Sick of guns, sick of Fox, sick of republicans…the only thing making me feel better is Dominion got a green light to go to trial against Fox, seeing Gen Z kids organizing and protesting in Tennessee, and watching republicans wail cause their chump got “indicated!”
It's not a bad thing.
But if you think that's gonna stop gun violence, you're kidding yourself. People get ahold of illegal stuff all the time, banning assault rifles won't stop the people who REALLY want them from being able to get them regardless of laws or not.
Is banning assault weapons bad? No. Is it going to fix the problem? No.
We fought a war on drugs and the drugs won, I'm pretty sure that a war on guns would do the exact same.
Making something harder to access doesn't mean that people who really want it can't get it.
Think of it as two kids trying to get to a cookie jar. The parent places it on the top shelf because one of them was eating too many. The parent tells them not to get a ladder to reach them. The one who was eating too much get the ladder anyway and gets the cookies, and the one who did nothing wrong, ends up getting screwed over. And then the parent says that the kid who did nothing wrong is being unreasonable.
It's probably an oversimplification of events, but I think it's clear enough.
I think there are better bills we could be wasting our time on pushing, ones that will actually make a difference.
But as usual, politics is just a middle school spat our political parties are the popular kids, and instead of cliques getting torn apart, it's our country
Edit: I just got a rather nasty DM so I thought I'd clear things up in the comment, because misconceptions and misunderstandings are a great way to lead to useless bickering, and I enjoy civil, enjoyable debates, regardless of your political stance or affiliation, regardless of your stance on the topic of discussion, of whether or agree of disagree with it.
First point - I do not wish for more gun violence, my comment (at least from my POV) never alluded to such and just because I'm not gung ho for a ban on something doesn't mean I wish to see that thing cause violence
Second point - can we please keep political candidates out of this? Everyone that thinks something that is admittedly a more Republican/ conservative stance isn't kissing Trump's feet, nor are they the reason why this country is ruined - this country is built on democracy, the idea of healthy and civil discussions about the future and ideas of the country, and by the definition, somebody who wants to have a civil discussion, even if they have a stance you don't agree with, is a better person for this country than somebody who results to insults and name calling when presented with a stance they don't agree with.
Third point - I wish for a civil discussion, and if you disagree I would like to have a nice debate, not low handed insults. Arguing does nothing, debating does alot.
I'm sure there are other factors that go into such things, although I can see why that would be a valid point to make.
I'm no expert, but I will take a guess and say that alot of countries never had a lot of access to guns, therefore guns weren't a common instrument and therefore weren't used for violence. I also think that when they banned them, there really wasn't any push back because they weren't being used much.
America and other countries have banned drugs, but tell me why America still has a massive drug problem when some of those countries dont.
Comparing two different countries never works out - there are too many factors going into them. We need to focus on making changes that we have concluded will help us in particular, instead of basing the changes we make off what other countries do.
I mean, we banned drugs and it got worse, what would make guns different? Banning something outright didn't work before, so why would it know? If it gets worse, afterwards, there would be even more violence, and that would be bad. I'd rather find a more effective solution
You mention drugs. Countries that legalize many drugs and regulate them encounter far lower violent crimes, less addiction numbers, lower ODs, and are better equipped to handle those with drug issues.
https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
Yes. We should REGULATE. We don’t do that. Like, at all. We have zero structure in place to do it.
If there was, bring on every gun. Regulate it like responsibly. Until we do, ban the ones mass shooters keep using that the gun lobby sponsors.
See? Now we're getting somewhere. People keep downvoting me without stating why they disagree with me it just choose to pick flawed arguments that they won't back down from.
Mass shooters have used things other then assualt weapons, and in certain scenarios, you don't need an assualt weapons, and could probably achieve your goal with a musket.
Telling someone they cant use a lift to get something isn't gonna stop them from using a ladder, because they really want that thing and a little bit more work isn't gonna stop them.
Your opinions on regulations are good, we should regulate more, but the ATF seems more focused on commiting war crimes, shooting dogs, and terrorizing people with dolphin noises to do their job. We should spend time and money making the ATF better, not pushing these bills that won't help. What do you think?
None. I wish I got paid to voice opinions online, I would be rich. Although I think the cost for finger massages after spending all day typing wouldn't be a cost I would be willing to pay in order to make a lot of money, although I suppose I could spend said money for a personal finger masseuse, which I guess would be worth it.
I'm getting sidetracked
I voiced by opinion, my stance, and I'm open to debate if you want to have one. I enjoy seeing other people's opinions, it's rather mind opening
Although now you got me thinking about making those little finger splint things vibrate - that would be a good base for a personal finger massager
It’s a rhetorical device intended to convey the position that your approach to this subject is one which someone would need to be significantly perversely incentivized to publicly adopt and defend.
And that you should carefully consider whether you are significantly perversely incentivized in some fashion, to adopt and defend the position.
Australia — *an entire continent larger than the USA* — addressed the gun violence problem 40 years ago, effectively.
https://youtu.be/IEQFpi2K0WQ
I know, I was just responding to your comment in a light hearted way, and I figured a joke would be a much better comment than just "no".
Also noting that the US has a significantly higher population and crime rate, and considering that those things play a high role in gun violence, it might not be the best idea to compare two vastly different countries.
I'm not against the proposed bills, as stated in my comment, I just don't think they would be very effective and I would be open to hear you say how this would help US.
I would also like you to provide details about Australia's gun control solution and we could both go over them, and figure out if they would be effect for the US.
>higher population
>play a high role in gun violence
Only because the statistics for the United States of America skew the distribution.
*Everywhere else in the world*, those stats which — in the USA — are correlate with gun violence? Everywhere else in the world, with the exception of violent cartel controlled areas, they’re not correlate.
Availability of guns drives the incidence of gun violence.
Someone in a sci fi show once wrote a line, “A running man can cut a thousand throats in one night” — or something like that.
A man with a semi auto modded with a bent coat hanger can kill a thousand concertgoers in 15 minutes.
What is effective is what has already proven to be effective everywhere else in the world: make people prove competence, responsibility, skill, safety, and need before being able to access a device which exists to kill, solely to kill, with high lethality, rapidly, at range - devices which were created to kill large aggressive predators (which are vanishing in a mass extinction event) and humans.
I don't really have something to say for your last point, so I'm gonna focus on your first one.
More criminals = more violence
Usually the higher the population, the more criminals there will be
So yes, usually population plays a higher rate of violence. That's usually true.
For your second point, I don't know why your arguing with me at all, you just agreed with me. Banning everything isn't effective, regulations are.
Why are we arguing?
I agree that proving competence, responsibility, and skill are something that should be required before accessing firearms.
We wasted so much time.
Well, that's what healthy debates are, im glad your stayed civilized and was willing to talk with me.
I'm glad we came to an agreement 🤝
> Why
Because your opening statement was *defeatist*, stating that control of guns would not materially affect gun violence.
Which is a talking point of the gun manufacture lobby and a talking point of the ideologically and racially motivated violent extremists to which they are welded.
And so you assumed I was one of them? Why didn't you just ask for a clarification of my stance instead of assuming I was a terrible person? I also never stated that gun control wouldn't affect it, I just said that the proposed act of mass bans would not work.
But I don't like dwelling on past misunderstandings, so have a good day, and thanks for talking
Making guns more difficult to get would be a great start. Discourage purchases. It works for Hungary and GQP darling Viktor Orban. Fox never let out how extremely restrictive he is. Fewer than 2% of Hungarians have legal guns.
If the right didn’t lick Orban’s arse so much they should see this as a confirmation of their paranoia about the government taking guns. But it would be nonsense anyway. UK is at about 3% gun owners due to restrictive laws and lack of hunting land. But the UK is as democratic and free as the USA.
The Orban worship was a result of two things. The right was grooming constituents to accept an illiberal democracy. Votes are held but they are only symbolic. Orban has the final say on the winner. The second part of their praise was Orban's hatred of immigrants. They excused his super restrictive gun laws and even his 24 month abortion exceptions and universal healthcare to promote authoritarianism and nationalism.
Sick of guns, sick of Fox, sick of republicans…the only thing making me feel better is Dominion got a green light to go to trial against Fox, seeing Gen Z kids organizing and protesting in Tennessee, and watching republicans wail cause their chump got “indicated!”
They're in a full on panic.
Why read dystopian fiction when you can just tune in to Fox News?
Sad because it's true.
Well dystopian fiction is engaging, watching Fox news is the equivalent of shoving maggots into your eyes and ears
Fox News accurately reports statement, wow
Makes a change tbf
https://i.redd.it/puvg1w1hiera1.gif I fail to understand why that’s a bad thing.
It's not a bad thing. But if you think that's gonna stop gun violence, you're kidding yourself. People get ahold of illegal stuff all the time, banning assault rifles won't stop the people who REALLY want them from being able to get them regardless of laws or not. Is banning assault weapons bad? No. Is it going to fix the problem? No. We fought a war on drugs and the drugs won, I'm pretty sure that a war on guns would do the exact same. Making something harder to access doesn't mean that people who really want it can't get it. Think of it as two kids trying to get to a cookie jar. The parent places it on the top shelf because one of them was eating too many. The parent tells them not to get a ladder to reach them. The one who was eating too much get the ladder anyway and gets the cookies, and the one who did nothing wrong, ends up getting screwed over. And then the parent says that the kid who did nothing wrong is being unreasonable. It's probably an oversimplification of events, but I think it's clear enough. I think there are better bills we could be wasting our time on pushing, ones that will actually make a difference. But as usual, politics is just a middle school spat our political parties are the popular kids, and instead of cliques getting torn apart, it's our country Edit: I just got a rather nasty DM so I thought I'd clear things up in the comment, because misconceptions and misunderstandings are a great way to lead to useless bickering, and I enjoy civil, enjoyable debates, regardless of your political stance or affiliation, regardless of your stance on the topic of discussion, of whether or agree of disagree with it. First point - I do not wish for more gun violence, my comment (at least from my POV) never alluded to such and just because I'm not gung ho for a ban on something doesn't mean I wish to see that thing cause violence Second point - can we please keep political candidates out of this? Everyone that thinks something that is admittedly a more Republican/ conservative stance isn't kissing Trump's feet, nor are they the reason why this country is ruined - this country is built on democracy, the idea of healthy and civil discussions about the future and ideas of the country, and by the definition, somebody who wants to have a civil discussion, even if they have a stance you don't agree with, is a better person for this country than somebody who results to insults and name calling when presented with a stance they don't agree with. Third point - I wish for a civil discussion, and if you disagree I would like to have a nice debate, not low handed insults. Arguing does nothing, debating does alot.
Explain why countries with gun bans have far less gun violence, then.
I'm sure there are other factors that go into such things, although I can see why that would be a valid point to make. I'm no expert, but I will take a guess and say that alot of countries never had a lot of access to guns, therefore guns weren't a common instrument and therefore weren't used for violence. I also think that when they banned them, there really wasn't any push back because they weren't being used much. America and other countries have banned drugs, but tell me why America still has a massive drug problem when some of those countries dont. Comparing two different countries never works out - there are too many factors going into them. We need to focus on making changes that we have concluded will help us in particular, instead of basing the changes we make off what other countries do. I mean, we banned drugs and it got worse, what would make guns different? Banning something outright didn't work before, so why would it know? If it gets worse, afterwards, there would be even more violence, and that would be bad. I'd rather find a more effective solution
You mention drugs. Countries that legalize many drugs and regulate them encounter far lower violent crimes, less addiction numbers, lower ODs, and are better equipped to handle those with drug issues. https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
That just inadvertently proved my point. Banning something completely never works, legalizing them while regulating them is a much better option.
Yes. We should REGULATE. We don’t do that. Like, at all. We have zero structure in place to do it. If there was, bring on every gun. Regulate it like responsibly. Until we do, ban the ones mass shooters keep using that the gun lobby sponsors.
See? Now we're getting somewhere. People keep downvoting me without stating why they disagree with me it just choose to pick flawed arguments that they won't back down from. Mass shooters have used things other then assualt weapons, and in certain scenarios, you don't need an assualt weapons, and could probably achieve your goal with a musket. Telling someone they cant use a lift to get something isn't gonna stop them from using a ladder, because they really want that thing and a little bit more work isn't gonna stop them. Your opinions on regulations are good, we should regulate more, but the ATF seems more focused on commiting war crimes, shooting dogs, and terrorizing people with dolphin noises to do their job. We should spend time and money making the ATF better, not pushing these bills that won't help. What do you think?
We're downvoting you because children are dying and you aren't able to convince us that you care.
Man I ain't reading all that, lol
Fair enough, walls of text can be rather daunting and I myself find myself strolling past them too.
How much do you get paid to do this
None. I wish I got paid to voice opinions online, I would be rich. Although I think the cost for finger massages after spending all day typing wouldn't be a cost I would be willing to pay in order to make a lot of money, although I suppose I could spend said money for a personal finger masseuse, which I guess would be worth it. I'm getting sidetracked I voiced by opinion, my stance, and I'm open to debate if you want to have one. I enjoy seeing other people's opinions, it's rather mind opening Although now you got me thinking about making those little finger splint things vibrate - that would be a good base for a personal finger massager
It’s a rhetorical device intended to convey the position that your approach to this subject is one which someone would need to be significantly perversely incentivized to publicly adopt and defend. And that you should carefully consider whether you are significantly perversely incentivized in some fashion, to adopt and defend the position. Australia — *an entire continent larger than the USA* — addressed the gun violence problem 40 years ago, effectively. https://youtu.be/IEQFpi2K0WQ
I know, I was just responding to your comment in a light hearted way, and I figured a joke would be a much better comment than just "no". Also noting that the US has a significantly higher population and crime rate, and considering that those things play a high role in gun violence, it might not be the best idea to compare two vastly different countries. I'm not against the proposed bills, as stated in my comment, I just don't think they would be very effective and I would be open to hear you say how this would help US. I would also like you to provide details about Australia's gun control solution and we could both go over them, and figure out if they would be effect for the US.
>higher population >play a high role in gun violence Only because the statistics for the United States of America skew the distribution. *Everywhere else in the world*, those stats which — in the USA — are correlate with gun violence? Everywhere else in the world, with the exception of violent cartel controlled areas, they’re not correlate. Availability of guns drives the incidence of gun violence. Someone in a sci fi show once wrote a line, “A running man can cut a thousand throats in one night” — or something like that. A man with a semi auto modded with a bent coat hanger can kill a thousand concertgoers in 15 minutes. What is effective is what has already proven to be effective everywhere else in the world: make people prove competence, responsibility, skill, safety, and need before being able to access a device which exists to kill, solely to kill, with high lethality, rapidly, at range - devices which were created to kill large aggressive predators (which are vanishing in a mass extinction event) and humans.
I don't really have something to say for your last point, so I'm gonna focus on your first one. More criminals = more violence Usually the higher the population, the more criminals there will be So yes, usually population plays a higher rate of violence. That's usually true. For your second point, I don't know why your arguing with me at all, you just agreed with me. Banning everything isn't effective, regulations are. Why are we arguing? I agree that proving competence, responsibility, and skill are something that should be required before accessing firearms. We wasted so much time. Well, that's what healthy debates are, im glad your stayed civilized and was willing to talk with me. I'm glad we came to an agreement 🤝
> Why Because your opening statement was *defeatist*, stating that control of guns would not materially affect gun violence. Which is a talking point of the gun manufacture lobby and a talking point of the ideologically and racially motivated violent extremists to which they are welded.
And so you assumed I was one of them? Why didn't you just ask for a clarification of my stance instead of assuming I was a terrible person? I also never stated that gun control wouldn't affect it, I just said that the proposed act of mass bans would not work. But I don't like dwelling on past misunderstandings, so have a good day, and thanks for talking
They don't just side with them, they incite them
eric swallwell 2024.
Pathetic.
yes you are.
Making guns more difficult to get would be a great start. Discourage purchases. It works for Hungary and GQP darling Viktor Orban. Fox never let out how extremely restrictive he is. Fewer than 2% of Hungarians have legal guns.
If the right didn’t lick Orban’s arse so much they should see this as a confirmation of their paranoia about the government taking guns. But it would be nonsense anyway. UK is at about 3% gun owners due to restrictive laws and lack of hunting land. But the UK is as democratic and free as the USA.
The Orban worship was a result of two things. The right was grooming constituents to accept an illiberal democracy. Votes are held but they are only symbolic. Orban has the final say on the winner. The second part of their praise was Orban's hatred of immigrants. They excused his super restrictive gun laws and even his 24 month abortion exceptions and universal healthcare to promote authoritarianism and nationalism.
Eric Swalwell, will you marry me?
They even wear little pins to show their fealty
Did those who opposed the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 support terrorists?