760
Story of Cruz
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
760 points (86.8% liked)
4chan
4258 readers
22 users here now
Greentexts, memes, everything 4chan.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
why are you worried about an object that can do no harm unless what happens? ...Some...One...Picks...It ..Up.
drastically reduce? that's weak tea im trying to stop ALL violence. your half measures are a compromise. and that's sick compromising for some deaths vs many. It needs to be solved at the root and violence needs to be cut off completely.
We still have to talk about teenagers who beat up homeless people to death.
going to tell a rape victim they shouldn't be so paranoid and to just relax around people?
if i get drowned, are we gonna ban water?
we need to stop the Core Issue of Violence in Humans.
you wanna shout loud about drastically reducing murders, no that's cowardly, im trying to do better. im going for Zero Murder.
Lol, gl with that. In the meantime other people are still allowed to set more reasonable and feasible goalposts.
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.
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.
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
what was your solution for removing guns? not just here or there but all firearms.
It is impossible unless you murder everyone down to every last intellectual capable of figuring out how to make a gun.
the gun is a tool and it's efficient. humans at the core have to change. Trying to get rid of the object in space is futile they are here guns arent leaving our civilization as whole.
since we are arguing about minimal vs no violence. i pray that it is you who pays the stab tax and not me. ill be sure to notify your family and say how sorry we as humans all are about it.
Stop The Motivation, Stop the Problem.
Stop the Tool. New tools emerge.
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
what the fuck is this incoherent pile of sludge
Double response to the same post. Unnecessary.
you act vile to people online and yet have no idea why people shoot or stab human beings? im so glad guns exist because people like you have to keep their mouth shut in public or risk injury and death for your cruelty of language
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.
go play in traffic. hahaha way to be a peaceful human being. this..this right here is what starts the fires humans make. and you think humans are going to give up the advantage of a firearm. good luck out there. don't forget to be this vitriolic online as you are in person. don't be afraid of who and what you are. Just Another Monster in this jungle with the rest of us.
go play in traffic...nice.
i don't think it worked, go play in traffic again
if bleach didn't work, i would suggest frequent and heavy exposure to uranium.
Actually I'm down here and you're absolutely insufferable. How you think it's okay to take personal attacks at several people across these post comments just because they don't think it's feasible to completely conquer the idea of violence before coming up with some common sense regulations is the craziest thing. You're coming off like a crazy person.
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?