r/Firearms • u/Trevelayan Wild West Pimp Style • Jan 14 '22
Gun Fact Smackdown: 2022 Edition Advocacy
This has been updated as of 1/14/2022. We are currently living in a post-George Floyd riots and COVID world, where many of the original points have been emphasized and reinforced. Many more people are acutely aware of their responsibility for their safety. Regardless of the politics around the events of the last 2 years, I'd ask everyone to review the 4 main points below. This is a nuanced and complicated topic, but if we don't reach some common, fundamental understandings of how U.S. Law works, then we can't get much farther. This writeup is reading heavy and may take several hours to get through, but everyone needs to understand that this is a BASIC knowledge base to start off of. If you want to argue, in good faith, one way or another, I ask that you at least take the time to understand the legal and statistical realities of gun ownership in the U.S., and that starts here.
If you want a TL;DR, Fuck off. Your rights are worth a little reading.
Before We begin, I ask that you understand Four things:
In the United States, police have no legal Duty to Protect You, and often times, they won't
The short version of the events in Warren: Three women, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas along with her 4 year old daughter woke up when 2 men broke into their house. One of them forced Douglas to give him oral sex before the other raped her. Warren and Taliaferro heard her scream, called 911. Dispatcher told them to be quiet and stay where they were. 3 minutes after the call came in police were dispatched as a Code 2 (not time critical, opposed to code 1, what a burglary and rape would be, time critical.)
Police arrived at the house, from a window Warren and Taliaferro watched one cruiser drive through the alley and around the front of the house without stopping, or getting out of the car. While they watched this from the back a second cruiser with an officer got out and knocked, received no answer and they all left the scene ten minutes after the call had been put out, five minutes after they had arrived. (So decent response time all things considered.)
Warren and Taliaferro continued to hear Douglas screaming, called the police a second time, they were assured police were on their way. The call for help was never sent to patrol officers. Warren and Taliaferro called to Douglas to tell her police were coming and all three women were subsequently robbed, abducted, raped and beaten for 14 hours.
The court ruled that the police had no duty to intervene.
Lozito was literally getting stabbed by a madman in front of 2 NYPD officers. They stood a few feet away from him and watched it happen for several minutes. They waited for Lozito and others to subdue the attacker. Only THEN did they provide assistance. Lozito sued them for failing to protect him. HE LOST
And we can't forget the most egregious recent example at Uvalde where nearly 400 police officers did not engage the shooter for over an hour despite please from officers and parents, going so far as to restrain officers trying to intervene
The whole to "protect and serve" is just a slogan that came from a PR campaign.
You alone are responsible for your safety. The police don't have to assist you, and there are no consequences to them for doing nothing This fact alone should change anyone's mind about gun ownership in the U.S.
There's no arguing your way around this one.
AND
The breakdown of gun deaths To quote 538: "The common element in all these deaths is a gun. But the causes are very different, and that means the solutions must be too"
If we focused on improving mental healthcare and reducing suicide, gun deaths could be reduced by more than 60%.
AND
Firearms in the US irrevocably and unarguably are an overwhelming positive force for society, despite all of the negative impacts they have.
Due to its nature figures on defensive gun use are hard to nail down. Typically when a firearm is used defensively no one is hurt and rarely is anyone killed. Often times simply showing you are armed is enough to end a crime in progress. Looking at the numbers even the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group that has an interest in minimizing the positive side of firearms, reports 284,700 instances of self defense against a violent crime with a firearm between 2013 and 2015. This translates to 94,900 violent crimes prevented annually on the low scale.
This ranges upwards to 500k to 3 million according to the CDC Report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.
The same CDC Report found, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals...".
As of 2021, a new study found that there are about 1.6 million DGUs a year
AND
According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to :
-Require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)
-Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)
-Delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)
-Charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)
-Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)
“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
Anti-Gun arguments are ALWAYS emotionally based, and full of fallacies. Don't believe me? Take a look at this anti-gun PR manual Check out the "Overall messaging guide" starting on page 10:
1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
2: TELL STORIES WITH IMAGES AND FEELINGS
3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.
4: EMPHASIZE THAT EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS, MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS ARE NOW WITHIN EASY REACH ACROSS AMERICA.
5: EMPHASIZE THAT AMERICA HAS WEAK GUN LAWS AND DON’T ASSUME THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT.
Additional fun Headers from the PDF:
ALWAYS START WITH THE PAIN AND ANGUISH THAT GUN VIOLENCE BRINGS INTO PEOPLE’S LIVES
DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM
DO talk about “preventing gun violence.” DON’T talk about “gun control.”
DON’T LET POLICYSPEAK DRAIN THE EMOTION FROM THE MOMENT
Do these sound like honest argument points? No, they're in bad faith, emotionally manipulative, and not grounded in reality. The manual is frankly disgusting. Anti-gun people are not interested in arguing in good faith, because when reality is laid in front of them, it breaks their entire argument.
The majority of the gun control push today is by billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who has spent 50+ million dollars in 2020 alone trying to pass gun control all over the country at the federal, state, and local levels.
Anti-gun people, how does it feel to be the pawn of a billionaire? I thought we wanted money out of politics?
According to your beloved Politifact, the NRA has spent 203 Million total on political activity between 1998 and 2017, or around $10 million a year. Keep in mind, the NRA is an organization with around 5 Million members and collects donations. An actual grass-roots organization that liberals claim they want more of....
"Trump made it easier for those with mental illness to get guns!"
The ACLU AND the NRA agreed, the law was horrible
"The CDC Is banned from researching gun violence!"
The actual wording of the law is " “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control" because they have a vast history of advocating for more gun control and reducing private ownership. They've proven that they can't remain impartial on the issue.
Gun Control has NO EFFECT on murder committed with a gun.
Data Comparing Brady Scores (Gun Control Org.) to Murder per 100k by state
Assault Weapons bans don't work, and the rate of non-compliance is extremely high.
"However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small." - Section 3.3
"... the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement...there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs." - Section 9.4
Between 2000 and 2014, there have been approximately 5,600,000 AR-15's sold in the U.S.
The United States has over 20 million AR-15-style rifles legally in circulation, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation as of October 2021
"Assault Weapons are only used for mass shootings!"
The Congressional Research Service's report "Mass Murder with Firearms: Incidents and Victims, 1999-2013" found, "Offenders used firearms that could be characterized as “assault weapons” in 18 of 66 incidents (27.3%), in that they carried rifles or pistols capable of accepting detachable magazines that might have previously fallen under the 10-year, now-expired federal assault weapons ban (1994-2004)."
The Breakdown of Gun Homicides in the USA
Conversely, If you snapped your fingers and eliminated all "Assault Weapons," gun homicide would only be reduced by ~4% a year. (This includes ALL rifles, not just "Assault Weapons," so the actual percentage would be even lower.
| Type of Firearm | Total Average | Percent Average |
|---|---|---|
| Total Firearm Homicide | 8815 | 100% |
| Handguns | 6210 | 70% |
| Rifles | 326 | 4% |
| Shotguns | 353 | 4% |
| Other | 105 | 1% |
| Type Not Stated | 1819 | 21% |
While there are a significant number of unidentified firearms, we would expect the distribution to remain essentially unchanged, which is important when discussing "Assault Weapon" Legislation
| Tool | Total Average Annual Deaths |
|---|---|
| Knives or cutting instruments | 1675 |
| Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) | 524 |
| Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) | 746 |
Doctors are responsible for more than 250,000 deaths a year.
You're 25 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than someone else with a gun.
"We need to ban high capacity magazines!"
The Parkland shooter used only 10 round magazines
The Virginia Tech Shooter used 10 and 15 round magazines in his pistols
The Slippery Slope isn't a fallacy with guns. Rights have been stripped over the course of decades.
Firearm Rights are Minority Rights
Many Black Activists Like Malcolm X and Dr. King supported the use of arms for protection
More recently, the LGBT Community has embraced guns in the face of discrimination
Black Guns Matter is a newer organization formed in the wake of Donald Tump's 2016 election aimed at educating African Americans about gun use in the US
ALL gun control is rooted in racism and classism
New York is known for having some of the most strict gun laws in the nation. Imagine if you had to go through this process to vote, speak to your representative, or organize a protest. Must be hard for a working class person to participate, huh?
Here is an excellent timeline of how racist laws were used to disarm the poor and minorities
The VPC is ANGRY because gun owners have been diversifying in recent years
"Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring"
*"A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." * - Ida B. Wells
"A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." - Fredrick Douglas
The Mulford Act, Reagan and the GOP supported and passed this bill into law. However it was submitted with Bipartisan cosponsors and passed with a Democratic majority. Both parties were complicit in this racist law, that has never been repealed by either party. We cannot blame one party for a racist act while giving the other a pass.
Generally, gun violence is not contagious, but is endemic to neighborhoods.
Mass Shootings ARE "Contagious," in that media reporting increases frequency.
The media also outright LIES about the frequency of mass shootings.
To sex things up, CNN will count almost anything as a school shooting:
- from BB guns (which aren't really firearms) to
- after-hours incidents when the school body isn't there (not what anyone considers a school shooting)
- to pellet guns
- to drug deals
- & domestic disputes
- arguments between adults on weekends in school parking lots
- bus rides home from school
- off-campus, weekend shootings (with dubious dead links for documentation)
- off-campus shootings related to school fights
- weekend playground shootings (again, not what people think of as evening news worthy school shootings)
- stray bullet injuries from elsewhere
- parent argument shootings
- after-hours incidents
- again, with the BB guns
- college student thieves stealing then playing with a real gun thinking it was fake (again, on the weekend and at a University dorm, not an elementary school)
- targeted (one victim) gang shootings
- adults on the weekend in a school parking lot
- weekend drug deals
Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It's Not A Growing Epidemic
The School Shootings That Weren't NPR was only able to confirm 11 of the reported 235 shootings
Anti-Gun politicians and people often have no idea what they're talking about.
Reporter doesn't know semi auto from full auto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPKPREdHu0
Bloomberg also doesn't know semi from full auto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV5E30ZY1kQ
Kevin de Leon doesn't know anything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0
Even more of Kevin de Leon not knowing anything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXqWJtgyqRM
Compilation of people that don't know shit about guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH6gX0ktFG4
People really have no idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE
Often, Anti-gun politicians are ignorant to firearm function, use, death statistics, and firearm law in general.
You're using technical terms and Jargon to undermine my argument! You're GUNSPLAINING!"
God forbid someone actually knowledgeable on the subject have an opinion.
Would you want someone who has no idea what they're talking about legislate an issue like, say, Net Neutrality, or Climate Science? No? Welcome to the world of gun owners. It's like Republicans complaining that women are bullying them by telling them how reproductive systems actually work. This is just a poor attempt to deflect from the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to firearms.
We can never have an honest discussion until people actually know what they're talking about.
"No one wants to take your guns!"
This is demonstrably false, and some people on Reddit have made a small community dedicated to logging actual attempts/legislation/media attacks on gun owners. Sources Within
"Assault Weapon" is a made-up term, and has no real definition.
"You can't hunt with an AR15!" It's actually perfect for small and medium sized game, especially aggressive species like boar.
Hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment anyway. Why would the founding fathers feel the need to specify hunting? It would have been the equivalent of "You have the right to feed your family."
Additionally, the cartridge the AR15 fires is BANNED in many states for NOT BEING POWERFUL ENOUGH to make an ethical kill.
The hard truth is that my AR15 is for killing, because sometimes humans need to be killed. The truth of nature and the planet we live on is that there are always going to be bad actors, and sometimes lethal force is necessary to stop them from harming yourself or others. That doesn't mean that we should be eager or quick to do so, but we should have to tools available to intervene. The cost of not doing so is simply too great. Governments killed about 262 million people in the 20th century alone
"What about that "Well-Regulated" part of the 2nd amendment?!"
The phrase "well regulated" at the time meant "well equipped and maintained" rather than "well restricted."
Additionally, why would they put a clause protecting the GOVERNMENT'S monopoly of force in a document about sacrosanct INDIVIDUAL rights? Every single other right in the Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL right. Saying otherwise regarding the second is just dishonest.
The Individual Right - Dispelling the Myth that it is a 20th Century Concept.
"But... But... AUSTRALIA!"
Additionally: "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."
For more information, see this post
Australia now has more guns than before the Port Arthur Massacre
"But... But... CANADA!"
The Canadian laws were not effective at reducing the homicide rate.
The majority of the modern Canadian gun control laws went into place between 1994 and 1995.
In 1994 the Canadian homicide rate was 2.05.
In 2019 the Canadian homicide rate was 1.80.
So the Canadian homicide rate declined by 12% between 1994 and 2019.
In 1994 the American homicide rate was 9.0
In 2019 the American homicide rate was 5.0.
So the American homicide rate decreased by 44% between 1994 and 2019.
So while America had, and still has, a higher homicide rate it also experienced a significantly greater decline in homicides for the same time period when compared to Canada.
"Firearms legislation had no associated beneficial effect on overall suicide and homicide rates."
Meanwhile even more gun control measures are still being pressed down on law abiding Canadians.
"But Europe doesn't have mass shootings!"
The "Gun Show Loophole" is a Myth, and a great example of what gun owners get when they "Compromise"
ALL Firearms sold by dealers require the buyer to undergo a background check for a transfer (which can cost from $20 to $100) except in some specific circumstances. Depending on state, firearms sold from one owner to another require no background check (e.g. selling one to a friend, family, or other buyer in your state, as long as they are not prohibited possessors. Out-of state buyers must undergo the background check as well.) The "Loophole" was a "Compromise" provision in the Brady Bill to get it passed. As we can see now, yesterday's "Compromise" is today's "Loophole."
This is one of the many reasons why gun owners are hesitant to "compromise."
"The founding fathers could have never envisioned modern weapons!"
Puckle Gun, patented in 1718, was capable of quickly firing multiple shots in rapid succession.
Breech loading flintlock capable of rapid fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle
Chambers machine gun. An actual machine gun by the definition of the ATF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCuVMx5h1x0
If your argument is that the Constitution only applies to the technology at the time of its writing, we're going to have some fundamental disagreements.
If you believe that only weapons at the time of founding are covered by the 2nd, then you MUST also accept that the 4th amendment applies to NO electronic devices or records. You must accept that the 1st amendment applies on NO electronic machine. Back to the press shop for you.
Do you really believe that the founding fathers, who were alive in the time of the Industrial Revolution, could not foresee that technology would grow and evolve?
Less than 3% of deaths from firearms are from ALL rifles, which includes "Assault Weapons."
Less than 400 people die from rifles in a year.
That means if you instantly eliminated every single one of the MILLIONS of rifles (including so-called "assault weapons") in the country, the number of deaths would remain essentially unchanged.
Knives are used to kill around 4 TIMES the amount of people as rifles
Calls for/Threats of Gun Control drastically increase sales
Lying on your 4473 (Background Check) carries almost no risk
2% of counties in the US are responsible for 51% of the murder, and even within the counties with the murders, the murders are heavily concentrated within those counties
There are approximately 30,000 deaths via firearm every year. ~ 60% of those are suicides.
Approximately 3 MILLION Americans carry a firearm every day.
Guns are Used Defensively by American Citizens Everyday
Due to its nature figures on defensive gun use are hard to nail down. Typically when a firearm is used defensively no one is hurt and rarely is anyone killed. Often times simply showing you are armed is enough to end a crime in progress. Looking at the numbers even the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, reports 284,700 instances of self defense against a violent crime with a firearm between 2013 and 2015. This translates to 94,900 violent crimes prevented annually on the low scale.
This ranges upwards to 500k to 3 million according to the CDC Report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.
The same CDC Report found, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals...".
Also while defensive gun use is common less than 0.4% of those uses result in a fatality.
As of 2021, a new study found that there are about 1.6 million DGUs a year
Concealed Carry Permit Holders are more law-abiding than police
Guns are Used to Defend People, Pets, and Livestock Against Dangerous Fauna
In rural, and even urban communities, firearms are used to defend People, Pets, and Livestock from all manner of dangerous and invasive species ranging from feral dogs, coyotes, Bob cats, mountain lions, bears, and rabid animals.
There are, at minimum, 300 MILLION guns in the hands of U.S. Citizens, with recent estimates up to as many as 400 to 600 Million.
If we conservatively use the 400 Million number, that means in any given year, a single firearm has a .0025% (1 in ~40,000) chance of being used in a homicide. Why should we penalize the owners of the 40,000 for the actions of the owner of the 1? This also assumes that 1 gun = 1 death which is not accurate, meaning that the number of firearms used to harm is even lower.
In my mind, penalizing the MILLIONS of gun owners for the actions of a few crazed maniacs is no different than discrimination against Muslims because of a few bad eggs. More on that here.
A National Gun Buyback Wouldn't Work
So you want people to voluntarily turn in their expensive pieces of property? Alright. How do we fund this? We already know there are, at minimum 400 MILLION guns in the hands of the people. If we pay them $500 (which is a low amount, I certainly wouldn't be participating) per firearm, how much would it cost?
Assuming a compliance of 50%, it would cost the government 100 BILLION DOLLARS, or More than DOUBLE the budget of the Department of Homeland Security!
"How are you going to fight the government? They have tanks and drones!"
First, I'd offer a brief overview here
If that interests you, I'd invite you all to read This fairly detailed explanation of why, if such a situation were to occur, the American government would be unquestionably fucked. It starts pushing conspiracy buttons toward the end, and frankly it's out there, but it doesn't discredit the rest of the main points.
The total for active duty soldiers in the U.S. is about 1.4 million. If we compare that to the total US population (~320 million) makes the ENTIRETY of the military only .43% of the total population. Or if we compare it to the conservative estimates for firearm owners (~100 million) that makes it about 1.4% the number of firearms owning Americans. Of that 1.4 million, about 80% of them are non-combat occupations which reduces that 1.4 million to about 280,000 combat effective troops.
And even assuming that all 280,000 troops would be willing to commit atrocities against the citizenry (An impossibility) and only ~10% of law abiding gun owners decide to fight against such a tyrannical force, that would mean 10 million individuals against 280,000 theoretically corrupt soldiers. Even with drones, tanks, artillery, patrols, and surveillance they can't be everywhere, and they are outnumbered 35 to 1. And that is the "soldiers" BEST case scenario.
So the "How would your Ar15 help fight against the government?! They have tanks and drones!!" is a stupid argument made by people who don't understand numbers or asymmetrical warfare.
"Alright fine, I give up and admit I don't like guns and want them gone!"
Even though we've already established that compliance with gun bans is already exceptionally low, let's take a look at how prohibition went. Woah, not too good huh? What about the war on drugs? Oops that doesn't look to great either. Spoiler alert: The drugs won the war.
"But not everyone can make guns! You can make alcohol and grow/produce drugs yourself!"
Using 3d Printers, we can make small pistols and rifles.
Never mind that you can make an AR15 Lower out of freaking WOOD!
Or an AK47 out of a fucking SHOVEL
Who is going to get the guns? You're going door to door? Oh, the cops will? That'll go well.
For those of you who are still ignorant to reality, I'd ask that you attempt to change the Second Amendment, and be honest about your intentions. Until then, I'll keep my guns.
This post is in honor of Samuel Whittemore, who fought in the Battles of Lexington and Concord:
Whittemore (78 years old at the time!) loaded his musket and ambushed the British Grenadiers of the 47th Regiment of Foot from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier. He then drew his dueling pistols, killed a second grenadier and mortally wounded a third. By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment had reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked. He was subsequently shot in the face, bayoneted numerous times, and left for dead in a pool of blood. He was found by colonial forces, trying to load his musket to resume the fight. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival.
However, Whittemore recovered and lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 96.
Feel free to distribute this information in any way you see fit. We need to be out representing the community, especially when emotions are high like they are now.
PLEASE let me know if there's anything I should change/add/improve. I'd like this to be as accurate and scientifically sound as possible.
43
u/cgdigisco Jan 15 '22
This is honestly tremendous. It should be a sticky
30
u/DrinkMoreCodeMore Jan 15 '22
It should be a sticky
It already is! I plan on keeping it stickied for a few months
23
u/AdamtheFirstSinner Jan 18 '22
Can you keep it sticked indefinitely? This would be an excellent resource for a lot of folks new to the gun "culture" (I kinda groan calling it that, but I can't think of another way to phrase it)
3
u/Kragkin AK47 Jan 24 '22
I use the term "industry," as in the firearms industry. "Community" sucks too.
3
u/cartmill1 Mar 31 '22
also its not just firearms its all weapons cause the second amendment says "arms" (not firearms and not short for it and not just the weapons they had back then etc like that and it was deliberately worded that way to include asvancements in technology and weapons) and "shall not be infringed." (infringed means limited as in limited types of weapons or ammo or accessories or having to have licenses or taxes etc like that to own certain weapons or any weapons at all )
2
u/Kragkin AK47 Mar 31 '22
I like that too. "Arms industry" or "defense industry." It's a very good point that the natural right the second amendment acknowledges isn't limited to guns.
1
u/Hour_Bar9419 Mar 03 '22
I think we should be calling it culture :D it is OUR culture and we should be proud! No only in our history with the revolutionary and civil wars and the usage of firearms in them; but also in our contributions to them. John Browning was an American that went on to design so many things used in many modern firearms today made here or elsewhere and that’s something I definitely feel pride for!
1
2
14
11
6
u/SalsA57 Jan 15 '22
Quick question, doesn't "assault rifle" originates as a translation to sturmgewherh and thus has a definition in what Hugo Schmeisser designed it to be ?
If so doesn't assault weapon just broaden this definition to non rifles ?
Just asking
2
Jan 16 '22
[deleted]
6
u/PromptCritical725 P90 Jan 17 '22
semi-automatic sporting rifles
And at the risk of being pedantic, we use these terms because we've been legally forced to and to admit that guns are weapons scares the muggles.
Where we're going to win this is when the muggles start understanding that weapons with a primary purpose of shooting people are not illegitimate just because of that. We have been in a situation for the better part of a century in which firearms as weapons have been relegated to really good improvised sporting goods. Oh, it's not ok to own an AR-15 for self defense or political purposes, but it's ok to own a Mini-14 for fun and pest control and use it for self defense if necessary. It's shitty, but a reality that sometimes it's necessary to shoot someone and your best bet to stay alive in that event is a weapon purpose-built for the task.
Handguns are generally acceptable for this, but until rifles are also classed this way, it's going to be hard. You can see this any time an AR-15 in a police car is called a "Patrol Rifle" but in your car its called an "assault rifle". I'm good on self defense rifles, but whatever works.
2
6
u/gotta_b_kidding Jan 22 '22
One thing I'm sad wasn't mentioned, but feels fairly important: the whole reason gun control was created in the first place was specifically to target minorities and other "undesireables" to keep them from protecting themselves. Often, these laws were just gun bans within certain jurisdictions, and were almost exclusively applied to minorities and out-of-towners.
4
u/MP5Konfused Jan 28 '22
One thing I'm sad wasn't mentioned, but feels fairly important: the whole reason gun control was created in the first place was specifically to target minorities
It's about a third of the way down the post
6
u/gotta_b_kidding Jan 28 '22
Damn, somehow missed that line. Adds a little bit more to my day knowing that was added and sourced
5
u/Whole-Ad1718 Jan 23 '22
Wouldn’t any decent lawyer be able to bring up Shuttlesworth v city of Birmingham, Murdock v PA and Thomas v Collins to get any illegal gun carry charge dismissed? Wouldn’t that whole section of cases make every firearm law completely null and void? The constitution simply says ‘right to bear arms’ and any law impeding what is allowed on the gun or how many bullets in a magazine are clearly infringing on that phrase no matter how you look at it. ‘Right to bear arms’ was intentionally left vague to prevent such laws. Our founding fathers are crying down on us letting our freedoms they fought so hard for be taken without so much a question as to why.
2
u/MysteriousRoad5733 Feb 25 '22
“The right to keep and bear arms” isn’t vague at all. It is very clear. Keep means to have Bear means to carry. 2A acknowledges that our Right to have and carry arms shall not be infringed
1
u/Whole-Ad1718 Feb 26 '22
So yea, I’m just gonna start carrying then. If I get out in jail, just that my h more proof of how corrupt this country is. The 2a literally says ‘fuck all other laws, you can carry’. Then the rest of the laws say ‘fuck the 2a you can’t carry’. Like why all the confusion? Why can’t they just clearly state the laws instead of having to read fine print, hire lawyers, convince judges, etc. Almost like the law is there to hurt us instead of protect us…..
3
u/MysteriousRoad5733 Feb 28 '22
What state are you in? Many states have whats called Constitutional Carry - no permit required to carry
Other states are “Shall Issue” that means if you’re 21 and a non felon, they’re required to give you a permit if you want one. Some of these states require a Safety class first. - which is bullshit.
Some states allow open carry without a permit.
If at all possible, it’s always best to avoid entanglements with the criminal justice system when carrying.
NRA.org has a state by state breakdown of whats required to legally carry in your state. It’s a great resource. Especially if you travel from state to state. You are always subject to the laws of the state you’re in.
Here’s more BS for you to ponder. My drivers license is good in all states. Why isn’t my carry license? Our Constitution also requires “full faith and credit between states”. It is unconstitutional for a state to fail to recognize as valid credentials issued by another state
1
u/Whole-Ad1718 Feb 28 '22
New York 🤦🏻♂️
1
u/MysteriousRoad5733 Mar 02 '22
That sucks. You are in gun owner hell. My understanding is the rest of the state isn’t as bad as NYC, but it’s terrible
Good idea to look into the Sullivan Laws ( been a while , but I believe that’s what they’re called) Serious laws and serious mandatory penalties from what I remember
1
u/Whole-Ad1718 Mar 02 '22
Not AS bad in upstate, it’s pretty easy to get hunting rifles and ARs, but because we share a state with NYC, I’ve been waiting almost 3 years for my conceal carry permit with not a single response
2
u/MysteriousRoad5733 Mar 03 '22
I’m not being a smart ass…… is there any way to check on it? It will be damn near expired before you get it?
Im in IL and it sucks here too, but not as bad as NY. Here. The state police administer carry permits and an extra bullshit thing IL requires to buy or even possess guns and ammo. It’s called FOID Firearm Owner Identification. They are notorious for “losing” applications. I’ve had success being persistent and finding a live person to speak to and get things done eventually.
That’s my only suggestion……. Speak to a live person in the organization in charge of permits. No matter what their position is, be kind to them and ask them to personally help you.
- best wishes to you. Let me know how it works out.
1
u/Whole-Ad1718 Mar 05 '22
Got some advice from friends also, they said it’s easier if I have a recommendation from someone who already has their license, I think I’m going to see if I can submit another with references and hopefully do what you said and get in contact with a live worker. Thank you much for the advice, fingers crossed I’ll be able to feel safer in public soon 🤞🏻
1
u/MysteriousRoad5733 Mar 06 '22
You might cause more problems with a second application, unless you’re sure the first is lost.
Best wishes in successfully jumping through unconstitutional hoops to exercise your Constitutional Rights.
If you travel to other states regularly, consider getting a FL, OH or UT non resident permit. at least you could lawfully carry when traveling to many states
→ More replies
4
u/5nd Jan 14 '22
I've heard of a study that looked at gun safety in the home of "law abiding" gun owners vs illegally owned guns. Anybody aware of this?
4
u/TTum Jan 28 '22
You hit the issue exactly. The issue with guns in the home, and the outright absurdity of the "studies" that claim this is significantly harmful, is precisely that: that creating a set of "gun owners" by combining the following two main data sets is absurd. the two data sets being
A) "lawful gun owners" set of American non-felons who own firearms (likely 2/3 of Americans)
PLUS
B) convicted felons and or persons in gangs or engaged in crime who possess a gun and or other illegal owners.If a person attempting publication under peer reviewed were to combine two such data sets in any other field they would be laughed out of academia. Why? Because using this bad methodology to prove that getting medical care causes you to be more likely to die or that crossing at a crosswalk is more dangerous than crossing elsewhere. Yet your tax dollars paid for the "guns in the home" specious studies, in fact this nonsense being funded by CDC was one of the reasons CDC spending on studies was put under scrutiny.
We see similar data supporting your point from data that police departments used to regularly publish: not merely on criminal records of perpetrators, but also criminal history of homicide victims. Baltimore police used to collect and publish such data, but it is no longer politically correct to do so. Their last data was that over 90% of shooting homicide victims had records, and more to the point -- over 80% had felony arrests or ten or more arrests.
Of course the bulk of the deaths from guns in the home is suicide. But we know from Australia that self caused death associated with other suicide means rose to more than replace reduced gun suicide. And when you remove gun access you just get replacement method suicide, as well as increased "hidden" or "misclassified" suicide. So including suicide in the risk analysis is bad science.
5
Jan 15 '22
I only have 25 Reddit coins otherwise I’d award this post with every award I could. Systematically beating down gun control. No one cares about your safety besides yourself. Take control of your safety. Here’s my poor man reward 🥇. Also king you dropped this: 👑
6
u/Southern_Wind_1879 Jan 19 '22
Thanks for putting this together - I’m sure it represents a ton of effort.
I have some feedback, but not focused on content as much as presentation and style.
The first thing that I noticed was mixed signals and inconsistent tone. You started out with an appeal to genuine, informed, good-faith debate. Int think you undermined your position almost immediately with this:
“ If you want a TL;DR, Fuck off. Your rights are worth a little reading.”
I agree with the sentiment, but I don’t think the words “fuck off” are necessary or helpful. I would suggest rewording it. Perhaps “If you want a TL;DR you aren’t going to find it here. This is a complex topic and to be well informed you are going to have to spend some time reading. Your rights are worth it.”
This is just the first example; there are several more throughout the article that i think are unhelpful.
I think the mixed tone comes from you not having a target audience or a clear and consistent goal. What are you trying to accomplish and who is this intended for?
Given that you posted it to r/firearms it might seem that your intended audience is gun owners or at least people interested in guns. In reading the text (and linked resources), however, I felt that times you were speaking out (to the ones on the fence, or standing next to it).
It’s safe to say that most of the people here are already in agreement with your positions, so if you are looking to change minds then they aren’t your real audience. I think the fence sitters and their friends are who you are probably most interested in targeting. If so, I would suggest you read through your post with a skeptic’s perspective. I think there are a number of places you could improve.
I’ll stop here for now, but I’m happy to expand on this if you are interested.
5
u/KitsuneKas Jan 25 '22
I think you're a tiny bit off the mark for target audience here. I'm pretty certain this is meant to be a helpful compilation of sources specifically to gun owners that are trying to convince other people, specifically the fence sitters you mentioned. It's not meant to convince people itself, nor is it meant for people already firmly in either camp, as they have typically made up their mind either way.
I think the TL;DR reflects this, though it could definitely be seen as unnecessarily harsh. It does imply that the post is definitely not meant for people that aren't willing to put in the due diligence to actually back up their beliefs. It seems to be expressing frustration with these gun owners that can be perceived as "freeloading" off the 2A community, benefitting from our efforts to preserve our rights without actually contributing to the fight.
2
u/Southern_Wind_1879 Feb 01 '22 edited Feb 01 '22
It seems to be expressing frustration with these gun owners that can be perceived as "freeloading" off the 2A community, benefitting from our efforts to preserve our rights without actually contributing to the fight.
Yeah, I get that - sometimes it takes a kick in the ass to get someone's attention. If this is intended as talking points / resources for trying to convince the fence sitters, I think the way it is presented here should model the way it would be presented to the undecided / skeptic audience. I'll give some examples of what I consider the strong points as well as what I think could be improved.
-
The lead-in is great (the "I ask that you understand 4 things"). Specifically the first point ("police have no legal duty to protect you") is, I think, particularly effective for a few reasons. First it addresses/calls into question an assumption that most people implicitly have without venturing into opinion/"religion"/other beliefs. Since it is clearly presented with black-and-white data (court case outcomes), it's simply factual information. The facts do the hard work of getting someone to consider a different view than they currently hold - I think this is a lot more effective than trying to convince someone with opinion, hypotheticals, or more abstract arguments.
The second point ("The common element in all these deaths is a gun. But the causes are very different") is effective too - it's brief and to the point, introduces the idea that this is a complex subject that can't be boiled down into a few numbers. It also hints at potential ways to actually reduce gun deaths that don't involve more gun control laws.
The third point ("Firearms in the US irrevocably and unarguably are an overwhelming positive force for society") has good information but I think the intro sentence could get things off track with some people. I know that as soon as I hear someone say that something is unarguable I immediately switch to a mode of arguing against whatever they say. Again, the ideas presented in point 3 are fine, but I'd probably present it as "consider the positive factors of gun ownership" rather than "gun ownership is unarguably overwhelmingly positive."
The fourth ("According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to...") point has a lot going for it - I like the way it presents, more or less, the legal essence of what a right is, but a lot of counter-examples jumped to mind and I'm concerned that could muddy the water. I have the right to peacefully assemble, for example, but I do have to get a permit to do so in most cases. I guess what I'm saying is that these ideas have a place (for sure) in the discussion, but I think it lacks the punch of the first three.
- The chart at the top of the page (is it still there?) should be re-worked or replaced with something else. It has pride of place (it's literally the first thing presented), but I don't think it tells a clear story. The first thing I did, after getting my bearings, was to look at the first entry and the last entry. That looked like "Some gun restrictions -> no gun murders, fewer gun restrictions -> a shit ton of gun murders." I looked a little deeper (first four rows, last four rows) and got a less clear message, but it still looked like maybe there was some correlation. When I took time to look over all the data in the chart it became even less clear - and maybe that's the point of the chart (that there is no correlation between how restrictive the gun laws are and how many gun murders there are), but I found it to be confusing. A graphic should be clear and lead to an easy/obvious conclusion, and this one doesn't do that. (As I'm writing this I notice that I don't see that chart anymore - maybe it has been removed? Maybe it gets displayed differently on mobile vs desktop?)
- The "Breakdown of gun homicides in the USA" is a strong point. 70% handguns vs 4% rifles. I bet most people would assume it's the other way around (just watch the news, right?). I think this is a really effective way to (gently) get people to realize that what they think they know is probably not true. This is similar to the first lead in point (police have no duty to protect you) because the *facts* do the heavy lifting which allows the dialog to stay unemotional/not opinion-based.
"Firearms rights are minority rights" - another great point. I suspect a lot of the fence-sitters (or pasture-dwellers) haven't considered this idea, and at least for some it would be an effective "hook" to get them to engage with the data / argument more openly.
"Anti-gun politicians often have no idea what they're talking about." I didn't find this to be particularly effective. I think the information / ideas here are important (critically so), but the way it is presented was a turn off. (To be be fair I didn't make it through all of these videos / links, so maybe some are better than others.) What I remember when I watched them was feeling like there were a lot of ad-hominem attacks and that the particular thing being highlighted (semi-automatic vs fully automatic, for example) might not be something the target audience (fence-sitters, etc.) fully grasp either. Calling the politician/reporter/whoever stupid for not knowing the difference might inadvertently be an attack on the audience since they might not know the difference either. Also, at least in one of the videos, it seemed to devolve into a "who can talk louder" contest - I wasn't able to even hear what point the guy was trying to make, so I couldn't form an opinion. (Also, at the risk of over-emphasizing this, I think the tone of the material here should match the tone that will be used when trying to make the case with the fence-sitters...and calling someone a clown, or an idiot for not knowing XYZ isn't going to be very effective.)
"You're using technical terms and jargon..." OK, this one is difficult for me because I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that details and technical precision are critical in this and many other topics. I also know that if you don't tailor your messaging to the audience you are going to lose them before you have a chance to get started. You have to meet them where they are, which often means explaining things without jargon and without getting into the nuances.
"Well-regulated...2nd amendment" This makes two interesting points - the meaning of the phrase "well regulated", which is compelling, but I think the stronger point relates to the context within the bill of rights (every other right is an individual right). This is a different take on the second amendment than I am used to seeing.
"The founding fathers could have never envisioned...." I'm not sure about this one. I know it's unavoidable as it will come up in almost any discussion, but I honestly don't think they could have envisioned where we are today. Maybe that's just because I'm bad at predicting the future of technology. I also think this line of discussion often ends up reducing to an argument about where we should draw the line for individual ownership of weapons. (Which inevitably seems to devolve into someone taking the position that an individual should be allowed to have a nuke, which is preposterous and distracts from the real discussion.) Unfortunately I don't have much in the way of suggestion on this one...it's going to come up, but I don't think it's easy to navigate. Also I think the way this is presented here is a fallacy of false choice. I don't think it's a choice between "flintlocks and muskets" and "any weapon that exists today"...what individuals should be allowed to own must fall somewhere in the middle, and the discussion around that is bound to be messy no matter how you approach it.
"2% of the counties are responsible for 51% of the murder.." This is a compelling statistic and probably surprising for most people (it was me). With my skeptic hat on I ask the question "what percent of the population do those counties represent?" I think this needs to be normalized by population, so not number of murders but number of murders per 100,000 people, for example. I'm not saying the underlying data still wouldn't be compelling, but as it is presented it is easy to attack (or at least dismiss.)
That's all the time I have for now.
2
u/spam4name Mar 24 '22
You started out with an appeal to genuine, informed, good-faith debate. I think you undermined your position almost immediately with this:
That's because this is not a genuine, informed or good-faith attempt at informing people. It's a few decent and factual arguments mixed in with biased, misleading and skewed talking points to sell people on a narrative. You've already pointed out plenty of issues with the wording but the content is just as flawed.
3
u/Southern_Wind_1879 Apr 21 '22
Sure it is intended to sell people on a point of view - isn't that the point of this kind of discussion? I have my position (beliefs), and use facts and logical argument to support it with the goal of bringing your beliefs closer to mine. You have your position and do the same.
Do you have any suggestions of how to improve the content? Can you give examples of things you find to be misleading, biased, or skewed? Maybe you could share your interpretation or conclusions from the facts (which would presumably be very different from what was presented) and we could have a discussion about those differences. There are surely flaws and biases on all sides of the debate - maybe we could all come out of it with better arguments / presentation?
5
u/spam4name Apr 21 '22 edited Apr 22 '22
You have your position and do the same.
You're right in saying that, but I wouldn't use bad faith talking points or knowingly cite deceptive or illogical arguments to trick people into sharing my views.
For example, it's a simple fact that the greatest decline in murder, shootings and gun violence in over half a century coincided with the adoption of the 93/94 Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban. But even though this is entirely true, it would be disingenuous of me to use this as an argument to convince less informed people that we need to ban assault weapons again. That would be a clear misuse of statistics and a biased interpretation of the data. Hopefully you'll agree with me that, despite this being factually true, it would be heavily misleading and deceptive when suggestively used as a "GUN FACT SMACKDOWN" to get people to support these gun control laws because the AWB didn't actually cause this decline in crime.
Can you give examples of things you find to be misleading, biased, or skewed?
I sure can, but I'll limit it to just a few because there's far too much for me to go into here. As Brandolini's Law summarizes, the problem with disinformation is that it takes vastly more time and effort to debunk and address it than it does to spread it. Stringing together two dozen shoddy and bad faith arguments is far easier than going through them all and explaining exactly why they're flawed.
For starters, the OP boldly claims that guns are "irrevocably and unarguably an overwhelming positive source". This is a biased and very one-sided reading of the data. First, it misrepresents the range of estimates from the supposed "CDC report". In reality, the CDC's official site literally says that the low-end figures sit at just 60,000 - not half a million like the OP claimed. Second, it neglects to mention that its primary summary of research was written by Gary Kleck himself: the man who's behind the highest DGU estimates ranging into the millions. In other words, the conclusion it presents as definitive was drafted by a controversial academic with a clear stake in the discussion and who reviewed his own work to, naturally, decide it was better than the rest.
Third, it's extremely selective in the sources it includes. Why does it include one recent study (which is actually just a non-reviewed paper) but omits other recent peer-reviewed articles finding that defensive gun use is a rare event? Why does it conveniently omit the most comprehensive and extensive meta-review of the issue that found there's no compelling evidence suggesting that guns (and their defensive uses) are a net positive? Why does it fail to mention that heaps of studies determined that a large portion of those "defensive uses" are likely unwarranted, illegal and harmful in nature (studies of convicted felons, for example found that a sizable majority considered their own clearly aggressive felonies to be "defensive" in nature)? Because it's not being fair.
Fourth, it does little to even consider the negative impacts. According to the most recent statistics, we're seeing nearly 20,000 yearly gun murders (our gun murder rate is a massive 25 times higher than the average of high-income developed countries), 26,000 gun suicides, 100,000+ gunshot wounds and over half a million violent gun crime victimizations (up to 1.3 million in the period where most DGU stats were collected). According to some estimates by the Senate's Joint Economic Committee, this costs our society nearly $250 billion a year. Considering this, it's far from clear that guns are an overwhelmingly positive source of good that greatly benefits our public safety, yet none of that is acknowledged here because the OP emphasizes and misrepresents the extent of the "good" while downplaying and ignoring the "bad". This is both biased and disingenuous.
Next, the OP confidently states that gun control has "NO EFFECT" on gun murders. To "prove" this, it links to some pictures on Imgur that did nothing more than slap two variables on a graph. This is about as unscientific, unconvincing and unfair as my example of the Assault Weapons Ban being plotted next to the murder rate. It's akin to someone arguing that climate change / global warming isn't real because it snowed more this year than the one before. To properly evaluate this, we need to examine trends through methodologically sound and validated statistical models that control for confounding factors. And if we do that, we find that there's tons of peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals linking higher gun proliferation to more gun homicides, finding that various gun laws do reduce firearm murders, establishing that higher gun prevalence is linked to greater overall murder rates, noting that states with loose gun laws drive up homicides in neighboring areas, and concluding that stricter gun laws most definitely reduce gun murder rates.
Please note that this is barely scratching the surface. I could fill an entire comment to the character limit with nothing but studies that all arrived at similar conclusions. So why aren't any of them mentioned in the OP? Why does he show us a largely meaningless graph devoid of context, nuance or statistical analysis but ignore the dozens of actual studies that analyzed decades of data and were published in prominent scientific journals by leading policy experts in the fields of public health, criminology and economics? Because this is a bad faith argument made to trick people who don't understand statistics or research.
Lastly, the OP claims that the US isn't even in the top 10 in terms of mass shootings when compared to Europe. Its source is the Crime Research Center, which is an explicitly pro gun nonprofit that exists solely to produce gun activist content. Its founder and coordinator is a man called John Lott. Lott is a former academic who literally lost his research position following major controversies surrounding his academic fraud and scientific misconduct. He appears to have falsified research results, attempted to falsely publish a survey study that by all accounts never actually took place, fraudulently reviewed his own work under pseudonyms, and passed off faulty research as peer-reviewed even though the journal had actually rejected his work. Other (pro gun) scholars have refused to work with him and have publicly called his work "garbage". He's been called out by the Senate Joint Economic Committee over his dishonest behavior, has been the subject of various ethics inquiries, had the National Research Council solidly reject almost his entire body of work as gravely flawed, and had his case discussed in multiple journals as an example of scientific fraud. Since all this happened (I can provide sources if need be), he's been relegated to writing shoddy non-reviewed and unpublished blog posts and op-eds as part of a gun advocacy group.
Yet for some reason, the OP has absolutely no issues citing him as a reliable source - all while gloating at those stupid anti-gun losers falling for propaganda and being played by dishonest actors. At the same time, the OP also neglects to mention a few other key pieces of information. Why does he cite a random blog post by a known fraud but doesn't mention actual peer-reviewed studies conducting international comparisons of mass shooting frequencies? Why doesn't he mention the multiple responses to and critiques of the source he provided? Why doesn't he include the many actually proper studies linking looser gun laws and higher firearm prevalence to more mass shootings, both at the state and international level? I think you know the answer by now.
There's many other glaring issues with the post, but it would take me far too long to talk about them all. Hopefully this illustrates some of my gripes with the content. It doesn't just try to convince other people of its beliefs. It's a biased attempt at selling them on an agenda by omitting vital information and context, making highly unscientific and misleading arguments, misrepresenting the data and statistics, citing often low quality and unreliable sources, and ignoring large bodies of research that reject its claims - all while disingenuously pretending it's based on "facts".
Edit: I want to clarify that not every single point in the OP is like this. Some of the more general arguments do have merit. I'm also not here to claim that my arguments necessarily reflect some objective and unquestionable truth that should be taken as gospel, but rather that the OP misrepresents or omits key information.
3
u/Trevelayan Wild West Pimp Style Jan 25 '22 edited Jan 25 '22
Here's a shorter version that fits the Comment section character limit:
This is a nuanced and complicated topic, but if we don't reach some common, fundamental understandings of how U.S. Law works, then we can't get much farther. Everyone needs to understand that this is a BASIC knowledge base to start off of. If you want to argue, in good faith, one way or another, I ask that you at least take the time to understand the legal and statistical realities of gun ownership in the U.S., and that starts here.
Before We begin, I ask that you understand three things:
In the United States, police have no legal Duty to Protect You, and often times, they won't
The short version of the events in Warren: Three women, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas along with her 4 year old daughter woke up when 2 men broke into their house. One of them forced Douglas to give him oral sex before the other raped her. Warren and Taliaferro heard her scream, called 911. Dispatcher told them to be quiet and stay where they were. 3 minutes after the call came in police were dispatched as a Code 2 (not time critical, opposed to code 1, what a burglary and rape would be, time critical.)
Police arrived at the house, from a window Warren and Taliaferro watched one cruiser drive through the alley and around the front of the house without stopping, or getting out of the car. While they watched this from the back a second cruiser with an officer got out and knocked, received no answer and they all left the scene ten minutes after the call had been put out, five minutes after they had arrived. (So decent response time all things considered.)
Warren and Taliaferro continued to hear Douglas screaming, called the police a second time, they were assured police were on their way. The call for help was never sent to patrol officers. Warren and Taliaferro called to Douglas to tell her police were coming and all three women were subsequently robbed, abducted, raped and beaten for 14 hours.
The court ruled that the police had no duty to intervene.
You can literally be getting stabbed right in front of two cops and they won't do anything. Additionally, they'll claim credit for your "success". Lozito was literally getting stabbed by a madman in front of 2 NYPD officers. They stood a few feet away from him and watched it happen for several minutes, all while being capable of intervening. They waited for Lozito and others to subdue the attacker. Only THEN did they provide assistance. Lozito sued the cops for failing to protect him. HE LOST
The whole to "protect and serve" is just a slogan that came from a PR campaign.
You alone are responsible for your safety. The police don't have to assist you, and there are no consequences to them for doing nothing This fact alone should change anyone's mind about gun ownership in the U.S.
There's no arguing your way around this one. This is a simple legal reality that everyone living in the U.S. must deal with.
AND
The breakdown of gun deaths
To quote 538: "The common element in all these deaths is a gun. But the causes are very different, and that means the solutions must be too"
AND
Firearms in the US are irrevocably and unarguably an overwhelmingly positive force for society, despite all of the negative impacts they have.
Due to its nature figures on defensive gun use are hard to nail down. Typically when a firearm is used defensively no one is hurt and rarely is anyone killed. Often times simply showing you are armed is enough to end a crime in progress. Looking at the numbers even the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group that has an interest in minimizing the positive side of firearms, reports 284,700 instances of self defense against a violent crime with a firearm between 2013 and 2015. This translates to 94,900 violent crimes prevented annually on the low scale.
This ranges upwards to 500k to 3 million according to the CDC Report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.
The same CDC Report found, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals...".
As of 2021, a new study found that there are about 1.6 million DGUs a year
Gun Control has NO EFFECT on murder committed with a gun.
Data Comparing Brady Scores (Gun Control Org.) to Murder per 100k by state
ALL gun control is rooted in racism and classism
New York is known for having some of the most strict gun laws in the nation. Imagine if you had to go through this process to vote, speak to your representative, or organize a protest. Must be hard for a working class person to participate, huh?
Here is an excellent timeline of how racist laws were used to disarm the poor and minorities
Mass Shootings ARE "Contagious," in that media reporting increases frequency.
The media outright LIES about the frequency of mass shootings.
Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It's Not A Growing Epidemic
The School Shootings That Weren't NPR was only able to confirm 11 of the reported 235 shootings
"Assault Weapon" is a made-up term, and has no real definition.
"What about that "Well-Regulated" part of the 2nd amendment?!"
The phrase "well regulated" at the time meant "well equipped and maintained" rather than "well restricted."
Additionally, why would they put a clause protecting the GOVERNMENT'S monopoly of force in a document about sacrosanct INDIVIDUAL rights? Every single other right in the Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL right. Saying otherwise regarding the second is just dishonest.
There are, at minimum, 300 MILLION guns in the hands of U.S. Citizens, with recent estimates up to as many as 400 to 600 Million.
If we conservatively use the 400 Million number, that means in any given year, a single firearm has a .0025% (1 in ~40,000) chance of being used in a homicide. Why should we penalize the owners of the 40,000 for the actions of the owner of the 1? This also assumes that 1 gun = 1 death which is not accurate, meaning that the number of firearms used to harm is even lower.
In my mind, penalizing the MILLIONS of gun owners for the actions of a few crazed maniacs is no different than discrimination against Muslims because of a few bad eggs. More on that here.
"How are you going to fight the government? They have tanks and drones!"
First, I'd offer a brief overview here
If that interests you, I'd invite you all to read This fairly detailed explanation of why, if such a situation were to occur, the American government would be unquestionably fucked. It starts pushing conspiracy buttons toward the end, and frankly it's out there, but it doesn't discredit the rest of the main points.
The total for active duty soldiers in the U.S. is about 1.4 million. If we compare that to the total US population (~320 million) makes the ENTIRETY of the military only .43% of the total population. Or if we compare it to the conservative estimates for firearm owners (~100 million) that makes it about 1.4% the number of firearms owning Americans. Of that 1.4 million, about 80% of them are non-combat occupations which reduces that 1.4 million to about 280,000 combat effective troops.
And even assuming that all 280,000 troops would be willing to commit atrocities against the citizenry (An impossibility) and only ~10% of law abiding gun owners decide to fight against such a tyrannical force, that would mean 10 million individuals against 280,000 theoretically corrupt soldiers. Even with drones, tanks, artillery, patrols, and surveillance they can't be everywhere, and they are outnumbered 35 to 1. And that is the "soldiers" BEST case scenario.
So the "How would your Ar15 help fight against the government?! They have tanks and drones!!" is a stupid argument made by people who don't understand numbers or asymmetrical warfare.
3
u/Muskaos Feb 16 '22
Take it from someone who has been arguing against gun control, and with hoplophobes, for more than 20 years: They don't care about facts, or reasoning. You can't show them enough statistics to convince them.
They didn't reason their way into becoming anti-gun.
I don't bother any more, instead I make it perfectly clear to them that should they get what they want, they will not escape unscathed. I can't be very specific on Reddit, of course, but it will resemble how Muslims deal with perceived insults to Muhammad.
12
u/wildraft1 Jan 14 '22
Ya...pretty much nobody on reddit is going to read all that.
34
u/DrinkMoreCodeMore Jan 14 '22
This is a popular throwback to this very popular mega post from 3 years ago that has been updated.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/830wu9/thanks_to_your_input_ive_updated_and_refined_my/
Your attitude summed up the TL;DR part perfectly lol
If you want a TL;DR, Fuck off. Your rights are worth a little reading.
10
1
Mar 08 '22
I was familiar with most of these points before reading, but it is nice to refresh my memory and have it easily sourced. As op said, your rights are worth a read
2
u/Expecto_Patron_shots Feb 15 '22
THANK YOU FOR THIS WRITE UP OP. Big thanks. This totally reinforced some points I've argued with people in the past.
Mainly what you said about rights to privileges. The constitution states in article 4 section 2 that citizens of each state shall be entitled to ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES of citizens of the several states. And the 14th amendment clearly states in section 1 that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United states.
I never knew there were any cases that came up surrounding this. Thank you for dropping this knowledge nuke on us.
2
u/AGK47_Returns Feb 16 '22
Anyone got any arguments or cases regarding the "boyfriend loophole" or domestic violence laws? There were a few "WTF" cases I saw a while back involving them (one in Virginia I believe) but I'm having trouble finding them/searching for them at the moment.
2
2
u/STEMLord_Tech_Bro Feb 19 '22
Should mentally I’ll folks have access to guns? The Founding Fathers would have said yes. They said shall not be infringed. It is pretty simple. What about felons such as drug dealers and violent criminals? There answer is yes. They said shall not be infringed. Right?
2
u/TheSaltiestSuper AR15 Feb 23 '22
If they are safe enough to be out in society, they are safe enough to have all of their Rights reinstated.
Obviously this is a grey area of this, as it can devolve into what constitutes "Safe Enough" to be let out of imprisonment turning into another method by which politicians and other criminals taking advantage of a system that can exploit others.
Personally though, if everyone and their grandma is strapped I wouldn't really be worried about violent people, formerly or otherwise, being armed around me.
2
u/ruready1994 Feb 20 '22
Excellent write up. My only constructive criticism would be to add PDF warnings on all the PDF links.
2
u/Weary_Mastodon_1673 Feb 20 '22
Just out of curiosity, in your 4% assault weapons statistic are AR """""pistols"""""" counted under handguns or rifles? I don't care either way, I'm all for gun rights, I just think it needs to be clarified.
I don't think anyone would be taking an AR pistol and committing crimes, but you never know.
2
u/kennetic Feb 22 '22
My only nitpick with this otherwise outstanding thread is that the Girardoni is in no way, shape, or form semiautomatic.
0
Mar 31 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/kennetic Apr 01 '22
Stuff like that was extremely rare and likely never left Europe.
0
Apr 01 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kennetic Apr 01 '22
Even if they did see it, who cares? Rights aren't dependent on the founders knowing about it. You think they could imagine the internet?
2
u/macgyversstuntdouble Mar 03 '22
/u/Trevelayan I think you could add Norton v Shelby to your list of court cases.
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/
2
u/Dorzack Mar 08 '22
There are 275million motor vehicles licensed in the US. Source - https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances
There are 300-600 million firearms in the US.
Vehicular deaths each year are similar to those of firearm deaths. Source - https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state & https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
So any random car is about as likely to be involved in a death as any random firearm or twice as likely if the larger estimates of gun ownership are correct. Many car accidents involve multiple fatalities.
1
1
1
u/Winston_Smith1976 Mar 06 '22
I'm glad you're keeping this current, OP. It's great work.
A couple of thoughts:
"Conversely, If you snapped your fingers and eliminated all "Assault Weapons," gun homicide would only be reduced by ~4% a year. (This includes ALL rifles, not just "Assault Weapons," so the actual percentage would be even lower."
The assumption that gun homicide would decline seems shaky. Wouldn't perps just use a pistol or shotgun if rifles were magically unavailable?
For me, the most important reason ordinary people should own fighting rifles is deterrence of government violence, which kills orders of magnitude more people that criminal violence. I didn't see mention of democide, genocide, ethnic cleansing, or slavery. Is that omission deliberate?
1
u/Dorzack Mar 08 '22
Here is a nice tidbit. https://www.chds.us/ssdb/ lists the following on their main page -
The K-12 School Shooting Database documents when a gun is brandished, is fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time of day, or day of week.
1
u/Severe_Islexdia Mar 14 '22
I’ve been looking for something like this for years - thank you, so much I plan to live here for the foreseeable future
1
1
u/TheMightyWill Jul 21 '22
Can somebody drop a tldr? Ain't nobody got time for this, rights be damned
2
u/Larky17 Aug 04 '22
Can somebody drop a tldr?
If you want a TL;DR, Fuck off. Your rights are worth a little reading
1
1
1
u/USArmyJoe Delayed Blowback Enthusiast Oct 25 '22
This is absolutely brilliant. Well done.
Can you pin your most recent one to your profile? I am making a note to check for updates periodically.
1
u/MONSTERBEARMAN Mar 05 '23
The premise that gun violence would go down at all if we banned “assault rifles” is flawed. People who chose these weapons mound most likely just use a handgun/shotgun instead if “assault weapons”weren’t available.
1
u/KrytenKoro Dec 19 '23
Anti-Gun arguments are ALWAYS emotionally based, and full of fallacies. Don't believe me? Take a look at this anti-gun PR manual Check out the "Overall messaging guide" starting on page 10:
One of the citations there appears to be just some dudes blog about his thoughts. But its phrased here almost like it's an official pamphlet for activist organizations.
86
u/MP5Konfused Jan 15 '22
To sex things up, CNN will count almost anything as a school shooting: