Remote View
Guns
Guns
You're viewing part of a thread.
Show Context
310 comments
-
How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don't need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.
-
I don't even know where to start.
There will be fewer acid attacks with guns because everyone will have access to a way more convenient and easy way of harming each other, yes.
So....problem solved?
Which side of the argument are you actually on?
-
- There are plenty of convenient and easy ways for harming each other outside of guns (France circa 2016). The same goes for suicide. So banning guns doesn't actually make it "harder" for people to harm one another, esp. when you can just drive a truck through a crowd.
- Gun control doesn't work anyways (Winnenden School Shooting, Jokela School Shooting Finland, 2007, Alphen aan den Rijn Shopping Mall Shooting in Netherlands, 2011, etc. etc.).
- Guns save more productive civilian lives than the the criminal lives they take, and people like you purposefully ignore this fact. In trying to save a few hundred or maybe thousand lives from gun violence (most of which are violent criminals themselves), you people are willing to deprive millions of innocent hard working people the ability to defend themselves. You know nothing.
- Even if all of this was false, the ability to resist tyranny is more valuable than the lives lost to gun-crime.
How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don't. Because you're lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don't care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.
-
What is the bigger problem? Acid attacks or gun crime?
I help fix patients who have been shot. Don't lecture me about solving problems. I'm part of the Violence Intervention and Prevention team - we provide services and assistance to those injured by firearms. I work in a level 1 trauma center in the orthopedic trauma department.
Go ahead and guess how many of those patients have been shot by a good guy with a gun in the past nine years. Go ahead and guess how many good guys with guns end up being the patient.
Here's a hint. The answer to the first question is fewer than 1.
-
Yawn. Your personal experience is not reflective of broader trends. If you work in healthcare, you really should be smart enough to know this. So I will lecture you, because you clearly need it. Besides, you haven't refuted any of my points, you just resorted to logical fallacies like appeals to authority and anecdotal evidence. Proof that you don't have anything useful to say anymore. Smh.
-
Oh I'm smart enough thank you. Just because you've read an online guide to logical fallacies, doesn't make my personal experience irrelevant, it makes it an anecdote. Its written as food for thought (we're talking zero cases out of multiple thousands of orthopedic gun shot wound injuries). I dont have a duty to refute anything. This isn't debate class. If you want to do that, then why dont we roll back to square one when you mentioned acid attacks as if their prevalence is equal to gun crime in America and that guns would solve the problem somehow. A completely ludicrous claim if ever there was one.
Yawn (asshole)
-
-
-
-
310 comments