• HelixDab@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Love that people just ignore that violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and since violence must happen in a vacuum without any causes at all the only solution is to remove the tools.

    Guns are tools. A knife is a tool. A car is a tool. Even high explosives are tools.

    BTW, I do have a kitchen gun, because that’s where I need it when there’s a problem bear outside. (Yes, bear - one of those 300+ pound animals with teeth and claws that are sometimes extremely aggressive.)

    I assume that you want safe communities; would you be open to solutions that increase safety if they didn’t involve removing firearms, or is that the only solution that you’d accept?

    • Anomandaris@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Calling a gun a tool is intentionally misleading. A gun’s sole purpose is as a weapon, using it any other way is a misuse of that “tool”. Whereas knives have various practical purposes. Which was obviously the purpose of my initial reply.

      In some cases, yes, having a gun is entirely legitimate (assuming used safely) such as protection from dangerous wildlife. But the number of legitimate cases does not even come close to justifying the number of guns, or the gun culture, in America. Violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, the presence of guns, the acceptance of gun culture, and the normalization of gun violence are things that contribute to the frequency of gun crime.

      The removal of guns, and restricting of them to legitimate use cases IS dealing with the underlying social issues. But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.

      • HelixDab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve avoiding the question.

        Would you be open to solutions that do not involve removing guns, or is that the only solution you would accept?

        • Anomandaris@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.

          No I didn’t, I think I was pretty clear. We need to reduce the number of guns available, nothing else will be effective until we do. I do believe any solution that does not involve removing guns at some point is incomplete. But removing guns on its own is not enough.

          • HelixDab@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, you were quite clear; you aren’t actually interested in real solutions, you’re interested in gun control for the sake of gun control.