Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Does gun control really work? I would direct everyone to Australia this past weekend, and 16 people are dead, and Australia has just about the most restrictive gun control in the world, but guns were used. That should tell you that gun control does not work. This is what the left wants to do: take your guns away, and of course, this tragedy is going to be blamed somehow some someway on Trump.
“Gun control” is an enormously blanket term. Some gun controls are effective. Bans are not among them. Make the use of a firearm in the commission of any crime or civil infraction an automatic felony. Now you have compound sentencing to make sure gun CRIMINALS are appropriately punished. I’d be perfectly comfortable with stricter gun controls for criminals. If you have a violent crime on your record, and you’re caught with a firearm straight to prison; ten years minimum. If you’re caught committing a violent crime with a firearm for a second time, execution. Most of those idiots are living like they want to die anyway. Let’s make their dreams come true and make our streets safer for law abiding citizens while we’re at it!
The vast majority of “gun control” suggested by democrats is either already law and woefully under-enforced or it targets law abiding gun owners while they actively let violent criminals off the hook for anything and everything. Prime example: a good samaritan disarmed one of the shooters at Bondi beach, the police shot the good samaritan. A homeowner in California spent more time in jail than the home invaders he was protecting himself from. A Las Vegas man was charged with a crime for doing a podcast about machining his own firearms. A UK man was jailed for shooting guns while on vacation in the US!
The democrats don’t care about our safety one bit. They want us scared so that we will give them complete control over every facet of our lives in exchange for their false sense of security. There isn’t a single blue zone in the US with crime rates legitimately lower than the national average, let alone completely free from crime. Both sides have more than nominal authoritarian tendencies and the only thing keeping them from going full fascist and seizing absolute power is our second amendment to the US Constitution and gun culture.
Outlawing firearms guarantees that only outlaws have firearms and the rest of us become soft targets.
u Quote:
"There were almost 47,000 firearms-related deaths in the United States in 2023, the most recent year with available data from Pew Research Center, for an average rate of 13.7 deaths per 100,000 people.
During a comparable period (July 2023 through June 2024) Australia saw only 31 gun-related murders, a homicide rate of 0.09 gun murders per 100,000 people, according to data from the Australian Institute of Criminology."
47,000 includes suicide by gun.
One shooting incident means gun control doesn't work? Here in America we have had 400 mass shootings this year alone. This doesn't count the homicides or other crimes that involve shootings.
In 2023 in Australia there were 31 gun related homicides. In the U. S. there were 47,000 gun related deaths in 2023. This includes homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, mass shootings.
So it seems gun control curtails gun-related deaths and has been successful in Australia. One negative incident does not mean failure. It means someone has gotten around gun control laws. THe how and why will tell more about that individual failure.
@Pterodon This is true. And that is a difference. But gun control doesn't mean all guns are taken away from everyone. It means gun owners are registered, and there are more hoops to jump through for gun ownership.
Because laws are so loose here, it has been difficult to get such rules in place.
The orginal amendment was about keeping an armed militia in place so tyrants could not overthrow citizens' rights. It was never a carte blanche for anyone and everyone to own guns. It was orginally about having a national guard of sorts.
I own a gun for hunting. I have no problem with registering it if that's that new rule. But I wonder who feels the same way? Who feels it impinges on their rights? As long as I can own and keep my duck hunting shotgun, what is wrong with registering it?
I own a car and a driver's license. Both are registered! Does that impinge on my rights?
One anecdotal example of gun violence is not statistically valid to judge the effectiveness of a broad gun control policy. This incident, of course, has nothing to do with your lazy leap, ‘connecting the dots’ assertion and mischaracterizing what the (American) left ‘wants’ to do. And for the record, nobody has blamed PiggyPedo yet. He had nothing to do with this one, fortunately.
He does enough bad things, and has plenty of bad incidents attributed to him already, correctly and justly without you worrying about (boo hoo, poor OrangeTurd) getting unduly blamed.
LMAO!
Opinion
20Opinion
Yes, it does work - to the benefit of the criminals. You know, one would think the leftists would actually get this one. They are so much in favour of "equal distribution", after all.
Well, dear leftists... When guns are legal, they are equally distributed between law-abiding citizens and criminals. When guns are illegal, we've got a serious case of inequality - the law-abiding citizens do not have guns, while the criminals do have guns. This inequality has dire consequences for the entire society. Take a moment to let that sink in.
Yes it does. Look at China and pretty much all Asian countries for example. Very strict gun control and very low crime rates. You never hear of any mass shootings in China or really any of Asia. Because gun control works and guns are dangerous deadly weapons. Only violent dangerous mentally ill psychopaths own guns and are pro gun. All countries need to ban all guns. Then give gun owners two weeks to turn in all their guns then go door to door and consifiscate all guns and arrest and throw anyone that didn't turn in their guns in prison for life or execute them.
Why does Jamaica with stricter gun control than China, still have 1000% the homicide rate compared to USA per captia?
Or 10,000% of china's.
Jamaica does have stricter gun ban laws than china.
Yet:
Jamaica: ~40-49 homicides per 100,000 people.
USA: ~5.8 homicides per 100,000 people (2023 data).
China: ~0.44 homicides per 100,000 people.
Don't tell me it's skin color.
Yankee conservatives don't understand by bringing up Australia, they are proving gun control works because this is the first shooting in Australia that killed more than 7 people in 39 years. In America, that happens literally every year, if not multiple times every year. The rarity of such an event is why it is being covered across the world so dramatically. When we hear something like this happened in America, we just shrug it off in 5 seconds because it happens so frequently.
And again, how many people live in Australia versus the USA? A wild guess: 100 million versus 350 million. A disparity of 250 million, so the numbers are a little skewed. And less than 7 does not count as a mass shooting in Australia?
Of course not.
Criminals and psychos do not follow laws.
People keep focusing on inanimate objects and not people.
You cannot have 2 generations of fatherless, no family kids and tons of immigrants with values that do not align with the west and not have endless chaos and death.
It doesn't prevent all gun deaths, but the US experiences about five times as many gun deaths as any other developed nation. All evidence indicates that gun control works. Vaccines work too, but some people still contract the disease.
Nope.
Ok let's give an example. Let's say you live in a town where crisco and anything like it is banned, with jail sentences for having it. Cool. What the fuck are you gonna do to stop me from smuggling it in, and selling it on the down low? Arrest or kill me? Ok, then I'm gone, and someone else will take my place. You can't search every inch and every piece of everything and everyone. It will always slip in.
For comparison, there were 31 children killed by other children with guns in the US in 2023.
e. g. www.atlantanewsfirst.com/.../
29 years since the last mass shooting, and this was a terrorist attack, not someone who doesn't like Mondays. The US averages more than one mass shooting a day.
Of course it works.
Well you have to ask why do countries with strict gun controls have a lower murder/ mass shooting rate per capita? The datas is out there for you to answer this question. Just go look.
@egan3141 Are you stupid? Let's try again: there are knife murders in both countries. There are practically NO gun murders in the UK (29 per year). There are many thousands of gun murders in the US, in addition to the same rate of knife murders.
In other words, I followed your instructions to: "check those rates for the weapons that are common in the country", and they're a small fraction of the US murder rate.
@goaded And the most forgotten thing is that the US has about 5x the amount of people vs the UK, so the knife rate of murders in the UK is 5x higher than in the US
Your second response is exactly what I was gonna say. RATES. America is already at a higher rate for knife murder. And that's with our high gun rate! So, if we got rid of guns, our knife rate would skyrocket. So, rather than me asking "did guns fix anything" I'm instead asking "Since the problem of murder is still rampant, what should we do next?"
" @goaded Well I learned something... I had no clue. Muting engaged. " Game on! :)
Yes, "a lack of a gun is going to change things" because you don't have to be close to your victim, you don't have to be strong, you just have to pull a trigger, not feel a knife cutting into a living person's flesh, you're even less likely to be caught "Numerous studies from the United States have found that homicides involving firearms are less likely to be solved than those involving other weapons, or no weapon, such as hitting and kicking" journals.sagepub.com/.../10887679251320257
Also, don't be an ass to people who have asked you to stop.
@goaded I never said you were nor did I say it wasn't easier. However, whether it's easier or not does depends on the mentality. It tends to be harder for women. But that's a different point all together. You are saying/implying that by banning guns, the murder rate would fall drastically. I'm saying that it wouldn't. Based on the reasons we have given, the only explanation I can find for why our opinions are different is that you think humanity isn't as bad as I think it is.
@goaded Just being alive and functional is enough for you to have the ability to kill someone...
Also, I KNEW it! We have had political arguments. We were "agreeing" on something earlier today, or at least kind of enjoying the conversation. It just makes me happy when I find one of the rare people that can disagree with you, actually talk it out, and still be nice afterwards.
@egan3141 It's easier to kill someone with a gun. People are saying they need guns in case of something like the Charlie Kirk murder, but the reality is that if the murderer hadn't had a gun, there would have been no murder, and if every single person in the crowd had a gun, it wouldn't have stopped it.
@egan3141 That doesn't address my point in the slightest, does it? True or false:
It's easier to kill someone with a gun. If the Charlie Kirk murderer hadn't had a gun, there would have been no murder, and if every single person in the crowd had a gun, it wouldn't have stopped it.
As for guns making you safer in your home, 66,000 guns are stolen from homes every year in the US. 100,000 are stolen from cars. If they weren't all over the place, they would be a damn site harder to obtain to threaten people with. (Hundreds are stolen in robberies, which means the victim was in possession of their gun at the time.)
I was referring back to an older comment you made BECAUSE you said "It's easier to kill someone with a gun".
Back to Charlie Kirk, that's not remotely guaranteed. There are NUMEROUS ways to kill someone that don't involve guns. Grenades (happened in 2005 to president Bush. He got lucky and the grenade didn't explode properly), vehicles, using vehicles as moving bombs (Could easily load a vehicle up with a bunch of propane tanks, then floor it into the area and blow up), and I'm sure many more I'm not thinking of right now. I will admit, him being killed AT A PUBLIC EVENT probably would have been significantly less likely without guns, but him being killed at all isn't. Plenty of public figures have attempts on their lives that don't involve guns. Also, have you ever considered that the reason people resort to guns so often is ONLY because they are the most convenient? If you got rid of guns, they would just find another way: Grenades, molotov cocktails, assault with a deadly weapon, ramming with vehicles (We have some VERY good vehicles for this in modern times compared to 50+ years ago), and numerous other ways. If taking away freedoms of good people don't stop crimes, what are you trying to achieve?
@egan3141 You're making my argument for me. Yes, guns "are the most convenient" way to kill people, which is why it makes it very much harder to kill someone if you don't have guns everywhere.
All your example alternatives are horribly indiscriminate, they'd probably kill many innocent people, not just the target; something else that would put off a lot of potential assassins. (And just how easy do you think it is to buy a grenade compared to a gun?)
Vehicles? Stand behind a big rock, or on a podium. Also, unlike most guns, vehicles are indispensable.
If every single person in the crowd had a gun, would they have been able to stop the gunman who killed Charlie Kirk?
"Most convenient way" doesn't mean it should be removed. There will ALWAYS be a most convenient. If we remove guns for being most convenient, how many more things will you want removed for being convenient?
A rock or podium isn't going to stop a large truck moving at 40 miles per hour.
As for the last question, of course not. Guns for defense are reactionary, not prevent... preventatory? preventative? Preventative doesn't seem like the right tense
And a question of clarification "unlike most guns"... Does that mean you want some guns banned, not all guns? I thought you have been saying all guns this entire time.
@egan3141 There are good reasons for some people to have guns, but "I'm scared" is not one of them. Somebody who say they'd really like to overthrow the government while there are still free and fair elections should never be allowed a gun. (Even if they believe *really hard* that the elections are rigged.)
@goaded Numerous Asian countries... And after checking, it seems it's only a few. The rest (that I was thinking of) technically allow civilians to get guns, but it is so restricted, there wouldn't be a meaningful difference if it was outright banned.
So, if it's not about the gun, but who has them... I would agree that it helps a little. Would help more if we just punished the main crime harder, but that kind of gun control does have an effect
Also, it was my fault. I assumed you wanted total bans. I was approaching everything with that mindset. My apologies.
It doesn't work because bad people are always able to get guns on the black market while law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves. You might think cops are enough but a thief can easily pop a cap in your family and scoot before the authorities arrive. Best case you have a way to effectively defend yourself at all times.
Okay, let's look at gun deaths in Australia versus the U. S. Heck we'll add in Japan, another place with very restrictive gun laws. Even if we combine the gun deaths per capita in Japan and Australia, they're still lower than the U. S. We lead the world in firearm deaths by a large margin. A large margin. 60 people were shot in one incident in Las Vegas in 2017. 60 people, that's almost 4 times as many as the shooting in Australia.
I don't think Trump will be bamed for a islamic terost attack in Austraila. As for gun control, look at the drug control we have, I'm sure glad we have that othewise tons of peopel would be dieng over drug overdoess...
No it doesn't. Criminals don't follow laws. Gun control just makes law abiding citizens more vulnerable and easier targets for criminals.
@Proudblondewoman Are You sure You are a blonde woman? You do not fit the stereotype, I will have You know!
I do believe they do work and mass shootings in Australia are very rare.
Australia’s crime rate has been lower than the USA for many years
Yes. There gun violence stats went from 3% yo.88% under their laws. Nice try. 🙃
If we could keep the bad guys from getting guns it would work. Until that happens I plan to keep my guns.
yeah so far all the dictators in history have agreed it does
It's important to not judge a complete society on one or two incidents.
The guy who murdered the healthcare CEO shot him with a gun he printed on a 3-D printer.
So far, no!! If somebody wants one, they know how to get one!
Gun control is hitting your target. If you can’t do that I don’t care what kind of gun you have you’ll have problems
I have found that it does if you use both hands.
Obviously telling a criminal to follow the laws works everytime
To some extent but not nearly as well as actual prisons do.
no, but I expect Trump to outlaw AR-15 his last year in office if he doesn't get impeached.
Agreed. Gun control is meant to save lives, and it doesn't save lives, it changes how lives are taken.
It doesn't work
Yes it works
You can also add your opinion below!
