The logic here is really hard to follow. Because we arenтАЩt all dead that means gun proliferation is neither positive or negative although countries that have stricter gun control have less death by guns.
I mean this logic can be used on literally anything. Why take vaccines or why try to police the border or police our communities. ItтАЩs not like people arenтАЩt dying now.
Too much light switch logic here. Something (gun proliferation) can have a negative effect AND have a diminishing returns mechanism. The cause and effect need not be linear in nature.
Gun nuance on social media? I've done that, but it takes all day and neither of us have the energy to write and read such important minutiae :-)
Long story short, yes, gun proliferation creates social harm. But it also creates social positives and also a huge neutral core--i.e., literally 99.995 percent of guns owned by Americans have never been used to harm anyone. A sober society would weigh all three to find effective ways to reduce that 0.005 percent--20,000 annual gun homicides--by a reasonable amount. "Nobody should own guns so just ban them" is not one of those effective ways.
Agreed. Too bad we don't have a sober society. And for what it is worth, the recent going off the deep end by the right seems to have convinced way too many that the left doesn't have its share of inebriated thinking.
Huh? Look at countries that have gun control. The murder rate of the US is closer Somalia than it is to the eu and Asia
My point remains, Migs: if proliferation of guns caused gun murders, we would all literally be dead. We are not.
We aren't all dead, but we certainly have a much higher death rate from firearms than other first world countries with stricter gun laws.
The logic here is really hard to follow. Because we arenтАЩt all dead that means gun proliferation is neither positive or negative although countries that have stricter gun control have less death by guns.
I mean this logic can be used on literally anything. Why take vaccines or why try to police the border or police our communities. ItтАЩs not like people arenтАЩt dying now.
Too much light switch logic here. Something (gun proliferation) can have a negative effect AND have a diminishing returns mechanism. The cause and effect need not be linear in nature.
Gun nuance on social media? I've done that, but it takes all day and neither of us have the energy to write and read such important minutiae :-)
Long story short, yes, gun proliferation creates social harm. But it also creates social positives and also a huge neutral core--i.e., literally 99.995 percent of guns owned by Americans have never been used to harm anyone. A sober society would weigh all three to find effective ways to reduce that 0.005 percent--20,000 annual gun homicides--by a reasonable amount. "Nobody should own guns so just ban them" is not one of those effective ways.
Agreed. Too bad we don't have a sober society. And for what it is worth, the recent going off the deep end by the right seems to have convinced way too many that the left doesn't have its share of inebriated thinking.