this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
109 points (97.4% liked)
news
278 readers
1020 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Banning guns isn't going to bring the numbers down much if any. Way to many guns out there, it would take 100+ years for the guns to dry up and even then you'd still have them. You're other points are correct, if we want to curb this violence then we need to focus on why this happens (in this case gang violence). So drugs/poverty/education/safety nets all need to be introduced.
And just another point about gun deaths. 2/3rds are suicides, which is a "why" not a "what tool" was used.
you could do it quicker, like australia did, with a gun buy back scheme
regarding suicides, guns are way too easy. with most other methods, one needs to invest a more mental and physical effort, in which time they might change their minds, or others might intervene
also insert the onion article title
Australia had a 60% turn in rate on around 1 million firearms, of which they now have more guns in civ hands than before the buy back. Yet still have a lower rate of gun deaths than we do. Why because they actually have safety nets and give a fuck about their citizens. If we had a 60% turn in rate, there would still be 100+ million firearms in civ hands. 100xs more than what Australia had.
Jumping off a building or hanging or any other form of suicide are the other 50% of suicide. So yes firearms are effective and heavily used but you still have 50% using other methods.
While that's always a funny bit, it literally doesn't get the other reasons why it won't work. Prohibition doesn't work, but it's gonna magically work on firearms?
it seems the only argument the pro-gun side seems to be able to muster is "it wouldn't 100% work, so there's no point even trying"
do you agree with charlie kirk, it's worth having a few (tens of thousand) deaths a year to be able "protect your god given rights"? (makes perfect sense, if you don't think about it) the onion title is not "funny" imo, it's upsetting and true, which is kind of a black comedy when you see people genuinely argue for it
nobody is talking about prohibition, "just" regulation, but also guns are nothing like alcohol or heavy drugs even
That's not what I said at all, what I said was focusing on our citizens well-being will have a much greater impact on gun violence than trying to ban guns.
12-13k people die a year from drunk driving deaths per year, nearly as many as all gun homicides combined (sans suicides which make up 2/3rds of gun deaths). So by your logic, we should ban alcohol and that's the best approach.
Also trying to use that piece of racist shit as a "gotcha" on gun rights is pretty weak, you gonna also toss out that hitler liked bread so I must agree with him too right?
I argue for it, because people like you suggest that the dems use political capital to try and push more gun control when it has very little support, instead of trying to actually solve our societies problems that would have much greater effect on gun violence.
Nearly 4Xs the number of people die via alcohol consumption (178k on average) per year than all gun deaths combined. That's not even adding in drugs. So you don't really care about deaths. Just how they die.
And yes, you aren't suggesting regulation, you're suggesting a ban, because that's what a buy back effectively is.
This guy is an textbook example of a dumb strawman, especially the gun trotting yankistani dumbass kind.
Alcohol doesn't kill someone else out of nowhere. Long term alcoholism or drunk driving does, for which you have to be on the road or nearby it, which everyone and their grandmother already know are inherently dangerous are people inherently become alert and cautious around roads.
Can you fucking take out alcohol in a busy mall, spray everyone, and kill them?
Holy fucking shit, are you even aware of the mental gymnastic it takes to equate guns to alcohol?
Why not say let's ban water because everyone who drinks it dies?
It's not, you type don't care about people dying, you just don't like it when guns are used.
It...kinda does. Did...did you not read my comment that 12-13k people a year are killed by drunk drivers? Shit that's even more random than gun violence? Alcohol has 0 net uses in society....so why aren't you mouthy about alcohol? Is it because you don't give a shit about deaths just how they die? Gonna answer for you and say yep.
Random Mass shootings equate to less than 200 people a year death wise on average. Most mass shootings are targeted and not random. In which alcohol is still king of killing people at random on the road.
Considering how far you had to jump around not to get the references... I understand the topic pretty damn well. You on the other hand are another "guns scare me, please ban them all, and I'll magically feel safe"
Yes because I forgot how everyone needs alcohol to survive. Gotta get my 8 shots a day to feel healthy.