cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/2634741
The only gun control I need is an armed homeless population
The idea actually has plenty of merit, on both sides - homeless people absolutely are in desperate need for tools of self defence, but also if anything has proven to get the NRA to support tighter gun control it’s people they consider “undesirable” arming themselves.
I’m all for marginalised people being armed, but there is also no doubt that “gun culture” in the US is an entity of its own (evident not only by the numbers and kinds of guns owned compared to other countries, but also the sheer number of shootings that happen) that is running rampant and needs getting rid of.
Guns should be treated as the tool and a last resort they are, not the basis for someone’s whole personality.
Guns aren’t self defense. They literally kill their owners more than aggressors by a large margin.
Giving people with nothing, struggling depression guns is just reckless assisted suicide
They literally kill their owners more than aggressors by a large margin.
Pretty sure razor blades have a larger margin, we should stop giving the homeless those in care packages.
Razer blades have a purpose outside of killing
Crushing pills comes to mind. You mention “homeless person” and a clean shave isn’t what comes to mind first.
I think that if I were homeless, the first thing I’d do with a gun is sell it.
Ya but eventually you’d have a flooded market and then you’d be better off just trying to eat the gun
Sure, if that worked for you, fine, but that doesn’t mean other people wouldn’t want to keep it. Being homeless is really fucking dangerous.
Owning a gun doesn’t make you safer. The odds of getting shot increase if you own a gun.
Statistically, yes. Individually, guns are not bullet magnets, but they make their owners take more risks and try less hard to escape dangerous situations, which is a grave mistake.
Assuming concealed carry and the proper mindset of only using a gun as an absolute last resort (big assumption), a weapon is just a tool, and having it in the toolbox would be more useful than not.
'tis the heart of the debate. Individually, guns are tools. Yet societally, the damage caused by the mentally unsound gun owners vastly outweigh the individual benefits, which is why all developed countries besides the US heavily restrict their use (though guns are not as rare here than Americans might believe, especially in rural areas where they are used as tools to protect against or hunt wildlife, or in some countries with conscription where reservists might own a gun, but aren’t normally allowed to carry it in public).
[citation needed]
I’d love to see this comparison between homeless and housed people, but let me save you time - A. homeless people shoot significantly less people and B. most shootings aren’t done by those with mental illness.
But don’t let reality get in the way of your bad and privileged take…
Keep in mind that the largest cause of gun deaths are suicides. You need to factor that into your claim.
If you kill yourself, you’re still dead.
Yes, people die when they are killed
You’re completely missing the point. The point is that suicide is inflating the statistic of owning a gun increasing your chances of being shot. If you don’t have issues with depression, that increase in risk is significantly less.
You’re approaching this from the wrong direction.
A lot of people who live in unsafe situations/locations buy a gun to try to protect themselves. It’s not that buying a gun makes you more likely to be shot, but rather that people who are already likely to be shot buy guns.
That’s accounted for. There’ve been lots of studies; here’s a story about one.
In particular, the researchers found, people who lived with handgun owners had a much higher rate of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner. The vast majority of such victims, 84%, were women, they said.
Living with a handgun owner particularly increased the risk of being shot to death in a domestic violence incident, and it did not provide any protection against being killed at home by a stranger, the researchers found.
People who lived with handgun owners “did not experience such fatal [stranger] attacks at lower rates than their neighbors in gun-free homes”, the researchers wrote, noting that stranger homicides at home were “a small minority” of the homicides observed in the study.
I’m not pro gun but I don’t understand this research.
I mean, people with bathtubs has a significantly higher risk of falling in the bathtub…
Lmfao, brings up DV stats about housed men shooting the women they live with after years of ongoing violence and abuse all directed towards the one person they end up shooting, to prove, what point exactly, about homeless people???
Maybe get your head out of your ass and admit you might not know what you’re talking about?
No?
I didn’t think so, but it was worth a try…
Either way, you’re full of shit, and at the very least are a wilfully ignorant classist who thinks they know better than those with the actual lived experience.
You don’t.
Well being homeless isn’t safe either, and while it’d be much nicer if no one was homeless, they are, and they deserve the same level not only of safety, but also autonomy.
I bet you’ve never bothered piping up about guns not being safe when housed people are being discussed, that’s what you should be focused on, not your paternalistic urge to control what others you feel superior to, do.I bet you’ve never bothered piping up about guns not being safe when housed people are being discussed
You’d lose that bet.
While true. It’s because a lot of homeless are really unpredictable for various reasons.
The “down on their luck” homeless you see panhandling etc are generally the exception. Most have legitimate mental illness or drug problems. At least in my neck of America.
I’m well aware of the issues faced by homeless people, and none of that negates anything I’ve said, if anything, it actually strengthens my point - highlighting just how much more vulnerable and more at risk of being victimised they are. Mentally ill people are at a much higher risk of being the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it.
We’re also not talking about ideals here because in an ideal world people wouldn’t be homeless, but they are, and they deserve to be able to defend themselves with a weapon of their choice.
Maybe instead of worrying about the “unstable” homeless people, worry about the circumstances that put them there and the people who actively act to harm them (the government, the police, NIMBY’s, and so on)? I guarantee that’s a much better track to change.
Give em guns, Amphetamines and Fentanyl. IRL Fortnight match.
Complete with construction? You’ve just solved the housing crisis!
Construction with shopping carts, tarps and cardboard.
Given all the crime committed by the homeless and violence within encampments, this seems like a horrifyingly terribly idea
Is there an actual group pushing for that? (I’m pretty sure I remember a decade or so back there being an arm the homeless group, that put out santa’s etc… though didn’t actually accept donations. (Their actual goal was common sense gun laws, and they knew the people who are pro-gun would argue strongly against it shooting their own pro-gun arguements in the foot).
A Libertarian candidate for the US Senate back in 2018 proposed giving shotguns to homeless people for self-defence.
Wow, and it wasn’t Vermin Supreme
#libertrians #armtheHomeless The homeless are one of the most at risk group to authoritarian violence including, but not limited to, police. There is at least one campaign in my region looking to collect firearms that you don’t need anymore to donate them to the homeless.
Lol yes, because armed resistance against the police always works out well… Legal or not…
deleted by creator
Maybe we shouldn’t try to advocate for restricting access to guns when we have a rising fascist threat.
We don’t need another Beto O’Rourke. We need to win elections and defeat fascism.
We need to win elections and defeat fascism.
Laughs in all of history
Thats why we shouldn’t ban guns. Just in case of those scenarios.
I don’t disagree about guns, but even saying “just in case” at this point is pretty ridiculous.
Not only can fascism never be voted away, even if it was somehow possible, we’re about a decade or two past that point now.
Just frustrated that people still say stuff like that as if it was ever even an option.deleted by creator
Actually advocating for looser gun laws makes you the real fascist here
Bud I’m begging you to look up how the nazis treated guns.
I’ll give you the simplified answer: ban guns for minorities, arm their supporters.
If you remember this, it explains how Democrats and Republicans are part of the same agenda on guns.
What’s wrong with Beto?
This speech: https://youtu.be/QR4mNrW0AlE
Instead of saying “We need universal background checks” he said “Hell yes, we’re going to take your guns”
In Texas, a state with a strong gun culture. 🤦♂️ He lost the gubernatorial election.
His chances weren’t that great to begin with, that was one of the many speeches that solidified his defeat.
Why not focus your compaign on healthcare, minimum wage, workers rights, so many issues that appeals to everyone. Nope, he handed the election to a fascist.
If you think a gun will help against fascism you’ve watched to many movies. Whatever side the military is on is the side that wins
While there is some utility aded by this for some of the recipients, can you seriously tell me that a positive impact would be ubiquitous?
The data often suggests that gun related incidents increase and are correlated to density of guns. By adding more, you’re kindling the fire.
Bigger cloud, more rain.
Gini coefficient (aka income inequality) is far more closely correlated to gun violence than gun ownership is. Pushing for more/stonger unions, socializing healthcare, building walkable cities, and spending more on education would do far more to reduce gun violence while improving people’s lives dramatically
So the homeless are the absolute last group that should get guns
Guns for the homeless, finally a charity is be willing to donate to.
