• masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Because every other country with similar problems can be slapped with the label of “underdeveloped”, I assume?

    What countries are you thinking of?

    “Gun violence” is not a cause of death. Murder is.

    Technically no, a bullet wound is, or a stab wound, or blunt force trauma, but murder is the legal definition of a crime that involves death, circumstances, and intent.

    Do you think if they took away the guns, people would just stop being violent? Or that they would just find another tool?

    I think that they would find another tool, be forced to decide whether to commit to a close quarters fight to the death instead of sitting back and spraying from a distance, and in the vast majority of situations the overall outcome will be far less severe and easier for police and security to contain.

    Have you really thought about it?

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      be forced to decide whether to commit to a close quarters fight

      Do you think this is the only alternative? Did you already forget about the mass murderer with a truck? Or a bomb? Or a lighter? Or an airplane? Or any number of dozens of other ways you can murder people without putting yourself in harm’s way?

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Outside of potentially a car or truck, all of those things take significant time and planning.

        The reality of most murders is that they do not happen when given a cooling off period. Similar to suicides, they’re often situational and in the moment.