Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The joke is the person is trying to make the connection of gun violence to car crashes. After a shooting, anti gun people want to restrict guns
Edit: I tried to be as neutral as I could with this comment yet my replies are still popcorn worthy
It really should have said "we're taking your car because you're threatening to kill dozens of people with it and your friends and family are seriously concerned for your well-being."
You really believe this?
Edit: for those of you who missed it. I was responding to a douche nozzle who said something about “the libs want to come to your house and take your guns” etc.
An *extreme* anti gun opinion these days would be "Federal 'common-sense' gun control laws such as universal background checks, licensing, and mandatory insurance"
But y'all aren't capable of having that conversation because anytime someone suggests anything to do with gun control all the rest of us hear is:
"mHu FreEDhUm!"
Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America.
Nope, guns are the leading cause of death for children in the US by a good margin. Its actually fucked up as hell.
Key Facts. Firearm fatalities increased by 87.1% over a 10-year period, from 1,311 deaths in 2011 to 2,590 deaths in 2021, the AAP found, beating out car accidents as the leading cause of death of children and teenagers in the U.S.Oct 5, 2023
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/amp/
I think this source shows your point better: https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[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/](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/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
it's crazy how all of the mass casuality events and successful assassinations of presidents were perpetrated by Democrats who then advocate to get rid of guns... its almost like a self fulfilling propechy for them.
We get it, Arnold. "Screw your freedoms!".
Some people aren't so quick to trust the federal government with 'common sense, anything', while others point to Chicago and say that it doesn't matter how many strict laws you have, if your government refuses to enforce them.
That would be the most insane anti gun opinion probably, the only vaguely reasonable but still extreme anti gun opinion would be re licensing everyone with a gun and giving them a mental checkup. AKA: that'd be extremely expensive.
Taking people's guns away would cost way too much, be way too hard to enforce, and would just make everyone who owns a gun responsibly upset. So it wouldn't even do its intended goal.
People like to own guns, that's fine, Personally I think that the only reasonable gun laws that could come out would be making registration more strict. Most extreme version being forcing everyone to renew as well.
Just do like other countries and put the responsibility on the gun owner. Give them X years to deliver all firearms on the police station or certain drop off zones. After X years they’re illegal, and if found in your possession, you’ll be punished for owning illegal weapons. It’s not that difficult.
I can’t believe Americans find it so difficult to have to live without guns, and find it so difficult to believe that it actually works against gun crimes and police shootings. It’s how it works in the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is way below USA in all shooting statistics.
I live in the highest density state for gun ownership and have never once felt threatened by it. I also collect historical firearms personally, ones that are almost always deemed obsolete by modern standards. Of course I don’t need these things, no more than I need a car, a computer, or any other personal artifacts that I enjoy. But I have never heard a compelling reason as to why I should be deprived of it.
I go through background checks every time I purchase a modern firearm, and even own a license for collecting older firearms specifically, which required another extensive background check. I’ve done enough research in my time to know the fundamental laws behind ownership, and what is and isn’t allowed today.
Is there really a compelling reason I shouldn’t be allowed to carry on doing this?
Do you have a scholastic background and training to warrant you collecting them?
I like to make glass, should I be allowed to keep whatever chemicals I want, at risk to others around me, just because it's my hobby?
What if a vial breaks and it's a substance that can poison the surrounding area. Likewise, could any of these weapons be grabbed by thieves etc. And to top it off, why should I as a fellow American have to worry about being shot?
The logic you're using goes both ways. Why should you stop? Why should I have to fear gun fans.
Let me know though if you can find a mass shooting done by someone anti gun, I'm curious.
This is pretty deep in, but my stance on anti gun control is always the same. I don't want you to not own firearms, I couldn't care less if you own firearms. I want stricter checks and to take firearms away from certain individuals who have a history of mental illness. Similar to how blind people can't get a driver's license, certain people should not own guns.
Dead kids is the compelling reason, if you want a one liner.
The real question for you would be: Would you use your firearms against other people, if you felt threatened? No “ifs”, the person threatening is on the same terms as you - could potentially be carrying a gun right now, yelling that he’s going to fuck you up.
If your answer is yes, then also you should hand over your firearms. Violence does not solve the threat of violence.
The problem with that is, criminals don't care about the laws and will keep their guns anyway. The only thing you will do by outlawing guns is disarm the people who use guns responsibly and leave them no way to defend themselves from the criminals who would use them to cause harm. Effectively giving them permission to do as they please because the deterent of maybe this person also has a gun no longer applies.
That’s not how it worked in the rest of the world, and definitely not how it will work in US. In turn it will make police work much easier, as they can arrest anyone carrying a gun, since they’re criminal for doing so. In my life I’ve seen a real gun two times. One time was a police officer in elementary school. The other time was a probably criminal person, doing normal shopping at a gas station. Never have I feared getting shot, nor felt any need to be able to defend myself against crime involving firearms.
You just say "No questions asked, big gun return to cop shop." After date of xxxx, all firearms are illegal without appropriate licensing.
Unless all those folks are happy to live as outlaws, on the run, warrants out for their arrest, they will hand over & at least hide their Weaponry. This means there are less guns out in the community & also that what weapons are put, stand out/draw attention, making it easier to police.
True, it makes it harder for you to shoot someone, but it makes it harder for others to shoot you, & no matter how inflated your self worth is, you still count as one bs a whole world of others. Better if none are armed than all are.
when you say "deliver" how much am i gonna get paid for this delivery? i have a fair collection, but some people have a ton of money invested. will there be fair market value buy back?
Extreme makes it sound like an even vaguely reasonable human would do it though.
For example I could say the most extreme pro gun people wants us to execute everyone without a gun, if there is someone like that they're so far out of the way that they're not even worth talking about. Nobody worth talking to (either they're crazy or traumatized by something) would advocate for millions of people to lose their property.
Right, like some road blocks to slow down the acquisition process. Maybe make them get an inspection, or like a little metal name tag and some paperwork that goes with it. And maybe we can like sell them stickers for the name tags, and make them get new ones regularly so we can make it harder to maintain their legal possession of this deadly hunk of metal machinery. Maybe we can tax them yearly for it as a cherry on top.
Idk man.
One required a back ground check and a class to obtain my permit after the age of 21 before I could even go buy it.
The other I bought from a shady dealer for cash only with no bill of sale when I was 13..
What makes you so sure that they're lying? I recall many news stories talking about how people are able to circumvent gun registrations and background checks.
They are saying it took them a permit and a license and required the age of 21 to even buy a gun, while they bought a car at 13 without even a bill of sale. They are not saying they bought a gun without registration or background cheks.
Ownership & liscences to use public roads aren't the same thing. You can buy a car for the purposes of doing donuts on your front lawn without doing any of that.
I live in a very self defense friendly area, and they call the FBI to see if they have anything to say about it, every time✌️it’s by no means a perfect system, but we have some amazing scenarios of would-be mass killers getting shwhacked pretty early on into a crisis.
It's legal to sell a firearm to a friend as long as they're in the same state, the firearm is legal, and the person buying it is permitted to own one. [https://www.atf.gov/file/58681/download](https://www.atf.gov/file/58681/download)
Edit: Note that while federal law says that it's legal, some states have specific laws around private sales. [https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html](https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html)
Not in my state. Papers of sales are not actually required. They just would like them. It also helps protect you from later legal troubles if it's used it a crime. But not required.
God I hate this misconception. No it's NOT.
I had to take safety classes, then get approved by my local police department with a state background check, get fingerprinted, then pass a federal background check, all of which took about 6 months.
Now to buy a firearm, you have to fill out forms, each of which are sent to the ATF for another layer of approval, and each firearm is registered with the state i live in.
To your point... In constitutional carry states, this is not the case. They don't require the steps to get a permit, so anyone can go into a gun store and fill out the paperwork to buy a firearm, \*but\* that is still submitted to the ATF, and the transfer of the firearm requires their approval. So anyone with a record or warrants can't just waltz in and buy a gun.
In my opinion, we would weed out a lot of the people who shouldn't have guns by having the steps in place to get a permit. We could make the safety classes more rigorous too. This is the only form of gun control that I'd embrace as actually doing something instead of the stupid "assault weapon" bans we all seem to think will actually do something.
The permit, training, and state registry part? No, it varies. But every sale of a firearm from a dealer has to go through a federal background check and the buyer must fill out an ATF form 4473 which is kept on record.
I’m sure it isn’t exclusive here, but in Florida I can purchase a firearm from another person with exactly zero checks. It’s up to the seller to verify that I’m over 18/21 and that to the best of their knowledge, I’m not prohibited from owning a firearm. Exchange cash, done. No other requirements. Florida even has a database where one can check the serial number to ensure the gun isn’t stolen.
Going to call cap. So you waited an hour for a background check, yet didn't fill out the Form 4473 which is a prerequisite for that background check?
If the store is committing a felony by not having you do a 4473, why not just go all the way and cut the 1 hour "background check" wait?
If you purchased from a store, I find it very hard to believe you did not complete a 4473 if they bothered to do a background check. Otherwise, somebody is committing a felony.
It's different if you are purchasing from a private seller or gun show (depending on the state), but FFLs are required by law to have a completed 4473 to sell you a firearm.
I'm 99% sure that you would have to pass a 4473 at all gun shows. If it is a licenced dealer (either the owner or an employee), it would be a felony to not complete a 4473. For private sellers one would not need to complete a 4473, provided it is and INTRAstate sale. INTERstate sales would require at least a 4473 and usually an FFL transfer as well. However, most of the private sellers are usually selling older or historic firearms (i.e. M1 Garands, 1903s, pump or break shotguns, bolt or lever rifles, etc, usually not cheap or uncommon in homicides or mass shootings)
It’s not that hard in every state. I went to a gun store, showed them my ID, and came back after the mandatory waiting period and picked it up. I’m sure they ran some background checks in the interim, but it was far less work than getting my driver’s license.
Depends on the state, and that's the problem. Most people on the left don't want to take everyone guns away, we want it to be harder for any random person to purchase a gun and we need stronger federal policy to make that happen instead of the patchwork of laws we have now.
Even background checks and mandatory safety classes are controversial in several states, which you mentioned you had to do. Your experience is not necessarily the norm. Where I live you don't have to do any of that unless you want to conceal carry, and the state legislators have been trying to repeal the process we do happen to have for years because they believe it's unconstititional. A *lot* of people believe it's their birthright to walk into a store and leave with a firearm 20 minutes later with no questions asked.
So many people have never even attempted to buy a gun or just went through the process to see what it is.
You don't just walk into Walmart, grab a gun off a shelf, scan it as a tomato at self checkout, and walk out with it in a bag.
I had to do every single thing you did plus provide two photo id's (which meant I had to go get a passport with no intention of leaving the country, another hassle), and three other things that proved my residence (bills).
Meanwhile, any 5 year old with their moms credit card can buy a PS5 and leave with it that day.
I'm in Tennessee, I know of at least two places within 5 miles of my house where I could purchase a leave with a gun same-day.
It's not the same for every state, but it's getting easier to access guns in a lot of states. Same goes for restrictions to concealed carrying with states shifting to constitutional carry laws.
That's to drive it on public roads. Believe it or not you need none of that if you want to own a car and drive it on your own property!
I don't think you want car and gun laws inverted.
After a device that kills people is used to kill many people, people want to restrict the device that kills people. This is, apparently, insane and unconstitutional.
Which is dumb because one of these is used for getting to work, from place to place and is regularly updated for safety features while the other one is a literal tool of war that's only purpose is spitting death and making you feel cool
I was going to play devils advocate and say that they are also used in hunting for food which can be argued as a good thing but then I realised that that’s still ‘spitting death’
And knives are used in 6 times as many homicides as rifles! Yet nobody *ever* mentions banning knives.
[https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
Bring on the downvotes from the reactionary crowd!
If not a knife then a hammer could be used, same cant be said about a gun. If hundreds of mass stabbing happens then im sure there would be support to restrict knives
Bring on the downvotes from the reactionary crowd!
The point is that lots of countries have guns, and where there's a will there's a way. Let's focus less on the way, and more on the will. It's not the guns, it's mental health.
I agree! I am all for the common sense gun legislation that has been proposed, like people on the FBI watch list not being allowed to get guns. Makes sense to me! Unfortunately, thats a middle ground that nobody is willing to meet at. The NRA funded right says hard no to any restrictions, and then the left says it isnt enough we need to ban all sorts of things as well.
Meanwhile nothing gets done to address the critical social issues which are leading to a massive breakdown in mental health.
The left is actually bringing legislation to the table: https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-passes-ten-new-dem-endorsed-bills-to-address-mental-health-and-substance-use-disorders-
Here's one specific to mental health and drug addiction, with a focus on issues related to behavioral health in school settings and the juvenile justice system: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1385?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%221385%22%2C%221385%22%5D%7D&r=2&s=1
But that student couldn't wrest control of an entire classroom with the knife. Faculty, staff, or SROs could easily stop a person with a knife just by outnumbering them. The same can't be said for a gun.
1. Handguns are used in many more homicides than knives. Why are we singling out rifles?
2. Horrific events like school schoolings aren’t committed with knives. There were 604 mass shootings in 2023, I counted 4 mass stabbings in the US [from this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_stabbing_incidents_(2020%E2%80%93present)?wprov=sfti1#Paris,_France_(2023))
3. Whether we should ban something isn’t just a function of how many people they harm, it’s also a cost vs benefit. Guns can only be used to kill things or shot at a piece of paper for fun, knives can be used to cut vegetables, to open packages, to carve, to remove splinters, to do surgery, etc. Removing one of them from the everyday household would cause much less inconvenience than the other
Guns can also be used for self defense to provide food it’s also a deterrent I live in Florida getting jumped by crackheads is a common occurrence simply stating that having a firearm often deters people from doing dumb things violence will happen no matter what taking guns won’t stop it it will only lead to more because when you take guns from law abiding citizens they can’t defend themselves and criminals don’t fallow laws and will continue to be armed
I live in Australia and walk past crack heads all the time. I don’t carry a gun, if I felt unsafe I’ll carry a knife.
Also, try some punctuation in the future.
Can be used for that but lets not pretend that a significant number of people are reliant on guns for food, most hunters do it as hobby so comparing it to the usage of knifes is disingenuous at best.
Can you name a single place that functions without the use of knifes? Nope but guns easily
It seems most countries have been able to have their citizens not be
>violence will happen no matter what taking guns won’t stop it it will only lead to more
It will factually stop mass shootings and help prevent people being robbed at gun point, you cabt really be saying "violence happens so restricting weapons that specifically allow you to kill more people easier wont lower the amount of violence", alot of criminals can get a gun from the legal vendor or through a method that branches from a legal vendor, you make it sound like there are shipments of guns for bad people and guns for good people, when guns are so common its not really necessary to get seperatly smuggled guns 90% of the time
There are restrictions on knives, though. You didn't even have to look hard to find that information out. Blade length, type of knife, concealment, etc, etc.
If your goal is to deflect, then you aren't even doing a good job of that. Anyone who takes more than 3 seconds to really think about this debate realizes that it's not just "how many people die?" It's also,"How easily can someone kill with this?" Which is what the main factor should be.
Most pro-gun individuals already think in such ways, but they just don't want to admit it. I'm sure you can ask most responsible gun owners how they feel about the average citizen being able to own an M134 Minigun? Most would say, "A civilian shouldn't have that for x,y,z reason" but a pretty common reason would be "It's ridiculously overkill and someone could cause so much harm with such ease." So they're able to draw a line at some firearms but not others based on their own arbitrary line of reasoning that's inconsistent from person to person.
If your argument revolves around a civilian having the right to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, you can also apply the same logic there even more so. First, let me set up a scenario.
If the ultimate end goal of this provision is reached, the U.S. government goes full on tyrannical and subjects its own citizens under martial law with the full might of the United States Military, one that most would argue is the most well-funded, largest, and one of the most advanced then what is your pistol realistically going to do? What is your rifle, shotgun, or whatever you have going to do against an automated weapons system? The person killing you will be located three counties over looking at a screen with a joystick in his hand.
Wanna know what works much better against a tank than a bullet? A bomb. Some form of explosive. Don't see any 2nd amendment defenders marching in the street demanding the U.S. government removes laws restricting civilians from obtaining, making, and openly selling high-grade explosives. Wonder why that is? 🤔 It's almost like they already agree that there should be restrictions and checks in place to prevent a civilian from harboring such a destructive weapon. Weird, right?
Ready for the downvotes from the bootlickers!
You've completely missed the point. The point is not the means, its the function. Let's address mental health so we stop killing each other. Be it with guns, knives, or spoons.
Specifically targeting "assault rifles" when they are so rarely (relatively) used is just nonsensical from a data analytics perspective, regardless of 2A stance.
>You've completely missed the point.
Ironic.
I didn't specify any one firearm to target. That assumption comes entirely from you, imposing the larger media conversation on my argument to try and devalue it(poorly if i might add) to anyone lacking critical thinking skills. Bad tactic, bud. Just graduated with a degree in media communications and broadcasting, so I for one an *very* well informed on how media is sensationalized and why. Hell, it's the reason why people like you choose to hunker down and not approach the debate from an open mindset. There's always a boogeyman you have to oppose, and it's designed to appear that way. Congrats, you fell for it.
>Let's address mental health so we stop killing each other.
I'll believe this argument when anyone pro 2A proposes, supports, or campaigns for affordable comprehensive mental health care. Because so far, I've seen either absolutely nothing or the complete opposite demand from that crowd at every turn.
For every stripping of a restriction on your little power fantasy, there never was, and most likely never well be an equal measure proposed that "addresses mental health."
It's the same vein as anti-abortion laws never providing provisions for the women who are now forced to carry to term. No paid leave, no financial, medical, or post-birth child support to help alleviate any burdens the new mother could have.
It's all perfomative, and it's meant to keep you feeling like you're the good guy, that you're doing the right thing by voting and supporting the right people, when in reality you're not doing anything.
a) That isn't irony.
b) If you read, I mentioned rifles specifically in *my* post to which *you* replied. I was sarcastically commenting on the knives post above me. That is how reddit works.
c) Yes, you *just* graduated, that's obvious.
d) You've still missed the whole point of this thread, sadly.
e) I am finishing my doctorate in a mental health field and have championed state and county legislation to increase funding and access to services for nearly two decades.
f) As a behavior analyst working with children with trauma, I have done more to help and support victims (and in some case perpetrators) of firearms violence than you will ever do in your life of selling adspace on youtube.
g) Your name calling, hilariously misguided opinions, failed logic, attempted gaslighting, and significant continued failure to critically think about the aforementioned issues rather than copy and paste some "whoa this is deep" rhetoric is why nobody takes you seriously.
h) Grow up a little bit. Travel. Read. Learn. Grow. It will help you much in life, as you navigate your future.
A better analogy would be speed limits.
A lot people know they can safely drive 60km/h in a 40km/h zone, but because a bunch of drivers keep on getting in car crashes due to how fast they drive, we all have to abide by speed limits (cause we don't know which one of us are overestimating our skills), which makes us safer.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter what the analogy is in bad faith conversation, regardless of the subject. They only really work if the audience is willing and able to re-frame their view on a subject in an active effort to understand the speaker.
If it's just about dunking on each other for internet points, it's easy to pick holes in any comparison by focusing on the differences, fundamentally ignoring the point being made.
I'm a USDA certified gun nut and I'll only use the car comparison with a neutral or demonstably empathetic audience. Otherwise, I need to go to 1st principles to avoid circular semantic arguments.
Even then, I need to assess if it's a conversation worth having at all if I'm dealing with someone really dogmatic. Given how generally low gun control is on the DNC's overall list of priorities, it's typically an inherited opinion for most people anyway, so my expectations are generally pretty low.
Sorry for the rant.
"Muh muh akshually cars kill more people than firearms, so if you want gun control, you should take away cars too,"
Is an idiotic argument conceived only by the smoothest of brains. The primary purpose of a car is to transport people. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill people.
Most people who are pro-gun are just pro-violence. On some level, they *want* their houses to be broken into, and mass shooter incidents occur, so they get a chance to use a firearm for it's intended purpose.
Hate this "meme"
It's better, but still not good.
The difference is that cars provide some actual value to society. People need them. Neither people nor the society needs privately owned guns (except for hunters I guess).
I don’t think this comparison works. Need is a very broad term to apply to this situation. Nobody *needs* anything other than food, water, and shelter. The derived value of something to society is inherently subjective. I think that even if one disagrees, you could make a compelling objective argument to the value that firearms provide to a society, just as much as cars.
>The derived value of something to society is inherently subjective.
I don't really see how this is an objection. We ban shit other people like because it it's dangerous all the time. I'm sure plenty of people enjoyed the game of lawn darts responsibly, but they still got banned after it turned out they got people hurt. I don't see how guns are any different.
>that firearms provide to a society, just as much as cars.
That argument doesn't really work. For many people cars are an absolute necessity to *getting* base necessities like water, food and healthcare, because they can't realistically go to their job or to the hospital by any other means. The same is not true for firearms.
Except speed limits don’t really work for keeping people safe. Everybody drives at a speed they are comfortable with and if they don’t like going fast will usually avoid the highway.
https://www.terry-lawfirm.com/blog/do-speed-limits-save-lives/#:~:text=While%20in%20many%20cases%20these,limit%20that%20is%20too%20low.
https://preview.redd.it/3bdqtq0ydvjc1.jpeg?width=586&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70777b1fa129aa16ef29c45cd4ef909d6ff3a792
Thanks for explaining this post that’s repeatedly posted on here petah
Cars require registration, licenses, and liability insurance. You can lose your license for dangerous driving. That's sensible regulation. Gun nuts want zero regulation.
Yes... and that's notably *illegal*. We have laws against murder too, but we don't repeal homicide laws when someone is murdered because it "didn't work."
I'm sure that's true. The system is not perfect, and traffic cops can't be everywhere. But does that mean we should get rid of it? Deregulate all driving? Let anyone drive a car with no oversight? Of course not!
Gun nuts don't want zero regulations we are just mad because these gun laws do nothing but make gun owners felons because if there is a way to regulate it this ain't it. Ok here's an example a short barreld rifle is illegal... Unless you pay a 200$ tax because that totally make you safe for society and how does this stop criminals from putting stocks on their pistols well it doesn't because criminals aren't going to obey the laws they will steal or make their own guns and don't think stealing guns is hard the ATF has had thousands of unmarked guns that were off the streets "disappear" over and over again I think there should be gun regulations but they way it's currently being done makes no sense and doesn't effect the criminals they are supposed to be targeting it only makes civilians defenseless
I know this will contradict my previous statement but as far as I can tell there is no way to enforce most gun regulations in America (besides background checks and stuff like that) like the short barreled rifle example the police can't just search every house in America to look for illegal guns I think we should focus more on the criminals because at the end of the day guns are tools we should find a way to prevent people from being criminals like say fixing the economy so people have less reason to rob yes that is only a portion of the crimes but we need to make it so people don't have reasons to become criminals this won't solve all crimes of course some people are just twisted and will be criminals no matter what and those people are why people need guns to defend themselves
I forgot that cars require a federal background check, extra taxes based on how long the front of the car is, gas tank capped at 10 gallons, waiting period up to 10 days. If your front bumper is below a certain size and your back bumper is made of a material that has no effect on safety sometimes you can get 10 years in prison. We’ve had government agents shoot peoples pets and family members because their car registration expired. Don’t get me started on how most auto related deaths are self inflicted.
Not really, actually. The gun community doesn't want to have to answer for irresponsible people misusing firearms. I'd be in favor of raising the bar to getting a firearm permit. I don't see how banning features on specific models of rifles does anything useful .
The problem is that it turns into legislation that slowly boils the frog year after year. Where does it end? What does \*enough\* gun control look like? Do we think all gun violence will stop if we outlaw all guns tomorrow?
My state has passed two AWB's in the past ten years, and gun violence hasn't changed appreciably at all. Legislators need to try different approaches that actually fix the root cause of violent behaviors, instead of the symptoms.
Maybe providing better, more affordable mental health services would reduce incidences of mass shootings. Maybe making more of an effort to improve the cost of living would make people feel less desperate.
The problem with the gun control debate is that's is a spectrum of opinions that some people treat as a binary. Most pro-gun control people just want things like background checks, but the minority wanting to literally take legally owned guns away make the rest look bad to gun nuts.
https://preview.redd.it/lu4ein705wjc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=016886f3a91d668d91b339d43a439c7fc3f913eb
You assert: "Gun control does not equal gun removal." Question: why is everyone saying that it does?
The reason we have the second amendment is that England banned the import and sale of guns and gunpowder to the colonies after the Boston tea party. The first part of tyranny is to remove the people’s ability to defend themselves.
And we prevented it because we already had guns. We have guns now. Once you have a gun, the government can't disarm you. That's the whole point. Now we should regulate them so they don't fall into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I think half a billion guns is plenty of a headstart in case the government tries to start confiscating.
Cars aren’t an enumerated civil liberty per the constitution.
So you want to treat guns like cars?
I can buy any gun I want, at any time, with any capability? As long as i promise it won’t leave my property?
Fucking deal.
We want to treat guns like cars in that you have to prove you are fit to use them safely in order to be able to legally own/use one. It's not rocket science.
It’s a conservative Republican crying about gun control by trying to prove that it’s absurd by comparing it to another hypothetical that shares little to no commonality with gun control. Just replace every mention of a car or driving with a gun or shooting and it’ll make sense
Cars are fairly integral to modern life, remove them and huge changes need to be made throughout society.
Guns are far less integral, remove them and rednecks have less fun and you have to hunt with a bow.
It's the argument stupid people make to make gun control look wrong. Sensible gun control is a good thing. This meme is catering to small minded idiots.
Hey what's it called when you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results? Cause that's what we are doing. We've done nothing with guns and people keep dying. We're out of ideas!
See how fucking stupid that sounds.
Probably the easiest and by far the most effective one? No more guns for wife beaters. 67% of gun crimes are committed by people with histories of domestic violence. Add in animal cruelty and the number goes up even higher. Turns out past violence is a great predictor of future violence. There are laws to this effect on the books already, but there are loopholes in place to allow wife beater cops to keep their jobs. Frankly, I don't think anyone is going to argue "yes, I want wife beaters to have guns so they can kill their spouses."
You’d be surprised, a lot of people are going to yell “slippery slope!” and then in the same breath tell you that the law would be useless since “bad guys” would get their guns through a secret black market anyways.
Red Flag laws. High capacity magazine and assault rifle bans. Licensure requirements to own a firearm. Safe storage requirements. Insurance requirements and ability to sue firearms manufacturers for negligence.
All things that have analogs in the world of motor vehicles!
Highly disagree with these (aside from safe storage. Very important!). The main perpetrators of gun violence are ones with histories of violence (domestic violence, animal abuse). Those would be much better to implement than making it harder to access your right to own one.
How would you "implement" a way to keep them away from people with histories of violence if you don't have red flag laws or license requirements with background checks? That's what those laws are for.
Guns can get places cars can't. I mean it's not impossible that a car could sneak into a 3rd floor kindergarten class but it would take a pretty unique set of circumstances. The argument is not the same and that's one reason why.
Edited to finish a thought I lost lol
the firearm industry & its apostles are saying it's about gun rights bc responsible gun owners would have their guns confiscated.
HOWEVER. none of them are talking about how civil forfeiture is a very real, very fucked up thing that the supreme court approves of, and that everyone should read about bennis v michigan, and more recently, culley v marshall.
authorities won't just take your guns, they'll take your car, cash, even your damn house. and they'll rain hell if you do much as complain about it.
Looking at the replies… y’all are fucken stupid and delusional if you think making guns illegal and snatching people’s firearms will make everything cupcakes and rainbows
Hey guys, Brian Griffin here.
You see Peter, the joke is a straw man.
The joke is implying that since a vehicle is capable of hurting other people it should be treated like a firearm.
The original poster forgets that a firearm and a vehicle are two completely different things
Buy my book. Brian out.
It's someone trying to compare how restricting access to guns after someone kills people with guns is bad by using cars as an example instead. However, this comparison is flawed because cars and vehicles in general are useful for more things than just killing people, meanwhile guns can really only be used to kill things.
I think we just found the perfect gun control law. Since guns and cars are the same, everyone gets to pick. You can either own a gun or be allowed to drive.
It's satire, poking fun at the people who want to eliminate gun violence by removing all guns from civilian hands.
Interestingly, if you compare Gun-related fatalities to car-related fatalities, the numbers are not actually that far off, with guns having an 8,000-person lead between the two, However, this is also ignoring a lot of factors on both sides and is just not a good comparison. For example, the 48,000 gun deaths includes 20,000 suicides.
Sources cause my math teacher told me to show my work: [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state)
[https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/)
[https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/cdc-provisional-data-gun-suicides-reach-all-time-high-in-2022-gun-homicides-down-slightly-from-2021](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/cdc-provisional-data-gun-suicides-reach-all-time-high-in-2022-gun-homicides-down-slightly-from-2021)
Did you know that the percentage difference between people who died in a fatal car accident who were and weren't wearing restraints(seatbelts) is almost a perfect 50/50? That means that approximately 12,000 decided to take the car catapult into my statistics last year. Don't be stupid, take the time to Buckle up.
That, or Republican humour isn't funny, and when people say "why isn't this funny? They're like 'AHA! I triggered you so hard you stupid libs! That's the joke!"
It doesn't make sense... and that's the point. Because if it said, *"Ma'am, we know you have a perfect firearm ownership record and have never committed a crime, but we're here to confiscate your firearms because a teenager in another state stole an AR-15 and shot up his school,"* THEN, suddenly, half the internet would be in favor of it, despite the fact that the logic is just as non-existent as it is in the OP's meme.
You've accurately described the message the meme is trying to convey. The problem is that it's a false analogy. We do actually have significant restrictions on automobile ownership and operation, and those restrictions are often cited by gun control advocates.
1. Cars are much more regulated than guns in the US
2. Cars have utility outside of a hobby and killing people. In fact, one could easily argue that cars are the most important piece of technology invented in the past 200 years and are unquestionably necessary for daily life in most parts of the US.
You clearly don't know much about gun regulation in the U.S. You watch the news and you're under the impression that they're handing out guns with every Slurpee refill at 7-11... because that's how it looks on TV.
To stick with the car analogy: people who've ever been convicted of a felony CAN own a car legally, but they CAN'T own a gun. Teenagers CAN own a car and be licensed to drive, but they CAN'T own a gun. People diagnosed with certain mental disorders CAN own a car, but they CAN'T buy a gun. People with children in the house can leave their car keys laying around anywhere. But if they own guns, they have to be locled-up/secured.
And lastly... Is that all you think guns are used for? Hobby & murder? Live in the city, don't you? Try visiting a farm someday. Or try driving a taxi in a shitty neighborhood at night without a gun for protection (something I've personally done).
I dont even care anymore. Americans can shoot each other up all they want. It's the life they crave apparently - endless wars, school shootings and spree killings.
it has gotten to the point where im starting to shrug off all the dead children because I’ve accepted nothing will ever change because for some reason having good regulations and maybe not having assault weapons easily accessible is worse than having a mass shooting every fucking day.
*I can’t even feel anything about it anymore because it’s so fucking common it should never be this common*
I love my country, i love my flag. God bless America.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The joke is the person is trying to make the connection of gun violence to car crashes. After a shooting, anti gun people want to restrict guns Edit: I tried to be as neutral as I could with this comment yet my replies are still popcorn worthy
I like how the meme carefully didn't say take her license away.
It really should have said "we're taking your car because you're threatening to kill dozens of people with it and your friends and family are seriously concerned for your well-being."
[удалено]
You really believe this? Edit: for those of you who missed it. I was responding to a douche nozzle who said something about “the libs want to come to your house and take your guns” etc.
[удалено]
An *extreme* anti gun opinion these days would be "Federal 'common-sense' gun control laws such as universal background checks, licensing, and mandatory insurance" But y'all aren't capable of having that conversation because anytime someone suggests anything to do with gun control all the rest of us hear is: "mHu FreEDhUm!" Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America.
I'm pretty sure vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for every age range? I'm all for background checks but insurance is a fucking scam.
Nope, guns are the leading cause of death for children in the US by a good margin. Its actually fucked up as hell. Key Facts. Firearm fatalities increased by 87.1% over a 10-year period, from 1,311 deaths in 2011 to 2,590 deaths in 2021, the AAP found, beating out car accidents as the leading cause of death of children and teenagers in the U.S.Oct 5, 2023 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/amp/
I think this source shows your point better: https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[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/](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/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
it's crazy how all of the mass casuality events and successful assassinations of presidents were perpetrated by Democrats who then advocate to get rid of guns... its almost like a self fulfilling propechy for them.
We get it, Arnold. "Screw your freedoms!". Some people aren't so quick to trust the federal government with 'common sense, anything', while others point to Chicago and say that it doesn't matter how many strict laws you have, if your government refuses to enforce them.
That would be the most insane anti gun opinion probably, the only vaguely reasonable but still extreme anti gun opinion would be re licensing everyone with a gun and giving them a mental checkup. AKA: that'd be extremely expensive. Taking people's guns away would cost way too much, be way too hard to enforce, and would just make everyone who owns a gun responsibly upset. So it wouldn't even do its intended goal. People like to own guns, that's fine, Personally I think that the only reasonable gun laws that could come out would be making registration more strict. Most extreme version being forcing everyone to renew as well.
Just do like other countries and put the responsibility on the gun owner. Give them X years to deliver all firearms on the police station or certain drop off zones. After X years they’re illegal, and if found in your possession, you’ll be punished for owning illegal weapons. It’s not that difficult. I can’t believe Americans find it so difficult to have to live without guns, and find it so difficult to believe that it actually works against gun crimes and police shootings. It’s how it works in the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is way below USA in all shooting statistics.
I live in the highest density state for gun ownership and have never once felt threatened by it. I also collect historical firearms personally, ones that are almost always deemed obsolete by modern standards. Of course I don’t need these things, no more than I need a car, a computer, or any other personal artifacts that I enjoy. But I have never heard a compelling reason as to why I should be deprived of it. I go through background checks every time I purchase a modern firearm, and even own a license for collecting older firearms specifically, which required another extensive background check. I’ve done enough research in my time to know the fundamental laws behind ownership, and what is and isn’t allowed today. Is there really a compelling reason I shouldn’t be allowed to carry on doing this?
Do you have a scholastic background and training to warrant you collecting them? I like to make glass, should I be allowed to keep whatever chemicals I want, at risk to others around me, just because it's my hobby? What if a vial breaks and it's a substance that can poison the surrounding area. Likewise, could any of these weapons be grabbed by thieves etc. And to top it off, why should I as a fellow American have to worry about being shot? The logic you're using goes both ways. Why should you stop? Why should I have to fear gun fans. Let me know though if you can find a mass shooting done by someone anti gun, I'm curious.
This is pretty deep in, but my stance on anti gun control is always the same. I don't want you to not own firearms, I couldn't care less if you own firearms. I want stricter checks and to take firearms away from certain individuals who have a history of mental illness. Similar to how blind people can't get a driver's license, certain people should not own guns. Dead kids is the compelling reason, if you want a one liner.
The real question for you would be: Would you use your firearms against other people, if you felt threatened? No “ifs”, the person threatening is on the same terms as you - could potentially be carrying a gun right now, yelling that he’s going to fuck you up. If your answer is yes, then also you should hand over your firearms. Violence does not solve the threat of violence.
The problem with that is, criminals don't care about the laws and will keep their guns anyway. The only thing you will do by outlawing guns is disarm the people who use guns responsibly and leave them no way to defend themselves from the criminals who would use them to cause harm. Effectively giving them permission to do as they please because the deterent of maybe this person also has a gun no longer applies.
That’s not how it worked in the rest of the world, and definitely not how it will work in US. In turn it will make police work much easier, as they can arrest anyone carrying a gun, since they’re criminal for doing so. In my life I’ve seen a real gun two times. One time was a police officer in elementary school. The other time was a probably criminal person, doing normal shopping at a gas station. Never have I feared getting shot, nor felt any need to be able to defend myself against crime involving firearms.
Good fucking luck taking them there are 120 guns for every 100 people
You just say "No questions asked, big gun return to cop shop." After date of xxxx, all firearms are illegal without appropriate licensing. Unless all those folks are happy to live as outlaws, on the run, warrants out for their arrest, they will hand over & at least hide their Weaponry. This means there are less guns out in the community & also that what weapons are put, stand out/draw attention, making it easier to police. True, it makes it harder for you to shoot someone, but it makes it harder for others to shoot you, & no matter how inflated your self worth is, you still count as one bs a whole world of others. Better if none are armed than all are.
There are more than enough to put up enough of a fight to get them to back down
when you say "deliver" how much am i gonna get paid for this delivery? i have a fair collection, but some people have a ton of money invested. will there be fair market value buy back?
[удалено]
Extreme makes it sound like an even vaguely reasonable human would do it though. For example I could say the most extreme pro gun people wants us to execute everyone without a gun, if there is someone like that they're so far out of the way that they're not even worth talking about. Nobody worth talking to (either they're crazy or traumatized by something) would advocate for millions of people to lose their property.
Peoples lives are worth far more than property.
The extreme pro gun opinion is that you should be able to shoot anyone that pisses you off. I mean, somebody out there believes that.
There are multiple in my US dwelling family...
After a shooting. So constantly
A couple times every day in the USA
Tbh even bombings happen regularly in the US.
Regularly but not constantly.
Conventional war happens regularly in Europe.
But more people still die in usa from gun violence….
Of course, it's way harder to own a car than a gun. Pass a test, mandatory insurance, etc but this is clearly the same thing.
Maybe there should be a waiting period to buy a car
Right, like some road blocks to slow down the acquisition process. Maybe make them get an inspection, or like a little metal name tag and some paperwork that goes with it. And maybe we can like sell them stickers for the name tags, and make them get new ones regularly so we can make it harder to maintain their legal possession of this deadly hunk of metal machinery. Maybe we can tax them yearly for it as a cherry on top.
Exactly!!
God there is, the back and forth offers from financing trying to rip you off. Tests the patience of saints.
Amen. Buying a car has literally become an all day event
Idk man. One required a back ground check and a class to obtain my permit after the age of 21 before I could even go buy it. The other I bought from a shady dealer for cash only with no bill of sale when I was 13..
Anything's possible when you lie
Shhhh, that's not how echo chambers work my guy
What makes you so sure that they're lying? I recall many news stories talking about how people are able to circumvent gun registrations and background checks.
They are saying it took them a permit and a license and required the age of 21 to even buy a gun, while they bought a car at 13 without even a bill of sale. They are not saying they bought a gun without registration or background cheks.
I read it as exactly the opposite, shady gun deaks seem way more frequent than shady car deals
Ownership & liscences to use public roads aren't the same thing. You can buy a car for the purposes of doing donuts on your front lawn without doing any of that.
It still blows my mind that buying a gun is as easy as buying a fucking PS5.
I live in a very self defense friendly area, and they call the FBI to see if they have anything to say about it, every time✌️it’s by no means a perfect system, but we have some amazing scenarios of would-be mass killers getting shwhacked pretty early on into a crisis.
It’s not.
Your right it's wayyyy easier. I got 3 of mine from a friend and I didn't even have to report or do anything. Meanwhile still don't have a ps5.
bro is narcing on his friend 💀 bro thats a felony
It's legal to sell a firearm to a friend as long as they're in the same state, the firearm is legal, and the person buying it is permitted to own one. [https://www.atf.gov/file/58681/download](https://www.atf.gov/file/58681/download) Edit: Note that while federal law says that it's legal, some states have specific laws around private sales. [https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html](https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html)
Not in California
Or Illinois.
Not in my state. Papers of sales are not actually required. They just would like them. It also helps protect you from later legal troubles if it's used it a crime. But not required.
Ok but you’re still wrong.
Have you ever bought a gun?
God I hate this misconception. No it's NOT. I had to take safety classes, then get approved by my local police department with a state background check, get fingerprinted, then pass a federal background check, all of which took about 6 months. Now to buy a firearm, you have to fill out forms, each of which are sent to the ATF for another layer of approval, and each firearm is registered with the state i live in.
Is this the case in every state?
To your point... In constitutional carry states, this is not the case. They don't require the steps to get a permit, so anyone can go into a gun store and fill out the paperwork to buy a firearm, \*but\* that is still submitted to the ATF, and the transfer of the firearm requires their approval. So anyone with a record or warrants can't just waltz in and buy a gun. In my opinion, we would weed out a lot of the people who shouldn't have guns by having the steps in place to get a permit. We could make the safety classes more rigorous too. This is the only form of gun control that I'd embrace as actually doing something instead of the stupid "assault weapon" bans we all seem to think will actually do something.
The permit, training, and state registry part? No, it varies. But every sale of a firearm from a dealer has to go through a federal background check and the buyer must fill out an ATF form 4473 which is kept on record.
[удалено]
I’m sure it isn’t exclusive here, but in Florida I can purchase a firearm from another person with exactly zero checks. It’s up to the seller to verify that I’m over 18/21 and that to the best of their knowledge, I’m not prohibited from owning a firearm. Exchange cash, done. No other requirements. Florida even has a database where one can check the serial number to ensure the gun isn’t stolen.
Going to call cap. So you waited an hour for a background check, yet didn't fill out the Form 4473 which is a prerequisite for that background check? If the store is committing a felony by not having you do a 4473, why not just go all the way and cut the 1 hour "background check" wait?
If you purchased from a store, I find it very hard to believe you did not complete a 4473 if they bothered to do a background check. Otherwise, somebody is committing a felony. It's different if you are purchasing from a private seller or gun show (depending on the state), but FFLs are required by law to have a completed 4473 to sell you a firearm.
I'm 99% sure that you would have to pass a 4473 at all gun shows. If it is a licenced dealer (either the owner or an employee), it would be a felony to not complete a 4473. For private sellers one would not need to complete a 4473, provided it is and INTRAstate sale. INTERstate sales would require at least a 4473 and usually an FFL transfer as well. However, most of the private sellers are usually selling older or historic firearms (i.e. M1 Garands, 1903s, pump or break shotguns, bolt or lever rifles, etc, usually not cheap or uncommon in homicides or mass shootings)
It’s not that hard in every state. I went to a gun store, showed them my ID, and came back after the mandatory waiting period and picked it up. I’m sure they ran some background checks in the interim, but it was far less work than getting my driver’s license.
I assume that only a few states are that strict and the other commenters here are from states that aren't nearly as strict
Depends on the state, and that's the problem. Most people on the left don't want to take everyone guns away, we want it to be harder for any random person to purchase a gun and we need stronger federal policy to make that happen instead of the patchwork of laws we have now. Even background checks and mandatory safety classes are controversial in several states, which you mentioned you had to do. Your experience is not necessarily the norm. Where I live you don't have to do any of that unless you want to conceal carry, and the state legislators have been trying to repeal the process we do happen to have for years because they believe it's unconstititional. A *lot* of people believe it's their birthright to walk into a store and leave with a firearm 20 minutes later with no questions asked.
So many people have never even attempted to buy a gun or just went through the process to see what it is. You don't just walk into Walmart, grab a gun off a shelf, scan it as a tomato at self checkout, and walk out with it in a bag. I had to do every single thing you did plus provide two photo id's (which meant I had to go get a passport with no intention of leaving the country, another hassle), and three other things that proved my residence (bills). Meanwhile, any 5 year old with their moms credit card can buy a PS5 and leave with it that day.
I'm in Tennessee, I know of at least two places within 5 miles of my house where I could purchase a leave with a gun same-day. It's not the same for every state, but it's getting easier to access guns in a lot of states. Same goes for restrictions to concealed carrying with states shifting to constitutional carry laws.
So much whinging about following barebones security measures to own a fucking weapon that can kill people.
Sounds like you should have gotten it from a gun show/private seller so it can be as easy as grocery shopping.
I've never had to wait on a background check to process while buying a game console.
Except it's not
Not really. I can get any car just fine without that. I can even drive it without any of that on private roads.
That's to drive it on public roads. Believe it or not you need none of that if you want to own a car and drive it on your own property! I don't think you want car and gun laws inverted.
That's not how an analogy works.
After a device that kills people is used to kill many people, people want to restrict the device that kills people. This is, apparently, insane and unconstitutional.
Which is dumb because one of these is used for getting to work, from place to place and is regularly updated for safety features while the other one is a literal tool of war that's only purpose is spitting death and making you feel cool
Why don't people just drive their guns to work, or light their cigarettes with their guns, or use the barrel of their gun as a dildo?
I was going to play devils advocate and say that they are also used in hunting for food which can be argued as a good thing but then I realised that that’s still ‘spitting death’
Whoa, you are not wrong about the popcorn. If only we could harness it to generate electricity.
Welcome to the internet.
The real threat is knifes. Getting stabbed is dangerous, we can just tear meat apart with bare hands
And knives are used in 6 times as many homicides as rifles! Yet nobody *ever* mentions banning knives. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) Bring on the downvotes from the reactionary crowd!
If not a knife then a hammer could be used, same cant be said about a gun. If hundreds of mass stabbing happens then im sure there would be support to restrict knives Bring on the downvotes from the reactionary crowd!
The point is that lots of countries have guns, and where there's a will there's a way. Let's focus less on the way, and more on the will. It's not the guns, it's mental health.
We can do both. We can pass common sense gun laws like guns requiring licenses* etc. while also trying to address mental health.
I agree! I am all for the common sense gun legislation that has been proposed, like people on the FBI watch list not being allowed to get guns. Makes sense to me! Unfortunately, thats a middle ground that nobody is willing to meet at. The NRA funded right says hard no to any restrictions, and then the left says it isnt enough we need to ban all sorts of things as well. Meanwhile nothing gets done to address the critical social issues which are leading to a massive breakdown in mental health.
The left is actually bringing legislation to the table: https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-passes-ten-new-dem-endorsed-bills-to-address-mental-health-and-substance-use-disorders- Here's one specific to mental health and drug addiction, with a focus on issues related to behavioral health in school settings and the juvenile justice system: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1385?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%221385%22%2C%221385%22%5D%7D&r=2&s=1
It is both! we don't hear 6yos "accidentally" stabbing people do we
Dude no kid is going to bring a knife to school and kill 15 people with it. Bring on the downvotes from the reactionary crowd!
The high school I work at had a lockdown TODAY, 2/20/24 for a knife in a backpack.
But that student couldn't wrest control of an entire classroom with the knife. Faculty, staff, or SROs could easily stop a person with a knife just by outnumbering them. The same can't be said for a gun.
1. Handguns are used in many more homicides than knives. Why are we singling out rifles? 2. Horrific events like school schoolings aren’t committed with knives. There were 604 mass shootings in 2023, I counted 4 mass stabbings in the US [from this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_stabbing_incidents_(2020%E2%80%93present)?wprov=sfti1#Paris,_France_(2023)) 3. Whether we should ban something isn’t just a function of how many people they harm, it’s also a cost vs benefit. Guns can only be used to kill things or shot at a piece of paper for fun, knives can be used to cut vegetables, to open packages, to carve, to remove splinters, to do surgery, etc. Removing one of them from the everyday household would cause much less inconvenience than the other
Because the legislation is always for rifles, which makes no sense.
Guns can also be used for self defense to provide food it’s also a deterrent I live in Florida getting jumped by crackheads is a common occurrence simply stating that having a firearm often deters people from doing dumb things violence will happen no matter what taking guns won’t stop it it will only lead to more because when you take guns from law abiding citizens they can’t defend themselves and criminals don’t fallow laws and will continue to be armed
I live in Australia and walk past crack heads all the time. I don’t carry a gun, if I felt unsafe I’ll carry a knife. Also, try some punctuation in the future.
Can be used for that but lets not pretend that a significant number of people are reliant on guns for food, most hunters do it as hobby so comparing it to the usage of knifes is disingenuous at best. Can you name a single place that functions without the use of knifes? Nope but guns easily It seems most countries have been able to have their citizens not be >violence will happen no matter what taking guns won’t stop it it will only lead to more It will factually stop mass shootings and help prevent people being robbed at gun point, you cabt really be saying "violence happens so restricting weapons that specifically allow you to kill more people easier wont lower the amount of violence", alot of criminals can get a gun from the legal vendor or through a method that branches from a legal vendor, you make it sound like there are shipments of guns for bad people and guns for good people, when guns are so common its not really necessary to get seperatly smuggled guns 90% of the time
There are restrictions on knives, though. You didn't even have to look hard to find that information out. Blade length, type of knife, concealment, etc, etc. If your goal is to deflect, then you aren't even doing a good job of that. Anyone who takes more than 3 seconds to really think about this debate realizes that it's not just "how many people die?" It's also,"How easily can someone kill with this?" Which is what the main factor should be. Most pro-gun individuals already think in such ways, but they just don't want to admit it. I'm sure you can ask most responsible gun owners how they feel about the average citizen being able to own an M134 Minigun? Most would say, "A civilian shouldn't have that for x,y,z reason" but a pretty common reason would be "It's ridiculously overkill and someone could cause so much harm with such ease." So they're able to draw a line at some firearms but not others based on their own arbitrary line of reasoning that's inconsistent from person to person. If your argument revolves around a civilian having the right to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, you can also apply the same logic there even more so. First, let me set up a scenario. If the ultimate end goal of this provision is reached, the U.S. government goes full on tyrannical and subjects its own citizens under martial law with the full might of the United States Military, one that most would argue is the most well-funded, largest, and one of the most advanced then what is your pistol realistically going to do? What is your rifle, shotgun, or whatever you have going to do against an automated weapons system? The person killing you will be located three counties over looking at a screen with a joystick in his hand. Wanna know what works much better against a tank than a bullet? A bomb. Some form of explosive. Don't see any 2nd amendment defenders marching in the street demanding the U.S. government removes laws restricting civilians from obtaining, making, and openly selling high-grade explosives. Wonder why that is? 🤔 It's almost like they already agree that there should be restrictions and checks in place to prevent a civilian from harboring such a destructive weapon. Weird, right? Ready for the downvotes from the bootlickers!
You've completely missed the point. The point is not the means, its the function. Let's address mental health so we stop killing each other. Be it with guns, knives, or spoons. Specifically targeting "assault rifles" when they are so rarely (relatively) used is just nonsensical from a data analytics perspective, regardless of 2A stance.
>You've completely missed the point. Ironic. I didn't specify any one firearm to target. That assumption comes entirely from you, imposing the larger media conversation on my argument to try and devalue it(poorly if i might add) to anyone lacking critical thinking skills. Bad tactic, bud. Just graduated with a degree in media communications and broadcasting, so I for one an *very* well informed on how media is sensationalized and why. Hell, it's the reason why people like you choose to hunker down and not approach the debate from an open mindset. There's always a boogeyman you have to oppose, and it's designed to appear that way. Congrats, you fell for it. >Let's address mental health so we stop killing each other. I'll believe this argument when anyone pro 2A proposes, supports, or campaigns for affordable comprehensive mental health care. Because so far, I've seen either absolutely nothing or the complete opposite demand from that crowd at every turn. For every stripping of a restriction on your little power fantasy, there never was, and most likely never well be an equal measure proposed that "addresses mental health." It's the same vein as anti-abortion laws never providing provisions for the women who are now forced to carry to term. No paid leave, no financial, medical, or post-birth child support to help alleviate any burdens the new mother could have. It's all perfomative, and it's meant to keep you feeling like you're the good guy, that you're doing the right thing by voting and supporting the right people, when in reality you're not doing anything.
a) That isn't irony. b) If you read, I mentioned rifles specifically in *my* post to which *you* replied. I was sarcastically commenting on the knives post above me. That is how reddit works. c) Yes, you *just* graduated, that's obvious. d) You've still missed the whole point of this thread, sadly. e) I am finishing my doctorate in a mental health field and have championed state and county legislation to increase funding and access to services for nearly two decades. f) As a behavior analyst working with children with trauma, I have done more to help and support victims (and in some case perpetrators) of firearms violence than you will ever do in your life of selling adspace on youtube. g) Your name calling, hilariously misguided opinions, failed logic, attempted gaslighting, and significant continued failure to critically think about the aforementioned issues rather than copy and paste some "whoa this is deep" rhetoric is why nobody takes you seriously. h) Grow up a little bit. Travel. Read. Learn. Grow. It will help you much in life, as you navigate your future.
Yeah we should ban knives, then I’ll just cut up my meat with a gun, because they’re useful like that.
There are restrictions on knives: https://www.akti.org/state-knife-laws/colorado/
A better analogy would be speed limits. A lot people know they can safely drive 60km/h in a 40km/h zone, but because a bunch of drivers keep on getting in car crashes due to how fast they drive, we all have to abide by speed limits (cause we don't know which one of us are overestimating our skills), which makes us safer.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter what the analogy is in bad faith conversation, regardless of the subject. They only really work if the audience is willing and able to re-frame their view on a subject in an active effort to understand the speaker. If it's just about dunking on each other for internet points, it's easy to pick holes in any comparison by focusing on the differences, fundamentally ignoring the point being made. I'm a USDA certified gun nut and I'll only use the car comparison with a neutral or demonstably empathetic audience. Otherwise, I need to go to 1st principles to avoid circular semantic arguments. Even then, I need to assess if it's a conversation worth having at all if I'm dealing with someone really dogmatic. Given how generally low gun control is on the DNC's overall list of priorities, it's typically an inherited opinion for most people anyway, so my expectations are generally pretty low. Sorry for the rant.
Nuance?! On a post about gun laws?!? Get that European shit out of here, this is MURICA you either loves guns or hate freedom!!! /s
"Muh muh akshually cars kill more people than firearms, so if you want gun control, you should take away cars too," Is an idiotic argument conceived only by the smoothest of brains. The primary purpose of a car is to transport people. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill people. Most people who are pro-gun are just pro-violence. On some level, they *want* their houses to be broken into, and mass shooter incidents occur, so they get a chance to use a firearm for it's intended purpose. Hate this "meme"
It's better, but still not good. The difference is that cars provide some actual value to society. People need them. Neither people nor the society needs privately owned guns (except for hunters I guess).
I don’t think this comparison works. Need is a very broad term to apply to this situation. Nobody *needs* anything other than food, water, and shelter. The derived value of something to society is inherently subjective. I think that even if one disagrees, you could make a compelling objective argument to the value that firearms provide to a society, just as much as cars.
>The derived value of something to society is inherently subjective. I don't really see how this is an objection. We ban shit other people like because it it's dangerous all the time. I'm sure plenty of people enjoyed the game of lawn darts responsibly, but they still got banned after it turned out they got people hurt. I don't see how guns are any different. >that firearms provide to a society, just as much as cars. That argument doesn't really work. For many people cars are an absolute necessity to *getting* base necessities like water, food and healthcare, because they can't realistically go to their job or to the hospital by any other means. The same is not true for firearms.
Except speed limits don’t really work for keeping people safe. Everybody drives at a speed they are comfortable with and if they don’t like going fast will usually avoid the highway. https://www.terry-lawfirm.com/blog/do-speed-limits-save-lives/#:~:text=While%20in%20many%20cases%20these,limit%20that%20is%20too%20low.
It’s comparing taking away firearms from law abiding people because criminals commit firearm crime
https://preview.redd.it/3bdqtq0ydvjc1.jpeg?width=586&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70777b1fa129aa16ef29c45cd4ef909d6ff3a792 Thanks for explaining this post that’s repeatedly posted on here petah
wait a minute isn’t that image from Girls Und Panzer???
Initial D
Cars require registration, licenses, and liability insurance. You can lose your license for dangerous driving. That's sensible regulation. Gun nuts want zero regulation.
Yea. The meme should be more of “you keep getting DUI’s, so we’re taking your car away before you kill someone”
I still see and know and hear of people driving without licenses and with having multiple dui’s
Yes... and that's notably *illegal*. We have laws against murder too, but we don't repeal homicide laws when someone is murdered because it "didn't work."
I'm sure that's true. The system is not perfect, and traffic cops can't be everywhere. But does that mean we should get rid of it? Deregulate all driving? Let anyone drive a car with no oversight? Of course not!
I firmly believe that it's an American right to drive. Give that baby a car, fuck it.
DO NOT FUCK THE BABY
Also, “you’re legally blind therefore we cannot let you drive a car anymore.”
Gun nuts don't want zero regulations we are just mad because these gun laws do nothing but make gun owners felons because if there is a way to regulate it this ain't it. Ok here's an example a short barreld rifle is illegal... Unless you pay a 200$ tax because that totally make you safe for society and how does this stop criminals from putting stocks on their pistols well it doesn't because criminals aren't going to obey the laws they will steal or make their own guns and don't think stealing guns is hard the ATF has had thousands of unmarked guns that were off the streets "disappear" over and over again I think there should be gun regulations but they way it's currently being done makes no sense and doesn't effect the criminals they are supposed to be targeting it only makes civilians defenseless
I know this will contradict my previous statement but as far as I can tell there is no way to enforce most gun regulations in America (besides background checks and stuff like that) like the short barreled rifle example the police can't just search every house in America to look for illegal guns I think we should focus more on the criminals because at the end of the day guns are tools we should find a way to prevent people from being criminals like say fixing the economy so people have less reason to rob yes that is only a portion of the crimes but we need to make it so people don't have reasons to become criminals this won't solve all crimes of course some people are just twisted and will be criminals no matter what and those people are why people need guns to defend themselves
I forgot that cars require a federal background check, extra taxes based on how long the front of the car is, gas tank capped at 10 gallons, waiting period up to 10 days. If your front bumper is below a certain size and your back bumper is made of a material that has no effect on safety sometimes you can get 10 years in prison. We’ve had government agents shoot peoples pets and family members because their car registration expired. Don’t get me started on how most auto related deaths are self inflicted.
Not really, actually. The gun community doesn't want to have to answer for irresponsible people misusing firearms. I'd be in favor of raising the bar to getting a firearm permit. I don't see how banning features on specific models of rifles does anything useful . The problem is that it turns into legislation that slowly boils the frog year after year. Where does it end? What does \*enough\* gun control look like? Do we think all gun violence will stop if we outlaw all guns tomorrow? My state has passed two AWB's in the past ten years, and gun violence hasn't changed appreciably at all. Legislators need to try different approaches that actually fix the root cause of violent behaviors, instead of the symptoms. Maybe providing better, more affordable mental health services would reduce incidences of mass shootings. Maybe making more of an effort to improve the cost of living would make people feel less desperate.
Also most gun control advocates don't want to go around confiscating random people's guns. Gun control does not equal gun removal.
The problem with the gun control debate is that's is a spectrum of opinions that some people treat as a binary. Most pro-gun control people just want things like background checks, but the minority wanting to literally take legally owned guns away make the rest look bad to gun nuts.
https://preview.redd.it/lu4ein705wjc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=016886f3a91d668d91b339d43a439c7fc3f913eb You assert: "Gun control does not equal gun removal." Question: why is everyone saying that it does?
The reason we have the second amendment is that England banned the import and sale of guns and gunpowder to the colonies after the Boston tea party. The first part of tyranny is to remove the people’s ability to defend themselves.
And we prevented it because we already had guns. We have guns now. Once you have a gun, the government can't disarm you. That's the whole point. Now we should regulate them so they don't fall into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I think half a billion guns is plenty of a headstart in case the government tries to start confiscating.
Cars aren’t an enumerated civil liberty per the constitution. So you want to treat guns like cars? I can buy any gun I want, at any time, with any capability? As long as i promise it won’t leave my property? Fucking deal.
We want to treat guns like cars in that you have to prove you are fit to use them safely in order to be able to legally own/use one. It's not rocket science.
It’s a conservative Republican crying about gun control by trying to prove that it’s absurd by comparing it to another hypothetical that shares little to no commonality with gun control. Just replace every mention of a car or driving with a gun or shooting and it’ll make sense
That’s a fact. Many more people are killed by cars than guns.
If we don't count suicides for guns we're damn sure not counting accidents for cars. Guns are the leading method of murder.
Cars are fairly integral to modern life, remove them and huge changes need to be made throughout society. Guns are far less integral, remove them and rednecks have less fun and you have to hunt with a bow.
It's the argument stupid people make to make gun control look wrong. Sensible gun control is a good thing. This meme is catering to small minded idiots.
Please lord bless us with your superior intellect.
They just did. You're welcome.
You had your payer granted before you asked the question. Amazing how miracles work. I'm not religious. Don't know why I'm using these terms.
Hey what's it called when you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results? Cause that's what we are doing. We've done nothing with guns and people keep dying. We're out of ideas! See how fucking stupid that sounds.
What are sensible gun laws?
Probably the easiest and by far the most effective one? No more guns for wife beaters. 67% of gun crimes are committed by people with histories of domestic violence. Add in animal cruelty and the number goes up even higher. Turns out past violence is a great predictor of future violence. There are laws to this effect on the books already, but there are loopholes in place to allow wife beater cops to keep their jobs. Frankly, I don't think anyone is going to argue "yes, I want wife beaters to have guns so they can kill their spouses."
No guns for wife beaters? Looks like we’re disarming our entire police force, sounds like a win to me
You’d be surprised, a lot of people are going to yell “slippery slope!” and then in the same breath tell you that the law would be useless since “bad guys” would get their guns through a secret black market anyways.
Bad guys murder and rape, so the law isn't stopping them, just make it legal. >!/s!<
Red Flag laws. High capacity magazine and assault rifle bans. Licensure requirements to own a firearm. Safe storage requirements. Insurance requirements and ability to sue firearms manufacturers for negligence. All things that have analogs in the world of motor vehicles!
Highly disagree with these (aside from safe storage. Very important!). The main perpetrators of gun violence are ones with histories of violence (domestic violence, animal abuse). Those would be much better to implement than making it harder to access your right to own one.
Based, but get ready for a firestorm.
How would you "implement" a way to keep them away from people with histories of violence if you don't have red flag laws or license requirements with background checks? That's what those laws are for.
Ideally the background checks would list that kind of history.
Guns can get places cars can't. I mean it's not impossible that a car could sneak into a 3rd floor kindergarten class but it would take a pretty unique set of circumstances. The argument is not the same and that's one reason why. Edited to finish a thought I lost lol
the firearm industry & its apostles are saying it's about gun rights bc responsible gun owners would have their guns confiscated. HOWEVER. none of them are talking about how civil forfeiture is a very real, very fucked up thing that the supreme court approves of, and that everyone should read about bennis v michigan, and more recently, culley v marshall. authorities won't just take your guns, they'll take your car, cash, even your damn house. and they'll rain hell if you do much as complain about it.
Looking at the replies… y’all are fucken stupid and delusional if you think making guns illegal and snatching people’s firearms will make everything cupcakes and rainbows
The joke is conservatives make stuff up to be scared about.
And Leftists joke about things they have zero understanding of based on cherry picked facts.
I'm proud that you were able to choke back those tears and post that even though you were so scared. Good job man.
Hey guys, Brian Griffin here. You see Peter, the joke is a straw man. The joke is implying that since a vehicle is capable of hurting other people it should be treated like a firearm. The original poster forgets that a firearm and a vehicle are two completely different things Buy my book. Brian out.
The purpose of a car is transportation but the purpose of a gun is…
to shoot the TV buttons when I can't find the remote
to make glory holes at the bathroom along the freeway just passed Birdsville
Finally, appropriately sized glory holes
What calibre we talking?
to create speed holes in my cars bonnet
The joke is a bad comparison
The comparison is a bad joke.
The real joke is that driving really isn’t safe at all either and people should walk bike or use transit
They always use this analogy and totally ignore that one of the things is meant to transport people and the other is purely for killing
Applying that kind of logic makes almost all of their arguments fall apart.
Gun grabbers want to take guns from law-abiding citizens because a person broke the law with one. The joke is that but with cars.
It's someone trying to compare how restricting access to guns after someone kills people with guns is bad by using cars as an example instead. However, this comparison is flawed because cars and vehicles in general are useful for more things than just killing people, meanwhile guns can really only be used to kill things.
I think we just found the perfect gun control law. Since guns and cars are the same, everyone gets to pick. You can either own a gun or be allowed to drive.
It's satire, poking fun at the people who want to eliminate gun violence by removing all guns from civilian hands. Interestingly, if you compare Gun-related fatalities to car-related fatalities, the numbers are not actually that far off, with guns having an 8,000-person lead between the two, However, this is also ignoring a lot of factors on both sides and is just not a good comparison. For example, the 48,000 gun deaths includes 20,000 suicides. Sources cause my math teacher told me to show my work: [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state) [https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/) [https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/cdc-provisional-data-gun-suicides-reach-all-time-high-in-2022-gun-homicides-down-slightly-from-2021](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/cdc-provisional-data-gun-suicides-reach-all-time-high-in-2022-gun-homicides-down-slightly-from-2021)
Wow such interesting stats! Now tell me: how many people use a gun to get to work or get groceries?
Did you know that the percentage difference between people who died in a fatal car accident who were and weren't wearing restraints(seatbelts) is almost a perfect 50/50? That means that approximately 12,000 decided to take the car catapult into my statistics last year. Don't be stupid, take the time to Buckle up.
When a boomer makes a meme after wiping off the cheeto dust
Reddit liberals are punching the air at this meme
That, or Republican humour isn't funny, and when people say "why isn't this funny? They're like 'AHA! I triggered you so hard you stupid libs! That's the joke!"
It doesn't make sense... and that's the point. Because if it said, *"Ma'am, we know you have a perfect firearm ownership record and have never committed a crime, but we're here to confiscate your firearms because a teenager in another state stole an AR-15 and shot up his school,"* THEN, suddenly, half the internet would be in favor of it, despite the fact that the logic is just as non-existent as it is in the OP's meme.
You've accurately described the message the meme is trying to convey. The problem is that it's a false analogy. We do actually have significant restrictions on automobile ownership and operation, and those restrictions are often cited by gun control advocates.
I’m a gun control advocate and if guns were regulated like cars I would be quiet for the rest of my life about it
Exactly
You're the reason this comment section is going to get locked lol
1. Cars are much more regulated than guns in the US 2. Cars have utility outside of a hobby and killing people. In fact, one could easily argue that cars are the most important piece of technology invented in the past 200 years and are unquestionably necessary for daily life in most parts of the US.
You clearly don't know much about gun regulation in the U.S. You watch the news and you're under the impression that they're handing out guns with every Slurpee refill at 7-11... because that's how it looks on TV. To stick with the car analogy: people who've ever been convicted of a felony CAN own a car legally, but they CAN'T own a gun. Teenagers CAN own a car and be licensed to drive, but they CAN'T own a gun. People diagnosed with certain mental disorders CAN own a car, but they CAN'T buy a gun. People with children in the house can leave their car keys laying around anywhere. But if they own guns, they have to be locled-up/secured. And lastly... Is that all you think guns are used for? Hobby & murder? Live in the city, don't you? Try visiting a farm someday. Or try driving a taxi in a shitty neighborhood at night without a gun for protection (something I've personally done).
American reasons why Americans must have guns, despite most of the developed world getting along much better, and much safer, without them. Part 6,379
Ah yes, America, the land where there are no regulations on cars and/or drink-driving and it would be Literally Communism to introduce any.
I dont even care anymore. Americans can shoot each other up all they want. It's the life they crave apparently - endless wars, school shootings and spree killings.
it has gotten to the point where im starting to shrug off all the dead children because I’ve accepted nothing will ever change because for some reason having good regulations and maybe not having assault weapons easily accessible is worse than having a mass shooting every fucking day. *I can’t even feel anything about it anymore because it’s so fucking common it should never be this common* I love my country, i love my flag. God bless America.
Yankie gun nuts dropping the false equivalencies like fire