Hey guys, I’m obviously very pro-2A, but my friend is not. He says he sees other developed western nations that have no mass shootings or very little mass shootings (which is obvious, we have more guns than anyone). But does anyone have any hard stats? For example, I think I recall that there was a stat that there was only 27 mass shootings in the last X years. Any stats would be greatly appreciated
EDIT: I mentioned this in a reply, but he’s going to the “but the founding fathers only had muskets!”
EDIT2: You guys rock, he’s totally bowing down. I told him part of the reason is because the media jams it down our throats, which he agrees with now that I’m relaying your guys arguments
statistics have no bearing on the second amendment one way or the other. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Argument over case closed.
💯
Go research how many people have been killed by terrorist attacks while running over crowds of people in vehicles in Europe. Pretty sure the record is like 70 people dying from one truck in France which makes our mass shootings look weak.
Not to mention the ACID or knife attacks that seem to plague the UK.
Of course they also conveniently ignote that European criminals have no problem getting guns and going to war in the streets when they want to.
..but US media never reports on it so I wouldnt expect your friend to know that.
Switzerland gets overlooked in the gun debates. Doesn't fit the narrative.
Well look at the demographics and notice which minority isn't there committing 90% of the homicides. But diversity is our strength.
It was a wise decision by the Swiss to limit Amish
Personally, I wouldn’t get down into the weeds on this. I would simply say, “look, we have a constitutional right to have guns. With all you see going on in this country have you bought one yet?”
He’s trying to go with “but the founding fathers only had muskets!!”
Is he communicating over a medium other than parchment and quill pens?
We’re having an in person conversation and I’m just trying to completely shred his arguments more than I already have
My point was that the 1st Amendment covers modern communication tools, not just what was available when it was written. 😉
And the tyrannical government that they had just overthrown also only had muskets. This is the point.
Tell to get himself one. They didn’t have antifa Marxists back then either. They didn’t have electricity at one time either - when is he giving up his?
Haha good point
They just got done fighting an revolutionary war against the most powerful empire at the time. To claim they didn’t understand the need for protection devices of equal nature to the enemy would be asinine.
There are mass killings all around the world. The US didn’t corner the market on evil people. The tools used for killing are irrelevant. London just banned knives of any kind because of so many mass stabbings.
The founders guaranteed our God given right to self defense. So long as any government or non- govt criminal has access to a gun so should you.
Pisses me off that I can’t buy the necessary arms and armament to protect me from the pedocrats in our government. That is the evil the 2nd was meant to protect us from, it wasn’t so you could have a rifle to go squirrel hunting.
The US also isn’t like any other country. It truly is a one of a kind. The constitution is like no other. Not ruled by monarchs or still affiliated with Britain. Not ruled by unelected bureaucrats like the EU, etc... Ask him why everyone wants to be in the US. If people hate it, there are other places to live. Explore, venture out, find that perfect society for you.
And even so, people are still getting stabbed left and right. But at least they’re getting those deadly butter knives out of law-abiding citizens’ hands!
If he is focusing on mass shootings remind him only 0.5% (half of a percent) to 2.5% depending if you use real data or liberal data, also brush up on how few deaths are caused by law enforcement and "assault rifles"
The FBI collects data on “active shooter incidents,” which it defines as “as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Using the FBI’s definition, 85 people – excluding the shooters – died in such incidents in 2018.
The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people – excluding the shooter – are shot or killed. Using this definition, 373 people died in these incidents in 2018.
Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Those arguments are valid but they won't sway most 70 IQ people.
A proper study puts things into a global perspective and it turns out western Europe has it WAY worse than us.
Two words: Utøya shooting.
anyone with a room temp IQ+ doesn't start with "mass shooting" that is someone who gets all their knowledge from fearnews
HAHAHAHAHA does your "friend" realize we taxpayers foot the bill for our military to protect most developed countries around the world? Which is why those countries feel confident enough that their citizens don't need to protect themselves?
Your "friend" is retarded and uninformed. Just bring up the Utøya shooting in Norway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks). It's the deadliest mass shooting in modern history and it occurred in one of the nations that's strawmanned as being "socialist" by Bernietards, with some of the strictest gun control laws for modern Western civilization. That should shut your "friend" up quick.
You can also link this paper.
Thanks dude. He’s being totally respelled!!!
If you remove killings by a very small demographic the US has a murder rate lower than Finland.
We are not allowed to talk about that demographic because 'their lives matter'...
The number of people who were killed by their own government, after they were disarmed, exceedes the number killed in mass shootings by millions of times over.
The Bill of Rights outlines our UNALIENABLE rights. These are rights that the Government cannot remove.
The 2nd amendment has existed for a long time. The craziness is more recent, therefore look at the other changes, mental patients turned loose, communist bullshit being acceptable, mass immigration, black culture accounts for a fuck ton of the shootings, social media addiction, more attention worldwide for people motivated by that, destruction of the nuclear family. Obviously places that heavily restrict gun ownership will have less gun crime, that’s not news. No cars would cut down on a lot of death as well. So would alcohol and smoking being illegal, let’s also have a mandatory diet for health.
Yes we are having a conversation in person. I have pretty much won the argument but I want to destroy him
Mass shootings isn't an argument against guns. It's an argument FOR guns because it just means the people need to openly carry firearms to deter potential assailants. Mass shootings only happen to victims who are defenseless.
Is right there in the constitution. Debate over