gun" is some kind of solution.
TheNotoriousMastermindLeBones
I didn’t suggest either of those things.
HolyCringeLordBatman
noone actually says is the most intellectually dishonest bullshit you can pull.
HolyCringeLordBatman
Take that fucking "Guns causing it" "Guns kill people" strawman and fuck yourself with a cactus. Reframing the debate to something that
ITalkAboutGoats
Fine. Does access to guns make it easier for people bent on destruction to kill more people in a shorter amount of time?
HolyCringeLordBatman
Easier? Yes I'd say that's pretty easily shown
ITalkAboutGoats
Sweet. So we should get rid of them.
MeanwhileBackOnEarth
From Pew Research Center in 2015: The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 31% since 1993.
MeanwhileBackOnEarth
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/
Italipino
And it's still higher than any other developed country several times over.
MeanwhileBackOnEarth
And knife crime is way, way up in the UK: "Nine charts on the rise of knife crime in England and Wales" http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089
zippydee
4 hours later, still waiting. Or are you planning on waiting the length of time since our last massacre and I get an answer in 2040?
AnnieBahde
Okay but you are far more likely to survive a knife attack. On the same day as Sandy Hook (28 dead) a man in China attacked a primary school
zippydee
When was the last gun or knife massacre in a British school. I'll wait for the answer
howcansomeonepossiblyhavethesameweirdusernamealready
People say they need guns for when the government tries to come for you. The gov't isn't going to come for citizens in.. 1/?
ashackatak
But if they did...they have drones, satellites, nukes, and God knows what else. Our 3 guns per person won’t do shit.
howcansomeonepossiblyhavethesameweirdusernamealready
2/? A militaristic way. They're coming for us by slowly enacting laws that will take away our civil liberties one by one without people...
Cheomesh
See, just conflate civil liberties with those damned ANTI-AMERICAN LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!! and you've got a self sustaining propaganda campaign.
TygrF
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
howcansomeonepossiblyhavethesameweirdusernamealready
3/ realizing what is happening before it's too late.
SmolTenk
Besides, if they come after you, the military is either with them, in which case good luck, or against them, in which case they cant>
SmolTenk
do anything anyways. The Civil war wasnt won with privatelyowned arms.
Barantor
Here's the thing, you have no idea how the US military will react to an actual Civil War, depends on a lot of factors. Many might not fight.
AnAccountToPostThis
There's no way the US gov could win a civil war. Look at vietnam and afghanistan for an idea how that would go.
SmolTenk
The U.S. government has little local support or the ability to infiltrate the enemy easily. Contrary to its home turf.
TheCeilingIsLava
The revolutionary war was though...
Fedotia
France went bankrupt for this.
Cheomesh
Not really. Like, I love the romance of the Minuteman but that isn't at all how the war was actually decided. Helped, though.
SmolTenk
With all due respect, if the english hadnt been occupied elsewhere the U.S. would have never won.
AuburnTiger91
I fear the Jews in 1930s Germany (one of those adored forward thinking European countries) might differ with you on this one.
ITalkAboutGoats
In 1930s, Germany sounded a lot more like America today
PangolinBan
Lol. A) Even if the Jews had had top of the line weaponry at the time it still wouldn’t have helped them. B) The German government did 1/3
PangolinBan
2/3 not come after the German people, they came after a small minority they’d made sure to villify and ostracise first. If the US government
PangolinBan
3/3 ever comes for a minority group they’ll do the exact same thing too and make sure that group will be isolated, weakened and unsupported.
DumpoldRant
If the U.S. government came after gays or minorities like Russia does, I can guarantee no current militias would give a shit.
AuburnTiger91
Ok. You’ve convinced me. Let’s round up all the guns. Sigh.
3Spook5u
2235561776
Let's get rid of the 1st as well then. Nothing is dividing the country more than people being allowed to speak out against our government
linogewotc
Great. So put together a movement to repeal the 2nd, instead of constantly chipping away around the edges.
davehiny
I have yet to see any real proposals to properly change the 2nd amendment. Dems don’t control enough state govts to amend the constitution.
davehiny
That’s why they push for constitutionally questionable laws in the legislatures, because they can’t go through the proper amendment process
FirstEdition
This irritates the fuck out of me. "The constitution isn't perfect" yeah that's why there's a way to amend it.
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
You're not going to curtail or remove the rights of US citizens without widespread bloodshed.
DumpoldRant
Where were you when the Patriot Act dropped?
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
I was on foreign battlefields. However, the Patriot Act doesn't trouble me.
SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE
So the loss of 1st, 4th-8th rights doesn't trouble you?
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
How it's overseen and controlled concerns me. A US citizen would have to of fucked up big time to call its attention.
TuggSpeedmann
People don’t understand this. You’d be signing a death warrant for police to confiscate them. It would be civil war against the government.
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
There is an added layer seldom talked about. We in the military are sworn to support & defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign 2/
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
3/ academy and it resides in our oaths. That charter literally says that should those documents and rights be threatened, that we are to 4/
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
2/and domestic as well as the rights of its citizens. That is taken from each service's founding charter. We teach this at each service 3/
TuggSpeedmann
1/3 (100M) people in America have a gun. Imagine only 20% of them putting up a fight. Confiscation would be suicide.
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
The last time we had a Constitutional impasse we lost 600K dead and almost 2M maimed, 10% of the population. Imagine today's numbers.
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
4/ return the government to Constitutional rule. It's an oath we take very seriously, and actions we train and prep for.
TuggSpeedmann
You bring up exactly the other big point. Unless you somehow convinced the army to get involved willingly, they won’t participate.
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
The US armed forces are overwhelmingly center-right as shown by their voting history, something like 90%. So it really depends on context.
UglyHorribleGrouchyOldMan
2/ still, it's something we routinely discuss and lecture. As a ret O-5, the General Staff OPLANs for the scenario.
ElbowDeepInAHeadlessHorseman
Thanks, professional magician. I do miss the right to have lead in my water.
mike13815
I can guarantee any legislation due to flint's water had loads of horrible non-related bills paperclipped to it, guaranteed to pass.
yummmmm
they still have lead pipes. Rick Snyder is a shitbag
wookietiddy
I miss the right to not wear my seatbelt.
rooik14
https://pics.me.me/miss-the-rains-down-in-africa-toto-kansas-26535867.png
Counterfit
That's not even the right line. It's "bless"
rooik14
I know but I remembered seeing this meme and couldn't resist.
Counterfit
Fair enough
SaltyInternetPirate
Don't worry! Trump's appointee is giving you back that right by turning the EPA into the Environmental Pollution Agency.
eagerophiuchus
Pruitt: "We live in a very toxic environment politically, particularly around issues of the environment."
tberry668
And my school kids.
eagerophiuchus
Don't be so sure. Trump reversed a ban on lead bullets in wildlife refuges.
DaJoW
And Londoners no doubt miss their wonderful smog. The damn government had to interfere just because 12,000 died and 200,000 got sick.
Chronagos
I miss the right to live in a recession...
QuackQuackAttack
I don’t think removing lead from water limited your rights. Limiting gun rights, or limiting habeus corpus, or easier search seizure, does.
wookietiddy
My rights to put whatever I want into my body we're limited when they regulated the lead in water.
QuackQuackAttack
Ha, no. Feel free to buy lead and top your nachos with it. It just doesn’t go in municipal water where the choice is taken from you
Demauscian
What about the right to use cheaper materials to cut costs? These old lead pipes work just fine as long as the water has the right pH level.
softballguy
It's almost as if compromise were a key element in building societies.
mike13815
Compromise only works in one direction in american politics. Once something is illegal/regulated, it takes 10 times the effort to remove. 2
mike13815
So our only path for the past century has been more laws, fewer rights. VERY FEW things have been legalized.
softballguy
I wish people would remember that when they claim people are gonna take away guns, as if the 2nd Amendment is going anywhere.
mike13815
The amendment doesn't protect from regulation designed to make legal gun ownership financially impossible, it only protects from an all or
yepthatsgreat
Pretty out of context quote. This was about the patriot act. You can't just apply a specifically directed quote to everything.
kruug
Most quotes are out of context. See most news coverage of Trump or Fox’s coverage of Obama when he was in Office.
linogewotc
Trust me, they don't mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
Cereaza
I mean... most quotes are about something specifically, and are reused in other context. Franklin's quote on liberty/security is notable.
Cereaza
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
RocketVillain
Um have you not watched the news lately? This is the world we live in now. Sorry.
WisdomThumbs
This use of the quote is presented with only its original context ("Penn & Teller's How to Play in Traffic") and nothing else.
WisdomThumbs
But make no mistake, it still applies to current events. It also applies to ancient history.
jayar1st
Penn and Teller are libertarians. For then, this quote applies to gun control as well as other rights issues.
SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE
He's also in favor of open borders. I wonder how many on this site would agree.
TheOtherOneWithTheHair
This site leans left on frontpage comments, but right or center in usersub, so many on the site would agree if the post made front page.
Zodi
Which makes them retarded, not geniuses. Libertarian policy only works with a well educated populace and direct democracy.
DeepFriedAndSanctified
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
PineapplesArePeopleToo
That name just screams southern Baptist.
DeepFriedAndSanctified
You'd be half right. https://youtu.be/lX9jFRRSYB4
WilliamElse
"Essential." Do US dictionaries have a different definition of this word?
TheHorseShesElbowDeepIn
"And they can pry my trivial liberties out of my cold, dead hands, too." Apparently.
MostLikelyPooping
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -Bill Clinton
Koshunae
"I am not a crook!" -Richard Nixon.
markman2001
"Because a man who'd trade his liberty for a safe and dreamless sleep Doesn't deserve the both of them, and neither shall he keep"
johnsquared1829
Absolutely true. The tricky part is deciding - and agreeing on - which liberties are essential.
HusbandsBulge
”Always believe everything you read on the internet” - Abraham Lincoln.
popejubal
And those who think that reasonable people can't make reasonable decisions when two conflicting rights butt against each other are asshats.
TheOvy
That quote is in a letter about giving up literal self-governance for British military protection. Context matters.
InRussiaMemeMakesYou
I thought it was, "A man that would shave his beard for a woman deserves neither."
massaka123
Stop with your common sense right the fekk now or risk being burned for witchcraft. You're scaring the establishment.
inboxmefoxes
This quote was never meant to apply to individual liberties and was spoken in terms of self-governance being fool hardy.
inboxmefoxes
In the actual context of the quote, it means almost the exact opposite of what people want it to mean concerning guns and the 2A.
ChateauDeBen
I like you.
inboxmefoxes
Not that gun activists actually give a shit about twisting the words of a founding father, right? Nawwww, that can't be.
inboxmefoxes
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century Full context.
inboxmefoxes
Inb4 somebody tells me how fake and LIBURAL fucking NPR is.
Meloncov
Thing is, no one can agree on what constitutes an "essential liberty".
inboxmefoxes
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century This is what it is.
inboxmefoxes
People love to trot out this quote while not even remotely understanding what it's about. (Hint: it's not the Constitution)
merelyadequategooglymoogly
Yeah, somebody should really sit down and work out what those are. Maybe tack them onto the end of the Constitution or something.
Meloncov
As shown by two centuries of debate in the Supreme Court and over additional Amendments, that didn't actually resolve much.
cntdn
"People who'd rather live than be able to do whatever they want don't deserve to not get killed" - paraphrasing.
frostybox
"But daddy I might get shot at school!" "Sorry Joey, but "rights" or something."
ReaperCDN
Ah yes. That's why we have armies, weapons for home protection, locks, alarms, etc. Safety and liberty are complimentary.
ISayFuckAllTheTime
On an unrelated subject, I've been wondering lately about the draft - didn't that violate the right to life? (Life, liberty, the pursuit...)
Falkorburnstoo
"My balls itch" ~ Me
ARealHumanandNotaChatBot
“If the day does not require an AK, it is good” - The Great Warrior-Poet Ice Cube
WhyShouldILoveYou
I like you, teenage dirtbag. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXjXmvy-c34
Misslnformation
I too enjoyed Generation Kill
ticklefartmagoo
"Two in the Pink one in the stink" George Washington
Tmissfrizzle
BoomIgotyourwalletBoomIgotyourphilliestickets
Girl you got me down, you got me stressed out Cause ever since I left the city, you -The Drake
2pillows
Didn't realize he was a Harry Potter fan
DiabetesPorn
“Honey, where is my super suit” - Anonymous.
UsuallyComments
"Sometimes people need a high five. In the face. With a chair" - Me
watcher1987
QUIBICUS
I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman. - Arnold Schwarzenegger
alittletime
Women are equal and deserve respect. Just kidding, I wanna have sex with them - MC Vagina
tomb818
Ben wasn't dealing with Assault Rifles that could take out whole villages
frostybox
Yeah don't bother trying this one with gun nuts, it doesn't work, I've tried
bumblebear91
But if he could’ve, he would’ve.
fatherted
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence
sleeek
Fuck off . So quick to comment while never providing a sensible solution.
OndSluHai
The sensible solution is to do what all other developed, sensible nations on the planet do: Restrict peoples access to guns. Case closed.
Shitlips3000
Fuck your facts!
OndSluHai
Yes, fuck 'em! If americans were ro rely on facts and statistics, they would have no choice but to introduce stricter gun laws. So fuck 'em!
DeanOMiite
HONEST QUESTION...what, besides the fact someone said so 200 years ago, makes gun ownership an essential liberty?
newsguycraigevans
Morons that believe Jesus wants them to have guns.
GuyDarras
The right to self-defense is the most fundamental right there is. Owning a weapon which to defend yourself with is central to that.
Sandyundertones
The overwhelming majority of Americans don't own guns and never have any issues. You are just imagining the need.
GuyDarras
If you've never lived through a major hurricane, tornado, tsunami, or riot and seen society break down, I'm sure that's easy for you to say.
Sandyundertones
I lived in Sierra Leone during the Civil war. I didn't feel that I needed on then, I don't feel that I need one now.
linogewotc
Firearms allow the bearer to say "no" and make it stick.
nothisisntme
This is a good question, increasingly important as military tech moves more towards automation and central control.
nothisisntme
How are you going to stop a drone army with shotguns/semiautomatic rifles?
finniss
In that type of situation, the government would likely be fragmented, with each side having some military assets.
nothisisntme
Our current situation is an army that is increasingly centralized, driven by tech just like inequality. Why would this lead to fragmentation
johnaustits
Big egos and small dicks
linogewotc
Been a while since I've seen an example of Markley's Law.
Melendenator
How do you define essential liberty? Is this distinct from a luxury? We argue on grounds that require further discussion themselves.
ToTheLastDrop
Democratizes power of force. It was never viable for disorganized people to defeat an army, but said army's victory becomes a Pyrrhic one.
rando84
The people trust the military far more than fringe militia groups that would presumably be fighting them. Traditional state & local 1/2
ToTheLastDrop
I'm not referring to organized militias, I'm referring to casualties during government confiscation that accompanies an authoritarian coup.
rando84
militias were closely tied to democratic government & reflected society's will/interests. Now, "militias" are just armed political gangs 2/2
wraithfd
Hypothetically: one day all at once the government decides to strip all of your Liberty's, if no one has any guns how do you protect yoursel
DudePlayinADudeDisguisedAsAnotherDude
So, how’s your well-regulated militia coming along? Is it just the nat’l guard or do you have your own?
Sandyundertones
Gasoline and hydrogen peroxide. Bombs are much better guerilla weapons than any gun a civilian can purchase.
damagemycalm
So, you're going to march your gun to DC and what? Get killed by a drone on the way? Your gun is useless vs technology beyond muskets.
bandarr5000
Not too much of the military would kill civilians or possible family members. There would be many defections. I see your point though, 1/2
bandarr5000
That would be pretty stupid. We wouldn't be able to fight a formal war.
wraithfd
So let me get your logic here: you would rather be completely unarmed with no chance to resist than out gunned . And you're calling me dumb.
unownlanguage
Oh you mean like the fcc with net neutrality? I don't see you marching your gun up to Washington over that *huge* loss in liberty
stusauce
I'm in favor of an open internet, but there are legal battles being fought and it's arguable that internet access is a service, not a right.
Krakencrotch
Argued by the exact same cunts trying to take it away. Great logic there.
thensacanttrackmythrowawayaccount
To me, the right and ability to defend yourself and your family is an essential liberty.
scatmanCrothers
I agree and long guns aren't the best choice for home defense anyway given the tight rooms and sq ft-age of most houses.
popejubal
Which is why everyone should have the right to own surface to air missiles. Gotta have the right to defend your home from air attack, right?
Anototh
At one point in time civilians could own warships.
popejubal
Isn't freedom of warship in the bill of rights?
thensacanttrackmythrowawayaccount
You make comments like this to try and make the other guy sound dumb. If anyone wants an actual decent discussion they can PM me
SunBrolem
Technical foul: Reductio ad absurdum. Into the penalty box.
popejubal
1/It's not reductio ad absurdum when surface to air missiles are legal in many states. Also, reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy - it's
thensacanttrackmythrowawayaccount
Comments like this make me sad. The internet has brought people of different backgrounds together, but rather then discussing things 1/2
popejubal
Whoops, thought that was a reply to a different comment of mine.
popejubal
Also, surface to air missiles are actually legal in PA and a fair number of other states. Just no guided missiles.
popejubal
I'm happy to discuss, but I see way too much insane, inflammatory rhetoric on Ingur to think it's a place where we can have alreal discussio
popejubal
1/2 It's kind of hard to discuss things with nuance in 140 characters. The "essential liberty" quote gets trotted out every time we see any
kohrah
That doesn't require guns.
2Cats1Box
Of course not.. In the perfect world where the person I'm defending against also doesnt have a gun.
thensacanttrackmythrowawayaccount
Guns are an equalizer. My 110 pound wife can walk to her midnight shift and stand a chance against a 250 pound, drugged up mugger
TheOvy
Statistically, a gun in the house is more likely to be used on your wife than on an intruder. Women's mortality worsens with guns, no joke.
unclemeat70
Interesting. Another HONEST QUESTION: exactly what gun control measure do you think would prevent bad things from happening?
Sandyundertones
Banning military style semi automatic rifles would make mass shootings less deadly.
Scrubbeh
I personally think that it should be treated like drivinga car, if you aren't good with one, you probably shouldn't have one.
nightookami
Well, all these shootings that are going on in your country seem to be ridiculously high compared to the rest of us.
DeanOMiite
Prevent every bad thing from happening? Absolutely no measure can do that, sadly. But I think certain prequals would reduce instances. i.e.
DeanOMiite
Background screenings (I really don't see the argument against this), age limits, maybe psych profile (just spitballing, I understand -
DeanOMiite
That's a huge can of worms. Also maybe
unclemeat70
All already in place. Gun free zone laws on the books. Individual reported many times. The funny thing about laws - criminals don’t care.
dannakala
how about allowing the CDC to research what methods could effectively reduce gun deaths. Treat it as a public health issue like car crashes>
unclemeat70
Allowing? Who’s stopping them? The CDC can pretty much do whatever they want.
dannakala
look up the dickey amendment. That plus congress reducing CDC funding by the exact amount it spent on gun research is a de facto ban
TeamRocketHR
Someone give a source, but no, the gov't prevents the CDC from studying it as well as having a national gun database to trace guns.
dannakala
I'm personally in favor of a capacity ban (e.g. <6). Enough for self defense and hunting and lets families keep heirloom guns.
Dragon10449
Watch a video made by a Sheriff demonstrating with enough practice magazine capacity really doesn't make all that big a difference
GodofCats
Capacity bans are dumb, modifying a magazine to increase it to full cap. is incredibly easy, ie anyone planning a shooting would do it.
ElusiveBastar
If the CDC could research gun violence maybe then we could get real solutions without needing reactionary gun bans. Also fuck patriot act.
corndoghooker
I was looking forward to Obama killing it, and then the dumb bastard not only defends it, but extends it too.
SuicidalThrillbillyturnedLunaticChillbilly
That not how we do, nowadays. The government does their own research so they can figure out how to make money off of it and to worsen it (1
SuicidalThrillbillyturnedLunaticChillbilly
in order to further depopulation. Of course, this is just hypothetical and I have many many more theories! Notice how ammunition is much (2
SuicidalThrillbillyturnedLunaticChillbilly
more expensive? Higher costs = more money in taxes. Plus, nobody talks about how handguns take the most lives and nobody want to limit those
ElusiveBastar
Wouldn’t also more people = more money in taxes? Isn’t the reason people are protected in order to increase lifetime tax value?
SuicidalThrillbillyturnedLunaticChillbilly
More people = less resources. Less people = the same amount of currency to share. Too many people = revolution born out of desperation (1
ThailandExpress
Yes Patriot Act,if doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.Gun Control,the Gooberment cant be trusted not to take good ppls guns
Crossark
They're not being allowed to research gun violence. Certain lobbyists push to restrict their funding if they try to do it.
Misslnformation
Indeed fuck the PATRIOT ACT
ElusiveBastar
Also it is not their fault, but the TSA is also garbage to make stupid Americans ‘feel’ safer.
Cyzyk
The TSA is just plain garbage. Their failure rate is ridiculous, and in many airports they are borderline abusive on top of that.
Cyzyk
I will specifically call out the Vegas TSA as being an exception as far as being helpful to the disabled, and Philly as being the worst.
LosPer
Data and statistics can serve whomever is interpreting it...facts are one thing. Policy is another.
Cheomesh
In ALL THINGS, fuck the Patriot Act.
vulturedoors
Why the fuck should the Center for DISEASE Control study gun violence?
ElusiveBastar
Public health is their purview. Plus they have models on people using weapons to cause chaos and death. Or we can make a new department.
vulturedoors
All of that is ridiculous.
ImgurDemonym
And Citizens United
TuggSpeedmann
Fuck the patriot act.
quadralol
There's already plenty of research out there. Lots of gun stats. They're all ignored.
spaghettiThunderbolt
If you have cancer, you get more cancer implanted. The only way to fight bad cancer is with good cancer, you can't get rid of the cancer!
Unfortunate2
They can research gun violence. They just can't use it to advocate gun control. They were openly biased in the 90s which was a big problem.
4254
Even Dickey wanted it repealed because it de facto banned research into reducing gun deaths. So now decisions are made without good info.
bayardthebloodhound
Why would the Center of Disease Control do gun research?
BSemisch
Death is kind of their wheel house. They look at disease more as "anything that kills people" rather than in terms of medical issues.
Muad
Hmm. I wonder if they study poverty.
wuttwuttinthebuttbutt
Poverty does not kill. They do take poverty into account when looking at common factors of things that do kill. (smoking, eating, etc)
gregariouslouganis
Because cause of death is their business. They also research suicide and violent deaths.
LiteralVampirePotBellyGoblins
It has, and it found that guns are used in self defense 500,000 times a year (lowest estimate)
imgCitizenZero
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/06/13/the-cdc-isnt-banned-from-studying-gun-violence-its-just-too-scared-to-do-its-job
ElusiveBastar
So it is a mix of murky water and not wanting retaliatory budget cuts. Neat. Good job politicians. Way to be corporate bitches.
Andalite
"CDC is banned from researching gun violence" is such a misleading way of saying they're prohibited from advancing a political agenda
[deleted]
[deleted]
Italipino
Has there been a disease that has taken more lives than guns that the CDC is not studying?
ElusiveBastar
Who’s political agenda? They research reducing human death. Not sure how that is political. Unless you are an anti-vaxxer.
rooik14
They were already banned from doing this before that law was passed now with this rule in place if they come to a conclusion with 1/2
rooik14
2/2 their numbers the NRA who is backed by gun corps will sue the shit out of them thanks to this.
UrKungFuNoGood
it's easy to walk out in protest compared to not torturing people who are different. It's never the football captain shooting is it?
ElusiveBastar
Yeah he usually only kills himself. Totally different gun stat there. There is an argument on improving home lives for those people.
ElusiveBastar
Walkout is really so people don’t feel like they are victims though. Focus on something rather than “my friend died in this room”.
coop61gt
Personally I already know I'm allergic to bullets. And I didn't have to be personally exposed to them. No reason for a CDC study.
rooik14
haha, but in reality the CDC does a lot of research on many causes of Death outside of disease and what lead to these things.
fatherted
Reactionary? Which massacre are we talking about?
CyBercrook
He wasn't talking about the massacres, he was talking about a gun control law that would be written by people who don't know guns. A bill
CyBercrook
that would be poorly written and not do what it wants to do.
ensensu
Boston? 1780s? Been so long I can't remember exactly when it happened.
Pyranamus
Early 1770’s I believe since it was pre-war
ElusiveBastar
Whichever one we gave thoughts and prayers too and changed out Facebook picture for. You know that one. (Whichever year the quote’s from)
[deleted]
[deleted]
jagerschitzel
Kony 2012! We will not rest until there is justice!!!
afriendofmine
Ugh, I just physically cringed.
flamingflamingo
Plenty of countries have minimized gun violence without collapsing society. No countries have eradicated mental illness. Choose your battle.
alwaysforgetmylogin
No I won't "choose my battle" this country is capable of addressing more than one issue at once.
flamingflamingo
Obviously, but saying that the gun violence problem can be solved by addressing mental health MORE than we already are is insane.
Spartan79
CDC did research gun violence. found that between 500,000-3,000,000 acts of violence are prevented each year due to legal gun owners.
Spartan79
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
Spartan79
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
SlobberToilet
The CDC does do research on gin violence. Apparently if you remove suicides and police related shootings, the US has one of the lowest rates
MericanNightmare
Source?
SlobberToilet
ElusiveBastar
Now I just imagine the old lady drinking a rifle to match your typo and suicide stat. Your typo is much better than any of mine.
KarneeKarnay
Of what? Gun violence? What statistics do you have to back up this claim?
Spartan79
yeah, there are about 36k deaths from guns a year. about 20k are suicides, and estimated between 11k-16k are homicides
ElusiveBastar
But what about all the data on mass shootings? I accept they are the smallest portion of gun violence though.
ElusiveBastar
But if suicide and police homicides are the reason for our high numbers shouldn’t the conversation be on fixing that?
ElusiveBastar
In which case more research is required! Instead of a wall let’s build a $20 billion office for the cdc! Soon we will know everything!
jayar1st
The CDC should be researching and developing prevention policies for diseases. Gun violence is not in their pervue.
Italipino
Why would those be removed?
Carefuler
You want to take guns away from police?
ArmedandOverclocked
because the root causes are different. Same reason you don't include hangings with lynching stats.
Spartan79
because suicide rates don't change when access to guns change. So someone killing themselves with a gun shouldn't prevent me from owning one
CigaretteMan
The first part is absolutely false. Firearms have far and above the highest completion rate of any means to attempt suicide. Further, (1)
CigaretteMan
nearly any study will tell you that suicide attempts are an impulsive act-which compounds the issue. (2)
verybamboo
He is saying suicide rates in reference to the rate of their occurrences not their success rate.
criablelurst
As far as I'm aware gun violence research was banned after it became clear gun ownership lead to higher homicide rates in families.
fredgiblet
It was restricted after a ranking member of CDC exposed his own significant bias.
DrBRx
We agree on F the patriot act. What research should be done that isn’t/hasn’t?
ForgotMyOtherAcct
The dickey amendment prohibits CDC from generally doing research on gun deaths and the like
DrBRx
Agreed. That is the current case. I’ve always be curious what other data was lacking since violence/guns stats ARE readily available via cdc
ForgotMyOtherAcct
I think it's supposed to be correlations and the like, since we already have access to raw stats (can't be prevented from gathering data,
ForgotMyOtherAcct
Just given no funding to do so), so putting it together is going to be lacking much coherence.
ElusiveBastar
Mostly how to deter or reduce school and other crowded place shootings. Factors into why they are done and how to stop future ones.
ElusiveBastar
I am sick of politicians blaming guns and video games or insisting that more people with weapons will help.
DrBRx
Yeah the discussions are mostly unmovable bias and deflections (with a dash of thinly veiled hypocrisy.)
DrBRx
That seems reasonable, I could get on board with those specifically. It would have to be truly unbiased research (not sure that’s possible)
Carefuler
No. Here's what would happen: They'll find out people get killed when there's access to guns. We know that, but it's a right for the 1/
Carefuler
people to have that's more important than the people dying. If they researched auto accidents they'd find
Carefuler
people get killed when there's access to cars, but we're not getting rid of cars either, and they kill many more people. There you go.
Carefuler
What we need to do is find a way to protect people even with guns around and maybe find a way to stop people Wanting to commit gun violence.
ElusiveBastar
Which is what the research would include. Factors that lead to shootings and how to prevent them. Cars are very regulated to reduce deaths.
Counterfit
The CDC does research for car-related deaths
ohlookmemes
The CDC does. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_violence_2015_1050w760h.gif
ohlookmemes
Gun related homicide is not as high as people perceive it to be. You're more likely to die by poison, vehicles, or suicide.
ElusiveBastar
That is just death. Not really info on what causes mass shootings or ways to reduce it. The post is about firearms and the banning thereof.
ohlookmemes
Well, that's just one piece of many reports. Here is one "brief" https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm
ElusiveBastar
And this is all well and good but that is just looking into all deaths. Not specific research into mass killings involving a firearm.
ohlookmemes
That's the job of the ATF, the FBI, and other agencies under the DOJ. The CDC specializes in diseases under the DHHS.
ohlookmemes
The CDC collects data to look at all causes as they relate to another. They don't focus on one cause only unless it is a epidemic.
ElusiveBastar
Hmm fair enough. At what point can we call it an epidemic though? I mean a Vegas performer is commenting on it. So was the president.
ohlookmemes
Here is a more detailed report https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#019
linogewotc
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/
MericanNightmare
Lol federalist, might as well link Brietbart.
linogewotc
https://i2.wp.com/www.thiscruelwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/genetic.jpg
linogewotc
Basically, if the CDC could actually do the research without preconceived conclusions in mind, that'd be great.
Mercenarity
Peer-review is a thing for a reason, though. A dislike of cancer shouldn't prevent a scientist from being involved in its cure.
Mercenarity
Also it's kind of silly of the NRA to call foul on slanted documentation considering its reputation as a single-issue interest group.
linogewotc
Read the link. It wasn't written by the NRA, and the quotes are... quite damning. "Peer review", in this case, was an echo chamber.
linogewotc
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” - Research Head Patrick O'Carroll.
linogewotc
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes." - Mark Rosenberg, a CDC director.
iguessidontknowhowtospellimaganative
Real solutions would require spending money on mental health services, which is kinda against what the government wants to do, so...
ElusiveBastar
Stupid Nixon, Reagan, Clinton. One or all of them cut mental health services in our country. One of the reason for increased homeless folks.
AshleyFosf8
What makes you think the gov't is against spending money on mental health services?
TheNLK
Probably the fact that they completely gutted it in the past?
iguessidontknowhowtospellimaganative
You mean other than the overcrowded mental health clinics, all the mentally ill homeless people, and no progress on free health Care?
iguessidontknowhowtospellimaganative
The only person who talked about it in the the primaries was Bernie, Hilary started parroting it, despite her previous votes against
iguessidontknowhowtospellimaganative
And Trump just made it better for insurance companies
AshleyFosf8
There is only so much money available in the government's budget.
stusauce
Mental health isn't even associated with violent crime, let alone gun crime. It's just a sensationalist idea driven by the media.
Jonesssssss
Saying mental health is associated with violence is like saying food is associated with obesity: not wrong, just not quite on the dot.
iguessidontknowhowtospellimaganative
So school shooters are mentally stable? Good to know.
alsoAzrael
The point is that mental illness diagnoses are not a reliable predictor of gun violence.
stusauce
They are not necessarily suffering from a mental disease. Some do, but generally speaking those with mental diseases don't. Big difference.
TheNLK
One could argue that all sorts of batshit people aren't technically suffering from a disease, and that humanity is just fucked up.
SecretlyARedPanda
It is and it isn't. What is proven is the socio-economic disparity resulting in higher crime rate. Mental health is inter-played with that.
piedmontpie
Of the deadliest school shootings in the USA, 26 out of 27 shooters grew up in fatherless homes.
rrlyrae
of the deadliest school massacres in the USA, 0 out of 0 perpetrators grew up in gunless homes.
sunnymangoes
Other countries also have fatherless homes and fucked up childhoods, but somehow no mass shootings or school massacres. Hmmm...
piedmontpie
You must be pretty ignorant if you think no other countries have mass shootings or school massacres.
sunnymangoes
No other developed nations have regular mass shootings or school massacres. Full stop.
piedmontpie
You're not very good at this. The worst school massacres in history were in Scotland, by bomb, and in China, by knife.
TheosophicBlues
That isn't remotely true. Saw that claim debunked.
hellistheseinfeldthemeonrepeat
And so did I, never went and shot up a school.
Carefuler
Do you have a source for that?
piedmontpie
Yes, although the stat was garbled a bit. See my comments under the "Sauce" comment.
Carefuler
Thanks!
piedmontpie
You are welcome!
kruug
Deadliest school massacre in the US was a bomb. Columbine was supposed to be a bombing with guns for cleanup.
ANUS2K14
Not only is this total bullshit, but lack of a father doesn't have anything to do with It, two parents provide more resources, all there is.
ANUS2K14
Those two parents could be gay or two friends raising a kid (for whatever bizarre reason), this father specific shit is nonsense.
DarkZalgo
I bet they all drank water and breathed air too.
ImHereSoIWontGetFined
Sauce?
piedmontpie
1/3 I traced it ultimately to http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/14/guess-which-mass-murderers-came-from-a-fatherless-home/. However ...
piedmontpie
3/3 ... simplification and goes into more detail: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/fatherless-shooters-clarification-data
piedmontpie
2/3 ... it was incorrectly simplified from the original stat which was 6 out of 7 out of a list of 27. Another article examines the ...
metaphordog
How can that be the problem? We have studies going all the way back to Murphy Brown showing single parenting isn't harmful.
rhombusrightangle
As I grew up my mother left my father and I instantly knew no one was in charge anymore. Worst thing that could have happened to me!
BrandonianFlynnigan
Wow I never knew that. How have I never heard that?
philosoraptor1000
Society doesn't really value dads as much as moms.
seriouslyhodor
It’s not a sexy headline. “BAN FATHERLESS HOMES”.
CigaretteMan
Probably because it's blatant bullshit
BrandonianFlynnigan
That'll do it haha
Amuzaulo
Because unfortunately it's not true. It pops up often on conspiracy websites.
xTracerBulletx
Suzanne Venker, for Fox News is who the statement comes from. They may be biased but last I checked, not labeled a conspiracy site.
DarkZalgo
That depends heavily on who you ask.
ANUS2K14
Because it's bullshit, it's a way for conservatives to push the "lack of fathers cause violence" narrative to demonize blacks.
BrandonianFlynnigan
Oh that's fucked up. Thanks for informing me.
calldrdaley
Also 100% of them were on or had taken anti-depressants. I always wondered if they rotted away your ability to feel more than the depression
LizardsInTheSky
A lot of people die in hospitals. I always wondered if those places don't actually have lives. Correlation=/=causation
calldrdaley
Correlation gives reason to look into something. If there’s causation behind it then it would be a pretty big deal.
LizardsInTheSky
Then investigate case by case. Mental illness and its causes vary so widely that what works for some may not work for others, and that does
naelyan589
Or maybe there's more to treating depression than sticking people on helpful drugs but abandoning them and shaming them in every other way.
calldrdaley
Hey I’m with you there but these drugs aren’t even a crutch. They immediately make you dependent on them and doctors over-prescribe them
naelyan589
You're not wrong, but within a system as broken as we have in N.America that's the best even helpful/caring doctors can do in most cases.
drame
Correlation is not causation keep that in mind.
calldrdaley
In some cases it is. It definitely gives reason to look into it.
Amuzaulo
This isn't true. Both the Columbine killers, Fort Hood shooter, and the Texas Tower shooter spent their entire childhood in intact families.
fredgiblet
Previous poster said SCHOOL shootings.
Amuzaulo
Ah, good catch. School shooters from intact families: Andrew Kehoe, Seung-Hui Cho, Charles Whitman, One L. Goh, Steven Phillip Kazmierczak
Amuzaulo
Plus of course, both the Columbine school shooters.
SchizophrenicMC
Two of those were school shootings.
fredgiblet
Forgot that Texas Tower was at a University.
piedmontpie
After doing further research, the stat was incorrectly simplified from the original. See more info in my replies under the "Sauce" comment.
kruug
So, 4 out of how many?
Amuzaulo
In fact as far as I can tell, less than half of the deadliest 30 mass shooters were from broken homes, and some of those were single fathers
Amuzaulo
Omar Saddiqui Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, George Hennard, Patrick Henry Sherrill, Jiverly Wong, George Banks, all from intact families.
stusauce
2013 Obama lifted the ban and ordered research be done. Findings were not what the left wanted. Notably estimated 500k-3m defensive uses.
CigaretteMan
Blatant bullshit. They did one study where they analyzed data compiled from other studies. By no means "lifted the ban".
MericanNightmare
Source?
Rexli78
The source is his ass he’s lying.
MericanNightmare
Yeah the silence was deafening.
alsoAzrael
Source? I can't find that defensive uses stat in any CDC study or meta-study. I'm sorely tempted to call bullshit.
Carefuler
Really? Source?
ANUS2K14
They barely did any "research" they aggregated statistics from other studies, notably the count of defensive uses was hugely inaccurate.
GaySocialistLiberalMuslimCommieAtheist
So in other words, the number of defensive uses is "fuck if we know"... not in small part due to people who think having a gun existing 1/2
GaySocialistLiberalMuslimCommieAtheist
In your house counts as defensive use. Or other answers of a similar vein that lead to 365 yearly defensive uses. 2/2
Cheomesh
"The Left". Yeah America ain't got no left, son.
JayEnfield
Speaking as a foreigner, agreed. USA has a right-wing corporatist party... And a slightly more brazen right-wing corporatist party.
afriendofmine
Agreed. I think it has to do with the cultural scars of the Cold War. The idea of actually helping people who are less fortunate seems to
afriendofmine
Give the average American I’ve met allergies. Which kinda baffles me, tbh. But so does the gun discussion, so...
Cheomesh
I call them the Near Right and Far Right. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
Notme68
I looked for the numbers on that study. It just said what they all say. The numbers are interlace for to bias in the questions. 1
Notme68
Surveys results range from 50 thousand to 2.5 million. Everybody ignores that gun suicides account for twice the deaths as gun homicides.
afriendofmine
This is just my opinion, but gun suicide should also be taken into account when talking about gun control. Do we really want people to have
afriendofmine
Such easy access to kill your self tools? I know it’s not enough as a solution, of course, but is this that far fetched an idea?
Notme68
Damn predictive text running a good point. * The numbers are unreliable due to bias...
[deleted]
[deleted]
GuyDarras
Direct link: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Splinthar
Its almost like one study can't tell the full story of a nation's relationship with guns and the innocents caught up in it.
alsoAzrael
They cite Kleck then "Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership.."
twozerooz
And where does it actually say that? Really can't find those stats anywhere
GuyDarras
Page 15, "Defensive Use of Guns"
Rexli78
No he didn’t. The Dickey Amendment is still in full effect. Obama and the Democratic Party’s efforts to repeal it failed.
Rexli78
But I guess your research into the matter didn’t fit with your narrative so you decided to out right lie about what happened.
ExTechOp
Wrong: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand
MalcomReynoldsWrap
Why use a subjective media outlet as your source?
sexconker
Because he needs to feed his narrative.
ProkopProject
What it does say is that more reasearch needs to be done.
ProkopProject
In the article you linked it clearly states that the numbers could be between 100,000 and 3,000,000 defensive uses of firearms.
RYZE08
All the post says is that the 500k-3m figure is "in dispute". Lowest estimates for DGU is 75k; thus DGU is 7.5x more common than homicides.
SlurpGod
Source?
Nordenfeldt
That is quite false. The CDC study found no such thing, the defensive ‘stat’ came from Kleck study, though he later reduced the number.
Nordenfeldt
Here is the CDC study, to see for yourself: http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
venomlash
The CDC didn't actually do what was claimed here. Their claim was that estimates vary widely & are poor quality so more research is needed.
afriendofmine
Op provided a source. I expect the same or I call BS.
venomlash
The CDC review reported the findings of other studies, which were national level estimates rather than any sort of tabulation.
stusauce
Which far outweighs the ~30k deaths caused by firearms annually (including suicide). So, by the numbers, guns save more than they kill.
JayEnfield
Because every single "defensive use" of a firearm saves a life? That's the opposite of what happens when you shoot someone.
afriendofmine
Not to mention that “defensively” implies justified. As in “he tries to take my $20 so I shot his sorry ass.” As if there was no proportion.
lfcnpk123
Can you post a source to the cdc research...I like to read.
g1161
https://www.nap.edu/login.php?record_id=18319&page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fdownload.php%3Frecord_id%3D18319#
HomunculusSr
one life is worth 16-100 burglaries, got it.
afriendofmine
You’re literally getting downvotes because you’re right. Probably by people who’d rather kill somebody over a $20.
Forere
The facts contradict my feelings, so the facts are wrong, duh
CaptainSarcasmAwaaay
The study actually says that the statistics for gun use vary widely, with violent crimes for firearms in the range of ~300k and (1/2)
kruug
How many of those violent crimes are gang related? Not saying they don’t matter, but more gun laws probably won’t have much impact on them.
afriendofmine
They actually do. I mean, that’s of course not the solution to gangs and crime itself, though. That’s a wholly different social issue.
CaptainSarcasmAwaaay
Figures for defensive uses ranging from ~100k to over 3 million, which suggests massive inaccuracy in the research. (2/3)
CaptainSarcasmAwaaay
It's a call for further work to be done, not a conclusion, but it suggests there's a LOT of work needed. (3/3)
ElusiveBastar
And what were the causes for mass shootings? And what can be done to prevent future ones?
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
We’re kind of zeroing in on statistical “nothingness”, here. Your chance of dying in a mass shooting are essentially none.
ElusiveBastar
I am mostly for research and understanding here. If conclusive evidence is found then we don’t have to ban random guns or arm teachers.
FirstEdition
RAND corp found no evidence to support any policy in either direction regarding mass shootings iirc
Cheomesh
Basically, taking all the guns away. You are never going to have an environment without nutjobs.
Cheomesh
Basically, taking all the guns away. You are never going to have an environment without nutjobs.
Keairan
Poverty, Drugs, Sending a message, Mental Illness, temporary insanity, desire for fame. Pick at least one.
LosPer
Fewer than 4% of all gun deaths are attributable to rifles of ANY kind...
JayEnfield
Makes perfect sense. Pistols are designed to be everywhere and hurt humans. Rifles are designed to be in the forest and hurt deer.
SesshouFan22
Pistols are designed for defense, not to hurt humans.
Rexli78
Defense against what exactly whicker furniture?!
Gunslinger8912
How would you use a gun to defend yourself WITHOUT hurting a human? The idea of a gun is to kill.
JayEnfield
You're not shooting deer or a bear or a rabbit with a pistol. You're shooting a dude. That's what this class of guns is meant for.
afriendofmine
To be fair, I don’t think the gun control discussion was ever about rifles specifically, but over all firearm types.
LosPer
Nobody is talking about banning semi-automatic pistols. Yet. They are trying it out on rifles first...
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
In the US, at least, the big argument is about AR-15s.
afriendofmine
Isn’t it just because of the latest massacre? I thought the general trend was about guns, not a specific subset of firearms. I can be wrong.
ArmedandOverclocked
They also found stricter laws did not seem to impact gun deaths. But noted that there was very little before & after data from recent laws.
Notme68
If like to hear a debate. I am strongly in favor of a gun owning licence. Needs renewing. You can sell a gun to anybody with a current1
Notme68
licence. Setting to an unlicensed person is a crime as well (similar to selling alcohol too someone without a current licence). 2
Notme68
Possession (home or personal) without a current licence is a felony.
derkderkderk
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
twozerooz
Did they only look America? Because there's been success in most places. There's a reason America has 4x the gun death rate as anyone else
Gerjager
Thing is, America has more non gun crime as well
crookednixon
Perhaps, but it might not be the legal accessibility of guns.
ekuluke
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
twozerooz
Lol at people downvoting facts they don't like
Unfortunate2
Because it's wrong. It's attributing a drop in violence that was already trending downward to their gun control. The US had the same 1/
ProkopProject
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/11/10/australias-secret-gun-problem-exposed/amp/
derkderkderk
Apples and oranges, Australia does not mirror the US in culture or legal policies.
ekuluke
Okay. So what you're saying is we shouldn't look to other's for examples of what may work here?
ProkopProject
Except Australia's gun crime has been on the steady incline the past decade.
WowMuchFuni
Commenting so I can save this for whenever I feel like mocking the left (this is a 'bookmark' comment, downvote if you'd like)
alsoAzrael
Whatever you do, don't actually read any of the debate about it, and DEFINITELY don't read the actual studies! Just repeat this bit instead.
CigaretteMan
Please attempt to do that. The claim is blatantly false, as you'll no doubt hear over and over when you try to repeat it. :)
PangolinBan
Be sure to bookmark the corrections and rebuttals too. ;)
WowMuchFuni
Nah, I'm fine. Thanks for reminding me though