Gun laws are probably not going to matter if the guns are still available. You gotta get rid of the guns as well. And also the poverty of course.
Which will never happen, there are like 500 million guns in civ hands now. That box is open and will never be closed. And please don’t point to Australia’s buyback because only 60% turned in their firearms which at the time were only around 1mil in civ hands, which are now around 3mil in civilian hands. So they have more guns owned by more people since the ban/buyback.
But would you oppose my knife argument? Say there are no guns. Ever. Anywhere. What would happen in the streets? Would there be as much killing?
Same conditions we have now? Yea…you do realize that around 4k people a year are murdered with knives/blunt objects right? It’s right up there with the number of murders with guns that don’t include gangs or police. End of the day, violence happens because our society is broken, not because of a tool that’s accessible.
Gangs are targeted violence towards other gangs. It doesn’t really effect the public, most people think of gun violence as random acts done by people. Gang violence is something that is spawned again from our lack of safety nets and lack of education.
Police killing people is also something that people don’t usually think of when it comes to gun deaths.
Statistically you account for what the public perception is, but most anti-gun groups don’t. They lump everything together, which isn’t how you solve problems, it’s how you create a narrative that the US is the wild west with people getting murdered in the streets while crossing the road every minute of the day.
It’s the same with the abortion debate, anti-abortion groups don’t like to see the nuance, they just want to paint a picture that an abortion at 2 weeks is the same as a 3rd trimester abortion. Which isn’t true.
Nuance to problems is how you solve them, not ignoring the details.
The more I think about it the less sense it makes to me to exclude gang violence. I’m not able to grasp why it should be excluded. Gang members perpetrating violence are also people, are also members of society, and are also a product of poverty and their environment, just like non-gang members involved in gun violence. They might be driven by different factors but it’s still gun violence. I don’t get it.
It might not make sense for nuance’s sake to “lump it all together”, but it doesn’t make sense to me to completely exclude it either.
The more I think about it the less sense it makes to me to exclude gang violence. I’m not able to grasp why it should be excluded. Gang members perpetrating violence are also people, are also members of society, and are also a product of poverty and their environment, just like non-gang members involved in gun violence. They might be driven by different factors but it’s still gun violence. I don’t get it.
Because like I said, gang violence is not a random act of violence. It doesn’t effect 99.999999999999999% of the public. They don’t and probably will never be effected by it. It’s its own category to be viewed and solved. Ending the war on drugs, ending for profit prison systems, increase in funding of education, creating safety nets, and helping those with drug addiction. These are things the general public really don’t run into (education and single payer healthcare are the only two that they do). You’re average person is not going to go in jail multiple times, they’re not going to sling drugs and be in a gang. Yes members of gangs are the public, but they are a different side of the gun violence and need a different approach.
It might not make sense for nuance’s sake to “lump it all together”, but it doesn’t make sense to me to completely exclude it either.
I’m not excluding it though, I’m calling out the nuances of our gun violence problem, and how anti2a groups lump it all together to scare the public into seeing a picture that truly doesn’t exist.
Suicide is a good example of this, they claim that you’re more likely to get killed in your own home if you own a firearm than if you don’t. That’s true, only if you include suicides, which make up 66%+ of our gun deaths. Which doesn’t paint the picture they’re trying to convey when you point out that their “fact” includes people killing themselves 99.9999999% of that fact. People don’t hear that, they hear “if you have a gun in your home, you’re more likely to be killed by someone breaking in and taking the gun and turning it on you”. Because that’s what they want people to think.
Cartel gang violence doesn’t affect the public? You’re joking. 🙂 It even affects tourists! It affects people. People killing each other is the same, regardless of who the civilian is. I think we basically disagree on this fundament, so I don’t think this discussion is going to go much further here. All I see is people killing each other as a result of poverty and availability of guns. They both need to go. (The availability, that is, not the items themselves.)
Cartel gang violence doesn’t affect the public? You’re joking. 🙂 It even affects tourists!
We’re talking about the USA here…not Mexico.
It affects people. People killing each other is the same, regardless of who the civilian is.
Again, nuance. You’re doing the same shit as the anti-abortion groups do. You’re lumping everything together.
I think we basically disagree on this fundament, so I don’t think this discussion is going to go much further here. All I see is people killing each other as a result of poverty and availability of guns. They both need to go. (The availability, that is, not the items themselves.)
Which is fine, and thank you for having a discussion about this topic without resorting to personal attacks.
Why is that not relevant? It’s poverty and guns in combination.
Again, nuance. You’re doing the same shit as the anti-abortion groups do. You’re lumping everything together.
Can you explain more how it’s the “same shit”? What does the nuance actually provide? I don’t get it. Why exactly does people in gangs killing each other due to poverty and gun availability differ from other people killing each other due to poverty and gun availability? Serious question.
you can’t know what would happen in a world where there were never guns. I’m not asking for anything. I’m pointing out we can’t possibly know what such a world would look like
Gun laws are probably not going to matter if the guns are still available. You gotta get rid of the guns as well. And also the poverty of course.
But would you oppose my knife argument? Say there are no guns. Ever. Anywhere. What would happen in the streets? Would there be as much killing?
Which will never happen, there are like 500 million guns in civ hands now. That box is open and will never be closed. And please don’t point to Australia’s buyback because only 60% turned in their firearms which at the time were only around 1mil in civ hands, which are now around 3mil in civilian hands. So they have more guns owned by more people since the ban/buyback.
Same conditions we have now? Yea…you do realize that around 4k people a year are murdered with knives/blunt objects right? It’s right up there with the number of murders with guns that don’t include gangs or police. End of the day, violence happens because our society is broken, not because of a tool that’s accessible.
Why are you excluding murders by gangs and police? I don’t see how that’s fair or logical.
Gangs are targeted violence towards other gangs. It doesn’t really effect the public, most people think of gun violence as random acts done by people. Gang violence is something that is spawned again from our lack of safety nets and lack of education.
Police killing people is also something that people don’t usually think of when it comes to gun deaths.
Statistically you account for what the public perception is, but most anti-gun groups don’t. They lump everything together, which isn’t how you solve problems, it’s how you create a narrative that the US is the wild west with people getting murdered in the streets while crossing the road every minute of the day.
It’s the same with the abortion debate, anti-abortion groups don’t like to see the nuance, they just want to paint a picture that an abortion at 2 weeks is the same as a 3rd trimester abortion. Which isn’t true.
Nuance to problems is how you solve them, not ignoring the details.
The more I think about it the less sense it makes to me to exclude gang violence. I’m not able to grasp why it should be excluded. Gang members perpetrating violence are also people, are also members of society, and are also a product of poverty and their environment, just like non-gang members involved in gun violence. They might be driven by different factors but it’s still gun violence. I don’t get it.
It might not make sense for nuance’s sake to “lump it all together”, but it doesn’t make sense to me to completely exclude it either.
Because like I said, gang violence is not a random act of violence. It doesn’t effect 99.999999999999999% of the public. They don’t and probably will never be effected by it. It’s its own category to be viewed and solved. Ending the war on drugs, ending for profit prison systems, increase in funding of education, creating safety nets, and helping those with drug addiction. These are things the general public really don’t run into (education and single payer healthcare are the only two that they do). You’re average person is not going to go in jail multiple times, they’re not going to sling drugs and be in a gang. Yes members of gangs are the public, but they are a different side of the gun violence and need a different approach.
I’m not excluding it though, I’m calling out the nuances of our gun violence problem, and how anti2a groups lump it all together to scare the public into seeing a picture that truly doesn’t exist.
Suicide is a good example of this, they claim that you’re more likely to get killed in your own home if you own a firearm than if you don’t. That’s true, only if you include suicides, which make up 66%+ of our gun deaths. Which doesn’t paint the picture they’re trying to convey when you point out that their “fact” includes people killing themselves 99.9999999% of that fact. People don’t hear that, they hear “if you have a gun in your home, you’re more likely to be killed by someone breaking in and taking the gun and turning it on you”. Because that’s what they want people to think.
Cartel gang violence doesn’t affect the public? You’re joking. 🙂 It even affects tourists! It affects people. People killing each other is the same, regardless of who the civilian is. I think we basically disagree on this fundament, so I don’t think this discussion is going to go much further here. All I see is people killing each other as a result of poverty and availability of guns. They both need to go. (The availability, that is, not the items themselves.)
We’re talking about the USA here…not Mexico.
Again, nuance. You’re doing the same shit as the anti-abortion groups do. You’re lumping everything together.
Which is fine, and thank you for having a discussion about this topic without resorting to personal attacks.
Why is that not relevant? It’s poverty and guns in combination.
Can you explain more how it’s the “same shit”? What does the nuance actually provide? I don’t get it. Why exactly does people in gangs killing each other due to poverty and gun availability differ from other people killing each other due to poverty and gun availability? Serious question.
Of course, brother/other. 🤝
since you can’t prove a counterfactual, we will never know
I’m not sure what you mean by that. What do you want me to provide, exactly?
you can’t know what would happen in a world where there were never guns. I’m not asking for anything. I’m pointing out we can’t possibly know what such a world would look like
I’m not asking for definite knowledge, I’m asking what this other person thinks would happen. Thanks though.