I'm confused. Y'all love to crow all day about how our inequality of wealth, with extreme wealth and crushing poverty living side-by-side, shows just how stupid we Americans are. But poverty can't be part of the equation where American gun violence is concerned. Can't really have it both ways.
Don't be silly. You know what I'm talking about. There's poverty and then there's a truly poor country. The USA is a very wealthy country overall, and the crime/murder rates should reflect that.
In countries that poor, people barely have access to education or food, which will always lead to extremely high crime rates.
If you could magically take away every single gun in the world and people will still kill each other. Of course the murder rate would drop initially but people will just switch to other means. Explosives can be far more deadly than firearms, better ban fertizilisers while your at it
And yet the majority of gun violence comes from hand guns. If you're so set on "saving the world from itself", why would you go after the tip of the iceberg? There's only 2 real answers to that question, you know: either it's pointless activity so y'all can feel good about how you're saving the world while actually not accomplishing much, or it's nothing but an initial step toward broader action, which is exactly what y'all have been accused of and denied for years. So which is it? Participation trophies or blatant liars?Hmmm how come that is not the case in developed countries with tighter gun control than?
Besides, we aren't talking about every single gun but about assault rifles.
There are no "y'all" on this forum dte. There is no organisation, schism or cabal. I have no idea what others think but, for me, banning of assault rifles would indeed be a first step. And I, for one, have never denied this.
Like blatantninja have said: "The answer is cultural change" Let's get it rolling by dealing with assault weapons.
There are no "y'all" on this forum dte. There is no organisation, schism or cabal. I have no idea what others think but, for me, banning of assault rifles would indeed be a first step. And I, for one, have never denied this.
Like blatantninja have said: "The answer is cultural change" Let's get it rolling by dealing with assault weapons.
Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of cars that can be accessed by potential drunk drivers (it's key to realise that drunk drivers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they will drive drunk) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of automatic weapons that can be accessed by potential criminals (it's key to realise that criminals are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to crime) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.
I thought I've made it perfectly clear over the years that my standard use of "y'all" is to mean "not (just) you personally, but the people that share the viewpoint you're expressing". It's my way of both depersonalizing the argument and acknowledging that the viewpoint under discussion (whatever that happens to be at the time) goes beyond a single wayward soul.There are no "y'all" on this forum dte. There is no organisation, schism or cabal. I have no idea what others think but, for me, banning of assault rifles would indeed be a first step. And I, for one, have never denied this.
Like blatantninja have said: "The answer is cultural change" Let's get it rolling by dealing with assault weapons.
Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of cars that can be accessed by potential drunk drivers (it's key to realise that drunk drivers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they will drive drunk) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.
Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonethless. If we can reduce the amount of internet that can be accessed by potential internet stalkers (it's key to realise that internet stalkers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to stalking) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of automatic weapons that can be accessed by potential criminals (it's key to realise that criminals are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to crime) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.
Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonethless. If we can reduce the amount of internet that can be accessed by potential internet stalkers (it's key to realise that internet stalkers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to stalking) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.
Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of air that can be accessed by potential second-hand smoke lung cancer victims (it's key to realise that lung cancer victims are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they breath enough smoke to get cancer) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.
Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of food available to potential overeaters (it's key to realise that overeaters are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they'll start overeating) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.
I can do this all day long.
If it's such a ridiculous argument, why did you make it? I think you're proving my point, because you're 100% correct- the original argument is completely ridiculous as are all my subsequent ones. Applying the logic to any similar situation just demonstrates how silly it truly is, and claims that the problem of guns is somehow completely unique and sustains such a silly argument simply demonstrates how far the gun control lobby is willing to stretch common logic.
Given all the hubbub about global obesity and the incredible health care costs and human costs associated with it, your cavalier attitude toward it is rather surprising.
So then, as long as we all agree that the problem of guns is completely unique and any logic applied to that problem is completely inappropriate to any other similar problem, then all is good. You're really OK with a structure built on that sort of flim-flam?
There's only one way to truly deal with obesity and that's take the food out of people's hands. So, while your storm troopers are taking all the guns, they can check the cabinets for potato chips. Shit, I thought my draconian benevolent dictatorship was a grey world— you, sir, are downright grim.