- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- publichealth@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- publichealth@mander.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
“BuT I nEeD tO PrOtEcT mAh FaMiLy”
The chances of you or one of your family member using the gun on your/themselves, and being shot by accident by a family member, are each exponentially higher than you actually having the need to use a gun to protect yourself. Even in a third world country like the US.
There are so many examples of places on this world where it statistically shows banning guns reduce deaths and injuries. The US is THE example why gun ownership is a bad idea. But sure, go ahaid and kill eachother and yourself. Just keep your dystopian violence on your side of the ponds and borders. Fucking idiots.
It’s a good thought and you’re not even wrong. I used to think the same way.
Then tens of millions of people voted for Trump not once, not twice, but THREE times.
Trump lost, fascists threatened civil war, J6 happened… Trump STILL got re-elected, and pretty much on day one he sent the message loud and clear that his violent fascist foot-soldiers can count on getting pardons if they commit violence in his name.
Now consider how many of those violent fascists have guns.
Still feel safe without guns?
Yup, without guns these people would be a lot less dangerous so I would feel safer. Also, are they plotting to murder you? Are you in organized crime and do you have a lot of enemies who want to see you dead? Do you get a lot of death threads or something?
Even is someone would break into you house it’s probably to steal your TV. You don’t need a gun to kill them for that, it’s a fucking TV. Buy better locks.
Is there an armed robbery in the store you are at? Lay on the ground, follow their instructions. They just want the register money. No need to escalate the situation with gunfire. They get the money, they leave. Or there’s a shootout, you, bystanders and the robbers get shot, all of you either die or get insane medical bills and possibly get handicapped so you can’t work anymore, end up homeless and die of a fentanyl overdose.
So unless someone is plotting to kill you, you don’t need a gun and you would be safer without one, as the chance of getting hurt by your own gun or by cops because they see you with a gun is significantly higher than you actually needing to protect yourself, and also a situation where you owning a gun actually made a positive difference in the outcome of a violent situation.
I really like guns, I love to shoot guns for sports. I’ve used many guns during my military service. I’m am so insanely happy guns aren’t allowed here. The only people with guns here are cops, the military, a handful of hunters and sports shooters and organized crime. Those gun owning criminals aren’t plotting to murder me, so I’m better off without a gun and so is everyone else.
The fascists are literally branding leftists as domestic terrorists and throwing them in the gulag… for things as innocuous as being opposed to the genocide in Gaza.
So yes, these people are heavily armed and out to get us. They will commit violence against us and get pardoned by their dear leader.
But I agree with most of the rest… It’s crazy that in Texas you can shoot someone dead for stealing your TV and get away with it.
I envy you that you don’t have an abundance of armed fascists in your country, and that your government hasn’t been taken over by fascists… but unfortunately that’s the reality that we’re dealing with here in the states.
I’m having a hard time understanding the point you’re trying to make.
Sorry, let me translate to US English:
Guns bad! Pew pew = ouch ouch! No pew pew = no ouch ouch!
Get it?
We speak more or less the same language, as I’m sure you’re aware. I’m Danish, by the way.
I don’t understand what your point is, though. I get that you don’t like guns, but I’m having a hard time understanding where all of the other stuff is coming from.
Americans refuse to give up their guns because they claim they need their gums to protect themselves, while they see all the children dying in school shootings (and other people in useless gum violence) as colatheral damage to keep their stupid guns. Many also don’t want to keep their guns in safes because it would take too long to get them whenever someone is out to murder them (because they have loads of enemies or something? So far the amount of people coming for me to murder me is zero). And then they use the gun on a dark silhouette when they hear a weird sound at night, then to find out it’s their spouce/kid etc. Or they get depressed because they had to go to the hospital and got a bull of 200k and they grab the gun and end it. These are statistics. But no matter what, Americans have no boundaries when it comes to making sacrifices, including their own kids, to keep their stupid guns right next to their bed, or even under the shower. It’s just dumb beyond comprehension. Dystopian fiction authors couldn’t come up with this shit.
Sorry for replying the way I did. Your comment was a standard American ignorant reply, that’s why I reacted that way. But if you’re Danish and didn’t know about how fucking dumb and stupid Americans actually are with their gun laws and bullshit excuses (can’t know everything from every country), then my comment was misplaced. So sorry for that.
And we definitely do not speak the same language. Although I love Danish, I do not understand a word of it.
gums
useless gum violence
colatheral
safes
spouce
hospital bull
under the shower
Talk about dumb beyond comprehension, proofreading costs you nothing.
You are magnitudes more likely to be shot by your own gun, be it by yourself or a family member, than you are to need to use that gun against a home invader. Thus, it’s significantly safer for you to keep your gun safely locked away where it can’t hurt you rather than leaving it accessible to protect from the much lower risk of an attacker.
Seems pretty clear to me
That’s a very /notTheOnion headline.
It makes me picture a scene:
The clock tower strikes, high noon. Shudders snap closed along the deserted street. Two men stare at each other, hands at their waists.
“Well if it isn’t the famous outlaw Franky Flynn himself… it looks like your blood lead levels are about to go up partner”
“Yep… in the flesh. Funny thing though, studies have shown that exposure to Franky Flynn can cause blood-lead levels to rise in lawmen by up to 600 %”
“Well… [spits], I do my own research”
Are kids handling bullets?
Lack of guns will also significantly decrease lead in children.
Depending on where you live, that’s not always an option.
For example, if you live out in the boonies or on a farm, guns are great tools for pest control. And in many places, the cops (or animal control) are 30+ minutes away. I had to shoot more than one rabid animal.
Not to mention hunting.
Not everyone needs a gun, but it makes sense in some circumstances.
Exactly! And this is why no one lives in rural areas or farms anywhere else in the world!
BIIIG /s
I’m not sure I follow the sarcasm. Are you saying that the US is the only country where people in rural areas have guns?
If you went to 1 random farmer’s house in 100 different countries, how many do you really believe would own a firearm? Give me your genuine guess, then tell me what the actual statistic is after you look it up…
Bonus question: how many of them do you think would have a magazine fed, semi-automatic carbine rifle, chambered in an anti-personnel caliber?
You’re moving the goalposts.
No, I’m not. You’re attempting to justify the atrocities faced by innocent Americans as some necessary consequence of what I guess you argue is simultaneously a “free”, yet dangerously “wild” nation.
My guess is that you looked up the actual numbers as instructed, realized that NO ONE in the world “needs” firearms to the degree that Americans claim to, and decided it would be easier to try and deflect rather than address the core argument of my position.
Firearms hurt people. The more firearms there are in any given area, the more likely people are to be hurt by them. The VAST majority (like 85:1) of firearm injuries in the US are either self-inflicted, accidental, or crimes perpetrated against unarmed, innocent civilians.
Statistically, the instances of problems solved by firearms in the United States represent an effect size so negligible that they frequently fall within the margin of error, barely rising above the threshold of statistical significance.
US persons owning guns does NOTHING but create problems for US persons. Period.
If you have a fetish, say so. If you think guns are fun, say so. But don’t use bullshit to try and hand wave away an epidemic caused by intellectual impotence and savage amorality.
I think you might need to go take your blood-pressure medication.
You’re responding to points I never once made.
All I said is that a small subset of the population has a legitimate reason for gun ownership. Hell, even Australia allows it.
I own two guns. Guess where they are? On my mom’s farm because I have no reason to have them in the city.
Yes, but what percentage of people actually need guns?
When the fascists are taking over? Every man, woman and child.
“taking” over? 😂
I lived in the US for 10 years, and I gotta tell you; all the 2A “necessary to the security of a free state” BS I heard juxtaposed against the utterly embarrassing, and cowardly inaction I am seeing now is, disappointing to say the least…
They did. And what did the NRA?
Somewhere between 14-20% of the US population, depending on how rural is defined.
Hell I’m surrounded by suburbs and live in a good sized city but have a small farm. I’ve had animals killed by raccoons, hawks. eagles, foxes, coyote, loose dogs and opossums that I know of. I’ve also seen black bear, and obviously we see lots of deer and other wildlife. That’s all in the city. If you drive an hour out you get wild boar too, sometimes I help hunt them because they’re so destructive.
I somehow forgot about hogs. They’re a significant issue here, and they’re super dangerous.
My step-father was charged by one before. He shot it point blank in the forehead with a 9mm pistol, and the bullet went in the scalp, traveled around the skull and out the back. All it did was stun it long enough for him to grab a rifle out of the gator.
But I think you’d fall in the definition that puts the number at 20%. That one is basically, “not in a major metropolitan area.”
More than you’d think.
Still enough to be the exception cases in a ban rule
That ship sailed a looooong time ago.
Progress is not linear, what’s old will be new again.
Inversely it will lead the decease in children
And adults alike.
Well that’s one way to phrase it
Thought this was Not The Onion with a headline like that.
Unsafe storage just reduces blood levels in children
Edit// While increasing lead
Little known fact that bullets can cause outside blood.
So I assume this study was meant to narrow down the previously-established association between gun ownership and household lead levels by focusing on gun storage. But couldn’t it also be the case that lead exposure (from guns) is causing caregivers to store their guns less carefully?
(Or in other words—maybe the danger of elevated household lead due to gun ownership is independent of storage practices; but lead exposure also leads to more dangerous storage practices, which causes the correlation.)
Another thread on this someone posited it might be how frequently the people are shooting and storage has a correlation. Copper ammo was also suggested there. I like tungsten but whatever works.
I think a causal relationship can be inferred, based on the proposed mechanism: firearms tend to have lead dust on them, and failing to properly store firearms tends to lead to cross contamination with living spaces, especially carpets and the floor where babies crawl and put things in their mouth.
The next step should be to investigate a link between safe storage practices and environmental lead content in the home: in the carpets, etc.
Interesting take. That’s not the conclusion that they’re drawing but it’s certainly possible. I also want to know the mechanism for the increased lead levels. Are kids chewing on the bullets? Is lead somehow deposited in the home?
Edit: I read it again and I feel like something is still missing. Firing a gun leads to lead particles on clothing that come back home. But lack of storage leads to more lead in the children. If you don’t store your gun, are you waving it around your house? Firing it in the basement?
I also want to know the mechanism for the increased lead levels. Are kids chewing on the bullets? Is lead somehow deposited in the home?
I think you can interpolate what’s happening from this part:
Firing a gun leads to lead particles on clothing that come back home.
So it sounds to me, like when you fire a gun, a few things happen. The bullet travels down the barrel and as it does, it makes some contact with the barrel, some particles of lead scrape or spald off. These particles are largely expelled by the barrel exhaust, but some of it can be deposited in or on the gun. So any gun that has been fired many times becomes a source of lead particulates that can get into the air. I’d expect a gun safe provides the same amount of protection from this exposure as a zip lock bag would. (But i’d still recommend using the gun safe). Theoretically, you could also reduce this exposure by thoroughly cleaning the gun before bringing it into the home, though I have no idea what level of cleaning would be necessary to achieve this, it could be a lot.
You’ve pretty much got it, seemingly from first principles, good job!
Yeah, thats… basically exactly what happens.
Now, fully cleaning the gun after every usage… well, on the one hand, theoretically that would help with the gun being … less of a profilic random micro/particulate lead dispenser.
On the other hand, well, all that lead is now literally being handled by you, so, you need gloves, maybe a mask, maybe functionally a clean room as well.
At that point, you might as well be a small armory, if you want to have all the stuff and practices in place to properly contain the particulate lead.
Another big element at play is that different barrels basically corrode or gunk up differently.
For example, chrome-lined barrels are generally slightly more expensive, have essentially greater durability or longetivity, but because of imperfections of the actual lining process, lead to slightly less accurate barrels.
Chrome lined barrels would presumably have less lead exposure factor, due to lead having a harder time to stick to the barrel.
Vs non chrome lined barrels that gunk up more quickly, but, when clean, can be slightly more accurate.
There are other ways of coating or treating or just making a barrel, as well as many other kinds of seemingly esoteric details of gun design, that could potentially affect how much of an… ‘ambient particulate lead exposure’ risk it is.
I totally agree with your Ziploc bag analogy lol. If the only concern was reducing lead exposure, I bet just a plastic bag would be enough. However, if we are only talking about using the weapon and bringing it home, does storage really matter? If the particles are all over your clothes, you are just dragging that lead everywhere.
I’m thinking it’s more to do with what one of the other commenters said, lack of storage suggests a certain attitude. If you’re not storing it, you are probably moving it around the house, cleaning it on the table, etc. So maybe both groups of people have the same amount of lead on their weapon, but the storage group takes it straight to the gun safe instead of leaving it in their pants and letting it sprinkle heavy metal surprises around the house?
I skimmed the paper (tiny pdf text on a phone screen is hard to read) and it sounds like merely having a gun out results in airborne contaminants. Any particles light enough to be carried by air currents will be carried around the house instead of just inside the safe. I wasn’t able to read and analyze the tables.
Yep, basically this.
Bullets have lead in them.
Lead is actually fairly fragile, malleable, degradeable, and also of course, a neurotoxin, in high enough concentrations.
People that handle guns and/or ammo extremely regularly?
In many cases they use gloves, in some cases even masks.
Kinda like how xray techs get the (ironically, lead) shielding, but you don’t: its the dosage, the exposure.
Most legit gun ranges in most states have a whole set of regulations and systems/practices in place to handle all that lead.
I’m not sure exactly how indoor ranges do it, but most outdoor ranges in most states, the backstop birm that catches all the bullets?
Gotta adhere to different kinds of water drainage requirements, do something like dig the whole thing up and process it in some way, to literally get the lead out, every so many years.
Even when guns aren’t being fired, you’ve got similar sorts of safe handling practices for armorers/armories, people that recase (wrong term?) spent brass to make their own rounds, people that are very often doing basically surgery on guns, etc.
If you place a fired gun (contaminated with GSR) on a surface, particularly where you eat (kitchen counter, dining table) or on a fabric (couch, bed), it contaminates your living space and doesn’t really go away without cleaners that are effective on heavy metals.
Doesn’t even have to be “stored”. Cleaning your gun on the dining table, for example.
Yeah I think this is part of it. I think it has less to do with the storage and more to do with the other activities. Maybe someone who doesn’t lock up their gun is more likely to clean it on the kitchen table, for example
Insecure storage speaks to an overall blasé attitude towards firearms that’s for sure.
The article is about lead particles in the air from the bullets, but I feel like it would also reduce the other kind of lead poisoning from guns caused by school shooters if the angry kid can’t access his parent’s guns.
One of those problems who only exist on the place where you can buy a Assault rifle on the same store where you buy milk, eggs and a frying pan
One of those problems who only exist on the place where you can buy a Assault rifle on the same store where you buy milk, eggs and a frying pan
I’m guessing this was copy pasted from a translator. It didn’t get it right. This is how it should read:
One of those problems that only exists in a place where you can buy an assault rifle at the same store where you buy milk, eggs and a frying pan.
Also, you can’t buy assault rifles at Walmart. The rural stores carry hunting rifles. I live in a suburb and the one near me doesn’t even sell ammo.
The amount of upvotes is pretty hilarious considering you can’t buy assault rifles anywhere. Shows how uneducated people truly are on the subject.
“Assault rifles” aren’t available without special federal licensing and several hoops to jump through with ATF-- assuming you’re trying to describe a rifle that’s tactical in appearance and is “full auto”.
An “AR-15” is Armalight Rifle, not assault rifle. They’re actually a smaller caliber than pretty much every hunting rifle out there. While tactical in appearance, they’re still 100% semi-auto, as are all firearms purchased by anyone in the US.
I’d also like to point out several places like Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, and a few others have reduced or completely eliminated carrying firearms all together, and might only carry ammunition (which you do need to be at least 18 to buy with ID or 21 in some instances). Other retailers have started adopting stricter rules on sales to reduce liabilities as well.
The issues with firearms has primarily been laxed storage by family/parents making easy access, lack of education in safety (where accidents often happen from mishandling), or the glorification in the media giving those seeking the attention their “15 minutes of fame”… (Personally, for the ‘mass shooters’ I feel its less to do with mental health issues like the media tries to claim it is, while realistically, I think a lot of it is desensitizing and glorification having made a name for themselves, however wrong/bad it is, and again, getting that spotlight).
I’ll just add, both my son and daughter had firearms exposure in a safe and controlled environment and know how to handle them. The point is, if a friend ever says, “wanna see my dad’s Gun?” They’ll know how to handle the situation by understanding the dangers, walking away and telling an adult. If they’re ever facing a school situation they’ll better understand what one looks like and tell the nearest adult, etc.
Gun people insisting that the word “assault rifle” only applies to automatic or select fire rifles (or better yet, doesn’t apply to carbines or submachine guns) because it’s a fixed definition set by Adolf Hitler himself (seriously, it’s a calque from WWII Germany) is a tired and irrelevant argument.
If we’re gonna be sticklers for definitions, the 1994 assault weapons legislation made a strict legal definition, and that’s what most people mean when they’re describing that.
But whatever you want to call two-handed firearms with detachable magazines, whether they fit the WWII definition, the Army field manual definition, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban definition, or whatever else, I think everyone knows what people are talking about. Even if it’s technically a carbine or a submachine gun or a pistol with a foregrip.
We’re not negotiating a legal document, we’re just talking about gun culture generally on an internet forum.
Gun people insisting that the word “assault rifle” only applies to automatic or select fire rifles (or better yet, doesn’t apply to carbines or submachine guns)
Um… In this example, a rifle is still semi-auto only*. A carbine is >16" barrel while still retaining functionality of a full-sized rifle. And an SMG is similar to a carbine but fires smaller pistol ammunition.
Theoretically, a carbine and/or SMG would in fact still qualify by it’s “select fire” rate if they had one. A lot of reproduction firearms are made to look like the military counterpart (like an MP5 or AK-47 can’t be legally bought, so they make clones in a semi auto-only). You cannot legally own any firearm that has more than 1 round fired per trigger action (without going through a lot of work to obtain a FFL). Aka you squeeze the trigger and only 1 round is fired. Select-fire would apply to military-grade where you could have select fire to burst or full-auto…
A detachable magazine doesn’t define “assault” rifle. In this case being semi-automatic and not bolt-action (where you manually work a lever to unload and reload rounds) but either could still be fed by a detachable magazine or individually for the BA.
But whatever you want to call two-handed firearms with detachable magazines
I would call every pistol a “two-handed firearm with a detachable magazine”, because this isn’t the movies! You should have one hand gripping while the other hand secures/steadies. Unless you’re wounded, uneducated or inexperienced, a thug, or in a movie, I don’t recommend 1-handing any of them!
Even if it’s technically a carbine or a submachine gun or a pistol with a foregrip.
I don’t know of too many people willing to install a foregrip on a pistol, but you do you 😁
Look, calling all of them by a generic name like “assault rifle” is only meant to sound big and scary to everyone who doesn’t understand otherwise. So claiming “it’s all the same” actually isn’t. I wouldn’t call a motorcycle a car just because it’s motorized and has wheels, same with a bigger van, truck, or RV. I don’t think you would either, because you’re educated enough and experienced enough you call them by their proper classifications.
Edited missing words
My argument is that quibbling about definitions only works when we’re talking about strict legal definitions, and the thing with the law is that the definitions are whatever the lawmakers want them to be. As a result, the legal definitions depend on context and place (such that an American legal definition would not apply in Canada or France or India), so any global discussion of guns should stay away from legal definitions.
There’s a whole world of firearms that are legally classified by the ATF as pistols, but that are visually, ergonomically, and tactically indistinguishable from submachineguns that happen to fire semiautomatic, complete with a brace and where adding a foregrip might change the legal status. That’s all I was referring to with my pistol comment: the legal definitions have diverged from common understanding of what types of firearms fall into which types of categories.
You can go out and complain that the word assault rifle should only apply to automatic/burst/select fire rifles, but that’s not what anyone else means when they describe assault rifles in a colloquial sense. If you’re talking the strict legal definition, well, the 1994 law had a strict legal definition of assault weapons covering semiautos, too.
So my original point is simple: interjecting into a conversation about guns in a colloquial and cultural discussion, and insisting on the WWII military definition of assault rifle is out of place, especially when plenty of automatic weapons would not qualify under that definition. This discussion wasn’t the place for you to make that argument about definitions.
Assault rifle you say? Where is this magical place? Last I heard assault rifles were next to impossible to get unless you were a licensed arms manufacturer.
Food 'n Stuff TM
Had not the USA been short on eggs lately, that would not happen with guns… or did I misunderstood the country you were referring to? ;)
You can buy both eggs and guns at Walmart in the USA
Meanwhile, instead, give up your privacy for age verification.
Instead of a safe, which requires parents to be accountable, why not have routine in home government inspections? It’s to protect the children.
(Also, yes, no guns would do it, just drawing a parallel here in our stupid governments oppressing us)
And yet MAGAts are always fighting against any sort of gun safety laws.
So like Canadians and Scandinavian kids have lower lead levels than usanians?
Probably, but also due to pollution and lead pipes, or lack thereof.
That’s the implied joke yes.
I thought this was just common sense.
That’s what you get when your country lets anyone buy a gun without any kind of safety training.
I think you’d be shocked at how diverse the gun laws are from state to state.
