this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
596 points (86.7% liked)

politics

18828 readers
6253 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But honest question, why do you buy a gun like that if you're never ever going to use it? For what purpose do people buy these things anyway?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If police and proud boys have them...

I do use mine for target practice though. I shot competitively when I was younger and really appreciate the skill aspect. I have fond memories of my grandpa teaching me how to shoot, but hunting has never been on my radar.

January sixth, probably played a pretty big role in me actually "pulling the trigger" tbh. That and a PB demonstration down the street from me.

If I was honest, it's basically a super dangerous bowling ball to me.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sorry I'm seeing your reply after writing a veritable essay to someone else above you. :)

But the primary reasons are weight and self defense.

A traditional hunting rifle has a stronger caliber, but is around 2 pounds heavier and has a lower capacity.

In terms of self defense, you want a lighter weight and a higher capacity. Makes it easier to carry, easier to control, and easier to defend yourself against multiple intruders, something which, unfortunately, has happened multiple times:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/17/deputies-30-rounds-fired-from-ar-15-in-deadly-florida-home-invasion/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Quick! While you're doing numbers, compare the number of times a gun didn't "solve" that problem vs the number of times a gun was misused and someone died. False-negative vs false-positive. It's just numbers and not relevant, but see how it goes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

All we can go by are the overall numbers and how often guns are used illegally, either for suicide or offense, and it's actually surprisingly small.

There are over 474,000,000 guns in the United States, of all types.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/

On average, every year, there are 25,000 suicides by gun. 6 out of every 10 gun deaths.

https://www.everytown.org/issues/gun-suicide/

25,000 / 474,000,000 = 0.005274%

So if 25,000 is 6/10 that means the other 4/10 is somewhere around 16,666. (25,000 / 6, *4).

Of those, a further 800 to 900 are people shot and killed by police.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Each death is, individually, a tragedy, but when you're talking 474 million guns and 330 million people, it's not a statistically significant number (0.003516% of guns and 0.005050% of people). There are a lot of stupid people out there and IQ is not a barrier to gun ownership.

If the guns themselves were the sole problem, the number of deaths would be in the millions, not the low thousands.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Defensive gun use numbers are hotly contested, but low-end estimates are in the hundreds of thousands of instances per year in the US source 1, source 2. Those numbers include times when simply pulling a gun was enough to stop a situation from escalating into a overt violence. Obviously people that oppose 2A civil rights wish to downplay defensive firearm use as a way to prevent violence, and people that support 2A civil rights want to champion those numbers. Per my second source, it is disputed that those instances of defensive gun use 'saved lives'--many of them might have been used to e.g. scare off burglars--but there's it's harder to dispute that defensive gun use is quite high. It should also be obvious that it's impossible to know whether a life would have been lost or not without defensive gun use; there's no reasonable way to know if, for instance, a home invasion robbery would have turned into a murder if you were unarmed.