The more I think about it the less sense it makes to me to exclude gang violence. I’m not able to grasp why it should be excluded. Gang members perpetrating violence are also people, are also members of society, and are also a product of poverty and their environment, just like non-gang members involved in gun violence. They might be driven by different factors but it’s still gun violence. I don’t get it.
It might not make sense for nuance’s sake to “lump it all together”, but it doesn’t make sense to me to completely exclude it either.
The more I think about it the less sense it makes to me to exclude gang violence. I’m not able to grasp why it should be excluded. Gang members perpetrating violence are also people, are also members of society, and are also a product of poverty and their environment, just like non-gang members involved in gun violence. They might be driven by different factors but it’s still gun violence. I don’t get it.
Because like I said, gang violence is not a random act of violence. It doesn’t effect 99.999999999999999% of the public. They don’t and probably will never be effected by it. It’s its own category to be viewed and solved. Ending the war on drugs, ending for profit prison systems, increase in funding of education, creating safety nets, and helping those with drug addiction. These are things the general public really don’t run into (education and single payer healthcare are the only two that they do). You’re average person is not going to go in jail multiple times, they’re not going to sling drugs and be in a gang. Yes members of gangs are the public, but they are a different side of the gun violence and need a different approach.
It might not make sense for nuance’s sake to “lump it all together”, but it doesn’t make sense to me to completely exclude it either.
I’m not excluding it though, I’m calling out the nuances of our gun violence problem, and how anti2a groups lump it all together to scare the public into seeing a picture that truly doesn’t exist.
Suicide is a good example of this, they claim that you’re more likely to get killed in your own home if you own a firearm than if you don’t. That’s true, only if you include suicides, which make up 66%+ of our gun deaths. Which doesn’t paint the picture they’re trying to convey when you point out that their “fact” includes people killing themselves 99.9999999% of that fact. People don’t hear that, they hear “if you have a gun in your home, you’re more likely to be killed by someone breaking in and taking the gun and turning it on you”. Because that’s what they want people to think.
Cartel gang violence doesn’t affect the public? You’re joking. 🙂 It even affects tourists! It affects people. People killing each other is the same, regardless of who the civilian is. I think we basically disagree on this fundament, so I don’t think this discussion is going to go much further here. All I see is people killing each other as a result of poverty and availability of guns. They both need to go. (The availability, that is, not the items themselves.)
Cartel gang violence doesn’t affect the public? You’re joking. 🙂 It even affects tourists!
We’re talking about the USA here…not Mexico.
It affects people. People killing each other is the same, regardless of who the civilian is.
Again, nuance. You’re doing the same shit as the anti-abortion groups do. You’re lumping everything together.
I think we basically disagree on this fundament, so I don’t think this discussion is going to go much further here. All I see is people killing each other as a result of poverty and availability of guns. They both need to go. (The availability, that is, not the items themselves.)
Which is fine, and thank you for having a discussion about this topic without resorting to personal attacks.
Why is that not relevant? It’s poverty and guns in combination.
Again, nuance. You’re doing the same shit as the anti-abortion groups do. You’re lumping everything together.
Can you explain more how it’s the “same shit”? What does the nuance actually provide? I don’t get it. Why exactly does people in gangs killing each other due to poverty and gun availability differ from other people killing each other due to poverty and gun availability? Serious question.
Why is that not relevant? It’s poverty and guns in combination.
Because Mexico has basically banned citizens from owning guns there. It’s nearly impossible to own them, unless you’re wealthy. And that’s the end goal of anti-gun groups. Ban the guns because they cause the violence and not society. But Mexico is an example of the guns are banned but society is still violent.
Can you explain more how it’s the “same shit”? What does the nuance actually provide? I don’t get it. Why exactly does people in gangs killing each other due to poverty and gun availability differ from other people killing each other due to poverty and gun availability? Serious question.
Because it’s used as propaganda to get people to believe that crime is actually worse than it really is. It’s like when Republicans point out how Chicago is a death hole, and that it’s riddled with gangs. And no one should go to that blue city, they’re doing it because it’s propaganda to their side. They want red voters to go “yea, blue votes = unsafe cities”. When you and I know that Chicago as a whole is very safe, it’s certain areas with gang violence that skew the statistics to make it seem like it’s a hell hole. It’s all about the nuance of the problem and if you don’t look into how facts are twisted by each side then you’ll never see the agenda being driven.
Of course, brother/other. 🤝
It’s a breath of fresh air, to actually have a discussion on this topic without being called a baby killer or that I’m a Nazi or some other crazy shit just because I’m a very pro2a person.
The more I think about it the less sense it makes to me to exclude gang violence. I’m not able to grasp why it should be excluded. Gang members perpetrating violence are also people, are also members of society, and are also a product of poverty and their environment, just like non-gang members involved in gun violence. They might be driven by different factors but it’s still gun violence. I don’t get it.
It might not make sense for nuance’s sake to “lump it all together”, but it doesn’t make sense to me to completely exclude it either.
Because like I said, gang violence is not a random act of violence. It doesn’t effect 99.999999999999999% of the public. They don’t and probably will never be effected by it. It’s its own category to be viewed and solved. Ending the war on drugs, ending for profit prison systems, increase in funding of education, creating safety nets, and helping those with drug addiction. These are things the general public really don’t run into (education and single payer healthcare are the only two that they do). You’re average person is not going to go in jail multiple times, they’re not going to sling drugs and be in a gang. Yes members of gangs are the public, but they are a different side of the gun violence and need a different approach.
I’m not excluding it though, I’m calling out the nuances of our gun violence problem, and how anti2a groups lump it all together to scare the public into seeing a picture that truly doesn’t exist.
Suicide is a good example of this, they claim that you’re more likely to get killed in your own home if you own a firearm than if you don’t. That’s true, only if you include suicides, which make up 66%+ of our gun deaths. Which doesn’t paint the picture they’re trying to convey when you point out that their “fact” includes people killing themselves 99.9999999% of that fact. People don’t hear that, they hear “if you have a gun in your home, you’re more likely to be killed by someone breaking in and taking the gun and turning it on you”. Because that’s what they want people to think.
Cartel gang violence doesn’t affect the public? You’re joking. 🙂 It even affects tourists! It affects people. People killing each other is the same, regardless of who the civilian is. I think we basically disagree on this fundament, so I don’t think this discussion is going to go much further here. All I see is people killing each other as a result of poverty and availability of guns. They both need to go. (The availability, that is, not the items themselves.)
We’re talking about the USA here…not Mexico.
Again, nuance. You’re doing the same shit as the anti-abortion groups do. You’re lumping everything together.
Which is fine, and thank you for having a discussion about this topic without resorting to personal attacks.
Why is that not relevant? It’s poverty and guns in combination.
Can you explain more how it’s the “same shit”? What does the nuance actually provide? I don’t get it. Why exactly does people in gangs killing each other due to poverty and gun availability differ from other people killing each other due to poverty and gun availability? Serious question.
Of course, brother/other. 🤝
Because Mexico has basically banned citizens from owning guns there. It’s nearly impossible to own them, unless you’re wealthy. And that’s the end goal of anti-gun groups. Ban the guns because they cause the violence and not society. But Mexico is an example of the guns are banned but society is still violent.
Because it’s used as propaganda to get people to believe that crime is actually worse than it really is. It’s like when Republicans point out how Chicago is a death hole, and that it’s riddled with gangs. And no one should go to that blue city, they’re doing it because it’s propaganda to their side. They want red voters to go “yea, blue votes = unsafe cities”. When you and I know that Chicago as a whole is very safe, it’s certain areas with gang violence that skew the statistics to make it seem like it’s a hell hole. It’s all about the nuance of the problem and if you don’t look into how facts are twisted by each side then you’ll never see the agenda being driven.
It’s a breath of fresh air, to actually have a discussion on this topic without being called a baby killer or that I’m a Nazi or some other crazy shit just because I’m a very pro2a person.