Pretty sure a group of men with guns would have killed way more, but w/e.
English
-
But if guns are legal and more are carried. The shooters would be more likely to change there mind. Or may be stopped quickly. Criminals will always get guns even if there banned. Idiots believe otherwise. Also.. If someone had a gun there and could have shot the attackers? But wait! We need to wait for the police to bring guns and shoot them while they go and stab everyone hahahaha. Great!
-
[quote]But if guns are legal and more are carried. The shooters would be more likely to change there mind.[/quote] Your country has more guns per capita than anywhere else, and this doesnt seem to dissuade shootings one iota, as your disproportionately high gun violence shows. Its even more apparent that somethings amiss when you look at countries like Switzerland and Japan who allow private gun ownership and [i]dont[/i] have the same issues you do. [quote]Criminals will always get guns even if there banned. Idiots believe otherwise.[/quote] Always? No. Not true. No country in existence has 100% of its criminals carrying guns, thats an absolutely ridiculous statement. What would be more accurate is to say that you cant 100% eliminate the possibility of a criminal getting a gun. [i]Thats[/i] true. But its not criminals that are the problem is it? Its people who are mentally unstable getting hold of them, thats the problem here. Tighter controls on guns with respects to mental instability would be half of the solution. The other half would be reigning in your pill factory culture. [quote]Also.. If someone had a gun there and could have shot the attackers? But wait! We need to wait for the police to bring guns and shoot them while they go and stab everyone hahahaha. Great![/quote] If guns were widely available, you think they'd have still used knives? FOH lol. At the past few mass shootings there have been people there with guns. How'd that work out? You're happy to call other people idiots, but you're parroting an NRA talking point emailed to right-wing media and politicians hours after a mass shooting. And the most ironic thing is that as there [i]have[/i] been "Good Guys with Guns" present, and its done absolutely -blam!- all to prevent repeated loss of life, your whole point is dead in the water before you've even bleated it out. Your country needs to make sure that you arent putting highly lethal weaponry in the hands of the mentally disturbed, and you need to stop pumping out drugs which cause psychotic episodes. At the very least, people on such medication should be barred from holding such weapons.
-
Edited by Le Froggyass: 2/21/2018 3:03:20 PMBut these criminals didn't get guns even though they are banned?
-
[quote]pretty sure[/quote]
-
[quote][quote]Figure of speech[/quote][/quote]
-
So, you are [i]certain[/i] that it would have resulted in more casualties?
-
Its common sense that a gun is deadlier than a blade. If the reverse were true, the preferred weapons of armed forces would still be swords.
-
While that is true in most situations, wouldn’t you think that if the group of men had guns, a civilian could have had a firearm as well and diffused the situation?
-
Edited by Bieltan: 2/18/2018 5:39:05 PMNo more so than a civilian who practised martial arts could have diffused the knife incident. Theres situations in both instances where a civilian has diffused the situation, and others still where they couldnt do shit. I dont see what your point is along this particular train of logic tbh.
-
[quote]No more so than a civilian who practised martial arts could have diffused the knife incident.[/quote] That is a false equivalence of the highest order. [quote]Theres situations in both instances where a civilian has diffused the situation, and others still where they couldnt do shit. I dont see what your point is along this particular train of logic tbh.[/quote] The data shows that when civilians have firearms during a shooting, they tend to either help the situation, or do nothing. Rarely if ever do civilians with firearms worsen shooting situations.
-
[quote]That is a false equivalence of the highest order.[/quote] How so? In both instances we have a civilian arguably equipped to deal with their respective situations. [quote]The data shows that when civilians have firearms during a shooting, they tend to either help the situation, or do nothing. Rarely if ever do civilians with firearms worsen shooting situations.[/quote] So basically like literally any other situation where a civilian could intervene? This is such a non-argument.