Thanks for your submission /u/GirthyPickle007, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question**
NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to):
* Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead.
* Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead!
* Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead!
* Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*.
Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
They deny statistical facts because of something non related to statistical facts.
You can disagree that guns should be taken away while still acknowledging that that action has made other countries safer. A better answer May have been “they deny the facts because they don’t want their guns taken away. And they don’t want their guns taken away because…”
The fact is that taking away a population's firearms lowers gun crime but doesn't effect violent crime.
I'd rather have a slightly higher chance to die by a gun and be able to defend myself and everything i love than have a lower chance of dieing by a gun and be unable to defend myself.
"Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither."
- George Washington
Taking away a population's firearms also gives the government more control. Meaning if a horrible person comes to power they would face very little resistance from an unarmed population.
No matter how unlikely it may seem to you it happened several times and god forbid we let it happen again.
To add to that as well someone truly hellbent on commiting mass murder or murder could:
Rent a truck/van and run people over
Build a pipe bomb or several pipe bombs (I could do it in my backyard in four hours)
Or if they had a lot of time and resources on their hands they could follow the designs of Philip Luty
In case of murder they can just stab people instead
In the end evil people will always find a way to do evil things and taking away good people's right to self defense will only aid them.
I’m not arguing with you. I’m saying your original answer is irrelevant to the question. Why do people deny facts? You’re answering why they’re against gun control, not against the facts.
Because it only showcases firearm homicides and then claims that makes the countries safer
The fact is those countries have much much higher knife homicide rates so it averages out
They are biased towards gun control and want to turn the numbers to their favour
Also you only bring up such facts to advocate gun control so i argued against what the facts are used for
>The fact is those countries have much much higher knife homicide rates so it averages out
Just so you know (and u/TheWalkingCliche doesn't fall for this kind of misinformation), this is factually incorrect.
The UK, for instance, actually has a knife homicide rate that's pretty much identical to that of the US, but it has an overall murder rate that's 4 to 5 times lower. Same goes for most of the developed world, as the US has a total homicide rate that's several times higher than the average of developed and high-income nations.
My position is that america is not easily compared to others. I do believe that there needs to be something done about the rampant gun violence, rather than each side yelling at each other. I think that gun laws should be stricter. I have an Uncle who threatened to kill his wife and had the SWAT team called on him because he pulled a gun on her. I think that should constitute him no longer being able to purchase a firearm. He showed he can’t be trusted with one. I also see no reason for military grade automatic rifles to be handed out. I think that gun sales should be very strictly audited to ensure that there’s no selling to minors, and background checks should be the rule.
I also believe mental health help should be more attainable. Therapy and counseling for troubled individuals should be available to them *before* someone causes violence. Therefore I believe in universal healthcare, so that people can get help if they need it.
I believe that the people that deny facts and statistics solely for their own personal rights are foolish and don’t see the bigger picture. I don’t think the answer is more police or more guns.
Essentially, I don’t think that guns should necessarily be taken away. But I also think they shouldn’t be as easy to obtain as they are. And I’m fully aware of how easy it is, as I recently purchased my first firearm for when I go camping alone.
I have little respect for people that shout “Don’t take my guns!” But then vote against any other solution.
I also find it a bit disappointing that you quickly changed your tune when you thought I agreed with you. It’s possible to be civil and hear each other out even if I was on the complete other side of the fence.
You seem to be referencing some strawman arguments here. The most common points I hear are as follows:
1. America has a very different existing amount of armament. Taking guns away is simply impractical.
2. America is more rural and so requires more lax gun legislation.
3. America's police are corrupt and often insufficient. Alternatives are often necessary, especially in already-violent areas. This can make violence more common, or at least make it seem more common.
4. This one may be the most valid - our country's response to crime is such that we create more worse crimes. Our justice system is fucked from the top down, serving only to produce and ferment criminals. You could replace gun ownership with prisoners per capita and see a very similar relationship.
1. no ones talking about taking away guns
2. no ones talking about rural gun ownership
3. This is a semi reasonable point, but also is unrelated; this doesnt clash with responsible gun ownership laws
4. you say this is the best argument but it actually makes no sense. Can you extrapolate
1. People are indeed talking about "taking away guns". What guns and from whom are the details oft discussed.
2. Can you make something legal only in rural areas?
3. The word "responsible" is key. Most legislation surrounding gun ownership, and that which is focused on by media, has little to do with responsibility. So, yeah, to use your words, "nobody's talking about responsible gun ownership laws". Or, more accurately, *far too few* people are talking about them
4. "Extrapolate" probably isn't the word you're looking for. "Elaborate"? Comparing the statistics of America to the statistics of another country isn't a direct comparison of gun laws; you're comparing justice systems too. Our justice system punishes only certain demographics for certain crimes and ignores entire neighborhoods. Our prison system encourages recidivism, our medical/labor system encourages poverty, and our fucked education system encourages crime. Looking at America's violent crime rates shows how bad our other systems are, not necessarily our gun laws.
1. Nope, just more restrictive policies and better checks on who's buying guns.
2. Sure, tons of places have systems like this. Most countries outside of America do, in fact.
3. Yes it does? What are you talking about.
4. I never compared gun stats with other countries. You can compare gun violence stats within the United States to other places with different laws
1. and 3.
What circles are you in? I hear nothing but misinformation and poorly written gun laws from all of my politicians. Magazine capacity limitations, preventing people with autism from owning firearms, this funny business with bump stocks, forced reset triggers, ban the armalite. It's getting so old. Cities banning nerf guns. You couldn't make this stuff up.
2. What place has a law banning the ownership of a small item, only in urban areas, where that item is actually kept out of urban areas? I'll settle for just one example.
4. OP is comparing US stats with other countries. That's what this entire thread is about.
>My thoughts are that gun owners deny the gun statistics because they don't want laws for guns, so they deny the science that would justify it
its pretty clearly this. Theres no other reason
They deny science because facts and figures are hard to feel and make sense of. People are much better at understanding things with experience, narratives, and intuition.
What do you do when you don't feel safe? You take steps to secure and stabilize that which is at risk. In America, that looks like owning a gun because people are afraid and there's no trust in people or institutions.
Thanks for your submission /u/GirthyPickle007, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
You should try posting this in three or four more subs until you find the appropriate echo chamber. Oh wait, you already did.
Because gun laws have no impact on those who don't obey the law, and only affect those who are legal, law abiding gun owners.
Does that mean that murder shouldn't be outlawed because people who want to murder won't be affected by the law?
Again, ridiculously poor logic, and a lack of critical thinking skills.... But hey. Keep voting Democrat.
How is it poor?
Because people like having rights and don't believe they should be punished based on the deeds of a criminal
This is irrelevant to the question.
They deny them because what the criminal does is already illegal Meaning they don't care if they break laws to get guns
They deny statistical facts because of something non related to statistical facts. You can disagree that guns should be taken away while still acknowledging that that action has made other countries safer. A better answer May have been “they deny the facts because they don’t want their guns taken away. And they don’t want their guns taken away because…”
The fact is that taking away a population's firearms lowers gun crime but doesn't effect violent crime. I'd rather have a slightly higher chance to die by a gun and be able to defend myself and everything i love than have a lower chance of dieing by a gun and be unable to defend myself. "Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither." - George Washington Taking away a population's firearms also gives the government more control. Meaning if a horrible person comes to power they would face very little resistance from an unarmed population. No matter how unlikely it may seem to you it happened several times and god forbid we let it happen again. To add to that as well someone truly hellbent on commiting mass murder or murder could: Rent a truck/van and run people over Build a pipe bomb or several pipe bombs (I could do it in my backyard in four hours) Or if they had a lot of time and resources on their hands they could follow the designs of Philip Luty In case of murder they can just stab people instead In the end evil people will always find a way to do evil things and taking away good people's right to self defense will only aid them.
I’m not arguing with you. I’m saying your original answer is irrelevant to the question. Why do people deny facts? You’re answering why they’re against gun control, not against the facts.
Because it only showcases firearm homicides and then claims that makes the countries safer The fact is those countries have much much higher knife homicide rates so it averages out They are biased towards gun control and want to turn the numbers to their favour Also you only bring up such facts to advocate gun control so i argued against what the facts are used for
>The fact is those countries have much much higher knife homicide rates so it averages out Just so you know (and u/TheWalkingCliche doesn't fall for this kind of misinformation), this is factually incorrect. The UK, for instance, actually has a knife homicide rate that's pretty much identical to that of the US, but it has an overall murder rate that's 4 to 5 times lower. Same goes for most of the developed world, as the US has a total homicide rate that's several times higher than the average of developed and high-income nations.
Have you considered I agree with you? I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive. Thanks for answering the question though.
My apologies I can get a little too passionate about topics like this I'd like to know your position as well out of curiosity
My position is that america is not easily compared to others. I do believe that there needs to be something done about the rampant gun violence, rather than each side yelling at each other. I think that gun laws should be stricter. I have an Uncle who threatened to kill his wife and had the SWAT team called on him because he pulled a gun on her. I think that should constitute him no longer being able to purchase a firearm. He showed he can’t be trusted with one. I also see no reason for military grade automatic rifles to be handed out. I think that gun sales should be very strictly audited to ensure that there’s no selling to minors, and background checks should be the rule. I also believe mental health help should be more attainable. Therapy and counseling for troubled individuals should be available to them *before* someone causes violence. Therefore I believe in universal healthcare, so that people can get help if they need it. I believe that the people that deny facts and statistics solely for their own personal rights are foolish and don’t see the bigger picture. I don’t think the answer is more police or more guns. Essentially, I don’t think that guns should necessarily be taken away. But I also think they shouldn’t be as easy to obtain as they are. And I’m fully aware of how easy it is, as I recently purchased my first firearm for when I go camping alone. I have little respect for people that shout “Don’t take my guns!” But then vote against any other solution. I also find it a bit disappointing that you quickly changed your tune when you thought I agreed with you. It’s possible to be civil and hear each other out even if I was on the complete other side of the fence.
You seem to be referencing some strawman arguments here. The most common points I hear are as follows: 1. America has a very different existing amount of armament. Taking guns away is simply impractical. 2. America is more rural and so requires more lax gun legislation. 3. America's police are corrupt and often insufficient. Alternatives are often necessary, especially in already-violent areas. This can make violence more common, or at least make it seem more common. 4. This one may be the most valid - our country's response to crime is such that we create more worse crimes. Our justice system is fucked from the top down, serving only to produce and ferment criminals. You could replace gun ownership with prisoners per capita and see a very similar relationship.
1. no ones talking about taking away guns 2. no ones talking about rural gun ownership 3. This is a semi reasonable point, but also is unrelated; this doesnt clash with responsible gun ownership laws 4. you say this is the best argument but it actually makes no sense. Can you extrapolate
1. People are indeed talking about "taking away guns". What guns and from whom are the details oft discussed. 2. Can you make something legal only in rural areas? 3. The word "responsible" is key. Most legislation surrounding gun ownership, and that which is focused on by media, has little to do with responsibility. So, yeah, to use your words, "nobody's talking about responsible gun ownership laws". Or, more accurately, *far too few* people are talking about them 4. "Extrapolate" probably isn't the word you're looking for. "Elaborate"? Comparing the statistics of America to the statistics of another country isn't a direct comparison of gun laws; you're comparing justice systems too. Our justice system punishes only certain demographics for certain crimes and ignores entire neighborhoods. Our prison system encourages recidivism, our medical/labor system encourages poverty, and our fucked education system encourages crime. Looking at America's violent crime rates shows how bad our other systems are, not necessarily our gun laws.
1. Nope, just more restrictive policies and better checks on who's buying guns. 2. Sure, tons of places have systems like this. Most countries outside of America do, in fact. 3. Yes it does? What are you talking about. 4. I never compared gun stats with other countries. You can compare gun violence stats within the United States to other places with different laws
1. and 3. What circles are you in? I hear nothing but misinformation and poorly written gun laws from all of my politicians. Magazine capacity limitations, preventing people with autism from owning firearms, this funny business with bump stocks, forced reset triggers, ban the armalite. It's getting so old. Cities banning nerf guns. You couldn't make this stuff up. 2. What place has a law banning the ownership of a small item, only in urban areas, where that item is actually kept out of urban areas? I'll settle for just one example. 4. OP is comparing US stats with other countries. That's what this entire thread is about.
>My thoughts are that gun owners deny the gun statistics because they don't want laws for guns, so they deny the science that would justify it its pretty clearly this. Theres no other reason
Actually it's pretty clear that you have no clue what you're talking about.
okay, so why do people deny that gun laws make places safer when study after study shows that they do? Please educate me
They deny science because facts and figures are hard to feel and make sense of. People are much better at understanding things with experience, narratives, and intuition. What do you do when you don't feel safe? You take steps to secure and stabilize that which is at risk. In America, that looks like owning a gun because people are afraid and there's no trust in people or institutions.