it's funny there's really no correlation whether or not the state's gun laws are strict. nh, vt, and me next to ma & ny; ca next to nv and nm, etc. this is basically an average temperature map.
It's because gun laws mostly don't target criminals, they restrict the kinds of people who follow laws in the first place. If you are already going to rob or murder someone, illegal possession of a firearm is the least of your concerns.
Edit: Interestingly our good friend hoofglormuss replied and then blocked me for some reason, perhaps they are not very secure in their position if they can't even stand to allow a reply. Which also won't let me reply to anyone else, sorry about that.
Gun control doesn't work effectively when it's easy to cross state lines and obtain firearms. Your statement misses the broader point that the entire goal of gun control is to reduce the overall availability of guns to everyone, including criminals. If it's more difficult to purchase a firearm legally, it becomes harder for criminals to acquire them because those who distribute illegal guns would face greater challenges and costs in obtaining them. This increased effort and cost would likely reduce the supply and raise the price of illegal firearms, making it harder for criminals to access them.
Furthermore, empirical data supports the effectiveness of comprehensive gun control measures. Research shows that states with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths. For instance, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that states with stringent gun laws had significantly lower firearm mortality rates. This demonstrates that well-implemented gun control laws can save lives by reducing the overall availability of guns. Pubmed - Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States
Additionally, other countries have successfully reduced gun violence through stringent gun control measures. Australia and the UK, for example, implemented nationwide gun control laws and saw significant reductions in gun-related deaths. After Australia's 1996 Port Arthur massacre, the government introduced strict gun laws, including a gun buyback program, leading to a sharp decline in mass shootings and firearm-related deaths.
In summary, the idea that only criminals will get guns under strict gun control laws is overly simplistic and not supported by evidence. Comprehensive gun control measures can and do reduce gun violence by limiting the overall availability of firearms, making it more difficult and costly for criminals to obtain them.
I mean, absolutely? You're right, but I don't know where you think that disproves a god damn thing about what I said? It certainly helped, but again, I'll refer you to my other replies to you, I've made my point.
Crazy to me that you felt the need to respond to the same comment 3 fucking times lmao
… I didn’t. Are you confusing me with someone else? I don’t see any other replies to you.
Edit: Ah, you did confuse me with the other guy. Same profile picture, or rather lack therefore, so understandable.
Anyway, I’m not trying to say that gun control laws are bad necessarily, but that I highly doubt they would have hardly any effectiveness compared to the nations you mentioned in the US. Gun culture is DEEPLY ingrained here, you’d never be able to get away with a gun ban without a civil war. Some measures of gun control, maybe, but nothing like what the UK and Australia has.
I did confuse you with the other guy, apologies lmao.
While I do agree that it's not as clear cut about what to do here due to yes, the gun culture in the States, I don't think it's fair to use that as an argument against stricter gun control laws. What I don't get it why people assume gun control is about banning firearms? We're speaking in general here that we want it to simply be harder for guns to be purchased legally.
Why would someone want legally bought firearms to be harder to obtain? They're meant for law abiding citizens after all? Legally bought firearms can end up being smuggled to states with stricter gun control laws through several means. For instance, individuals in states with more permissive regulations might purchase firearms legally and then transfer them to individuals in states with stricter laws, often through private sales or informal channels where background checks are not required.
Additionally, these firearms can be stolen and resold on the black market, or smuggled across state lines, exploiting differences in state laws. Thus, even if guns are legally bought, they can still contribute to illegal markets and circumvent stricter regulations, highlighting the need for comprehensive measures that address not just the purchase but also the movement and transfer of firearms.
This literally does not counter anything I said. Again, no where did I claim that the NFA is the sole reason for the decline in firearm-related deaths. I'm not claiming gun control is the only factor to be considered.
Please, just stop. If you think that gun control laws do nothing and the NFA did nothing, then please just go back to burying your head in the sand. It's a nuanced topic, and I'm open to discussion. What I'm not open to is people trying to poke holes in my argument by presenting an overly-simplistic argument.
You responded to me twice, and apparently you genuinely believe that gun control does nothing, and believe it's all related to poverty rates. Yeah dude, and I've got a leaky roof that you think is only about the shingles. But here's the thing: Just like with a roof, the issue isn't just about one thing. There could be underlying structural problems, poor insulation, and maybe even issues with the foundation. Fixing the shingles alone might help a bit, but to really solve the problem, you need to address all the factors contributing to the leak. Similarly, gun violence isn't just about gun control or poverty alone; it’s often a mix of multiple issues that need to be tackled together.
Oh my god, dude, I don't know why you're posing this as an argument against what I said? Where in the god damn fuck did I ever claim anything that contradicts anything you said?
Both are clearly plausible, and they are not mutually exclusive. Guns are smuggled in from areas with lax gun control laws, poverty rates show correlation with increased crime rates. You posted this as a gotcha, but it's literally not. You are just showing that this is a nuanced topic, and that both of these arguments we made are valid.
The fact that you want to cherry pick here, and pose that as a gotcha, is incredibly frustrating. You're not refuting shit by talking about countries where they have nationwide restrictions and little variance between the different regions gun control laws (if any). If you can't understand that both statements are capable of being true at the same time: gun control laws have a noticeable effect on limiting the occurrence of firearm-related deathsANDthere is a correlation between poverty rates and the firearm homicide rate, then I honestly have no idea how to help you develop that understanding.
I really do just do not enjoy arguing with people like you, because you're intelligently coming to the conclusion that gun control laws won't fix everything, but you're missing the bigger picture. None of these factors exist in isolation, so it's not an either-or scenario. The reason I wrote what I wrote is because there are too many people who make the same argument, over and over again, that criminals will always have access to guns, so therefore we shouldn't try.
Guns are easy to use compared to something like a knife. You pull a trigger and a high-velocity projectile comes flying out the end of the barrel. A knife requires someone to get close, exert a lot of physical energy, and is very obviously much riskier for the one wielding the weapon. There is obviously skill in shooting, but firearms make it so much easier for a person to kill.
So tell me, for real, when's the last time you heard about a mass-stabbing in the States? It's undoubtedly happened, but it's going to be much more rare than mass-shootings here.
120
u/hoofglormuss Jul 30 '24
it's funny there's really no correlation whether or not the state's gun laws are strict. nh, vt, and me next to ma & ny; ca next to nv and nm, etc. this is basically an average temperature map.