this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
-21 points (25.6% liked)

conservative

923 readers
39 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Some mentioned the other one was old. Heres a two-day old article on the same issue.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sudo22 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Good. California regulations have done nothing to improve gun violence in their state when compared to less restrictive states like Texas. Even ignoring the blatant constitutional issues.

Texas has 3.2 gun murders per 100k. California has 3.4/100k.

Source, from the Murders section

Better social safety nets would be far more effective at reducing all forms of violence.

[–] PizzaMan 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (30 children)

California regulations have done nothing to improve gun violence in their state when compared to less restrictive states like Texas.

That's not true. You're being incredibly misleading by only looking at murders instead of gun violence as a whole.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Texas has significantly more firearm deaths than California, 9/100k vs 15/100k. Nationally, California is lower than average in gun deaths.

And that's even after the surrounding states with far more lax gun policy negatively effects California's rates.

Basically all of the states with the highest gun death rates are republican states, and that's not a coincidence.

Better social safety nets would be far more effective at reducing all forms of violence.

We should be doing both. The lack of social stability/mobility and health services is a part of the core problem. But it is not the only part the other part is that literally any lunatic or untrained owner can get a gun despite being unfit due to the countless loopholes.

Just as we have the right to vote and a requirement to register, so to should we have the right to bear arms with a requirement to register.

Just as we have the right to own cars and a requirement to be licensed (and therefore trained), so to should we have the right to bear arms with the requirement to be liscensed (and therefore trained.

If you are incapable of registering, being liscensed, or trained to safely own a gun, then you shouldn't have a gun.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Gun violence is nothing more than an arbritary metric whose sole purpose is gun control. If they wanted violence, theyd say violence. If they wanted suicides, theyd say suicides.

But no, they had a conclusion and made up gun violence as a metric.

[–] PizzaMan 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Gun violence is nothing more than an arbritary metric

How is counting the number of dead arbitrary?

whose sole purpose is gun control.

People are needlessly dying. We absolutely need gun control.

Keeping track of how many have died is a reasonable thing. We do it for literally every type of death out there.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›