One shooting in a country is not proof that the right to bear arms is a public danger. As one might note from the equally isolated incidents in the countries without the right.
288 school shootings in a country that is hardly alone in that right is instead proof of a cultural disease.
A cultural disease that would be inhibited by strong gun restrictions
It raises an interesting point: if the US cracked down super hard on guns but didn’t address the underlying social problems, would people just turn to a different type of violence? Whst would that be? Would you suddenly get all of the would-be shooters committing acid attacks instead?
Before or after the civil war you’d get for trying to disarm a population with more guns than people?
In any event, if you assume it happened magically you’d probably just get mass stabbings that are, at least, easier to stop and have lower body counts.
God, just imagine if all the gun fetishists became knife fetishists overnight, they’re already creepy enough.
One argument I’ve seen against gun restrictions is that you’d be more reliant on the police force which is largely a corrupt gang of stupid bullies with both guns and the impunity to commit murder. I’m for enacting stronger restrictions but this point is difficult for me to refute.
Gun law is complicated, they can definitely be used to enhance the violence someone with ill intent can do but social conflicts generally drive it. I mean I’m aussie, we have a fair bit of gun control but still basically anyone who isn’t a drongo can get one (although atm I’m in appeals because apparently ADHD precludes me lmao, yep defs don’t want shooters getting mental health treatment! Should encourage them to hide it!). We actually have quite a few, almost all bolt/lever action rifles but. Handguns have a lot of commitment and training required which is reasonable since they’re for target shooting and people murdering.
We have social issues involving violence, mostly femicide DV stuff, we don’t really have the shooters. We don’t get the stuff like acid attacks or stabbings that you get over in like the UK or whatever. Someone can do a shitload of harm with lots of thing, a slow firing rifle isn’t substantially more dangerous than a car, improv bomb, or crude chemical weapon.
There is no justification for having easy access to guns in the public. If citizens feel so unsafe in their homes that they think it’s necessary, then there is a structural problem
Sorry, how does this follow? Most countries allow access to firearms. while we can question the validity of the concept of a country; this presumably communicates that most people don’t feel it’s absurd to have access to firearms.
They are just machines, some are designed as human killers and I would agree that access to those is generally bad. Some are for target practice, some are for killing non humans which I find abhorrent but understand is part of the world for now, some are pure silly fun in the same way fast motorcycles are.
When talking about firearms you need to talk about a certain category because banning them all is as silly as banning drugs or banning stump remover because it’s trivial to make a crude incendiary from it.
What possible correlation could there be? If only we could comprehend this complex issue.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country
One shooting in a country is not proof that the right to bear arms is a public danger. As one might note from the equally isolated incidents in the countries without the right.
288 school shootings in a country that is hardly alone in that right is instead proof of a cultural disease.
A cultural disease that would be inhibited by strong gun restrictions
It raises an interesting point: if the US cracked down super hard on guns but didn’t address the underlying social problems, would people just turn to a different type of violence? Whst would that be? Would you suddenly get all of the would-be shooters committing acid attacks instead?
Before or after the civil war you’d get for trying to disarm a population with more guns than people?
In any event, if you assume it happened magically you’d probably just get mass stabbings that are, at least, easier to stop and have lower body counts.
God, just imagine if all the gun fetishists became knife fetishists overnight, they’re already creepy enough.
One argument I’ve seen against gun restrictions is that you’d be more reliant on the police force which is largely a corrupt gang of stupid bullies with both guns and the impunity to commit murder. I’m for enacting stronger restrictions but this point is difficult for me to refute.
What was that thing with “Under no pretext” I’m sure that it’s not that important
Nah this is a bad take.
Gun law is complicated, they can definitely be used to enhance the violence someone with ill intent can do but social conflicts generally drive it. I mean I’m aussie, we have a fair bit of gun control but still basically anyone who isn’t a drongo can get one (although atm I’m in appeals because apparently ADHD precludes me lmao, yep defs don’t want shooters getting mental health treatment! Should encourage them to hide it!). We actually have quite a few, almost all bolt/lever action rifles but. Handguns have a lot of commitment and training required which is reasonable since they’re for target shooting and people murdering.
We have social issues involving violence, mostly femicide DV stuff, we don’t really have the shooters. We don’t get the stuff like acid attacks or stabbings that you get over in like the UK or whatever. Someone can do a shitload of harm with lots of thing, a slow firing rifle isn’t substantially more dangerous than a car, improv bomb, or crude chemical weapon.
There is no justification for having easy access to guns in the public. If citizens feel so unsafe in their homes that they think it’s necessary, then there is a structural problem
Sorry, how does this follow? Most countries allow access to firearms. while we can question the validity of the concept of a country; this presumably communicates that most people don’t feel it’s absurd to have access to firearms.
They are just machines, some are designed as human killers and I would agree that access to those is generally bad. Some are for target practice, some are for killing non humans which I find abhorrent but understand is part of the world for now, some are pure silly fun in the same way fast motorcycles are.
When talking about firearms you need to talk about a certain category because banning them all is as silly as banning drugs or banning stump remover because it’s trivial to make a crude incendiary from it.