83
submitted 1 year ago by admin@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Overzeetop@beehaw.org 35 points 1 year ago

Oh, now, don't be rash. Guns don't people, people kill people, or so I'm told. We should just remove guns from the "bad" people.

Based on my observations, disallowing (checks notes) males from owning or operating guns would seem to be a near universal solution.

[-] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think we all know that more guns mean more gun deaths. The stats are pretty clear as a whole.

It is a pretty small group of people that actually own guns to make them safer. Majority it is to feel safer while making them and everyone around them less safe. That is my big issue with guns. Not gun ownership itself... just nutty ownership.

[-] acastcandream@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Or go to the Bojack horseman route and encourage women to buy guns. You’ll see legislation passed in a flash lol

[-] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago

Disenfranchised minorities. I mean the Panthers literally started California gun control.

Though I think more gun control is no doubt better for society.

[-] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Criminals already don't follow the law; that's why they're considered criminals. Why would those who need weapons care about or follow gun control laws? How's that working out for the war on drugs in the US?

[-] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Assuming x percentage of legally acquired guns can be diverted to illicit means.

Less overall Availability of guns means less overall availability of guns in the illicit market.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/

[-] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Seems to work OK in every other civilized country. Maybe the US is exceptional, but not in the way Americans like to think.

[-] CeruleanRuin 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

50% of the population, commits 90% of the homicides. Huh. 🤔

[-] reric88@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

There are other self-defense options as well. Lethal firearms could be entirely replaced by non-lethal. If you actually need it for defense, you can still defend yourself with it, but you're going to have a hard time using it for murder now.

You could argue that this would increase the amount of defender deaths because they couldn't neutralize the threat 100%, but it would drastically lower lethal firearm related crimes. Gotta weigh the options.

I'm all for self defense at a distance, I don't want to have to risk a scuffle. If someone invades my home in the night, I don't want to have to fight them. I want them stopped asap with as little force as possible for the safety of everyone, including the invader.

this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
83 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2233 readers
26 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS