That's what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn't be so sneaky and two-faced we'd have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not "won't someone PLEASE think of the children" emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
If you actually look at the statistics you wouldn't. Just like you're extremely unlikely to get measles but we do innoculate ourselves. The innoculation to gun crime is a lead innoculation for those commiting it. Criminals don't stop commiting crime because it's illegal you know.
The only country with more gun deaths than the US is Brazil. The US is 4% of the world's population and 14.85% of the World's Gun Deaths. I wonder what could possibly be the reason for that.
"There's no way to prevent this from happening" say the only Country where this regularly happens...
Suicide and gang wars are the source of you're actually interested.
Look at your source and sort by per capita statistics, because no shit a 350 million population country will have high total stats in any number of things while having lower per capita.
My dude, it's already illegal for criminals to use guns and crime, so what is another law going to do? Felons cannot own guns and many criminals are felons but a lot of them still find guns. What is a law going to change about that? Death by suicide is a primarily male problem. Are we going to ban men? Just because somebody used a gun to kill themselves doesn't mean they were not going to do it in some other way.
My Dude, gun crime is higher in states that have less restrictive gun control laws, and the cities that neighbour them. If it's harder for criminals to buy guns then there will be fewer criminal with guns. It's not complicated.
"Gun crime is caused by gang!"
"Okay, let's try to stop gangs getting guns."
"IMPOSSIBLE!"
It's really not, you just don't want a solution because the problem excuses your big pew pew toy.
"IMPOSSIBLE" yes. Without killing a fundamental right which built the nation it is impossible. If there's the political will to do it then ces't la vie, but my job, and the job of others who care and understand the situation is to call out the politicians hiding their goal of banning guns behind euphemisms and dog whistles. If they can repeal the 2nd then fucking do it. If not then fuck off on more gun control. That's the only thing I don't like about most Democrat candidates. I agree with most everything else. It still makes it difficult to support them though.
I just wanted to thank you for bringing this perspective to the conversation even though you're getting absolutely blasted for it. That's a great comic too - I'm saving that for later.
That's difficult to say because they don't say what the question is. It could be as simple as "do you think common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals/children/immigrants are a good idea" or it could be even more weasely. Without knowing the actual question the survey results are meaningless.
That’s difficult to say because they don’t say what the question is.
The survey is directly linked. If you were actually interested in "What the public wants" you could have easily clicked the link and found out for yourself what the question is, the results, and what the results have been in previous years. Seeing as actually informing yourself seems like too much effort, here is the question asked:
G1. Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?
People were free to interpret that however they want, and 64% of people said they were in favor.
Didn't see the link. Well, people are getting more and more brainwashed, so I'm not surprised. Honestly, when the news calls every shooting near a school a school shooting and goes on and on about how there's hundreds a year it's not a surprise the ignorant masses are fooled.
Well, people are getting more and more brainwashed, so I’m not surprised. Honestly, when the news calls every shooting near a school a school shooting and goes on and on about how there’s hundreds a year it’s not a surprise the ignorant masses are fooled.
That’s what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn’t be so sneaky and two-faced we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not “won’t someone PLEASE think of the children” "PeOpLe ArE bRaIn WaShEd" emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
So you're concerned about what the public wants, until it is shown that the public very much does NOT want the thing you want, and which point you immediately know what the public REALLY wants better than they do.
I'm concerned (reasonably) that mass media and constant misinformation/disinformation campaigns on social media and other platforms are changing peoples' minds not with facts but with lies and deception. I don't think this is controversial.
So am I, that's why a third of people oppose stricter gun control laws. Without the constant misinformation/disinformation campaigns on social media and other platforms it would be over 90% in favour of stricter gun control laws.
You see how that works? You didn't actually present an argument, you just assumed you are correct without any need of supporting your claims, and the argument goes nowhere.
The fact that the media reports shootings in the vicinity of schools as school shootings to pump up the numbers is evidence on my side.
Evidence for what? That people don't want what they want? You have provided no evidence that people don't actually want what they say they want, and no arguments as to why they shouldn't want that. For someone that was previously so concerned about "what the public wants" you are pretty quick to dismiss what the public wants.
The mask is used by politicians trying to hide banning all guns as sensible gun control. I'm just stating that you are telling the truth the politicians will not.
I don't know if you've ever watched The Simpsons but that is a quote from a reactionary trying to get what they want with no real reason so they say it's for the kids. It has been a very successful political tool. Just think of cispa and other various internet censorship and spying tools.
The mask is used by politicians trying to hide banning all guns as sensible gun control. I’m just stating that you are telling the truth the politicians will not.
Politicians probably realize banning guns is not going to happen, so putting some reasonable gun control laws in place is a good middle ground. You're talking about a slippery slope fallacy, which does not address if a proposed measure is actually bad in and of itself.
I don’t know if you’ve ever watched The Simpsons but that is a quote from a reactionary trying to get what they want with no real reason so they say it’s for the kids.
It's literally for the safety of the general public (kids included). How many school shootings does there have to be before it's reasonable to point out "This will help protect children."
Children in the US literally have drills on what to do if there is a school shooting FFS.