This doesn't answer my question.Hairblues wrote: ↑5 months agoOf course less casualties by fatal gunfire is better.
I don’t think we have that many people committing the actual mass shootings. They are just able to create so many casualties due to the weapons and the time frame in which to fire thei weapons.
If they don’t have these weapons, and can do less casualties in other ways, logically, of course this is the lesser of two evils.
In addition to gun control, the hate groups, even a site like this I’m afraid to say it, should be monitored the same way the FBI monitors for underage porn. They don’t haphazardly attest people but they monitor people who expres interest in naked kids. So when they cross a line, they can catch them. They also have undercover agents who pose as children to honey-trap the men.
So let’s say someone is talking smack about Jews wanting to replace whites with brown people, they can monitor their rhetoric. If it sticks to just expressing their thoughts fine, but if it starts to cross a line with ‘they should die’ then they start to monitor this persons online presence. And so forth. It’s stil free speech, but it’s being observed in case it turns to something else.
The FBI MAJORLY cut down on pedophilia on the internet. Why? Because they were funded to do so.
This president and republican administration need to fund such ventures. They also need to allow for the CDC to do a study on gun violence that they e wanted to do for a long time.
The FBI and CIA (since it is gloabal) need to do effectively what they did to push back on Muslim terrorism in USA. In addition to some reasonable gun control and in addition to better mental health. When was the last really effective Muslim attack here since 9/11 and now let’s compare that to these mass shootings by non-Muslims.
And yes, I’m pro gun rights. I don’t own a gun myself but I’ve handled guns. I don’t have this irrational fear of guns and I understand the history of my country and why in some states especially guns are a way of life and not much to fear. We aren’t that old a country and we have a history of survival that involved guns.
What I don’t accept, and I know Some skilled hunters who agree with me on this, is the necessity for average folks to own certain types of guns and amo.
This all or nothing logic I don’t buy. And if you know how agencies like cia and fbi work, they go after things in a multi pronge manner.
The process looks like this:
Some white countries like Iceland or USA have a lot of guns > Gun and other violence increases dramatically as social cohesion is lost as diversity increases > even if guns are removed from the equation, all kinds of other violence remains which was not present at step 1.
So again, what does banning guns do aside from take away any real means of defense from the native population? Who are now subject to all kinds of violence and abuse they previously weren't?
What kind of society do you want to live in? One where MAYBE a guy with a gun goes nuts once every blue moon, or one where acid, knife, van, sexual assaults, etc. happen literally daily like right now?
13/50 is a very real statistic. If tomorrow there were no black people in America, there would be 50% less violent crime.
In a society like Iceland, what possible reason exists to ban guns? Nobody is killing each other with them.
They only seem to be killing each other in countries flooded with foreigners.
I'm just not sure why people aren't seeing the obvious solution to this problem instead of demanding that we punish white people even further.