France condemns Trump claim armed civilians could have stopped 2015 Paris attack
84 replies, posted
There are plenty of other ways to "do the deed", sure, but I can tell you with certainty that I've had low points where if I did have easy access to a fire-arm, I'd be a part of that statistic.
Because the topic of the thread is whether it would be a good idea to apply US gun laws to France. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
How the fuck does that amount to saying "ban all guns xd ameriga suck"? How does that say anything at all about how Americans should run their country?
Then how the fuck does this:
Relate in any way whatsoever to French gun laws? What does it have to do with my post which is about the hypothetical application of US gun laws to France?
What is this if not an attempt to insert an US-centric argument in a debate about gun laws in France? What is this if not an attempt at a pro-gun argument?
You haven't challenged anything. All you made was a shitty quip that is irrelevant to the French situation, and a pathetic lecture about how you're disappointed in me, like you're my dad or something. You've made no argument.
And who's losing his mind here? I'm not the one who's doing crappy strawmen and childish impersonations of your posts.
I never suggested arming anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the solution to gun crime isnt banning things or further restrictions. No shit its an ambitious task, but its one that should be undertaken.
Your logic is garbage. What causes car crashes; distracted drivers or cars? Saying suicide is caused by inanimate objects existence is the dumbest thing ive read on this forum. Yore really reaching this time.
You cant determine if a suicide wouldnt have happend without a gun, thats a pointless hypothetical. Access to the gun isnt what killed the person in your hypothetical, the person killed themselves. It takes just as much thought to down a bottle of pills as it does to bite the barrel.
You didn't, but the person I was originally replying to did.
Maybe it isn't in the US, this is irrelevant to my point and the thread, though.
Jeez this is a dumb argument. Nobody is saying that the existence of a gun is causing them to shoot themself. But having a quick option like that makes it a lot more likely for people to act on it when they otherwise wouldn't have.
The existence of money doesn't make everyone a thief, but if you place a bag of money in someone's backyard, they're probably going to keep that for themselves.
Both? Without distracted/bad drivers, there would be little to no car crashes. But if more people took public transportation, car crashes would decrease, even if less significantly.
I don't see what your problem with this is. There being a "root" cause doesn't mean that other things can't influence the outcome for the worse. A reasonable policy can tackle both.
This isn't the point people who bring up the higher suicide rate are arguing and you damn well know it.
Access to firearms makes suicide easier, faster, and less prone to second thought as outside of edge cases where you fuck up, it's a trigger pull and you're done. You don't sit there stewing in your own depression after downing a few packs of painkillers, or fuck a hanging up and just slowly choke to death. Click, boom, done. No time to call for help, no second chances.
Removing easier access to firearms removes an instant way to kill yourself that clearly many people take. And those who do take it could have been saved otherwise (it's a bit hard to reassemble a shattered brainstem after all). Just because there were a "myriad of other issues" doesn't absolve firearms in their role of suicides. We aren't going to cure depression outright any time soon, the "myriad of other issues" shouldn't stop us from trying to find ways to lower suicide rates.
You're completely ignoring the fact that I'm still alive because I haven't had easy access to a gun in order to kill myself. Because it would have been quick. It would have been super easy. It would have happened without a second thought.
Because I didn't have easy access to a fire-arm during my low-points, I was forced to consider other options which were nowhere near as appealing, easy, or relatively painless as grabbing a gun and pulling the trigger.
Different methods of suicide have different success rates
It's part of why women have a lower suicide rate than men, they tend to try to go out with means like imbibing a bunch of pills, whereas men are more likely to just get the glock/shotgun. Beyond just failing less often when people do it, guns require less setup which means more of a chance for people to back down.
(also when gun suicides fail usually people are often left severely mentally damaged too, so that's still more severe of an outcome than just waking up feeling like shit)
If access to guns directly leads to an increase in successful suicides, it's a cause of successful suicide.
Axel was saying that guns are a direct cause of suicides, and SKS was trying to say the same but in a more shitposting manner.
It being a cause doesn't mean it's the root cause. This is devolving into pointless semantics.
I appreciate youre being incredibly emotional about the subject, but I very clearly said that guns make it easier to kill yourself. I'm not disagreeing with you there. Take it easy.
Because tackling the root cause isn't always as easy as snapping your fingers, and may take quite a long time. Time during which people remain affected by the issue.
Tackling several causes means you'll reduce the impact faster (and thus save lives) in the short and medium term. You can't just build your policies based on what your ideal world will be 100 years from now, you have to think of intermediary solutions.
Oh hey its the 'guns don't kill people, people do' argument
Bottom line, guns do a quicker job at offing yourself when you want to, its immediate, there's no prolonged suffering (If you somehow don't fuck up shooting yourself) and relatively cheap, you don't have to go out.
Compared to say other alternatives that people might consider like jumping off a building or a train, you not only gonna hurt like fuck and probably suffer a long time, other people might get traumatized.
Its fucking logical mate
Know what an easier solution is than trying to wrangle up up to a billion guns or enforce tighter restrictions? Addressing mental health issues in America and doing something about it. Itll work a whole lot better than restricting freedoms.
Also,
There's also the fact that gun ownership has been shown to result in an increase in suicide rates.
Axels post about suicide sounded like he was implying the ownership of guns caused suicides, not made them easier.
As we've already explained to you, easy access to relatively painless and quick means of suicide.
But then again you don't seem to agree on what "cause" means, which is the crux of the issue.
Events can be the result of several concurrent causes. If something happens that wouldn't have had a parameter not been the same, that parameter is one of the causes of the event.
And you think gun control in America will work faster than improving mental healthcare? Improving mental health is clearly the better option because at least that will do something.
Point out where I said that?
Seriously, I gave you the definition of a cause in the very post you quoted...
their existence is not the cause of those decisions
It certainly IS the cause of the decision to pull through with it because it's so quick and efficient that why WOULDN'T you commit? I've already explained this to you in vivid detail. Maybe you don't get it because you don't live that life, but that's the Hell that I've had to live through, and that no doubt countless others have had to live through.
And if previous ownership doesn't matter in your eyes in regards to suicide by gun, then perhaps I should have to tell you the tragic tale of William Windley a-fucking-gain?
They didn't kill 130 people in 4 minutes, it was around 4 hours. If you watched what Trump said he made a point. They took people individually one by one and executed them because they had no way to defend themselves. The deaths and injuries would have been minimized if even just one of the terrorist was shot by a good guy with a gun. With thousands around at the time, it would have been a good chance someone could have done it.
It's funny because Trump is so widely hated here the fact that he's waded in at all actively hurts the pro gun argument because he's incapable of acting like a disrespectful fuckstick.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.