• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes I to can make up bullshit…

    You’re being emotional, and that’s how shit laws get created. Your logic follows the same crap that anti-abortion groups use, it’s all based on emotions.

    And you having “shot guns” doesn’t make you an expert on guns.

    More kids die from drowning than from being killed at school by a massive order of magnitude. Why aren’t we closing pools and hot tubs? Or you don’t want to because them dying isn’t really the issue to you. It’s what was used to have them die isn’t it?

    https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/infographics/facts-childhood-drowning

    • VicVinegar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      What a stupid comparison. Guns have one purpose - destruction. You can talk about all the things you can do with guns, but their intended purpose and design is to destroy. The better they destroy shit, the more valuable they are. They’re nothing without that. Pools and hot tubs are not that, and provide value to families and communities in other ways. Also, it’s water. Literally water. And many areas have building codes surrounding pools and their safety. Mainly fences and safety covers. Homeowners insurance is also more expensive when you own a pool. Does that stop every child from drowning? No. Do we know how many times a child was saved because a pool was legally required to have a fence or safety cover? Also no. Also, there is no one running around with pools or hot tubs in their pockets drowning children en masse.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        What a stupid comparison. Guns have one purpose - destruction. You can talk about all the things you can do with guns, but their intended purpose and design is to destroy. The better they destroy shit, the more valuable they are. They’re nothing without that.

        Yep, no argument there, but that wasn’t my point.

        Pools and hot tubs are not that, and provide value to families and communities in other ways. Also, it’s water. Literally water. And many areas have building codes surrounding pools and their safety. Mainly fences and safety covers. Homeowners insurance is also more expensive when you own a pool.

        You do know how many laws there are on the books for firearms right? It’s over 20k laws in state and federal gov.

        Does that stop every child from drowning? No. Do we know how many times a child was saved because a pool was legally required to have a fence or safety cover? Also no.

        What’s the point of this? You don’t know how many kids on average are stopped by a safer either.

        Also, there is no one running around with pools or hot tubs in their pockets drowning children en masse.

        Again, so it doesn’t matter that 950 kids a year on average drown, because that’s just the deaths you’re willing to take to have access to a body of water right?

        • VicVinegar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          None of that was to say it doesn’t matter, it’s to say it’s a stupid comparison. We can work on drownings and work on gun deaths at the same time. They’re two completely different problems. If I said too many people died in car accidents, you wouldn’t say “well what about cigarettes!? Don’t care about lung cancer then huh?” Yes. They both problems. Such different problems it’s stupid to compare them. Pool safety also isn’t a divisive political issue that’s winds up in the news because people would mostly agree on common sense pool safety. There’s no group of fenceless pool enthusiasts protesting for their right to own a pool that a child could easily drown in. We would consider those people idiots.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

      Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

      There’s a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won’t find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

      But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won’t believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

      You’re emotional. You get so angry when you’re reminded that you go against science because you don’t have the balls to actually use your own brain.

      https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

      And you having “shot guns” doesn’t make you an expert on guns

      Oh yeah no, it doesn’t bear any rationale to this argument. It’s just there because gun nuts always default to the “you’re just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that’s why you support gun regulation”. Nah. I love guns, they’re fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don’t have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

      There’s literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

      But I’m sure the lack of science won’t stop you, just like it doesn’t stop Flat Earthers.

      You’re really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So… thanks, I guess?

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

        I’m not the one crying, the 2nd isn’t going anywhere, and neither are my firearms. More and more people on the left are arming themselves, and the gun control types are becoming a smaller and smaller group. The support you think you have is basically on echo chambers like reddit and here.

        Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

        First, I’m all for social programs, ending the war on drugs, mental health, single payer healthcare and increasing our funding to education.

        Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren’t driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

        There’s a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won’t find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

        Tell that to mexico or Brazil, you also forget that all the places you love to claim have lower gun violence are places with social support for their citizens.

        But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won’t believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

        Not even in the same ballpark.

        You’re emotional. You get so angry when you’re reminded that you go against science because you don’t have the balls to actually use your own brain.

        Lol yea… I’m the angry one here.

        https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

        Doesn’t seem to be loading for me

        Oh yeah no, it doesn’t bear any rationale to this argument. It’s just there because gun nuts always default to the “you’re just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that’s why you support gun regulation”. Nah. I love guns, they’re fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don’t have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

        The problem here is, you don’t seem to care that kids die, just how they die. Most murders happen with handguns. In fact, murders with ar15s are so rare they’re just included into all rifle deaths, because they’re statistically pointless.

        There’s literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

        That’s not how the second amendment works, it’s not there to reduce our violence. It’s there to stop a tyrannical gov…one of which seems to be coming more and more everyday. Do you just ignore the shit that’s coming out of trump and his ilks mouth?

        But I’m sure the lack of science won’t stop you, just like it doesn’t stop Flat Earthers.

        Statistics are what I look at. Which is why you thinking another bumpstock or AWB would do anything is hilarious.

        You’re really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So… thanks, I guess?

        Yes I’m the nut.

        • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren’t driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

          Look up the definition of children used here. Also look at suicide and homicides as part of that larger number. There’s a lot of context that points to the fact that the root cause (obviously) isn’t the tool, but the system the tools exist in.

        • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          People like them reek of the sheltered-liberal-20-year-old mindset of “the system is almost perfect, is we just make a couple of tweaks here and there it’ll be fine.” As if firearm restrictions alone will address socioeconomic ossification, the lack of meaningful state protection of vulnerable populations, deep resentment of minorities in homogenous, conservative areas, etc. Whining about how dumb people who hate guns less than they do are lets them get away with not doing the difficult work of addressing deep-rooted structural injustices. Fucking weak.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              No, no it doesn’t. Everywhere that has gun control also has social safety nets… everywhere they have gun control and no safety nets, its bad. Brazil and Mexico… please explain those two countries which have very high firearm homicides but the gun laws there basically ban civilians from owning firearms.

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                No, no it doesn’t.

                Yes, it does.

                Refusing to believe science, asserting your bullshit as more credible than Harvard and Oxford.

                Always the same.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  My facts are from actual facts. As I asked before, please tell me why Brazil and Mexico has worse gun crime than the USA, but has basically banned civilian ownership?

                  Your “science” isn’t anything more than emotional bullshit.

                  • Dasus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    What you’re doing is crying a lot, denying the actual studies which have been done in, among other countries, Brazil.

                    You’ve never read a single one, because people like you never do. Instead you think your making aa good case by calling Harvard and Oxford studies “emotional bullshit” while thinking the garbage you pull out of your arse are “facts, my facts are real facts”.

                    You seriously think you’re gonna “debunk” large peer reviewed studies by the world’s most esteemed universities by going “b-b-but w-what about B-Brazil…?!” (It’s called whataboutism, a rather childish propaganda tactic.)

                    Since the studies are too hard for you to read:

                    Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.

                    https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

                    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts

                    https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

                    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

                    You’re never going to admit you’re wrong, no matter how bad it gets in your shithole of a country. Why is that? Wouldn’t it be better to admit how fucked up it is, to start fixing it? Or do you just like living in an unsafe shithole?

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        “big boy”

        I agree guns in America must change, but you don’t do yourself a service by using schoolyard name-calling. Especially when he called you emotional lol

        • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s what people have to do when they transparently have no actual knowledge of the regulatory landscape they’re trying to wade into lol. The same kind of idiot who actually believes it when some politician tells that that a complicated problem has an easy solution.

      • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Science isn’t on your side. Science is pretty quiet on ethics and human rights.

        We pay a cost for all of our rights. None of them are free or without a body count, even if only in opportunity cost.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

          https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

          Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          Show any science backing up anything saying gun control wouldn’t help with the violence issue. Or is your argument now “I’m willing to allow children to be massacred on a weekly basis in practice with the excuse to allowing it to continue will perhaps serve a purpose for some fictional scenario I’ve been fantasising about”?

          Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

          • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations? Neato. I’m sure we could find other ‘science backed solutions’ if we don’t consider rights in the analysis.

            There are things we can do to address genuine root causes of different types of firearm-related violence. Banning guns, leaving all those young people in horrible situations because you refuse to analyze the situation and patting yourself on the back sounds about right, though.

            Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

            It’s possible to disagree with someone without being a dick. Try it some time.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations?

              Do you honestly think everyone having access to a firearm is a fundamental human right?

              Because… it very much isn’t.

              For more about those, you can read on

              https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights

              And here, in a listed format, and you’ll very much notice the absence of being armed.

              https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/

              Let’s take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.

              Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).
              

              Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there’d be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?

              Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Did your literacy study control for people who are ESL or resident non-english speakers (legal resident or illegal)? Most of those literacy studies are actually kinda racist, just fyi. In your fervor to call Americans stupid you may want to not be racist while you do it.

        Btw, turns out around around 44% of Aus adults don’t have the literacy skills required for every day life https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4228.0main+features992011-2012

        So they’re stupider by your metric, I suppose, and idk what their immigrant population looks like so idk if they have a similar “problem” (really less of a “problem” than you’d think actually, they get by ok) with Spanish-only speaking people.

        Btw firearms aren’t the leading cause of death for children, that study included “children” who are full grown ass 18-19yo adults involved in gangs and took place in 5 cities known for their gang problems, iirc it was NYC, LA, Baltimore, Chicago, and Philly. It also took place during the pandemic when the real leading cause of death would have been deflated, because it’s car crashes, and if they’re mostly staying home for zoom classes it cuts down on car crashes. Gang activity waits for no pandemic, people need money and other people need to lose theirs to drug addiction, business was booming during the pandemic for dealers, not to mention we still have an opiate epidemic we’re dealing with which also overlapped the pandemic (we’ve been in it for like 15yr now.)

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Btw firearms aren’t the leading cause of death for children, that study included “children” who are full grown ass 18-19yo

          What’s the age at which you can legally be served alcohol — an adult beverage — in the USA? Is it above 19, perchance?

          Do you know how fucked you have to be to say that “no it’s all bullshit, our children only have gun violence as a leading cause of death if you include the older children, so there’s actually nothing to worry about, no problem”.

          You guys repeat the same pathetic bullshit everytime, and just like I said, you never have any science. At least the Flat Earth people are making up models of their fictional bullshit but you’re not even capable of that.

          https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

          https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

          Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            18+ is legally considered an adult, but I do agree that it’s bullshit to have the middle ground, I think they should be able to drink. Doesn’t change the fact that they’re legally considered adults.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Doesn’t change the fact that they’re still kids.

              Probably a reason the limit is 21, yes? Perhaps something about still being a developing human being?

              And you’re really gonna die on the hill of “we have no issue since only if you think of all teenagers as kids would this even be true”?

              This is what I mean with the "always the same shitty propaganda, never any science.

              So boring.

              Teenagers are kids.

              Also

              https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

              https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

              Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Those “teenagers” are selling heroin and crack in organized gangs (crips, bloods, piru, GD, sureños, etc) and shooting each other over it, especially in the cities the study took place in which are known for their gang and drug activity. Guess what, heroin is illegal for “children” to buy as well, but they get it just fine, that is the issue and that is why nobody takes that stupid study seriously.

                Anyone familiar with the situation knows that study was bunk and had bad methodology, idk why you continue to shill for it but you do you lol.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Again, the same “talking points”.

                  At least Flat Earthers try to make their own science. You lazy gun nuts literally repeat three NRA talking points on repeat.

                  So for you, it’s acceptable if children die if they’re in their late teens and were involved with anything illegal.

                  That’s quite barbaric viewed from the rest of the world, really. Just like corporal punishment in general. But you also have the whole private prisons industry thing so… Ew.

                  “Our children are dying to gun massacres we could easily prevent but I like my toys and can’t think for myself so I’m gonna keep spreading the things I heard on NRA.tv

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    If they decide to enter a gang war, yes, they’re in a separate category from some kid just going to math class, because of the inherent dangers in gang warfare. Is this really that hard for you to understand? That choosing to shoot people for taking “your” crackheads comes with inherent dangers, such as being shot at in return by the guys taking your customers? You think calculus and Cartel meth labs are the same? Never seen a mathlete cut off enemy mathlete’s heads personally, but maybe you have a video I haven’t seen like Funkytown but for debate team?

                    It’s not corporal punishment for a crip to shoot a blood, it’s called “murder” which is a “crime.” I literally know a fuckton of gang members because of where I grew up, it’s a poor choice to enter and the ones that don’t quit the life are destined to die “in the line of duty” (read: trying to kill someone illegally because they’re wearing the wrong color shirt.) They chose that life.

                    You gonna go door to door in the heart of the hood and take guns from gang members who already aren’t legally allowed to have them? Be my guest lol, there’s 600,000,000+ guns be sure to get them all.

    • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s crazy that in America apparently you need to be a gun expert to know if you like to get shot on the streets or have your children get shot in a school. Ah ah aaaah, he said clip instead of magazine, he don’t even know so his argument is invalid. You get murdered by a bullet from a magazine, not a clip. Gun nuts win again.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s crazy that you should know a topic and be informed on it to discuss it? Really? You’re literally talking like the anti-abortion/anti-contraception dicks who wave their bibles around. So yes, it’s good to be informed on a topic.

        What a silly thought.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Mississippi has three times more gun deaths per capita than Ukraine during an active war. Your argument is 100% invalid.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        No…no it does not…how are you even able to say that as a fact lol. Ukraine has lost around 31k soldiers since the invasion. Mississippi does not have 15k+ gun deaths a year.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Military losses are not part of the civilian gun deaths. Ukraine lost only 10k civilians over two years. That’s 133 deaths per 1m. Mississippi is more dangerous than an active war zone, that’s a fact.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            And that’s not even the only comparison.

            https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/31/1209683893/how-the-u-s-gun-violence-death-rate-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world

            US gun violence rate higher than nearly all Sub-Saharan countries, which are among the world’s poorest.

            When casualties of military conflicts are factored out, the US gun violence rate is higher than even countries in conflict ridden regions like the Mid-East

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Saying Ukraine during an active war which already had lower civilian gun deaths than the usa and then saying “no that’s not what I meant” is hilarious. It’s like if Germany or Poland were invaded and you said the same thing. You’re post is pointless.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Lol wut? Once again - Ukraine during an active war IS safer than the US.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Ukraine pre-war already had a lower firearm homicide rate than the US…on top of that, they armed a huge portion of their population when they were invaded…so your point is even worse since they gave out literal assault rifles to civilians and their firearm homicide rate was still lower… sounds like its not the guns.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Lol yea safer and they handed out rifles to civilians…so what is it? Is it the guns still or not? Because last I checked militaries fight each other with real guns, not nerf.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        No it is not, a 19/18 year old is A) not a child, and B) those numbers are from COVID as I have explained already. People couldn’t drive, so that lowered the deaths which historically have been the number one thing, and suicides went up.

        Once numbers for 2023/post COVID are released it’ll be back to cars being the number one cause.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          19/18 year old is A) not a child

          So these teenagers you speak about, you think they’re not children?

          Let me guess, you’re like 20-23?

          Yes, 18 and 19 year old are non-fully developed humans. Still developing. Not finished. SO MUCH SO, that they CAN AREN’T VENE ALLOWED BEER.

          It’s so pathetic the excuses you keep making to try and spin a horrible fact into something that doesn’t need to be worried about.

          Like compared to Europe, America really is on the level of developing countries, and even worse in a lot of instances.

          https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

          Science agrees that gun control works. It’s just a fact. A fact you won’t be able to accept, no matter what.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            So these teenagers you speak about, you think they’re not children?

            No they’re not, most gang related violence here in the states is from 15-19 year olds. Which heavily skew the numbers.

            Let me guess, you’re like 20-23?

            Lol try again kid, I’m probably old enough to be your father.

            Yes, 18 and 19 year old are non-fully developed humans. Still developing. Not finished. SO MUCH SO, that they CAN AREN’T VENE ALLOWED BEER.

            Is that why they’re allowed alcohol in most of Europe at that age?

            It’s so pathetic the excuses you keep making to try and spin a horrible fact into something that doesn’t need to be worried about.

            Well considering that 2/3rds (%66~) of our deaths are suicides, then of the 34% left, 85% of those are gang/drug related, and then the last %15 covers police killings (on average 1k deaths a year from the police shooting someone) and then you have the few hundred murders a year from firearms that includes (mass shootings, robberies, muggings, random acts of violence). But you wouldn’t know this because you’re from a euro country who thinks guns magically make the usa the wild west and blood pours from the streets daily while roaming hordes or mass murders just walk around openly and execute people.

            Like compared to Europe, America really is on the level of developing countries, and even worse in a lot of instances.

            Yea you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            Science agrees that gun control works. It’s just a fact. A fact you won’t be able to accept, no matter what.

            Science agrees that counties that have social programs that support their citizens have less violence overall… Brazil still is waiting on your “gun control works”…

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              from 15-19 year olds. no, they’re not children

              Keep shifting the goal post to younger and younger?

              If you’re even close my age, that’s fucking sad man. If you’ve gotten over the age of 35 and still think it’s okay when kids die because they’re teenagers, live in bad areas (and are usually minorities), then… how the fuck do you sleep at night?

              The mental gymnastics is goddamn impressive.

              Is that why they’re allowed alcohol in most of Europe at that age?

              The age of consent is on average 16, and in lots of countries you may have a light alcohol beverage with a meal if accompanied by your guardians. Just like with your driving licences. A “learner’s permit” if you will, because we understand that these are kids on the verge of adulthood, so they’re gradually allowed to do more and more adult things. You can have a mild drink with a meal at 16, buy yourself drinks at a bar and purchase wines and milds from stores at 18 and when you’re 20, no limits anymore. You can drive a <11kW bike at 16, a <25kW at 18 and any power at 20. Because again, developing, so gradually ease them in so they’re ready when they’re fully-grown as opposed to being a developing young human being.

              People’s brains don’t even fully mature until they’re ~26, but you try to shirk responsibility of children getting slaughtered with an excuse of “well most of them are older kids who live in poor socioeconomic areas, so why would their deaths matter”.

              Like I said, there’s never any science with you people, always the same chants of “not kids”, “muh rights” (a right to a gun isn’t a human right) and “but then only criminals will have guns” and you never ever read any of the science on the matter.

              my whataboutism is still waiting

              No shit? You’re too thick to read a simple summary from Harvard and you excuse the leading cause of children being guns as “most of them are black teens so they’re criminals anyway so who cares”, so why would you accept science concerning your shitty “what about”?

              Here’s a summary of the OXFORD UNIVERSITY study I have linked several times:

              Santaella-Tenorio’s study (co-authored with Columbia professors Magdalena Cerdá and Sandro Galea, as well as the University of North Carolina’s Andrés Villaveces) examined roughly 130 studies that had been conducted in 10 different countries. Each of those 130 studies had looked at some specific change in gun laws and its effect on homicide and/or suicide rates. Most of them looked at law changes in the developed world, such as the US, Australia, and Austria, while a few looked at gun laws in developing countries, specifically Brazil and South Africa.

              ###“… SPECIFICALLY BRAZIL …”

              So why don’t you actually read the fucking thing? Just like I’ve been saying all along, you’re nothing but a willfully ignorant gun nut parroting propaganda you’ve overheard, and you never ever have a single piece of peer reviewed study to support your regurgitated bullshit.

              Also, you want to know about the reasons for South American instability and crime? How about a look in the mirror?

              https://www.cepr.net/how-us-guns-destabilize-latin-america-and-fuel-the-refugee-crisis/

              In August, the Mexican government sued US gunmakers for facilitating the high gun homicide rate in Mexico. Most people in the US who heard this news were probably confused, not understanding what US gunmakers have to do with homicides in Mexico. If they were to read Ioan Grillo’s excellent book, Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels, they would understand completely. They would learn that Mexican law enforcement estimates that 2.5 million guns have been smuggled from the United States into Mexico over the past decade. They might even wonder why other countries in Latin America aren’t also suing US gunmakers

              The Americas is the most homicidal region on the planet due, in no small part, to the “iron river” of guns flowing from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean. The above figure from Our World in Data, based on data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, shows that Canada had a gun homicide rate of 0.5 deaths per 100,000 in 2017. In the US, the rate was 4.63, approaching 10 times the rate in Canada, while in Mexico, it was 11.49, more than 20 times the Canada rate. Excluding the Americas, all countries in Europe, and most countries in the rest of the world had lower gun homicide rates than the US. (Some people incorrectly believe that there is a higher rate of gun ownership in Canada than in the US, but the Small Arms Survey reports that in 2017 Canada had 34.7 guns per 100 residents, compared to 120.5 in the United States. The gun ownership rate in the US is more than three times the rate in Canada.)

              Although how would you ever read a book on the matter, when a page long summary gives you trouble.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          So nitpicking it is. (also it’s odd that the Surgeon General is making a statement in 2024 that doesn’t use any data newer than 2020 - so odd, that I doubt your claim is correct.)

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Making a statement in 2024 does not mean you used data from 2024…the year isnt even over, so no the data is not from 2024.

            • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Making a statement in 2024 does not mean you used data from 2024…the year isnt even over, so no the data is not from 2024.

              Please quote where I said the data was from 2024.

              B) those numbers are from COVID as I have explained already

              Covid was 2020. I’m doubtful the 2024 report is based entirely on numbers from 2020. I didn’t look, and I doubt you did. But I’m doubtful, as I said.

              In any case, it’s a tragic statistic regardless of that, and also no matter whether we’re cutting off “children” at 18 or 19 - and that’s a pretty sickening reason to handwave it away. Deaths are deaths, and these are our youth.

              Same with this BS:

              Once numbers for 2023/post COVID are released it’ll be back to cars being the number one cause.

              Do you not recognize how asinine it is to hinge your argument on this? Let’s say it’s the number 2 cause of death. Hell, let’s say it’s the number three cause of death.

              We have a problem and all some folks can do is nitpick about irrelevant bullshit that would not detract from the argument even if I accepted all the nitpicks.

              Anyhow, I somehow missed this bit of classic internet snark, so you can fuck off with this dismissive and inaccurate ad hom:

              Let me guess, you’re like 20-23?

              I was getting OUT of the military longer ago than that, which is why I can recognize that 19 is a child in all ways that are relevant to their likely level of maturity, and the tragedy of their deaths, plus be appropriately horrified at the continual resistance to doing anything at all about it.

              Good Day, Sir.

              Edit -

              Not that it matters at all except to folks who want to deflect from the problem, but here’s the press release that accompanies that 2024 report.

              It cites this source, among others, and I’m sure if I wasn’t too lazy to crawl the actual PDF I’d find others: https://wonder.cdc.gov/Deaths-by-Underlying-Cause.html

              In any case, if deflection, denial, and ad hom attacks are all you got, I see no reason to continue.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Please quote where I said the data was from 2024.

                You posted an image acting like because it said 2024 that the data is from 2024. Don’t act like you weren’t trying anything else.

                Covid was 2020. I’m doubtful the 2024 report is based entirely on numbers from 2020. I didn’t look, and I doubt you did. But I’m doubtful, as I said.

                I did look, most reports take years to be published because of the amount of data that’s available. Usually its 4ish years old by the time it’s released. This is just the nature of these reports. Its why the studies from 2015/2016 where the last ones prior to seeing the 2020/21 studies get released.

                In any case, it’s a tragic statistic regardless of that, and also no matter whether we’re cutting off “children” at 18 or 19 - and that’s a pretty sickening reason to handwave it away. Deaths are deaths, and these are our youth.

                It’s not, it’s nuance that’s being lost. The public hears kids, they think 5 year olds being killed, not a gang member who just had beef with another gang member who’s now dead.

                Do you not recognize how asinine it is to hinge your argument on this? Let’s say it’s the number 2 cause of death. Hell, let’s say it’s the number three cause of death.

                It’s not, suicide is the main cause of that number. Are you going to feel better because you put in a law that somehow magically stops people from offing themselves with a firearm but the suicide numbers don’t drop they just use another tool? Will you stand up and call it a win then? Or will you realize that we have a problem with our society and our citizens need social support and reform first. One of those options will drastically reduce our violence and suicides…the other will not.

                We have a problem and all some folks can do is nitpick about irrelevant bullshit that would not detract from the argument even if I accepted all the nitpicks.

                I never said we don’t have an issue. I’ve merely stated that guns aren’t our issue and I’ve given solutions that will actually work, I’m not the one nitpicking things. Anti-2a groups are.

                Anyhow, I somehow missed this bit of classic internet snark, so you can fuck off with this dismissive and inaccurate ad hom:

                Let me guess, you’re like 20-23?

                I was getting OUT of the military longer ago than that, which is why I can recognize that 19 is a child in all ways that are relevant to their likely level of maturity, and the tragedy of their deaths, plus be appropriately horrified at the continual resistance to doing anything at all about it.

                Good Day, Sir.

                I don’t know how you got comments mixed up but you’re thinking of some other user. I never questioned your age, this user did.

                https://lemmy.world/comment/11054266

                Not that it matters at all except to folks who want to deflect from the problem, but here’s the press release that accompanies that 2024 report.

                This is the report that cites the 2020/21 numbers.

                It cites this source, among others, and I’m sure if I wasn’t too lazy to crawl the actual PDF I’d find others: https://wonder.cdc.gov/Deaths-by-Underlying-Cause.html

                Yea which cites COVID numbers as I’ve previously stated.

                In any case, if deflection, denial, and ad hom attacks are all you got, I see no reason to continue.

                I’m not deflecting anything, and I’ve not denied anything either, and the attacks are not from me as I’ve pointed out, you must have copied that other users comments thinking they were mine.

                • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  You posted an image acting like because it said 2024 that the data is from 2024. Don’t act like you weren’t trying anything else.

                  Please. I posted it because it would be stupid for the surgeon general to stop looking at data in 2020 for a statement released in 2024. (and that’s exactly what I said in my comment with the picture)

                  And indeed I see a lot of citations with later dates than 2020. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/firearm-violence-advisory.pdf

                  I’ve merely stated that guns aren’t our issue and I’ve given solutions that will actually work, I’m not the one nitpicking things. Anti-2a groups are.

                  Not in reply to me you didn’t.

                  I never questioned your age, this user did.

                  Whoops.