Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an Auto-Antonym

Post Reply New Topic

And guns can be used as deterrent against resisting.

Is there any evidence that violence prevented by threatening with a gun outweighs violence caused by a gun? There is no evidence in any scenario that it will more likely be the good guy with the gun and not the bad guy. Remove the gun from the scenario and you just have the effort that the violent person would have to exert to cause the violence, with a greater risk that they would get hurt too.

It's fantasy to think that guns could be eliminated from the U.S. and that criminal and victim going forward would be mano a mano. That's cool if you think that about your world. Most Americans at this point seem to think differently though and seem to believe that criminals would be the primary possessors of guns if guns were outlawed and that law abiding innocent people would be easier victims of violence than they are now.

"Did I stutter" in the above context is sarcasm , Bradleigh believes what he said was perfectly rational and beyond miscomprehension . It doesn't really work with text conversations.

To be fair you started it with "wut?" meaning you're talking bollocks

"Wut: It’s often a response when you’re unsure of what someone means. It can also be used sarcastically if someone says something outrageous."

Ending slavery was just a fantasy before people started to try. Having acceptance of homosexual and bisexual people was a fantasy before people started to try. Having devices in your pocket that allow you to talk to anyone around the planet was a fantasy before all the little steps were put in.

You don't start to work for change by complaining that things currently looks impossible to get to that goalpost. You take every step you can towards the goal of reducing or eliminating guns and convince people that it is actually achievable.

You don't think that anything really worth getting was easy to achieve, do you?

You certainly don't have to answer because it's a sensitive topic but you may never have been a victim of a violent crime in which a gun was fired at you directly with the intent to kill you.

The police might shoot you or choke you.Happens here you know.Sometimes people are afraid to call them because they get arrested instead.They aren’t suppose to beat up on civilians but it happens.(Pretty sure the cops here don’t like minorities having guns).
Just as likely the military might also do the same.
Ever hear of Kent State?
If you want to get rid of all the guns in Australia, be my guest.
Just don’t call on us for help when some nut job dictator rises up.Its not like people expect it, all of a sudden there’s a fanatic with crazed followers.Usually wearing some sort of hat, like a red hat, or some other symbol.

I’d also be willing to wager there quite a few guns stashed in the Outback.Bet you won’t get those.

Isn't that all the more reason to get rid of guns?
What would having a gun on yourself do, black their bullets, or make them shoot you quicker because they think you will shoot them?

I think that these are all the more reasons to limit the accessibility of firearms. The police not liking minorities with guns makes them more paranoid, so a step to remove that paranoia is have less of them, so you have a basis to have them not shoot people.

I am baffled that a lot of the same Americans can both be super patriotic respect the flag and troops kind, while also saying that they need guns so that they can shoot the troops if they come to them. Wouldn't it just be better to have more military oversight so you know they are doing good and won't turn on them. You just have to look at the recent BLM protests to see actual examples of the military or militarised police force turn on the citizens, and no pro-gun people were saying that now was the time to shoot back.

Also, my dad has a gun/guns(?). He has been a part of the Australian army, and there are specific rules with how they must be kept at home, which is in a locker and kept away from ammunition. There are guns, but you would probably get in trouble if you were spotted with one out in the open for no good reason.

I have sustained trauma and PTSD from being the victim of gun violence both times at the hands of criminals rather than law abiding citizens. By you asking if a gun would "block bullets", etc you have a simplistic view of how violent crimes actually often take place. Each crime situation is different. If a person in the U.S. wishes to possess a firearm legally for their protection and feels that by doing so it might prevent them from becoming a victim of violence, I support their decision. I don't think I'll be talking much more about this. I'm not being facetious by saying the following, but debating people who have not experienced what I have have privilege in this area. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is a privileged opinion.

I think that you are taking a rather simplistic view of how guns protects people works. Just because a person may think that getting a gun will protect them from becoming a victim of violence, does not mean it will. In fact you are actually more likely to get killed if you have a gun in your house, that is what the statistics say.

You need to actually provide evidence if you want to make the claim that guns make people safer, because the fact is that they don't.

The military doesn’t doesn’t do a very good job of policing itself.If it did we wouldn’t have incidents like Abu Ghraib.Who would watch the watchers?
I would never want our troops harmed,my family served.But sometimes they do misbehave.
People killed each other by the thousands before guns existed.
Genghis Khan wasn’t armed and look at all the mayhem he did.
If people want to kill large amounts of people they don’t need a gun.Nagasaki and Hiroshima are good examples.Thousands have been starved to death, Irish Potato Famine, or gassed to death.Or some nut might release anthrax or a virus.
More people in America die from drug overdose than guns.
Take away the guns and they will find a new way to kill each other.
To stop violence you would have to find the reason behind the violence.
Nasty parts of human nature would need to be addressed.Things like greed, hate, prejudice, addiction, exploitation, sexual abuse, etc..

There is a big difference compared to how things were before, we have easily accessible video and other recording technology that can have people be held responsible for their acts, and could have that footage put all over the world for everyone to see in minutes. This is a power that can move people far more than who would just have to go off of one man saying stuff in front of a crowd the size that called hear him and relying on unsubstantiated claims.

And most powerfully we have so much more empathy than we ever had in human history. At one point in time any tribe like village next to each other could explode into a way, because they probably would have problems talking to each other, especially across an ocean. Now pretty much anyone in the world could talk to anyone else by the world wide web. We are, or at least have the potential for, able to empathise with each other in ways that could not be done before. Just stop and think about this forum, how crazy is it that all of us are talking to each other like this, able to talk in ways that you would have had to be in walking distance and would be defined our nations. But right here, regardless of our nations we came together because we have something in common in ways like we may be neuro-divergent.

I know that sounds all wishy washy, but I think that we humans as a collective have come a long way since Genghis Khan, and I don't think that power is because any random human could kill another with minimal effort. We are better than that, love is stronger than hate, if we put the guns away for a bit and just talk. Because if we put that energy away from being prepared to able to shoot some random person for coming after us and put it into using technology to make sure we have proper oversight of our institutions, we would be golden.

One day we won't even need to kill each other, because what weapons we have are non-lethal, and as a collective species we have worked to ensure everyone's rights and make sure the threats of things like corruption will be carefully watched. It sounds beautiful, and I think we should work towards that instead of feeding paranoia.

That's absolutely true.

However, when I discussed school shootings with my husband, we came to a conclusion that:
A frustrated teenager searches his parents' home to find something and release his frustration.
Poland: he finds liquor. Uses it.
US: he finds guns. Uses them.

So if they both find a box of matches, do they both immediately become arsonists?

Lots of my friends, myself included, played with fire and explosions in teenage years.

But I think you're making a valid point: not every frustrated teenager doing stupid things has intentions to harm others.