3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your point. The shooter was stopped by border patrol officers who risked their lives to end the shooting, so yes, there are people wil

by daenz 4y ago

I'm not sure I understand your point. The shooter was stopped by border patrol officers who risked their lives to end the shooting, so yes, there are people willing to step up and save lives. In this situation, these people were rarer than anyone would have liked. But we will always need them to stop violence, regardless of if guns are generally banned.

corrral 4y ago
> I'm not sure I understand your point. I was responding, originally, to: > It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p Maybe it was a joke, but it's a bad one when some people actually think that. I'll reconsider my position when major organizations and government buildings and such start shifting to encouraging gun possession by people who aren't in law enforcement or the security staff. Meanwhile, it doesn't look like it's even controversial in any context other than partisan hacks promoting positions they don't (apparently) believe: keeping guns away is much safer than allowing them. I can tell this is true based on how, again, damn near everyone behaves when they have the choice to ban them or allow them, including the very people promoting more guns as the solution to gun violence. It is only not the obvious solution when the game isn't safety, but politics.
- daenz 4y ago
  Unfortunately I am not going to bite on "everywhere is safer with more guns" argument because I also don't believe it :) You can believe that people shouldn't want/need guns while also believing they should be able to exercise that right if they want to. I hold that belief. Guns aren't for everyone, but who am I to deny someone of their right to defend themselves, for example, from an abusive ex-partner.

3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your point. The shooter was stopped by border patrol officers who risked their lives to end the shooting, so yes, there are people wil

by daenz 4y ago

corrral 4y ago
> I'm not sure I understand your point. I was responding, originally, to: > It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p Maybe it was a joke, but it's a bad one when some people actually think that. I'll reconsider my position when major organizations and government buildings and such start shifting to encouraging gun possession by people who aren't in law enforcement or the security staff. Meanwhile, it doesn't look like it's even controversial in any context other than partisan hacks promoting positions they don't (apparently) believe: keeping guns away is much safer than allowing them. I can tell this is true based on how, again, damn near everyone behaves when they have the choice to ban them or allow them, including the very people promoting more guns as the solution to gun violence. It is only not the obvious solution when the game isn't safety, but politics.
- daenz 4y ago
  Unfortunately I am not going to bite on "everywhere is safer with more guns" argument because I also don't believe it :) You can believe that people shouldn't want/need guns while also believing they should be able to exercise that right if they want to. I hold that belief. Guns aren't for everyone, but who am I to deny someone of their right to defend themselves, for example, from an abusive ex-partner.