• AzureKevin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is about the weapon. If someone wanted to inflict a lot of damage, they would use bombs. That has happened several times in the past but doesn’t compare to the number of mass shootings. Why? Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful. It really is that simple. Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.

        The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful.

          You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we’d be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there’s no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.

          You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.

          Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.

          It really isn’t. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?

          How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn’t undoing the 2nd amendment.

          Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.

          The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.

          Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?

          Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?

          We both know you know the answer.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues… perhaps Canada’s notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?

    • LazyBane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That not the point. Ideally we just wouldn’t have people doing this to begin with, right?

      • hswolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        He typed It poorly, but I think his point was: Try to kill 30 children in a school with a knife.

        If the person wants to kill, they will kill, but a gun (a big gun even) will make this task, orders of magnitude easier.

          • hswolf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.

            But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.

            You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.

            Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.

            If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks

              • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                This same sentiment is echoed in the tech community around AI artwork and it’s, frankly, silly. You cannot blame a tool for being misused. You can say that only certain people should have ready access to a tool, and there are strict rules for the use of a tool, but at the end of the day, the tool bloody exists, saying “hey, can we just not use the tool, guys?” doesn’t work. Fix the people who have the most likelihood of misusing the tools, prevent access to the tool from unqualified people, and otherwise just accept that misuse is the price of advancement, as unfortunate as that is.

              • hswolf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You make it sound that changing peoples minds are a super easy task compared to removing guns.

                I for one am saying that both things should be done at the same time.

                Lets end this here, you’re trying to poke flaws in the person you’re discussing with, instead of being civil and analyzing the problem, I pray that neither of us pay no stab tax, jesus.

                • Dkcecil91@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree. This guy’s been all over this thread and all he’s really said is “wouldn’t it be better if nobody died?” Yeah of course it would. No one can argue with that and no one should argue with the poster above you because it isn’t productive at all.