I'm talking about double implication like:
(P → Q) → Q
I know that this is equivalent to (P ∨ Q), but I don't quite understand why. Let's say I take proposition P to be "having guns", and proposition Q to be "violence", then I would express it in natural language as:
"If having guns lead to violence, we would have violence"
However it think this implicates some kind of (S ∧ P) → Q, where S is the original (guns → violence), and P is the implicit assumption that we actually have guns.
What would be an example without such an implicit assumption, that is easy to hold on to, when intuition fails me?
Intuition works works in your example, but I admit it is not very obvious. The statement "if having guns leads to violence, we would have violence" implies that
So we have guns or violence, or both.