I'm just curious what the torn user-base thinks about this concept. Do you think NATO is ushering in WW3 by putting their foot down with regards to Ukraine? People usually say they don't think Putin would stop at Ukraine so Article 5 is inevitable.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this forum thread are those of a speculative nature and aren't intended to be interpreted as opinion.
That's a subjective opinion, and one I entirely disagree with. Stabbing someone hardly takes any more skill than shooting a firearm. I've never seen someone go to use a knife but forgot they had the safety on. I've never seen a knife jam. What I have seen are numerous articles where people have perpetrated mass stabbing attacks. Not only with knives, but machetes, axes, etc.
> Take away guns from the folks that are committing the gun crimes and there isn't going to be a one to one transition to using knifes.
Why does it need to be one to one? My whole argument has been that taking away guns isn't going to solve the problem. You will still have the underlying mental health crisis plaguing America.
> The person that shot Cameron Rayford two days ago on the south side of Chicago would probably not have stabbed him if a knife was his only tool.
Again, I disagree. He could have been stabbed, ran over, beaten to death, thrown off a bridge, or any other number of things. Why was he killed? Because the gun existed? Or because of a mental health problem?
Historically speaking your categorization of liberals is correct. In recent years, this isn't true at all. Liberals have moved very far left.
Furthermore, modern leftists do not support guns.
On topic to this thread, yes, I do support guns. You take away guns, you will just start seeing mass knife attacks. "Knives don't kill as many people as guns". Wrong. If you look at the averages, they are very comparable. Yes, the most extreme of gun crimes have killed more people than the most extreme of knife crimes, but that is irrelevant. The core issue is a mental health issue. We've had guns for a long time. Why are shootings on the rise? Because of guns? No. So there are three possible reasons behind wanting to ban guns.
1. Virtue signaling to acquire more votes
2. Ignorance regarding the root problem
3. Legitimately wanting to disarm the people as a precursor to more draconian government
This came after their original "Government-funded Media" label was challenged by CBC responding that less than 70% of their revenue is from government sources.
CBC also said "CBC/Radio-Canada is publicly funded through a parliamentary appropriation that is voted upon by all Members of Parliament. Its editorial independence is protected in law in the Broadcasting Act, as we said in our statement from last week."
And by working to solve the mental health crisis, that would save even more than removing the guns.
> While you’re at it you could solve the Sociopolitical problems with better education, public services job creation ect. But I’m sure that sounds far to much like socialism to Americans.
1. That sounds like a great idea
2. I'm not American
> Also I suspect the reason Somalia has a lot of gun deaths is because it’s a failed state still in the last dregs of a civil war.
So in other words, the sociopolitical environment of Somalia contributes to its excessively high crime rate?
That's a subjective opinion, and one I entirely disagree with. Stabbing someone hardly takes any more skill than shooting a firearm. I've never seen someone go to use a knife but forgot they had the safety on. I've never seen a knife jam. What I have seen are numerous articles where people have perpetrated mass stabbing attacks. Not only with knives, but machetes, axes, etc.
> Take away guns from the folks that are committing the gun crimes and there isn't going to be a one to one transition to using knifes.
Why does it need to be one to one? My whole argument has been that taking away guns isn't going to solve the problem. You will still have the underlying mental health crisis plaguing America.
> The person that shot Cameron Rayford two days ago on the south side of Chicago would probably not have stabbed him if a knife was his only tool.
Again, I disagree. He could have been stabbed, ran over, beaten to death, thrown off a bridge, or any other number of things. Why was he killed? Because the gun existed? Or because of a mental health problem?
There's really nothing to explain. You were trying to base your entire argument on the fact that more gun crimes are committed in one country than in another country as though that was the sole factor. The sociopolitical environment of a nation plays a large part in the environment of cities, states, and countries as a whole. Detroit isn't violent because there are more guns present. There are more guns present because it is violent. Do you think that has something to do with the nature of society in Detroit? Do you think it's exacerbated by the political atmosphere? Or do you think there are other more important factors at play? The same goes for entire countries. How do you think Somalia compares to the United States. Again, what do you think the main reason for this is? Do you think people in Somalia are generally happy with a positive and altruistic outlook on life?
In the United States? Of course they are. When I say they are comparable I am talking about the potential. I am not saying that at this present moment knife crimes occur as much as gun crimes in the united states, which is what you keep insisting upon. What I am saying is that if you take the guns away from these criminals, they are still going to commit violent crimes, and it isn't going to solve the underlying problem. That is why I am bringing up these mass stabbings as a way to demonstrate what can happen in a country with a mental health crisis where people don't have as much access to firearms. Even if we implement the most stringent of gun control regulations to ensure that those individuals who are afflicted with mental health problems don't have access to firearms (which I'm all for), when they snap, they are just going to go into their kitchen and grab a knife.
I used it to make the argument that stabbings can result in the same number of fatalities as shooting related crimes, not to suggest that they happen more often than gun related deaths, which is what you did.
> "Lol I recon I could find more mass shooting in the us over the past month then you’ve just found over 5 countries over 8 years."
> But the scoiopolitical environment is exactly what is causing these large numbers of gun deaths and what people want to change.
Exactly. So then why are you comparing the united states and the number of shooting fatalities to other countries and their number of stabbing fatalities?
> You can’t just say oh it’s the sociopolitical environment as a trump card and not explain it lol.
2. Because you are pretending that number of crimes committed per capita is the only variable. You aren't considering the sociopolitical environment in which these statistics reside
> You said (and I quote) 'Liberals have moved very far left.' This is completely different from being on the left side of the spectrum. In fact, this is where they were until you moved them 'very far left' (outlined by yourself in your original post).
Did you read the post I was responding to? Or what was said earlier in this thread about them being centrist?
> You didn't have this argument in this thread, making this 'point' irrelevant. In fact, you didn't have this argument in this forum.
Irrelevant
> Given your ignorance of reality and belief in political stereotypes, I assumed I was allowed the same artistic freedom. 'The right' don't like spending tax payer money on anything, especially healthcare, therefore they'd be against spending money on healthcare. Not exactly mental gymnastics...
No, but generalizations are one of the biggest problems with politics today.
> I didn't realise you wanted to follow different rules to other people. My apologies.
Historically speaking your categorization of liberals is correct. In recent years, this isn't true at all. Liberals have moved very far left.
Furthermore, modern leftists do not support guns.
On topic to this thread, yes, I do support guns. You take away guns, you will just start seeing mass knife attacks. "Knives don't kill as many people as guns". Wrong. If you look at the averages, they are very comparable. Yes, the most extreme of gun crimes have killed more people than the most extreme of knife crimes, but that is irrelevant. The core issue is a mental health issue. We've had guns for a long time. Why are shootings on the rise? Because of guns? No. So there are three possible reasons behind wanting to ban guns.
1. Virtue signaling to acquire more votes
2. Ignorance regarding the root problem
3. Legitimately wanting to disarm the people as a precursor to more draconian government