Michigan Gun Violence Prevention Summit begins ahead of gun reforms going into effect.
[Lt. Gov. Garlin] Gilchrist spoke alongside other gun violence stakeholders, including Maya Manuel, 21, a student advocate at Michigan State University’s campus where a deadly shooting killed three students and injured five others on Feb. 13 [2023].
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer last spring signed several gun safety bills, but they don’t go into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourned, which makes them effective on Feb. 13 — which happens to be the first anniversary of the MSU shooting.
“This is an opportunity for us to prepare to challenge those who are comfortable with people dying of preventable deaths in the state of Michigan. I am not comfortable with that. Gov. Whitmer is not comfortable with that,” Gilchrist said.… “On the flip side … somebody was."
Honestly? As much as I truly hope these mandated safeguards help to curb gun violence, firearms are so ingrained in American culture —unlike almost any other world —that it's going to take a seismic cultural shift in attitude to see a magnitude less of disgraces like the almost-daily mass shootings in public places, to avoid horrors like this child who shot himself in the face, unfortunately just another one of the many instances.
Call it low-hanging fruit, say it's obvious, but it needed to be said, Lt Governor…
“Every single death by a gun in Michigan and America in the world is 100% preventable,” Gilchrist said. “That means that we have the power to stop all of this death in all of our communities — no matter what community you live in. No matter what the shape and spirit of gun violence looks like. No matter whether it is suicide or homicide, they are all preventable.”
How so? How is it inevitable in the real world? No snark from me, I'd like your take on the matter.
They would kill them with something that is not-a-gun.
That being said, I do believe a lot fewer people would get murdered if there were no guns. But it wouldn’t be 0.
I disagree, you see so often things escalate to pulling a gun and getting shot. If people only had bare hands.. few punches in the face is generally enough to get the anger out that doesn't result in someone dying
Yes, but it won’t be zero. People are killed without guns, just less frequently.
Some people currently killed by guns will be killed by something else. It’s not 100% of them and it’s not 0% of them.
Think about your first statement. Now think about murdering somebody. Go on, you know you want to. To make this thought exercise easier, let's say it's a "crime of passion." If it happens outside of the home, how exactly would you go about murdering this person? Shooting someone, once the psychological barrier of actually doing it is surmounted, i's just so easy. With a knife, it's a whole 'nother process, both psychologically and also physically. It's hard to knife someone. And further down the line (bludgeon, physical assault) just gets more difficult if you don't have the element of surprise.
Of course it wouldn't be 0, as you state. But it wouldn't be what it is today with sane restrictions in place...kinda like most of the rest of the world. Sorry for the length of this reply.
I think we’re saying the same thing? Hitting someone with a candle stick or a wine bottle in the head can also kill them.
We definitely are not saying the same thing. Can you mass-candlestick? Do you think the 2023 MSU tragedy would have been what it was if the killer terrorized the campus with a wine bottle? Have a look at this 2023 Wikipedia page and tell me if you could have wreaked the damage listed with your hypothethical candlestick.
Just a fun fact, if you break a wine or liquor bottle over someone's head, it will almost certainly kill them instead of dazing them like in the movies.
Thank you, Moe Howard.
You'll never effectively convince people to unanimously give up violence. And unless you've figured a way to uninvent the gun it's a lost cause with no chance in our lifetime.
Yeah every argument of this form is the same: “why have laws against something if people won’t follow them 100% the time? Better to have no laws against it, then.” Doesn’t make any sense.
This argument counters the claim that every death by a gun is preventable. A portion of those deaths would occur with or without a gun.
It's not arguing there won't be a reduction in deaths.
Hold on, you're saying that the claim is that "every death by gun is preventable" is incorrect because some of those deaths could become "deaths not by gun"?
Do you see the wee flaw in yer statement there lad?
Right. You're hung up on the mode rather than the outcome.
The argument presented is that all the unnecessary deaths would not be prevented. Obviously if there were no guns, the deaths cannot occur by gun, but a portion would still occur by other means.
Do you understand the wee flaw in your comprehension now, lad?
Apparently you've either forgotten the argument presented or want desperately to move the goalposts. Read carefully.
“Every single death by a gun is 100% preventable.”
I'm not disagreeing that fewer guns leads to significantly fewer deaths. I think any reasonable person would say that makes sense.
However, a large number of unnecessary deaths will occur whether or not guns are present. Implying otherwise is overly reductive. It misses the bigger picture issue of the causes of violence.
Reducing violent crimes/unnecessary deaths should be the objective. Reduction in gun ownership is only a single (albeit significant) tool to reach that goal.
You are once again moving the goalpost. While, yes, "unnecessary deaths*" will occur whether, again, sane gun ownership restrictions are in place or not, that is not the subject at hand.
* Define "unnecessary deaths." Murder? Crib death? Religious beliefs against modern medicine? Neglect? All of the above? On second thought, please don't.
How about we frame this discussion around unnecessary deaths by weapons (of any sort, accidental or intentional)? I think we can agree the intention of gun controls is to reduce that number. Therefore, this discussion is fundamentally about unnecessary deaths (as defined above).
I'm not moving the goalpost, I'm consistently stating what the goal ought to be; not less gun ownership, but rather fewer unnecessary deaths. Gun controls are a likely necessary, but insufficient method of reaching that goal.
If you'd like to have a conversation about any Michigan-related subject you'd like, please, by all means, post something. But you can't come into an established conversation and change the focal point as you wish. It's a basic social convention.
We're done.
Good to know you're only concerned with the guns and not the deaths. It's never fruitful to pay attention to root causes of problems.
Nope
End of debate
Sorry, I didn't realize a debate had begun since you didn't make any arguments or said anything of substance.
That’s unnecessarily pedantic and really misses the point but I guess this IS the internet, after all.
It's not unnecessarily pedantic if the issue at hand is unnecessary deaths. Does it really matter if a person is killed by a gun, knife, or hammer? What matters is someone needlessly died.
The fundamental issue is violence. Reduction in gun ownership can improve the problem, but it's nothing more than a single (but effective) tool.
Yes it matters how the person died when we’re talking about gun deaths lmfao
It's not unnecessarily pedantic when the claim is that 100% of gun deaths are preventable.
That's quite a stretch there from "every gun death is preventable" to "unanimously give up violence," although it's a noble sentiment...to which you've immediately admitted defeat.