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.