Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Brewcrew828 t1_je7hmd0 wrote

Reply to comment by fitzroy95 in Firearms deaths involving preschool-aged children had increased at an alarmingly high rate in the United States in the past decade, but state laws may help curb shooting deaths among young children. by Wagamaga

It's almost like neither party wants to end violence in the first place. While both parties bicker about banning guns, the culture and environment that produces people who want to murder innocent children still exist. When you want to remove a weed, you pull the roots. The roots aren't guns. It's the society that destroys, degrades, and discriminates against our people. Toxic work environments, unobtainable health care, broken family situations, the classic toxic high school social environment that's spits out kids that are socially destroyed and have nothing left but hate for everyone. You can TRY to ban guns, but that isn't going to fix the actual problem.

When you see someone commit mass murder in a school and want to stop it from happening, you need to ask yourself why they did it in the first place. When you ban the tools, people use another. People will be smashing cars into crowds of people. Mass stabbings actually happen in other parts of the world. Improvised explosives sounds extreme, but it is achievable for someone who wants to kill a lot of people. You can lower gun violence by banning and restricting guns, but you won't be fixing the actual root of the issue. The people that want to do it.

6

fitzroy95 t1_je7mtgd wrote

I agree that removing guns from the equation isn't going to fix any of the core, underlying, societal, problems, nor will it ever make violence magically vanish from society.

It will, however, significantly reduce the ability of individuals to murder, threaten, wound and intimidate each other, as well as significantly reducing the suicide rate. people are still going to be able to attack others with fists, with a baseball bat, with knives. But the number of people ending up dead or maimed from those attacks will be significantly lower, and the number of mass shootings carried out in schools etc would drop like a rock.

Some of the volume of gun violence will merely shift to other forms of violence, but far less of that will be fatal, and the overall level of violence in society will almost certainly drop significantly as well.

4

M00n_Slippers t1_je92ngo wrote

Republicans are also holding back affordable or universal healthcare to treat people with mental health issues, actively promoting hate and violence towards gays, trans, minorities and their allies, and opposing anything to help those in poverty including food stamps and free school lunches for kids.

Somehow, even completely removing guns from the equation, it's still Republicans fault.

4

Brewcrew828 t1_je9fnyl wrote

Did you even read what I wrote? Especially my response to the other reply to this comment. I suggest you do. I'm no fan of the Republicans, either.

As I said, neither party wants or is even trying to fix the actual problem.

−1

M00n_Slippers t1_jech96e wrote

Most of the democratic party would actually like to do something about it, but unfortunately Republicans are in charge and a couple of Democrats are just corporate stooges and will vote for whoever pays them the most, such as Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema. People are like, "Democrats had the majority in the House before, why didn't they do anything then?" Because it was a very slim majority, and some of those democrats were corporate trash, even if they ran as Democrats. I wouldn't describe the whole party like this, but even just 2 or 3 was enough to stop so much stuff going through. I don't consider myself a democrat. Until a few years ago I had voted for republicans just as often as democrats, but you can't be wishy washy about this and sit on the fence and say 'they are both bad' because that attitude just make it worse and muddies the waters. That's what the Republicans count on. You've got to choose a side. Fence sitting doesn't fix anything.

2

Brewcrew828 t1_jecmcg0 wrote

I don't have to choose a side of the fence to sit on.

The waters are already muddied. Neither party would bring anything of substance to this country even if they had a majority, as I have already said.

There are only two reasons I would vote. One is to protect my ability to defend myself, my friends, and family. The other is to cut down the federal government and return more power to the states. I've held those beliefs since high school 8 years ago. I voted for Trump his first term and the only reason I did it was for the Supreme Court nominations. The minute we get a liberal Supreme Court is the minute my first issue becomes crippled by the opinions of people who know nothing about my way of life or the people who live in my area.

I vote when my interests are at risk.

You said that the Democrats want to change this country? How EXACTLY do they want to do that? So lets say they address the issues that I've outlined. What else comes along with that? My ability to defend myself will be stripped from me. Millions of people will be paintbrushed by the Democrats never ending need to push everything through at a federal level spitting in the face of the founding fathers and directly neglecting the 10th amendment. Those are only the things that I care about. You can ask someone who actually supports Republicans for more, and yes, their opinion is still valid because they live in this country too, and chances are they don't live in your state. You already know the issues with the Republicans, I don't need to point that out to you.

To choose either is to punish this country. I'll have no part in it. I'd rather have status que than see the hell hole either side would create.

0

M00n_Slippers t1_jectoo2 wrote

Wow, okay. I see you've clearly chosen the Republican side. You can pretend you're a fence sitter but you're on the side of guns, book bans, anti-women and lgbt rights, and so-called 'states rights' AKA the ability to be racist and homophobic without anyone to stop you. You made yourself out to be moderate but you're clearly not, my mistake.

1

Brewcrew828 t1_jecvvxr wrote

You clearly haven't read anything I've said.

Not everyone who doesn't agree with you is for everything you're against.

I told you that I didn't need to tell you the problems with the Republican party. You have stated all the things wrong with the Republican party.

Wanting to protect myself from having my second amendment rights from being infringed and wanting to be protected from the Federal government under the 10th amendment IN ALL APPLICABLE CASES doesn't make me a Republican supporter.

I'm a Libertarian with extra steps.

The people need to be able to be accurately represented. People in California live and believe differently than in Texas and the only way this Country functions is when both are left to represent themselves with what is left to them under the 10th.

That doesn't mean I'm supporting any of the things you are talking about and I would never cast a vote towards any of that. I will, however, still respect those states' decisions with how they want to be represented in their own state.

It's none of my business what some other people in another state think, believe, or how they vote. Just like I think it's none of my business what someone does in their bedroom with whoever they choose. That doesn't mean they can't think differently and to force them into submission is un-American.

2