Originally posted by dadudemonIncredibly moronic logic. Knives are also responsible for more deaths than nuclear weapons, so are knives more dangerous than nukes too? That aggregate statistic does not indicate danger. We regulate who has access to nuclear weapons because they're incredible dangerous, even though more people are killed by cars and knives. It's called being proactive.
What I would rather be attacked by is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the numbers are. If more people are dying from knives than rifles, at a rate of 5 times, and you (not me) want to try and prevent some of this homicides, where do you think we should be spending our efforts to more effectively reduce those homicides based on your logic?Make fact based decisions, not emotion based. Stick to the facts.
I think tackling the weapons is the wrong move so going to either one is not correct. I think we need to solve the reasons behind the violence instead of going after the tools people use to commit violent acts. What about you?
Originally posted by Firefly218
Incredibly moronic logic. Knives are also responsible for more deaths than nuclear weapons, so are knives more dangerous than nukes too? That aggregate statistic does not indicate danger. We regulate who has access to nuclear weapons because they're incredible dangerous, even though more people are killed by cars and knives. It's called being proactive.
But isn't attacking the motives behind gun violence pro active?
It doesn't look like he's arguing against regulation in an absolute sense.
Personally, I see the need for regulation, too. But I also don't want to leave someone at the mercies of gangs, crooks, or whoever. I want to curtail random violence and see to the needs of vulnerable people in dangerous areas and such. Ron Goldman would be alive if he had a gun against OJ.. (Yes, we have police. Courts have ruled they are under no obligation to protect us, because they simply can't protect everyone.)
Originally posted by cdtmI completely agree with you. If a farmer in the middle of nowhere is getting robbed, he can't rely on the police who are 30 minutes away and needs self-defense. Sure. No one is saying take away all guns, we're saying take away the ones that are far too powerful.
But isn't attacking the motives behind gun violence pro active?It doesn't look like he's arguing against regulation in an absolute sense.
Personally, I see the need for regulation, too. But I also don't want to leave someone at the mercies of gangs, crooks, or whoever. I want to curtail random violence and see to the needs of vulnerable people in dangerous areas and such.
Any gun that gives one guy the power to slaughter dozens and dozens of human beings in a matter of seconds, should not be so easily available.
Some Points?
Originally posted by Firefly218
I completely agree with you. If a farmer in the middle of nowhere is getting robbed, he can't rely on the police who are 30 minutes away and needs self-defense. Sure. No one is saying take away all guns, we're saying take away the ones that are far too powerful.Any gun that gives one guy the power to slaughter dozens and dozens of human beings in a matter of seconds, should not be so easily available.
And you still won't be able to prevent Parklands if you get what you want.
As I have said before. Virginia Tech. 2 pistols. 33 dead.
The shootings were not all at once, it was spread out. There were moments where he did a ton of damage in a short amount of time though. Killed a teacher and then 9 other students in the span of a few seconds at one point.
Originally posted by SurturInstead of chanting your "it won't work" mantra, how about offer solutions?
And you still won't be able to prevent Parklands if you get what you want.As I have said before. Virginia Tech. 2 pistols. 33 dead.
The shootings were not all at once, it was spread out. There were moments where he did a ton of damage in a short amount of time though. Killed a teacher and then 9 other students in the span of a few seconds at one point.
If Republicans AT LEAST put forward more funding for mental health it would seem like they care, but they're not even doing that. In fact they made cuts to mental health...
Originally posted by Firefly218
Incredibly moronic logic. Knives are also responsible for more deaths than nuclear weapons, so are knives more dangerous than nukes too?
What incredibly moronic logic.
Really? We're talking about homicides as a crime and you bring up nuclear weapons?
Let me know if you'd like to talk about war instead of crime. If you want to get fancy, we could talk about warcrimes and really mess with people's minds.
Come back to this discussion with an actual argument. Leave military stuff out of it.
Do you want to stop violence or do you want to wank off to shitty arguments that your libtarded pals pat you on the back about?
If you want to have a legit discussion instead of stupid wankery, probably best to keep it legit. If your counter argument to solving violence is to use nuclear weapons as a rebuttal to knives, you'll get no where.
Address what I said. Do you want to actually stop the violence or do you just care about gun crime and gun crime only (which means you don't care about stopping violence, you care about shifting the violence away from a concept because you think it feels good)?
Originally posted by dadudemonUm, we're talking about weapons and their potential for damage.
What incredibly moronic logic.Really? We're talking about homicides as a crime and you bring up nuclear weapons?
Let me know if you'd like to talk about war instead of crime. If you want to get fancy, we could talk about warcrimes and really mess with people's minds.
Come back to this discussion with an actual argument. Leave military stuff out of it.
Do you want to stop violence or do you want to wank off to shitty arguments that your libtarded pals pat you on the back about?
If you want to have a legit discussion instead of stupid wankery, probably best to keep it legit. If your counter argument to solving violence is to use nuclear weapons as a rebuttal to knives, you'll get no where.
Address what I said. Do you want to actually stop the violence or do you just care about gun crime and gun crime only (which means you don't care about stopping violence, you care about shifting the violence away from a concept because you think it feels good)?
And the only reason nuclear weapons are not used in crimes is because they're HEAVILY regulated and VERY inaccessible to the average person. If a psycho terrorist got their hands on a nuke they could commit a much worse crime than if they got their hands on a knife. Similarly, if a psycho terrorist gets their hands on AK-47s, they can commit a much worse crime than if they got a knife.
Your use of aggregate data is misleading and misrepresenting
Originally posted by Firefly218
Um, we're talking about weapons and their potential for damage.
No we are not. We are talking about violent crime rates, homicides, and what to do about them. You think rifles are serious business. I pointed out the facts that knives are more serious. Your rebuttal was nukes. 👆
Originally posted by Firefly218
Your use of aggregate data is misleading and misrepresenting
It's not my data. It's the facts. You don't like it, though. You don't like the uncomfortable idea that you need to address violence with another avenue other than "restrict, regulate, and ban guns." Restricting, regulating, and banning guns is not the answer almost every time.
Take a step back from the conversation. Go back to the question I asked you.
Do you want to stop only gun violence or do you want to stop the reasons for causes the violence?
Originally posted by dadudemonViolence is not a USA problem, it’s not a humanity problem, it’s a nature of life problem. You’re not going to solve violence, that’s like saying you’re going to solve sex or gluttony. These are vices that every living thing is biologically equipped with.
No we are not. We are talking about violent crime rates, homicides, and what to do about them. You think rifles are serious business. I pointed out the facts that knives are more serious. Your rebuttal was nukes. 👆It's not my data. It's the facts. You don't like it, though. You don't like the uncomfortable idea that you need to address violence with another avenue other than "restrict, regulate, and ban guns." Restricting, regulating, and banning guns is not the answer almost every time.
Take a step back from the conversation. Go back to the question I asked you.
Do you want to stop only gun violence or do you want to stop the reasons for causes the violence?
As far as the root causes of violence. None of the most prominent mass shooters have been motivated by the same root causes that regular gun homicides have been motivated by. You’d agree that most gun homicides foster in areas of poverty and low-education right? A mass shooting is a different type of crime motivated by different reasons, it largely takes place in middle-income white areas and has nothing to do with poverty or lack of education.
So even in a hypothetical utopia where we eliminate poverty, bring the poor into upper class society, make sure every soul if fed and provided for etc. that would certainly reduce violence, but it would do nothing for mass shootings.