Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Wendover Productions"
channel.
-
3
-
Clearly this audience won't be receptive to this message and it'll probably get censored by YT anyway. However, if the bans worked then there should have been 0 incidences of gun violence. Murders, which apparently weren't looked at on their own, should also have gone down with no associated acts of violence that didn't result in death in lieu of. Since you didn't even mention those, I can only assume you didn't study them, or if you did you either felt the numbers disagreed with your narrative or you erroneously felt they agreed with it and felt no need to mention them. Either way, suspicious. Violence in most civilized nations has gone down over the past 40 years, media reports of gun violence notwithstanding, but when you ban guns, the violence gets shifted to other forms. People still die, and while it is fewer deaths than with guns, the repercussions are longer lasting because they wind up disfigured or with a chronic health problem or just in general with PTSD. I'm not saying that people would be better off dead, what I am saying is that they'd be better off armed in the first place before they're attacked so they can fend off their attacker and prevent the situation resulting in their own death or maiming. Self defense is a human right, and the means by which you defend yourself are irrelevant as long as you are responsible. Dave of EEVblog brings up the point of a cricket bat, disregarding the fact that he would be charged with assault if he defended himself with said cricket bat, and it's disingenuous to say the least. Everyone touting gun control as though it would actually work needs to wake up to reality. Criminals won't obey the law, they'll either keep the guns they have, if they have them, or make new ones or buy them on the black market. In any event, the criminals who would assault you will still have access to firearms and they'll know you don't.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1