Why nearly all guns have to go

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-nearly-all-of-america-s-400-million-guns-have-got-to-go/ar-AA1ahkCx?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=86fb330053ff4fbdaca2c6b5465754fe&ei=9

I aint ever giving up a AK-47 or AR-15.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 25 Apr 2023, 1:12 am, edited 4 times in total.

The only way America is likely to fix this solution is by addressing it on a constitutional level.

And that ain't gonna happen.

Until the ammosexuals give up their special interest America will continue to have daily mass shootings. Your founding fathers did this to you, even if they had the best of intentions at the time.

The American sense of individualism seems hostile to responsibility at times; externalities and consequences are someone else's problem because muh freedumbs. Too many of y'all demonstrate they're not responsible enough to own firearms.

Then again, it's not my problem. I live in a country with mostly reasonable gun laws, but what do those countries know about reducing mass shootings? What with their *checks* far lower (per capita) rates of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence. f****n' commies ain't even shooting each other over wrong turns, being the wrong colour, petty disputes, romantic failures, etc.

Here’s the exit poll on the article tho:



:/

‘merica; this is why you can’t have nice things.

If you can f**k a gun barrel you have a serious problem.

Their lube of choice for those barrels.
https://www.gunoil.com/

Tim Mcveigh killed more people at once than these other mass killers. How many guns did he use? These killers will always find a way. We don't have too many guns, we have too many people who don't think it is wrong to take a human life.

Fixed it for you.

This is a silly canard because it ignores how accessible some ways are compared to other ways.

America doesn't have daily bombings because constructing a bomb requires a degree of know-how and investment of time and effort. America doesn't have daily sword massacres because killing multiple people with a sword is physically demanding and requires coming into close contact with them.

It's a dishonest sort of nihilism to insist nothing can be done because any effort will be imperfect and leave some other means of killing available. Yeah, super villains might be able to build death rays, but at least you'll reduce the randos who stockpile guns and grievances until they snap.

I don't believe the solution is as simple as banning guns, or banning guns based solely on aesthetic considerations, but I do think access to certain categories of firearms makes certain types of crimes far more feasible. Other countries panicked when faced with only a few of these sorts of crimes, and like it or not, they've largely had positive outcomes towards curtailing those sorts of crimes.

America has allowed itself to serve as a long-running experiment and it's hard to say the experiment is going well in this regard. I really wish it was. Teenage me would love for Americans to be right and Canadians to be wrong on this matter, but that's just not how things appear to be playing out. It's one of those this is why we can't have nice things situations.

Making all guns illegal would reduce mass shootings but that was never my argument.

You may be correct that banning all guns might reduce mass shootings, even though mass shooters would still obtain guns on the black market or just build their own guns.

My argument is not that banning all guns won't reduce mass shootings, my argument is that guns might overall save the net amount of innocent civilians lives. Because the majority of crimes are not mass shootings. There was over 1.5 million guns used for self-defense, and over 80% of that the gun was never fired. So that's potentially 1.5 million innocent civilian lives saved

You can’t just tally up how many live people there are in proximity to guns and suggest that they’re alive because a gun was present. That’s not how things work.

Here are some stats on actual variations of gun use/self defence:


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fire ... gun-use-2/

Cliff notes: guns are used for self defence in less than 1% of contact crimes - so, very very rarely. They’re marketed and sold for self defence, but are far more likely to be used for intimidation or crimes than self defence.

I wouldn't advocate for banning all guns. At most I'd advocate for common sense reforms like those that have worked in other countries.

Besides, using the same logic presented earlier, people in self-defence situations will just use something else and access to guns is irrelevant.



That Harvard article takes your previous argument and many related arguments out behind the woodshed. The self-defence argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Guns don't make people violent. The problem with mass shootings or daily shootings is a cultural one. If you took all the guns in America and dumped it into Scandinavia or Japan and South Korea, you wouldn't have mass shootings and daily gun violence in big urban cities.

The mass majority of gun owners aren't shooting each other up. If Americans are as violent as you visualize them to be, their would be genocide on unimaginable levels.

Same, and the vast majorities of the gun owners in my area of Oregon are peaceful law abiding citizens.

I agree, the culture is a bigger issue than guns, per say. But, if you can't be trusted to play safely with your toys they might need to be taken away... and it's clear Americans can't be trusted to play safely with those toys.