By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 16 June 2022
Edit Thread
ConservagameR said:
sundin13 said:

The reason that the effect of local laws is limited is because of how easily guns can travel from areas with weaker gun laws. If those areas don't have weaker gun laws, that problem is solved.

The rest of your post is baffling. Like, you argue that you can miss with a gun if you're not point blank, but somehow ignore that stabbing someone is much harder when they are out of arms reach. The whole thing is just such a ridiculous premise that is refuted by every ounce of our reality that I can't imagine it is being made in entirely good faith. 

I would like to ask you this: What is your solution to the problem of mass shootings and general violence/crime?

So if the federal government fixes that problem, then what about the country to the north and the south, or any others in the world that could illegally import those guns? Just look at the people flooding across the border into the US right now. How many guns are going to come into the country regardless? The problem would only be partially solved at best.

Well I already said nobody would be throwing knives from a distance. How many shootings take place where the gunman couldn't have gotten to their target? If you remove the guns, you think criminals won't take another approach if they have to? Did criminals not exist until guns did? A knife is just one example of a different weapon. Another would be a vehicle, and nobody is going to even suggest restricting or banning them, but what about those killed by vehicles being used for the wrong purpose? It's not like once guns were harder to get a hold of, that all criminals would choose the same next weapon.

Better parenting, better schooling, better (mental) healthcare, better policing (+FBI etc), better media coverage, better gun laws (age, training, etc). That's enough to get started anyway.

The supply of guns is such that guns flow from America to Canada and Mexico. Reducing the amount of guns in the USA will severely tamper supply across the whole continent. Even then, if a "partial solution" means less dead kids, I support it. 

I literally never said that crime is impossible without a gun. That doesn't mean the gun isn't pretty damn good at helping people do murders. Also, criminals aren't just sitting around all day plotting how to do crime. It is often impulsive and poorly planned if it is planned at all. Even with something that is more likely to be planned like a mass shooting, removing guns from the situation severely limits the individuals actions in a way which is almost certain to save lives overall. 

Your arguments are so ridiculously forced, but what baffles me is that in the end you still fucking agree with me that we need better gun laws.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY OF THIS IF YOU AGREE WITH THE POINT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST?!