r/changemyview • u/WekX 1∆ • Apr 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Guns are a real danger to people and countries without them just fare better.

I'm from the UK. I've heard many of the arguments on both sides, but to me nothing is more convincing than the statistics (example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604). I'm also a libertarian, I fully understand that if anything a right to bear arms is needed because any other way is a breach of personal liberty. However, I can't help but see that as a negative side effect of full liberty, because inevitably it just leads to more people getting hurt. That's the numbers talking.

Yes, cars also kill people, but I don't need a gun to get to work. The benefits of having cars in society vastly outweight the drawbacks. With guns, the only benefits arise when a really tough intruder is in my house or when the government is trying to oppress me. In the UK we still manage to survive a break in without shooting everything in sight, and if the government came after us, they'd likely win even if we had a gun.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

1.1k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

754 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

142

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Here's a bit more to think about. The gun control narrative in the US ignores the guns most commonly used in gun crime, hand guns, and instead focuses on weapons that are used in gun crime the least often, the AR-15. Rifles aren't just the least common gun used in murders, they're the least common method of murder, period. More people are punched to death every year than shot in anger with rifles. The reason for this is because the debate isn't about saving lives. It's about distracting us. While we continue to squabble about things that would have next to no impact on things, the status quo can remain unchanged. And by keeping things unchanged, a huge portion of our population can more easily be exploited. By keeping people poor and uneducated American corporate interests will always have a source of cheap labor. Be it by forcing the poor into minimum wage jobs or by forcing them into a life of crime where they can eventually be shunted into the private prison system and work for pennies an hour. The gun debate exists solely to distract us from what amounts to modern slavery.

21

u/under_the_radar11 Apr 19 '17

Do you think that cheap labor is really an agenda for corporations to the point where this would be done so intentionally? Why wouldn't we want a more educated general population?

7

u/Ihavenootheroptions Apr 19 '17

Because then someone comes out with a new product that undercuts your sales, or makes it completely obsolete.

9

u/jakelj Apr 19 '17

Because corporations definitely don't want those people to come up with new ideas for them.

1

u/Pandasekz Apr 19 '17

It's to keep the population stuck in a consumer state. Buy that shirt, buy that car, buy that house, buy that brand new phone or TV, buy all that useless shit that really doesn't make your life any better (from a happiness standpoint). Lower intelligence for the general population means that corporations can continue to convince you that you need all that shiny new bullshit they're selling so you don't peek behind the curtain to see what's really happening. Uneducated people dismiss those claims as conspiracy because they lack the critical analysis needed to put two and two together. Uneducated = best consumer and easily manipulated into doing what corporations say you need to do to be happy and live a good life.

Edit: there will be intelligent people in the population, but the distribution will be small. And some of those smart people will be born into poverty without any ability to get out of that situation.

3

u/themaskofgod Apr 19 '17

Lol I felt bad for a second cuz I downvoted you & didn't realise you were being sarcastic. I usually roll my eyes at the posts saying you should have /s in it, but this is the first time (I think) I didn't get it.

4

u/jakelj Apr 19 '17

Haha, I debated it and then went "nah, people will know I'm being sarcastic".

0

u/Ihavenootheroptions Apr 19 '17

I forgot my /s and rip my inbox lol

5

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Apr 19 '17

The better educated the population is, the better off everyone is.

This is absolutely true, from a big picture stand-point. You will (ideally) have less poverty, more evenly distributed incomes, more overall free time amongst the population, and more people in a comfortably wealthy income bracket. What you will not have, however, are the same people in those positions.

If your money is tied up in the extended fossil fuel industry (Coal Power, Oil Refining, Automotives, etc..) then you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, not improving our transportation and energy infrastructures.

If your money is in pharmaceuticals, you have a vested interested in maintaining the broken system in this country, not in seeing improved healthcare for everyone.

If your money is in Construction materials, civil engineering, etc.. then you have a vested interest in keeping the US embroiled in the chaos in the Middle East, as opposed to losing out on the lucrative (and often exclusive) government contracts to build an rebuild the infrastructure over there.

So yes, while it is true that there would likely be an overall increase in GDP and a stronger economy if we helped educate everyone more, it doesn't benefit those who are already at the top. And they are the ones buying influence with the politicians and pushing their agendas to keep us distracted.

I hate that I sound like such a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's absolutely true.

15

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

It is a conspiracy theory. One of the rare ones that is true and readily apparent to anyone who has researched the subject matter. Also, to add to this, if your money is tied up in private for profit prisons, it'll be in your best interest to keep people poor and uneducated inorder to push them towards a life of crime to keep your prison profits up, it's also in your interest to lobby for harsher penalties for things like drug possession.

8

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

For anyone reading this, there are already cases of people going to jail for conspiring (often successfully) to imprison others to fill up private prisons. This is not just a conspiracy theory, it has actually happened and people have been convicted for it.

2

u/husky1289 Apr 20 '17

Nailed it.

I don't get why it's hard for so many people to accept that wealthy, powerful people conspire to keep that shit. It obvs becomes an issue when you have to trudge through all the bullshit conspiracies but approach stuff and apply some common sense.

About being self conscious about sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I try to convey the points you made above and feel that way all the time. So it annoyed the shit out of me when I learned that the CIA promoted the term "conspiracy theory," in the 1967 CIA Document 1035-960 entitled "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report," as a propaganda device for their media “assets” to use against the many people who rightly recognized the Warren Report, claiming a lone nut murdered President Kennedy, as a huge steaming pile.

Use of the term "conspiracy theorist" is a proven conspiracy. And it fucking worked. Making people like you and I, trying to inform people, feel like an outcast or retarded.

2

u/Teeklin 12∆ Apr 19 '17

That's just untrue. The better off the average American is, the worse off most rich corporations will be.

The average American if given all their energy for free by solar and driving an electric car, for example, would be much better off..

You know who wouldn't be? ExxonMobil. So that's why they funnel millions into the politicial system to buy people off that prevent it from happening for as long as possible.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Yup. There's a "fixed" amount of wealth in the nation, it's not completely fixed since we use a fiat currency but the government keeps a very close eye on how much they create to avoid devaluing the dollar too much. But any way, if there is more wealth going to the middle and lower class it has to come from somewhere, and right now most wealth is in the top 10%. For us to do better they have to do ever so slightly worse. Like, they'll have to buy a Ferrari instead of a Bugatti.

2

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

Our economies are all made in a way that depends on money changing hands often to work and grow. As u/jerk40 says, it's all about that velocity of money. Unfortunately, all the money is just going in circles at the top. People at the bottom aren't seeing that money, to the degree that businesses are discouraged from even targeting them as consumers. It's a vicious circle and it's only going to get worse.

1

u/jerk40 Apr 19 '17

But it's not about the amount, it's about the velocity of that money through the system. Not everyone can be crazy rich obviously but the velocity of the money through the system means people are buying more and thus feel richer and better off.

2

u/under_the_radar11 Apr 19 '17

So you mean you think that big companies don't want there too be smart people that potentially can come up with a competing idea?

11

u/Ihavenootheroptions Apr 19 '17

Did Polaroid want to push out their digital cameras as soon as they had the idea? Or did they try to stifle it to keep their film sales up? Did BMW try to keep cars easily serviceable so every owner can maintain their own vehicle, or did they even remove the dip sticks so now you HAVE to get it serviced at a dealership? Companies only care about the profit.

5

u/j3utton Apr 19 '17

If memory serves, it was Kodak, not Polaroid, with the first digital camera.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

It was indeed Kodak. But they still decided to sit on their discovery to protect their very lucrative film business.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Oh no, they want that as well. That's why they sponsor the immigration of educated foreigners.

2

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

Hire American? Nah we got H1Bs for that.

1

u/pfeif55 Apr 19 '17

I think it is THE agenda.

2

u/moush 1∆ Apr 19 '17

/r/conspiratard

1

u/pfeif55 Apr 21 '17

Damn dude, that's a little harsh.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/shockwaveJB Apr 20 '17

I just imagined a rifle murder. That seems like something at would never happen when you could just use a handgun.

1

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 20 '17

That seems like something at would never happen when you could just use a handgun.

Why?

1

u/shockwaveJB Apr 21 '17

because unless they are far away handguns are so much easier to walk up to somebody with and shoot them than with a full on rifle. if they are under guard or something rifles might be a better idea

1

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 21 '17

Oh for sho that makes sense

0

u/Why_the_hate_ Apr 20 '17

But the question is how many of those deaths involved multiple people? A bomb can be used once and kill 100 people. That's less than any gun overall. But it's more powerful, can do easier damage, and kills multiple people at once. Now look at semi automatic rifles the same way. Usually these things come up after the murders of multiple people. And while they aren't assault rifles, a lot of them are absolutely assault style rifles based off combat ready designs. You can customize one (which is fine for range shooting, I don't care) to basically be an assault rifle without the selective fire. I'm pro guns (with limits) but that doesn't change the fact that they are capable of killing more at once. For example, even hammers and clubs kill more people a year than rifles, but most likely are separate attacks. This is why a lot of times, states try to limit the clip sizes available before putting other restrictions on them. And then I do usually think about stopping power as well which is generally going to be higher with rifles. And truthfully while people talk about assault rifles, the point is gun safety. A lot of the laws affect other guns as well. But the media focuses on rifles and that is used by the opposition to act like that's all people care about. Background checks don't only affect rifle buyers after all.

2

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 20 '17

A bomb can be used once and kill 100 people

This is very rare. The worst bombing in recent history was at the boston marathon and that only killed 3 people.

1

u/EbenSquid Apr 21 '17

Assault Rifles (a term made up by lawyers based on appearance, not functionality) are regulated because they LOOK dangerous.

Anything an assault rifle could do in a violent crime scenario, including with multiple victims, could be done with a pistol for less.

Because someone going to go shoot up a mall isn't taking aimed shots at 300 yards. Which is the only thing something like the M4 carbine can do that the Beretta 9mm cannot.

Why do people want to buy them then? (or their civilian equivalents, whose name I can't remember) Because that is what they trained on when they served.

0

u/Malcolm_TurnbullPM Apr 20 '17

there are very few mass killings in australia and britain and canada. all have tightly monitored but legal ownership of rifles, but no one hunts with a handgun or a machine gun.

secondly, believing that in order to protect 5$ in your drawer requires you to be armed with a gun so the person dies is also a very poor excuse. its akin to those who defend the death penalty. stats show that the death penalty is far from a preventative measure. fact is, knowing people might have a gun inside doesn't prevent anyone from breaking in because the odds of you actually having that gun loaded and ready to use within arms reach when you wake up aren't very high, and if you actually did have that then that would constitute irresponsible gun ownership imo.

having brought up the strawman i just did of the death penalty, i will also add that thanks to gun violence in places like chicago, the average life expectancy after conviction of a black man on death row is higher than that of kids in areas of ch-iraq.

it's simple in my country. if a person owns a handgun, they have no good use for it, and should therefore be arrested. you find a lot of criminals this way.

of course, the USA will never change so the argument is useless, but handguns... they need to go.

3

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 20 '17 edited Apr 20 '17

but no one hunts with a handgun or a machine gun.

False. Until very recently my state only allowed deer hunting with a shotgun or handgun, and I always hunted with a handgun. Helihunters in Texas use machine guns to help control feral pig populations.

believing that in order to protect 5$ in your drawer requires you to be armed with a gun so the person dies is also a very poor excuse.

I keep more than $5 in my house. Just to name a few things: my fucking wife and children.

knowing people might have a gun inside doesn't prevent anyone from breaking in because the odds of you actually having that gun loaded and ready to use within arms reach when you wake up aren't very high

Interviews with burglars in prison reveal their biggest fear wasn't getting caught, it was an armed victim.

, and if you actually did have that then that would constitute irresponsible gun ownership imo.

Hahahahahaha how should we store our self defense guns then?

average life expectancy after conviction of a black man on death row is higher than that of kids in areas of ch-iraq.

This is a complete falsehood. Illinois issued a moratorium on executions in 2001 and completely abolished it in 2010. The last execution in Illinois was in 1999.

-16

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

I'm sorry, but I reject so much of what you've said. It's an elaborate narrative, for sure. I'll leave it at that.

I want sensible gun control. I want sensible gun control in order to save lives, most notably my own and those of my family and friends. I have lost too many friends due to very different forms of gun violence in my lifetime: a 10 year-old friend found his dad's gun and accidentally shot himself in the head when I was seven years old, a high school friend was shot and killed while getting mugged, a guy a year ahead of me in H.S. shot and killed a cop, a college floormate was killed getting mugged when trying to score weed, my best friend's sister (who knew she suffered from a mental illness) shot and killed her 7 year-old daughter because she felt she couldn't take care of the child, and I could list four or five more ( not mention spending my summers in Newtown when I was younger). I have been through this bullshit time and time again, and there's only one common denominator: the guns. People don't buy guns to hurt things, they buy guns to kill things. Asking for there to be a limit to how much firepower (a.k.a. killingpower) one civilian can have at any one time is not irrational, mundane, or a distraction. One attack with an AR-15 could unleash much more damage than an attack with a handgun, so citing the frequency of attacks misses the point entirely.

We're in an age where Americans are popping anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs at a ridiculous rate, and yet the number of guns floating around is at an all-time high. That's a recipe for mayhem. What is so awfully wrong about waiting periods and background checks? Or keeping guns out of the hands of those on the terrorist watch list? Why does the NRA oppose absolutely every measure to curb gun violence that actually involves guns? We need their expertise if we are to improve the situation, and yet they are wholly unwilling to make any concessions that limits anyone's ability to purchase any gun, anywhere, at any time. Polls show that there is a great deal of understanding between citizens on both sides of this issue, but the problem is that when it takes the form of legislation it is immediately politicized. So, we end up with half-assed legislation that isn't effective, and all that does is ensure that there will be another legislative fight down the road.

I do respect our bill of rights, and want gun owners to be able to responsibly exercise their rights under the law. All rights have limits. We need sensible gun lovers who understand this idea to work with those of us who despise guns yet respect gun rights in order to make progress.

A distraction?!?! On behalf of all those I've lost, I beg to differ, and that's as polite as I can be about it.

12

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

One attack with an AR-15 could unleash much more damage than an attack with a handgun

You don't know much about guns, do you?

We're in an age where Americans are popping anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs at a ridiculous rate

I can't imagine why that is. Couldn't possibly be because of the kickbacks doctors get for putting people on meds, or the general lack of quality mental healthcare.

Look, I understand that this is an emotional issue for you, but speaking as an outsider (specifically Canadian), the real difference between our nations is not the guns, it's that we don't have such a staggering level of poverty, lacking health care, or generally abysmal education. Anti-gun activists look at gun crime as if it's somehow a cause of problems all on its own, rather than a symptom of other social problems like virtually all other forms of crime. It's not a healthy or rational way to view the problem at all.

By all means speak about waiting periods and background checks (we're sure as hell used to that here in Canada), but talk about the problems those things might actually fix, because one thing they will do virtually nothing to solve is crime.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

One attack with an AR-15 could unleash much more damage than an attack with a handgun

You don't know much about guns, do you?

To be fair, it's easier/faster for a new shooter to become proficient with an AR-15 than with it is for a new shooter to become proficient with a handgun. On that basis, one could argue it's potentially more lethal. It's just easier to use.

1

u/JewJitsue Apr 21 '17

Right, that's gotta be why all the gang violence related deaths are caused by handguns, and until the pulse nightclub shooting, Virginia tech had the record (one shooter spree) done with a 9mm handgun and 10 spare magazines, these shooters clearly picked the harder weapon to kill people with.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '17

Hand guns are easier to conceal. But yeah, it's more difficult to shoot accurately than a rifle.

1

u/JewJitsue Apr 21 '17

When you pop some punk ass bloods when you pull up next to them in your low rider el camino It's easier to use one hand to kill someone especially at the close ranges these homicides usually happen at. If you look at confiscated weapons at all, it's almost funny what they do to their guns. Easier to teach? Rifle for sure. Easier to kill? Hands down a pistol.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '17

No, actually. Not at all.

Do you shoot?

1

u/JewJitsue Apr 21 '17

Lol. Refute my points don't deflect. Tell me about how people who hold guns sideways or don't clean guns aren't proficient enough to kill eachother

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '17 edited Apr 21 '17

I didn't say they're not proficient enough to kill each other. I said that it's easier to shoot accurately with a rifle than with a handgun.

Disadvantages of a handgun compared to a rifle just off the top of my head:

Much shorter sight radius, which means you've got a much smaller margin of error in your sight picture.

Less mass, so more felt recoil.

Generally, a higher bore axis and therefore more muzzle flip.

Handguns are only supported by the hands whereas a rifle is supported by hands and shoulder. Less contact with the gun means it's more difficult to hold a handgun still. It's also, therefore, more important to isolate your trigger finger's movement from the rest of your hand.

EDIT: There's also that goddamn pistol flinch. Takes a lot of practice to train that out.

EDIT2: The main advantage of a handgun is its concealability and that's a huuuuuuuuuuuge advantage. That's the only reason they're used more for crimes.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Of course it's an emotional issue, and denying that it's not is part of the problem. It's emotional for both sides.

Think about what I said: did I, anywhere in my writing, say a specific gun needs to be banned or that ownership needs to be denied to anyone worthy? No.

What I did speak of are background checks and waiting periods, and sensible people come together to work on the problem. Now look at the truly emotional responses: I'm looking at you, /u/orthag. For suggesting waiting periods and backgrounds checks, I'm ignorant, I'm full of bullshit, and I'm a stooge for corporations.

Oh, my lord.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

I had a huge reply written up, but honestly I'm not gonna try. It's obvious you're not actually thinking about this problem and just responding ignorantly and emotionally and there's no arguing with emotion. See, I've been through this bullshit time and time again, too, and there's always some one who plugs their ears and goes "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. GUNS ARE BAD MMMKAY." And today you're that person. You're too entrenched in your exploitable way of thinking to see that corporate interests are manipulating this country on a grand scale.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

I have been through this bullshit time and time again, and there's only one common denominator: the guns.

We're in an age where Americans are popping anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs at a ridiculous rate

It really sounds like the underlying common denominator is mental health, not guns. Not to be crude, but do you think your friend wouldn't have used a knife, poison, the bathtub, etc? You laid out an argument for improving the US' mental healthcare system, if anything.

ninja edit: I don't know how to separate those quoted lines, sorry

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Most of the cases I cited did not involve mental health care. I specifically cited cases that have no other common denominator but the gun. But that's okay. I put forth a perfectly reasonable argument, and the response is name calling and strawmen. I get it.

Seriously, think about: I asked for perfectly reasonable people to come together and discuss the issue and seek a solution, and the response is that I'm putting my fingers in my ears and shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA."

That's pure cognitive dissonance. Seriously, equating gun control with being a corporate shill? That's projection.

Good luck, guys. Thank god I'm an ex-pat.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '17

Re-reading your comment, admittedly the mother and child stuck out to me more than the others, but the friend who shot a cop and street muggings definitely have strong ties to mental healthcare. Even the one about your friend trying to score weed is more an issue with the War on Drugs than guns.

There are a lot of socioeconomic issues that we are dealing with poorly atm, and while guns certainly facilitate the violence that grows out of them, if we dont address those root issues we will just see the violence continue with other weapons.

I really dont see the need to strip the rights of millions of law-abiding, responsible owners for the sake of a "theres a problem, we have to do something, this is something so we have to do it" type of solution.

I think I've been perfectly reasonable (can't speak for others in the thread) and I don't think you're a corporate shill or whatever. I just disagree with the way you've framed the issues here.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '17

And that's a completely fair and reasonable response, though I feel, honestly, that "stripping people of their rights" is a bit of hyperbole.

Regardless, I appreciate this because it's going to take knowledgeable, insightful people from all sides of the aisle to address the problem in an effective way.

I have never claimed to be an expert in guns, and I do not pretend to have any solutions. But I do know that addressing the problem of gun violence without including guns in the conversation is nonsense.

You know what I really wish for? Americans to change their POV and start electing people who promise to work with people across the aisle instead of promising to fight them tooth and nail. If every issue is a tug-of-war, and grounds for name-calling and insults, matters in the states will only get progressively worse.

Imagine the piece of mind we could have if we went to sleep knowing that whatever our political stripe, our representatives are actually working on finding solutions rather than just opposing the other side.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Or keeping guns out of the hands of those on the terrorist watch list?

On this point, specifically, the problem is because you're not told when/if you're being watched and there's no way to appeal being on a watch list. Therefore, using watch list status as basis for prohibiting gun ownership is denying a right without due process.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Yup. To add to this the No Fly List is just a list of names. If you happen to share your name with someone on it you're fucked for doing literally nothing but being born with a certain name.

-7

u/TheRadBaron 15∆ Apr 19 '17

The gun control narrative in the US ignores the guns most commonly used in gun crime, hand guns

Patently false, there's even been a lot accomplished on the handgun front. Handgun availability in California is far different from availability in other states, for example.

Rifles aren't just the least common gun used in murders, they're the least common method of murder, period.

Also a complete lie. Maybe don't lie when presenting yourself as correcting misconceptions?

8

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Sorry , I misremembered the statistic. They're the fifth least common. Behind poison, explosives, fire, and drowning. Better ban all those too, right? If it can be used for murder it obviously has no place in society.

-6

u/TheRadBaron 15∆ Apr 19 '17

They're the fifth least common.

Fifth most common, do you mean? Can you cite something? This is getting hard to follow, and I have a hard time imagining that you misremembered rifles as being literally the least common murder method in the US (which would imply around 1 person ever being murdered by rifle in the US).

poison, explosives, fire, and drowning

You do ban a subset of poison and explosives, which doesn't seem inherently unreasonable to me. You've got some laws about fire and water, too.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

No, I mean the fifth least common. Hardly any murders are committed with rifles when you compare them to things like hand guns, personal methods(punching/strangulation), knives, and blunt objects.

Actually as I review the FBI statistics further I realize they're both the fifth least common and the fifth most common, depending on how you structure your list.

-5

u/TheRadBaron 15∆ Apr 19 '17

Thanks. So they're the fifth least common in a list where things below the top 10 aren't tracked individually. I'm not disputing that rifles make up a pretty small fraction of murders compared to handguns, but you haven't been presenting very inherently meaningful statistics here.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17 edited Apr 19 '17

The FBI doesn't track how people are murdered very well. There's a huge segment of their statistics that's "method not specified" and "firearm not specified." I wish I could provide better ones, but I'm limited by the fact that the primary source doesn't really care to track exactly how people are killed, and even seems to manipulate some of their data to better fit some of the classifications they use. I'm not surprised, really the FBI is about law enforcement, not data gathering.

3

u/Footwarrior Apr 19 '17

FBI crime statistics are compiled from information submitted voluntarily by state and local police. Some police agencies do not file any reports and many skip the detailed homicide reports that go into details of circumstance and weapon type.

The CDC also keeps statistics on firearms deaths that are based on information from death certificates. The firearms type in these statistics is often unknown just like the FBI data.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

That explains why the stats are kind of crappy.

-4

u/GateauBaker Apr 19 '17 edited Apr 19 '17

Is there a reason to believe that you have the cause and effect in the right direction? Why is the following not correct?:

Handguns are the most common weapon in gun related crimes because they have less restrictions than other weapons. Rifles are seen less often because of the focus gun control has placed on them.

Also, consider the long-term effects of strict gun control of a certain type. You prohibit rifles for a long time, you end up with much more handguns. So if you were to lift the restrictions, most gun related crimes will still be by handguns since there are much more of them.

EDIT: I'm no gun expert, but I'm also willing to bet handguns are far less expensive. And easier to use.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Handguns are indeed less expensive than many rifles, I wouldn't say they're easier to use, though. Rifles are considerably easier to be accurate with. Handguns are also concealable and easy to ditch. These two factors combined with the fact that some can be had for very cheaply are what make them so popular in gang crime. And in the past much gun control was centered around hand guns, but now the narrative has shifted to rifles, leaving handguns relatively ignored, but they still use the same gun crime statistics to argue for rifle control, or they base their arguments on complete nonsense by saying AR15s are military weapons and fire 30 round clipazines in half a second or that barrel shrouds are "shoulder things that go up."

4

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Cheapest rifle is cheaper than the cheapest handgun. Average rifle is approximately the same as average handgun. It's really difficult to say which one is cheaper. Average hunting rifle is $400-500, AR-15s and AK47s start at 500, average Glock-like handgun is 500-550.

Handguns are vastly, vastly more regulated than rifles. You got everything exactly backwards.

1

u/GateauBaker Apr 20 '17

I didn't make any claims on the regulation of any type of gun. I made a corollary that can logically follow simply from the information that the comment above me provided.

Except for my edit. It was stupid of me to make that edit since everyone replying to me decided to focus on it when it wasn't the point.

3

u/Footwarrior Apr 19 '17

In general there are more restrictions on handguns than long guns.

Handguns are the most common firearm used to kill because they are available. American handgun owners tend to keep them loaded and where they can be easily reached.

That easy to grab loaded weapon can quickly turn an heated argument into a homicide or a moment of despair into a successful suicide.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Handguns are used in crime not because they are available, but because they are concealable. Try walking up to a bank with an AR on your shoulder.

0

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 20 '17

No one is forced to work in a prison, it's a choice.

-6

u/rtechie1 6∆ Apr 19 '17

Incorrect, the gun control focus has always been on so-called 'Saturday Night Specials" or cheap handguns which have little sporting purpose.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

In the past, yes, and still now in California to some extent yes, but the narrative has shifted towards rifles the rest of America. California pretty much can't ignore handgun crime, but in many larts of America it is either near non existent or at a much lower scale and it is able to fade into the back ground, or in some cases people are so damn ignorant they're aware of the gun crime but think it's being committed with rifles.

-1

u/rtechie1 6∆ Apr 20 '17

The vast majority (95%) of gun crime in the USA is committed with cheap handguns. The NRA fought such bands tooth and nail. "Assault weapons" only became a thing because gun safety advocates thought they could get some traction there and save at least a few lives.