@freemo As if some people carrying guns would change anything, they go for the unarmed first.
What you are saying is "arm everyone, i want a free for all server".
Nothing wrong with that, why not have some fun before the curtain falls?
@Monodeath What are you talking about? What magazine? This was not a post on your server, you cant remove it even if you wanted to... and what makes you think you can tell me what topics I can or can not talk about?
@Monodeath just a heads up, magazines are only a thing for us kbin users. microblog section of our magazines pulls in microblog posts from across the fediverse, and those users will have no idea their posts are included in our magazines. it's best to quietly mod these posts :) you can't touch the post on their instance, only affect what we see here on kbin.
@Monodeath Mr. Monodeath, what give you the authority to just say that a post will be removed with no deep explanation at all?
Since im new to the platform, I am just curious about what type of stuff I'm free to talk about.
Best regards.
@slimtux /m/ is the way we here on kbin indicate "magazines" which are like reddit's "subreddits". The one we are in right now is the microblog section of /m/guns. OP's post had gotten pulled into /m/guns due to their automated tagging/sorting rules. The mod here clearly got confused about the technical details. magazine moderators here on kbin can remove posts that are unfitting, which was done here. So I cannot see OP's post.
Dear Dr. Freemo: We must always uphold the right to bear arms, although I would like to eliminate mass shootings within the United States of America's sovereign borders, I also recognize that we must be very careful not to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Which for me makes it extremely difficult to go against the U.S. Constitution. I believe that we must reeducate American Citizens on gun safety and take other proactive measures to end massive shootings. I see no immediate solution to end massive shootings! Sincerely, Monica Andrews
I dont disagree with you in principle, obviously everyone wants to reduce needless death.
But I ask you to consider, why did you choose the language "I would like to eliminate mass shootings" and not "I'd like to eliminate mass murder" or even just murder? You never hear people use any other means as a qualifier "I'd like to eliminate mass stabbings" or "I'd like to eliminate mass poisonings" or any of the other ways people can (and have) been killed en mass. For that matter when you are more likely to be struck by lightening than being involved in a mass murder of any kind, why is that a focus at all, regardless of weapon?
Dear Dr. Freemo: First we do know that not all mass shootings result in absolute death to all victims. I wanted too express a more generic approach to gun violence, on the fourth of July people often irresponsibly shoot guns into the air and people often get physically injured. If I would of locked myself into a statement or statements concerning mass murder, I would of been remiss because gun violence is as much about people being under undue psychological mental duress as being shot or killed. Every circumstance is different, we cannot always know how the courts will decide a given legal case.
Dr. Freemo you can always argue insurance actuarial data and information in order to mitigate actual gun violence that is intentionally or unintentionally perpetrated. Yes I have a greater chance of being struck by lightning then being killed or murdered in a mass shooting, I also could be likely shot at in a higher density area than in lower density population area because people are more likely to have and use guns.
I do like that you utilize Socratic Method; I deliberately and Intentionally chose not to specify mass murder. Sincerely, Monica Andrews
I think your missing the point.. .why is "gun violance" a relevant subtopic of violence at all... we dont do it with any other means of violence.. knife violence, poison violence, fist violence... we never single those out, so why guns? It seems arbitrary to me to create that classification at all.
Dear Dr. Freemo: One firearm can cause greater mass physical injuries and\or deaths, only exception would be mass poisoning. Unless someone is utilizing an old style firearm that only can slowly shoot. Sincerely, Monica Andrews
@freepeoplesfreepress Not at all, killing people en mass is quite easy and guns are in no way the exception...
Poisons easy to make or obtain can kill entire rooms of people, pipe bombs made from off the shelf materials as well... trucks can and have plowed through masses of people and killed as many or more than many mass shootings, you could buy an old vacuume tube, peel off the shielding, stick it in a bag and kill everyone with radiation in a room (long term agonizing death)...
There are countless ways a person with very little resources or brain power could kill people en mass in ways that are easier than a gun, and much harder to combat... the idea that guns are singularly unique in their ability to kill en masse is simply false.
Now where a gun is unique is it is precise. When it is used to kill it is much easier to kill one bad guy in a crowd and leave the good guys unharmed with a gun than any other method. Which is exactly why we need guns...
every type of violence is unique... knife violence is easier to get through metal detectors (ceramic knives), poisons are more covert and easier to kill larger people, etc... Every type of violence has its own unique concerns and factors, and none of them are particularly valuable to put all your focus on.
@freemo@freepeoplesfreepress Why is gun ownership so important in the US when no one outside it cares about guns at all? I mean, are people in other countries perceived as less free just because it's more difficult for them to kill others or what? Also curious if you can give an example of other nations where guns might be considered so important, as to be declared a human right?
Same reas9n you have whole areas of the world that will put people in jail for being gay.. propaganda, groupthink and brain washing.
When looked at objectively and in good faith (this part is lacking) I thi k any reasonable person woukd ubderstand its not about the right to kill people, its about the right to save lives, larticipate in a sport, hunt, and many other useful purposes.
@freemo@freepeoplesfreepress I fail to see how gun ownership saves lives, it certainly doesn't in sports and hunting. Anyway, we clearly disagree about this. For me it was important to see your point of view elaborated and I thank you for this
If you cant see how a gun can prevent someone from killing or raping you, or bow hubting can prevent someone from starving then i dont know what to tell ya.
In response to:
"If you cant see how a gun can prevent someone from killing or raping you, or bow hubting can prevent someone from starving then i dont know what to tell ya."
Dear Dr. Freemo: I am exploring the statistical data concerning weapons, I am not disagreeing that guns have legitimate purposes. You should read the entirety of what I post, not just focus upon certain statistical data and information that appears to be anti firearms. No I am looking at both pros and cons concerning all possible and potential weapons.
If I was attempting to promote the liberal anti gun political views and opinions, I would not be posting conservative political views and opinions concerning gun ownership.
And I am glad you share them. I do not consider you anti-gun. As far as I can tell you want guns but feel the system needs some tweaking by having what you perceive to be some reasonable restrictions that dont exist (but havent expressed what those restrictions are).
I dont have enough information to disagree or agree with you. I know i lean pretty strongly towards fairly lax gun laws, so i tend to disagree with many in that regard, at least to some degree.
Dear Dr. Freemo: Statistical data can be manipulated, also polls can be misleading, so it is extremely difficult to get an accurate picture of what the real hard numbers actually are. I play no politics here, it is hard to find unbiased organizations that report on weapons. Because everything is a possible and potential weapon from stones to firearms, so I do not know what is actually true or false.
@freemo@freepeoplesfreepress well, before I can say whether I'm anti-gun or not, I need to see what problems are claimed to be solved by guns. So far I'm not convinced that they help freedom, security, property or whatsoever. I only see them as a public health risk, and possibly entertainment, but I struggle to appreciate hunting as fun
There are two angles to this, and perhaps you just presented yourself poorly:
Are there scenarios where a gun can, and have, saved lives
Are the cases of lives being saved outweighing the cases of lives lost
#2 is far mroe nuanced and I can understand if someone wants to engage in that discussion...
#1 is trivially obvious and if you question that, then it suggests your biases are so strong as to be futile.
Sounded like you were saying #1, but perhaps it was #2 and just worded poorly.
I assume you recognize a woman having a gun when being raped by a larger male could potentially save her life? I assume you also recognize that should someone want to kill you, having a gun could similarly potentially save your life? If so we have covered the trivial point at least.
@freemo@freepeoplesfreepress I'd rather consider the alternatives to the use of guns by non-professionals. Law enforcement is an alternative, but probably we rate it differently. In your example, if both sides have guns, why would the victim have an advantage at all? Certainly, surprise is on the side of the attacker
You ignored my question.. we need a baseline to continue... Is #1 as listed above true or not?
If both people have a gun then they will be on equal footing... good thing the good guy/victim had a gun cause if they wouldnt they would be at a disavantage which is much worse.
How do you expect lawenforcement to replace the need to carry a gun? Do you expect someone trying to kill or rape you to wait while you call the police and have them come? Int he overwhelming majority of attacks you will never even have the chance to call the police, and the incident will be long over by the time they get there anyway.
@freemo@freepeoplesfreepress sorry, I didn't mean to avoid your question. I thought I answered it here (https://qoto.org/@mapto/110554997640391042) I don't see how a gun could save lives and don't think your example is a case of it. The way law enforcement fights crime is the same as your (elsewhere) said a gun would: through deterrence. Arguably, gunless crime gives law enforcement more time to arrive than gun crime does.
@mapto@freepeoplesfreepress oh and to answer your question the following nations are nations which explicitly declare the right to bare rights as a fundemental right:
Czech Republic, Guatemala, Ukraine, Mexico, the Philippines, the United States, Yemen, and Switzerland
Add comment