I don’t mean to be a dick but you’re stating that with absolute authority but you don’t know that. It’s my understanding he obtained the guns legally.
If guns were illegal they would obtain the guns illegally was my point. And you’re right, I can’t guarantee that, but if nothing else changed and if these people still had their views and extremism I think it’s highly likely that it still would’ve happened.
I wouldn’t know how to go about getting that. It’s not like buying weed from the dude down the street.
Now it’s my turn to say you don’t know that with absolute certainty. Are you an expert on illegal gun sales? In our hypothetical reality there’s a possibility that it could be just like selling weed. You seem to think selling weed is this thing that happens so easily you can just walk down the street and get it. That’s hyperbole. Weed in many places is technically so illegal and would be about the same level of owning guns in the reality we’ve made.
AND if they were illegal then the gun runners could charge whatever the fuck they wanted. So this guy would have to pay their prices, which would surely be inflated to insane amounts, which means he’d have to have the money in the first place.
Doesn’t that happen with weed though? Yet people still manage to get that. If criminals are meticulous enough they’ll find a way to make the money and buy the weapons they need to get them, even at marked up prices. If guns are what they require then they will acquire them if they have to.
Again, you can’t say this with absolute surety. What we can look at is all the data collected around the world that refutes what you’re saying.
If we’re talking about criminals who are actively looking and think they need guns to carry out what they want to do, I can say that with about 99% surety. But again, I must concede and say that you’re right in that I can’t say it with absolute certainty, but my bet’s on the criminals getting the guns.
You are saying that if 20 kids are massacred at Sandyhook or 50 people murdered in Orlando that’s a fair price to pay for living in a “free country.”
I do not think that’s true at all. Because you just endorsed mass shootings and gun deaths. You just said it’s the price we need to pay. What am I supposed to think.
I do not endorse mass shootings when I say that perhaps freedom comes at a price. That’s a huge leap in logic and an unfair assumption on your part. It’s funny how it seems like this whole time you keep trying to make me look like I’m some horrible person for simply discussing an opposing viewpoint when I haven’t once done something like that to you. It makes having civilized discussions very difficult.
I don’t think it’s a fair price, only an uncaring person would think that. I was just pointing out that America is also a country that has a lot more freedoms than other countries. These freedoms come at the price of security. That’s the price I mean. It’s either security or freedom. At one point we have to sacrifice one or the other.
And my point is that every single other 1st world industrialized nation proves the opposite. And that can be backed up with facts and statistics. There are millions of people, like the OP, who are sickened by our inaction. So you can insist that all those millions of people and all the facts are wrong but you’re refuting the facts.
You seem to think that I’m advocating for no gun control which isn’t the case. But what kind of gun control do you think would be needed to eliminate these disasters? You seem to think that adding a couple more rules is going to make these disasters magically disappear. But even after more gun control laws are implemented and another disaster happens again what are you going to say? Are you going to blame the laws, guns, or finally realize that people are a large part of the problem?
And your attitude is another factor of these problems. You are unwilling to change your opinion due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At a certain point, don’t you have to admit to yourself that maybe you’re wrong?
I’m not saying gun control isn’t needed, but what started this whole thing were generalizations in the first place. That’s what sparked my response. You can’t just say things like “guns are the problem because guns kill” when many other weapons that help us in our every day lives kill too. You can’t claim to know that adding some more laws will make it impossible for criminals to get guns or that these disasters will no longer happen. Guns are just part of the problem, they are not the bigger picture.
I personally don’t think either of us our wrong in our views. You’ve presented some very good statistics which I appreciate because most people I talk with don’t even do that. I agree that clearly guns need stricter control, I’m just tired like you are of seeing generalizations on both sides. OP’s post was clearly just ignorant rage placed on a pedestal in wake of the Orlando disaster.