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.
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.