Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
I don't like this data selection.
Switzerland is or was the highest country with gun ownership pro capita.
In the gun stats in USA suicides are usually included, along with criminal activit (i.e. guns obtained illegally).
The problem is not tbe gun, or the knife like in the UK, but a socially oppressed and poorly scholarised lower class, who fall into criminality as society makes them exluded.
Switzerland is or was the highest country with gun ownership pro capita.
In the gun stats in USA suicides are usually included, along with criminal activit (i.e. guns obtained illegally).
The problem is not tbe gun, or the knife like in the UK, but a socially oppressed and poorly scholarised lower class, who fall into criminality as society makes them exluded.
Are you equating those thing to an actual weapon ? What with the intellectual laziness here ?
No, that's what you guys are doing.
What I say is act with priorities. What is the hardest thing to do ? Reform entirely the health system, create new center, educate the entire population on health crisis ? ..... or Ban guns ?
If you don't see the priority here, there is indeed a problem.
With a SIMPLE REFORM we can act effectively on the number of shooting and reduce DRASTICALLY the number of death. Does this means that we must stop here ? No.
But we must start somewhere, because right now, we are doing NOTHING.
Again, those who defend the gun legislations or deflect the debate from gun's easy access, simply DO NOT CARE.
Fallacious argument.
We are not talking about common criminals (even if in that case, gun control would ALSO help drastically), we are talking about shooting, done by young with suicidal ideas who obtain guns in total legality.
Again a fallacious argument. You are implying that the number of usage would be the same under restricted laws when we know that in reality, preventing people from owning a gun, PREVENT PEOPLE FROM OWNING A GUN... and drastically reduce the number of usage.
Because what you don't understand, is that gun ownership is not just the act of owning a gun, its an entire mindset that comes with the free access for gun. Its the idea that because its a right, then it is something that should be owned. But when you stop this from being a right, then the mindset is no more.
The argument of the prohibition is a fallacious one. Contrary to alcohool, there is absolutely no logical reasons to privatly own a gun in our societies. So if we stop this free access, the usage will automatically decrease.
But again, this is not the subject. We are talking about shooting and cases where the easy access to gun IS the problem.
No, that's what you guys are doing.
What I say is act with priorities. What is the hardest thing to do ? Reform entirely the health system, create new center, educate the entire population on health crisis ? ..... or Ban guns ?
If you don't see the priority here, there is indeed a problem.
With a SIMPLE REFORM we can act effectively on the number of shooting and reduce DRASTICALLY the number of death. Does this means that we must stop here ? No.
But we must start somewhere, because right now, we are doing NOTHING.
Again, those who defend the gun legislations or deflect the debate from gun's easy access, simply DO NOT CARE.
Fallacious argument.
We are not talking about common criminals (even if in that case, gun control would ALSO help drastically), we are talking about shooting, done by young with suicidal ideas who obtain guns in total legality.
Again a fallacious argument. You are implying that the number of usage would be the same under restricted laws when we know that in reality, preventing people from owning a gun, PREVENT PEOPLE FROM OWNING A GUN... and drastically reduce the number of usage.
Because what you don't understand, is that gun ownership is not just the act of owning a gun, its an entire mindset that comes with the free access for gun. Its the idea that because its a right, then it is something that should be owned. But when you stop this from being a right, then the mindset is no more.
The argument of the prohibition is a fallacious one. Contrary to alcohool, there is absolutely no logical reasons to privatly own a gun in our societies. So if we stop this free access, the usage will automatically decrease.
But again, this is not the subject. We are talking about shooting and cases where the easy access to gun IS the problem.
No they won't. The reason why there is so much shooting its because its EASY to do with such gun easy access. Reducing gun's access will automatically rises the difficulty for such act and also automatically reduce them. People simply won't do complicated.
But don't listen to me. Listen to science
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives1/
The reasonning that someone who wants to kill will find other tool is a fallacious one in that case. Simply because killing is not the goal.
My mistake was to think there were people in this thread who actually cared about doing something against those shootings. I was wrong, all I see is people defending gun's easy access... for absolutely no logical other reasons than.... defending gun's easy access.
Once again, people like you here don't care about facts, science or logic, they just want to keep the status co running.
But don't listen to me. Listen to science
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives1/
The reasonning that someone who wants to kill will find other tool is a fallacious one in that case. Simply because killing is not the goal.
My mistake was to think there were people in this thread who actually cared about doing something against those shootings. I was wrong, all I see is people defending gun's easy access... for absolutely no logical other reasons than.... defending gun's easy access.
Once again, people like you here don't care about facts, science or logic, they just want to keep the status co running.
Knife crime in Britain. Using cars for terrorist attacks like in Nice.......
Huh? Then what is the goal of a terrorist who shoots at people?!
Nobody said there should be no gun control. You're moving the goal posts. The conversation was about banning them altogether
Huh? Then what is the goal of a terrorist who shoots at people?!
Nobody said there should be no gun control. You're moving the goal posts. The conversation was about banning them altogether
He thinks that criminals respect the law.
You are talking about terrorist attack here when I'm talking about school shootings done by younglings.
Terrorist are based on ideology, not getting a gun indeed won't stop them (but will still reduce the cases of violences). But that's not the case for young people who just wants to be known as a school shooter.
Actually even in terrorism, killing is not the goal. What is important for them is what they gain from those murder.
In both cases there is a gain:
- Celebrity for a school shooter
- Internet political distruption, vengeance or fear for terrorist
And in both cases there are ways to deals with those issues as long as we allow our society to understand the core roots of those behaviors:
- To reduce school shooting we must stop the profil coverage of the killers, we must reduce their access to weapons and we must reduce the probabilities of such behaviors to flourish in the first place by creating better mental healthcare system and detection center.
- To reduce terrorist attack we must... stop giving reasons for people to be angry in the first place. This means less wars, less genocides, less dehumanization, less marginalization and we must also do more to prevent cases of radicalization, which means depopulize prison, give less room for far right ideas to flourish (Radical islamism/white supremacism), etc. etc.
Hey Einstein, given the choice, do you think a suicidal person who wants to commit a crime would prefer to take a gun in easy access or try to obtain it through the black market ??
Terrorist are based on ideology, not getting a gun indeed won't stop them (but will still reduce the cases of violences). But that's not the case for young people who just wants to be known as a school shooter.
Huh? Then what is the goal of a terrorist who shoots at people?!
In both cases there is a gain:
- Celebrity for a school shooter
- Internet political distruption, vengeance or fear for terrorist
And in both cases there are ways to deals with those issues as long as we allow our society to understand the core roots of those behaviors:
- To reduce school shooting we must stop the profil coverage of the killers, we must reduce their access to weapons and we must reduce the probabilities of such behaviors to flourish in the first place by creating better mental healthcare system and detection center.
- To reduce terrorist attack we must... stop giving reasons for people to be angry in the first place. This means less wars, less genocides, less dehumanization, less marginalization and we must also do more to prevent cases of radicalization, which means depopulize prison, give less room for far right ideas to flourish (Radical islamism/white supremacism), etc. etc.
Hey Einstein, given the choice, do you think a suicidal person who wants to commit a crime would prefer to take a gun in easy access or try to obtain it through the black market ??