Everybody knows that sane, law abiding citizens become mass murderers the moment they hold a gun in their hands.
Yes, limiting access to the tools of murder will decrease murders caused by those same tools, but it does nothing to eliminate the murderous intentions of those people.
If we truly care about people’s well being we should be doing both, reduce the risk of senseless shootings and massacres (gun control) and assist those with murderous intentions and other mental health issues who, believe it or not, are also victims of our sick culture and so-called societies.
It’s better for all concerned. The would-be murderers have the opportunity to reconsider and seek help before they’re in jail for life or killed by the police.
The Nice, France truck attack resulted in more deaths than someone shooting pseudo-automatic high capacity magazine rifles into a crowd of hundreds of people from an elevated position for like 30 minutes straight in Las Vegas
People in Europe can easily enact their murderous intentions, they just seem to not have them at anywhere near the same scale
The fact that a bag o’ guns enables one lone nutjob to carry out an attack comparable to a targeted attack from an organized terror group / government kind of proves the point that guns are in fact the problem.
It doesn’t exactly take an organized terror group to rent a truck and get one single pistol, anyone with the will to do it could have committed that attack
I would argue that gun control is more immediately actionable and greatly reduces the capability of the mentally disturbed to commit atrocities of such scale at such a common rate.
Long-term? Yes, access to mental health care and a culture that encourages receiving it will help immensely. But that takes time and will ultimately not save nearly as many people as gun control would. We need both, but gun control can happen today.
I’m not saying it will, I’m saying it CAN. If suddenly there were an armed militia of private liberal citizens who were protesting outside the capitol buildings and offices of enough pro-2nd amendment congresspeople, laws would be passed very quickly to make that not happen.
I would argue that it isn’t immediately actionable until we amend the constitution. Gun control is being stricken down all over the place, and honestly that’s an appropriate application of the foundational document. If you want real gun control, that is the high bar you need to cross.
If fires are happening because of so much gas around, and matches that people are lighting, you limit the amount of matches AND the amount of gasoline.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
You also can’t make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it’s not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
I understand your point, but everytime I see someone pointing at mental issues, it just seems to be like they will point at anything except the guns. We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved and they are killing childrens with knives instead of bullets.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
No, the same group of people fights against BOTH the solutions.
Reagan is responsible for gutting our mental health infrastructure, and Republicans vote against increasing funding consistently.
They won’t support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won’t support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
What if I want to hunt so I can eat meat without supporting factory farming?
Just playing devils advocate here, I agree we need gun control in the US. But saying “fuck responsible gun owners” seems pretty black and white.
It seems to me that the media loves to latch onto gun stories to further polarize the US. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. Republicans don’t want anyone thinking. They want emotional reactivity and sensationalized, impulsive retorts with lack of reasoning from both “sides” and nothing close to nuanced thought.
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn’t say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn’t take. That’s what I mean about the impulsive responses.
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn’t say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn’t take. That’s what I mean about the impulsive responses.
You asked a question that is very easily answered by looking at any other country. Which is why I referred to any other country.
Nothing about that is an attack lol
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
Take Germany’s laws for example.
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
Yes, in a model similar to Germany. Which means you can only purchase weapons made for hunting, you need to be a trained and licensed hunter, your weapons needed to be unloaded and locked away any time you aren’t hunting, no every day carry, etc.
I am one of these people who think the only meat you should eat is hunted by yourself. Not just because of the animal rights violations in the farming industry but also because birthing something to eat it is immoral in my eyes and I feel there’s a weight that comes with killing something. I don’t count hunting with a gun as hunting, its simply unfair, there’s no challenge and the animal doesn’t have a chance. If you can’t make it yourself in nature, you shouldn’t use it. I’m okay with bringing knives n all but I personally prefer to make them myself.
I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don’t deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.
That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it’s a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that’s the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.
I guess people really can’t have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don’t think that’s really a viable solution, it’s also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.
Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don’t see where the “snowflake” remark comes in. It’s a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a “hobby”. And saying “fuck all everyone who does X” is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You’re using the “attacking someone’s character” fallacy.
Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they’re just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who’s capable of renting them out?
My point is it’s a complex issue, and anyone who says it’s so easily solved by doing “this one thing” isn’t considering every angle.
The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).
You can’t kill a crowd of people with a bow.
The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn’t fit to use it doesn’t get to. The difference is it’s not sitting in someone’s closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you’re in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won’t rent it to you.
You aren’t getting real responses because we’ve heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn’t know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.
So no, it’s not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help?
Yes, several times. Even this meme implies that arguing for more and better mental health services as a solution to massacres is foolishly wrong. Also, another reply I got here says:
Nah, we don’t very much need to worry about the murderous intentions, as long as they’re not able to put them into action.
You also can’t make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it’s not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
I think you are a bit confused about what I’m suggesting here, or I’m not understanding what you mean with this.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved
You think banning guns is the easy part? History has shown us time and time again that prohibitions don’t work. Even if possession of a single firearm was punished with death people would still own and trade them as it happens with drugs in places where its punished with death.
Gun control or even prohibition is like a small umbrella under heavy rain, you dont get drenched but you still get wet. We need a raincoat, a hat and rubber boots.
To be fair, better metal health services is not an absolute solution either, there are plenty more stuff we should improve in order to achieve a real solution.
Lol, guns aren’t an addicting substance thats consumed, you can’t make guns easily with veggies and a vat. It isn’t comparable to alcohol or the prohibition.
And again, it becomes clear that anyone arguing for other solutions just wants to keep their guns, they don’t actually care about the situation or how it’s affecting people.
Get a better hobby than aiming a stick at paper targets. It’s menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? There is a small group of us. Also gun owners who need to have them for their job as police, security, or soldiers? Farmers and Hunters have legitimate reasons, too. The government are never going to give up guns. Neither will criminals. The cat is out of the bag on them. We will never be done with guns until a better alternative is developed like the phasers from Star Trek or something. So saying fuck people for just owning a gun is a bit shortsighted, at least in my opinion.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I’m over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN. I don’t give a fuck if you want to keep your happy fun times playing with dangerous weapons as if they were toys. Grow up, this is bigger than your hobby.
It’s crazy how many activities are available to us in this modern age that don’t involve potential death.
Obviously, I’m not talking about police or the army. I don’t care about farmers and hunters, they can learn to trap it, bow it or fish it.
How many innocent people are you willing to cut down so you can have your fun. Put a number on it. Less than 100 school children per year and we get to keep our guns? Sounds gross doesn’t it?
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I’m over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN.
People need kidneys, it’s sad but decreed
yet this Senator’s hoarding one more than she needs
I offer this bill and I hope you’ll vote “aye”
Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Traffic deaths have many crying with fear
Over 30,000 people are dying each year
this modest change I propose must be applied
Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Alcohol deaths are exceeding comparisons
Black people, white people, Native Americans
We need to ban alcohol, it can’t be denied
Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Murders are bad. They have no defenders
yet many are committed by repeat offenders
I say lifetime in prison, whatever the crime
unless, of course, you want PEOPLE TO DIE!
These car deaths I mentioned are terrible stuff
It just doesn’t seem that one seatbelt’s enough
Either vote for my act so that fewer will cry
Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
The carbs. The container. We cannot ignore
Whipped cream’s killing more people than ever before
This bill would be passed and be ratified
if those people there didn’t want PEOPLE TO DIE!
None of those things are remotely comparable to guns lol. Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
I don’t understand what the kidney one is about.
Cars are central to our society, it would collapse without it(although I’m completely for phasing them out). Their main use is transport, not killing people.
Everything else you mentioned only affects the person using it and killin isn’t their main use. My neighbor can’t kill me because he’s mad about his job and is eating too much whip cream.
Guns are made to kill. People are using it to kill innocent people. No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I’m clearly not talking about banning it for then). Go back to posting pictures.
Did you read my comment? I said I would vote for restrictions or bans. That means I would give up my gun. I am not the reason guns are so freely available in the US. Since that’s the way it is, I figured I’d face reality and learn how to use them. It’s not a hobby, I live in a place with a lot of gun crime. I would prefer if they weren’t so easy to get, but here we are. I’m going to continue to choose to live in objective reality here, and if/when restrictions or bans are actually feasible in this country I’ll be all for it.
You are naive if you think there is no legitimate hunting use for them. I don’t think you understand how important hunting is in certain parts of the US. It keeps the ecosystem from collapsing in more rural places.
I know it’s hard since you have built your personality around it and without guns, everyone becomes stridently aware how uninteresting you are but it’s necessary for society so deal with it.
Your snowflake feelings aren’t more important than innocent lives, loser
My feelings about it are irrelevant, and you have no idea about me except your strawman bad guy concept that you imagined. Ad hominem attacks are inherently weak.
I support all rights for all Americans, and will continue to do so perpetually. The US Supreme Court has confirmed the individual right to own firearms in triplicate, and the amendment that right is supported by will never be repealed since it requires 3/4 of the 50 US states to ratify. You can deal with that with your own feelings one way or another, which are also irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
Most gun owners live in a paranoid fantasy world with a hero complex. I’ve heard some wild shit come from the mouths of people who own guns. Many who do own them should have them taken away. It’s mostly brainwashing and less about mental disorders with these people.
Everybody knows that sane, law abiding citizens become mass murderers the moment they hold a gun in their hands.
Yes, limiting access to the tools of murder will decrease murders caused by those same tools, but it does nothing to eliminate the murderous intentions of those people.
If we truly care about people’s well being we should be doing both, reduce the risk of senseless shootings and massacres (gun control) and assist those with murderous intentions and other mental health issues who, believe it or not, are also victims of our sick culture and so-called societies.
Nah, we don’t very much need to worry about the murderous intentions, as long as they’re not able to put them into action.
That’s the problem, guns let people turn those intentions into actions very easily.
Fair enough, at least you are honest in your selfishness.
It’s better for all concerned. The would-be murderers have the opportunity to reconsider and seek help before they’re in jail for life or killed by the police.
The Nice, France truck attack resulted in more deaths than someone shooting pseudo-automatic high capacity magazine rifles into a crowd of hundreds of people from an elevated position for like 30 minutes straight in Las Vegas
People in Europe can easily enact their murderous intentions, they just seem to not have them at anywhere near the same scale
The fact that a bag o’ guns enables one lone nutjob to carry out an attack comparable to a targeted attack from an organized terror group / government kind of proves the point that guns are in fact the problem.
It doesn’t exactly take an organized terror group to rent a truck and get one single pistol, anyone with the will to do it could have committed that attack
Well whenever we have a massive problem with frequent mass killings involving trucks we can talk about truck control too.
I would argue that gun control is more immediately actionable and greatly reduces the capability of the mentally disturbed to commit atrocities of such scale at such a common rate.
Long-term? Yes, access to mental health care and a culture that encourages receiving it will help immensely. But that takes time and will ultimately not save nearly as many people as gun control would. We need both, but gun control can happen today.
deleted by creator
I’m not saying it will, I’m saying it CAN. If suddenly there were an armed militia of private liberal citizens who were protesting outside the capitol buildings and offices of enough pro-2nd amendment congresspeople, laws would be passed very quickly to make that not happen.
deleted by creator
Most of us don’t want to be murdered by the local police or CIA
deleted by creator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Assassination_and_targeted_killing
I would argue that it isn’t immediately actionable until we amend the constitution. Gun control is being stricken down all over the place, and honestly that’s an appropriate application of the foundational document. If you want real gun control, that is the high bar you need to cross.
Congress could absolutely amend the constitution and control access to guns faster than we could solve the mental health crisis.
If fires are happening because of so much gas around, and matches that people are lighting, you limit the amount of matches AND the amount of gasoline.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
You also can’t make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it’s not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
I understand your point, but everytime I see someone pointing at mental issues, it just seems to be like they will point at anything except the guns. We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved and they are killing childrens with knives instead of bullets.
No, the same group of people fights against BOTH the solutions.
Reagan is responsible for gutting our mental health infrastructure, and Republicans vote against increasing funding consistently.
They won’t support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won’t support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980
https://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
This last one is a ddg search - you can just pick which article you want to read about Republicans voting against mental health funding.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans+vote+against+mental+health+funding
What if I want to hunt so I can eat meat without supporting factory farming?
Just playing devils advocate here, I agree we need gun control in the US. But saying “fuck responsible gun owners” seems pretty black and white.
It seems to me that the media loves to latch onto gun stories to further polarize the US. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. Republicans don’t want anyone thinking. They want emotional reactivity and sensationalized, impulsive retorts with lack of reasoning from both “sides” and nothing close to nuanced thought.
Do you really think no one else in the world is hunting?
Copy any weapon possession law from another first world country and it’s already a great step in the right direction.
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn’t say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn’t take. That’s what I mean about the impulsive responses.
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
You asked a question that is very easily answered by looking at any other country. Which is why I referred to any other country.
Nothing about that is an attack lol
Take Germany’s laws for example.
Yes, in a model similar to Germany. Which means you can only purchase weapons made for hunting, you need to be a trained and licensed hunter, your weapons needed to be unloaded and locked away any time you aren’t hunting, no every day carry, etc.
I am one of these people who think the only meat you should eat is hunted by yourself. Not just because of the animal rights violations in the farming industry but also because birthing something to eat it is immoral in my eyes and I feel there’s a weight that comes with killing something. I don’t count hunting with a gun as hunting, its simply unfair, there’s no challenge and the animal doesn’t have a chance. If you can’t make it yourself in nature, you shouldn’t use it. I’m okay with bringing knives n all but I personally prefer to make them myself.
I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don’t deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.
That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it’s a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that’s the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.
I guess people really can’t have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don’t think that’s really a viable solution, it’s also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.
Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don’t see where the “snowflake” remark comes in. It’s a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a “hobby”. And saying “fuck all everyone who does X” is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You’re using the “attacking someone’s character” fallacy.
Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they’re just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who’s capable of renting them out?
My point is it’s a complex issue, and anyone who says it’s so easily solved by doing “this one thing” isn’t considering every angle.
The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).
You can’t kill a crowd of people with a bow.
The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn’t fit to use it doesn’t get to. The difference is it’s not sitting in someone’s closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you’re in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won’t rent it to you.
You aren’t getting real responses because we’ve heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn’t know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.
So no, it’s not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.
Yes, several times. Even this meme implies that arguing for more and better mental health services as a solution to massacres is foolishly wrong. Also, another reply I got here says:
I think you are a bit confused about what I’m suggesting here, or I’m not understanding what you mean with this.
You think banning guns is the easy part? History has shown us time and time again that prohibitions don’t work. Even if possession of a single firearm was punished with death people would still own and trade them as it happens with drugs in places where its punished with death.
Gun control or even prohibition is like a small umbrella under heavy rain, you dont get drenched but you still get wet. We need a raincoat, a hat and rubber boots.
To be fair, better metal health services is not an absolute solution either, there are plenty more stuff we should improve in order to achieve a real solution.
Lol, guns aren’t an addicting substance thats consumed, you can’t make guns easily with veggies and a vat. It isn’t comparable to alcohol or the prohibition.
And again, it becomes clear that anyone arguing for other solutions just wants to keep their guns, they don’t actually care about the situation or how it’s affecting people.
Get a better hobby than aiming a stick at paper targets. It’s menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.
false dichotomy
wrong
there’s a direct comparison.
Get a better hobby
It’s menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? There is a small group of us. Also gun owners who need to have them for their job as police, security, or soldiers? Farmers and Hunters have legitimate reasons, too. The government are never going to give up guns. Neither will criminals. The cat is out of the bag on them. We will never be done with guns until a better alternative is developed like the phasers from Star Trek or something. So saying fuck people for just owning a gun is a bit shortsighted, at least in my opinion.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I’m over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN. I don’t give a fuck if you want to keep your happy fun times playing with dangerous weapons as if they were toys. Grow up, this is bigger than your hobby.
It’s crazy how many activities are available to us in this modern age that don’t involve potential death.
Obviously, I’m not talking about police or the army. I don’t care about farmers and hunters, they can learn to trap it, bow it or fish it.
How many innocent people are you willing to cut down so you can have your fun. Put a number on it. Less than 100 school children per year and we get to keep our guns? Sounds gross doesn’t it?
People need kidneys, it’s sad but decreed yet this Senator’s hoarding one more than she needs I offer this bill and I hope you’ll vote “aye” Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Traffic deaths have many crying with fear Over 30,000 people are dying each year this modest change I propose must be applied Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Alcohol deaths are exceeding comparisons Black people, white people, Native Americans We need to ban alcohol, it can’t be denied Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Murders are bad. They have no defenders yet many are committed by repeat offenders I say lifetime in prison, whatever the crime unless, of course, you want PEOPLE TO DIE!
These car deaths I mentioned are terrible stuff It just doesn’t seem that one seatbelt’s enough Either vote for my act so that fewer will cry Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
The carbs. The container. We cannot ignore Whipped cream’s killing more people than ever before This bill would be passed and be ratified if those people there didn’t want PEOPLE TO DIE!
None of those things are remotely comparable to guns lol. Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
I don’t understand what the kidney one is about.
Cars are central to our society, it would collapse without it(although I’m completely for phasing them out). Their main use is transport, not killing people.
Everything else you mentioned only affects the person using it and killin isn’t their main use. My neighbor can’t kill me because he’s mad about his job and is eating too much whip cream.
Guns are made to kill. People are using it to kill innocent people. No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I’m clearly not talking about banning it for then). Go back to posting pictures.
name a profession you think needs a gun more than the working people need guns, please.
That’s easy since working people don’t need guns.
Infantryman, swat, police(but the UK policemen don’t have them so probably not after a few years of a gunless society), ice cream truck driver
they do if a landlord tries to evict them or the pinkertons try to break their strike.
fucking liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU&pp=ygUVbG92ZSBtZSBpJ20gYSBsaWJlcmFs
Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
Are you okay there buddy?
Did you read my comment? I said I would vote for restrictions or bans. That means I would give up my gun. I am not the reason guns are so freely available in the US. Since that’s the way it is, I figured I’d face reality and learn how to use them. It’s not a hobby, I live in a place with a lot of gun crime. I would prefer if they weren’t so easy to get, but here we are. I’m going to continue to choose to live in objective reality here, and if/when restrictions or bans are actually feasible in this country I’ll be all for it.
You are naive if you think there is no legitimate hunting use for them. I don’t think you understand how important hunting is in certain parts of the US. It keeps the ecosystem from collapsing in more rural places.
Username checks out
Nope, fuck you. We will not ban guns, and there is nothing you can ever do about it. Our gun rights are set in stone.
I know it’s hard since you have built your personality around it and without guns, everyone becomes stridently aware how uninteresting you are but it’s necessary for society so deal with it.
Your snowflake feelings aren’t more important than innocent lives, loser
My feelings about it are irrelevant, and you have no idea about me except your strawman bad guy concept that you imagined. Ad hominem attacks are inherently weak.
I support all rights for all Americans, and will continue to do so perpetually. The US Supreme Court has confirmed the individual right to own firearms in triplicate, and the amendment that right is supported by will never be repealed since it requires 3/4 of the 50 US states to ratify. You can deal with that with your own feelings one way or another, which are also irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
You support all rights except the one to feel safe in public places.
The supreme Court is busy dismantling abortion rights, they are obviously not a beacon of sanity and justice.
Believe what you want but your little hard-on for gunpowder is costing innocent lives.
Also, get off your high horse. You started your reply literally with a fuck you, it’s a bit late to cry about me calling you a snowflake lol
Nope, you don’t get to speak for me. I alone represent myself and I have done so with my former statements of fact.
I will remain on this high horse because it was YOU who started with “Fuck You” to all gun owners. I responded proportionally.
Regardless of who started, it makes you a hypocrite to try to call me out on it when you exhibit the same behavior. That’s more my point.
Also, it’s not a good thing to stay on a high horse. The expression means you are being arrogant and snoby but you do you.
deleted by creator
Most gun owners live in a paranoid fantasy world with a hero complex. I’ve heard some wild shit come from the mouths of people who own guns. Many who do own them should have them taken away. It’s mostly brainwashing and less about mental disorders with these people.