• ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well, 100,000 defensive gun uses is more than 12,000 intentional homicides by 88,000, that’s how. That’s 88,000 times someone DID NOT become a victim of violence because THEY had a gun of their own, and that is the low estimate.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok, that’s the number for the USA, how does the actual crime rate compare to other countries? If the number show that even with more guns there’s more crime then it’s clear that guns aren’t the solution, isn’t it? Wouldn’t your goal be that both those number become as low as possible?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

      You know, there’s more to gun violence than homicides and experts agree that they’re used more for crime then self defense. Adding more and more to the mix is just repeating the cold war at a human level, it’s not fixing anything.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here’s the thing about other countries: There are other variables! Crazy I know, but things like healthcare and wealth inequality and our shit ass school system that more often than not syphons money to the school board while the rest of the country suffers, actually also play a part. Funny how that works.

        Source on that? Cause by everything I’ve seen the estimate of crime with gun regardless of injury is 80,000/yr which is still less than 100,000.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Alright, I’m glad to see that we agree that what’s needed isn’t guns then, it’s to solve the underlying issues. Happy to see you changed your mind. Good talk! Have fun!

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol, no, me making fun of your ridiculous definition of “need” is the complete opposite of agreeing. I prefer the definition the rest of the world uses, y’know, the nondelusional people.

            https://www.wordnik.com/words/need

            noun A condition or situation in which something must be supplied in order for a certain condition to be maintained or a desired state to be achieved. noun Something required or wanted; a requisite. noun Necessity; obligation. noun A condition of poverty or misfortune. intransitive verb To be under the necessity of or the obligation to. intransitive verb To have need of; require. intransitive verb To have an obligation (to do something). intransitive verb To be subject (to an action) by obligation. intransitive verb To want to be subject to. intransitive verb To be in need or want. intransitive verb To be necessary.

            Not one of those mentions “will die without.” That’s you. You aren’t the arbiter of definitions no matter what your delusions of grandeur convince you of.