There Have Been 5 Major Shootings in the U.S. in the Past Week Alone

Ehhh

I just tend to look at it from a logical perspective.

We can't really know the stats if there were no guns, if said violence would still have occurred without access to a gun. The source of the violence is still the enraged or frightened person and not the gun.

Now I won't sit here and argue something r****ded like having guns PREVENTS violence, but I think violence is just an inherent part of being human.

 

We can know this because there are plenty of countries and regions (many of which are within the US) where access to guns is much lower, and the incidence of fatalities and violence is much lower overall.

This is really not surprising. If you make it easier to quickly and awesomely kill and shoot people, the incidence of quickly and awesomely killing and shooting people will go up. If you make it harder, it goes down.

The empirical evidence supports this, intuitive evidence (aka common sense) supports this - we have you claiming "we can't really know stats' and "inhernet part of being a human being" - which is just a load of crap. Basically you're not takiing the logical perspective, you're taking hte illogical one - because you're arguing that the rate of people killing/injuring people remains constant, regardless of how easy or hard it is to kill or injure people. That is just plain absurd on its face.

 

Sure you can. I don't think it's hard to logically conclude that if you have access to more firepower, you can do more damage. Just look at world history.

Or think about it in your own world. Let's say you wanted to commit a mass murder. Scenario #1, you have access to a knife. Scenario #2, you have access to gun. Scenario #3, you have access to a bunch of grenades. Which do you think you'll have the most success at doing damage?

 

That is not what I am saying.

I am saying with identical timelines, people, socio-economical factors, etc. we have no way of knowing the true "added" death of guns vs. no guns.

Obviously places with less guns will have less gun violence, that is common sense.

It is not a load of crap, nor is it absurd. Suppose we implement heavy controls on guns, outlaw them all together, and violent crime goes down 30% overall. Is stripping your right to bear arms worth 30% less violence? For me, it is not.

I agree, this is common sense, but the point you guys are latching onto is really not all that important to my personal case for guns.

I don't think the weapons are the problem, and I think the fight over weapons is a waste of time, when there are far larger indirect causes of violence which is what the focus NEEDs to be on. That idea, coupled with my own increasing belief that our government is becoming corrupted and at some point I will only have myself to protect me, I am against the restriction of firearms.

 

So you actually do recognize that reduction in guns will reduce violence but that is not worth it incase the government comes tries to ship you off to a gulag.

In other words the hundreds of people who die yearly from gun violence isn't as important as preparing for the possibility the US will become a totalitarian state.

 

For other people, absolutely yes.

 

There are plenty of other countries they can move to that don't have a pesky Constitution to get in the way of their dream of a society where only criminals are armed.

 

You really like throwing out strawmen.

 

Correct

Just like:

I simply to do not view gun violence as a crisis. It is sensationalized due to to its brutality, but death is a death, no matter how brutal it may be.

 

That's not a strawman, I was responding to someone suggesting that banning all guns would be a good idea.

original comment

response

I was merely suggesting that those people should go somewhere else where their dream of guns being outlawed altogether would be possible.

 

Thankfully I do live in one of those other countries. At the same time, it seems a odd that if some people do not like guns, their only choice is to leave the country. Might not a better choice, if they truly loved their country, be to campaign and persuade others to their view?

 

Well when the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by that countries' constitution, yeah, pretty much the only option is to leave if they are that afraid of big bad guns jumping out of their cases and hurting people. If we're honest, their fear is really of people in general so banning guns won't help them, they'll just find another tool to be afraid of.

 

Strange, I don't find myself terrified of knives when I walk around the streets of London, nor do I feel the compulsive need to arm myself with a machette.

 

Then it seems like you are in the right place, I don't find myself terrified of guns when I walk around the streets of Houston, nor do I feel the compulsive need to arm myself with a shotgun. Seems like we're both in the right place.

 

You can't carry a knife in the UK unless it is a tiny Swiss Army Knife that doesn't lock the blade.

I would be more worried about the legally roided out drunks.

 

Fighting to change the system or make incremental progress was not a valid option for them? So to be clear, to you, the only option for people who didn't have the right to vote 100 years ago was to leave the country, since the countries' Constitution forbade it?

If you're really being honest, you'd admit that you actually don't know these individual people's fears, and you're likely just making broad claims to create more strawmen.

 

How do you proposed addressing these indirect causes of violence? And why does it have to be either/or?

 

It's a lot easier to just leave. Then again, most people aren't scared enough of guns to where they want to flee the country for fear that inanimate objects are going to get them. Those that are that scared should leave. Mexico isn't far away and they have harsh gun restrictions.

 

Guess I'll just have to leave this quote here:

If the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy...




rep to who knows where this quote is from.

 

Note: Those "other countries" that didn't recognize a pesky constitutional individual right to bear arms included the United States of America, from 1787 to 2008.