0
1

[–] Rellik88 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Wow look like a tiny liberal dv brigade... Liberals hate facts! Hahaha I bet they are sooooo triggered.

1
1

[–] Vvswiftvv17 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Isn't this misconstrued because the popupation has exponentially increased since the revolution? Of course there are more gun deaths, there are more people! How is that variable accounted for?

Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million). That gun toll includes suicides, murders and accidents, and these days it amounts to 92 bodies a day.

1
1

[–] Darth_Shitlord 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Why are suicides counted in gun deaths? That's just stupid and a blatant move to inflate "Gun fatalities". If someone is going to kill themselves they will regardless if they have a gun.

0
1

[–] Rellik88 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

They also add when a cop kills someone. Hell at one of Moms Demand rallies they showed the Boston bomber as a shooting death.

1
1

[–] littlemikemac 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Gun Safety refers to the safe and responsible handling(or deliberate avoidance of handling) of firearms, using it as some kind of code for gun control only makes these people seem disingenuous.

4
-1

[–] Elephino 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

Well, at least one link on Voat isn't from Breitbart.

2
-1

[–] Sippio 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

The comments here are nitpicking details in the article while ignoring the overarching message.

It's about the misguided ideological approaches to guns that liberals have applied, which should instead be focused on the statistics, and how to effectively reduce the absurdly high rate of gun violence in the US, which is way worse than any other 1st world country

The author also acknowledges that reducing gun ownership is not necessarily the best way to curb violence anyways. Pointing out the effectiveness of outreach programs to prevent youth delinquency. This also does much more to help society than just reducing violence.

His point is that liberals need to better educate themselves on guns to deal with them effectively, and that both sides need to drop their ideologies in favour of the facts and statistics.

I also don't understand the outrage here about Obama's executive action on guns for people with mental illness. Every time there's a high-profile mass shooting, the go-to line for gun control critics is that it's not about gun ownership, it's about dealing with mental health. So Obama answered their call, and restricted guns to these same mentally ill people they talked about. Now what he did was wrong?

I know there's a firm belief here that gun laws represent a slippery-slope strategy by the government. Where they will slowly add successively more restrictive laws on guns until it becomes flat-out illegal to own one. And that's when they implement their tyrannical order on the people. I'm not going to argue why I think that's tin-foil hat crazy, but you guys need to pick your battles, and it shouldn't be guns for people with diagnosed mental illness.

And if you think doctors can be coached by the feds to diagnose specific people, then deal with the issue of medial ethics. Sure it's less exciting than guns, but it helps everyone.

0
0

[–] Rellik88 ago 

And that's when they implement their tyrannical order on the people. I'm not going to argue why I think that's tin-foil hat crazy,

Right? Governments have never killed people ever.

2
0

[–] placoid 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

It's about the misguided ideological approaches to guns that liberals have applied, which should instead be focused on the statistics, and how to effectively reduce the absurdly high rate of gun violence in the US, which is way worse than any other 1st world country

That includes the police, what is going to be done to restrict their access to guns? 'Gun safety' is a farce, a show of caring to sell the despotic elimination of the people's right to force. There is nothing liberal about enforcing inequality, or applying a double standard to citizens and agents of the state. Ultimately, guns will be used to enforce the policy against guns, another inconsistency that self-described liberals are too enlightened to consider.

2
0

[–] Totenglocke 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I also don't understand the outrage here about Obama's executive action on guns for people with mental illness. Every time there's a high-profile mass shooting, the go-to line for gun control critics is that it's not about gun ownership, it's about dealing with mental health. So Obama answered their call, and restricted guns to these same mentally ill people they talked about. Now what he did was wrong?

Clearly you don't own guns and thus know little of the left's non-stop war against the Second Amendment starting with FDR roughly 80 years ago. First off, creating new laws by Imperial Decree is wrong and unconstitutional. We have representatives that are elected by the people (and can be voted out of office if they piss off the people) who make the laws and then, if the President agrees with it, signed into effect. The President only has the power to issue orders on the specifics of enforcing existing laws that are ambiguous - he does NOT have the power to make new laws and declare them the law of the land with no debate and no accountability. That's something that a dictator does. Secondly, saying "anyone getting treatment for mental health issues is banned from owning guns" is an absolutely idiotic idea. We need better / easier access / less stigma for getting help for mental issues in this country. Such an asinine law only makes the mental health problem worse because people are then afraid of getting help because doing so will mean permanently losing their rights. Imagine if you were struggling with anorexia and you knew that by seeking help, you'd lose the ability to ever use the internet, read a book / magazine / newspaper, watch TV, or consume media of any kind because a politician believes that media is evil and causes anorexia - you'd be much less likely to seek help knowing the massive loss of rights that you'd suffer as a result of seeking professional help and you'd try to deal with it on your own. We already have vets who are scared shitless of getting help for things like PTSD or depression because some of them have had their guns seized by the government as a result of seeking help - there's even been at least one case of a US vet who had his guns confiscated simply for going to the VA doctor about insomnia. When every part of the government is corrupt beyond measure and has a singular goal of increasing power over citizens (which means ensuring that they can't fight back), you cannot trust them to make the "right" call on such things.

As for your mention of a "slippery slope"? Again, you clearly don't know the non-stop ever increasing violations of the Second Amendment. Here is a fantastic comic explaining how the left has never stopped wanting to take away more and more of the Second Amendment until we've reached the point of today where gun owners are truly saying "FUCK THIS! I want my rights back - all of them!".

Where they will slowly add successively more restrictive laws on guns until it becomes flat-out illegal to own one.

Clearly you've never seen the gun laws of states like California and New Jersey. It's not a "claim" or "argument", it's established fact that every year or so, they make it even harder to own a gun (California is now adding taxes and restrictions on buying ammo, so even once you DO get a gun, it'll be much harder to get ammo to USE the gun).

I'm curious, have you even touched a real gun? Because you seem to be very uninformed about the realities of gun control in the US.

2
-2

[–] DownvoatCrusader 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

First of all Obama issued an executive action, which has no legal power. For it to become an actual law it has to go through Congress. So your constituents will be able to vote on it. Second, it's not a choice between no background checks at all, or background checks that are done so strict that people will fear going to the doctor. I mean would it really hurt to check if someone is a full-on psychopath, cartel member or murderer before selling a gun? You are 100% against any sort of background check and there isn't a middle way you're willing to meet?