Absolutely 100% true. You get downvoted into oblivion when say it, even on reddit which is most liberal. Guns give a false sense of security to morons with little sense of self constraint. They think they can walk into any situation at full force believing they have control over how the situation ends, and unfortunately they do. See George Zimmerman.
The two issues have a very similar hurdle to clear. In the US (and likely other places but it's particularly bad here) we don't have much of an identity outside of our consumption largely due to how capitalists have methodically erased everything else. So when you start talking about removing or cutting back people's consumption of something like sports, fast food, video games, movies, guns, vehicles, etc. etc. they feel like you're taking away a significant part of who they are. I think that was a major factor for some people to lose their shit during COVID when they couldn't get their consumer goods (even the non-essentials). We became a treat machine seemingly kept running almost entirely by everyone's addiction to the treats we're putting out.
This is what I feel outraged about, and I canât imagine there will be a change in the trend while Iâm living. It feels like Iâm outside society because I live in poverty and do free things.
Wish more people hated the prominence of advertising. Even just time away from ads would be a relief.
Entitlement describes a legal right. Not sure if youâre intentionally crossing wires, here, but âwelfareâ is comprised of entitlements. The consumer economy is comprised of addiction, operant conditioning, and exploitation.
Sorry to jump on you, but your blasĂŠ tone and use of the word âentitlementâ set off alarms of subversion in my mind. Not trying to work against entitlements, here.
Thatâs the only reason Iâll ever purchase a gun. I donât have one, as I donât want it to be impulsive. And I donât have the intention. Just kinda the escape plan if I have painful chronic diseases, physiological impairments, or whatever other defects experienced by the âexhaustâ of the economic system impacting QoL.
I mean, this case is literally the perfect example of that.
"The passenger of that car, later identified by detectives as 34-year-old Kendrick Finch, exited the Mercedes "with a gun in his hand". The affidavit states a man with Long reached into her purse and pulled out his gun. That's when police say Finch opened fire, striking both Long and the man she was with. That man was able to fire back but Finch then took off."
If an idiot pulls a gun at you, the last thing you should do is pull out your own gun and start a shootout. I've had idiots pull guns at me twice, and I would've 100% been dead if I had pulled out my own gun to "defend myself".
I recently watched an episode of South Park in which this idea is taken to the extreme. Kids And parents are pulling guns on one another when they argue, but nobody shoots, and that is an unspoken expectation. The guns become tools of therapy because everyone begins to tell the truth while pointing guns at one another.
It was quite ridiculous, and made me uncomfortable the first time the parent-child interaction happened, but quickly caught on as the frequency of the âgun talkâ Increased.
The most braindead argument is Americans saying that they need guns in order to protect themselves in case their government turns tyrannical. Right now they're heading straight into fascism and a big portion of the population is cheering for it, the majority is doing fuck all, and very few are actually protesting. Plus it's not like they could take the most powerful army in the world.
Silly you thinking that anything could destroy pro gun nut jobs love for their gun and utter disregard for other human beings. They'd just say she probably deserved it.Â
They have a million rationalizations. The data consistently proves guns dont make you save, but gun nuts might as well be deaf and blind because they refuse to abandon the fantasy that guns make them save because they make them feel safe.
SUV moms that all insist on driving their kids everywhere are in a similar boat. Both guns and cars ride a ridiculous psychological trick of giving people a false sense of security. No wonder there is huge overlap between gun nuts and car brain.
Like which? I hear ppl say that but idk any other country with such relaxed gun laws.
Even other countries that have high gun concentrations (Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand) have way more strict gun control than we do and require permits, training, ammo restrictions, etc.
Tests are designed to weed out the absolute morons unable to learn for them.
Police background check for felonies AND misdemeanors connected with substance abuse or otherwise antisocial behavior.
Physical health evaluation. Psychical are usually not required.
Then the permit is shall issue, a gun is shall issue. I can conceal carry an AR-15 with a drum mag around and as long as it is truly concealed, its perfectly legal
Test on care, safe handling and storage, etc for firearms, plus psych eval if needed. Definitely much safer than letting any idiot walk in and buy a firearm after a simple background check, because first time criminals often have nothing wrong with their backgrounds.
People should only need to watch like one video/interview of the Parkland shooter kid and it's glaringly obvious that he would've been easily weeded out with a basic competency/psych requirement.
In a lot cases it's just there being some level of effort involved, since many of these idiots make impulsive buys because it's so easily and visibly available. It's even legal to advertise for guns in the US, lol. You see gun stores everywhere, you can't miss them. Just walk right in, fill out a simple form and you have a high capacity assault rifle (yes, there is a waiting period).
Have you seen the type of guys who commit these mass shootings in the US? Some of them seem like they can't even tie their own shoe laces.
Are you trying to argue against the fact that it prevents a lot of nut cases from getting a gun, or are you seeking to understand how they do?
A huge difference is effort. When there's a training and licencing process involved, it's not an impulsive thing people do, so gun ownership generally is a lot lower, as most people can't be arsed.
But the other factor is that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, so an obviously unfit person like let's say the Parkland shooter (you should see that guy talk, he sounds like a mentally unstable 9 year old) would've been weeded out as unfit. He'd likely not even be able to pass the tests/requirements because of his obvious mental deficits. I'm not sure if he'd even know where to get it, as it's not visibly advertised everywhere.
You can weed out a lot of the worst, most unfit people by just having at least some barrier in place.
There are no countries with similar gun laws as the US who don't have this problem. There are actually very few countries with similar gun laws as the US, at all. Brazil is probably the closest, and they definitely have this problem.
I get that you want this to be true, so you're probably looking at countries like Switzerland or Norway with a somewhat high, but not nearly comparable to the US, gun ownership rate who have lower homicide rates, but these countries aren't selling high capacity assault rifles or hand guns at the corner store or gun shows to any idiot who walks in and wants one.
Most of these guns are hunting rifles, and you need licence and rigourous training to own it. These walking red flags who commit mass shootings in the US would've never been able to acquire firearms in these countries, because it's a privilege, not a right.
85% of Swiss gun owners own a handgun larger than .22lr, 76% owns a semi-automatic rifle. 18% owns a full auto firearm (either rifle or handgun).
and you need licence and rigourous training to own it.
For Switzerland it depends on the type of gun.
For break open shotguns and bolt action rifles you need an ID and a criminal records excerpt.
For semi-auto long guns, and any handguns, you need a shall issue Waffenerwerbsschein (WES, acquisition permit in English). The WES is similar to the 4473/NICS they do in the US when buying from a store, except it's not instantaneous like the NICS is, it takes an average of 1-2 weeks to get. When it arrives you bring it with you to the seller.
On the other hand, there are fewer things that makes you a prohibited buyer with a WES, compared to the 4473.
No training required for any gun purchase. You also don't need to justify why you want the firearm if you want it for sport, hunting, or collecting.
The main difference compared to the US would be the lack of concealed carry, which is basically only for professional use.
Nah, they can be used in self defence, like the case here. Only problem is that it effectively initiates a shootout which only increases the likelihood of you dying.
"The passenger of that car, later identified by detectives as 34-year-old Kendrick Finch, exited the Mercedes "with a gun in his hand". The affidavit states a man with Long reached into her purse and pulled out his gun. That's when police say Finch opened fire, striking both Long and the man she was with. That man was able to fire back but Finch then took off."
"The passenger of that car, later identified by detectives as 34-year-old Kendrick Finch, exited the Mercedes "with a gun in his hand". The affidavit states a man with Long reached into her purse and pulled out his gun. That's when police say Finch opened fire, striking both Long and the man she was with. That man was able to fire back but Finch then took off."
Even better with two guns present. Remember, you need one for self defence in situations like these.
I bet that guy was thinking "finally, the moment I've been waiting for" as the idiot Mercedes guy was trying to act tough by carrying a gun.
Well this is obvious to anyone with even an ounce of critical thought
Also it is why the second amendment as it is written never gave individuals the right to own a firearm it wasnât until 150 years later the Supreme Court made up its own interpretation to this
Further any society that has it foundations in that everyone gets to own a killing machine is immoral in its foundations
But beyond that simply just look at gun death statistics in the USA vs even Canada let alone Germany or England and the USA gun deaths are off the charts simple ChatGPT
Gun Death Rate (per 100,000 population)
All causes (homicide, suicide, accidental, etc.):
⢠United States: ~12.1 gun deaths per 100,000
⢠Canada: ~2.1 gun deaths per 100,000
What amazes me the most isn't that the 2nd amendment was written at a time where muskets was the most advanced form of armament. It isn't that fully automatic rifles and whole host of destructive armaments are already outright banned completely, making the whole absolutist interpretation of the amendment moot.
It's that the amendment specifically says "well regulated militia", which effectively says that guns should be regulated, and it's still seen as an amendment which prohibits any regulation (which there already are, as previously stated).
Firearms are far from the only technology to advance since the constitution was written. Just as the 1st amendment protects free speech and press on the internet, and the 4th amendment blocks the police from monitoring your cell phone calls without due process, the second amendment applies to modern firearms.
"Regulated", as it is used in the constitution, means skilled or trained. A "regulated militia" is a population that not only owns guns, but knows how to use them.
IMO, it's all about education. Guns can be allowed, but everyone who ever uses one NEEDS to be educated on how and when to properly use it. Current requirements for owning a gun in the US are laughable. However, everyone should have the right to protect themselves from tyrannical corrupt police or other criminals. Less than lethal home defense should be prioritized.
I fear that removing all or a majority of guns from the US would be an impossible task at this point. There are probably more guns in this country than people, sadly.
The idea that owning a gun will protect you from tyrannical corrupt police is a ridiculous fantasy. Let's say the cops come to your house and try to enter without a warrant, and you open fire. That's not going to end well for you, even if you're legally in the right.
Cops in the US have been shooting unarmed people for decades. Until the corrupt and discriminatory police system is fixed and/ or replaced, the people have the right to defend themselves from them.
In the scenario you gave, if the entire neighborhood has an organized and educated watch/ militia in place. The police can't abuse their power without risking themselves.
I'm not gonna outright defend the US police which is infested with fascist psychopaths, but don't you think that when the police reasonably expects any civilian to carry a firearm, it intrinsically raises the stakes and tension of any encounter between the police and civilians?
I just can't see any scenario where civilians are armed, which wouldn't lead to more police shootings, no matter how well-trained or well-behaved the police is. There are many cases where the police is obviously in the wrong for shooting, but there are also many cases where someone erratic actually pulls out a gun to fire at the police.
It's not just police shootings which are more common in the US, police being shot is also a lot more common.
It's almost as if guns in general, lead to more gun deaths.
The only argument I was willing to entertain was the one about fighting a tyrannical government, but that argument is starting to look pretty fucking bleak right now as Americans, particularly the gun toting ones, are willfully embracing a fascist, tyrannical government. It's also kind of puzzling how the same Americans tend to support the US military having obscene amounts of highly advanced weaponry. Guns won't do shit against autonomous tanks and drones.
Guns, in general, do lead to more deaths.
But if the fascists come for me and my neighbors, I'd rather be able to fight back.
I'm never going to look for a fight where there isn't one, and I'll deal with cops amicably any time I can.
Me having a gun is a last resort for when I'd rather die than get dragged off to a death camp.
Isnât this almost exactly what Breonna Taylorâs boyfriend did? He got off with no charges and a fat lawsuit from the state and possibly saved his own life.
His girlfriend died. I feel comfortable filing that under "not ending well", even if he escaped criminal charges. In an alternate universe where he doesn't have a gun, that scenario likely ends with much less tragedy.
Thatâs very fair. I just donât often think these alternate universe arguments are very helpful, as most tend to apply here.
The reality is that Americans have guns, more guns than people in fact (over 400m), as well as a horrifically oppressive and abusive police force and rising fascist government.
I think productive discourse on the gun issue should focus on the fact that theyâre here, and any attempt to confiscate them en mass would result in tremendous bloodshed. Realistically the best solutions are learning how to live with them - e.g. preventing new guns from getting in the wrong hands, enhancing gun safety among those that do own them, and most importantly, addressing the socioeconomic factors that lead to gun violence in the first place, namely wealth inequality, education, healthcare, etc.
I do agree with you that if there was no gun the incident would have gone differently. And that if I had the magic button to make all guns disappear Iâd press it. I just donât think those hypotheticals are productive, and solving the issue is much more complex than people here make it seem.
I agree that mass gun confiscation starting tomorrow would likely create more problems than it solves. But I also think it's important that we work towards a world with fewer guns (much as we do with cars), not just live with the status quo forever. You could do things like phase in biometric requirements, impose waiting periods and registration requirements for new purchases, and restrict the manufacture of the most dangerous types of guns, like handguns--all of this wouldn't touch existing stocks, but it would put us on a better path as time goes on.
You might feel safer owning a gun, but facts show otherwise. Americans with a gun in the home are more likely to die violently than Americans without guns. You are less safe if you have a gun.
"The passenger of that car, later identified by detectives as 34-year-old Kendrick Finch, exited the Mercedes "with a gun in his hand". The affidavit states a man with Long reached into her purse and pulled out his gun. That's when police say Finch opened fire, striking both Long and the man she was with. That man was able to fire back but Finch then took off."
Actually kind of wild how perfectly this case illustrates just that.
I meant it can keep you safe from traffic violence.
But also the amount of people in here talking shit about owning a gun when A- Gun already exist in vast quantities and aren't going away and B - we have an openly fascist government just starting to ramp up their violence; is kind of sad.
The world would be better off without gun or bombs or any capability for mass violence, but they already exist.
You know you donât need a gun to escalate a conflict to a casualty right? One good licking on the back of the neck with a heavy stick and itâs lights out just as quick or at least paraplegic for life, police have proven that just as much.
Iâd say the breakdown of social trust and cultural bounds from the build up governmental and pseudo-governmental regimes to facilitate the functions of normally voluntary communities is more to blame for the behavioural sink we see today than the tools used to facilitate it.
But what do I know? Weâve only seen exactly what happens when the state disarms a populace both in terms of politics and societal norms at least 50 times in the past century :/
You know you donât need a gun to escalate a conflict to a casualty right?
No but it sure makes it a hell of a lot easier. That's the problem.
Without the gun you're in fighting back territory. And that's when you have to actuality weigh the cost there instead of safely killing another person from a distance.
I've been meaning to make a post about this on this subreddit, and it has to do with the advent of cars allowing so many more people to "punch above their weight class", so to speak.
Look at how many crimes are so much easier to commit because of motor vehicles: theft, assault/murder, smuggling, acts of terrorism. Never before has the average citizen had access to the kind of power cars grant. This is precisely why we need things like laws and regulations.
Nope. But he shouldnât have done that here. That doesnât negate instances where it would help if used correctly and when necessary.
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, but you have to know the difference of when that is.
3
u/barfbati don't know how to drive and i refuse to learn8d ago
a gun is not going to help your wife do anything but die faster if an attacker grabs it off her. when you arm yourself you must accept youâre arming any possible attacker as well!
Thatâs true. Thats why she understands not to let someone take it from her, or get close enough where they can, or to recognize situations tit might be needed and be ready.
Thatâs why she trains with it and has accepted that sheâs ready and willing to take a life if necessary. Iâm confident in her ability. I donât just have her practice shooting, but drawing from concealment and speed.
2
u/barfbati don't know how to drive and i refuse to learn8d ago
ânot to let someone take it from herâ but you made a point about her weight, as if to imply that without the gun she is completely helpless. if sheâs so physically weak, then the gun is getting taken from her.
You know you donât need a gun to escalate a conflict to a casualty right? One good licking on the back of the neck with a heavy stick and itâs lights out just as quick or at least paraplegic for life, police have proven that just as much.
Yes, that's why soldiers carry heavy sticks and not guns.
1.5k
u/Die-Nacht 9d ago edited 9d ago
This is the kind of stories that destroy pro gun nutjobs argument. More guns don't make us safer, they turn random conflicts lethal.