The home secretary is seeking "urgent advice" about banning American XL Bully dogs as footage shows one of the animals attacking an 11-year-old girl and a man in Birmingham. Suella Braverman has said the animals are a "clear and lethal" danger after the video of the attack in Bordesley Green emerged on the social media platform TikTok. West Midlands Police are investigating after two men, who were bitten and left with injuries to their shoulders and arms, were taken to hospital to be treated for their injuries after the incident on Saturday.
Interestingly enough, when one addresses the root issues - the motivations and pressures behind the violence - you end up with neither mass shootings nor mass stabbings… which is the point.
I’d rather not only care that violence is done by X implement - I’d rather we do something about the violence, categorically. Incidentally, this would have the side benefit of, say, improving lives.
by the logic then rocket launcher and high explosives would be legal.
They are legal.
Except that the root cause of gun violence is that the human brain is inherently fallible and didn’t evolve to own point and click murder devices.
You give everyone a powerful killing tool and surprise surprise you get more mass killings.
The UK has issues with knife crime, but it’s absurd to suggest that they’re remotely comparable to America’s issues with gun crime or that the UK wouldn’t be worse off if every kid with a knife was strapped dup instead.
“Gun violence is because human brain no get clicky killy” might be one of the most absurd assertions I’ve seen. I’m looking forward to whatever semblance of support you can scrounge up for that assertion.
By your reasoning, the rate of mass shootings should have correlated strongly with the saturation of firearms. Why hasn’t it?
“People increasingly experience desperate extremes and surprise surprise you get more desperate actions” is both a more reasonable, rational fit and actually tied to reality.
It’s similarly absurd to pretend that the only relevant difference between the United States and pick a country is the presence of firearms.
The fact that suicide rates track with gun ownership? You really can’t think through how our brains are evolved to handle being able to kill people slowly with our bare hands, but not being able to kill people at the click of a button from a distance?
Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand how it’s effortless to kill something with a gun accidentally at a distance but not to strangle someone? Are you capable of following a logical train of thought? Based on your insistence that America being the only country with weekly mass shootings having nothing to do with America being the only country with free access to firearms, my assumption is no, but honestly this point should not be a struggle. Imagine arming everyone with nukes and see whether or not we end up with nuclear scale catastrophes, now just scale the power levels down a bit. This really should not be hard to think through.
Lmao, way to weasel in the word strongly to try and pretend like they don’t track! What about the suicide rate? Rate of domestic homicide? Oh what they all track with rates of gun ownership? Maybe our brains aren’t great at handling that kind of power so casually … oh no, actually it MUST be because America is the only country that struggles with poverty and inequality, that totally must be it, can’t possibly be a flaw with a 200 year old document written by a bunch of slave owners.
“Track with”? Did you mean poorly correlate with?
I’m still waiting for support for the first absurd assertion and you’ve gone and added another.
Oh, my - and now you’ve got to support the absurd notion that humanity only evolved for violence by hands despite our use of tools generally being considered a unique and crucial evolutionary advantage. It’s ironic that your criticize understanding while demonstrating your own shortcomings.
I’m not sure how a direct criticism of your argument’s flaws is somehow weaseling. I’m getting the impression you don’t understand what correlation even is, let alone whether or not it serves to prove causation.
Also, lol “track with”
It’s the same assertion, rephrased, but I know reading can be difficult
Your difficulty here certainly explains how you consistently manage to respond without actually addressing anything in the comment you’re responding to.
At least you’ve given up the pretense to discourse - props.