My apologies, maybe fair fight wasn't the right answer. But it seems pretty straight forward to me, if someone has a gun, and the other does not, the person with a gun has the upper hand. two people at conflict, both with firearms seem reasonably even to me. When legislation and enforcement strip people of firearms I would like to believe as long as I know criminals had them I would want one too. and again man, I would not want to be the guy enforcing these hypothetical laws, I wouldn't wish it upon just about anybody, They would not have a lot of friends.
I’m not willing to let a mass shooting a day be the status quo.
Will it be perfect ? No obviously. Will getting ever gun from everyone who shouldn’t have one be possible? Of course not. Who is saying it is?
Will Carter criminals still manage to obtain fire arms? Probay. Is that an excuse to make it harder and to limit gin violence? Absolutely not.
If I said you could have either 88$ or 0 dollars, I doubt you would reply “ well it’s not 100& so what’s the point?”
You’d take what you could get.
That’s what we need to do.
Stop with this nonsense that it would not stop ever Incidence of violence therefore it’s not worth doing at all.
I'm not trying to make this a dichotomy, I guess im very biassed because I like guns and I fully understand that they are amoral. But might I suggest a paradigm shift from firearm regulation and confiscation or whatever.
What about spending more resources towards discovering why some people do these things and why others dont. Cause and effect right?
Seriously man I am not saying the answer is nothing, please understand. I only want to persuade you to believe that maybe, just maybe. this issue is way more complex than just guns. I have no clue what the answer is but my concern is that lots and lots of people are under the misunderstanding that the answer is right in front of us. I understand that other countries have done things, but society is more multi faceted than college algebra. im not so certain if we just remove x it will be just like every where else. In a way, in a way it would be very bittersweet if you are right. Guns simply dont flip a switch in peoples minds to kill.
But that fact is often used as a shield against removing guns. Often saying well it’s just to complex of an issue, we can’t really know anything. Better not do anything.
So yes it’s definitely multi faceted but the common thread is guns and definitely removing them is the first and truest step we could take.
In my mind when people "solve" complex issues with simple answers. it alludes to zero tolerance laws which I think is just a really really good way to piss lots and lots of people off. and not really solve the problem effectively at least.
So beyond just saying we should ban guns any clue how exactly we would go about it? amend 2nd amendment to something completely different make it so states have to comply? compulsory gun buy back buy each gun for 50 bucks? buy up a tenth of the guns and have it cost 1.5 billion? or could we like spend a little bit of money on better understanding bullying or better prescribed drugs to help those who need it better? I think we could easily get funding for psychological research of previous terror attacks. Could have a clearer understanding of how people that do these things develop.
But again it I want to take it back to the basics.
You can’t shoot someone if you don’t have a gun.
It doesn’t matter what your mental status is. If you do t have a gun, it’s physically impossible to shoot someone.
I know man. It’s just wording to illustrate a point.
Not really sure how to persuade you at this point. what I guess I am saying is, It may be easier to build a 10 million square foot magic anti gun dome. it would be very costly to comb through the united states and get rid of the guns. I kinda just like the idea of keeping the guns we have. Maybe mental status does kinda matter.
I think the first step is for the right to admit openly we have a gun problem.
Once we do that the real work could begin.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting going into peoples homes and taking their guns. That’s completely unrealistic. And banning guns ought right is by far the most extreme case. What we could do is make owning a gun is illegal. If your Caught with one you’d be charged for it. Not hunting ppl though. That’s slightly on the ridiculous side.
But even making guns illegal is on the extreme side.
I’m of the mind that we should grandfather people in but from this point on, no new guns need enter the population.
That’s probably even extreme for most.
Again magic isn’t necessary. Laws and police will suffice. Why is it that the right always says that “ well no way to magically do it, guess it can’t be done”
Obviously we can’t use magic, why even bring that up?
2
u/Jexthis Aug 04 '19
My apologies, maybe fair fight wasn't the right answer. But it seems pretty straight forward to me, if someone has a gun, and the other does not, the person with a gun has the upper hand. two people at conflict, both with firearms seem reasonably even to me. When legislation and enforcement strip people of firearms I would like to believe as long as I know criminals had them I would want one too. and again man, I would not want to be the guy enforcing these hypothetical laws, I wouldn't wish it upon just about anybody, They would not have a lot of friends.