• Cethin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    134 months ago

    I agree with all of these things, except affordability shouldn’t be the issue. It should be subsidized for poorer people. I don’t want only the wealthy to be well armed.

    • @RememberTheApollo_
      link
      -8
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’ve heard the “wealthy people” argument many times. Like I said, if you can afford the guns you can afford the ability to secure them. Failure to secure guns is what gets people killed, either because of accidental shootings, theft, or the guns being taken without permission. I’m not interested in debating poverty and gun ownership if the lack of ability to pay for insurance or a safe means someone else has to pay with their life. We’re already there and it’s already a massive problem. It’s why this discussion is even happening.

      E: this is the most ‘Murica thing I’ve ever heard. Guns are a fucking problem, people have proven they can’t be responsible for them, and here we have people suggesting we use public money to distribute them for free or at little cost. Yeah, the answer is MORE guns. Tf is wrong with people.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Like I said, subsidize it for poorer people (including the gun). We subsidize all kinds of things to ensure poorer people can still do things they should be allowed to do but can’t afford at the same level. If we managed to get as far as what you want, it’d be fairly trivial to add a gun/ammo tax or something that is used to offset the costs for poorer people. I’m agreeing with your concept, but ensuring only the wealthy can be armed is a horrible idea.

      • Liz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        It’s trivially easy to put a gun behind a lock. Licensing, registration, and insurance is a cost that can become arbitrarily large.