Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tomwilhelm t1_j8ydovy wrote

Reply to comment by crimeo in [OC] Gun Homicide Rate vs. Gun Ownership Rate in the United States by Social_Philosophy

There is nothing cheap or simple about banning guns.

7

crimeo t1_j8yehc3 wrote

Dozens of countries have done it and didn't go into any sort of mysterious recession or have years and years of massive complications of any sort. So... wrong? Observably wrong.

/u/accurate_reporter252 that is assuming everyone having guns would somehow have led to fewer deaths in those cases. Please refer to the graph at the top of the screen... or the fact that everyone in WWII had guns...

The most proven effective way to cause societal change is NONVIOLENT protest, for which you don't need guns. It turns out to be more effective by not escalating into further violence and thus garnering more and more sympathy from the unconvinced population who join your side until strikes and such grind the country to a halt, unless change is made, which it then is. Violent protest is much more rarely successful

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

I will not be replying here again since reddit does not allow you to reply to third parties when some other guy your replied to blocked you, so you will have to take it to DMs if you like.

edit 2 "literally cannot reply here because of a bug" was confusing, I guess, so continued at https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113twme/oc_gun_homicide_rate_vs_gun_ownership_rate_in_the/j932gyn/

−5

tomwilhelm t1_j8yhgxl wrote

The dozens of countries you're talking about: Never had many guns in the first place Had lower violent crimes rates even before guns were banned Have cultures where deference to authority is a norm, rather than fierce independence Don't have huge populations of historically marginalized poor stuffed into urban ghettos Have a social safety net and educational systems that give people hope

None of those things apply to the US.

I'm sure you mean well, but you have no idea. The day guns are banned is the day the US ceases to exist.

3

Jexp_t t1_j90tte5 wrote

With so many parochial drama queens like this out there, I doubt America’s gun nuts have much to worry about.

Beyond being shot, that is.

−1

crimeo t1_j8yjken wrote

> Never had many guns in the first place Had lower violent crimes rates even before guns were banned

Wow almost as if few guns has a relationship to low gun crime! Wacky!

They did not have by any means zero guns, however, and the point stands they encountered no significant issues in banning them.

> [Europe doesn't] have huge populations of historically marginalized poor stuffed into urban ghettos

You should probably learn anything at all about European history before replying to a conversation about Europe.

> Have cultures where deference to authority is a norm, rather than fierce independence

Name a single instance in living memory where a notable group of people "Defended themselves against authority" with guns in America successfully. This does not happen. If you resist authority with guns, they bring bigger guns. You die. The end. Complete fantasy realities do not bear on actual real life policy considerations.

> Have a social safety net and educational systems that give people hope

What on earth does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? Banning guns. "I had a good relationship with my mother and I like strawberry ice cream, therefore guns can't be banned" No you can't just list random ass things out of a hat and pretend it's an argument.

> I'm sure you mean well, but you have no idea. The day guns are banned is the day the US ceases to exist.

I spent most of my life in the U.S. I also happen to know that almost nobody even gave two shits about the 2nd amendment prior to like the 1960s. It was not considered an even minorly significant aspect of the country's identity for the vast majority of its existence. To act like it is THE core pillar of American identity is absurd.

Edit since you blocked me: "I'm sure you'll succeed someday" I don't live in America anymore, so I already succeeded in escaping to a sane country that doesn't needlessly let its citizens die, but thank you for the unnecessary well wishes all the same.

−7

AftyOfTheUK t1_j9055is wrote

>Dozens of countries have done it

Sure, but the people in the US aren't going to let it happen, so it's neither simple nor cheap.

1

Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j930nge wrote

Accurate reporter 252 is assuming less deaths than what typically happens when governments have a unilateral access to use of force, especially when outside agencies--like the US and possibly NATO or the UN--are willing to put boots on the ground to stop massive killing by government.

So, Bosnia... that was interfered with (late in the game) by NATO.

Most of the sub-Saharan African "culls" of citizens like Rwanda played themselves out without much outside interference.

The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and others killed millions after disarming their countrymen.

As far as nonviolent protest...

Nonviolent protest is highly effective up to the point the government isn't willing to directly or indirectly use violence on people.

So, Chinese nonviolent protests haven't worked out for a long time. Likewise, Southern US efforts to stop Jim Crow didn't work for about a century until the rest of the country started seeing dead black men hung from trees in the news more often and made it a national issue instead of the state levels.

Until then, "nonviolent" protests by black people against being kept out of the ballot boxes usually resulted in a whole lot of violence done to them.

You should read a bit about the "Arab Summer" as well.

You play peace until it doesn't work, then you go to war.

Oh, and the Second Amendment?

That's insurance to try and keep the American government from using violence against non-violent protests. It's there to make the cost of violence against the people high enough to keep the government listening to non-violent complaints...

1