3 ms·

Society clearly needs some kind of control over who can own weapons/chemicals/etc capable to kill (a lot of) people. That's simple and almost everyone would agr

Society clearly needs some kind of control over who can own weapons/chemicals/etc capable to kill (a lot of) people. That's simple and almost everyone would agree with that. What people disagree about, is what public institution should be responsible for that. Some people say it's government's job, others are afraid that government being too powerful is too big of a risk. So who is right? Is there an alternative to government for such a job? Is it any better? That is how discussion about gun control should look like, instead people just scream some nonsense at each other.

DrScump 7y ago
weapons... capable to kill (a lot of) people A rental truck was used to kill 86 and injure 458 in one incident (Nice, France, 2016). That's a greater toll than most USA mass shootings since then combined. The Murrah Building bombing in OKC, killing 168, likewise needed only a rental truck and conventionally available components.
- seniorivn 7y ago
  Completely agree. I think society is too focused on instruments invented for violence and defense instead of violence(and defense) itself. And yet my original statement is still accurate, as i said there is a consensus that dangerous things should be somewhat limited in use by 'dangerous' people. Like cars are. Regarding guns. Instead of arguing should everyone have unrestricted access or not(like media is portraying it) people should talk about solutions that wouldn't involve government, because it's the only compromise those two camps can find(pro and anti gun). P.S. most 'mass shootings' in us(in terms of media, when a few people got shot by single shooter or something like that) happened with illegal guns, which means instead of trying to create more regulation, people should figure out why current regulation doesn't work. And if there is no clear reason. Try other methods.
  - masonic 7y ago
    Instead of arguing should everyone have unrestricted access Who is arguing for unrestricted access?
    - seniorivn 7y ago
      I think there are people who argue for that, but regardless, media and supporters of gun confiscation(meaning radical position on that side) certainly portrays everyone who think that current regulation is enough as unrestricted access supporters. Which makes it look like restricted/unrestricted conversation, when in fact it's not or shouldn't be.

DrScump 7y ago

weapons... capable to kill (a lot of) people A rental truck was used to kill 86 and injure 458 in one incident (Nice, France, 2016). That's a greater toll than most USA mass shootings since then combined. The Murrah Building bombing in OKC, killing 168, likewise needed only a rental truck and conventionally available components.

seniorivn 7y ago
Completely agree. I think society is too focused on instruments invented for violence and defense instead of violence(and defense) itself. And yet my original statement is still accurate, as i said there is a consensus that dangerous things should be somewhat limited in use by 'dangerous' people. Like cars are. Regarding guns. Instead of arguing should everyone have unrestricted access or not(like media is portraying it) people should talk about solutions that wouldn't involve government, because it's the only compromise those two camps can find(pro and anti gun). P.S. most 'mass shootings' in us(in terms of media, when a few people got shot by single shooter or something like that) happened with illegal guns, which means instead of trying to create more regulation, people should figure out why current regulation doesn't work. And if there is no clear reason. Try other methods.
- masonic 7y ago
  Instead of arguing should everyone have unrestricted access Who is arguing for unrestricted access?
  - seniorivn 7y ago
    I think there are people who argue for that, but regardless, media and supporters of gun confiscation(meaning radical position on that side) certainly portrays everyone who think that current regulation is enough as unrestricted access supporters. Which makes it look like restricted/unrestricted conversation, when in fact it's not or shouldn't be.