1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Okay so then you’re saying the user in OP’s post is correct

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think laws should be applied to all citizens equally, with exception to criminals who will, of course, face more limited rights as someone with a criminal history.

Similar to restricting driving rights of people who have DUIs, or having sex offenders listed on a registry.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not sure how you get to that conclusion lol. Do you think people that fit within a demographic are just against the clock for when they’re going to act on something that others part of their demographic have done?

Do you think individual people are that animalistic?

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

How about another example

Do you think wall to wall carpeting is necessary, or detrimental to national security?

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Indianapolis has had similar murder rates to Chicago.

You’re comparing cities to states, instead of cities to cities.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

The reason cities have a gun problem is that, in a large part, the gun regulations are so loose.

Take Chicago, for instance. Big liberal city, gun free zones, etc. but why do we have a gun problem? Well…Indiana is right there, a state with much looser gun restrictions. You can get there with a $10 train ticket. You can buy a gun, bring it back to Chicago, and there you go. Nobody is ever the wiser.

Do you think these criminals in Chicago are getting their guns illegally? They aren’t. They’re just going to a state that is mere minutes away, making a legal purchase, and bringing them back

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh sorry, I didn’t realize what I support is determined by you 😂

I understand that stricter gun regulations won’t bring gun deaths down to zero. It’s a trade off I would happily accept if it means that people’s likelihood of survival rises.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol as if I have anything to do with the meaning of words 😂

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

You bring up a good point worth discussing.

Yes it would be absolutely absurd for governments to ban cars to prevent car deaths, because in the USA it is necessary tool for many people to get groceries, or go to work, etc. Cars are a necessary form of travel (better public/mass transport investments would help fix this, since that’s something the US as a whole is MAJORLY lacking, but I digress).

However, we do regulate car ownership pretty heavily. Cars require license plates and annual registration. We require to have our license with us at all times when we operate them. We require driving tests even when we move to a new state, because we have to adhere to their laws in registration.

Gun ownership, not so much. I got a gun as a gift not too long ago. As far as anykne is concerned, I don’t own one. But it’s in my closet. My brother bought it online.

Charlie made this statement, just for the record, in response to a question referencing school shootings, where these aren’t bystanders of gang violence, but the literal targets.

You know the leading cause of death of school children in the US?

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

No.

He said that he believes that some gun deaths are worth it if it means the 2A is protected

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

I would say he’s wrong, yes.

I don’t think it’s worth it that we as a county, and our children, face such a significantly greater risk of death by firearm than most any other country with stricter gun laws. In my ideal scenario, I’d love to reduce this risk as much as possible, which would include a major reform of gun laws.

(Notice im never using the phrase “down to zero”)

Obviously it’s impossible to get gun deaths down to zero because I still think firearms are a necessary tool in many applications. I don’t know why I’m expected to specify this stance lol.

I think yes law abiding Americans should have access to firearms, provided much more strict conditions than what we have now. I think there should be a major crackdown on illegal firearms sales, and guns being sold without training and registration.

I’m not arguing his point at all, I just disagree with it. I don’t think gun deaths are worth it. I don’t think Charlie’s death is worth it, I don’t think schoolchildren deaths are worth it.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree wholeheartedly that the justice system is flawed. Both things can be fixed.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

It literally is a gun death.

When he made those remarks, if we wanna talk context, they were in response to a question specifically referencing children shot in schools. Also gun deaths.

You can also survive a car crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, it’s a safety precaution and helps reduce chance of death significantly

I do not support murder, I can declare that very confidently. I do not support anyone being shot, and I do not support the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Charlie acknowledged directly that some gun deaths are necessary.

1
Modeler43 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not completely abolish, no, but I do think we need much more regulation. I myself own a gun. Currently, in some states, any mentally unstable thug can walk into a shop and buy a gun without so much as a background check, and we could use some limitations on that.

Cars have more regulations than guns in this country, let’s be honest.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›