Statistics generally show that people with guns in their house are much more likely to be fatally shot. Suicide is a big factor, as are domestic disputes. It seems that generally, there are points in many people’s lives of extreme emotional anguish or rage, and if they have access to a firearm at that point they will use it, with deadly consequences. On the other side of the equation, successfully preventing harm with a firearm is comparatively more rare. In other words, owning guns causes more harm than it prevents.
At a societal level the same picture more or less bears out: the more guns available in a community, the higher the incidence rates of gun violence. This is true independent of crime levels, income, or demographics.
It therefore seems desirable to attempt to reduce the number of guns in private ownership. For the United States, that’s quite a complicated task, and I don’t see any realistic path to a gun-free society. Especially not with ~50% of the country opposed to such a goal. Probably the first step would have to be to increase public support for gun control, otherwise all efforts are futile.
Literally every town bullshit. This is propaganda which is utter nonsense. It’s like saying people with pools are more likely to drown in them. It uses suicide statics to try and back up it’s claim, which doesn’t work because DGUs happen at a far higher rate than suicides.
Fwiw, some of the lowest crime areas in the USA have some of the most lenient firearms regulation. New Hampshire for example had something like 27 total homicides in all of 2023, including ones not involving a firearm. Most of those were domestic disputes. The crime rate there is absurdly low even when you compare it to the small wealthy European nations everyone likes to circlejerk about. NH has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the USA, and allows carrying without a license and no registration or anything needed to purchase.
I know that’s just an anecdote but it does beg the question of whether guns have a causal relationship to crime rates or simply a correlation. I am inclined to believe it’s overwhelmingly the latter and only a sprinkle of the former, based on the research I’ve done.
To extend that, gun control is worse than useless if what you care about is saving lives and reducing crime. The effect is minimal at best, and performative more than anything else. Every tax dollar and minute we spend on gun control could have a far greater payoff if we directed it toward addressing the root causes of these tragedies. Instead we just use guns as a scapegoat, pass restrictions on them, then pat ourselves on the back while kids continue to grow up in crippling poverty and adults are left with no support systems to turn to when life shits on them.
Statistics generally show that people with guns in their house are much more likely to be fatally shot. Suicide is a big factor, as are domestic disputes. It seems that generally, there are points in many people’s lives of extreme emotional anguish or rage, and if they have access to a firearm at that point they will use it, with deadly consequences. On the other side of the equation, successfully preventing harm with a firearm is comparatively more rare. In other words, owning guns causes more harm than it prevents.
At a societal level the same picture more or less bears out: the more guns available in a community, the higher the incidence rates of gun violence. This is true independent of crime levels, income, or demographics.
It therefore seems desirable to attempt to reduce the number of guns in private ownership. For the United States, that’s quite a complicated task, and I don’t see any realistic path to a gun-free society. Especially not with ~50% of the country opposed to such a goal. Probably the first step would have to be to increase public support for gun control, otherwise all efforts are futile.
Did you know that people who own legos are much more likely to step on lego bricks?
And I know it’s a shock but people with elecricity in their homes are at a MUCH higher risk of death by electrocution and electrical fires.
That isn’t a good argument, no matter what it’s for/against.
Literally every town bullshit. This is propaganda which is utter nonsense. It’s like saying people with pools are more likely to drown in them. It uses suicide statics to try and back up it’s claim, which doesn’t work because DGUs happen at a far higher rate than suicides.
Fwiw, some of the lowest crime areas in the USA have some of the most lenient firearms regulation. New Hampshire for example had something like 27 total homicides in all of 2023, including ones not involving a firearm. Most of those were domestic disputes. The crime rate there is absurdly low even when you compare it to the small wealthy European nations everyone likes to circlejerk about. NH has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the USA, and allows carrying without a license and no registration or anything needed to purchase.
I know that’s just an anecdote but it does beg the question of whether guns have a causal relationship to crime rates or simply a correlation. I am inclined to believe it’s overwhelmingly the latter and only a sprinkle of the former, based on the research I’ve done.
To extend that, gun control is worse than useless if what you care about is saving lives and reducing crime. The effect is minimal at best, and performative more than anything else. Every tax dollar and minute we spend on gun control could have a far greater payoff if we directed it toward addressing the root causes of these tragedies. Instead we just use guns as a scapegoat, pass restrictions on them, then pat ourselves on the back while kids continue to grow up in crippling poverty and adults are left with no support systems to turn to when life shits on them.