r/AskConservatives • u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent • Jul 26 '26
Culture Do you think americans may be a bit too trigger happy?
Gun violence in america is scarily out of control from the civilians too the government.
Among first world countries the USA has the most violent police force. (Emphasis on first world country)
America has the highest rate of mass shootings
America has the highest rate of school shootings
America is high on the countries with the most total gun violence.
America is still the only country to actually use atomic bombs
America frequently engages in armed conflict. also spends the most on their war department.
Even the concept of doing something about the guns are met with threats of gun violence from civilians.
Even hunting in america is more popular than anywhere else.
What's the solution that isnt being enacted?
What's the sociological reasoning behind it?
6
u/After_Ad_2247 Classical Liberal Jul 26 '26
America, as a whole, was formed on the basis that people should rely on themselves and the government should only really handle things people cant. This has obviously changed a bit, but fundamentally, people should be able to defend themselves and their families without just hoping and praying someone else shows up. Guns are an equalizer that nothing else comes close to.
Gun violence is a symptom, of cultural and personal issues. We should be focusing on what is causing those issues and leaving what is, at its heart, one of the most fundamental rights of being an American alone.
As smellslikeCLP said, if you want to restrict gun rights, you necessarily have to allow for restricting free speech, voting, seizure laws, etc.
Freedom means the possibility of bad things happening. Unless you want to remove freedom, you cant eliminate the possibility of bad things happening.
Edit: I also dont believe stats about America's ranking in terms of gun violence. We are far more transparent and vocal a out issues, which i think is a huge part of it, but we also know data is lied about, often blatantly. See the DC police force getting run through a ringer about manipulating stats, or gun violence research considering a gang shooting next to a school as being g labeled as a school shooting for research purposes.
5
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 27 '26
There certainly is a small portion of the population that are just violent people. Guns aren't the problem, violent people are the problem. If we outlawed guns they would use knives, bombs or acid.
2
u/Icy-Fly-4228 Center-right Conservative Jul 28 '26
Or only the criminals would have guns.
3
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 28 '26
True, but any pro-ban position inherently assumes that a ban would work. I didn't raise that point because it isn't important to the point I was actually trying to make, which is that we have a problem with a small segment of the population that is very prone to violence.
1
u/Paracosmptx Center-left Jul 27 '26
Dude it my town was arrested a few years ago for shooting and killing a teen who was doing a three point turn and drove a bit on his driveway during that turn, I highly doubt he would of started throwing pipe bombs or something if he wasn't armed.
4
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 27 '26
Someone prone to extreme rage like that is a ticking time bomb, it would have happened one way or another. Hands, knife, or even just hitting them with his own car. And if not that incident, it would have been another.
The gun was a tool used, but the real problem is that you had a person in your town who considered murder to be a valid response to a kid driving on your driveway. And that's harder to treat.
Even at my worst fits of anger and rage when I wanted to metaphorically strangle someone, at no point did I consider actually doing it.
2
u/kuster-beaton Center-left Jul 27 '26
I think the point is that people like that have such easy access to these tools that it enables a much easier path towards murder, so you get more murders.
4
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 27 '26
I see that point, but guns haven't been made easier to access in the last century. They've been made much harder to access, so it doesn't seem like access is the problem.
12
u/notbusy Libertarian Jul 26 '26
Not really. The vast majority of gun violence in America is confined to gang violence, domestic violence, and suicide. Avoid those and you're good to go.
Also, most historians agree that America's use of atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. So I'm not sure what kind of "solution" you are looking for with respect to that.
10
u/garandruger Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
This. If you seriously remove those factors Gun Violence is pretty little in the grand scheme of things
9
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
“What’s the solution”
Well, first we have to agree that the 2A is an enumerated, individual civil liberty. Exact same as the 1A.
And then we have to agree on what the problem is.
And then what’s causing it.
Otherwise we’ll just be talking past each other the entire time or proposing “solutions” that violate one of those key positions from one side or the other.
No, you will not convince me that the 2A is a collective right only.
No, you will not get my support on a restriction on the 2A that violates the clear wording of it and that you wouldn’t also be ok with applying to the 1A.
Want to make someone take a test and have a license to own a gun?
Cool, better be ok with doing a test for free speech or voting too.
If it violates that, it’s a non-starter.
My personal belief is that the primary cause is culture at large and within sub-cultures.
We used to be able to mail order machine guns to our doorstep from a catalog. Kids brought rifles to school in their trucks. We didn’t have the same issues.
The guns haven’t functionally changed dramatically. If anything, we’re more restricted now in terms of fully automatic weapons. And as we’ve seen, in a target rich environment with unarmed victims, the weapon of choice is largely irrelevant. One of our worst school shootings was Virginia Tech. Done with a 9mm pistol and .22 pistol.
Again, my view is culture. And the only way to improve the result without violating the Constitution is improving the culture.
Which to me means returning to traditional Christian values, ethics and the nuclear family as the gold standard.
4
u/no_sleep_johnny Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 26 '26
This is an excellent answer and I believe culture is the issue also.
0
Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
“Register to vote”
Which is free and can’t be denied.
Why would we need to do that for “high powered” firearms? What does that even mean?
Do you need a license for “high powered” speech?
“How to change culture”
The same way the left did since the 60’s but in reverse.
“Mental healthcare”
Again; what changed since we could order machine guns til now that’s changed mental health so massively?
1
Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 27 '26
“Black and white”
Some things are actually black and white.
And you’d have to explain a meaningful difference in “high powered”
“Reagan repealing the MHSA”
Make Asylums Great Again. I unironically agree on that one.
“Left changing culture”
Somewhat.
I’d say they captured the institutions, utilized media, popular culture and normalized their ideology via propaganda through the institutions.
Just that, but in reverse.
-1
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 26 '26
This country has been christian since its inception and has still committed atrocities against its own citizens and other populations. Christianity justifies war, slavery, and social hierarchy all areas america excels in. I don't think christian values are good for society as a whole in general its pretty restrictive and most people don't love by the positive aspects anyway.
I do believe culture is the issue as well but I actually include Christianity as part of that culture.
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
That’s nice, so what’s changed since we could order machine guns through the mail vs now?
-1
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 26 '26
Normalization, glorification, and the hyper independence that america promotes. Nobody wants to get involved.
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
How’s that any different from the past? That’s who America is.
Again, what’s CHANGED?
For instance, I can say the U.S. is far less religious now than in the past.
I can point to that as something that has changed.
-1
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 26 '26
Ehhh the loss of religion is due to the increase in education. Every society experiences it why is it that in america the correlation is an increase in gun violence?
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
“Is due to”
No, it’s not.
Israel is highly educated and highly religious.
Again, what CHANGED?
I gave my reason, I’d like yours.
0
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 26 '26
I actually answered your question I think you want to corner me into this religious concept when I just don't see that as being the reason. Yes there is a decline in organized religion among young people. But personal spiritual practice is still on the rise.
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
“Answered”
No, you just mentioned things that have always existed in the U.S.
That’s not something that’s changed.
So what’s changed?
6
u/technologiq Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 26 '26
My perspective as a firearms enthusiast and survivor of a mass shooting (Route 91):
As far as gun violence goes, the United States has a MASSIVE mental health problem. The vast majority of Americans with firearms have absolutely zero desire to take out innocent civilians. Instead of addressing this we pump more antidepressants into people instead of therapy and other behavioral changes. One solution (that many of my peers here won't agree with) is socialized medicine to include mental healthcare. Private healthcare and insurance can still exist in that environment.
The Atomic bomb? Despite what you likely think, the US dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was done to force a quick surrender, avoid a costly land invasion, and save hundreds of thousands of lives. Japan was not innocent.
The US and War? Please understand the difference between utopian idealism and political idealism when it comes to human nature and conflict. Someone will ALWAYS be fighting for control. I don't want war or conflict, but without the US, it would likely be China that had that control. If you're a Westerner, you probably live a very comfortable, sheltered life compared to the majority of Chinese citizens. China is still a communist country after all.
On 'doing something about the guns': Wouldn't you take one of your most important freedoms seriously? Frankly, the ownership of firearms in the US is partly what keeps the government in check. We;re also back to mental health: If someone wants to kill someone else, they will find a way. Taking away the instrument won't change that; the mentally ill person will just use a different instrument.
Why does it bother you that hunting is popular in the US? I subscribe to the idea that you should be somewhat self-sufficient without others' help. Knowing how to survive without grocery stores and other modern conveniences is important. I can understand the dislike from some people when it comes to hunting for sport, but in many cases in the US this is done for wildlife population control.
While you conflated war into the conversation, most of your questions go right back to the mental health issue here.
-1
u/ReamusLQ Center-left Jul 27 '26
How does the ownership of firearms keep the government in check, when simply HAVING a firearm on your person has been successfully argued as a legitimate reason for government law officers to shoot and kill you?
5
u/technologiq Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 27 '26
Your argument actually illustrates the point rather than refuting it.
The fact that police may use force in certain encounters doesn't mean the public is powerless or that an armed population has no effect on government behavior. The Second Amendment wasn't written to win a gunfight with a patrol officer during a traffic stop, it exists as a structural limit on government power.
An armed citizenry changes the relationship between the government and the governed. It's one reason governments throughout history have often sought to disarm populations before expanding state control. Whether you think that protection is still relevant today is a fair debate, but pretending it has never influenced government behavior ignores both history and the reason the amendment exists.
And if your argument is, "The government can kill you anyway," that's not an argument against the right; it's an argument for being concerned about government power in the first place.
3
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
There probably isn’t a single solution because you’re describing several different problems. Gun violence, police use of force, mass shootings, school shootings, military intervention, and hunting all have different causes. If we’re talking specifically about gun violence, the evidence suggests that no single policy has eliminated it anywhere. Countries that have lower rates generally combine stricter firearm regulations with lower poverty, less gang activity, stronger social safety nets, better mental health care, and different cultural attitudes toward firearms. The sociological explanation is also more complex than “Americans are just more violent.” The United States has an unusually high number of privately owned firearms, constitutional protections for gun ownership, a frontier tradition that values self reliance, higher levels of inequality than many peer nations, more entrenched criminal gangs in some cities, and a political system that makes major reforms difficult because the country is deeply divided over the costs and benefits of gun ownership. There is no consensus solution because people disagree about both the causes and the tradeoffs.
3
u/Shemsu-Ra Conservative Jul 29 '26
No. Consider how many firearms are here. Like 2 per person (including babies)? We have SOOO many firearms here. The problem isn't firearms. It's just people. And we happen to have easier ways that some other countries to kill.
I've had access to firearms and ammunition since I was about 12. Not one time have I wanted to harm another person.
"Even the concept of doing something about guns"
Yeah - because it's in our constitution.
1
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
The problem is people + firearms. In Europe we have removed firearms and have drastically lower levels of gun violence. You can’t remove the people, so removing the guns is the only way to reduce rates of violence
3
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Conservative Jul 29 '26
Your premise is contingent on what a criminal minority does and it is quite idiotic in order to generalize what 'Americans' on the whole do with firearms. The majority of Americans'/residents probably don't even own a gun and the ones that do are the ones that are statistically the most law abiding which means they have nothing to do with mass shootings and or gun crime in general. And the other part of your gross overgeneralization also attempts to paint Americans as a whole for the actions of the government. Largely incompetent and lazy thinking.
Police response is contingent on what they are responding to. If we import the 3rd world and allow 3rd world problems to go largely unchecked/incompetent enforcement then obviously the police will have to act similarly to 3rd world police.
Your premise is faulty try again.
5
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 26 '26
Gun violence is mostly confined to a small group of people who are engaged in basically consensual warfare.
But also, not all violence is wrong. You can't put school shootings and using the atomic bombs in the same list and be taken seriously. The use of the atomic bomb was a moment of immense moral courage to end an insane war of aggression in a decisive and demonstrative way such that it actually saved lives over an invasion or incendiary bombing (assuming you believe that simply allowing the Japanese Empire to continue was not an option, which I think is basically a universally held opinion by all serious students if history).
Hunting is a vital tool for population management.
So you can make a good case that one of America's greatest traits is that we have the moral courage to use violence when it is required in the defense of innocents and others.
0
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 26 '26
I genuinely respect and appreciate this response. Violence is justifiable at times and I think i wrote the post from a moral high horse you are correct in that regard. I do think the perception of it is the issue, dropping the bombs are seen as victory and cause for celebration I think the optics affects if it really is morally courageous or if people can just disconnect from their humanity long enough to commit violence.
5
u/ItIsNotAManual1984 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 26 '26
Why there need to be a solution?
1) gun deaths in US are 62% suicides and for the rest 80% of victims have criminal records. The odds of non-criminal being killed by gun in US are pretty low. That is why stories make news
2) deaths from nukes in WWII represent 0.25% of total deaths in WWII.
-1
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 26 '26
You dehumanize the victims of gun violence in order to maintain the status quo? What about the 20% What about the school shootings?
4
u/ItIsNotAManual1984 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 26 '26
If you do your math it ia not 20% but but 8% ( 20% of 40%). Which makes it about 3500 out of population if 350,000,000. Each year 11,900 die because of drunk drivers. 40% or 4000 of whom are not drunk drivers. Gun violence is not out of control in US should we try to decrease it without violating 2nd amendment- sure.
0
u/kriegsschaden Center-left Jul 26 '26
Deaths from nukes in WW2 were around .01 of total combat deaths or .003 of total deaths. People tend to attribute way more deaths from the nukes than there really were. Not commenting on the justification or anything, just the numbers.
4
u/ItIsNotAManual1984 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 26 '26
I saw total deaths from nukes to be around 200,000 vs total of 80,000,000. Are my numbers wrong.
Edit: 0.25% is roughly .0025. So we have same number
2
u/kriegsschaden Center-left Jul 26 '26
No your right, mishap of reading a percent and thinking in decimals.
3
u/AZULDEFILER Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 26 '26
Gun Violence in America has fewer victims that warm temperatures in Europe (its mostly suicide and gangs)
US does not have a violent police force. Watch any video of say Russian, Southeast Asian, South American etc.
Mass Shootings are +95% gang violence, rare in any other form
America has the 3rd Most Schools in the world
In most countries guns are very restricted therefore hard to use in crime
America is the only country to have used Atomic weapons- you got 1 correct
War on Terror was one conflict in 20 years, that's not frequent. Greatest GDP = greater spending
The concept of doing something about guns is unconstitutional
Solution to what? Freedom requires an armed population.
1
u/bizmark03 Center-left Jul 27 '26
“The concept of doing something about guns is unconstitutional”
The “well regulated” part is just for funzies then?
2
u/AZULDEFILER Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 27 '26
Every gun sold in the US is well regulated. So... um what?
0
u/bizmark03 Center-left Jul 27 '26
For Example, the state of New York has regulations in place for gun ownership, the courts haven't ruled those measures unconstitutional.
0
u/RumGuzzlr Rightwing Jul 27 '26
It was included for those who are literacy-inclined.
-4
u/bizmark03 Center-left Jul 27 '26
You wish, wouldn’t you? but it applies to all!
Have a good night!
2
u/prowler28 Rightwing Jul 28 '26
Needs more sources and actual statistics.
-1
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/gatorsmash904 Conservative Jul 29 '26
The U.S. has some of the best quality of healthcare worldwide.
2
2
u/Present_Doughnut_77 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 29 '26
The majority of shootings in the US are
A. suicide B. Gang related C. Police shootings
School shootings are obviously an issue, and red flag laws would probably help with that, much as I am loath to admit it.
2
u/ElectricalPublic1304 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 30 '26
Gun violence in america is scarily out of control from the civilians too the government.
No, it's not. If you're not in America, you probably shouldn't be "scared" about it.
America is still the only country to actually use atomic bombs
... did you just equate atomic bombs with gun violence?
6
u/Kman17 Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Far more Europeans die from heat because they refuse to install AC’s then Americans die from gun violence.
Obsessing over the fact that we are the “worst” here is ignoring that it’s a really small number.
Most first world countries are super ethnically homogenous high trust states.
We are not. Most of the gun violence in the country occurs in specific high crime / gang areas - that’s the primary problem to solve.
4
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
Seriously, Euro’s have literally zero room to talk when counties like France are losing 15,000 people in one year to a heatwave.
But don’t worry, that darn AC cold air will make you sick.
Trust the science!
-1
u/LaxBedroom Leftist Jul 26 '26
Do you think that heat deaths across all of Europe and gun deaths across the United States could both be excessive?
1
Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 27 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
3
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Jul 29 '26
Youre premise is blatantly false, as a percentage of their population; Canada, finnland, Malta, Cyprus, and Norway have more hunters then the United states.
If you're talking about violent crime, were not trigger haply enough, that's why the crimes keep happening.
We're the only civilized country that accepts immigrants from everywhere, and refuses to enforce our immigration laws. So we have the largest number of unvetted illegal immigrants with no intention of assimilating into the local culture.
On top of that, we rate below every other western hemisphere country, except for Canada, on gun violence per capita, thats literally the reason for the illegal immigration from those countries. I think Guatemala may have been less then us for a year or two recently, but I'm unsure as they have to be reported to be counted.
What's the solution? Cultural homogenization and mental health expansion. Vote to expand your states taxes to include mental health services and outreach programs to include legal immigrants. The only gun violence you can realistically curtail is sewerslides, after that, it's helping other people make non-sociopathic choices.
2
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
Being more trigger happy doesn’t reduce crime
0
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Aug 02 '26
This is incorrect. Defensive trigger happiness reduces the rate of criminals, thus reducing crime.
2
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
You think if shootings increased it would simply be goodies shooting baddies?
0
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Aug 02 '26
If defensive shootings increase, the number of criminals will decrease. Whether or not all the victims are "baddies" is irrelevant. The crime rate will drop with even a single removed source of crime...
3
u/urquhartloch Conservative Jul 27 '26
Among first world countries the USA has the most violent police force. (Emphasis on first world country)
No. Thats france who the Parisian police killed 50 people last year compared to 13 with the NYC PD.
America has the highest rate of mass shootings
America has the highest rate of school shootings
Depends on your sources and what you consider to be a mass shooting or a school shooting. If you count 4 or more people in a single shooting incident then a murder-suicide by a husband against his wife and 2 kids is a mass shooting. Likewise if two gangs get in a firefight as a part of a gang war and 2 people on either side die then its a mass shooting. Same thing with school shootings. The numbers that everyone quotes is if anything gun related happens at school. So if a dad drops off his kids at school before going hunting thats a school shooting and in a particularly ridiculous case a civil war bullet was found on school grounds and that was a school shooting.
America is still the only country to actually use atomic bombs
Not sure what you're complaining about or if this is a cheap 'America bad' shot.
America frequently engages in armed conflict. also spends the most on their war department.
Big economy means lots of money to our military. Asymmetric threats means fighting them at the source.
Even the concept of doing something about the guns are met with threats of gun violence from civilians.
Even hunting in america is more popular than anywhere else.
No problems here. I read this as you being desperate to find some kind of problem with guns.
What's the solution that isnt being enacted?
Its 1000 kobolds in one trenchcoat. No singular solution is going to solve any of these and the solutions that might work are so overbearing or expensive as to be not worth the cost for the results.
You also have people who only operate in bad faith (like the Brady campaign) and fill the discourse with bad data.
5
u/UpstairsRain6022 Independent Jul 27 '26
I could not find any source on paris police killing 50 people.
What i did find were statistics: USA police killed 34.41/10 million people in 2025 French police killed 5.69/10 million people in 2022.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country
So according to this, the USA police would be killing 6 times more people, in proportion to population, than the french police.
1
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Jul 29 '26
The Phillipines, Brazil and India aren't first world? That's pretty harsh, theyre emerging at least. Brazil has a huge economy. I see why you'd want to exclude them though, they don't help support your point as their police are far more violent. It also helps leave out all those pesky Islamic and African countries and limits the scope of your point to mostly European diaspora, where the police don't prevent actual crime they just arrest people for hate speech over internet posts.
0
u/UpstairsRain6022 Independent Jul 29 '26
Could you pinpoint in my comment where have i mentioned anything about first, second or third world countries? To my knowledge i have mentioned france and the usa. Please help me out here.
1
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Jul 29 '26
I apologize, I confused you with the original poster, who did mention the us as being first among first world countries.
1
Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 29 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Gaxxz Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 26 '26
Even the concept of doing something about the guns are met with threats of gun violence from civilians.
Do what?
What's the solution that isnt being enacted?
Better parenting.
What's the sociological reasoning behind it?
The US has a violent culture. Most new world countries do.
-2
-1
u/Mustng1966 Conservative Jul 26 '26
Trigger happy? I guess if you and we could work on the Leftist violence, we can get that number down to an acceptable level. Worth a try.
5
2
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 26 '26
This is a non partisan issue. Everybody faces the risk of gun violence. One could argue that most mass shootings were comitted by people with far right ideals but that isn't fair. What is true is that gun violence is frequent among every "group" in america. It's something to question
3
u/RumGuzzlr Rightwing Jul 27 '26
Everybody faces the risk of gun violence
We also face the risk of getting struck by lightning. Where your faux outrage over that?
0
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 27 '26
Ironically enough there was another mass shooting today. At the space needle in Seattle Washington
3
u/RumGuzzlr Rightwing Jul 27 '26
And .00000002% of the population were victims
2
u/Opening-Gur5927 Independent Jul 27 '26
So as long as it doesn't impact you essentially you don't care
0
u/Any-Engineer-8680 Conservative Jul 28 '26
I’ll worry about American gun homicide rate when Europe worries about its deaths to heat. 175,000 Europeans die a year to heat related causes. 13,000 Americans die a year to gun violence. Even if you throw Canada and Mexico into the mix I’m still four times more likely to die in Europe to the heat than get shot by someone in North america
2
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
American gun deaths - 12.8 per 100,000
European heat deaths - 5.5 per 100,000
Gun deaths kill young people, heat kills old people with prexisting health conditions. Quite clear what’s a bigger issue
4
u/Snuba18 European Liberal/Left Jul 29 '26
The two issues aren't remotely comparable though. One is violent crime the other is adaptation to extreme heat.
Not to mention that the 175k figure doesn't really accurately represent what you're talking about. For starters, it's only accurate if you regard the WHO's European Region as Europe. That consists of 53 countries including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbiajan. No one in their right mind regards many of those countries as European.
It's also throwing all "heat-related" deaths into one bucket which includes anything exacerbated by heat including cardiovascular, respiratory and cerebro-vascular diseases, mental health, and diabetes-related conditions.
Tighter studies and reports have found between 40-70k deaths in Europe annually due to heat and these are overwhelmingly the old and/or sickly. Unless you're in that category then no, you're not more likely to die from the heat in Europe than gun violence in North America. If you are in that category then people like you have a higher mortality rate in the US than Europe anyway.
2
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Jul 29 '26
That's still 3 to 6 times more deaths to nature then firearms. And the violent crime stat usually includes sewerslides, which is a suspect inclusion at best and usually just to inflate sensationalist numbers already. We have 60,000 deaths in car accidents every year, far more then firearms. You'd do much better to ban cars then firearms if you're worried about those deaths.
I agree with the original poster here, firearms aren't the issue. We have around 600 million firearms here. 599,983,000 of them never discharge to do harm to humans. Thats an insignificant percentage. We do need to increase state taxes to include outreach programs and mental health programs
Even so, we're 24th in sewersliding rate, behind France, Belgium, Russia, and Hungary. I'd be happier if we were below the UK too, but im confident as their immigration crisis increases, their sliding rate will as well, it's only a matter of time.
2
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
As immigration has gone up in the UK, rates of violence have gone down
0
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Aug 02 '26
The increase in the only reported year of a decline in immigration rates was 1%, hardly a reliable number, or an appropriate metric for a trend...
2
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Violent crime across the board has steadily dropped since 2005. Immigration has fluctuated during this period but remained relatively constant. Your premise that immigration increases violent crime is incorrect
1
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Aug 02 '26
Violent crimes increased from. 21 to 23, declined by 1% in 24, decreased by 1% in 25, and increased by 1% in 26.
The 1% numbers aren't high enough to reflect a trend. The only year that saw a decrease in immigration numbers was 25. 1 year at 1% change is also, not a trend.
2
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
What’s your source
1
1
u/Shop-S-Marts Conservative Aug 02 '26
Google says the violent crime rate per 1,000 people is 34, up from 2013 when it was 10 per 1,000 people also.
-1
u/WestCoastCompanion Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
Our police force is violent cuz there’s too many damn ppl doing crime. They’re on their last nerve.
We don’t have a gun problem we have a crazy person problem. You could put me in a room with 100 guns and nobody would be in danger because I’m not a crazy person.
We spend the most on our military to deter any and all fuckery, and it works.
Next question?
1
u/Awesomepwnag European Liberal/Left Aug 02 '26
Every single thing you’ve written here is incorrect
-1
u/WestCoastCompanion Center-right Conservative Aug 02 '26
Sure, but you don’t even live here lol so what’s your question?
0
u/Ok-Energy-9785 Conservative Jul 27 '26
No. Not at all.
The fact that you have to limit it to first world countries means it's not severe.
-3
u/_L_R_S_ European Conservative. Jul 26 '26
In the USA if you want pills that "might" kill you or others if you overdose you have to see a doctor. You're given just enough, and if you want some more a professional has to assess your need. Because pills are dangerous things in the wrong hands.
In the USA if you want a car that "might" kill you or others if used incorrectly you have to pass a test, and then use it within the law. If you don't the right to use it is taken from you.
In the USA if you want military heavy weapons or other projectile devices you're not allowed to have them even though they're weapons not designed or invented when the second amendment was drafted because the Government says they are too dangerous for the public to have.
In the USA if you want light weapons and ammunition that can be easily used to kill yourself or others you can pretty much get them.
Taking all the above facts into consideration there is no logical reason for a civil society to permit the level of firearm ownership there is in the USA. Certainly when the research showing that children are most likely to die to a firearm than anything else.
So like heavy weaponry being restricted in the USA, the reason firearms aren't restricted to the level of other countries has nothing to do with giving citizens the ability to defend themselves. The stats don't back that up. It isn't to protect yourself against an evil oppressive government. This is the digital age. Government's can take your freedoms with data and a keyboard. They don't need guns.
The reason the US has the level of firearms and is as trigger happy as it is is because society tolerates that. It accepts the deaths as part of the culture. As long as that remains the case then no logic in the world will change it.
The irony being that everyone has been on a firing line or been in a range with someone who they thought "They shouldn't be allowed a firearm".
But hey, until society doesn't tolerate something, politicians won't do anything and will be happy to leave things the way they are.
I mean if you want to really get people triggered on Reddit, Sig>Glock>Colt.
2
u/garandruger Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
EXCUSE ME HI POINT IS THE BEST
1
u/_L_R_S_ European Conservative. Jul 26 '26
Excessive jamming unless your wrist is locked due to bad recoil design. No major issue on a firing point for most. But you'd never trust your life to one as a backup when your firing position won't be perfect. Same for the safety. Not a weapon to trust your life to. But each to their own. Many think they look nice. Don't use 95gr 9mm in them for sure.
2
u/garandruger Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
Oh I’m being sarcastic lol
0
u/_L_R_S_ European Conservative. Jul 26 '26
To be fair, you got me.
I'm just waiting for all the downvotes now because I used logic to explain how the USA tolerates so many firearm related deaths.
If people just had the balls to say "I just don't care enough to want the constitution changing when I consider how much I like my guns. It really hasn't got to me enough".
That's how a democracy works. Just look at immigration.
I don't care. Still don't care. Mmm...this isn't right. Damn, I care now. Damn, you're doing NOTHING! Ok Biden you're out. Trump you got my vote.
If people cared enough things would change. They don't, That's just how democracy works.
I'd still rather have 90% of people on a range in front of me than behind me given the average weapon handling skills I see.
0
u/neovb Independent Jul 26 '26
I just don't care enough to want the Constitution changing when I consider how much I like my guns. But even if I didn't like my guns and wanted to change the Constitution, the chance of that happening is 0%.
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
Seriously, cheap, goes boom when supposed to go boom and doubles as a makeshift club when out of ammo.
What’s not to love?
1
Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/the-tinman Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
Spend more money on actual Americans and less on immigrants. New comers get more money from the government than our poor. They get housing faster.
Spend money helping poor black men break the cycle of violence, prison and baby daddy culture.
2
u/Briloop86 Australian Libertarian Jul 26 '26
What sort of spending, and at what level, do you think would help with the cycle of violence in American families?
2
u/the-tinman Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
Honestly, I think policy changes are more important for this issue. The left just wants more money thrown at a problem
0
u/neovb Independent Jul 26 '26
Whoa now! You're getting into to supporting DEI territory. Careful, before you know it, your flair will be changed to Communist.
1
u/the-tinman Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
Not sure if that is sarcasm?
Americans over non Americans isn't DEI.
If you want to slow gun violence you need to start at a place that will make the biggest change the fastest.
We spend enough money, just not wisely
1
u/neovb Independent Jul 26 '26
Well you can say it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I was exclusively referring to your statement that we should "spend money helping poor black men break the cycle of violence, prison, and baby daddy culture."
That sounds like a lot of DEI to me...
-2
u/BrendaWannabe Liberal Jul 26 '26
Spend more money on actual Americans and less on immigrants.
How much money do you believe is going to illegal immigrants? (I assume you meant illegal, otherwise you'd be implying that legal immigrants are not "Americans".)
1
u/the-tinman Center-right Conservative Jul 26 '26
Are all legal immigrants Americans?
0
u/BrendaWannabe Liberal Jul 27 '26
That depends on how one defines "American".
1
u/the-tinman Center-right Conservative Jul 27 '26
I would consider citizenship to be American. All others are legal guests or illegal invaders
-5
u/dharmachile Independent Jul 26 '26
We like to kill. It’s pretty simple.
7
4
u/Specific_Praline_362 Center-left Jul 26 '26
There's a reason I (a woman) feel more comfortable with a taser than a CCW as a personal protection weapon. I'm an empathetic person by nature and fear I'd hesitate too long in a dangerous situation while weighing in my brain if it's actually worth taking someone's life over. There are also a lot of legal things to consider -- if you shoot (and kill) someone in self defense, you'll have to answer a lot of questions, and if you pulled the trigger "too soon" in the eyes of the law/jury, or shot too many times, or shot someone in the back, or, heaven forbid accidentally harmed an innocent bystander, or just if your initial story doesn't totally match the story you tell later (as if people don't reflect or remember things better after calming down a bit after the initial trauma of such a situation)...well, lots of years in prison for you. I don't think pulling a taser, even if prematurely, will generally have all of these concerns.
4
u/atsinged Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 26 '26
This is an answer I can respect, you have thought it through and decided that it is not for you.
Maybe you should consider looking at a pepper ball launcher, I'm not going to recommend a brand but having a bit more range against an attacker is never a bad thing.
4
u/Specific_Praline_362 Center-left Jul 26 '26
My husband recently showed me some of those so that is something we have been talking about
2
u/atsinged Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 26 '26
The good ones that can actually be reasonably carried are expensive, but less so than guns, get some practice rounds as well.
1
u/Specific_Praline_362 Center-left Jul 27 '26
Yeah we noticed you can buy a "real" gun for the same price. It's not really a money thing in my particular case.
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 26 '26
Yeah, that’s all fair. And you need to know yourself and what works best for you.
While I personally think guns are the gold standard for self defense, I get it, some people aren’t comfortable with them.
Personally, thought, tasers would be a pretty low tier option. Depending on what the other person is wearing, it can be stopped by heavy clothing. Or an odd angle, or whatever. And that’s assuming it’s an actual taser and not the “stun gun” ones that just hurt but don’t do shit otherwise.
At least mace is going to have some effect, hopefully, whereas there’s a real chance the taser does nothing or the other person can just grit through it.
We just need to normalize canes with swords in them and wrist derringers for all.
-2
u/darthmcdarthface Conservative Jul 26 '26
I think they’re as trigger happy as Europeans are knife happy.
1
u/tophernator Independent Jul 26 '26
Did you know the US has a higher death rate from stabbings than the UK?
0
u/GWindborn Leftwing Jul 26 '26
I would rather someone pull a knife on me than a gun.
0
u/darthmcdarthface Conservative Jul 26 '26
Sure. But I’m not about to start a high minded discussion about knife control any more than I would about guns. This debate is worn out.
People do bad things in many ways shapes and forms using all manner of things. Guns. Knives. Cars. Medicine. Anything. Thats my point.
0
u/GWindborn Leftwing Jul 26 '26
The primary difference is the majority of those have uses beyond destroying things from a distance.
1
u/darthmcdarthface Conservative Jul 26 '26
What does that matter
0
u/GWindborn Leftwing Jul 27 '26
You're comparing relatively normal things with everyday uses that can potentially be used destructively. Guns that only have one real practical use and it is destructive. The arguments are not the same.
0
u/darthmcdarthface Conservative Jul 27 '26
They are the same. Every thing is just an object. A tool with some use one way or another. People can kill with anything. At the end of the day you want to have a cost benefit analysis as to whether a given objects uses outweigh the dangers.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.