Any solution that tries to replace the stuff you just mentioned with some kind of prohibition is doomed to fail. If all the guns in the world vanished tomorrow we’d just be having this argument about mass stabbings and school bombings instead.
I’m sorry, but “there’s no point in trying to solve the main problem, because if we did, we’d just resort to trying to solve the lesser problems next” really isn’t a good argument. It’s the entire point of progress!
What’s stopping mass stabbings and school bombings from occurring now? If they as effective or achievable as shooting people, presumably murderers would be using those options on par with shootings. If they are more difficult or less effective, then it seems like we should prefer the lesser evil, no?
It’s always the same playbook… Put out a trash argument, and then try to pivot to the next talking point when you get called out.
I’m interested in discussing the actual argument you made, not an imaginary one you’re making for me.
School bombings and mass stabbings are simply an infinitesimal problem compared to shootings. Surely there’s a reason for that, and the most obvious one is that there is some impediment to committing murder in those ways that is smaller than using a gun.
Mass stabbings aren’t common here but happen fairly frequently around the world. They aren’t common here because you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
Bombings aren’t as common as school shootings because most school shooters don’t want to kill that indiscriminately. Also, while it’s not particularly difficult to create an effective bomb, getting ahold of a gun is probably easier.
But the point is that conditions in this country are driving people to violence and the actual argument is that we need to do something about violence, not guns.
Seriously, crimes require motive and opportunity. Clearly a prevalence of guns provide the opportunity murderers prefer, so why should we wholesale disregard that as a way to reduce mass violence when guns are the preferred vehicle?
To be clear, I empathize with the argument that mental health issues are also a factor, but that argument seems to be brought up exclusively as a reaction to gun control, and never with any serious follow through. So until the pro-gun crowd starts proposing some actual solutions that aren’t simply blame games rooted in vague racism (fatherless families blah blah blah) or christofascism (put Jesus back in our schools) I can’t take them seriously. If universal mental health care, dismantling of systematic racism, etc were issues supported by the pro-gun bloc, then it would be a different story.
Bombings aren’t as common as school shootings because most school shooters don’t want to kill that indiscriminately.
I’m gonna need a source on that one. The entire MO of these mass shootings (and indeed bombings) has been to cause as much death and injury as possible in a short timeframe, and the only targeting I’ve seen is toward the general building, such as a school or nightclub.
Any solution that tries to replace the stuff you just mentioned with some kind of prohibition is doomed to fail. If all the guns in the world vanished tomorrow we’d just be having this argument about mass stabbings and school bombings instead.
I’m sorry, but “there’s no point in trying to solve the main problem, because if we did, we’d just resort to trying to solve the lesser problems next” really isn’t a good argument. It’s the entire point of progress!
What’s stopping mass stabbings and school bombings from occurring now? If they as effective or achievable as shooting people, presumably murderers would be using those options on par with shootings. If they are more difficult or less effective, then it seems like we should prefer the lesser evil, no?
I’m sorry, but “let’s ignore the real issues by treating the symptoms” doesn’t fly with me.
It’s always the same playbook… Put out a trash argument, and then try to pivot to the next talking point when you get called out.
I’m interested in discussing the actual argument you made, not an imaginary one you’re making for me.
School bombings and mass stabbings are simply an infinitesimal problem compared to shootings. Surely there’s a reason for that, and the most obvious one is that there is some impediment to committing murder in those ways that is smaller than using a gun.
Mass stabbings aren’t common here but happen fairly frequently around the world. They aren’t common here because you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
Bombings aren’t as common as school shootings because most school shooters don’t want to kill that indiscriminately. Also, while it’s not particularly difficult to create an effective bomb, getting ahold of a gun is probably easier.
But the point is that conditions in this country are driving people to violence and the actual argument is that we need to do something about violence, not guns.
¿Por que no los dos?
Seriously, crimes require motive and opportunity. Clearly a prevalence of guns provide the opportunity murderers prefer, so why should we wholesale disregard that as a way to reduce mass violence when guns are the preferred vehicle?
To be clear, I empathize with the argument that mental health issues are also a factor, but that argument seems to be brought up exclusively as a reaction to gun control, and never with any serious follow through. So until the pro-gun crowd starts proposing some actual solutions that aren’t simply blame games rooted in vague racism (fatherless families blah blah blah) or christofascism (put Jesus back in our schools) I can’t take them seriously. If universal mental health care, dismantling of systematic racism, etc were issues supported by the pro-gun bloc, then it would be a different story.
I’m gonna need a source on that one. The entire MO of these mass shootings (and indeed bombings) has been to cause as much death and injury as possible in a short timeframe, and the only targeting I’ve seen is toward the general building, such as a school or nightclub.