Not literally every single one of them, but we know what she probably meant.
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Michigan
842 readers
1 users here now
Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam in braccas mea vide
🫴
✋
Banner photos credits
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wonder if you (and other commenters) actually read the post/article.
- "Every single death by a gun… is preventable." As the kids love to overuse these days, literally. Barring freak accidents, guns don't fire themselves.
- I wasn't aware Lt Governor Garlin Gilchrist identified as "she."
"Imagine not having this shit figured out" - rest of the world gang
Start with cops.
So glad sanity prevails.
Nope. Not in the real world it's not.
Sure it is. Guns require fingers to fire. Therefore, every single person who fires a gun made a conscious decision to fire it. They also possess the ability to not fire the gun, thereby preventing the gun death.
And in the real world not everyone is working towards the objectives needed. The is all hyperbolic cheerleading.
Who'da thunk it? Really?! You mean there are people who would knowingly and intentionally fire upon another person or other people? Get outta here!
On my planet, we call those people psychopaths or criminals…which is just different degrees of the same thing. On my planet those "not working towards the objectives needed" are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
And you got a plan for these people? Or just more sarcasm? Do you plan on the police convincing every one to come in to the station?
Cheer squad copium.
And you are obviously part of the problem.
Don't address the reality and attack me
Except in the real world where places like the UK and Australia have banned guns and have it work really well.
Both the UK and Australia haven’t had a mass shooting since 1996, which was when they both decided to ban guns after the Dunblane shooting.
From your previous posts and replies I'm not entirely sure you live in the same "real world" the rest of us do.
Yeah I for one hate when I’m out in nature and a wild gun jumps out and shoots at me
That's it. You win. 😄🤝
How so? How is it inevitable in the real world? No snark from me, I'd like your take on the matter.
You'll never effectively convince people to unanimously give up violence. And unless you've figured a way to uninvent the gun it's a lost cause with no chance in our lifetime.
That's quite a stretch there from "every gun death is preventable" to "unanimously give up violence," although it's a noble sentiment...to which you've immediately admitted defeat.
Yeah every argument of this form is the same: “why have laws against something if people won’t follow them 100% the time? Better to have no laws against it, then.” Doesn’t make any sense.
This argument counters the claim that every death by a gun is preventable. A portion of those deaths would occur with or without a gun.
It's not arguing there won't be a reduction in deaths.
That’s unnecessarily pedantic and really misses the point but I guess this IS the internet, after all.
It's not unnecessarily pedantic when the claim is that 100% of gun deaths are preventable.
It's not unnecessarily pedantic if the issue at hand is unnecessary deaths. Does it really matter if a person is killed by a gun, knife, or hammer? What matters is someone needlessly died.
The fundamental issue is violence. Reduction in gun ownership can improve the problem, but it's nothing more than a single (but effective) tool.
Yes it matters how the person died when we’re talking about gun deaths lmfao
Hold on, you're saying that the claim is that "every death by gun is preventable" is incorrect because some of those deaths could become "deaths not by gun"?
Do you see the wee flaw in yer statement there lad?
Right. You're hung up on the mode rather than the outcome.
The argument presented is that all the unnecessary deaths would not be prevented. Obviously if there were no guns, the deaths cannot occur by gun, but a portion would still occur by other means.
Do you understand the wee flaw in your comprehension now, lad?
Apparently you've either forgotten the argument presented or want desperately to move the goalposts. Read carefully.
“Every single death by a gun is 100% preventable.”
I'm not disagreeing that fewer guns leads to significantly fewer deaths. I think any reasonable person would say that makes sense.
However, a large number of unnecessary deaths will occur whether or not guns are present. Implying otherwise is overly reductive. It misses the bigger picture issue of the causes of violence.
Reducing violent crimes/unnecessary deaths should be the objective. Reduction in gun ownership is only a single (albeit significant) tool to reach that goal.
You are once again moving the goalpost. While, yes, "unnecessary deaths*" will occur whether, again, sane gun ownership restrictions are in place or not, that is not the subject at hand.
* Define "unnecessary deaths." Murder? Crib death? Religious beliefs against modern medicine? Neglect? All of the above? On second thought, please don't.
How about we frame this discussion around unnecessary deaths by weapons (of any sort, accidental or intentional)? I think we can agree the intention of gun controls is to reduce that number. Therefore, this discussion is fundamentally about unnecessary deaths (as defined above).
I'm not moving the goalpost, I'm consistently stating what the goal ought to be; not less gun ownership, but rather fewer unnecessary deaths. Gun controls are a likely necessary, but insufficient method of reaching that goal.
How about we frame this discussion around whatever I want to frame it around?
If you'd like to have a conversation about any Michigan-related subject you'd like, please, by all means, post something. But you can't come into an established conversation and change the focal point as you wish. It's a basic social convention.
We're done.
This argument counters the claim that every death by a gun is preventable.
Nope
End of debate
Sorry, I didn't realize a debate had begun since you didn't make any arguments or said anything of substance.
It's possible I suppose for every death by a gun to be prevented from being by a gun.
They would kill them with something that is not-a-gun.
That being said, I do believe a lot fewer people would get murdered if there were no guns. But it wouldn’t be 0.
Think about your first statement. Now think about murdering somebody. Go on, you know you want to. To make this thought exercise easier, let's say it's a "crime of passion." If it happens outside of the home, how exactly would you go about murdering this person? Shooting someone, once the psychological barrier of actually doing it is surmounted, i's just so easy. With a knife, it's a whole 'nother process, both psychologically and also physically. It's hard to knife someone. And further down the line (bludgeon, physical assault) just gets more difficult if you don't have the element of surprise.
Of course it wouldn't be 0, as you state. But it wouldn't be what it is today with sane restrictions in place...kinda like most of the rest of the world. Sorry for the length of this reply.
I think we’re saying the same thing? Hitting someone with a candle stick or a wine bottle in the head can also kill them.
Just a fun fact, if you break a wine or liquor bottle over someone's head, it will almost certainly kill them instead of dazing them like in the movies.
I disagree, you see so often things escalate to pulling a gun and getting shot. If people only had bare hands.. few punches in the face is generally enough to get the anger out that doesn't result in someone dying
Yes, but it won’t be zero. People are killed without guns, just less frequently.
Some people currently killed by guns will be killed by something else. It’s not 100% of them and it’s not 0% of them.