7 ms·
Then we need to figure out which numbers are correct. That shouldn't be rocket science. But either way, hysteria still isn't the way forward...it never is. I w
by m52go 9y ago
Then we need to figure out which numbers are correct. That shouldn't be rocket science. But either way, hysteria still isn't the way forward...it never is.
I won't attempt to debate any of the points made in your article, as I'm not authority on the subject myself, but thanks for linking it.
However, you might find this article written by a former member of the FiveThirtyEight team interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-...
- arrrg 9y agoThe article you linked seems to make reference only to school shootings, while the article posted in response to you doesn’t limit itself in such a way.
- IgorPartola 9y agoIs there some minimal number of school shootings that's acceptable? My position is that we clearly have shown that this country cannot be trusted with personal possession of firearms, so let's all calmly proceed towards no longer having them around.
- alehul 9y agoLess is always better, and so we should jump on board with efforts that will reduce them. At the same time, it was laid out in the Federalist Papers (No. 46) that the intention of our Second Amendment is to protect against government tyranny. To summarize the American philosophy: School shootings and gun violence are awful, but the possibility of a genocide or enslavement is worse. I'm not enough of an expert in any field to speculate which is objectively better, however I've always personally believed that the U.S. will be safer when viewed in a longer timescale compared to our neighbors.
- beamatronic 9y agoIs there some minimal number of fatal auto accidents that's acceptable? My position is that we clearly have shown that this country cannot be trusted with personal possession of motor vehicles, so let's all calmly proceed towards no longer having them around.
- ebcode 9y agohear, hear!
- castle-bravo 9y agoNow this I can get behind.
- dpweb 9y agoCar companies fought against seat belts.
- ddw 9y agoBut there ARE actions taken to prevent accidents. Anti-texting campaigns, DUI enforcement, street planning efforts, safer cars, signage and reflective material on roads. These things have undoubtedly saved some lives. But when it comes to guns we just throw up ours hands and say whaddya gonna do.
- supreme_sublime 9y agoThere are actions taken to prevent mass shootings. Background checks, mandatory waiting periods, gun free zones, banning certain guns. Stop acting like there are no laws about guns, as that's ridiculous. Funny how in Parkland and it seems even with the YouTube office the police were aware of threats these people posed and did nothing. Seems like there should be more scrutiny put on the police, instead of a push to rely on them to defend the public; something they aren't even legally obligated to do.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rlt 9y agoMy position is governments can't be trusted with prohibiting citizens from owning firearms, so let's keep them around.
- solarkraft 9y agoMy question: How the hell are you going to use your hand gun against a lot of pretty well trained soldiers with much better guns? Even in this very unlikely case your gun is going to be very useless. Maybe you could shoot yourself. The down side of having guns in many (dumb/unstable) people's hands is pretty well discussed already.
- rbritton 9y agoThat ignores the psychological factor and assumes those soldiers will just follow the order. I don't think that would be the case, particularly as they're the type of people that typically own multiple firearms personally.
- supreme_sublime 9y agoBeyond that, it is like people have never heard of guerilla warfare. The United States is a vast area and lots of it is lightly inhabited. It would be very difficult to suppress an insurrection.
- lmlsna 9y agoWooolllvvveeerrrinnneesss!!!
- rlt 9y agoThis, and the "but the government has nukes" argument, assumes the only scenarios are "no resistance" or "all-out war". In reality there's likely a step function where even the possibility of some armed resistance would go a long way in dissuading a would-be tyrannical government, especially in this age where anyone can instantly broadcast video across the globe. That assumes a large enough portion of the population that wants to resist owns guns. I wish more liberals (especially groups likely to be persecuted) owned guns for this reason.
- asdsa5325 9y agoBoth numbers are correct- the person you replied to misread the original commenter's comment.