Anonymous #1 3w

Firstly, the framing of mass shootings in media outlets has given them notoriety which means giving the perpetrators name out directly fuels more shootings. Secondly, schools do not have proper protections in place. Thirdly, a huge number of these perpetrators were already under surveillance by the government.

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

Is taking nra lobbying dollars one of those reasons?

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

Not any more than taking Dodge or Ford's money caused this

-1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

There has never been a single mass shooter with any connection to the NRA

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

If you’ve spent really any time at all thinking about these issues then you should be aware of some very obvious differences between driving deaths, even at the hands of people using cars as weapons, and shooting deaths. The key is in the benefit (need for product) versus harm of each, as well as their designed use cases.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

The societal and individual need to defend oneself outweighs any temporary dangers that the 2A may bring about.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

The nra isn’t paying people to shoot up schools, they’re paying lawmakers to prevent the cdc from conducting studies on gun violence and paying those same lawmakers to make it easier to buy and carry guns everywhere. The very steep increase in gun ownership / shooting deaths over the last couple decades is the result of this

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Compared to the vast majority our fellow first world democracies we are both less safe (vastly more shooting deaths) and less free (lower democracy index meaning less ability to affect our government). Given that context can you defend your point?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

^Countries with tiny fractions of our firearms or no firearms at all

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

Lower democracy index and higher shooting deaths would both indicate a higher need for self defense, both as an individual from individual criminals, and as a society from our own government.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Lower democracy index despite ever present 2a rights means that our guns have done nothing to protect our democracy, almost every one of our allies has a healthier democracy than ours and they’ve done so without absurd amounts of firearms.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

If firearms were valuable tools for self defense wouldn’t you think that increased legal ownership of firearms in a given area would lead to increased safety and less shootings? Why do you think it is that we consistently see the opposite?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

I haven't consistently seen that, some of the highest firearm ownership states have some of the lowest shooting deaths.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

Here are maps of gun ownership and gun deaths for reference

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

Now you could point to LA, AR, MS, and NM in comparison to MA which would be a good example of your point. I would however point to ID, MT, WY, and WV in comparison to OH which would be a good example against it. Suffice it to say, it's likely not the biggest determining factor in shooting deaths if we can see such discrepancies already while only taking into account states with high ownership rates compared to a single low ownership rate state.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

After that you might say "that is unfair, compare us to another country", in response I would point to a number of other countries that already have high firearm ownership rates and low gun crime, or other countries that already have low ownership rates and high gun crime. Studies about crime and violence aside, the 2A does not say "shall be infringed if criminals commit crimes". Thats a policing matter, not a matter of our rights.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Fair enough arguments, gotta lock in on an assignment rn but shoot me a message if I don’t respond, I think I have a study saved somewhere that might be useful here

1