6 ms·

lets have a serious discussion... knife is like number 5000 on a crazy persons shopping list. gun is probably 300 but also easier than 1-299

hyperbovine 8y ago
GP is making a serious point.
jostmey 8y ago
I'm not saying that guns should be legal (I'm also not saying they should be illegal). What is important is to focus on the root issues, and I don't believe that the root issues are "guns".
- hellllllllooo 8y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. Why do you have to focus on the "root issue"? What's wrong with dealing with a part of the problem? No complex problems get dealt with as a whole. They get broken in to pieces and dealt with using the tools available. Guns are clearly a part of the problem so let's do something about them while also doing something about other social issues.
  - flattone 8y ago
    is this true? I feel like by dealing with a part of the problem you first have an understanding of the system as a whole so that you can isolate the root cause aka the part of the problem it's not route in terms of the base or foundation of a problem it's root in terms of dealing with the actual causal issue
    - hellllllllooo 8y ago
      Policing and laws often treat symptoms and not the "root" cause. Financial laws addressing fraud don't try and solve the underlying human greed yet they are valuable in trying to the protect victims of fraud. Saying we can only solve fraud by addressing the underlying socitial reasons driving people to commit fraud would be crazy. The symptoms can be dealt with it can and make a difference while also working on other causal factors. It doesn't have to deal directly with the "causal issue". It just has to reduce the negative effect.
leereeves 8y ago
People don't see a gun and decide to use it. They decide to hurt someone, then look for a weapon. If it's not a gun, it will be a knife, or acid, or poison, or fists, or a vehicle...
- hexane360 8y ago
  This actually isn't well backed up by psychology. The large majority of violent crimes aren't premeditated--they're impulses.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    I'm willing to learn here, but I can't find a source for that claim.
  - setr 8y ago
    Wouldn’t that mean the same thing? They decide to hurt (the impulse), and they grab whatever happens to be nearby. That is, they don’t see a gun and decide to use it; they decide to use something and see a gun
    - hellllllllooo 8y ago
      Violence still happens but the magnitude would be reduced. It's a lot harder to kill people with things that aren't guns. If it was as easy then soldiers would primarily equipped with "knife, or acid, or poison, or fists". The army chooses guns as the primary weapon are they are clearly much more effective at killing.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        The army doesn't use poisons (chemical weapons) because they are so effective, and so horrible, that their use is unthinkable. Remember the outrage when Syria did use poison?
        hellllllllooo 8y ago

hyperbovine 8y ago

GP is making a serious point.

jostmey 8y ago

I'm not saying that guns should be legal (I'm also not saying they should be illegal). What is important is to focus on the root issues, and I don't believe that the root issues are "guns".

hellllllllooo 8y ago
This is a false dichotomy. Why do you have to focus on the "root issue"? What's wrong with dealing with a part of the problem? No complex problems get dealt with as a whole. They get broken in to pieces and dealt with using the tools available. Guns are clearly a part of the problem so let's do something about them while also doing something about other social issues.
- flattone 8y ago
  is this true? I feel like by dealing with a part of the problem you first have an understanding of the system as a whole so that you can isolate the root cause aka the part of the problem it's not route in terms of the base or foundation of a problem it's root in terms of dealing with the actual causal issue
  - hellllllllooo 8y ago
    Policing and laws often treat symptoms and not the "root" cause. Financial laws addressing fraud don't try and solve the underlying human greed yet they are valuable in trying to the protect victims of fraud. Saying we can only solve fraud by addressing the underlying socitial reasons driving people to commit fraud would be crazy. The symptoms can be dealt with it can and make a difference while also working on other causal factors. It doesn't have to deal directly with the "causal issue". It just has to reduce the negative effect.

leereeves 8y ago

People don't see a gun and decide to use it. They decide to hurt someone, then look for a weapon. If it's not a gun, it will be a knife, or acid, or poison, or fists, or a vehicle...

hexane360 8y ago
This actually isn't well backed up by psychology. The large majority of violent crimes aren't premeditated--they're impulses.
- leereeves 8y ago
  I'm willing to learn here, but I can't find a source for that claim.
- setr 8y ago
  Wouldn’t that mean the same thing? They decide to hurt (the impulse), and they grab whatever happens to be nearby. That is, they don’t see a gun and decide to use it; they decide to use something and see a gun
  - hellllllllooo 8y ago
    Violence still happens but the magnitude would be reduced. It's a lot harder to kill people with things that aren't guns. If it was as easy then soldiers would primarily equipped with "knife, or acid, or poison, or fists". The army chooses guns as the primary weapon are they are clearly much more effective at killing.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      The army doesn't use poisons (chemical weapons) because they are so effective, and so horrible, that their use is unthinkable. Remember the outrage when Syria did use poison?
      - hellllllllooo 8y ago