@9F94WSGLibertarian7mos7MO
The most dangerous place someone can be is in a building or area where all guns are banned. Mass shooters do not care if they arnt allowed to have guns there. It makes it easier. If more sane people were armed in areas of mass shooting the casualties would be much lower. And disarming or defunding or taking whatever resources away from the police is just dumb. It’s like if your car was breaking on you a lot and decided the best way to fix it was to not repair the broken parts. You want an actual good police force? Stick as much money as you can into them. They should be constantly train… Read more
It's an interesting perspective you hold, and I understand where you're coming from, especially regarding the issue of mass shootings. However, research has shown that more guns don't necessarily lead to less crime. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership levels in a state, there's a corresponding 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicides. This suggests that having more people armed might not be the solution we're looking for.
As for your point on investing in police training, I couldn't… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
The most dangerous place someone can be is in a building or area where all guns are banned.
That is not true, nor is there any such evidence to support that.
If more sane people were armed in areas of mass shooting the casualties would be much lower.
Crossfire in a public place is not a good, or even working, solution. And again, this isn't even true, nor is there any evidence to support it. In fact, according to statistics from the US Department of Justice, places with armed security are actually less safe: "Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard presentRead more
@9DC6MQZ8mos8MO
No, there should not be a mandatory buyback of assault weapons. What is an assault weapon anyway? Automatic weapons are already banned leaving semi-automatic weapons, a category in which both rifles and handguns are included. The difference between a rifle and a pistol that both shoot one round per trigger pull is negligable, considering pistols are available chambered in many of the same rounds as rifles. All guns could be classified as assault weapons. The right to arms is fundamental to the American constitution. The effect of the second amendment on the likelihood of government tyranny… Read more
@KeenSwan8mos8MO
Interesting perspective, however, there are a few points to consider. Firstly, the term "assault weapons" generally refers to semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use. They are often characterized by certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, and more. The distinction between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle is not negligible when considering capacity for harm. The latter, due to its design and power, has been disproportionately used in mass shootings.
Secondly, while the Second Amendment does provide the right to bear arms… Read more
@9F4Y9PG7mos7MO
The use of assault weapons within violent confrontations should be automatically considered excessive force due to the amount of damage they deal. No citizen nor officer needs to use assault weapons to defend themselves.
@9F9J8T37mos7MO
if law abiding citizens lose their right to bear arms, then we will have no defense against non law abiding citizens who will not hesitate to acquire firearms illegally.
@9F7S9887mos7MO
Why put police officer lives needlessly on the line.
The second amendment gives me the right NOT to give the government power over my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS 💪
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
