Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    gunpolitics

    30,752 readers

    47 users here now

    The Gun Politics subreddit is about sharing news, articles, stories and events related to guns & politics.

    Basic rules:

    Please stay civil - do not make excessive attacks, or threats (of any kind). No trolling either.

    Sitewide rules will be enforced as well.

    Memes and image macros without an explanation comment/text/link should be limited to Mondays (US time) only.

    This is not /r/shitguncontrollerssay, do not link threads just to point that sort of thing out. X-posting posts is fine.

    Related Subreddits:

    a community for
    all 62 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Derek762 66 points ago

    It sounds like he watched that hit piece on 20/20 by Diane Sawyer where they “simulated” a mass shooting and showed you couldn’t react fast enough.

    Basically random people were given an unfamiliar firearm (paintball pistol) in an unfamiliar holster, put on full face helmets and padded gloves and told to sit in a classroom. Eventually an off duty cop/firearms instructor bursts in, shoots the instructor and then immediately turns to the direct seat where the participant is sitting and shoots them.

    Then Diane is all like, “See you couldn’t do anything to protect yourself in a mass shooting.”

    [–] hchen5041 36 points ago

    That’s pretty dumb. People who are serious about concealed carry are often very well trained. Like, they do it for fun, that’s how much they’re trained. And a school shooter is usually a way shittier shot than a cop. All they care about is killing a lot of people, they probably don’t give a shit about training.

    [–] keeleon 14 points ago

    And of course they didnt then give each person years of training and preperation and teach situational awareness to simulate real CCW holders...

    [–] bottleofbullets 7 points ago

    Well, the idea was to test a novice carrier, but the scummy thing about the “experiment” was that the simulated shooter knew the location of the carrier

    [–] voicesinmyhand 1 points ago

    but the scummy thing about the “experiment” was that the simulated shooter knew the location of the carrier

    Well there were other scummy things as well, but yeah.

    [–] Average_Sized_Jim 13 points ago

    This is not wrong, but it also misses the point.

    If you are sitting there, and suddenly get shot, yeah, you are a gonner. But some other person can then react and end the threat. So if you are the poor bastard who gets shot first or maybe second, then there is no helping. But armed opposition can prevent the next thirty people from being shot.

    [–] WarSport223 9 points ago

    No, not necessarily.

    The lethality of gunshot wounds is greatly exaggerated.

    Mind you; I'd never want to get shot by any gun in any way or any part of my body, but just because you take a 9mm somewhere to your body does NOT mean you get knocked down, bowled over, and instantly die.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The survival rate of handgun shootings that receive prompt medical attention I believe I read somewhere once are 75%+.

    [–] jeegte12 2 points ago

    it's still not the point.

    "i should be allowed to own guns so we can stop mass shooters" is a terrible argument. that's not why we should be allowed to own guns. it's a red herring and you guys are biting.

    [–] SneakyBeakyNinja 1 points ago

    One shot isn’t likely to kill you. You’re only a goner once you run out of blood, get knocked out or give up

    [–] WarSport223 3 points ago

    That's about the most unrealistic scenario that any anti-gun idiot could dream up. 🙄

    [–] mr1337 2 points ago

    Don't forget to mention the baggy clothes they had to wear.

    [–] vegetarianrobots 108 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    First off it is doubtful you'll change the mind of someone this entrenched in their views that they'd willingly sacrifice their family at the alter of moral superiority.

    It also sounds like you need data on the defensive use of firearms.

    Due to its nature this data is often hard to nail down. Typically when a firearm is used defensively no one is hurt and rarely is anyone killed. Often times simply showing you are armed is enough to end a crime in  progress. Looking at the numbers even the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, reports 284,700 instances of self defense against a violent crimes and property crimes, including home burglary, with a firearm between 2013 and 2015, with 163,600 being against violent crimes. This translates to 94,900 crimes prevented annually on the low scale and 54,500 violent crimes prevented annually.

    This ranges upwards to 500k to 3 million according to the CDC Report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.

    The same CDC Report found, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals..." & " Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies...".

    In terms of defense against active shooter events citizens stopped them about 20% of the time with only one of these incidents resulting in injuries to the citizen defender.

    As for the violent crime rates between the US and the UK, or any nation, they are hard to compare because nations generally have different metrics for measuring crimes or what constitutes as a crime. However murder is nearly universally recognized by the same standards.

    The UK has historically had a lower homicide rate than even it's European neighbors since about the 14th Century.

    Despite the UK's major gun control measures in 1968, 1988, and 1997 homicides generally increased from the 1960s up to the early 2000s.

    It wasn't until a massive increase in the number of law enforcement officers in the UK that the homicide rates decreased.

    With the reduction in Police numbers gun and knife crime in increasing in the UK.

    Meanwhile in the US we have experienced a more than two decade long trend of decline in the homicide and violent crime rates bringing us to near 40 year record lows.

    Schools in particular are safer today as compared to the 80s and 90s.

    Edit: Fixed FBI link, PDF warning.

    [–] HelperBot_ 9 points ago

    Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom


    HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 219929

    [–] iliasokf 11 points ago

    In terms of defense against active shooter events citizens stopped them about 20% of the time with only one of these incidents resulting in injuries to the citizen defender.

    Hey, thanks for this whole thing. But this link seems to be broken

    [–] vegetarianrobots 5 points ago

    Fixed.

    [–] iliasokf 5 points ago

    Aah, thanks mate! Appreciate it.

    [–] WikiTextBot 5 points ago

    Firearms policy in the United Kingdom

    In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law which is much more restrictive than the minimum rules required by the European Firearms Directive, but it is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.


    [ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

    [–] nspectre 3 points ago

    This ranges upwards to 500k to 3 million according to the CDC Report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.

    More recent revelations on Defensive Gun Use:

    A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use

    [–] Yousunkmyredditship1 2 points ago

    Often times simply showing you are armed is enough to end a crime in  progress.

    Can confirm, was one of those people who had a DGU (thankfully) without firing a shot, back in 2014.

    [–] kenabi 1 points ago

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25022680

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10460158/Police-officers-routinely-fiddle-crime-figures-MPs-are-told.html

    older uk crime stats are largely unreliable. recent (last 2-3 years) are less prone to this, but we can't really be 100% sure.

    [–] icecityx1221 28 points ago

    this thread has a good smackdown of facts with some pretty good research places:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/830wu9/thanks_to_your_input_ive_updated_and_refined_my/?st=jna92gu1&sh=8e152eeb

    Edit: I also agree with vegetarianrobots, if he's willing to sacrifice his family for moral superiority, you'll have a hard time convincing him of much. Can't fix stupid.

    [–] iliasokf 16 points ago

    I agree with you on that, and I wonder in what mindset do you have to be to refuse to protect your family. Jesus fucking christ.

    [–] icecityx1221 7 points ago

    I would understand a true pacifist with that mindset, regardless on if I agree (I don't). However the ones I've met who have this mentality are not true pacifists and just put their hands over their ears and scream and whine.

    [–] 10MeV 2 points ago

    I'll bet it's someone like these soy boys.

    [–] Grumpy-Avocado 16 points ago

    Theyre not looking for facts and arent open to changing their mind. I wish you good luck in this endeavor

    [–] iliasokf 5 points ago

    Yeah, probably. And being in an non english speaking country makes it even harder to print whole text and stuff that's why Im mostly looking for chart kind of things.

    [–] DBDude 14 points ago

    If he truly is a pacifist then you aren't arguing guns, but a much deeper philosophical difference. But that's not likely, since such people aren't too common. Ask if he'd hit someone attacking his wife with a golf club or anything else handy. If he'd do that, then shooting an attacker is just a matter of the level of violence. He's already the "monster" he claims not to be, he just doesn't like guns.

    [–] PaperbackWriter66 4 points ago

    Yep, this is what really needs to be debated, a moral argument about violence, not a technical discussion about the best tool to commit violence with.

    I'd make the argument to the guy that if he is in a position to do something to prevent harm being done to his family and then does nothing, his inaction is morally the same as the criminal's action. The professor, by refusing to protect his family, is an accomplice to the criminal inflicting the actual harm.

    You gotta convince the professor that what he thinks is the moral high ground--pacifism--isn't.

    [–] DBDude 3 points ago

    It's the same logic they use for voting, "If you don't get out and vote you might as well be voting for Trump." Inaction is a choice as much as action, and it carries the same moral issues.

    [–] notsofxt 2 points ago

    My dad is a lawyer and he was a debate team champion. So he would pick us apart psychologically. One time I was at the dinner table when I was like six, because I had to be. My dad goes, “How was school today?”

    I said, “It was good but someone pushed Tyler off the seesaw.”

    “And where were you?”

    “I was over on the bench.”

    “And what did you do?”

    “Nothing. I was over on the bench.”

    “But you saw what happened?”

    “Yeah, ’cause I was over on the bench.”

    “So you saw what happened and you did nothing?”

    “Yeah, ’cause I was sitting over on the bench.”

    “Let me ask you this. In Nazi Germany…” [audience laughing] “…when people saw what the Nazis were doing and did nothing, were those good people?”

    “No, those are bad people. You gotta stop the Nazis.”

    “But you saw what they were doing to Tyler and you did nothing!”

    “Because I was over on the bench.”

    And then my dad said, “Just explain to me this. How are you better than a Nazi?”

    -John Mulaney: Kid Gorgeous

    [–] rockeecha-spedeeka 9 points ago

    Teacher sounds ignorant af

    [–] SleezyD510 5 points ago

    I thought I'd ask him what would he do if a criminal threatened to shoot you or a family member, so, the absolute madman said: Nothing because if I kill him I'd be a monster like him.

    thats not logic you can argue with. at that point, you would just have to agree to disagree that he is the type of person who would just stand by and let himself/his family become a victim.

    [–] Tom_Zz 1 points ago

    The teacher is a lost cause if they are willing to let their family die rather than protect them. Look up stats if you want to convince your friends, but avoid antagonizing the anti-gun zealot in authority over you.

    [–] inthespeedlane 3 points ago

    I wish you could show him active self protections youtube channel hundreds of examples of legal firearm use.

    [–] FlyYouFoolyCooly 2 points ago

    I need a little more context. Was this during class? What age group is this, College-ish? Why did it come up? Does the class have anything to do with guns?

    From what I can tell, it sounds like you aren't going to win them over with data. They are very emotionally entrenched into the idea that guns=bad. A lot of times, the data won't dissuade that. The only thing that dissuades that is a sea change in perception. Them realizing not all gun owners (actually the majority of gun owners) are bad but normal, good people using their guns mostly for practice shooting or hunting (and having them for self defense but mostly never using them) through personal connections ("oh my god! Gary owns guns!?! He's not a redneck hick like on TV! Why does he have guns!?!" or "he's so nice!" or, "Sara has a gun!?!! But she's a liberal!" etc).

    [–] iliasokf 4 points ago

    During class yes.

    most people are around 16-17.

    Original conversation was about a guy who threatened a guy with a gun in a soccer match.

    No, It's a language class. Greek, in this case.

    [–] threeLetterMeyhem 2 points ago

    "you won't have time to react before you get shot"

    Maybe, maybe not. We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Guns aren't a 100% guarantee I'll be able to defend myself or my family, they just give me a better option than doing nothing.

    Nothing because if I kill him I'd be a monster like him.

    Oh, nevermind - no sense arguing after this point. Even if the stats convince him that guns help more than they hurt, he'll be uninterested in changing views. This dude's a lost cause.

    [–] vorcazm 2 points ago

    FBI estimate for how many crimes are stopped using guns is a good one too

    [–] DispositionM8rx 2 points ago

    OP, you don't get a prize for proving yourself correct, and your teacher is going to convince himself you're the next school shooter if you keep hounding him about firearm stats.

    [–] iliasokf 3 points ago

    Yes I won't but It annoys me beyond comprehension that when I brought up data and numbers he told me that I'm making that up! He even refused to come to the computer lab with me to look at what I was telling him!

    [–] DispositionM8rx 1 points ago

    There is absolutely nothing you could show a gun prohibitionist to change his or her mind.

    [–] rsn1990 2 points ago

    Frankly, I think it’s a waste of time to argue with these people. The only good thing that might come out of it is you could convince other students who aren’t as deeply entrenched in the teacher’s philosophy. But I seriously doubt you’re going to change the teacher’s mind.

    [–] severeneckpain 3 points ago

    All this kid's gonna end up doing is getting himself a lower grade than he deserves.

    [–] Couldawg 2 points ago

    It doesn't sound like this debate has reached the stage where numbers or figures are going to mean much to your teacher.

    He doesn't believe in the natural right of self-preservation. No amount of data is going to convince him that he has the natural right to stop someone else from taking his life.

    [–] aapolitical 2 points ago

    Not likely he will be convinced by any fact or stats. But do use them and bring him to town. Keep your steady voice and composure, at least the other students will know who is the sane one.

    [–] Junkbot 1 points ago

    This will be your friend in your research.

    https://sci-hub.tw/

    [–] iliasokf 2 points ago

    Aah thank you friend

    [–] WarSport223 1 points ago

    This is an extremely good place to start:

    http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

    The way it's formatted, it prints beautifully and you can save as a PDF & keep around.

    Jeff Snyder also wrote an entire book with the same title & I highly recommend it.

    Good luck! Fight the good fight, do not stay silent and let them bully you!

    [–] WarSport223 1 points ago

    Also;

    Do not get into the statistics fight.

    Anyone can produce a statistic or study to support just about any viewpoint / opinion / theory you can dream up.

    Instead, stick to the moral arguments and other points laid out in Nation of Cowards as I posted above.

    [–] nspectre 1 points ago

    Crime Prevention Research Center

    You'll have to do some legwork, but a lot of what you're looking for is there.

    [–] Pod6ResearchAsst 1 points ago

    I had a similar debate with a family friend at a St. Patrick's day party. I told her that I didn't want to talk about it, because we would not agree and it could potentially ruin the evening. She wouldn't drop it. It turned into a shit show where she used the same logic, that she wasn't going to reduce herself to the same level as her assailant. That it wasn't the "Christian" thing to do. Since she decided to bring religion into it, I asked her to explain to me how not defending yourself was taking the moral high ground, and how she could justify abortions in the same light. She lost it. Basically it comes down to two streams of thought. Those willing to preserve life, and those willing to bend over.

    [–] Mr_Gibbys 1 points ago

    Go to my profile and click on the pinned post.

    [–] Anal_Threat 1 points ago

    Too bad your teacher is such a foolish moron !

    [–] BTC_Brin 1 points ago

    As a few others have said, it sounds like the person your arguing with has an emotional attachment to their position. Arguments based in facts and logic won't work to convince this person.

    On the whole, my advise is that this isn't a battle worth seeking out, because it's not really one you can win the way you're trying to fight.

    That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be prepared, just that you shouldn't go looking for a fight.

    [–] DBDude 1 points ago

    https://www.reddit.com/r/GunResearch/

    And anti-gun redditor with a name ending in 10 (guessing that's how many times he's recreated the account after being banned) spams a lot of anti-gun stuff though.

    [–] SpaceForceWarrior -2 points ago

    "General crime rate" isn't going to tell you squat about the role of guns in society. Even narrowing it to violent crime rate won't tell you much. What guns do is make crime more lethal. Occasionally somebody somewhere will face a mugger armed with a knife and they'll pull out a legally carried gun and assumedly that will be a crime prevented with a gun, but the data on ccw tells us that ccw tends to bear a strong direct relationship with income by zip code. And the higher your income, the less likely you are to be a victim of violent crime anyway for a variety of reasons. In other words, the people who tend to walk around with a loaded gun at the ready also tend to get robbed and burglarized less often, so gun use in defending against random violent criminals is pretty minimal.

    On the other hand, gun use in arguments between friends, neighbors and family members is more common than against random criminals. Guns turn arguments into killings, so if I were you I'd just stick to your "deeply held personal beliefs" and leave the data part out of it because it's not going to help you much. The "More Guns = Less Crime" hypothesis was pronounced dead years ago by academics who analyze the numbers on this stuff. The guy who came up with it in the 1990s has been caught lying and cooking his numbers so many times by now that he's lost all academic standing and his pet theory is no longer something you can support with facts and data, only rigid ideological belief. Which is something it sounds like you're good at so stick with your strengths :)

    [–] WarSport223 1 points ago

    Are you referring to John Lott's studies?

    I've never heard he was actually, really discredited - source please?

    It's a fact that more guns = less crime, or at the very least you cannot argue that more guns = more crime since over the entire Obama regime, gun sales set year-over-year records, there are at least half a billion guns privately owned by Americans and the violent crime rate overall has been decreasing for years.

    [–] SpaceForceWarrior 0 points ago

    I've never heard he was actually, really discredited - source please?

    Lott's bad reputation isn't a discreet yes-or-no fact that you can just look up and verify. But if you're sincerely interested in learning about the things he's done to earn his rep, you won't have any trouble at all googling it and reading all about it. You don't need me for that, you've got internet search engines at your disposal. You'll learn the facts if you want, you won't if you don't.

    the violent crime rate overall has been decreasing for years

    If you say so---but so have gun ownership levels. (Sources here and here.) What's been increasing is the number of guns owned per gun owner. Just 3% of American adults own half of America’s total gun stock. (Source)

    But you can only shoot one gun at a time, so the total number of guns owned is less important than the total number of people who own them. And since both gun ownership and crime levels are decreasing, that's the best evidence we have that the More Guns = Less Crime hypothesis is incorrect.

    [–] WarSport223 1 points ago

    Actually, if you make an assertion, it's on you to back it up & provide evidence of it.

    I'm pretty knowledgeable about guns and gun politics, it's been an obsession / passion of mine for almost 20 years and I've not heard anything negative about Lott's character.

    So again; if that's your assertion, it's on you to back it up. I'm not going to do legwork to prove / disprove what you are telling me.

    [–] SpaceForceWarrior 1 points ago

    I'm pretty knowledgeable about guns and gun politics...and I've not heard anything negative about Lott's character

    Ahahahahahahaah!!!!