RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:But Good Citizens In Canada Don't Need Guns, Right ? These are great questions surrounding the infringement of rights and when do your rights end and mine begin.. in the state situation, I would argue that things like defunding the police can be tried regardless of what other states do. And yes, gun legislation will be difficult if your neighbours don't agree, but that's a problem that the respective state has to figure out and you can't ask your neighbours to commit to social experiments you wish to enact. Another thing you can do is keep track of the exceptions where outside states contributed to the gun crime, but in no case should it impact the autonomy of others. As for seconds reloading, you can make the case that small magazines disproportionately impact law abiding citizens (which there are more of) who need to reload when gangbangers come knocking at your door. There is a tradeoff, and it's not as black and white as you might think. As important as your rights are, they cannot infringe on the constitution, and if someone disagrees with the laws of the land then don't move there, or move to California where the laws favour your type of values versus gun friendly states. Just like how if I don't like the sexist laws in Saudi Arabia I wouldn't move there either. And if you want to play the tragedy card, I raise you the bigger trump card of worse tragedies that are of far higher importance and far higher death counts, namely gangs in Chicago and other democrat statezls and fentanyl overdoses. You want to talk dead kids look to these far worse issues of gang culture, poverty, and Chinese imported fentanyl. They count in the thousands. And the primary cause of death for kids being guns is due to all the collateral damage of gang violence, not from mass shootings. Your legislation would not affect the gangs that are going to find handguns one way or another to destroy one another's families. Why? Because as we speak Democrats like Gascon release gun criminals that have a rap sheet longer than my forearm so your red flag does nothing when these demons remain free to terorize communities.
yggdrasill wrote: First, don't worry about the personal insults. An argument's an argument, I take nothing personally.
Second, yes people die for many reasons. But as I covered in my previous post: people die a lot more in the US.
Third, my ideas have been tried in leftist and centre-right strongholds. They worked in the UK, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Canada...etc. You can't try something in Illinois alone, for example, because people can just hop over to Indiana or have their gun delivered from Indiana after buying it online. That's why a ban in the US isn't likely to work. That's why I'm suggesting background checks and red flag laws as a first step with an assault weapons ban and expanded magazine ban. It only takes a few seconds to reload, but that can give time to an officer to fire. It can give time to a victim to hide. Every second is crucial. So while the issue isn't simple, the solutions do seem pretty clear as soon as one looks around the world.
Fourth, I can't respect your choice if your choice is creating a social nightmare. How can you ask me to respect a choice that leads directly to tragedy not just for you but for those around you and around me? If your choice impacts me directly via a school shooting or mass shooting, then you're forcing your choice on me. It is the same as me imposing my choice on you through legislation. Except one leads to death in the community, and the other leads to you not being able to do whatever it is you do with a gun. It shouldn't be much of a discussion IMO.
And yes, there are also other problems to tackle, such mental illness and a lack of economic opportunity for so many, leading them to marginalization and crime. But usually, the politicians who oppose even minimal gun control laws are also the ones who cut funding for mental illness and and social safety nets.
NPCexe wrote: When did I encourage people to buy guns on the grounds that it makes them safer? I already covered it in the previous post, but I think I can safely make the argument that it is a philosophical question about the misery and suffering in the world: people die, whether it's from gun violence or lockdowns or lack of funding for third world countries. The question is how do we address it properly and my frustration with people generally (which I'll apologize here if I was a bit harsh with my personal insults towards you) is when they think there are simple ways to accomplish these solutions, and worse yet, when they get these ideas from government and media sources and vilify opposing viewpoints. And the answer to that is that if you think you're so smart and everyone's so stupid, then try it first in leftist strongholds on a small scale and then proceed to show the world your wose ways. Until then you cannot expect a whole nation to deal with the problem the way YOU see it. Everyone sees the problem differently, which is why it is better if every state is given the power to employ what they think works best for them, whether it's one policy decision or another. As for me, if I lived in the USA I would probably own a gun because we've already seen instances where cops cannot get to you, and there is therefore no cavalry coming to save you (CHAZ is a good example). Some people have a different viewpoint, and that's fine too because there is a tradeoff. Is there a chance my kid can pick it up and shoot themselves by accident? Sure, if I'm dumb enough I can improperly store all sorts of dangerous tools/items in the household. But that is an individual's decision and I respect your choices so long as you respect mine.
yggdrasill wrote: NPCexe wrote: "gun ownership increases risk of gun violence"... really, you think?
Almost missed this. So you admit that owning a gun, which you are encouraging people to do on the basis that it makes them safer, actually makes them less safe? Amazing. I didn't think we'd get here.