In the UK knife crime is a big issue for those in poverty or those in struggling cities. Having access to weapons of course increases risks of people dying ot those weapons, but removing guns isn’t going to just convince everyone trying to lash out to just lie down and suffer in silence.
I don’t live in a contry with civilan access to guns, and I don’t live in a situation where I feel the need to protect myself with weapons, so I’m not gonna stake a claim in the gun control debate. But if you ban every weapon ever conceivable, without addressing why people are becoming violent to begin with, people will just result to using their own hands (or perhaps more realistically, going above the legal means. Like with Shinzo Abe’s assassination).
At least with a knife, you can’t mow down a room full of people. Here in the U.S. dozens of people can be killed in a short time by a single person due to guns. We give them out like candy.
Both access to guns (force multiplier) and the underlying issue (poverty, lack of social mobility, etc) need to be addressed.
Well, yeah. I’ll take your word on the issue of US gun control.
However, if we want to tackle both these issues it’s probably a bad habit to redirect the conversation to gun control when we are talking about the motivations a situations that are generating the violent outbursts to begin with, since gun control gets a hell of alot more talk anyway, while societal issues keep getting pushed away from the collective spotlight, and are usally coming from underprivileged postions that stuggle to get a word in to begin with.
It is about the weapon. If someone wanted to inflict a lot of damage, they would use bombs. That has happened several times in the past but doesn’t compare to the number of mass shootings. Why? Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful. It really is that simple. Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful.
You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we’d be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there’s no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.
You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.
Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
It really isn’t. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?
How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn’t undoing the 2nd amendment.
Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?
Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?
Right, like bringing about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of states and Congresspeople instead of a change which simply requires a majority of Congresspeople.
If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues… perhaps Canada’s notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?
The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.
But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.
You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.
Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.
If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks
This same sentiment is echoed in the tech community around AI artwork and it’s, frankly, silly. You cannot blame a tool for being misused. You can say that only certain people should have ready access to a tool, and there are strict rules for the use of a tool, but at the end of the day, the tool bloody exists, saying “hey, can we just not use the tool, guys?” doesn’t work. Fix the people who have the most likelihood of misusing the tools, prevent access to the tool from unqualified people, and otherwise just accept that misuse is the price of advancement, as unfortunate as that is.
You make it sound that changing peoples minds are a super easy task compared to removing guns.
I for one am saying that both things should be done at the same time.
Lets end this here, you’re trying to poke flaws in the person you’re discussing with, instead of being civil and analyzing the problem, I pray that neither of us pay no stab tax, jesus.
I agree. This guy’s been all over this thread and all he’s really said is “wouldn’t it be better if nobody died?” Yeah of course it would. No one can argue with that and no one should argue with the poster above you because it isn’t productive at all.
i deserve death because you got your little feelings hurt? yeah, that’s totally not vile and totally something a sane person would say. go play in traffic.
Yeah, you treat the symptom, but in an effective way. It’s called mass shooting, because so many people die, when guns are involved. You do not have this, if there is someone trying the same with a knife. Banning guns is a band aid during the time necessary to fix the underlying problem.
There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:
Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.
In the UK knife crime is a big issue for those in poverty or those in struggling cities. Having access to weapons of course increases risks of people dying ot those weapons, but removing guns isn’t going to just convince everyone trying to lash out to just lie down and suffer in silence.
I don’t live in a contry with civilan access to guns, and I don’t live in a situation where I feel the need to protect myself with weapons, so I’m not gonna stake a claim in the gun control debate. But if you ban every weapon ever conceivable, without addressing why people are becoming violent to begin with, people will just result to using their own hands (or perhaps more realistically, going above the legal means. Like with Shinzo Abe’s assassination).
At least with a knife, you can’t mow down a room full of people. Here in the U.S. dozens of people can be killed in a short time by a single person due to guns. We give them out like candy.
Both access to guns (force multiplier) and the underlying issue (poverty, lack of social mobility, etc) need to be addressed.
Well, yeah. I’ll take your word on the issue of US gun control.
However, if we want to tackle both these issues it’s probably a bad habit to redirect the conversation to gun control when we are talking about the motivations a situations that are generating the violent outbursts to begin with, since gun control gets a hell of alot more talk anyway, while societal issues keep getting pushed away from the collective spotlight, and are usally coming from underprivileged postions that stuggle to get a word in to begin with.
I agree, which is why I usually bring up both when it makes sense to do so.
I wasn’t aware candy required going through a background check and being a legal adult.
I guess I’ve been trick or treating in the wrong neighborhoods…
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simile/
https://poemanalysis.com/idiom/apples-to-oranges/
ok, kill as many people as he did with a knife.
Right, let’s keep pretending it’s about the weapon over actual program solving.
It is about the weapon. If someone wanted to inflict a lot of damage, they would use bombs. That has happened several times in the past but doesn’t compare to the number of mass shootings. Why? Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful. It really is that simple. Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we’d be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there’s no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.
You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.
It really isn’t. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?
How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn’t undoing the 2nd amendment.
Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.
Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?
Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?
We both know you know the answer.
deleted by creator
Lol, gl with that. In the meantime other people are still allowed to set more reasonable and feasible goalposts.
deleted by creator
Right, like bringing about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of states and Congresspeople instead of a change which simply requires a majority of Congresspeople.
So much more feasible.
Removed by mod
If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues… perhaps Canada’s notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?
That not the point. Ideally we just wouldn’t have people doing this to begin with, right?
you’re fine with death as long as it’s a knife and not a gun?..wow efficiency is your problem not the root mens rea
He typed It poorly, but I think his point was: Try to kill 30 children in a school with a knife.
If the person wants to kill, they will kill, but a gun (a big gun even) will make this task, orders of magnitude easier.
deleted by creator
The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.
But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.
You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.
Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.
If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks
deleted by creator
This same sentiment is echoed in the tech community around AI artwork and it’s, frankly, silly. You cannot blame a tool for being misused. You can say that only certain people should have ready access to a tool, and there are strict rules for the use of a tool, but at the end of the day, the tool bloody exists, saying “hey, can we just not use the tool, guys?” doesn’t work. Fix the people who have the most likelihood of misusing the tools, prevent access to the tool from unqualified people, and otherwise just accept that misuse is the price of advancement, as unfortunate as that is.
You make it sound that changing peoples minds are a super easy task compared to removing guns.
I for one am saying that both things should be done at the same time.
Lets end this here, you’re trying to poke flaws in the person you’re discussing with, instead of being civil and analyzing the problem, I pray that neither of us pay no stab tax, jesus.
I agree. This guy’s been all over this thread and all he’s really said is “wouldn’t it be better if nobody died?” Yeah of course it would. No one can argue with that and no one should argue with the poster above you because it isn’t productive at all.
try reading before commenting next time, i find it helps me not look like a fucktard
deleted by creator
what the fuck is this incoherent pile of sludge
deleted by creator
Double response to the same post. Unnecessary.
deleted by creator
Double response to the same post. Unnecessary.
i deserve death because you got your little feelings hurt? yeah, that’s totally not vile and totally something a sane person would say. go play in traffic.
deleted by creator
Yeah, you treat the symptom, but in an effective way. It’s called mass shooting, because so many people die, when guns are involved. You do not have this, if there is someone trying the same with a knife. Banning guns is a band aid during the time necessary to fix the underlying problem.
It’s also impossible given the state of partisan gridlock and the constitutional amendment necessary.
Fortunately, actually solving problems here is far simpler than asinine bans.
There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:
Indeed.
So, what’s more effective?
Reducing the scope of those seeking to commit such atrocities to a small fraction of those now, or hoping for improvement via symptom whack-a-mole?