The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.
But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.
You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.
Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.
If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks
This same sentiment is echoed in the tech community around AI artwork and it’s, frankly, silly. You cannot blame a tool for being misused. You can say that only certain people should have ready access to a tool, and there are strict rules for the use of a tool, but at the end of the day, the tool bloody exists, saying “hey, can we just not use the tool, guys?” doesn’t work. Fix the people who have the most likelihood of misusing the tools, prevent access to the tool from unqualified people, and otherwise just accept that misuse is the price of advancement, as unfortunate as that is.
You make it sound that changing peoples minds are a super easy task compared to removing guns.
I for one am saying that both things should be done at the same time.
Lets end this here, you’re trying to poke flaws in the person you’re discussing with, instead of being civil and analyzing the problem, I pray that neither of us pay no stab tax, jesus.
I agree. This guy’s been all over this thread and all he’s really said is “wouldn’t it be better if nobody died?” Yeah of course it would. No one can argue with that and no one should argue with the poster above you because it isn’t productive at all.
What’s your angle. is 1 murder bad or 20? its all Bad. but you are arguing about efficiency. what are you planning to say to a loved one when they get stabbed?
“yo lol at least they didn’t shoot up the place, thanks for taking that stabbing for the team?”
i hope you have to pay that tax. ill even give up my guns to see it happen. Oooh Wait. Why is that statement Baaaad? No one wants to be killed. and when you sigh of relief that it fewer murders happen instead of none at all makes you a joke of a human.
i deserve death because you got your little feelings hurt? yeah, that’s totally not vile and totally something a sane person would say. go play in traffic.
deleted by creator
He typed It poorly, but I think his point was: Try to kill 30 children in a school with a knife.
If the person wants to kill, they will kill, but a gun (a big gun even) will make this task, orders of magnitude easier.
deleted by creator
The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.
But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.
You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.
Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.
If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks
deleted by creator
This same sentiment is echoed in the tech community around AI artwork and it’s, frankly, silly. You cannot blame a tool for being misused. You can say that only certain people should have ready access to a tool, and there are strict rules for the use of a tool, but at the end of the day, the tool bloody exists, saying “hey, can we just not use the tool, guys?” doesn’t work. Fix the people who have the most likelihood of misusing the tools, prevent access to the tool from unqualified people, and otherwise just accept that misuse is the price of advancement, as unfortunate as that is.
You make it sound that changing peoples minds are a super easy task compared to removing guns.
I for one am saying that both things should be done at the same time.
Lets end this here, you’re trying to poke flaws in the person you’re discussing with, instead of being civil and analyzing the problem, I pray that neither of us pay no stab tax, jesus.
I agree. This guy’s been all over this thread and all he’s really said is “wouldn’t it be better if nobody died?” Yeah of course it would. No one can argue with that and no one should argue with the poster above you because it isn’t productive at all.
try reading before commenting next time, i find it helps me not look like a fucktard
What’s your angle. is 1 murder bad or 20? its all Bad. but you are arguing about efficiency. what are you planning to say to a loved one when they get stabbed?
“yo lol at least they didn’t shoot up the place, thanks for taking that stabbing for the team?”
i hope you have to pay that tax. ill even give up my guns to see it happen. Oooh Wait. Why is that statement Baaaad? No one wants to be killed. and when you sigh of relief that it fewer murders happen instead of none at all makes you a joke of a human.
what the fuck is this incoherent pile of sludge
deleted by creator
i deserve death because you got your little feelings hurt? yeah, that’s totally not vile and totally something a sane person would say. go play in traffic.
deleted by creator
i don’t think it worked, go play in traffic again
deleted by creator
Double response to the same post. Unnecessary.
you are pathetic
Double response to the same post. Unnecessary.