Just saw this article posted in Facebook. Let’s check it out:
Lovely accompanying photo. You know he is already toeing The Narrative.
I don’t care what side of the debate you’re on, it’s indisputable that the United States is saturated in gun violence.
It is not. Next?
In 2012 alone we saw 8,855 gun related homicides.
And still going down. From the halcyon days of Gun Control in the 90s with overall murders in the mid 20 thousand to under 12,000 by 2012. That is a 50% drop there, Skippy.
When it comes to other developed countries around the world, we don’t just lead every single one of them in gun violence – it’s not even close.
You mean White Anglo-Saxon-Nordic countries and Japan where the Klan is seen as the equivalent of the NAACP San Francisco office? Well, that is very racist…wait it the picture above of you?
But all I ever hear from gun nuts is the worn out cliché, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Or the one that really doesn’t make any sense, “More guns make us safer.”
See the numbers above? It works. You just refuse to see it.
Think about this logic for a moment. For decades our gun laws were so lax (and still are) that we allowed millions of guns to pour into our streets, right into the hands of criminals.
No guns were “poured” on our streets, they were sold. Who the fuck just drops guns in the middle of a road? And if that is a direct accusation that gun manufacturers were giving guns away or cheap to the criminal element, I wouldn’t mind seeing the evidence if you have it.
Now the argument from guns rights activists is that we need more guns to protect us from the guns they helped allow flood into our society, finding their way into the hands of criminals.
That is ONE of the arguments. There are others like having fun, collecting and it is because it is my gorramed right.
The flaws in this “logic” couldn’t be more obvious. Keep pushing for less regulations on guns, causing more and more guns to flood into our society, which undoubtedly results in criminals having easier access to obtaining guns.
Speculating ain’t data. Show us the evidence.
And, of course, what’s the answer to deal with the threat of criminals who’ve gotten these guns? More guns.
Actually that would be the proper placement of what comes out of the gun in assorted places inside the body of the criminal.
Right now there’s roughly 300 million guns in the United States. Considering our population is only around 314 million, that’s nearly one gun for every man, woman and child in this country
You are short by at least 50 million. So we have at least one for everybody.
So, my question to gun nuts is simple, “How many guns is enough to keep us safe?”
That would depend on the situation. At a minimum one should have 3 pistols in various sizes with at least 5 spare magazines or 7 speedloaders if you are into revolvers. Rifles a minimum of 2: One with rapid fire capabilities and one bolt-action for delicate far-away work. Shotguns? My preference is a pump and would love an over under cut down for Tiger-Jumping events.
And a crapload of ammo for all.
To answer that question one must ignore the simple math that tells us that the more guns we allow to flow into our neighborhoods, the more gun violence we see.
If you could do math and some basic Google research you would have found the numbers I already shown and saved yourself from writing such an embarrassing article.
But these gun nuts constantly claim we need “more guns” to make us safe. Well, what’s the magic number then? Because we’re damn near at a 1:1 ratio for American citizens and guns, and that sure as hell doesn’t seem to be decreasing gun violence.400 million? 500 million? A billion?
Using my preferences of 7 firearms per person, yeah, a billion sounds about right.
How many guns will it take to decrease gun violence in the United States?
According to NICS checks, it took about 200 million.
Wait, I know what some of these gun nuts think. They’re preparing for an overthrow of the government.
You never know.
Here’s a rule I propose: If you’re someone who honestly believes that you can stage an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States government, you’re too mentally unstable to own guns.
Then it is a great thing we don’t let you be dictator and impose rules on us poor rednecks, right? Bill of Rights and all those pesky documents.
Well, any fool that thinks a bunch of people wearing Walmart-bought camouflage pants and owning a few rifles are going to wage war against the most powerful military that’s ever existed in all of humankind, is insane.
Those who ignore history…
But ignoring these lunatics who think we own guns to overthrow our government, how many guns will it take before we see a decrease in gun violence?
You are repeating yourself. Running out of arguments?
But seeing that we have around 300 million already here in the United States, and gun violence tends to increase as the number of guns in the country goes up, it’s just a question I’d like these people to answer.
We already answered. The question is: Are you ready to shed your pre-conceptions and admit the clear evidence that you are wrong?
Should we go back to the days of the wild west when everyone had a gun holstered to their hip? Are you trying to tell me gun violence was low back then?
Really? If you read back in history, one of the first things many law enforcement officials did to clean up some of these towns (because of out of control gun violence) was ban the carrying of firearms within town limits.
I know you watched the Movie “Wyatt Earp” (Not Tombstone, that was too butch for him) and may I remind you that both in the movie and in real life, the bad guys ignored the ban just like they do today and shootings and death continued?
Now, if you are a fan of the Wild West history, you may want to read what happened in Coffeyville, Kansas on October 5, 1892 with the Dalton Gang and armed citizens.
But now these people want a return to something that even in the 1800′s they knew was a problem?
Much less of a problem than say, Chicago in the 21st Century?
It makes absolutely no sense. Though it brings me back to my question, with around 300 million guns in this country (probably more), and gun violence that continues to lead every developed nation on Earth…How many guns will it take before “good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns?” Because what reality actually tells us is that more guns actually lead to more violence – not less.
Your imagination does not reality make. Wake up, get some coffee (or Kombucha) and face the facts: More Guns equals Less Crime.
Stop pearl clutching, you’ll ruin them.
Howdy Miguel,
Whenever anyone makes the old going against the most powerful military in the world with small arms, I just bring up Afghanistan, a country that has outlasted not one, but two nuclear capable militaries.
Is there something missing at the top? I don’t see any picture or link over to the book of faces (not that I’m likely to go: I find them a despicable company).
And as Ssgmarker says, the fact that determined insurgencies can overcome large invading armies appears to be a fundamental lesson of the 20th century. In a situation where some percentage of the “invading forces” are going to side with their fellow countrymen, I can’t imagine how the invading forces can win. But it would be ugly on a scale the world has never seen.
Brain fart fixed.
Not only has Afghanistan withstood invasion by two nucelar-capable and modern armies, initially using handmade copies of obsolete weapons, they withstood invasion by the great armies of antiquity, Alexander the Great, the Romans and the British, each the top dog in its time.
When the Russians came to prop up the Afghan Communist regime, many of the mujahideen were armed with old weapons, often made in the small gun shops in Peshawar by hand, copies of SMLE rifles and the like. As a muj killed a Russian soldier, he took the fallen Ivan’s rilfe and ammo. If they took a crew-served weapon, they took not only the rifles of the squad but the DShK 12.7mm gun or the 120mm mortar and its ammo. Little by little they acquired the weapons they needed.
There are other examples, including our own fight to free the Colonies from British rule. And a host of guerilla wars where a band of determined revolutionaries defeated – or fought to a negotiated standstill – a superior power.
Why is the answer to all the “gun violence” to pass another law making it even more illegal to use a gun for criminal intent, or to possess one if a prohibited person? Do they figure that maybe this time they will get it right and all the criminals will start obeying hat new, more perfect law?
Having worked in them I’m no big fan of overcrowding our prisons but wouldn’t it be easier to hold TPTB responsible for not enforcing the existing gun laws? Sometimes it is worth the time, effort, and expense of going full bore to trial rather than cutting plea agreements. Sort of like what a lot of cities did back in the 1990s with Project Exile where”gun crime” were turned over to the Feds because they were less likely to do plea deals and the sentences were higher. (Not to mention it did not cost anything out of local taxes.)
stay safe.
90% of all gun control arguments can be summed up as “I can’t control my emotions, therefore, you can’t control your emotions as well, and shouldn’t have a gun.”
The other 10% are the people who sincerely want to rule over the American people without having to worry about the pesky peasants revolting against their tyranny.
Those are the ones I worry about.
People like this are a complete lost cause. They won’t even look up the reported numbers from the FBI after you point out they’re ridiculously wrong. They are so brainwashed, they can’t begin to comprehend that even with a rapid increase in firearms over the last 15 years, all violent crime has steadily decreased. Do these facts mean that more guns = less violent crime? That answer is not conclusive. What it does mean is that their hypothesis of “more guns means more violent crime” is unsupported by the data.
Really gotta love the circular logic and lack of facts in that one…
The number of firearms in private hands has increased by tens of millions over the same period of time that the murder rate and the rate of violent crime have fallen 50%. This does not prove that more guns equals less crime (because there’s no evidence of causality – a cause-and-effect relationship between “more guns” and “less crime”). But these facts disprove the claim that more guns equals more crime, because we now have more guns AND less crime, falsifying the theory empirically (by observation) no matter what the relationship between guns and crime rates may be.
Well and truly fisked… Well done, sir !
Let’s thrash out the overused “here’s how they do it in Europe!” trope that the Left always trots out for gun control arguments.
First, look back over the past century of European history… there’s a whole lot of nasty stuff, including invasions, wars, genocides, resistance movements, tyrannical governments, civil wars, and police repression. And much of that not related to the two World Wars.
Second, much of the pseudo-socialist eutopia the Left is so fond of is a result of the post WW2 “Pax Americana”- we provide the defense, and they pass the saving onto their people. This is already starting to fade away.
Third, there has been an uptick in power for the ultra-nationalist parties in most EU countries, a tendency that the Greek crisis is accelerating.
Thus, it is unlikely that the current peaceful state of affairs in Europe will continue forever, and we’ll see large amounts of Europeans shooting other Europeans in about a decade or so.
In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, W. Eugene Hollon stated that the believed [sic] “that the Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer place than American society is today.” The legend of the “wild, wild West” lives on despite Robert Dykstra’s finding that in five of the major cattle towns (Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City and Caldwell) for the years from 1870 to 1885 only 45 homicides were reported- an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season. In Abilene, supposedly on of the wildest of the cos towns, “nobody was killed in 1869 or 1870. In fact, nobody was killed until the advent of officers of the law, employed to prevent killings” Only two towns, Ells in 1873 and Dodge City in 1876, everhad five killings in any one year.”
Current US population is about 69% white and 13% black.
From 2008 to 2013 only 17,261 white people were killed with guns, giving a rate of 1.44 per 100,000.
Compared to 38,155 blacks killed with guns, giving a rate of 15.00 per 100,000.
Since 90% of murders are intra-racial and only 10% are inter-racial, the problem is not guns, it is blacks with guns.
While I am NOT advocating for this, the only gun control law that is “common sense” would be to ban blacks from having guns.
AGAIN, I am NOT advocating for this law.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
The 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report, a compilation of annual crime statistics, also shows similar data: 83 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders; 90 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders; 14 percent of white victims were killed by black offenders; and 7.6 percent of black victims were killed by white offenders.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/25/giulianis-claim-that-93-percent-of-blacks-are-killed-by-other-blacks/
Even the leftist Wiki can’t deny the facts.
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
I think it’s also worth noting that the homicide rate in the “wild west,” when “everyone had a gun on his hip” was considerably lower than it is today.
That’s because the Frontier West had its own ways of weeding out idiots. In our First World society, they get to grow to adulthood and cause trouble over and over again, with no hard consequences.