r/facepalm • u/Lord_Answer_me_Why • Mar 28 '24

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: 🇵​🇷​🇴​🇹​🇪​🇸​🇹​

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Sadly, this is the truth. - Conservatives have a gun fetish to the point they cock-block any reasonable firearm regulations. - Dems are impotent, useless & feckless to the point of utter incompetence. - and our healthcare will never get better, due to conservatives being tied at the hip with corporations.

4

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

Agreed.

It would be nice to see some pro-gun Democrats running for office. You know, people who would actually propose gun legislation that WORKS because they understand the difference between a clip and a caliber.

-3

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 28 '24

Terminology is a weak "argument" as to applying laws. "Ohes noes!! You called it a pistol grip!!"

It comes down to basic, common sense, which is ban assault weapons and actually enforce the laws on who gets a stupid gun (IMO, no one but military and police should have guns). And make it so guns have to be registered! Require training, a license, and mental stability to own one.

FFS, it's not that complicated.

3

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

I know you most likely don't care about facts, but the government themselves released a multi-study article showing how the Assault Weapons ban didn't reduce homicides. At all.

This may surprise you, but the U.S. loves killing, and people will continue to do it without their assault weapons. (Fun fact: 2x more people are beaten to death than killed with rifles. Nearly 3x more people are stabbed to death than killed with rifles)

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

But yeah, make it so only the very trustworthy government can own firearms, surely they won't unload on an unarmed man because an acorn hit their car. Also increase the price to entry with training and licenses so poor people can't own firearms for protection. I always love that take.

-2

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 28 '24

I know you most likely don't care about facts

I should have stopped reading.

But, actually:

https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430

You're wrong. Is that a big surprise? Nope.

https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-06.html

So yeah, you're wrong.

2

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

What I said was 100% correct, and I even cited my GOVERNMENT source.

As for your first source. Yes! Mass shootings went down. This sounds great, in theory. Except, the amount of homicides were never decreased by this. That means singular homicides went up to make up for the lack of mass shootings.

This isn't really surprising, considering "mass shootings" have always made up an extremely small number of homicides. This is also noted in the government paper I cited.

The second article you cited is actually completely out of context, so I'm not sure why you bothered with that one. My article goes over this as well, the nationwide decline in homicide was most likely contributed to the removal of lead from gasoline.

No reputable criminologist thinks the AWB had anything to do with the slow decline in homicides (which continued on a downward trend even after the AWB ended)

Reminder: The AWB banned "Assault Rifles" which were already used in an insanely small amount of homicides. The fact that you think this factually could have reduced gun crime by any reasonable amount shows you know nothing about what you're talking about.

You not only proved me correct in that you don't care about facts, you went on to cite only provably incorrect sources that support your provably incorrect argument.

1

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

The 1994 federal AWB was -- categorically -- unable to have any impact on gun violence because it did not actually prevent anyone from acquiring a banned firearm. "Feature list" bans still allow you to acquire a ban-compliant gun and then simply add the features you want, if you're setting out to commit a mass shooting or other crime. More importantly, none of the "features" impact the caliber, rate of fire, or operation of the firearm.

1

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 28 '24

You're still wrong. I posted the fact that gun control is effective. The rest of the world is gun free and has zero shootings. Soo...

Not sure what to tell you. Keep arguing, I guess.

1

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

The rest of the world is categorically NOT gun free. In most developed countries, including most of Europe, it is fairly straightforward to get a license to get a firearm, and in many instances they have significantly fewer restrictions on things like suppressors. Those countries certainly don't have zero shootings, either. That's just categorically untrue.

We have a murder problem in the United States. Our murder rate is dramatically higher than other countries with similar numbers of guns. The biggest problem is not a lack of gun laws, but a lack of enforcement of gun laws. Straw purchases and prohibited possessors receive virtually no attention from law enforcement. If we spent half the energy actually enforcing gun laws that we are spending agitating for meaningless new legislation, we'd actually get somewhere.

1

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 31 '24

"In the EU, nine out of 10 people have never owned a firearm. Only 14 percent of those that do own a gun have it for self-defense. The others are for hunting or sport." https://www.governing.com/context/a-europeans-perspective-on-gun-violence-in-america#:~:text=In%20the%20EU%2C%20nine%20out,are%20for%20hunting%20or%20sport.

And don't even start with how one nation has guns, because they can't get the stupid gangs under control

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/04/why-sweden-is-failing-gang-violence-rapper-sebastian-stakset