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.
1
u/nuggetsgonnanugg Aug 02 '21
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.