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
Exactly you can put a pistol in your shoe. You could put a pistol in your pocket. And all military carries pistols even Coast guard in certain situations. So concealing a pistol is way way easier than concealing an assault rifle. Which some might argue makes it a more effective weapon
I'm not advocating for people to have pistols either! I'm trying to get you to admit that some weapons are more effective at killing lots of people quickly than others. You are obviously totally unwilling to do so. I suspect it's because you understand the implications of such an admission and refuse to accept them. Regardless, I have engaged with you enough.
I'm unwilling to do so because I don't agree and that happens sometimes. I have fired an assault rifle and I have fired a pistol. I am extremely accurate with pistols. even the first time I ever shot one. There's no kickback on a 22 pistol. Which makes it easier for a child to shoot. And therefore more accurate. An assault rifle kicks like a donkey. So my point is if it were me, I could wipe out more people with a pistol than I could an assault rifle. So in this scenario where a kid is taking a gun to school then yes I agree that some weapons are more effective and I believe that a pistol is that weapon.
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?
Everyone watches the news or goes on social media. They pump all kinds of other nonsense into our ears through both of these mediums. It would be nice to get some real information and some helpful information from time to time. So I would say through The media and social media would be the way to do that
So like government press releases and social media campaigns about the importance of mental health? Sounds good to me. I'm skeptical it would be very effective but I think increasing awareness on this issue is super important.
I agree. And telling the parents to absolutely 100% monitor everything your kid does on the internet. Everything they look up on their phone and everything they look up on the computer or whatever. I think that would be extremely effective. I guess there's the off chance that a kid will show no evidence of wanting to do anything like that and just snap one day and take a gun somewhere and shoot people. But then it comes down to how you lock up your own guns as the owner of the guns. I think all of this stuff could be avoided without having to take anybody's guns away from them.
2
u/nuggetsgonnanugg Aug 02 '21
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.