Most of the points in this post are not accurate. There are more guns in civilian hands here than there are people.

"The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

"Most of them are in the hands of well trained people who are harmless" I am not sure what you base this on, you don't need any training at all to buy a gun, just ~24 - 48 hour waiting period and if you have a concealed carry permit, you can generally walk out with the gun after paying. Depending on the state, training to carry a concealed weapon can take from 2 - 8 hours. Some states don't even require training if you want to open carry your weapon.

In 2010 there were ~20,000 suicides involving a gun. In 2016, there were 11,004 gun homicides. The US leads the world in mass shootings, especially in schools. Accidental gun injuries are most common in homes where guns are kept for self-defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

Getting shot by the police is a leading cause of death in young male people of color.

"you might want to figure out who they are and what their agenda is"

Indeed.

You can buy a gun easily enough. However the people who actually do that tend to be enthusiasts who are well trained. To have a loaded gun on your person you need to be well trained in most states.

Again what do you base this on? I got a concealed carry permit after a 2 hour training class. During this class I had to fire a total of 6 rounds at a target ~15 feet away. I was not given any training on how to use the weapon, only a primer on the laws about when I can shoot someone. At no time did I have to demonstrate that I could safely bring my weapon from concealment to ready without shooting myself in the leg or a bystander. I can guarantee that of the 20 other people in my class, most of them did not meet any definition of "well trained".

"However the people who actually do that tend to be enthusiasts who are well trained" - based on what? You can buy a gun even if you have never fired one before.

Thirty percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 43%, report living in a gun household. - "https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own...

Is your argument that 43% of US households consist of well trained enthusiasts and the this is a small number?

> At no time did I have to demonstrate that I could safely bring my weapon from concealment to ready without shooting myself in the leg or a bystander.

It's not hard. If you pull the trigger, a bullet comes out (if the safety is off and if there is one in the chamber). So, simply don't pull the trigger until you are ready to fire a bullet. Most (if not all) people that buy guns, you included, understand this basic concept.

It's not like guns require massive amounts of experience to achieve proficiency. It's a simple tool, not a piano.

How do you store and carry your weapon safely? How do you transport it? Who has access to it and the ammunition? It is a simple tool that kills tens of thousands of people a year, the least we can do is treat it with at least the level of respect we give other potentially deadly tools (hardly a piano).

Most gun owners give their gun that level of respect.

Car owners kill far more people than gun owners do not give much respect to how deadly their weapon is.

Car owners kill ~38,000 people a year. Guns kill ~15,000 a year (excluding suicides). There are roughly 20,000 suicides a year via firearm. I would argue that if you compared the number of cars driven on a daily basis in the us vs the number of guns fired, that guns cause far more deaths on a per use basis. Seems like Car owners are far more respectful of their 'weapon' on a per capita basis.

+1, on top of that

Car killing people -> mostly accidents.

Gun killing people -> mostly intentional.

> How do you store and carry your weapon safely? How do you transport it? Who has access to it and the ammunition? It is a simple tool that kills tens of thousands of people a year

Unintentionally? I highly doubt that. I would guess the majority of the tens of thousands of deaths were the result of the gun owner intentionally pulling the trigger, not because they were bumbling around transporting it incorrectly, storing ammo incorrectly, etc.

According to this[1], only 500 people died in 2016 due to gun accidents. The rest were intentional.

[1] https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths...

You do realize that 500 gun deaths alone would make headlines in most other countries?

500 accidents in a country with gun rights and a population of over 300M is nothing. You have like a 1 in a million chance of dying by a gun accident. Even lower if you don't own or use guns. It's a non-problem.

Pulling the trigger when you need to sounds like a simple problem in theory, but much more complicated in practice.

My uncle told me a story about when he was deployed to Afghanistan there was a designated area by the mess hall you were supposed to use to ensure your sidearm chamber was clear. Every once in a while, there was an accidental discharge and an officer would be seen over there sheepishly holstering their sidearm. My uncle pointed out that it wasn't required that you had to pull the trigger, just that you had to ensure the chamber was empty. My uncle said he never had a single accidental discharge in the 2 years he was there because he simply never pulled the trigger. If you don't pull the trigger, no bullets come out.

Meanwhile, this happens:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-off...

And this:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/03/19...

So soldiers trained by the US military would sometimes make mistakes with their weapon resulting in a discharge they were not expecting? Seems like perhaps its not so simple a tool after all...

That's like saying a knife isn't a simple tool since chefs sometimes cut themselves despite being trained to use them.

The Mask of Zorro (1998)

Don Diego de la Vega [indicating sword]: Do you know how to use that thing?

Alejandro Murrieta: Yes! The pointy end goes into the other man.

He's parroting NRA talking points.

> You can buy a gun easily enough.

All you need is to know some guy.

> To have a loaded gun on your person you need to be well trained in most states.

All you really need is to grab a loaded gun and conceal it about your person. No paperwork required.

The problem is not guns I think, it's the culture of violence, and fear. Don't Swiss families all have shotguns from the military in their homes?

That's not true. To go from a novice with absolutely no experience with guns to a person with a concealed carry license took one day of a seminar in a southern east coast state.

You are making an innumerate argument. The odds of dying in a car vs getting shot are relevant. There’s no meaningful risk of getting shot and the US is one of the safest places in the world. Those are facts. You should try and get out more.

"There’s no meaningful risk of getting shot and the US is one of the safest places in the world"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

The United States is Ranked 94th in the world by intentional homicide rate.

"The odds of dying in a car vs getting shot are relevant." Why? I did not mention cars at all in my post so not sure how you bringing up cars renders my response illogical. Is your argument that individuals killed by gun violence would still be dead if there were no guns? Does this include victims of mass shootings in schools, churches etc.? By your rational, we should allow all countries to own nuclear weapons as the odds of dying in a car crash vs a nuclear explosion are far higher.

In 2017, over 15,000 people were killed by firearms (excluding suicide) and traffic deaths killed ~38,000. A car's primary function is not to kill, whereas a gun has almost no other purpose.

I appreciate the recommendation to get out more, but one of the nice things about modern technology is we always have access to facts wherever we are, and those facts indicate your points are very flawed.

A few things:

First, when you bring up the page, the list wasn't sorted by rate, so being 94th on it is meaningless. It turns out that if you sort it by rate, the US is 89th, so not much difference, but... the unsorted list didn't prove your point.

Next, so what if the US was Xth on the list? Is that good? Bad? Indifferent? Your claim seems to be that that's high, but you don't actually provide any reason to reach that conclusion based on place on the list.

Why are cars relevant? Because most of us accept the risk of driving in a car, without worrying about the danger level. It's low enough that we just casually accept it. If guns kill half as many, that's too many (it's also too many from cars!), but it's not a danger that keeps many of us awake at night.

> A car's primary function is not to kill, whereas a gun has almost no other purpose.

That argument may not be saying what you think. First, the dead don't care either way. But second, if cars kill more by accident than guns do on purpose, does that make cars better, or worse?

Given the amount of ammunition fired into targets and other inanimate objects for fun, I take issue with that "purpose" argument.

Given that I once threw a bean burrito at a road sign for fun as a teenager I take issue with its supposed purpose of being eaten \s

Your argument is invalid.

Now, let's compare the final destination of the average bean burrito vs the final destination of the average bullet.

Most bullets are destined to be fired directly into objects, most guns fired will never be used to take or defend a life.

Maybe if there were an entire recreational industry built around tossing burritos at road signs. But, uh, there's not.

15,000/325,000,000 ~= 1/25,000. Just for scope because 15,000 sounds big but not that huge for a country this large. Yes its way too high, but its not like Americans are Yosemite Sam all the time.

The only countries in the world with a higher rate are:

Honduras, Eswatini, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Philippines, South Africa, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay

> The US has its problems, but you have been listening to propaganda by anti US forces (you might want to figure out who they are and what their agenda is!)

I think if you think these things are anti-US propaganda, I think you might want to examine the bias you have when you observe your own country.

The death penalty may be rare but it's something that shouldn't exist, especially in a well-developed country and even moreso in a country that frequently proclaims itself the embodiment of freedom, democracy and liberty.

Having grown up in a country that is very restrictive on gun ownership, I feel largely the same about civilian firearms.

Um... you've been making a bunch of statements that at least assume certain values. You only introduced this "scientific" standard when someone disagreed with yours. That seems... suspicious.

As it happens, I mostly share your values. But it's not cool to just turn off conversation based on values because someone doesn't share yours, and because they don't provide a scientific basis.

You're likely right that you could never get agreement on (certain) values with Youden. The conversation still might be worthwhile, though.

I did turn the conversation off: it is clear nobody will win any argument and I'm not interested in continuing it.

I'm a US citizen. Most of his points are valid.

Guns fucking everywhere is a problem. Lots of Americans think so. Yes, we absolutely execute people -- and our criminal justice system is a completely sham, especially if you're not white and rich.

Oh, and God save you from our health care economics.

If I weren't American, I'd absolutely never come here. In fact, I am American, and I'm actively researching ways to establish residency elsewhere.

>Guns fucking everywhere is a problem.

Please elaborate. I have a house in an open carry state, and I rarely seen anyone actually carrying. Even as a gun owner by far the most likely place I'm going to see a gun is on the hip of a law enforcement officer.

Please consult literally any source on gun-related violence, injury, and death in the US vs. any other modern, liberal democracy.

Is it really that bad though. We like painting a negative picture, because we want the US to improve.

But on the human freedom index the US is ranked 17 alongside Sweden.

The US has problems, systemic and cultural problems that should be fixed. But your risk of getting shot in a mass shooting is low.

On one hand, we should always evaluate if we are suffering "the grass is greener over there" effect.

On the other hand, Aaron Sorkin explains[1] in 3 minutes how the USA is far from the best place to live and what made us great when we were better in those different ratings.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw (NSFW audio)

"But your risk of getting shot in a mass shooting is low. "

But absurdly HIGHER than say, in Sweden. And most gun violence isn't mass shootings.

Plus, there's the ever-present specter of medical bankruptcy.

Yes, but overall the risk of getting shot is still low. So it being 10x higher isn't that bad.

I didn't say the US doesn't have issues, just that looking at the whole picture -- and comparing with other countries, it's not that horrible.

In Sweden economic opportunities are slightly fewer. Not that it really matters, if you live in modern Western country you're doing pretty well.

> Guns fucking everywhere is a problem.

Which is a bigger problem - guns everywhere or cars everywhere?

Cars really depend on where you are. The US is huge, and it's not really possible to live in e.g. rural Texas without owning a car. Everything is miles and miles apart. On the flip side, New York has an efficient subway and few people own cars. But with the geography of America, it's simply not practical to have the same sort of public transport common in Europe.. the country is 3000 miles wide.

Unfortunately having cars everywhere (and a car-centric culture and urban landscape) will probably kill more people in the long run via CO2 emissions than gun domestic deaths. The collapse of the entire ecosystem and the corresponding mass extinction is undeniably the most important problem of this century.

While technically true, why is this a useful argument? Amount of guns and amount of cars are not linked in any way

As an American I read that as, "we don't have to change, and anyone who suggests we might is in on some conspiracy." Head out of the sand, my friend.

You are right that the death penalty is rare. Rare as in very few developed countries allow it.

Regarding guns, please stop to ask why our friends and neighbors need to carry a killing device to feel themselves.

The US has its problems, but it has corrected many of them over time. (vide: slavery) This occurred when citizenry was not content to leave things where they are and dismiss criticism.

I would say those concerns are not really big ones, at least not for me. The big ones are treatment of foreigners on state level in US - it is extremely xenophobic. You are literally a lesser human being and have some basic human rights revoked when not holding US passport, morality and sanity be damned.

Imagine this kind of treatment for you if you travel for leisure or business. Would you ever, and I mean ever, want to have anything to do with such a place? People vote with their feet/money.

Anti-US forces really don't have to try hard with propaganda. Heck, they don't have to do anything. US is doing all this by itself, and thanks to internet those cases are not buried as easily as in the past.

> Death penalty exists, but it is rare.

As an American, this attitude drives me nuts. "We don't kill that many people, and heck most of them are even guilty!"

Regarding "loaded guns exist, but they are not common." Again, this is the same attitude of "Even though we have a mass shooting every week, all in all it's not that much." Even if my chances of getting murdered in public are lower than, say, a car accident, the fact that we now teach preschoolers active shooter drills says something sad about our country.

Mass shootings are an incredibly small source of gun deaths. ~2/3rd are suicide and ~1/3rd are murder.

While the US does have pretty high gun related homicide rates, it is largely because proportionally more of our homicides involve guns. Our overall homicide rate is a fair bit higher than most european countries but nowhere near the top world-wide (about #90.)

However, much of this is concentrated into particular locations as the US does have many of the top 50 cities in the world by homicide rate (behind only mexico, brazil and venezuela).

Overall, US gun ownership does not present a significant practical risk unless you go to certain places. Concerns about gun policy (and the death penalty) by potential visitors to the US are thus ideologically, not practically based.

I personally think that our lack of collective support for our struggling cities/regions says much more about us as a country than our active shooter drills (of which I am also not a fan).

> While the US does have pretty high gun related homicide rates, it is largely because proportionally more of our homicides involve guns. Our overall homicide rate is a fair bit higher than most european countries but nowhere near the top world-wide (about #90.)

While not exactly wrong I would definitely argue that "a fair bit higher" is a gross mischaracterization. The US has an intentional homicide rate of 5.3 per 100,000, which is many times higher than UK (1.2), France (1.3), Germany (1.0), Spain (0.7), Italy (0.67) or any of the Nordic countries.

> Concerns about gun policy (and the death penalty) by potential visitors to the US are thus ideologically, not practically based.

Depends how you frame it. Yes, your chances of getting killed in a random shooting are lower than a lot of other more mundane things. At the same time, your chances of getting killed in a random shooting in the US are many, many times higher than getting killed in a random shooting in one of the European countries previously mentioned.

> While not exactly wrong I would definitely argue that "a fair bit higher" is a gross mischaracterization.

"A fair bit" isn't particularly precise but it does means "quite alot" or "a large amount" so think it is a gross mischaracterization to call it a gross mischaracterization. If we are being pedantic, "Several times" is more accurate than "many times" since many generally means a bit more than 4 or 5.

> Depends how you frame it

I don't think so. Practically speaking, all that matters is comparing absolute risks of different causes of death in a specific situatio. For a foreign tourist the risk of gun related homicide in the US is significantly smaller than the other risks of death (such as cars). The relative amount of that risk compared to other countries isn't practically relevant. The risk of drowning in a locked dry room is many times the risk of drowning in a bathtub with an inch of water, that doesn't mean that the risk of drowning in that bathtub is practically relevant (unless you are a baby or extremely drunk/drugged).

You are correct that such fears aren't terribly practical. Human beings in fact aren't terribly reasonable about what they are concerned about.

They bike to work, smoke a cig, and then worry about a Muslim terrorist blowing them up.

Unfortunately people aren't reasonable and our prosperity is partly based on resources and partly based on sucking in a lot of smart people from elsewhere to further enrich the nation we built with said resources and this shitty marketing could easily damage the second ultimately more important source of our prosperity.

This should be the top reply.