Comments by "S S" (@SS-yj2le) on "ReasonTV"
channel.
-
11
-
7
-
@brendougbake4958 I used to live on the outskirts of southern San Antonio, Texas. I even fired 3 different pistols there at 2 different ranges. Everyone is extremely strict on who even has a gun to begin with. Let alone what you do with the guns. If you are seen carrying a rifle around or a pistol, people will look at you like you are crazy. For kamikazes, there was a whole war in the Pacific with this problem. Not a big problem due to how hard it is to build and fly aircraft. A 6-year-old kid isn't going to exactly pull off flying a Boeing747. Same with most adults who wouldn't even get one off of an airport and that is just if they can even manage stealing it. Arson is ridiculously common. 17,000 acts of it per year in the US and in various situations, far more dangerous than gun shots. Chemical attacks are used among terrorists quite frequently. Though yet, most people are incompetent with using these. Hence, low success rates and lower attempts as well. Then again. Wasn't the point. The whole point is that there are countless different ways for people to kill each other without guns and have been. There could be 0 deaths per year due to arson. It is still possible for people to use that means to kill others. It is also completely undeniable that people can and do kill each other with knives, fire, their own fists and feet, electricity, stone, animals like elephants and dogs, and numerous other ways every single day. These are not even uncommon. They happen all the time. For majority of crime, not true as most crime isn't violent crime. That clear issue is the fact that there are people willing to commit these atrocities. Again, why only the guns here? Why are we allowing these people to drive when they can drive into crowds and kill lots of people? Why are we allowing them access to easy fire lighters where they can probably burn down a whole small town in California? One military guy with this issue was planning to poison water supplies to commit a genocide only a few years ago. No. Banning guns isn't a good decision and would take away guns from people doing nothing wrong. In fact, most guns used in crime are obtained illegally anyways. Being as effective as Trump's wall in preventing illegal immigration. You also have the issue that people will build guns too. In fact, Shinzo Abe was killed last year by a guy using a homemade gun. For rounding up mentally unstable people, that is far easier and effective. You round up the people who are actually doing the crimes. They get rounded up and then if they try anything, they are under surveillance. Versus them having to turn to the black market to do shootings and still carrying them out. That also reduces a huge amount of strain for law enforcement and the extreme pain that it is to even find out where the guns are to start with. Let alone grabbing them all. That even helps with the healthcare system as well with less medical debt weighing down the government's budget and the programs of other services. All uncovered by shooting doesn't even make sense. Especially when gun registration is already a thing. Also, you should be saying someone using one of said guns to do a shooting. Except those shootings will still happen and even then, 20 people could get stabbed. A hundred people could die in a fire. Even if these actually did work, to have this type of violence avoided completely, you would have to literally isolate everyone from everything and cut off everyone's arms and legs. What are you even talking about? That wouldn't remove that other type of crime at all. Especially as most crime that even involves gun, are with guns obtained illegally. Even then, you still need safety from other threats as well like gang beatings or arson. I remember one gang member stating that he would rather be caught by the police with a gun than be caught by the others without one. Guns don't improve or worsen safety. It is their handling of them. Czech Republic is pro guns and has among the lowest violent crime rate in the world. So does Japan who banned guns. It doesn't change anything. Even in the US. Heavy armed upper Rockies have lower crime compared to most other states. What does change things though, is how the citizens are treated. Also, you say rather one dies rather than 15. Why don't you say something for the stabbing to also prevent that single one? What is now of that person who you supposedly stopped from shooting up the place? Are they just going to decide to not do it? These people are not going to back off of anything merely because of some restrictions. Also, it is unfair to restrict gun access to everyone when most people didn't even do anything wrong with their guns just as it would be unfair to ban everyone in France from driving because of the trucker who killed 86 people (far more than all American school shootings).
5
-
3
-
@brendougbake4958 Even in an anti-gun argument, that is definitely false. People have been killing each other since the stone ages. Long before guns were even thought of. Also, if others didn't have guns, the people without them would have an even easier time. I'm not even a republican here. I'm a left-wing registered Green who voted for Bernie Sanders and for Joe Biden in 2020. For the guns don't kill people, that matters. Fists don't punch people. People punch people, right? Are we going to go around and cut off people's arms now? No. I hope you don't advocate that. Also, people can and do beat each other to death. What should be done is better ways to manage these threatening people. One of them would be a universal mental healthcare for all system. Hence, the people don't commit the violence as they will have no motivation to do it. It wouldn't even just fix gun violence. It would fix issues like people driving into crowds (which has actually been a growing problem lately), stabbings (has been reported among people with psychiatric issues), bombings (at least one pipe bomb at the capitol put there during the coup), chemical attacks (ricin against Obama), projectile plane crashing (kamikaze pilots and 9/11), arson (especially problematic here in California due to wildfire risk), and even smaller things like people stoning each other. Muslim nations based on religion, have literally advocated stoning people to death. For access to the legal guns, you do realize that these guns are hard to get, right? They have had background checks long before any gun legislation. Even in Texas. In fact, people in Texas would generally never even loan a gun to someone they don't know or to someone who they think is unstable. It is even within the culture there and they use that partly to preserve it. Messed up politics, but they are definitely not giving out guns like it is candy. The issue is the background checks were either not through or they weren't enforced for their access to guns. Let alone the shootings to happen. Then again, why are we even allowing these people to walk among the streets? Why only guns? Your comparison of the value of children's lives and guns is not comparable as a man living in the mountains of Montana hunting moose is not going to affect anyone living in Memphis. It is honestly disturbing to me that the focus is on what this person has, not the fact that this person has something extremely wrong with them. If you are going to argue for gun control, your best argument would be in comparison to regulating nuclear bombs. What is too far and what is not? How are the regulations enforced? How do we preserve people's rights to use the same materials used in building a gun. But please. Please actually pay more attention to the fact that these people were willing to use guns to take people's lives. Not simply the fact that they had guns to begin with.
2
-
1