• Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn’t exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals… they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.

    • 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don’t have much gun crime from yours.

      • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        There are all kinds of discussions we can have about this, not the least of which is that “no guns” simply isn’t an option in a country with 500 million firearms and no central firearm registry.

        But, really, all that stuff is beside the point. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They equalize the weak and the strong. An 80 year old grandma can defend herself against a 25 year old man using a gun. A suppressed populace can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using guns.

        Gun crime has negligible impact on most Americans; we have about half as many firearm homicides as traffic deaths annually.

        Philosophically, the gun community feels having that equalizer and balance against tyranny is more important than the impacts of gun crime. Whether or not more gun control will decrease gun crime is irrelevant if a person feels that free firearm access is the more important of the two issues.

        Btw, regardless of your views, if you come to the US you should shoot some guns. It’s fun and you’ll be glad you did.

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Wow, so we have too many guns so no reason to regulate has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. It is like common sense showed up to have you shart in their face

          Guns are the ultimate equalizer sounds like something a weak assed little Nazi would say. Why does every other modern civilized country not need them then? It is like you look at the worst case and say it is now the best case

          I could give a shit about the feels of gun nutters. To think we have to appease homicidal radicals is fucking bonkers.

          I think most people will pass on the shooting thing. There is a lot more to the USA than a bunch of gun waving lunatics.

          • Narauko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            18 hours ago

            We have not only more guns in circulation than people, but a constitutional right to those guns that you would have to overcome to remove them all.

            I never expected to see a “those who disagree with me are actual Nazis” in the wild, used apparently straight faced. Godwin’s law kicked in very quickly.

            • Doomsider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Proud of being dumb I guess. Hur dur we got most guns than anyone and a million deaths over the last twenty years to prove it. Aww shucks.

              I never expected to see so many gun apologist bootlickers. Better run cause the gun grabbers are cumin fer yah.

              • Narauko@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                15 hours ago

                I was more pointing out that there are legal and constitutional hurdles beyond the number of guns, the later of which you are hand waving away under a “the second best time is now” argument and ignoring the former. Especially with the current Supreme Court, we have at least 4 years before further gun control legislation attempts can be made. State and county guns bans and control laws are being struck down as unconstitutional left and right.

                I am pro private gun ownership personally and believe in a legal right to self defense, but am not even talking about that. You are vigorously arguing for a pipe dream of seemingly “just make guns illegal, it will work out from there”, in the current political climate, while calling people with different opinions Nazis. All those blank steps before Profit are doing some very heavy lifting.

                • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  We are thirty years past the time for meaningful gun legislation. Congress has been cock blocking any attempts to study gun violence for decades now. We are being held hostage to corporate greed and gunsexuals.

                  Just to let you know how ridiculous it is. Glock doesn’t sell the model that is easily converted into a fully automatic gun through a switch in other countries. This is because other countries are not fucking insane and actually regulate this shit.

                  Needless to say constitutionalists and their re-envisioning of our legal structure is a crock of shit and just an excuse for big monied interests to flex on our rights. Oh and have they flexed.

                  You confuse me making fun of people for their retardation for meaningful critique. But certainly someone fantasizing about how powerful a gun makes them is a little fucking Nazi piece of shit.

                  You show up to defend the indefensible. Your resignation to how things are and defending the wholesale slaughter of our people through the excuse of private gun ownership is garbage.

                  The US has hundreds of child deaths every year due to guns and Japan has zero. You pretend we can’t fix it. That millions more Americans will have to die. That tens of millions of Americans will have to live in fear. Wives will be murdered all for what?

                  You pointed out you are a fucking tool. You are welcome to walk that back if you want, but don’t lecture me on how hard it is to change when the lives of your fellow Americans hang in the balance.

          • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I have traveled most of the country and 95% of Americans are normal people who just want the best for the people around them. They just have different perspectives on what that means.

            You should let your hate go, my friend. I promise you’ll be happier for it.

            • Doomsider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Same and it is clear 95% are not gun nutters.

              Reality is a harsh mistress and your gun rhetoric is absolute garbage.

        • 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!

          Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren’t trained well enough! This means you wouldn’t even need to regulate it!

          • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don’t need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.

            • 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              I don’t even know where to start.

              There will be fewer acid attacks with guns because everyone will have access to a way more convenient and easy way of harming each other, yes.

              So…problem solved?

              Which side of the argument are you actually on?

              • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago
                • There are plenty of convenient and easy ways for harming each other outside of guns (France circa 2016). The same goes for suicide. So banning guns doesn’t actually make it “harder” for people to harm one another, esp. when you can just drive a truck through a crowd.
                • Gun control doesn’t work anyways (Winnenden School Shooting, Jokela School Shooting Finland, 2007, Alphen aan den Rijn Shopping Mall Shooting in Netherlands, 2011, etc. etc.).
                • Guns save more productive civilian lives than the the criminal lives they take, and people like you purposefully ignore this fact. In trying to save a few hundred or maybe thousand lives from gun violence (most of which are violent criminals themselves), you people are willing to deprive millions of innocent hard working people the ability to defend themselves. You know nothing.
                • Even if all of this was false, the ability to resist tyranny is more valuable than the lives lost to gun-crime.

                How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don’t. Because you’re lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don’t care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.

                • 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  What is the bigger problem? Acid attacks or gun crime?

                  I help fix patients who have been shot. Don’t lecture me about solving problems. I’m part of the Violence Intervention and Prevention team - we provide services and assistance to those injured by firearms. I work in a level 1 trauma center in the orthopedic trauma department.

                  Go ahead and guess how many of those patients have been shot by a good guy with a gun in the past nine years. Go ahead and guess how many good guys with guns end up being the patient.

                  Here’s a hint. The answer to the first question is fewer than 1.

                  • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Yawn. Your personal experience is not reflective of broader trends. If you work in healthcare, you really should be smart enough to know this. So I will lecture you, because you clearly need it. Besides, you haven’t refuted any of my points, you just resorted to logical fallacies like appeals to authority and anecdotal evidence. Proof that you don’t have anything useful to say anymore. Smh.