6 ms·

It's the anti-gun lobby. Bloomberg's band of morons who believe a government monopoly on force is good. These bans are almost exclusively in states with alread

by stuffn 7mo ago

It's the anti-gun lobby. Bloomberg's band of morons who believe a government monopoly on force is good. These bans are almost exclusively in states with already extremely strict (high rated by the gifford's law people) gun laws. So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows. The calculus for these petty tyrants has changed from banning guns wholesale to lawfare. Make owning and purchasing firearms so burdensome the market dies, and with it, the rights. This is just another play in that strategem. Fun fact: More people died last year putting foreign objects in their rears than by AR-15s. That is how insane the anti-gun lobby has become. They are literally barking at their own shadow these days.

whyenot 7mo ago
Do you have a reference or at least some hard numbers for your "fun fact"?
- 15155 7mo ago
  Long gun homicides (justified and unjustified, "assault weapons" and grandpa's 30-06 combined) are typically sub-500 per year, see: FBI crime stats for the last N decades. Pick whatever demise: falling off of ladders, roofs, etc. - it's not hard to exceed this number in any given year.
dekhn 7mo ago
Can you redo your "fun fact" but include all types of guns?
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  Well there is a lot of weird focus on entirely the wrong things when criticizing guns.
- rpdillon 7mo ago
  Pew does what they can: > In 2023, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 53% of the 13,529 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 4% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (42%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.” Interesting findings: Most gun deaths are suicides with handguns. Assault weapons are used in less than 5% of deaths. Handguns account for 53% of the deaths. Shotguns are negligable. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-...
  - dekhn 7mo ago
    So basically the comparison to foreign body objects (of any type) to a single type of gun- which represents a tiny fraction of all gun deaths- is not a convincing comparison.
    - rpdillon 7mo ago
      The point was that all the regulation on assault weapons doesn't have a meaningful effect. At best, you could reduce gun violence by 4%. I wouldn't over-rotate on the comparison to foreign body objects: the point is, if you rely purely on the media to inform you about gun violence, you're going to get a funhouse mirror version of reality. It's way more exciting to write about the 40 school children killed in the last two years in mass shootings than the 16,000 depressed dads that blew their heads off in their garage with a handgun in the last 12 months (spitballing a bit, but 40,000 deaths, 50% of which are suicides, 80% of those are men).
      - dekhn 7mo ago
        I disagree- this subthread was not about assault weapons, it was about gun-control laws. But yes, if you limit yourself to assault weapons (itself a somewhat nebulous term that just muddies the discussion IMHO), then yes, you're not going to have a huge impact. No argument that the media produces inaccurate representations about guns. I spend a fair amount of time reading articles and also spend a lot of time reading into the facts that they report.
goostavos 7mo ago
No amount of FBI stats about how often "assault" rifles are used will change people's minds. They don't like them and so want to take them away. I don't know how to square the same people saying we're living under a tyrannical government also pushing legislation that makes sure said tyrannical government is the only one with guns.
- jajuuka 7mo ago
  I can't square people who think owning a gun will stop or prevent a tyrannical government. Especially when the tyrannical government just leverages its supporters as a vigilante force.
  - throwway120385 7mo ago
    The problem with that thinking is that you have to have the will to act to stop tyranny, and no amount of armament will give you the will or the foresight to see it.
  - rpdillon 7mo ago
    An armed populace creates a huge risk for a federal paramilitary force descending on a municipality with the intent to terrorize the citizens. They're not rolling in with tomahawks and tanks, they're coming in with assault rifles and window breakers.
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    It won't "stop" them but having to treat everyone like they might shoot back and show up with a 10:1 manpower advantage and armed to the teeth every time you wanna subject someone to state violence really puts a damper on your ability to do tyrannical government things.
    - jajuuka 7mo ago
      The current time period is not proving that out. These are just ammosexual fantasies.
dekhn 7mo ago
Your fun fact is misleading because it's specific to AR-15s. A better comparison would be all types of guns.
lovich 7mo ago
> So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows. I’ve seen this claim from a few people in this thread but everytime I look up gun deaths per capita Massachusetts and California are low on the list and both have strict gun laws compared to red states

by stuffn 7mo ago

whyenot 7mo ago

Do you have a reference or at least some hard numbers for your "fun fact"?

15155 7mo ago
Long gun homicides (justified and unjustified, "assault weapons" and grandpa's 30-06 combined) are typically sub-500 per year, see: FBI crime stats for the last N decades. Pick whatever demise: falling off of ladders, roofs, etc. - it's not hard to exceed this number in any given year.

dekhn 7mo ago

Can you redo your "fun fact" but include all types of guns?

Dylan16807 7mo ago
Well there is a lot of weird focus on entirely the wrong things when criticizing guns.
rpdillon 7mo ago
Pew does what they can: > In 2023, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 53% of the 13,529 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 4% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (42%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.” Interesting findings: Most gun deaths are suicides with handguns. Assault weapons are used in less than 5% of deaths. Handguns account for 53% of the deaths. Shotguns are negligable. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-...
- dekhn 7mo ago
  So basically the comparison to foreign body objects (of any type) to a single type of gun- which represents a tiny fraction of all gun deaths- is not a convincing comparison.
  - rpdillon 7mo ago
    The point was that all the regulation on assault weapons doesn't have a meaningful effect. At best, you could reduce gun violence by 4%. I wouldn't over-rotate on the comparison to foreign body objects: the point is, if you rely purely on the media to inform you about gun violence, you're going to get a funhouse mirror version of reality. It's way more exciting to write about the 40 school children killed in the last two years in mass shootings than the 16,000 depressed dads that blew their heads off in their garage with a handgun in the last 12 months (spitballing a bit, but 40,000 deaths, 50% of which are suicides, 80% of those are men).
    - dekhn 7mo ago
      I disagree- this subthread was not about assault weapons, it was about gun-control laws. But yes, if you limit yourself to assault weapons (itself a somewhat nebulous term that just muddies the discussion IMHO), then yes, you're not going to have a huge impact. No argument that the media produces inaccurate representations about guns. I spend a fair amount of time reading articles and also spend a lot of time reading into the facts that they report.

goostavos 7mo ago

No amount of FBI stats about how often "assault" rifles are used will change people's minds. They don't like them and so want to take them away. I don't know how to square the same people saying we're living under a tyrannical government also pushing legislation that makes sure said tyrannical government is the only one with guns.

jajuuka 7mo ago
I can't square people who think owning a gun will stop or prevent a tyrannical government. Especially when the tyrannical government just leverages its supporters as a vigilante force.
- throwway120385 7mo ago
  The problem with that thinking is that you have to have the will to act to stop tyranny, and no amount of armament will give you the will or the foresight to see it.
- rpdillon 7mo ago
  An armed populace creates a huge risk for a federal paramilitary force descending on a municipality with the intent to terrorize the citizens. They're not rolling in with tomahawks and tanks, they're coming in with assault rifles and window breakers.
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  It won't "stop" them but having to treat everyone like they might shoot back and show up with a 10:1 manpower advantage and armed to the teeth every time you wanna subject someone to state violence really puts a damper on your ability to do tyrannical government things.
  - jajuuka 7mo ago
    The current time period is not proving that out. These are just ammosexual fantasies.

dekhn 7mo ago

Your fun fact is misleading because it's specific to AR-15s. A better comparison would be all types of guns.

lovich 7mo ago

> So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows. I’ve seen this claim from a few people in this thread but everytime I look up gun deaths per capita Massachusetts and California are low on the list and both have strict gun laws compared to red states