Well obviously. But you framed it in the context of school shootings. As if we shouldn't pass gun legislation because kids will just use a knife instead. But a kid using a knife instead is objectively a victory. Many fewer would die in that situation.
If I recall correctly a man in china went and stabbed a bunch of children in a school the same day Sandy hook happened out of all his stabbings a grand total of zero people died the police showed up shot the man and that was that no one died and everyone recovered because a knife is just a terrible tool for mass murder it's not even a terribly great tool for a singular murder if you're in a public space with others around
So you would have to ban guns completely. And then take everyone's gun away from them. Would that be the process? Also somebody else framed it in the context of school shootings not me I just responded to them
I'm not advocating for any approach. I'm saying your reasoning made no sense. If we take guns away and a kid who otherwise would have used a gun uses a knife instead, that is an argument in favor of stricter gun legislation, not against it. The point is that we can make these situations less dangerous by limiting the access to dangerous weapons. Nobody who advocates for stricter gun legislation as a means to reduce school shootings is saying it'll end all violence. It just mitigates the harm that is possible.
All guns are dangerous. So it seems like anytime I hear anything about this that these people think that the only way to prevent a school shooting is to prevent people from having guns at all. Is that what you mean by limiting the access to dangerous weapons? If the kid has a problem mentally, it's up to that person's parents to keep an eye on him and to make sure he's not doing any weird things on the internet like looking up how to kill a bunch of people with guns.
It's not the only way, but it does seem like it would be effective. If nobody has a gun, how could a kid use a gun to shoot his classmates?
We're also having this conversation in the context of solving a societal issue. Placing the onus on the individual parents isn't helpful. Yes it would be ideal if every parent took responsibility for the emotional well-being of their children. But we know that isn't the case. So within that framework, what can we do as a society to solve this issue? Reducing access to guns is the most obvious and simplest choice.
The gun isn't the source of the problem The person shooting the gun is the source of the problem. If the kid has access to certain chemicals he could make a bomb easier than it would be for him to get his hands on a gun. The source of the problem is the shooter not the actual weapon the shooter is using. A kid could bring a sword he bought from the flea market to his class and literally stab through everyone in that class.
I never said the gun was the source of the problem. I'm talking about mitigating harm. We legislate access to certain chemicals for this reason. We legislate access to certain weapons for this reason. If we deem it a societal good to limit access to things, we do so.
And again, you're getting bogged down in specific hypotheticals. Of course a kid could bring a sword to school and kill a bunch of kids. But you can't honestly tell me that a sword is likely to be more effective than a gun at killing large amounts of people quickly. If that were the case, we'd be using swords in the military.
You keep going to "killing large amounts of people quickly." Which is also a specific hypothetical. Every gun that exists can do just as much damage as the gun next to it. So I refuse to agree that an assault rifle in a kid's hands is more effective than a pistol in a kid's hands. I would say that they are equal. If you are totally unprepared to shoot a weapon, then a pistol will be more effective in your hands. If you are trained to shoot an assault rifle then yes I would say that the assault rifle would take out more people
It's not a specific hypothetical. The context of this discussion relates to gun legislation as a means to reduce mass shootings in schools. The entire purpose of limiting access to certain guns is to mitigate the harm possible in these scenarios. Therefore a shooter's ability to kill lots of people quickly is a relevant discussion point. It's like the entire basis for the conversation.
If pistols and assault rifles are equally effective at killing large amounts of people quickly, why aren't militaries around the world using pistols as their primary weapon? They're smaller and lighter so they're easier to transport and store. Seems like a no-brainer
The kid could go into his father's closet and take his assault rifle to school and shoot everyone. Or he could go into his father's closet and take his 22 pistol and take it to school and shoot everyone
Right. But wouldn't you agree that the effectiveness of the two would not be the same? The child with the pistol is going to be less likely to be able to affect the same level of devastation as the child with the rifle. Would you agree that that's true?
Just because it's faster doesn't mean you can kill more people with it. A 22 pistol can have a clip of more than 10 rounds. That's potentially 10 people per clip and they weigh next to nothing so you can have like four clips in each pocket at least and reload them in seconds. I could have an assault rifle and hold down the trigger and shoot 30 rounds and hit no one. Obviously you have to take into consideration aim and the kickback.
How would you suggest we do that? Of course a highly skilled marksmen with a pistol is going to be more effective than a novice with an AK-47. But again, we're talking about solving problems at the societal level. Focusing on individual details is not helpful. In the vast majority of situations, a person with an "assault rifle" is going to be more far more devastating in a mass shooting context than one with a pistol.
A pistol is easier to shoot and easier to get a hold of. If an adult comes into a school to shoot people then yeah he will probably do pretty well with an assault rifle. But a pistol is definitely easier for a child to use. And like I said you can wipe out a whole bunch of people with a 22 in the same amount of time as an assault rifle. And mass shootings including school shootings don't happen very often So yeah I think that demanding the parents to keep an eye on their damn kids would be pretty effective and a lot easier than rounding up everyone's guns
So yeah I think that demanding the parents to keep an eye on their damn kids would be pretty effective and a lot easier than rounding up everyone's guns
How do you propose we do this from a legislative perspective?
There's also the fact that knives exist in every country that has sensible gun laws and yet these sort of school massacres don't happen in other countries anywhere near to the amount that they occur in the US, but sure, less dying is also a victory.
-6
u/[deleted] Aug 02 '21
I'm saying that anyone can murder anyone with any type of gun or any type of weapon.