misgunception.bsky.social
Free people deserve to participate in their own defense with effective means.
He/Him. If stating that offends you, don't follow.
Pro tip: if you go far enough left, you get your irons back.
66 posts
39 followers
30 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
And when Port Arthur happened, you didn't have mass shootings frequently and you already had a low murder rate, mostly driven by stabbings.
Your gun buy back got about 1/4 of the firearms off the street, which in the US would still leave more guns than people.
It's never been the same problem.
comment in response to
post
One, I said mass murder, not mass shootings. Dead by knife or car or fire is still dead.
Second, neither country EVER had anything like the violence in the US, before or after any gun restrictions. You can't have solved a problem you never had in the first place.
comment in response to
post
Both those countries have mass murder still, but I'm with you on all the other things.
comment in response to
post
You had me until the last one.
Part of the reason we're where we are was allowing a simple machine to become politicized and giving it to one side.
There is no "right" to be free from violence anymore than there's a right to never get the flu. There's only the freedom to prepare your defenses.
comment in response to
post
Trump is an incompetent, narcissistic, traitorous, felon.
comment in response to
post
Cool.
comment in response to
post
Sad but true.
comment in response to
post
PS The Mass Shooting Tracker and Gun Violence Archive both define a mass shooting as one where 4 people are injured or killed, excluding the shooter.
That's where the 1/day talking point comes from. The vast majority involve no deaths.
comment in response to
post
7/...by further reducing your citizens options in terms of defense of self or property.
I've seen murder up close. I've seen gun accidents that almost killed friends. What I haven't seen is a proper examination of why we hurt each other.
Have you? /fin
comment in response to
post
6/ But we also see 100,000+ defensive uses. Any policy that does not take that into account runs the likelihood of trading one tragic circumstance for another equally bad one.
I dont think your situation is the same, but fail to see what you're going to gain...
comment in response to
post
5/ What I want is for you to look beyond the surface and ask if I'm wrong or if there's no logic behind the ban beyond "guns bad".
We, in the US, have a lot of violence, yes. It needs to be addressed like yesterday.
comment in response to
post
4/ And I think you're applying a solution to a problem you're not having. I think your country will not benefit from further bans because I doubt the weapons you want to ban are involved in any serious number of crimes.
comment in response to
post
3/...though, if I bothered to delve into the issue.
l think there is a ton of stuff we could do to reduce violence that isn't gun control and we've wasted political capital better spent on improving material conditions.
comment in response to
post
2/ I think if I was in another country, I wouldn't care as much. I might not go deeper than the headlines and cursory examination of why the US is so violent for being so prosperous and developed. I think I'd arrive at the same conclusions...
comment in response to
post
Math doesn't change from country to country.
Your country's homicide rate is rising, but it's still half of what ours was at its very best in 2014.
If you don't want to hurt people, someone handing you a gun doesn't make you want to suddenly. /1
comment in response to
post
What I see is my country lagging behind others in terms of providing for its citizens then blaming inanimate objects for the violence that follows.
But I ask again: what problem will the Canadian ban solve? Stop dodging.
comment in response to
post
Now, how many of those are committed with rifles?
How many have no deaths?
And which of these are problems in Canada? Because that's the country we're talking about.
comment in response to
post
I asked a question about Canada. And there is no standard definition.
The US has much violence, but current gun control proposals are shortsighted, oversimplified tactics to a complex strategic issue.
How many annual defensive uses are there in the US per the National Crime Victimization Survey?
comment in response to
post
PS You dodged the question.
comment in response to
post
What are we counting as a mass shooting?
comment in response to
post
How, exactly?
If there's no concrete effect, creating a wedge for no demostrable benefit. In the US, that gave easy wins to the wrong people.
So if not to me, answer the question for yourself:what good will this do?
comment in response to
post
Is anyone calling for more guns there?
I don't know what the percentage of homicides in your country are committed with firearms, but your murder rate is already half of out best on record.
What positive impact do you expect from this?
comment in response to
post
Which is OK. The important parts are we discuss from good faith and don't ignore facts or spread disinformation. Like full auto fire rates for semiauto weapons.
I've got reasons for what I think gathered over decades of debating the topic. Despite what you may think, my goal is yours: fewer deaths.
comment in response to
post
So small arms aren't getting used in Ukraine?
400rpm might be possible with a bump stock, but again, you're not picking up an AR and firing it that fast without some accessory or modification.
You want bump stocks banned, go for it.
comment in response to
post
No, I understand it perfectly. The latter is the precursor to the former.
In the US, that's been the anti gun tactic: whittle, burden, minimize. The goal is obvious. I just think it's a bad plan.
comment in response to
post
1. Handguns, not ar's
2. Yes, legally
3. I believe you, but I do think this is not where either Canadian or US priorities should be.
Tell me, why do you think your murder rate will drop if this is enacted?
comment in response to
post
I'd put them 6th.
Food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education and entertainment, means of defense of self and property.
comment in response to
post
Yes.
Didn't have to have my cat walk on my keyboard to say that either.
comment in response to
post
Except that "high rates of fire" and "high capacity" are arbitrary distinctions, entirely subjective and variable.
The world record holder I mentioned can fire 12 rounds from a revolver (so reloading once) in under 3 seconds. Is that too high? What # of rounds is good for defense but not murder?
comment in response to
post
OK. Did I say it did?
I said I think when there's someone like Trump in office giving people in his reach fewer options to defend themselves seems like a poor choice.
And I'm pretty familiar with gun law. What do you think I'm missing?
comment in response to
post
Bump stocks are an accessory that turn money into noise. They are their own discussion and I am OK with them and accessories meant to simulate full auto being regulated.
But against, no one is firing 400rpm by manually pulling the trigger for each shot.
comment in response to
post
If modifier means "illegal".
Gun control isn't about weapons already illegal. it's about making new ones illegal.
It's a disingenuous scare tactic repeated b and people who remain wilfully ignorant of the thing they want to regulate.
comment in response to
post
Do people have weapons?
Are you saying those people can no longer have those weapons?
If the answers are yes, then you are talking about disarming people.
comment in response to
post
I do not understand why anyone decides that the best time to celebrate disarming is in the face of tyranny.
comment in response to
post
AR's are semiautomatic weapons, not machine guns.
They do not fire 400rpm. The guy who holds the most world records for speed shooting can't fire that fast.
As to the wisdom of disarmanent, I disagree, but I doubt I'd convince you.
Please check my bio before making any assumptions.
comment in response to
post
Ukraininans, because they stop getting shot.
And Russians, who stop getting shot by Ukraininans.
comment in response to
post
Senator, do you have any hope these will pass?
comment in response to
post
Gee... it would be terrible if stuff like that kept happening. I mean... golly!