• hswolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      He typed It poorly, but I think his point was: Try to kill 30 children in a school with a knife.

      If the person wants to kill, they will kill, but a gun (a big gun even) will make this task, orders of magnitude easier.

        • hswolf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.

          But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.

          You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.

          Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.

          If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks

            • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              This same sentiment is echoed in the tech community around AI artwork and it’s, frankly, silly. You cannot blame a tool for being misused. You can say that only certain people should have ready access to a tool, and there are strict rules for the use of a tool, but at the end of the day, the tool bloody exists, saying “hey, can we just not use the tool, guys?” doesn’t work. Fix the people who have the most likelihood of misusing the tools, prevent access to the tool from unqualified people, and otherwise just accept that misuse is the price of advancement, as unfortunate as that is.

            • hswolf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You make it sound that changing peoples minds are a super easy task compared to removing guns.

              I for one am saying that both things should be done at the same time.

              Lets end this here, you’re trying to poke flaws in the person you’re discussing with, instead of being civil and analyzing the problem, I pray that neither of us pay no stab tax, jesus.

              • Dkcecil91@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree. This guy’s been all over this thread and all he’s really said is “wouldn’t it be better if nobody died?” Yeah of course it would. No one can argue with that and no one should argue with the poster above you because it isn’t productive at all.