3 ms·

I've lived all over Europe and Asia in countries where guns are illegal and there's plenty of violent crime in those countries. So, what's the problem when some

I've lived all over Europe and Asia in countries where guns are illegal and there's plenty of violent crime in those countries. So, what's the problem when someone kills 19 and injures 25 using a backpack full of knives (Japan), drives a truck into a crowd of people celebrating New Year's (Japan), or drives through a parade of old ladies (US)? Do we need knife control? Do we need car control? At what point are we going to start blaming the criminals and not the implement they chose to use to commit their crimes?

throw0101a 4y ago
> I've lived all over Europe and Asia in countries where guns are illegal and there's plenty of violent crime in those countries. Do those things happen in those countries on a daily basis? * https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting There were 10 people murdered in Buffalo barely a week ago, and now there's been 22 people murdered. How many 'mass knifings' have occurred in Japan in the last ten days? Were there two? Were there two 'mass drivings' in Japan in the last ten days?
- innocentoldguy 4y ago
  I’m not sure what myopic cherry-picking adds to the conversation.
entropy47 4y ago
> Do we need car control? We have car control. Operating a vehicle requires a licence, training, registry and regular checks. Unlike owning a gun, which is inconceivable to everybody in the rest of the world. Obviously there is criminal intent under all this but guns unequivocally amplify the impact. It's very hard to kill 25 people with a backpack of knives - this isn't a weekly occurrence, like shootings. You can't drive a truck down the corridors of a school. I honestly don't know why we argue about this. Is there anything anybody could say that would change your mind?
colinmhayes 4y ago
We have car control. There are stringent licensing requirements and heavy penalties for breaking the rules. That’s all most people are asking for. Obviously this is the criminals fault. Knowing that doesn’t actually solve anything though. People are looking for solutions.
- robswc 4y ago
  >There are stringent licensing requirements and heavy penalties for breaking the rules. That’s all most people are asking for. Aren't there already heavy penalties? Have there been any mass shooters that haven't been "adequately" punished? My whole thing is that I do believe that "gun control" would result in less gun related deaths... but it wouldn't stop psychos from killing people. It's been shown time and time again that you don't need a gun to kill 10+ people. I also don't think that we're at the point where we trust our government to the point of surrendering our best/final line of defense. I feel any sort of "gun ban" or "gun control" would be irreversible, certainly irreversible at any point it's needed most.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    The military is going to win the war against tyranny (no matter which side they end up on). "I need my gun so I can get killed while holding it" is a boring argument.
    - robswc 4y ago
      >The military is going to win the war against tyranny Not at all. The idea of armed citizens serves as a deterrent for any tyrannical regime. In what scenario do you see the military successfully occupying or holding control of the country for any significant period of time while the citizens are armed?
- innocentoldguy 4y ago
  We have gun laws, laws against shooting people, etc. We also have heavy penalties for breaking those laws, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. The issue isn’t a lack of laws, since those clearly exist. I also find your argument disingenuous, since when Democrats talk about “gun control,” it is always in terms of banning/confiscation. I don’t recall any calls to ban SUVs because some dimwit ran over a bunch of old ladies in a parade a few months ago. Therefore, it seems to me that Democrats are standing on the graves of children to push their agenda, rather than trying to actually solve the issue of people wanting to mass-murder others.
rrradical 4y ago
What's the point of 'blaming criminals' when it does nothing at all to actually stop people from dying?

throw0101a 4y ago

> I've lived all over Europe and Asia in countries where guns are illegal and there's plenty of violent crime in those countries. Do those things happen in those countries on a daily basis? * https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting There were 10 people murdered in Buffalo barely a week ago, and now there's been 22 people murdered. How many 'mass knifings' have occurred in Japan in the last ten days? Were there two? Were there two 'mass drivings' in Japan in the last ten days?

innocentoldguy 4y ago
I’m not sure what myopic cherry-picking adds to the conversation.

entropy47 4y ago

> Do we need car control? We have car control. Operating a vehicle requires a licence, training, registry and regular checks. Unlike owning a gun, which is inconceivable to everybody in the rest of the world. Obviously there is criminal intent under all this but guns unequivocally amplify the impact. It's very hard to kill 25 people with a backpack of knives - this isn't a weekly occurrence, like shootings. You can't drive a truck down the corridors of a school. I honestly don't know why we argue about this. Is there anything anybody could say that would change your mind?

colinmhayes 4y ago

We have car control. There are stringent licensing requirements and heavy penalties for breaking the rules. That’s all most people are asking for. Obviously this is the criminals fault. Knowing that doesn’t actually solve anything though. People are looking for solutions.

robswc 4y ago
>There are stringent licensing requirements and heavy penalties for breaking the rules. That’s all most people are asking for. Aren't there already heavy penalties? Have there been any mass shooters that haven't been "adequately" punished? My whole thing is that I do believe that "gun control" would result in less gun related deaths... but it wouldn't stop psychos from killing people. It's been shown time and time again that you don't need a gun to kill 10+ people. I also don't think that we're at the point where we trust our government to the point of surrendering our best/final line of defense. I feel any sort of "gun ban" or "gun control" would be irreversible, certainly irreversible at any point it's needed most.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  The military is going to win the war against tyranny (no matter which side they end up on). "I need my gun so I can get killed while holding it" is a boring argument.
  - robswc 4y ago
    >The military is going to win the war against tyranny Not at all. The idea of armed citizens serves as a deterrent for any tyrannical regime. In what scenario do you see the military successfully occupying or holding control of the country for any significant period of time while the citizens are armed?
innocentoldguy 4y ago
We have gun laws, laws against shooting people, etc. We also have heavy penalties for breaking those laws, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. The issue isn’t a lack of laws, since those clearly exist. I also find your argument disingenuous, since when Democrats talk about “gun control,” it is always in terms of banning/confiscation. I don’t recall any calls to ban SUVs because some dimwit ran over a bunch of old ladies in a parade a few months ago. Therefore, it seems to me that Democrats are standing on the graves of children to push their agenda, rather than trying to actually solve the issue of people wanting to mass-murder others.

rrradical 4y ago

What's the point of 'blaming criminals' when it does nothing at all to actually stop people from dying?