| It's still moralist pearl-clutching in service of totalitarian horseshit no matter how you'd like to justify it. I don't even think you're strictly 100% incorrect here. That said, I refuse to entertain the "think of the children" horseshit when parents happily park their kid in front of an iPad for hours a day because it shuts them up, not with kink content they shouldn't see, but with AI/algorithmically generated garbage, or for that matter, human generated garbage, that rots their brains far more than any gimp costume ever could. For fucks sake, 12 kids in America die PER DAY due to mass shootings, and we can't even pass common sense gun regulations that the vast majority of gun owners are completely fine with. We don't give a fuck about our kids here. This has from jump, and continues to be, astro-turfed puritan whining not merely to pornography of whatever preferred kind of the moment, but to the existence of queer people as a whole. It IS parents' fucking responsibility, and maybe that is an onerous burden, but instead of even attempting to meet it, the majority of parents have abdicated it. And it isn't porn fucking their kids up, it's non-stop screen exposure leaving them with no attention span and no ability to simply BE BORED. |
| |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What's it matter if shooting victims are gang members or just too poor/unlucky to live somewhere with sane gun control? Dead kids are dead kids. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, gang members go out looking for trouble, for one thing. For another, they would just as well use knives, bats, chains, hatchets, or any other terrible implement to commit crime. Banning guns just makes it difficult or impossible for non-gang members to defend themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fucking AI summaries. Correct you are, 12-per-day is the combo shot of all gun deaths in children in totality, which includes much more banal things like unsecured firearms in the home. That being said, my point remains: the #1 threat to children in this country is guns, wielded by classmates, road-ragers, gang members, or stored improperly. We still have no meaningful gun regulation in huge areas, and no public will to see it done. And this kind of insipid bullshit is what we're doing instead. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws. Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons. It also doesn't work. The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws. Highly populated areas tend to be Democrat-run. People commit crimes so places with more people = more crimes. More gun crimes cause people to push for more gun laws. Gun laws limited to cities (or even states) have limited impact when it's trivial to get guns from neighboring areas without those laws. Gun laws with limited impact can still be helpful. It's not as if we don't know for a fact that legislation works (since it works for many many other counties) but a patchwork system of laws that only applies to some areas and not others is bound to perform worse than federal systems. Even federal systems need to be smart and actually managed and enforced correctly to work well. > Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons. Disarming people is an acceptable solution for many reasons. We already do it to all kinds of people in many circumstances. It's just a question of when/how much is appropriate for which circumstances. > The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding. Only if you're a gun/ammo manufacturer. Real world evidence has shown over and over that the best solution is laws placing legal regulations on firearms. We can point to nation after nation whose gun problems are drastically lower than ours because of the laws they enacted. On the other hand, there exists only fantasy world evidence that giving every man woman and child a gun would solve the problem. Arguably it's already been tried in the US and the result was complete failure. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-] | | >Highly populated areas tend to be Democrat-run. People commit crimes so places with more people = more crimes. More gun crimes cause people to push for more gun laws. Are you suggesting that there are no red cities? The only sense in which this is true is that more laws = more crimes lol. >It's not as if we don't know for a fact that legislation works (since it works for many many other counties) but a patchwork system of laws that only applies to some areas and not others is bound to perform worse than federal systems. Even federal systems need to be smart and actually managed and enforced correctly to work well. The federal gun laws are dumb and unconstitutional. I could be on board with disarming children, violent criminals, and nutcases. Anyone else should be able to own a gun if they want to, through a convenient process. That is to say, the current federal laws are at the limit of where I want them to be, if not beyond. I don't care about other countries. They let themselves be disarmed, and they will ultimately suffer tyranny as a result. >On the other hand, there exists only fantasy world evidence that giving every man woman and child a gun would solve the problem. Arguably it's already been tried in the US and the result was complete failure. It's a fact that guns curb certain kinds of crime. The mere possibility that a thug might not survive an encounter with granny means he will think long and hard before making a move on her. The fact that normal people might lose their shit keeps politicians in line. Give up your rights, and evil will follow. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > They let themselves be disarmed, and they will ultimately suffer tyranny as a result. There's plenty of tyranny in the USA today and guns have done nothing to stop it. There are countless videos on youtube right now of government tyranny in America, how many videos have you seen of tyranny by the State being stopped because someone pulled out a gun or opened fire?
I'm not saying that rhetorically, if you've got a bunch of youtube videos of people shooting police or politicians engaged in tyranny which successfully stopped that tyranny from taking place please respond with links. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing them. > The mere possibility that a thug might not survive an encounter with granny means he will think long and hard This is demonstrably false. Everywhere in the US there is a possibility that grannies can have a gun, but nowhere, even the places where there is concealed carry and a large number of gun owners, has crime been stopped as a result. Muggings still happen. Beatings still happen. Rapes still happen. Thugs don't "think long and hard" period. Guns don't make a difference. Gang members in particular aren't scared of guns. They have guns too. They've been shot, or been shot at, many times. They've watched their friends be killed by gunfire. None of that stops them. > The fact that normal people might lose their shit keeps politicians in line. Where do you live where your politicians are kept in line at all, or by anything except maybe fear of not being reelected? Again, there are countless examples of politicians out of line all over this country. The number of guns/gun owners has zero impact on government corruption. It's everywhere. > Give up your rights, and evil will follow. I, like most Americans, don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but like with all of our rights, there are reasonable restrictions and limits that can be placed on it which would still allow people to defend their homes and hunt and shoot while still bringing gun deaths closer to what we see in other counties. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-] | | >There's plenty of tyranny in the USA today and guns have done nothing to stop it. Guns stop crime which is a form of tyranny. As for government tyranny, you are not going to be able to fight a heavily armed tyrant without guns. We didn't win independence from the British via debate. Guns are a factor in reigning in deranged politicians. That is why they want to disarm everyone. >This is demonstrably false. Everywhere in the US there is a possibility that grannies can have a gun, but nowhere, even the places where there is concealed carry and a large number of gun owners, has crime been stopped as a result. Crime has been reduced by gun ownership. >Thugs don't "think long and hard" period. Guns don't make a difference. Gang members in particular aren't scared of guns. They have guns too. They've been shot, or been shot at, many times. They've watched their friends be killed by gunfire. None of that stops them. They do fear guns. They have guns because they are effective for self-defense, even for criminals. Hard-boiled criminals fear guns. Even if you find some that are so calloused and/or stupid that they don't fear guns, the guns will protect you from those criminals anyway. The gun does not care what its target thinks of it. >Where do you live where your politicians are kept in line at all, or by anything except maybe fear of not being reelected? Like I said, it is a factor. The people who want to take our guns are heavily guarded by men with guns. Take the hint. >I, like most Americans, don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but like with all of our rights, there are reasonable restrictions and limits that can be placed on it which would still allow people to defend their homes and hunt and shoot while still bringing gun deaths closer to what we see in other counties. We already have background checks on every legal gun purchase and extra unconstitutional laws restricting many types of firearms. There is a de-facto and illegal national gun registry. For all the benefits we get from government, it remains the biggest domestic menace to all of us and we must take steps to not allow ourselves to be defenseless against the state. How do you think genocides happen? The second amendment is not for hunting, or for warding off low-level thugs, though it might be useful for those purposes. It is there to give normal people a real chance to reign in evil in government. A standing professional army would not win against a well-armed majority standing up for their own rights. Even if they did win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. |
| |
| ▲ | exasperaited a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's a fact that guns curb certain kinds of crime. It's not. |
|
| |
| ▲ | exasperaited 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas The most full stop, yes. But that's not surprising, is it? Since densely populated places disproportionately vote blue. But not the most per capita: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116676/documents/... https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/04/28/red-s... | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-] | | I haven't read that but "gun death rate" is not the same as "gun crime rate"... Of course I expect guns to be used more in areas where they are available. Many legitimate self-defense cases are imperfect as well, and technically count as crime for BS reasons. Gun suicide rates probably would be higher with more guns owned by the public. In summary, I don't think you are right and I would still support broad gun ownership rights even if you were correct about per capita. I am more worried about the public not having guns than having guns. | | |
| ▲ | exasperaited a day ago | parent [-] | | OK. There isn't any arguing with anyone who doesn't have a problem with the idea that someone else's right not to be murdered is less important than their unlimited gun ownership rights, which is the only conclusion I can draw from what you are saying. So I will leave you to the hell of your own making, I guess. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-] | | Guns prevent murder. There's not much you can do besides using a gun to defend yourself against physically superior individuals or groups of people. Banning guns does not prevent murder, it just changes the methods. If you are worried about being murdered, you should probably get a gun lol. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kmeisthax 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://xkcd.com/1138/ |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | autoexec 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > 12 deaths per day is VERY low Assuming that the number is real, 12 children dying every day from guns is the opposite of VERY low. It's insane. What is your limit? How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to? Unlike how most Americans want something done about guns, they don't want to be tracked. There is a lot of opposition to it once people are made aware of the issue. Censorship is pretty unpopular too, although while the majority tends to oppose it, it's far more popular with people in the US than is should be. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-] | | >How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to? There are already plenty of gun laws. "Most Americans" are only in favor of more laws to the extent they don't understand what is already in place, except for those that want a blanket ban on guns. There are many millions of legal gun owners in the US, and you should be thankful for that. Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real. How many bodies are worth our freedom? Millions die in wars, for far worse reasons than a few hundred as a natural consequence of being free. It is very hard to quantify the benefits of owning a gun because only crimes are reported. Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick. They might not be able to do it so quick, but a deranged person can go John Wick on your ass with a sharpened pencil. If you walk alone without a gun, you also have no way to defend yourself against a gang of several thugs. But with a gun, even grandma has a fighting chance of escaping nearly any crime. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec a day ago | parent [-] | | > Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real. If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you because it's "just a rounding error" or because "You'd save more lives telling kids to tie their shoes than by stopping me"? Any number of children I threw into that woodchipper would be an unacceptable number of children and of course actions should be taken to stop or at the very least reduce those deaths. It's no different with gun deaths. > Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick. Once again, the facts don't support your argument. We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters. It's obvious why that is, you even said it yourself: Sharpened pencils and bricks are slow and far less effective at killing than guns. There's a reason why the militaries of the world arm their troops with guns and not just bricks and knives. People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns. Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 a day ago | parent [-] | | >If I told you that I kidnapped 12 kids every single day and fed them into a woodchipper would that be acceptable to you In all aspects of life, risk is involved. Would you ban cars because some children are hurt by them? Would you ban playground equipment on those grounds? Keep kids in cages because they might get kidnapped if they go to the corner store? I can't put an exact number on it, but the potential victimhood of children and others does not invalidate our basic rights to self-governance and self-defense. Even if you could ascribe violence to guns solely (you can't really) there are many benefits to keeping the right to own guns. If safety comes at the cost of freedom, it's not worth it. >We know that mass-stabbers don't kill as many people as mass-shooters. The stats on such things are unreliable. Many gang shootings are registered as mass shootings. >People with bricks and sharpened pencils (which become very hard to hold on to while covered in blood by the way) are far easier to disarm safely. It is much much harder to kill with those everyday objects than with guns. When it comes to murder, all of these methods are effective. Guns may be the worst because they draw attention. On the other hand, would-be victims are much safer when armed. >Obviously psychopaths will still find ways of killing people. Keeping the most deadly weapons out of their hands, or making it more difficult for them to get those weapons will reduce the number of deaths they can inflict on us which is something everyone should want. Again, we have laws that require background checks for buying guns. I'm in favor of that, or at least not strongly opposed. But I do not in any way support banning guns for ordinary law-abiding citizens. |
|
|
|
|
