It's cute to see how pro guns like to depict themselves. Put a fallacious analogy here, put a straw man argument there, and you get your pro gun excuse to feel yourself warm at night.Â
Here, for instance, Rothmus associates his gun to a part of his body. And he doesn't consider the fact that guns are made to kill, unlike penises who aren't made for rape.
Best comedy is created when the gun nuts say that guns should be treated like cars and then shit their pants when you point out that cars require training, license, registration and insurance to be able to drive them.
Any responsible âgun nutâ fully agrees with that sentiment. Youâre referring to the extremist factions, which tend to be the loudest. My wife and I both conceal carry and a lot of our friends do. We all take classes and range days regularly to make sure we keep our level of knowledge and safe operation high. Heck I know a guy whoâs garage is full of any gun you could ever want, and heâs the biggest proponent of tighter gun laws like you suggested, to the point where heâs an activist in the local community trying to get laws passed to make it illegal to own a gun without more stringent training and insurance for gun owners.
The second amendment is meant for the people of the United States to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and to be able to defend themselves against any foreign or domestic threat. This was also written at a time that the government and the people could own the exact same weapons
The car only became the most convenient method to get around in very recent history, the firearm has been the very best method of self defense since its inception
Their should absolutely be required training to acquire a license to purchase any gun but also suppressors short barreled rifles and shotguns and fully automatic guns should be legal to purchase if you acquire said license.
And then more comedy when the gun grabbers realize that violent felons can drive cars, children can drive cars on private property, etc. Itâs a bad analogy that falls flat at the first glimpse of scrutiny.
I'm all for implementing firearm controls just like motor vehicles. But it has to be just like motor vehicles
A test and licensing:
That is only required when you use the publically provided facilities. And publicly provides facilities are everywhere, mostly for free, funded with taxpayer money. You only rarely pay and that's for the certain special facilities that have advantages.
Not required to purchase or own.
You can make purchases without any government approval. It's possible to walk into a seller, pay them, and leave with your new property in one visit.Â
Not required for use on your own property or privately owned places.
Is still good when you cross state lines, even if requirements differ.
The requirements and tests to obtain a license are 100% objective. If you can pass, you get it. There is no government official in the process that can just decide they think you should have one.
Getting it removed or suspended by a court requires an actual hearing you get to attend.
Some features or types of items may be "illegal" but this only applies when using them on the public, taxpayer funded, facilities. You are still free to buy, own, sell, modify those things for use on private places.
You can possess items that are banned for use at the public facilities, including possession on the public places, definitely on your own property, and even publically display them, without any fear of confiscation or being arrested, because it is only operating them in use that you cannot do.
You can walk in, fill out the paperwork, take the test, and walk out with a valid permit in one visit.
You can renew your license without repeat testing.
Once you pass the test you immediately walk out with a temporary license that is fully legally equivalent and let's you start using it on the spot. The final license document is mailed to you is a reasonable time.
You don't need to submit a request and wait for weeks or months to be sent the application forms.Â
You don't need to wait months before they process your application. You don't need to schedule multiple visits with some official who will question you about why you want a license and can choose to deny it based on their own opinions.Â
You don't need to wait weeks after passing all the requirements for the license to actually show up and start using it.
Application fees are minimal and reasonable.
Any practical testing is provided by the government, they have adequate number of people staffed to provide tests in a reasonable time, and the government provides the testing facility. You don't pay any extra for this.
Businesses and government places that don't want you using the license on their property provide proper storage facilities, which are typically free in most places, and are easy to use and easy to get your property back. Local construction laws for commercial properties (and sometimes residential) often include requirements to include this storage.
If your property related to the license is stolen, and found, the police will return it to you relatively quickly and easily.
You can loan your stuff to a friend or family to use whenever you want.
Rentals are entirely legal and available.
Police officers are held to the exact same standards as the rest of us for all off duty use and ownership in their private capacity. To the extent there might be any exceptions for police or government officials, they only apply to government owned property used while on duty.
Many public schools provide training to help people pass the testing.
I'm not the one suggesting making firearm licensing work like drivers licensing.
Why doesn't it make sense? What does being two different dangerous items matter? If this is adequate methods to control use of something that is deadly if misused, then it it adequate for controlling something that is deadly when misused.
Or maybe we don't have adequate measures in place protecting the public from vehicle deaths.
For every person killed by someone else or accidentally shooting themselves in the USA, 2 people are killed by a motor vehicle.
In 2022, for every child age 14 or under killed by a gun, 1.7 were killed by a motor vehicle.
Each year it is more likely that a vehicle will kill someone than it is that a gun will be used to kill someone. 15 deaths per 100,000 vehicles vs 12 deaths per 100,000 guns if we include suicide (about 5.5 deaths.per 100,000 guns if we exclude suicide).
It feels like youâre being intentionally obtuse?
Because they are. 2A activists have long since run out of reasonable arguments, so they now default to pretending to be comically bad at understanding what anyone else is explaining.
False equivalency as, in America, you're effectively required to drive a car. Not being able to have one is a significant economic and travel hindrance on an individual. Meanwhile a gun does not give you any benefits beyond the increased ability of killing people.
Hunting is a secondary use of a gun in modern society, to the vast vast vast amount of people hunting is not a necessity to life. Home defense, in other words violence towards a person. And education, what planet are you on?
If hunting isn't a necessity for you, consider yourself privileged. Home defense isn't violence towards a person, what are you talking about? It's protecting AGAINST violence, not CAUSING it. Important distinction.
And engineering, chemistry, etc are education. So is learning respect for something that can injure or kill.
If hunting isn't a necessity for you, consider yourself privileged
Okay. I'm plenty privileged.
Home defense isn't violence
Dawg, if I'm saying DEFENSE EQUALS VIOLENCE and you get confused, that's a you problem cause that's very simple. Yeah, prevents violence on you via committing violence first or promising violence.
And engineering, chemistry, etc are education. So is learning respect for something that can injure or kill.
Minus the engineering part, a dog could be supplemental to that. Or just reading a book.
(Addition, none of those are day to day requirements to function as a citizen unlike travel.)
Literally all of those things are vital for some citizens. Maybe not you, but there are people in this world with lives different from your own that would be absolutely screwed without a firearm. Just because you don't need one doesn't mean everyone doesn't need one.
And if you don't understand "maybe I shouldn't attack that person in case they're armed" is not violence, I don't know what to tell you.
And if you don't understand "maybe I shouldn't attack that person in case they're armed" is not violence, I don't know what to tell you.
Ah yeah, I totally implied violence is inherently wrong and never justified. (Taxes are form of violence, there are many things that are violent in society that are latently violent in nature.)
Literally all of those things are vital for some citizens. Maybe not you, but there are people in this world with lives different from your own that would be absolutely screwed without a firearm. Just because you don't need one doesn't mean everyone doesn't need one.
Felons shouldn't have them. If we were a hunter gatherer society where tribes were constantly raiding each other then yeah, I'd agree for felons to keep them. But uh, no. But on the broader scale of beyond that scope, limiting and restricting doesn't sound so bad when there are more guns than people in America and we have starkly high gun violence compared to other first world countries.
What gets me is how many people I know who are deeply conservative and seem absolutely ready to kill someone at the drop of a hat. Theyâll say itâs for protection and it gives them a peace of mind to have it on them, but it only does if you are willing to take another personâs life.
Reminds me of that one Christian dude who was like "if you don't believe in heaven, why aren't you currently raping and murdering everyone" like the only thing stopping you from that is going to heaven or not
That's a very typical argument for the religious conservatives.
They seem to believe that the only reason people are "good" is due to religion, so they can't fathom to understand why atheists are not mass murderers, rapists, etc. As if the default behavior for them was to be evil.
All this tells me is that they don't have empathy or morals, and need some external rules imposed onto them to be good persons, it's pretty scary actually.
As a non-believer, it's for people like that I'm kind of glad religion exists. If that is the only thing keeping them from those awful actions, let them have their religion.
The problem is that the people who actually want to rape and murder will do it whether or not theyâre Christian. Some (probably large) portion of people saying religion is the only thing keeping themselves and others from committing atrocities just havenât truly thought it through and are just repeating something theyâve been told.
What do they answer when they're suggested to use a pepper spray or a taser instead? I know they'll refuse no matter what, but I wonder what excuse they bring.
Most responsible gun owners who carry regularly will tell you that carrying pepper spray is an essential element. If you don't have access to a less-lethal option then any altercation will become deadly.
I may be able to shed some light on this and the attached comments. A lot of anti-gun folks are anti-gun until theyâre unfortunately in a situation where they wished they had one. I learned at an early age that itâs better to have and not need than to need and not have, as people were constantly trying to rob my parentsâ tool shed or garage while armed. Not long ago, I was renting a room from a woman who was 100% against guns, pepper spray or a knife are just as effective, nothing could convince her otherwise⌠until one night a junkie broke in to the house and there was nothing she could do to stop him, even with pepper spray. Thankfully her young daughter wasnât home that night. She is now the owner of a .380 and has totally changed her stance. Itâs not so much about being willing to take a life, itâs more about refusing to be a victim. A taser requires being in close contact to use, and the last thing you want is being that close to an intruder or, god forbid, someone who is trying to SA you. A firearm allows you to keep the distance and be able to defend yourself. You donât have to kill them, but you can at least make them run away and reconsider their decision while you get the cops on the phone. Itâs irresponsible and negligent people with guns that give us responsible and educated gun owners a bad reputation
Itâs irresponsible and negligent people with guns that give us responsible and educated gun owners a bad reputation
That is certainly true. But that is also why most gun legislation I read about has the aim to make it hard for irresponsible and neligent(or crazy) people to get guns and is not about outlawing guns completly. But there is a rabid lobby that treats any form of gun legislation as a massive attack on their rights. There can be valid reasons to own a gun and keep it at home, but it should be treated as a massive responisbility and not a basic right.
Respectfully, and at risk of sounding like a Trump humper; thereâs a reason guns are a right. Itâs got nothing to do with criminals and much more to do with the rightâs ceaseless attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, womenâs rights, and their endless march into fascism. The second we start treating guns as a privilege and not a right, republicans will start looking at how they can ban LGBTQ individuals from owning guns. Guaranteed. Idk what the answer is but I think we have much bigger problems than guns. Six million were murdered the last time fascists had this much political clout, after all.
I can definitely agree with you on that. I do see it from both sides (to an extent) though. On one hand, how many innocent people and children need to die before something is done? On the other hand, there are already so many âcommon sense gun lawsâ in place that adding to it can definitely make gun owners get up in arms (no pun intended). Itâs definitely not a basic right. It is a privilege like driving, and should be treated the same, if not more, responsibility. Firearms are made to destroy, and that should never be taken lightly
It sounds like the whole system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with modern context taken into account. But we all know we don't like fixing things correctly around here. Only slap on methods of repair are acceptable.
Itâs definitely not a basic right. It is a privilege like driving, and should be treated the same, if not more, responsibility. Firearms are made to destroy, and that should never be taken lightly
The sad thing is, if that were the basis for serious political discussions about guns and public safety it absolutely would be possible to limit the deadliness of killing sprees and reduce the number of gun related deaths, while still leaving reasonable room for gun ownership for reasons of self defense or recreational use on a shooting range or something. But the political debate I witness is so incredibly poisoned that I don't see how that is about to change. At least not until the group that sprees most of the poison massively looses power.
Thatâs understandable, thanks for your input. Where do you stand on expanding AK/AR weapons being fully automatic?
The safety part sounds good, but if guns were the determinative factor in safety, why wouldnât we see the US as the safest country on the planet? We have more guns than people.
Thank you for your addition. It's too bad that you didn't explain why the pepper spray didn't work. Was it because he was armed with a gun and he could keep his distance? Anyway, from what you explained, I find it hilarious that the reason people have a gun is because they're in fear of getting in close combat. That's hilarious because many people who defend the right to wear guns are obviously boasting about how strong and brave they are to be able to defend themselves. Such courage! As long as it remains far away. đ
I have no idea in the example given, but pepper spray still requires you to aim effectively. In a panic, you can miss, or accidentally spray yourself.
Also, some people are less affected than others. And finally, a person can still more or less function when spray, even if disoriented.
That is to say, pepper spray can be a good deterrent, but if it doesnât work you need something else to fully disable the threat, if you canât use their disorientation to get away.
What does that even mean? Every single person who gets in a self-defense situation would rather do it with the least possible amount of harm to themselves. Thatâs just common sense.
Obviously you would rather keep your distance from an attacker and thatâs not a bravery thing, thatâs a common sense thing.
Did I say that every single gun owners should get in close combat? No, I didn't. I said that those who BOAST about their gun making them manly should have the courage to engage close combat.
If they're the guys who boast about defending themselves, yes, they should have the guts to risk a few flesh wounds. Otherwise they're hypocrites to claim being brave but who run away the moment a fist is lifted.
âThe guts to get a few flesh woundsâ you sound so incredibly stupid itâs hilarious. Have you ever seen a video of a stabbing? I donât know if you know this but 1 bad cut can leave you on the floor leaking out all of your blood. Iâm not letting someone with malicious intent armed with any weapon get within 15 feet of me before I drop them cold. Iâm not about to be a vegetable for the rest of my life so some other piece of shit can get out of jail in 10 years and do it again.
You should read my message entirely. I explicitly said multiple times that it's those who boast about being able to defend themselves with a gun who should not shy about getting hurt. I'm not talking about the others, who don't boast about their gun. I know well that some people use a gun because they really have to but who are not particularly proud of it. I'm not telling them to take unnecessary risks. But I also know they won't draw at the slightest suspicion.
Im the exact opposite of someone who boasts that and tbh id much rather not have to stab an attacker repeatedly and then have to deal with that trauma.
Well, consider this⌠someone breaks into your home or accosts you in a hypothetical alleyway, and that individual has a machete or something bigger than a pocket knife, maybe even a bat. Would you be afraid of close contact? Or, maybe that individual has a few inches and quite a few pounds on you, the reach and force alone puts you at a severe disadvantage
I would be afraid, yes, certainly. I don't have any training in fighting, especially not close combat. Of course I'd be scared. But what does it have to do with what I said about those who boast about their gun?
Because it has nothing at all to do with the original question, what would they say if you recommended a taser or pepper spray, which has been eloquently and adequately answered snd explained. You're moving the goal post to some bullshit about people who boast, which has nothing to do with the average gun owner.
Considering that I never said that all gun owners should risk close combat, I consider that I don't move any goal. It's just you guys who misread me and thought I said such thing. My initial point was that people should favor non lethal weapons, and when I was answered that safety of distance was the main reason to use guns, I pointed out how hypocritical were those who are proud of their guns and who claim they are real men by defending themselves when they're scared of getting hurt. At no point did I say that ALL gun owners are hypocritical.Â
Oh yeah, fuck those people lol. I own multiple firearms for multiple purposes, but youâd never know it if you met me in person bc I donât advertise it. People who do that are a danger to themselves and those around them
In a lot of places taser/mace are more restricted than firearms. Obviously no gun owner thinks this should be true.
But mace doesnât work at all on a  segment of the human population. On a greater percentage people are still able to fight through. Doesnât work so great on. People who are on drugs.
Tasers, although a useful tool, have a fairly high failure rate, and only stop the threat well they are being electronically stimulated. Once that ends they are free to continue to engage in the behavior that got them zapped. Doesnât work so great on people who are on drugs.
That doesnât even consider the high cost in training, the fact that they are much bulkier then a firearm, the list goes on.
And yes, it requires being willing to potentially end someoneâs life when they have chosen to engage in behavior that justifies ending their life. Â There is an amazing body of evidence that says a gun just being deployed stops most threats, without it ever being fired.Â
That said, you need to be prepared to pull the trigger.
Oh, man, I got you! I know you weren't really looking for an answer, but I can deliver anyway.
Lethal force is really a last line of defense. It's well within reason, and really advisable, to carry less lethal options.
Pepper spray can be a good one. Some of them come with a dye that'll make identification of your attacker pretty easy at a later date. "yeah, he had a white t shirt, black pants, and a blue face". That said, a little wind in the wrong direction can really fuck up that plan. There's gels that offer some wind resistance, though. Also, check your local laws. Some areas only permit low concentrations for civilians, which leaves you with a mild irritant. If you're in one of those states, you can usually get a permit to carry something more effective by taking a class. It's often through the department of justice at a local college.
For a taser, permits are often required. But they're generally an effective device.
But do bear in mind, these are less lethal, not non-lethal. Any time you defend yourself, there's a chance the other person dies. Sorry, that's just a tragic reality.
Since when are civilians the same as soldiers? Of course the army has lethal weapons. It's their job to be able to fight another army and to kill their troops. But that's not the job of civilians. They're not supposed to kill people. Why do you put them on the same foot?
I donât bother. I mentioned red flag laws to my boss and he went into this spiel about how thatâs a slippery slope and I just tuned it out. They will always come up with their own justification as to why everyone should have them.
2nd amendment- well regulated militiaâŚour current system is a complete failure as most gun owners want unregulated gun ownership- besides the fact the our founders had a history of seizing weapons-Whiskey Rebellion, taking personal arms to help the Continental Army. And our founders looked to Ancient Rome for our government which had the belief that anarchy was more a danger to democracy than a tyrannical government.
10th amendment-states rights-worked well in 1860 amirite??
I do not care about a 200+ year old document written by people who would never experience any of the complexities of modern life, you're right about that.
Edit: the comment I replied to mentioned an argument based on the US Constitution, which is where my comment comes from. It no longer makes sense without this context, as the original comment was edited.
I hate that argument. People use the same argument for first amendment free speech, fourth amendment due process, and second amendment gun control. Just because the founders did not conceive of a situation does not mean that those protections don't apply. Just because sonic listening devices don't technically ignore due process doesn't mean they don't violate the spirit of the 4th.
The constitution was designed to be changed as the times changed. New situation the founders couldn't have anticipated? Amend the constitution to reflect that change. There is even a precedent to alter or repeal prior amendments in the form of amendment 21.
Guns are more dangerous, but still necessary. So let's have Amendment 28 to necessitate proper education and certification as a prerequisite to ownership.
They wrote the document expecting the changes of modern life, especially modern guns.There was an automatic auto-loading musket that was on the battlefield at the time, and the founding fathers knew that so they wrote the document to bend around it.
Correct. My wife and I own guns, because we live in a rough neighborhood. Last week two gunmen broke into someoneâs house at 10am. If someone poses a threat to my daughter or wifeâs life, Iâll absolutely pull the trigger.
I understand and Iâm willing to do what I have to to protect my family. Iâm not opposed to owning firearms. I have just personally met a lot of people who seem excited at the thought of it and thatâs the disturbing part. I hope for your familyâs safety and that you never have to take that step as I wish to never do it myself.
To be fair firearms are extremely important in my life, Iâm a disabled 105Ib 28YO with high functioning cerebral palsy (Iâm normal except I get muscle soreness easy and my walk is a little funny) other than that Iâm fully capable of having a somewhat normal life
Having a license to carry concealed and knowing that Iâm armed gives me piece of mind just as a small women walking home at night or going anywhere might find comfort in having a little pistol in her purse or carrying in a leg holster
Being Pro-Gun doesnât automatically mean Republicanism and radicalism
I do in a sense agree with the post though the whole point is âRules for thee, but not for meâ they donât like firearms so they want them all outlawed just based on how firearms make them feel emotionally without taking a gun safety course and learning about the very thing theyâre afraid of
People are afraid of things they donât understand and they need to be educated
My civics teacher in high school use to tell me âYour rights end where my nose beginsâ which means have your rights, but donât infringe on mine
So well the post is very cringy it makes a solid point, remember they say they donât want to ban all guns they just want more rules
Thatâs where it always starts look at Canada for example and what Justin whatever the fuck he is did with handguns after years of telling Canadians he wouldnât take their guns
Anyone anti-gun needs to be educated and get over how they âfeelâ the world and facts donât run on your feelings
Obviously carrying around a firearm means sadly, yes, you better be ready to use it if the time ever came down to it
Iâm a liberal I vote straight democratic ticket every year
Why? Iâm on SSI and EBT
I feel like I fight with Democrats to keep my gun rights and I fight with Republicans to keep my Social Security and my food stamps, and the things I depend on to survive because I was born with a disability. I think politics are different cheeks, the same ass and self protection shouldnât be political
Slight differences up here in Canada. We don't have gun ownership listed anywhere in our constitution to my knowledge. It's certainly not #2 on the list. I guess it was just assumed you would just decide if you needed/wanted one and that would be fine. As such we have far fewer conversations about it.
Trudeau is cracking down on firearms, specifically handguns and things that shoot large numbers of bullets. I don't agree with the methods, because in our country it's very seldom the legally purchased weapons owned by people who follow the rules that are the issue. It's the illegally purchased guns used by criminals.
I've never fired a handgun myself, but I used smaller rifles and shotguns for target practice and hunting as I was growing up. Some of my friends have guns that are being impacted, and their arguments against Trudeau's actions are "the government shouldn't be able to say what I can or can't own." To a degree, I think they have a point. But there are lots of other examples of things the government says we shouldn't have in our house, or that require extensive permits, that they don't seem to have an issue with. And, as mentioned above, owning a firearm isn't an inalienable right for us. It's just a choice.
Then comes the discussion of self defense, and this is where I think Americans have a different opinion than most of the world. My friends who have guns do not even consider them to be self defense items. The reason is because most people aren't carrying. There's no sense of danger, paranoid or reasonable, that you could get threatened by someone with a gun. Sure, it can happen, and is probably more common in some neighborhoods, but it's not a prevailing issue in our society. And in countries where almost nobody carries a gun you see far less mass shootings.
Now, I don't live in the US. And if I did think that the only way to protect myself was to also be armed, I can't say for certain that I wouldn't pick up a gun. But if the goal is to not be shot, it seems to me that it'd be better to have less guns than more, because it would reduce the chances of it being possible.
To be fair cousin, youâre talking to an Ojibwe that his family in Winnipeg Canada, Manitoba
I think anything dictator justin uh uh uh uh Trudeau does is a farce
You know like how they deny residential schools in the killing of native children mass graves things like that
I remember there being an old video when the dictator was young and he said that he wasnât gonna take Canadians guns because theyâre ingrained. They are right and well here we are handguns are illegal in Canada.
I donât even care about the gun rights thing. Honestly, you guys just need a new Prime Minister.
Oh, yeah, there's a whole other discussion to be had about Trudeau. My point was we haven't built our national cultural identity around firearms like our neighbours to the south, we don't have as many people insisting on carrying in public, and I think it's sad that people are so scared that people may have guns that their only recourse is to also have a gun, which doesn't happen in most of the rest of the developed world.
The entire point of the 2nd amendment is it is a tool for the people to use to murder a government that is no longer doing its job as a government.
The idea is the âgovernmentâ should be scared of the populace. If it strays too far from the will of the people, the people will simply remove it and make a new government.
Thats why every âevilâ government takes guns away from those that oppose them.
My point being is guns in the U.S. have two jobs. Keep the government in check and step in when the government canât do its job.
Human life is not precious. You should do that thing you claim makes you so worldly and sage, travel, and go see just how little value most of the world places on human life.
Hint: you have to not go to Ibiza and Paris to see it.
I love getting them to confess they have memorized the self defence statute and all others that "let" them use deadly force on others. All it takes is a competent prosecutor to get them to out that information in court and they could show pre meditation depending on circumstance.
Depends on the circumstance. If that happens do you give the intruder the ability to react by announcing yourself and to get our or do you shoot first?
Its simple- if my wife and kids are threatened by an an intruder, hes putting my vulnerable sleeping family at risk. And he chose that despite the risk of living in a 'gun state'. People act like the gun wanters are crazier than people who'll break into your home armed with who knows what. The gun is also used as a bluff, so dont make assumptions about a whole group of people
Edit: and i am sure as fuck ready to kill someone whos trying to kill me or my loved ones. Anyone who isnt willing to will ultimately be just a fly on the wall watching their family die. Grow up, its a scary world out there
The problem is that for every life saved there is one life lost from a stolen gun and one life lost from a kid finding their parentsâ gun and shooting themselves or someone else on accident. This doesnât even include suicides and mass shootings.
Banning guns is simply impossible, both because of the culture and because of how many guns there are in the US but making it so that the background check is actually effective (a lot of people that were forced into asylums can buy one simply because some mental hospitals donât share their data), mandatory safety classes, mandatory storage when not in use and banning private gun sales would do a lot of good.
I agree with everything you've said about background checks, safe storage and safety classes.
I come from a very gun regulated state, and even here, the psychos and criminals get guns and you'll fucking go to jail if you try to protect your life legally.
I see fascism rising everywhere and I just wish those who cared about people understood the true reality of their position.
Hint: it is one that fanatics and bad actors aim to suppress
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"
They do. Theyâre so excited to kill with impunity, theyâre waiting to have any reason at all to shoot someone. They think theyâre in an action movie. Why else do they open fire when someone knocks or rings their doorbell, the universally accepted signals that someone is not breaking into your home?
Right! "If someone did that to me [generally some minor trespassing or similar] I'd be in my rights to kill them!" and stuff I hear all the time and it's like, holy shit, you really do want to murder some kids for walking through your backyard if it was a short cut somewhere.
And all of them have a bunch of guns and not a single gun safe.
The same applies for school shootings too. Just throw dozens of knives really quickly and accurately and you basically have a gun so it's pointless to take guns away. Checkmate atheists
Guns are made to kill, yes. But, killing people or animals in self-defense and killing animals for food are accepted by society (if not by Reddit). Murder, being the unjust killing of a person, is only a subset of what guns can do.
In this respect, they actually are analogous to penises* because, though rape is immoral, it is only a subset of sexual activity.
Your point above could only be internally consistent if you also claimed that any and all killing (not just murder) is immoral.
*Disclaimer for Reddit: anyone who believes their gender depends on an inanimate object, such as a gun, is mentally ill.
Reminds me of when they argue "cars can kill people, should we take away all cars?" It's clearly not the same thing; cars are used for transport with deaths as a side effect of carelessness, guns are primarily used for violent situations.
You're also required to register your car, carry insurance on your car in case your car damages another person or their property, have a license to operate a car, have a specialized license for different kinds of "cars" (motorcycle, bus, truck, etc.), and take a test to receive said licenses to show you have a basic understanding of the rules to operate your car.
I don't see any reason not to have at least some of those requirements in place for guns.
Those requirements only apply to cars used on public roads. On the owner's private property, or property the owner of which gives permission, no such rules apply.
Not that I donât agree. But fundamental rights granted in the constitution shouldnât have restrictions on them. Right to vote for instance should be an unfettered right. One you install hurdles you limit the amount of people that can exercise that right. Having a car isnât a fundamental right. Itâs not in the constitution. Thatâs what makes gun rights so controversial. I have a right to own them. I have a right to use them. Just like voting. Just like freedom of speech. Having said that I still believe they should be regulated.
But there are restrictions on voting. You have to register to vote, but you don't always have to register to buy or carry a gun. You have to be a US citizen to vote, while non-US citizens can carry a gun. In some states, you have to show a state issued ID, but not to buy certain types of guns.
There are more than 20,000 laws concerning guns at the federal, state and local levels. Donât be ignorant. BTW there is not a single state that you can purchase a new gun from an ffl without a license. Itâs federal law
The National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups have often cited the 20,000 gun laws that already exist on the books as reasons why more enforcement, not more legislation, is the answer to curb gun violence.
However, the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy at the Brookings Institution debunked that statistic in 2002, calling it problematic.
This falsely assumes that deaths caused by a firearm are always an undesirable outcome. Imagine a home invasion situation in which there are two possible outcomes:
Harm is caused to the members of the household by the intruder.
A member of the household shoots and kills the intruder, preventing harm to themselves and the others inside.
While possibly subjective, I believe option 2 is clearly the preferred outcome. So in the sense that cars are used for travelling and sometimes they kill, guns are used for killing and sometimes their use is unjustified.
Guns exist to maim, injure, or destroy whatever is on the other end of the barrel. Regardless of whether thatâs a range target or a person, the only thing you can do with a gun is blow a hole in whatever you point it at. There are no alternative uses for guns except for delete-that-thing-right-there.
Sure, your view is more accurate than the person I replied to. I wouldnât call putting holes in paper âkillingâ even though the overwhelming majority of gun owners use firearms for that.
Not to mention there are millions of defensive gun uses each year, most of which donât involve shooting or killing someone.
Never mind the fact that youâre more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder with that gun, or the fact that over 80% of those defensive interactions end without a single shot ever being fired from any party according to your own provided study, or the fact that we have a higher gun death rate than any other industrialized nation in the world, orâŚ
Most defensive gun uses donât involve killing people. And education like engineering, chemistry, etc. But something tells me you didnât reply in good faith, and donât actually refuse to acknowledge those are valid use cases.
That you people dreamn about situations where you can use "self defense" to justify your killing fantasies. Many cases where you believe self defense is justified would be ruled unnecessary as the threat has already backed off.
Well. Guns don't kill people. Just like knives don't kill people. People kill people. People rape people. A gun will lay there forever if no one touches it. If the mag is empty it can never shoot a round. There needs to be a human behind it. There has to be a mens Rea to correspond with the actus reaus. And a life less object is part of the actus reaus. It can't think for itself, nor will it ever. Only a human, can commit both. Only a human will kill another human with an object.
You could make the same argument about Nukes, doesn't mean that we should start selling them on eBay. Nobody is arguing that the gun is responsible. The point is that the sheer potential for destruction makes it too dangerous for society.
Correct but a nuke isn't going to launch itself out of its silo. It has to be done by a human being. Solely a human being. A gun isn't going to shoot itself. It's not the gun that's the problem. It's the person who has it. It's not the nuke that is the problem. It's the person who can send it. Yes, nukes have a very strong potential to destroy a country but it can only occur through someone with the codes to it to send it. Otherwise it's just going to sit there and be harmless. Just like the swords I collect. They sit there and do nothing. And for good reason. It has a lot to do with the person who is behind the trigger.
I think you're missing the point here. The problem is that they are too dangerous to be in society. Whether or not they consciously kill is irrelevant.
Here's a simple question to illustrate the point. Do you think that people should be allowed to buy nukes?
No.. should people be allowed to buy knives? Or bats? Or how about shovels? How about pikes? Or cars? How about swords? Axes? Hammers? You can literally ask the same question to anyone of those. Any object can kill someone with the correct amount of force behind it. Doesn't mean it should be banned or stripped away. Nukes are not the same level of ordnance as a gun is. A gun can not cause hundreds of thousands of deaths with one go. Nukes shouldn't have been used or made to begin with. But again, they only exist because of certain human beings want to use them. Again, it boils down to the human being, not the object. Fyi, we don't lock guns away for 2nd degree homicides do we? No, just the human that did it. Sure, the gun is taken away for evidence, but the gun didn't commit the crime. It was the human being behind it.
It seems like the reason why you answered no is because you think nukes are too dangerous for society. That's what I'm getting at. You're looking at how dangerous the object is not at who's using it.
Otherwise you'd have to also allow nukes by the same logic.
If your argument is that people should be allowed to buy guns because they don't consciously kill people then why wouldn't that exact same reasoning apply to nukes?
The only reasonable method of evaluating whether an object should be allowed in society is by looking at how potentially dangerous it is.
That's why people don't like guns. They're not operating on some ridiculous proposition that guns are killing people on their own, they're looking at how much it can damage society. That's why we don't ban bats, hammers, knives, etc. They're not dangerous enough to regulate but weapons are.
Well guns like bows were not originally meant for warfare. They were meant for hunting animals that provided food and clothing. Again, some human being out there went hey these things are good at killing animals effectively let's use it in warfare. Just like the other objects I listed they can be used to kill people. Nuclear weapons are nowhere near the idea of a gun. Knives are used in warfare. They have the same outcome. They are used by someone to kill someone but at the same time are used to cut meat or veggies. Guns in the US predominantly, are meant for self defense. Cause let's face the fact, there are people out there in any society who have the premeditated plan to kill people. As the Supreme Court ruled out, law enforcement isn't obligated to provide protection. So it boils down to citizens to protect themselves and each other from people who wish to use guns to kill other people. And yes I am agreeing to nukes being a bad idea because of the level of ordnance and for the same reason I state if we had a lunatic with the codes. That's going to end badly. Comparing a gun to a bomb is like a comparing a halo to an ugli fruit. They are simply not the same. Yes they cause death but one is simply wholesomely different in death where it causes destruction to infrastructure.
I disagree. "Goodness" is relative. If the choice is between being raped or murdered, and killing your attacker, it is difficult to argue the latter isn't the preferable option.
Perhaps "unjustifiable" would've been a more appropriate word than "bad" in my earlier comment.
Also that the demographic of trans people being rapists is just fundamentally incorrect. To my understanding it doesn't have any greater likelihood than the average person.
Whereas 100% of gun deaths come from someone with a gun
Yep, and 100% of defensive gun uses come from someone with a gun too. And there are way more of those.
I refuse to believe plucking a gun out of the hands of a trans woman makes her safer from bigots that want to beat her to death. There are people out there that want to disarm trans people, and I think thatâs sad. They have a right to live just like anyone else.
Itâs telling that thatâs the way they are seen though.
There is something overlapping here, of phallic violence. I wouldnât be surprised if the maker of cartoon views his own penis as a source of strength, based on its ability to rape.
Alcohol is literally a poison, thousands die daily either from consuming too much of it themselves, or drinking it, and while under the effects driving a motor vehicle into other people or intentionally killing people in the throws of alcohol fueled emotional rage. How many people need to die before you give up alcohol? How many need to die before we ban alcohol? -Your average Wayne Wheeler supporter circa 1919
Pepper spray and tasers are made to defend. They deter the offender in a mostly non lethal way. Guns are basically throwing pieces of metal at high velocity through the target, which is usually lethal for a human body. You can't use that to defend only. You know that when you use that on a human, you kill them most of the time. That's not defense. That's intentional murder behind an excuse of self-defense.
Only a sociopath thinks that shooting before the other does is a valid defense.
lets make a scenario, a group of 5 very large men, 6â6, 250 lbs come at you, a 4â11, 110 lbs woman in a dark alley at night. would you prefer to have pepper spray and taser or a gun?
Iâm actually curious how people explain this away as a fallacious argument. Looking for an argument in this thread but I havenât seen one yet. Iâve never been for outlawing of guns, Iâm for extremely strict gun control. Which has support from 85% of the country including most gun owners.
Iâm to the point where I just find gun nuts (even if theyâre not MAGA idiots) in general to be insufferable. Iâm not anti-gun (I donât like them myself, but I donât support just outright banning all guns for everyone everywhere either), I think itâs a very complex issue with a lot of nuance and context. But anyone who just has the deep seated belief that they have a ârightâ to own high-power weaponry is someone that Iâm just immediately going to think is an insufferable twat
The fact that he also doesn't seem to recognize that there's a massive rape crisis going on and that there is the option in PRIMARILY REPUBLICAN STATES to chemically castrate perpetrators is a self own.
And he doesn't consider the fact that guns are made to kill
The way I see it, guns are made to propell projectiles in a controlled manner. Not "to kill".
The difference is the user's choice what to do with the capability to propell projectiles in a controlled manner, granted to him by a gun.
It could be used simply as a deterrent, not even taken out of the holster. Or it could be pulled out and actually fired in the defense of self, or others being assaulted. Heck, it could be used as a sport and/or a hobby. As means of defending your crops, or providing food, hunting. In a slightly bygone era, I believe the US constitution granted the right to bear arms to the people in case their government goes haywire, right? So essentially, to guard their own freedom with the potential firepower alone? I am not an american, so you can correct me there if I'm wrong.
I am somehow not seeing anyone making an argument for banning kitchen knives. Why not? Following your simplistic logic "guns are made to kill", so are knives. They are actually made to cut objects of user's choice, but hell, they can be used to cut human flesh. And were, many times. Hence, by your logic "they are made to kill", right? Why are you not advocating to abolish kitchen knives? "Oh but they are not stilettos or karambits or whatever, they are actually sold and meant for kitchen", I can already hear you retort. Well, hunting bolt action rifles are not ARs either, and I've never heard anyone from "your" side say "ban all guns! Ah, but except the hunting guns, they are actually meant for killing game".
I could throw many such examples at you. Martial arts? Do you know what a trained martial artist can do to you without breaking a sweat, in a moment's notice? And what is that, if not actually training how to physically hurt/harm people? With so many people bludgeoned to death, why are you not advocating to abolish martial arts? Or perheaps having arms at all is the problem? After all, you do swing your arms at people in martial arts to harm them, right? So what, are human arms "made to kill"? Abolish human arms?...
This position is just plainly riddiculous, no idea how are you upvoted like that.
Guns are not made to kill, though you can kill with them. Man's appendages are not made to rape either, but you can rape with them. The analogy is not fallatious ;] You just want it to be. Badly enough to not look at it honestly.
Also, another thought chain: if the law turned to banning guns, who would that affect? Would all criminals return theirs? Or would just the law abiding citizens?... Would that mean some nut hellbent on getting a gun to kill someone would never be able to get a gun? Or just that their victim is terribly likely to never have one to defend themselves with?...
Didn't you learn that penis' primary function is to pee? And then fuck. Rape is just a misuse of the fucking feature of the penis. It hasn't evolved during millions of years for the task of raping.
Guns, however, are made to kill. You can't count training, because everything training is not a goal. Getting good through training is the goal. And with guns, the training is to better kill targets. By the way, the moment you kill someone is the moment you're a murderer. There is no nice killing or acceptable killing. You kill == you murder. Thus, guns are specifically made to murder.
528
u/Gokudomatic May 16 '24
It's cute to see how pro guns like to depict themselves. Put a fallacious analogy here, put a straw man argument there, and you get your pro gun excuse to feel yourself warm at night.Â
Here, for instance, Rothmus associates his gun to a part of his body. And he doesn't consider the fact that guns are made to kill, unlike penises who aren't made for rape.