Florida Mass Shooting

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, if you have to rely on exaggerating someone's position in order to argue against it that will tend to harm your credibility because it's not an honest tactic.

Do you appreciate when people use strawmen based on distortions of what you've said when trying to discuss a position you hold? If not, why would I?

How did I do that?
And strawmen make me think of the Wizard of Oz and I get a visual of him.
Looking at him now.

When you when you started bringing up that other methods to kill also exist and kept repeating that point.

That's why I kept pointing out that other methods exist doesn't negate this tool makes this task really easy.

Bringing up that other methods exists might make sense if I was suggesting some sort of solution, but basically all I was saying is that guns smuggled from the US help make it easier for Canadians who are affiliated with or adjacent to organized crime to commit violence. Ask me how I know.

Actually, my attorney would advise me against answering anything related to that last sentence.

Ok, my point was eliminating guns won’t eliminate violence.We have to find the reason people want to commit acts of violence and start solving the problem there.
It is easier to kill impersonally at a distance, but a bow and arrow would also work well and be quiet.
My brain is not good at abstract thinking.Try and make me do algebra and I will look for a heavy object.lol

Just a piece of information: statistics show that gun violence in the modern age is more likely to prove fatal to the victim than other forms of attack.

Totally agree that getting into the reasons people attack is the best choice policy wise, but theoretically we could save lives if people weren't reaching for guns.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 10 Sep 2021, 4:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I agree with you that eliminating guns won't eliminate violence. I don't think eliminating guns is a viable plan, although I'd like to see fewer American handguns on the streets in Canadian cities because someone who'd never be able to walk up and splash someone can absolutely be a shooter and that contributes to an increase in murders both of (mostly) young (mostly) men who've fallen into bad life choices, but also of innocent bystanders. Those guns help ruin people's lives or trap them in a lifestyle they might otherwise have been able to leave.

I agree that focusing on the reducing things that motivate people to kill is also useful. I don't think it's an either or thing, I think it's something that requires multiple approaches. Mental heath needs to be taken more seriously, poverty reduction and programs to redirect people away from street s**t need to exist, etc. Different types of killings have different motives and addressing those things should be done alongside reducing supplies of weapons most suited for interpersonal violence.

Further, I'd agree a bow is similarly easy, at least in the way I was describing difficult vs. easy. It's remote and detached too. That said, they're not likely to become a big threat, they're bulky and lack penetrating power. Let's put it this way, I'd be just as fine discussing how to address bow violence if it was ever such a problem that it needed to be discussed.


tl;dr: I might have mistaken talking past each other for bad faith and there's stuff we're on the same page on

I have no problem with gun control, background checks and waiting periods.
It all gets back to if someone wants something they will find a way to get it.
They made pseudo illegal here to try and stop meth.It stopped the mom and pop cooks ,but it let the cartel in the door.
It did prevent people’s rent houses from being used to cook and stopped houses from mysteriously blowing up late at night ,so it did some good.But it never stopped the flow of meth.It’s everywhere and it’s stronger.Violent crime went up as different dealers tried to control the area and we had seven homicides in one year, people are still missing.We’ve only had murder so far this year.

True where there are guns.
But where there aren’t, there are knives.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180949953/

The percentage of fatality in relation to the number of attacks is lower with knives than with guns, period.

You know, I don't think in all of my years debating this subject that I've ever contested this point, but I think people overestimate how deadly gunshot wounds actually are, IIRC the mortality rate is actually about 15%, so it's not like they're a death ray.



Eh, there's always the wildcard of defensive gun use that's been historically difficult to measure, though even the lowball estimates put DGUs, as they're called, at about 85,000 per year in the US, as opposed to 12,000 or so gun murders.

Sure , I didn’t say it wasn’t.That’s cold comfort to the stabbing victim.
You’re dead regardless of what was used.
Unless you solve why people want to kill each other there will always be murder.

You are quoting a philosphy from George Washington's time when the tyrant being referred to was the imperial British empire. Go check you calendar, we are living in the year 2021.

Agreed

I would argue that the modern day defense against tyranny is more in the ability to share information than in weaponry.

The old fashioned argument for the 2nd amendment does nothing for me. The factors that have helped me accept the American need for guns lie elsewhere.

@ MissLizard ,,,,, i did not understand this " They made pseudo illegal here to try and stop meth."
Am sorry i don't get this ?

Pseudoephedrine that used to be in allergy medicine.It’s the crucial ingredient to cook meth and now you can’t just walk in and buy piles of it off the shelf at the store.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/201 ... topped-me/