Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!
My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.
Wait, you mean he wasn’t suddenly transformed into a good-guy action hero with a gun? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
This event only marks the beginning of his metamorphosis.
In the future, when an unsuspecting minority youth mistakenly knocks on his mansion’s gate, the transformation will be complete.
Not until they reverse to back down the driveway and try to leave will it complete.
I’m starting to think that the gun lobby might be lying to us…
Don’t be ridiculous. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year to have other people lie to us.
Remember kids, you can’t buy a gun without donating to the Republican Party.
I would love to be wrong, but it’s too bad one of the injured or killed weren’t connected to the governor. That seems to be the only time some people give a shit.
They still don’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
The only difference is they were a lot faster to admit it was an act of terrorism. No efforts to limit the access to firearms to prevent it in the future.
I like how little attention this got in the news at the time. /s
They’ll just say more guns and you know it.
“Clearly, the 800 police officers that were there weren’t enough. 1,600 cops would have made those villains think twice!”
As the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away.
Highschool dropouts need jobs too
If you had a gun would you pull it? There were likely hundreds of guns there. But there was also hundreds of police officers ready to take down anyone with a gun.
At least two of the shooters were taken down by unarmed bystanders who immediately tackled them to the ground.
Linebackers, not guns.
Not an option you have if theres people between you and the shooter like a dense crowd, and firing through a crowd is general frowned upon, even when you’re trying to not hit them. The last thing you do if you have a gun in that situation is pull it out before you have cover and know where the threat is coming from or your will absolutely be shot by the cops if not the shooter. Dense crowding also played a part in why they were able to be tackled to the ground. A lot harder to get close if the shooting starts and no one’s physically near the shooter.
Lol the fuck would I want a gun for? I think you misunderstood my sarcasm
“Well… why wouldn’t you want a gun? It’s badass. What, are you one of them huggy, feely readin’ queers?”
Yes actually.
That was sarcasm.
But I keep being told that these mass shooters only target gun free zones because they’re easy targets.
So what are we tolerating all these mass shooters for, if gun owners aren’t delivering on their promises?
Soon with AI it will be:
But what if the streets themselves had guns.
Whimper… if only the federal government hadn’t banned sales of Milkor MGLs to the public, my relative would still be alive now.
If my armed drones had been circling, I could have dealt with the problem with minimal, minimal additional casualties.
But you could be sure the bad guy would be caught up in the kill zone I circled on my drone app on the IPad
I was reading a book about how people change their minds and this is true. Horrible trauma is one of the ways people change.
So the solution to getting republicans on the side of gun control is just… shooting at them? I can get behind that.
I mean, it worked for the Black Panthers, and they weren’t even trying to get gun control laws put in place.
For the unaware, modern gun control laws basically started with the Black Panthers. During the civil rights movement, peaceful protests would get violently busted by the cops. But people quickly noticed that heavily armed protests would have the cops politely watching from across the street. (Turns out, cops are way less likely to fire into a crowd when the entire crowd can immediately return fire.) So the Black Panthers started arming themselves, to keep the cops from shutting down their protests.
When Republican lawmakers realized that the cops weren’t going to shut down the heavily armed protests on their front lawns, they got really fucking sweaty, really fucking fast. So conservatives pushed the Mulford Act, which was (at the time) the most restrictive gun control law the country had ever seen. It was authored by Ronald Reagan (yes, the same Reagan that the right upholds as a paragon of conservative values) and endorsed by the NRA, (yes, the same NRA that lobbies for looser gun control in the wake of mass school shootings.) All because the wrong people had guns.
The goal of the Mulford Act was to criminalize gun ownership, so the cops could bust individual protesters after the fact, instead of needing to break up an entire protest as it was happening. And it basically set the stage for modern gun control laws. The cops would follow individual protesters home, and kick in their front door while they were having dinner with their family the next evening. This is ironically what led to the Black Panthers becoming so militant, as they implemented anti-espionage tactics to protect the group. Code names, so busted members wouldn’t be able to positively identify other members by name. Segmented information, so a busted member (even a high ranking member) wouldn’t be able to compromise an entire protest. Randomized meeting locations, so cops couldn’t set up stings ahead of time. Etc, etc… It took them from “the people who really like guns and peacefully protest with them for self defense” to “a full blown armed guerrilla-protest group.”
"I don’t see any peaceful way to disarm America’s whites. There’s only one thing that’s going to save this country from itself. Same thing that always saves this country from itself. And that is African-Americans. And I know the question a lot of y’all have in your minds is, should we do it? Fuck yeah, we should do it.”
“No matter what they say or how they make you feel, remember, this is your country, too. It is incumbent upon us to save our country. And you know what we have to do"
"Every able-bodied African-American must register for a legal firearm. That’s the only way they’ll change the law.”
– Dave Chappelle (2019)
And that was bad.
It was done for the wrong reasons, and used for nefarious purposes, yes.
Removed by mod
Just shoot more next time.
Didn’t work when they tried it with Steve Scalise.
Gotta be a better shot I guess
Fuckin jowls must have been all kinds of flappin.
Like a basset hound in a hurricane
Like Pamela Anderson in Baywatch.
Once he picks up enough speed they flatten out like plane wings and he’s able to get some air and fly away.
“Jowls A’Quiver: A Survival Story”
Coming to TBN this November.
So what you’re saying is that he wasn’t the good guy with a gun?
They never are. And by “they,” I mean everyone who carries a gun for “protection,” and by “never,” I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings.
Just look at the numbers of justifiable homicides vs the number of murders by guns in the US. The justifiable homicides are almost statistically insignificant in comparison.
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide, you can’t compare that statistics
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide
That’s interesting because I was always told never to point a gun at anything I didn’t want to kill.
“Defensive use” does not implicitly imply pointing and shooting a gun at anyone. Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot. This IS a defensive use of a firearm in the clearest sense. And in such a scenario, it will not make the news for you to hear about nor is it likely to even be reported to law enforcement. And this is more likely to happen than drawing and shooting - because very few people actually want the extreme problems that will follow. Shooting someone is the last resort.
As far the this governor running away well, as governor it was very unlikely he was armed - he has a security detail carrying the guns for him, (just like any liberal person with money or power). And secondly, if you’ve ever taken a self-defense class for a carry permit, there is a checklist of things to do BEFORE you draw and shoot. And guess what, running away if at all possible is at the top of the list…
Still, this guy is an idiot and much like most loud idiots no matter their political beliefs they get the most ink. But there is more to this argument than the circle jerk that is happening here. You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
I was raised around guns. Had some (superficial) training in the military with guns. I’m not a gun owner now, but while I think R and the right in general are absolutely culpable regarding our gun violence problems due to their refusal to acknowledge them or do a damn thing about them, I’m not anti-2A, and not being disingenuous with my comment here.
I was told by everyone who was ever responsible for training me in gun safety that you don’t pull it out unless you are prepared to use it, and you should not be prepared to use it unless you are prepared to kill with it. I was also taught that brandishing was illegal, and more likely to escalate than defuse a situation.
You can be prepared to use it and not have to use it when the criminal decides to disengage.
I’m not going to redo this entire discussion. You can see the other replies in this same comment chain that trod the same ground.
The brandishing part is why it’s not reported or on the news. But that does not mean it doesn’t happen successfully.
So one of the best uses of a weapon defensively is to break fundamental gun safety rules that are in literally every gun safety course (and the law)? Aren’t R the party of law and order?
Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot.
They can’t be too concerned since the crime rate in America is functionally identical to countries with gun control (except there is much more murder).
The rest of your comment just undermines the gun laws you’re trying to defend, functionally claiming “We need to keep selling guns to the public to keep them safe from the people we’ve sold guns to, but only if they can’t run away or hide, even if they have a gun or a team of people with guns”.
The person you are most likely to use a gun on is yourself.
The second most likely person you are to use a gun on is your spouse, with men overwhelmingly preferring firearms as a form of spousal homicide.
The third most likely person you are to use a gun on is a family/tenant.
Home invaders are way down on the list of “at-home gun use” targets. And, to make things even more stick, police tend to be more concerned with facing an armed resident than actual burglars. This leads to a high rate of police homicides ruled justifiable, on the grounds that the officer entering the home believed that the resident possessed a gun.
So, we’re looking at a solid four different likely ways keeping a gun in your home will result in the death of you or another lawful resident of your house.
Someone setting out to kill another is NOT comparable to someone trying to stop a threat.
deleted by creator
I don’t know, shooting an unarmed teenager in the head and claiming you were scared makes it sound like homicide is the point for some people.
I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
I’m a firm support of much strong gun control laws, and so this claim is something I would really love to be true …which is exactly why I’m pausing here and asking to see the evidence. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
So what is this based on?
It was a while back, so i can’t remember the caveats (if any). It may have been for that year or something. A quick dig looks like it holds up though.
This media investigation, aided by Texas State University shows the stats.
According to the data, citizens stopped shooters 50 times in the 316 attacks. But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun. The other 40 times, it was with their hands or another weapon.
It also briefly touches on the trauma when an actual good person kills someone.
“I don’t feel like I killed a human,” says Wilson. “I killed an evil and that’s how I’m coping with the situation.”
“The individual did not make any attempt to get up because of his head wound. He didn’t make any… it was just quivering and that was it.”
He is actively forcing himself to not see the shooter as a person and it’s clear the image of the person he killed twitching on the ground will haunt him forever.
The pro-gun crowd didn’t save that man, they sold him and everybody else in that church out. They armed the mass shooter then used Wilson as propaganda, claiming his trauma is actually the gold standard for dealing with gun violence and that teachers and targeted minorities should be enthusiastically following suit.
I’m sure the fact that it would preserve or increase the profits of a lobby group that gives $16 million a year to Republicans is purely coincidence.
After all, if an industry was causing massive social harm, they’d immediately cease operation for the public good, not suppress research and statistics about how many people they’d killled while astroturfing and hiring politicians as shills.
But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun.
And this begs the question. . .what percentage of people actually carry a gun? If it’s less than 20% then that means gun owners were more effective at stopping it (well, it would actually be more complicated, but I’m just trying to demonstrate my point).
Not only is it more complicated, it doesn’t even matter.
Around 80% of mass shooters bought the guns legally. Of the 20% remaining, the majority are teenagers who used their parent’s legally owned firearm.
Criminals in America have better access to firearms than they do in anywhere else in the world, with many of the guns in South America being originally purchased from a store in the United States.
This has resulted in a homicide rate that is far higher than it should be. Sort this list by homicide rate and take note of just how far before and after “United States” you have to scroll before finding a country you would consider “wealthy and stable”.
As compensation for that, we’re told things like “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. But the “good guys” have been given all the guns they want and they stop exactly fuck all. It’s not even close to the number of shootings they enable.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper? In the real world, police and unarmed civilians stop more mass shooters and it doesn’t require arming the mass shooters in the first place.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper?
If it doesn’t matter, why did you bring it up?
“You proclaim to love the ocean, yet you flee from the tsunami… Curious”
[Charlie Kirk.png]
Things to do during a mas shooting:
- Try to escape
- If you can’t escape, hide.
- If you can’t escape or hide, fight back.
Supporting gun ownership or even carrying a gun on your hip doesn’t change that. All carrying a gun does for you in a mass shooting is mature the odds a little less terrible if it comes to option 3.
A handgun is imprecise, low-power, and difficult to aim accurately. On top of that a “good guy with a gun” has to care about collateral damage.
The purpose of carrying a handgun is personal defense, not civil defense. It’s good defense against assault or a mugger. It’s a good deterrent from someone who why’s to harm you and walk away. It’s not good for taking on an unhinged maniac that’s fully intending to die.
Mass shooters are the suicide bombers of the US.
You don’t get the main point of gun control. Gun control means vetting out bad people from getting the guns. Like driver’s license, if you don’t know how drive or regularly violated traffic regulations your license is revoked. Similarly if you have gun license, good people with proper training can get the gun. But people who don’t follow laws will be banned from getting guns.
People who don’t obey laws are already banned from owning guns.
And they are able to get those guns because there’s too many damn guns out there.
Yeah, there are a lot of stories in the news that prove this insufficient. 77% of mass shooters from 1966 to 2019 obtained their guns legally. So great, the laws cover 23% of cases? You know what would happen to me at work if I only handled 23% of my job? I’d be fired.
Clearly new agencies & laws are required, old laws are not effective they need more scrutiny.
Clearly he forgot to bring his Good Guy Gun.
deleted by creator
Run faster, you fuck.
I wouldn’t mind slower actually
I don’t need to be the fastest on 2 feet, I just need to be faster than you trips other person
As much as I’m on the same page as everyone here; America’s gun laws need to change, are you not allowed to be afraid of the very well known thing your hobby does? Like, being afraid of being shot doesn’t make you a hypocrite for liking guns.
I don’t think anyone is honestly shaming this person for being afraid.
They are shaming him for refusing to do anything about a situation that he eventually wound up in himself, and suggesting that if he’s not going to do something legislatively then he damn well better do something in person, else he has failed in his duty to care for his citizenry. Which is like saying the pot is black, honestly, since politicians don’t care about the citizenry.
The GOP had a stance of good guys with guns will defend people with said guns. So voting to have the guns present and not having one and running instead of defending the people either shows he was a coward by their stance, or not one of the good guys.
Yeah man, that looks like a different set of words to describe what I said.
I’ll take you at your word that that is what you meant to convey, however their set or words is more succinct than yours.
*convey
Sorry
The first mistake people made was believing the GOP had their back.
The first mistake is assuming the GOP cares about people not related to them, or people who don’t benefit them in any way.
Yeah but leaders have to lead and this is what happens when you allow your voters to be terrorized constantly at the expense of your own privilege. He’s lucky he hasn’t been tarred and feathered yet.
You think this was legal under current law?
The issue is that the most common argument against gun control is “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” So now this lawmaker has proven that he doesn’t practice what he preaches. If he truly believed a good guy with a gun was the only thing that could stop the shooter, then why not put his money where his mouth is? Surely he’d be hailed as a paragon for gun rights when he took the shooter down…
But clearly he’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying; He only says it because the gun lobby gives him tons of money to do so.
Gun or no gun, he’s not a good guy and couldn’t have stopped the bad guy…
Yeah you can be enamored by nature and its fauna, while still having a healthy fear of being attacked by animals.
I love trains but being tied to tracks while a train approaches isn’t what I think of as “fun”.
That said proper, responsible gun ownership like any hobby involves accounting for dangers, and also advocating for measures for people to be able to enjoy their passion safely.
Being afraid of being shot does make you a hypocrite if you are against gun restrictions and regulations.
Your world view is getting people killed, you SHOULD be scared.
Going to the range and being afraid of criminal shooters isn’t hypocritical.
Being afraid of criminal shooters and fighting against gun control reforms makes you a hypocrite and a bad person.
And there’s nothing wrong innately with being a hypocrite. But you’re a pretty shit person if your empathy and considerations can only extend as far as things that have threatened you personally.
No, but open carry and being afraid of criminal shooters is though.
… What?
Guna don’t scare me but people using guns recklessly or maliciously do.
This strikes me as like implying that I’m hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.
A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.
I’m hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.
It would be ironic to loudly and repeatedly declare “If you don’t want to get hit on at a bar, put on that wedding ring” and then get chased out of a bar by a bunch of married men slapping your ass.
A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.
A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society” fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy, regardless of their stance on guns. He is however reaping what he has helped sow. Hypocrisy is simply the wrong word. This isn’t the same as being anti-abortion and then paying for your mistress to get one. Being pro-gun doesn’t mean you just stand there.
A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy
A person who insists everyone should be armed everywhere they go and then isn’t armed when he asserts a gun would have been handy is ironic.
A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society” fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
Of course not.
A handgun compares to a rifle like a dagger to a sword.
What?
What did you not understand? A pistol is a gun, a rifle is a gun, a Soviet D-20 howitzer is a gun.
You can’t be that stupid to call somebody a hypocrite for supporting carry of weapons for self-defense because they ran from a mass shooter with a rifle. People usually don’t carry rifles for self-defense.
You can’t be that stupid to call somebody a hypocrite for supporting carry of weapons for self-defense because they ran from a mass shooter
I don’t see this guy making any effort to distinguish between gun and rifle ownership. The Barret .50 plastered on a “Come and Take It” flag was part of the Governor’s pro-2A rally display as recently as last October.
Why the hell should he? I mean that it’s extremely unlikely he had such kind of an instrument with him during that mass shooting.
Who is saying anything about hypocrisy? This is about the guy feeling the consequences for his shitty policies.
2 of the top 5 comments right now are attacking him for not being the “good guy with a gun” and arguably multiple people have challenged me to defend the implicit claims of hypocrisy. So I disagree the implication isn’t there.
Apples to oranges argument and a straw man argument all in one. Bravo sir, brav-fucking-o. Yall never cease to amaze me.
You could explain why, but that would actually take thought and effort and open your position up to being challenged, which is scary. I get it. Empty insults are much easier.
When a gay man “sets his sights” on you, death isn’t a possible outcome. So supporting gay people isn’t a life threatening position to hold. It’s just the right fucking thing to do. However, Being full on pro gun does come with the inevitable death of someone. This politician made it so the exact people who shouldn’t have a gun, would have one. If you are a responsible gun owner than good on you. Please by all means keep your guns, but is it truly too much to ask that you at least take the time to be background checked before getting another gun? Or maybe take a few classes on gun safety? Or be legally required to have it stored in a place away from children and the mentally unstable?
So supporting gay people isn’t a life threatening position to hold. It’s just the right fucking thing to do.
It’s funny how often it happens that when someone falsely accuses of doing something, they are really projecting what they have already done, or are warning you of what they’re about to do.
In this case, attacking a strawman. I certainly did not say that they are equivalent when it comes to life and death. It’s like you forgotten basic SAT logic (or whatever equivalent test you took). Square : rectangle is like murder : homicide. This doesn’t mean that I think all murders have 4 equal sides and 4 right angles.
I was very clear I was talking about the implicit hypocrisy.
And ftr, I’m a firm supporter of stronger gun regulations so the whole rant about what gun regulations you want has zero to do with the point, and reels of just pandering to the opinion of the typical Lemmy user.
you berate me for not fully explaining my position and then come back with a full explanation of your original comment? Just saying sorry I did see through your initial response and should have been more clear in my first comment. I’ll personally try to do better.
you berate me for not fully explaining my position and then come back with a full explanation of your original comment?
First, you were an asshole to me out of the gates, so expecting me to kind to you when you misrepresent my position is kind of bizarre. But never the less, you are correct I should have still stayed respectful, so I too apologize for my response.
But this is what I do when someone doesn’t understand, whether it’s their fault or mine, I try to explain it another way.
I see this soooo much on Lemmy. even more so than on reddit.
“…Governor & First Lady Parson want to thank the Missouri Highway Patrol, KCPD, and their security officers for their quick and professional actions.”
For getting our own asses out of there, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.
“I just ran away from a mass shooting at the Chiefs parade where I saw the Missouri governor (the gun lover below) running scared for his life next to me with an army of officers protecting him,” Quaife wrote"
deleted by creator
OvergrownEnhanced amygdala.The party gets all of its support from slinging FUD, what do you expect?
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
It’s a powerful combination.
Now that we’re in election season I see political ads for Republicans running for various things on TV, almost all of them show them brandishing or firing some sort of military style assault weapon. These politicians spew bullshit about protecting kids but instead are a big reason why we now have so many dead ones .
This isn’t a “gotcha”. I’m a big fan of classic cars but that doesn’t mean I’ll stand there when one is driving fast straight at me.
I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.
Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.
Maybe he’s just not a good guy. In fact in this day and age I would say by being Republican does indeed make him the bad guy.
Perhaps he simply wasn’t armed. I’m against gun control but am also not armed 24/7 either. Unlike most on the website, I’ve been in the situation of having to approach a shooter. Some of us still believe what we did before that after.
Well good on you for getting through that situation, but you saying “oh, well maybe he just wasnt carrying” doesn’t really help your point. We can’t expect everyone to be carrying, at all times. And even if everyone could carry at all times, we still can’t expect everyone to be able to pull the trigger. You did, but that’s why people in your role are hailed as heroes for what they do: because most could not do it.
I fail to see how him not carrying at the time doesn’t help my point of him maybe not carrying a the time.
Because him not carrying at the time demonstrates why guns could never truly be a solution to these shootings. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and you can’t be prepared at every moment. You can’t live your life never letting your guard down.
Not to mention, if anyone should be carrying and take action in these situations, it should be the ones advocating against gun control. Missouri has some of the loosest gun control in the country. If the main argument against is the right to defend yourself, and when the time comes this guy is either not prepared or not willing to defend the people he is meant to serve, how can we expect others to?
Are we really to say “everyone should be carrying so they can defend themselves in these situations”, when the Missouri governor himself isn’t?
And when you advocate against gun control, that is the statement you’re making. That the issue of these shootings is simply solved by a good guy having a gun. If you’re saying “gun control isn’t alright because i deserve the right to defend myself”, you’re implying that everyone else has the same right, and their only chance to save themselves is to also exercise that right.
But can we expect women and children to do this? And I’m sure there are plenty of people of color who would not be super hyped to have a weapon on them during a police interaction. If the Missouri governor, one of the loudest voices against gun control can’t be expected to exercise this right, how can we expect everyone else?
Yeah in a country with a 2nd amendment, it’s not just your right, it’s your responsibility to carry. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if people weren’t scared of responsibility.
I carry to protect me and mine.
You and yours can make the decision to carry or not. I’m not going to go out of my way to save anyone but my own kin. The police have no legal requirement to save you and they have legal protection from liability if they shoot something they should not. A conceal and carry holder has none of that.
So your solution to the issue of mass shootings is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, and everyone should be ready to kill if necessary? And you don’t see the issue with that?
I’m not saying you specifically should not carry or be ready to defend yourself, and I would be a fool to pretend that you shouldn’t be willing and able to defend yourself, especially with how things are now. But do you really want to live in a world where every citizen has to be ready and willing to kill his fellow man at the drop of a hat when things go to shit? Do you want your kids, grandkids, etc. to live in a world like that?
The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself. The point is that the fact that you need to is fucked up, and we shouldn’t accept it as the status quo.
My solution is to treat the cause. Mental Health and crime are certainly the two leading causes of mass shootings.
A living wage, universal healthcare services, and a fair regulated economy Are solutions to the cause of the problem.
I am not a liberal, I am a leftist. I think we have moved far too much to the right in this country which is why we have many of these problems in the first place.
This ain’t a movie, hero.
I never stated I’m a hero. I only wish to defend me and mine.
You’re more likely to be killed with your own gun, and possibly others. With your gun. If you’re that afraid, stay at home.
No, I choose to exercise my rights. If they scare you then that is your problem.
Freedom is scary, get over it.
Removed by mod
So you don’t give a fuck if anyone lives except your “kin” and we’re supposed to feel safe with people like you walking around armed?
You are free to ensure your own safety. If you choose to depend upon others that is certainly your decision to make.
Statistically conceal and carry holders are the safest segment of society. I would much rather be in a room full of registered conceal, and carry holders than police, or any other segment of society.
That’s a lie. Save that NRA apologist bullshit for the firing range.
I apologize for nothing. I merely assert my rights.
If your “rights” endanger others, then those rights should be voided.
Which every healthy democracy has done so far.
Lol, username should be brain dead or unalive cuz not much is happening up there.
Damn, you must live in a shithole if you need a gun in order to feel safe in your own country and home.
It sounds like you are privileged to live in an area bereft of all violence. Those of us who are not as privileged as you are still want to defend ourselves.
That’s cute from a casual. I love the light anarchy manifesto.
Now that I don’t carry an automatic weapon for part of my work, I see no reason to be part of the problem and I’m happy to leave it to the pros. But dunning-kruger is a hell of a thing.
Dunning Kruger is the cry of the retards can’t conceive a decent argument and are too chicken to just say “'retard”
Feel free to trust your personal safety and the safety of your family to a “pro”. When seconds count the police are just 20 minutes away.
Of course, this being funny kinda hinges on him having a gun on him at the time of the incident. Just because he is a proponent of a right being available if one so chooses doesn’t mean he chooses to exercise it daily, and you can’t use what you don’t have on you.
Furthermore gun owners are under no obligation to have the hero fantasies often ascribed to them, many do it for simply self preservation who wouldn’t run towards gunfire either, opting only to use it if they absolutely have to. That is a decision someone can really only make in the moment, too, many think “I’d blah blah blah,” you might blah blah blah, it’s an instinctual reaction.
Nah, it doesn’t. If I advocate for the right for everyone to carry grenades on them, and then I get put in a position where someone actually has one and I get scared shitless and run away, thats funny, regardless of whether or not I carry a grenade myself. Its funny because we all can obviously see that the right to carry fucking grenades is ridiculous, and by advocating for it I kinda got whats coming to me.
In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!
And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.
I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.
Except that isn’t what you said, what you said hinges on the “good guy with a gun” thing, so, yes, what I said is applicable.
This new argument is a little closer, but even then simply not wanting to further restrict rights for those who use them correctly even though they can be abused is not unreconcilable with also not wanting to be shot unjustly. I’d agree if he was a proponent of “the right to commit mass shootings” but nobody has ever said that, so I doubt he’s the first.
In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!
Fair point, so long as you don’t cause collateral damage since you’ll still be held responsible just as you would be with a gun today, why not? I mean, it isn’t the right tool for home defense imo since guns are much more targeted, but who am I to tell you you can’t cut off your nose to spite your face by destroying your own house?
And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.
And cars, but “that’s different” since while cars will be a cause of many more deaths than guns due to climate change, and they can kill 80 preople and injure 486 on Bastille day in France, they weren’t “designed to,” so it’s fine, and nevermind that while guns were designed to kill people, sometimes it is necessary and acceptible to do so in self defense. We’ll ignore all that because “reasons.”
The difference is that a cars only purpose isn’t to kill or maim. There are very obvious positives to having widespread access to cars. I can point you countries where there is not widespread access to guns that do not have these problems. Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?
Because I know your next argument will be about knives or cars again, let me address both of those: A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife, its much more personal so less people are willing to use it, and you at least have a chance of fending off the attacker. Against a gun, your only hope is that they miss. And regarding cars, you’re right, they can be used as a weapon! Do you know what solves this issue while also still allowing people to commute? Public transport! Im glad we agree cars are an issue, and that public transport is needed.
Since you clearly don’t think everyone having grenades is ridiculous, how about rockets? Missiles? Should any citizen be able to obtain those too? Mustard gas? Nuclear weapons? How far are you willing to let that go before its obvious the cons outweigh the pros?
Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?
Well seeing as there are none that are exactly the same I suppose you’ve set yourself up for an answer you want, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that the Czech Republic, while they have a slightly different system and less guns to people ratio, they’ve had the right to firearms enshrined like America since the 1500s (except during nazi and communist occupations where they were outright banned and restricted to those deemed loyal respectively). Not only that, but in CZ just as US, though gun ownership grows, gun crime declines.
Furthermore, there are plenty places in the world where guns are completely banned, yet the criminals have them and use them regularly, like Honduras or Brazil. The problem though is you’ll discount those places as
brown peoplethird world countries so of course thosesavagespoor browns“unfortunate souls” kill each other a lot (which isn’t racist at all somehow). Point still stands however, even illegal guns shipped to an island aren’t prohibitively expensive to actual drug dealers, even without guns being legally available, people are making 1911s in the jungles in the Philippines with hand tools out of scrap steel that run just as well as a Springfield, the cartels get full auto M4s and South Korean grenades, those are illegal here much less Mexico and they still get them.A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife
Ahh ableism! So fuck cripples who can’t run, huh? And the old who are slower than most people victimizing others with a knife? And fat people? Might as well let him carve a few pounds off hmm? Or even women, since men run faster over short distances on average? Hope your last name is “Bolt.”
Y’know what ends a knife fight quicker than running and prayer? Well, one time a dude pulled a knife on me and my then GF walking into walmart, before he could say anything I grabbed the grip of my CCW but didn’t even draw it, he turned and walked away for some reason, couldn’t say why but I have my theories. Must’ve been less than 10sec but felt like an hour, still though, nobody was hurt and I’m fine with that.
its much more personal so less people are willing to use it,
In theory, but in practice they’re used to threaten and attack people regularly already even with legal gun ownership. They’re cheap and actually accessible (there’s no FBI NICs check or prohibited purchasers/possesors for knives). Btw you can run from a gun too, once you get 25yd away most people (especially criminals who aren’t known to train or practice) will not hit you with a handgun, which are involved in the most crime (12,000 handgun to 500 rifle deaths a year, criminals like handguns for concealability.)
Public transport
Well no, that Bastille Day incident I mentioned happened with a stolen
truck“lorry.” “Lorries” will still exist for shipping purposes. Furthermore bus drivers can also kill people, they aren’t some saint just because they’re employed by the city, they’re drug tested 1x/yr for their CDL but that’s about it, and busses can also be stolen. Though yeah, public transport could surely be improved I do agree lol.Mustard gas
Interesting you note this one, do you also think precursors to make mustard gas should be illegal since it’s so easy to make? I mean, you support banning guns because they can be used illegally, or at least making them harder to get, why not ban/restrict the ingredients for mustard gas the same way? They’re legal now, just like guns, you’re just not allowed to kill people with it, just like guns. Maybe the issue isn’t actually the implement used to do the killing, maybe the issue is the killing itself.
And lets not forget the story of John Hurley who shot a shooter and was then shot by cops.
True, tbf it’s always a risk like any fight, even just a fistfight you could get knocked out, hit your head on the pavement, and that’s all she wrote.
There are some things you can do to mitigate it though, whoever calls the cops should give an accurate description of the shooter if possible, and the defender if possible, including clothes etc. And as the defender, after the defense either reholster if you’re sure it’s safe to do so or leave as you’re under no obligation to stay, call the police and say “there’s been a shooting at [location],” hang up, call laywer.
No, it is not always a risk.
It is only a risk if you think you are some damn super hero because you like loud explosions and go to a shooting range once every week, without any other gun safety training what so ever, including knowing how to de-escalation a situation.
Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.
No, it is not always a risk.
Yes it is, every fight is a risk same as every time you drive you risk some idiot T-Boning you after running a red. Even deescalation doesn’t always work for the professionals, even that’s a risk.
It is only a risk if you think you are some damn super hero because you like loud explosions and go to a shooting range once every week, without any other gun safety training what so ever, including knowing how to de-escalation a situation.
Cute, but no.
Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.
Trained to do what exactly? Risk their lives defending others (which they don’t actually have to do per warren v dc, gonzales v castle rock, and the other one)? Risk? People die from lesser fights all the time, there’s no ref like on the TV.
A gun is not a car.
One can jump out of the way of a car, because it isn’t faster than the speed of sound.
Got any more brilliant fucking insights about tools meant for specific purposes?
No, I don’t need a brilliant insight to know that your analogy was false.
A car is a tool. It moves humans and goods from spot A to spot B. A gun is a tool to convert living critters into dead ones. They are not the same and comparing the two, like in your example, won’t work.
Yet I can kill people with both, someone’s being disingenuous (it’s you)
Bananas and the sun both appear yellow to me. Are bananas and the sun the same thing?
Two things can have something in common and not be the same. Guns are not cars. You can personally attack me all you want but your analogy will still have failed.
Man, you’re not even clever enough to fake being.
And another personal attack.
Depends, got any other false analogies to be taken down?
A gun is a deadly weapon. Its purpose is to kill. It has no other purpose, therefore it is not a tool. That’s firearms training 101. If you don’t know that, your opinion isn’t worth listening to because you don’t know the literal first thing about wielding one.
I assume you’re not a big fan of totally unregulated cars and I doubt you claim that the only way to stop a car crash is with another car.
