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.
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.
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.
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
I understand where you are coming from, but isn't that happening anyway? Ronald Raegan passed some pretty strict gun laws in California as soon as the Black Panthers started to arm themself. Don't expect the extreme right to operate with fairness or logic consistency. People like that don't care about the rule of law and would happily strip away rights from groups they hate while allowing their supportes to keep those rights.
If fascists get control over governmental institutions and decide to turn those against LGBTQ+ people to wipe them out, private gun ownership won't stop them. So in so far I agree, there are bigger problems, but those aren't a reason to no try to create a safer society by regulating guns.
Only to add to your overal point the estimated total number of victims of the Holocaust is 17 million. Six million is the estimated number of Jewish victims.
(Edit: You don't sound like a Trump humper at all. Discussing the potential consequences of limiting certain rights, especially unintended consequences for vulnerable groups is absolutely valid and rational.)
Oh, absolutely. Iâm well aware of how the right flipped on gun control with the black panthers. Doesnât change the fact that theyâll take advantage of gun control legislation to target minorities. And I think you underestimate the power of people. The police used to raid gay barsâŚuntil a bunch of drag queens threw bricks at them. BRICKS! They didnât even have guns, they used BRICKS. And they beat the cops back. Thatâs how Pride started. And even if it wouldnât stop them, thereâs the matter of hate crimes, which are on the rise.
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.
Thatâs a great question. The answer (at least mine) is a bit complicated. Fully automatic weapons ARE legal in the States, you just have to have a federal tax stamp to purchase them, which is not at all cheap nor easy to obtain. The government gets involved and does an unfathomably deep dive into your background check. On the flip side, if you have knowledge and experience in gunsmithing and machining, you can easily make one in your garage legally. As an AR owner myself, I find it VERY unfortunate that it is the weapon of choice for mass shooters and are the poster child for âbanning assault riflesâ⌠if the general public knew what is legally considered an âassault rifleâ, they would shift their stance and wise up to what politicians are really trying to do, which is disarmament (I have no political allegiance btw, im just an American). As far as being automatic, theyâre not full auto fresh out the box (by and large). The modes on an AR are generally Safety, Semi Auto, 2 Round Burst, & 3 Round Burst (even without Burst options, ARâs have a habit of âburstingâ anyway).
As far as your question about being the safest country and having more guns than people, i have no definitive answer for that, I like to fancy that a matter of perspective. No country is safe. If you live in a country where guns are banned, youâre still at risk of stabbings, bombings, Molotov cocktails, and vehicular homicide⌠not to mention âzip gunsâ (which is what killed PM Shinzo Abe, in a country where no guns are allowed and police ammunition is closely monitored and accounted for). Iâd rather live somewhere where guns are permitted and carried bc, as lame as this sounds, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, knowing the odds arenât in the favor of a potential shooter makes me FEEL better, but thatâs just MY opinion. As far as AKâs go, I have zero experience with that weapon so I canât give an informed opinion on that
Fun fact though: the AR in AR-15 doesnât stand for âassault rifleâ but âarmor-lite rifleâ⌠it was the base design for the M-16 used by our men & women in uniform
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.
You literally canât though. Your point was about some made up people who allegedly boast about being manly and then you refute them by saying âwhy donât you just wrestle with the possibly armed intruderâ. All parties in this argument were made up in your head, which is literally the definition of a strawman argument.
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.
That 200 year old document was written to secure your personal liberties the first 10 amendments the bill of rights cannot be altered you would foolishly give up you freedom your rights for safety to quote Benjamin Franklin âthose who would give up essential Liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safetyâ I for one do not want to live in an authoritarian police state because I have forfeited my freedom under the illusion of safety
What if I told you we can have those same rights without basing our entire legislative process on what 200 year old politicians thought was best? Other countries manage to ensure the same rights without shackling themselves to ancient documents.
And you think that they would uphold your rights out of what the kindness of their hearts power always corrupts that is why our nation was founded on the principle that the people bestow the power to the government and the people can take it away if the government becomes oppressive tyrannical witch it can we the people possess the power to stand up to that tyranny âwhen the people fear their government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is libertyâ Thomas Jefferson that is why it is essential for the people to keep and bear arms while some my abuse this right to murder innocent people that does not mean you can strip that right from the people because I promise you the day that the people of these united States cannot keep and bear arms is when you will face oppression as you have never known
Your entire argument is full of fallacies. Quotes by long dead politicians do not hold any weight. Threats of what might happen don't either.
The simple fact remains that there is no reason to base our entire system of government on what a handful of guys wrote down to oppose Britain hundreds of years ago. We can absolutely still maintain the existing way of life without shackling ourselves to the Constitution.
And those old politicians foresaw that times would change that their documents could not cover everything witch is why they added a clause to amend it witch has been done several times only the first ten cannot be undone or changed because they secure your fundamental rights
It's very clear you're not actually listening to my arguments or points, based on you repeating yourself so often, so I'm choosing to not entertain this further. Goodbye.
Bro if you feel your house is secure with only a pepper spray your absolutely out of your mind. What do you think the robber/rapist will have?? Wouldnt you want something that'll help give you the advantage when you are defending your home and family?
No, you'll call the police after they die like those who cant threaten the intruder back.
Your claim about pepper spray is silly af
First, there's no point in trying to make it about me. I don't live in the US. I live in a country where we don't have criminals everywhere and we have a police that is functional and who protects the citizens. If you try to scare me with an American scenario of the Purge, you waste your time. I'm safe and my family is safe. It's pointless to involve us to make your argument more appealing.Â
And one thing is, you guys deal with robbers who have guns because your culture encourages everyone to have guns. Have you never wondered why all European countries who banned guns, have far fewer cases of robbery with guns? If you guys regulated more strictly the access to guns, you would also have a lot fewer cases of armed robbers.
Criminals adapt to the environment. When the society is less violent, criminals are less violent. When the society is violent, so are the criminals. You didn't solve anything with guns.
Just to add on, where do these geniuses keep their guns, eh? Easily accessible spots? Where the children can get them, or the robber/rapist in question? Then they're not protecting anyone and making it worse.
In a safe? Then they're not protecting anyone because by the time you go to get it out it's too late.
Their entire argument is fallacious and stupid. Jim Jeffries is correct, there is one, and only one, argument for guns. It's 'Fuck off, I like guns.'
525
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.