It makes me super sad when people clamor to give up rights.
What rights? Voting is a right, free-speech is a right, carrying a knife isn’t a right.
Rights don’t need to be defined to exist. The government doesn’t grant you rights; it restricts the rights you have by calling them “privileges”.
what’s being done to address why people want to stab other people to death?
Were humans, I’m afraid that comes as part of the package. Although things are being done anyway.
New and glorious ways will be found to kill each other regardless.
I doubt that access to knives is the reason people stab one another.
It’s quite difficult to stab each other without knives.
Improvising a knife from common items isn’t terribly difficult. At least the argument for banning guns kind of makes sense since I can’t easily make a gun out of a household item.
Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night
Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.
“Except”? I never said it wasn’t 36, I never mentioned numbers.
EDIT: Oh I see what you meant. You thought I was saying one murder in the whole year, and not one murder a day, or whatever the exact average was. Seems like trying really hard to go through what I said and find something to misunderstand, so the rest can be ignored. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.
So you make a vague argument, I misunderstand, and naturally I’m the one being obtuse. Got it.
I was going to reply but then I thought no, debating this issue is just too silly and I don’t know why I tried. I’ll just highlight this number-22-based observation and if anybody wants to debate it, then I don’t really care:
Number of school shootings in UK + Strict Gun Control = 0 in the last 22 years.
Number of school shootings in US + Almost no Gun Control = 22 since this year began.
And yet their murder rates aren’t anywhere close to zero. Weird.
But they do have cops who get overpowered by criminals, people getting prosecuted over jokes, and 8-month prison sentences for giving traffic cameras the finger. Sounds rational.
This is what happens when a country is ruled by feelings.
I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.
We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.
Sounds great.
How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.
Banning scary looking rifles can’t hurt.
If I can buy a hunting rifle that’s functionally the same as the scary rifle, it’s a useless gesture.
Do we need a useless gesture that panders to angry voters and doesn’t solve the problem?
Less guns = good
Same question.
I think anybody who supports gun control would do themselves a tremendous favor to go shoot a gun a few times.
Decades from now we’ll look back in shame.
Hopefully because we actually set ourselves on a path to figure out why some mentally unstable people aren’t just shooting lots of people, but driving trucks into cafés and knifing random strangers. Maybe figuring out why we’ve gotten so ill is a better alternative to curbing our liberties.
Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night
Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.
Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.
But at least they didn’t use a spoon.
I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.
Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.
Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.
Way to paint the other side as silly.
When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.
I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.
I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?