I, from the UK, once had a 'conversation' about gun control with an American on Reddit. What brought this about was the day before a 9 year old girl was killed by a stray bullet from a drive-by. One moment she was in her bedroom doing some homework, and the next she was dead.
After a lot of back and forth with him getting more flummoxed and aggressive he then said something like "If she was outside playing like a normal kid then she wouldn't have been killed."
Yep, he blamed her.
That was the time I realised it was a waste of everything talking about it.
people who argue that their right to guns is more important than a persons right to life is inherently moronic, and shouldn't be listened to.
One thing I've learned is that, if you write a comment with reasonable
balance of views and still get attacks, the posters are people without proper trainings on critical debates.
In case of the gun ban, it's even worse because most people never lived in the rest of the world.
Are guns legal in: El Salvador, Venezuela, Eswatini, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, and Columbia?
All of those nations have higher firearm death rates than the US.
If guns are illegal in any of the nations with higher firearm death rates than the US, then can you acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue? Maybe culture has something to do with it?
you just named countries well known for organized crime and corrupt government officials.
I don't think it is the same
then can you acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue? Maybe culture has something to do with it?
Can you acknowledge that some issues require addressing multiple factors? Or can your brain not handle that level of complex thought?
I literally said "banning guns is not the only issue."
Learn to read before you start insulting someone else's intelligence.
The "issue" is not banning guns.
The issue is people dying en masse repeatedly from guns.
Get that straight. Banning guns is a partial solution that helps to address the issue in literally every single western country.
Get what straight? Your views even though many other people in this comment chain say banning guns is the solution?
Banning guns is a partial solution that helps to address the issue in literally every single western country.
Really? Another person said it's gun control, not banning.
Answer the question: multiple factors contribute to a problem, do you a) address none of them or b) address all of them?
B.
Some people in this thread think banning guns will solve the problem. They believe the only reason the US firearm death rate is so high is because guns are legal.
And they are right.
The widespread availability of guns is one of the factors contributing to the rate and severity of gun crime, and needs to be addressed, in addition to poverty and mental health.
It's really not complicated.
Those people are power seeking bullies and banning guns absolutely won't stop them from killing others. They'll just smuggle them in, or use or build other weapons to accomplish the same goal.
You care way more about banning guns than solving the problem and it is obvious to anyone with any insight.
While I agree that banning guns won't eliminate people illegally smuggling guns in, I'd still really appreciate it if the US would ban (most) firearms, that way Canada could chill the fuck out and have sensible gun laws without a freeking firehose of illegal and cheap guns blasting us from the south.
There are many ways to legislate and protect the population while allowing responsible and vetted citizens to own and use firearms, they just all get throw out the window when it's easier to drive one over the border in a 3 hour black Friday round trip for 1/3 the price than it is to jump through the legal hoops to be allowed to purchase and own one here.
Did you not read the part where they said that dumb Americans can shut up and keep their idiocacy to themselves?
Like honestly, this is the DUMBEST fucking argument I've ever heard.
Multiple factors contribute to the both the rate and severity of violent crime, congratulations Einstein! Now answer me this, when multiple factors contribute to something happening, and you want to stop that something from happening, do you a) sit around and do nothing and say it's impossible to address in any way shape or form cause the solution requires addressing multiple factors, or do you b) try and address all the factors contributing to it, starting with the easiest and most obvious ones?
Like Jesus Christ, think with your fucking brain, not the lead dust poisoning it.
Calm down and people might take you seriously.
Say something that's not a brain dead NRA argument if you want people to not insult your intelligence.
Tell us again how when multiple factors contribute to a problem that means you can't address any of them.
That was your argument right?
Tell us again how when multiple factors contribute to a problem that means you can’t address any of them.
That was your argument right?
Where did I ever suggest that? You can quote me so there's no ambiguity.
Or just admit you're making up bullshit that's easier to argue against because you can't address what I'm actually saying.
Oh I'm sorry, your arguing that El Salvador and the US have comparable levels of law enforcement and border control?
Oh I'm so sorry I mistook your dumbass argument that has no merit for a different dumbass argument that has no merit.
making up bullshit that’s easier to argue against because you can’t address what I’m actually saying.
Lol, there you go doing it again.
your arguing that El Salvador and the US have comparable levels of law enforcement and border control?
I'm arguing the exact opposite of that. You should really brush up on your reading comprehension. Try to address what's being said instead of playing leapfrog with yourself like someone who is chronically reddit-brained.
Your argument is that gun control is not the answer to reducing gun crime, because, El Salvador bans guns and has a high rate of gun crime.
It's a dumbass argument and we're all waiting for you to explain how it's not.
Okay. Keep replacing my arguments with ones that are easier for you to argue against.
I don't think you're capable of doing anything more.
Are guns legal in: El Salvador, Venezuela, Eswatini, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, and Columbia?
All of those nations have higher firearm death rates than the US.
If guns are illegal in any of the nations with higher firearm death rates than the US, then can you acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue? Maybe culture has something to do with it?
Go ahead and explain what you meant then. You can't gaslight us when your words are literally sitting there three comments up.
Can you acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue? Maybe culture has something to do with it?
Here you go. Right here. Front-and-center. If you replace these exact words with anything else, then you are replacing my argument with something that's easier for you to argue against.
Let's see if you can avoid doing it for the 3rd time in a row.
Edit: I gotta go now, but it's painfully obvious that you "can't acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue" because you think it is the only issue. This is why you have to replace my argument with something that's easier to argue against. You know I'm right, but afraid to admit it.
None of what you've quoted matters as the entire start of that comment was so flawed. Your argument has no ground to stand on, is clearly being made in bad faith, why should any of us give it any respect?
Guns are legal in all those countries besides Venezuela. Cos guns are legal in most of the world. It's just they are generally controlled. And Venezuela is on the verge on collapse anyway. I don't think this is the slam dunk argument you think it is.
Guns are legal in all those countries besides Venezuela. Cos guns are legal in most of the world.
Then why doesn't most of the world have a firearm homicide rate comparable to that of the US?
Literally suggested a reason for that with my very next sentence.
So you don't think guns should be banned?
You're not arguing in good faith here. I've answered you're initial, idiotic, comment. I've answered your second, idiotic, comment that was highly selective in what it quoted of me as if it was trying to "gotcha" me. And now this horseshit? I've already alluded to how most of the rest of the world does it, I suggest you go read up on it rather than trying to push your agenda on me.
After a lot of back and forth with him getting more flummoxed and aggressive
You think guns should be banned, tried to argue that it's just 'gun control' that's the issue, then when pressed on it you retreat and resort to petty insults.
I accept your unconditional surrender.
I have not once stated my position on the issue. Wouldn't call what I said a petty insult either, more a statement of fact about your idiotic comments, but if you're thin skinned/wrong I can see how they could be interpreted that way. Stop trying to gotcha me, you're not very good at it, and it's just making you look dumber. The arrogance in your final comment says a hell of a lot about your character too, and like the rest of your comments here, it's not saying much good.
Okay, bud.
I can tell you're in the right because you're just insulting me without presenting a valid rebuttal.
I'm right cos I corrected your idiotic comment. You keep trying to goad me into this debate, and it's not gonna work. I corrected you. That's it. I have no desire to argue the issue with you, and that's been cemented in my mind given how badly you've tried to provoke a reaction out of me. Take the L and fuck off.
Ok.
You might want to take a break from lemmy. It doesn't seem like you're engaging in a healthy manner.
You might want to give your two brain cells a break, they're obviously exhausted from competing for third place... Please, me not engaging in a healthy manner? Your comments here could be used as a couple of examples of various mental disorders in the dsm-v.
I, from the UK, once had a 'conversation' about gun control with an American on Reddit. What brought this about was the day before a 9 year old girl was killed by a stray bullet from a drive-by. One moment she was in her bedroom doing some homework, and the next she was dead.
After a lot of back and forth with him getting more flummoxed and aggressive he then said something like "If she was outside playing like a normal kid then she wouldn't have been killed."
Yep, he blamed her.
That was the time I realised it was a waste of everything talking about it.
people who argue that their right to guns is more important than a persons right to life is inherently moronic, and shouldn't be listened to.
One thing I've learned is that, if you write a comment with reasonable
balance of views and still get attacks, the posters are people without proper trainings on critical debates.
In case of the gun ban, it's even worse because most people never lived in the rest of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Are guns legal in: El Salvador, Venezuela, Eswatini, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, and Columbia?
All of those nations have higher firearm death rates than the US.
If guns are illegal in any of the nations with higher firearm death rates than the US, then can you acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue? Maybe culture has something to do with it?
you just named countries well known for organized crime and corrupt government officials.
I don't think it is the same
Can you acknowledge that some issues require addressing multiple factors? Or can your brain not handle that level of complex thought?
I literally said "banning guns is not the only issue."
Learn to read before you start insulting someone else's intelligence.
The "issue" is not banning guns.
The issue is people dying en masse repeatedly from guns.
Get that straight. Banning guns is a partial solution that helps to address the issue in literally every single western country.
Get what straight? Your views even though many other people in this comment chain say banning guns is the solution?
Really? Another person said it's gun control, not banning.
Answer the question: multiple factors contribute to a problem, do you a) address none of them or b) address all of them?
B.
Some people in this thread think banning guns will solve the problem. They believe the only reason the US firearm death rate is so high is because guns are legal.
And they are right.
The widespread availability of guns is one of the factors contributing to the rate and severity of gun crime, and needs to be addressed, in addition to poverty and mental health.
It's really not complicated.
Those people are power seeking bullies and banning guns absolutely won't stop them from killing others. They'll just smuggle them in, or use or build other weapons to accomplish the same goal.
You care way more about banning guns than solving the problem and it is obvious to anyone with any insight.
While I agree that banning guns won't eliminate people illegally smuggling guns in, I'd still really appreciate it if the US would ban (most) firearms, that way Canada could chill the fuck out and have sensible gun laws without a freeking firehose of illegal and cheap guns blasting us from the south.
There are many ways to legislate and protect the population while allowing responsible and vetted citizens to own and use firearms, they just all get throw out the window when it's easier to drive one over the border in a 3 hour black Friday round trip for 1/3 the price than it is to jump through the legal hoops to be allowed to purchase and own one here.
the fuck are you trying to say here???
Banning guns is the only issue. Full stop.
Why are you swearing at me and using multiple question marks?
ok tone police
You'll understand when you're older.
argue the content not my words bitch
With that attitude, I'll do anything you say!
you must be getting destroyed in these comments to be so petty and dumb at me lol
Looks like one of your posts was already removed by mods.
Seems like you need to learn how to conduct yourself in a civil manner.
ok
What a snowflake.
be civil to my nuts bitch
Ok.
Did you not read the part where they said that dumb Americans can shut up and keep their idiocacy to themselves?
Like honestly, this is the DUMBEST fucking argument I've ever heard.
Multiple factors contribute to the both the rate and severity of violent crime, congratulations Einstein! Now answer me this, when multiple factors contribute to something happening, and you want to stop that something from happening, do you a) sit around and do nothing and say it's impossible to address in any way shape or form cause the solution requires addressing multiple factors, or do you b) try and address all the factors contributing to it, starting with the easiest and most obvious ones?
Like Jesus Christ, think with your fucking brain, not the lead dust poisoning it.
Calm down and people might take you seriously.
Say something that's not a brain dead NRA argument if you want people to not insult your intelligence.
Tell us again how when multiple factors contribute to a problem that means you can't address any of them.
That was your argument right?
Where did I ever suggest that? You can quote me so there's no ambiguity.
Or just admit you're making up bullshit that's easier to argue against because you can't address what I'm actually saying.
Oh I'm sorry, your arguing that El Salvador and the US have comparable levels of law enforcement and border control?
Oh I'm so sorry I mistook your dumbass argument that has no merit for a different dumbass argument that has no merit.
Lol, there you go doing it again.
I'm arguing the exact opposite of that. You should really brush up on your reading comprehension. Try to address what's being said instead of playing leapfrog with yourself like someone who is chronically reddit-brained.
Your argument is that gun control is not the answer to reducing gun crime, because, El Salvador bans guns and has a high rate of gun crime.
It's a dumbass argument and we're all waiting for you to explain how it's not.
Okay. Keep replacing my arguments with ones that are easier for you to argue against.
I don't think you're capable of doing anything more.
Go ahead and explain what you meant then. You can't gaslight us when your words are literally sitting there three comments up.
Here you go. Right here. Front-and-center. If you replace these exact words with anything else, then you are replacing my argument with something that's easier for you to argue against.
Let's see if you can avoid doing it for the 3rd time in a row.
Edit: I gotta go now, but it's painfully obvious that you "can't acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue" because you think it is the only issue. This is why you have to replace my argument with something that's easier to argue against. You know I'm right, but afraid to admit it.
None of what you've quoted matters as the entire start of that comment was so flawed. Your argument has no ground to stand on, is clearly being made in bad faith, why should any of us give it any respect?
Culture being a factor in violent crime is neither here nor there. That's a nonsense whataboutism argument in this context.
Yes, other factors besides gun ownership also increase the rate and severity of violent crime, but so does gun ownership.
Guns are legal in all those countries besides Venezuela. Cos guns are legal in most of the world. It's just they are generally controlled. And Venezuela is on the verge on collapse anyway. I don't think this is the slam dunk argument you think it is.
Then why doesn't most of the world have a firearm homicide rate comparable to that of the US?
Literally suggested a reason for that with my very next sentence.
So you don't think guns should be banned?
You're not arguing in good faith here. I've answered you're initial, idiotic, comment. I've answered your second, idiotic, comment that was highly selective in what it quoted of me as if it was trying to "gotcha" me. And now this horseshit? I've already alluded to how most of the rest of the world does it, I suggest you go read up on it rather than trying to push your agenda on me.
You think guns should be banned, tried to argue that it's just 'gun control' that's the issue, then when pressed on it you retreat and resort to petty insults.
I accept your unconditional surrender.
I have not once stated my position on the issue. Wouldn't call what I said a petty insult either, more a statement of fact about your idiotic comments, but if you're thin skinned/wrong I can see how they could be interpreted that way. Stop trying to gotcha me, you're not very good at it, and it's just making you look dumber. The arrogance in your final comment says a hell of a lot about your character too, and like the rest of your comments here, it's not saying much good.
Okay, bud.
I can tell you're in the right because you're just insulting me without presenting a valid rebuttal.
I'm right cos I corrected your idiotic comment. You keep trying to goad me into this debate, and it's not gonna work. I corrected you. That's it. I have no desire to argue the issue with you, and that's been cemented in my mind given how badly you've tried to provoke a reaction out of me. Take the L and fuck off.
Ok.
You might want to take a break from lemmy. It doesn't seem like you're engaging in a healthy manner.
You might want to give your two brain cells a break, they're obviously exhausted from competing for third place... Please, me not engaging in a healthy manner? Your comments here could be used as a couple of examples of various mental disorders in the dsm-v.
This seems to apply to ya'll.