this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
2098 points (96.8% liked)

Political Memes

5408 readers
4436 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Gun laws give control of guns to the government. The government is not made up of people better than us, arguably the government is comprised of the worst of us, specifically the least empathetic, most greedy, and most power hungry.

Guns are tools, tools don't do things on their own. Of course fewer guns means fewer people killed by guns, the same way fewer saws mean fewer boards cut by saws. But if cutting boards is a goal, new methods will be found. If accidental board sawing is a problem, don't ban saws, be more careful.

It's the community's job to keep guns from dangerous people (like people who would be cops), not the state's. Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools? Because guns are actively deadly and used to kill people. In the 1700s, that would have had a different societal context, as the colonies were tumultuous and had a rocky relationship not only with Britain but with each other. But in the 2020s, they're just used to commit murder. You rarely ever hear about the so-called "good guy with a gun" and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children. Rights are a man made invention and aren't actually real. "Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem" is a sentence you made up and could easily be debated.

[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

When the government gives up its guns, I'll give up mine. Not before.

[–] PopcornTin@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Taking away guns does nothing for the anger people have when they want to kill another. They will just resort to other lethal tools.

What you hear about, comes from what you're listening to. Traditional news doesn't cover many defensive uses because it doesn't generate as many views as a mass shooting. "If it bleeds, it leads" has been the motto of news organizations for decades. Look to other spaces and you'll hear stories of people defending their home, business, etc. Colion Noir on YouTube has done some really interesting interviews with people doing that in the last couple of weeks. The FBI stats had something like 3-5 million defensive gun uses a year in the US. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away

Ban guns and who is left with them? The government and criminals. Do you trust them for all eternity?

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children.

Media bias. If it bleeds it leads, if it's scary it gets ratings, and tragedies involving children draw even more attention.

Hell let's try this, without looking it up: How many homicides do you think happen in a year in the US? How many of those do you think happen with rifles (since those tend to be the target of "assault weapon" legislation)?

How many people do you think have been killed in public mass shootings (defined as a shooting with more than three casualties, that did not wholly take place in a single private residence, and was not secondary to some other crime - aka Columbine/Aurora/Sandy Hook style shootings, as opposed to something like gang violence or robberies gone wrong), between August 1966 and May 2021?

If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools?

Because no one has historically tried to de-tool the populace, so one hasn't been needed. Assault the right to repair a bit harder and maybe we'll get there.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools

I'd say two reasons -- one, because there are no organized successful efforts to ban tools like saws and hammers. And the other is that saws are not a fundamental means of personal protection.

But in the 2020s, they’re just used to commit murder.

Guns are used for protection of homes, for sport, for hunting for food, and some people just thing they're really cool.

You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children.

You hear what is profitable to show you. You're not hearing about a great many smaller events involving guns.

“Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem” is a sentence you made up and could easily be debated.

Just taking your argument a bit further, if you're ok with this, do you think a dictator is OK so long as they keep you safe? Why or why not?

[–] andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why is it so important to have the rights to have guns? Have you seen any country got destroyed because the people aren't allowed to have guns?

[–] skizzles@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Because, as a country that already has so many guns, it's not so simple to just say, "fuck it, no more guns". Just three days ago my neighbor lost his marbles and decided to shoot up his apartment at 2am. I share a wall with this psycho.

The cops didn't even bother to come out even though I had video proof of the incident.

I own a weapon for this exact reason. I have a family to protect and if I can't even depend on the resources that are supposed to be there to protect us from this, then I will continue to own a weapon.

I lived in Japan for almost a decade, guns are almost non-existent there. It was awesome.

I wish it could be like that here in the US but there would need to be a radical shift in public perception of the police and each other for that to ever happen.

Edit: corrected spelling from weapoon to weapon lol.

[–] andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You just said it how awesome it is to live in a country without guns.. something has to be done. Stricter gun control is a step in the right way. Like you've said, it will need a long time to correct that. Years, even decades. But if nothing is changed, it will stay like that forever.

[–] skizzles@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I absolutely agree. Mental evaluations or other processes or restrictions would be welcomed. I by no means feel that we should just leave things exactly as they are. However too many people just scream about banning weapons with no forethought into the subject.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because guns are one of if not the most effective way to protect oneself when other measures have already failed. I want to be free, have freedom, that means the freedom to posses an effective way to protect myself.

An elevated murder rate isn't a problem of guns, it's a societal ill. If you're sick and vomiting, the solution isn't to plug your mouth.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Logical fallacy. Me vomiting doesnt kill classrooms full of children. Also, how does owning a gun protect you? The studies have been done. People who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves and their family than they are to kill an attacker.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Logical fallacy. Me vomiting doesnt kill classrooms full of children.

I assumed you were familiar with concepts of analogies and models, my mistake.

Also, how does owning a gun protect you?

Is your imagination really that poor? I'm a trans woman so I want to protect myself from potential crazy neighbors that think I caused all their problems. I lived alone, I like to not be completely helpless against an invader.

The studies have been done. People who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves and their family than they are to kill an attacker.

Other people's carelessness should not be a reason to take my rights to protect myself.

Cars kill many people too should we ban those?

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's the community's job to keep guns from dangerous people (like people who would be cops), not the state's. Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem.

Wait hold on can you go more in depth about what you mean by this? It's sounding like if I think someone is dangerous I should go and take their guns.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

No, and I probably used the wrong wording.

I said "It’s the community’s job to keep guns from dangerous people", I don't actually think it's possible to completely keep guns from dangerous people and who is considered dangerous is very subjective.

What I was trying to say is that any state level efforts are going to cause more problems than they solve. So maybe the way to prevent little Johnny from shooting up his school isn't strict laws that disarm a population, but rather identifying and fixing the community and family issues that brought Johnny to a place where he thought shooting up his school was the best course of action.

You know one thing I think would have a huge effect on this? Making lying and stoking fear for profit and calling yourself "news" illegal. Fox News damaging families and stoking flames is a much bigger problem then gun quantity.

[–] object_Object@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Why is the #1 cause of death for children in the US firearms then? Countries with stricter gun control don't have these issues.

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's true tools don't do things on their own. Cars don't run over people on their own, baseball bats don't bash people's heads in on their own. But the big difference between those tools and a gun are, those tools are not DESIGNED to be lethal or used as weapons against other humans.

And I'd point out, people have survived stabbings and car accidents - most never survive being shot by a gun.

People misuse inanimate objects, and sometimes death results. People weaponize knives, guns, bats, folding chairs etc etc - they drive under the influence, they don't buckle up, they text on their phones and thus thousands of people get killed by careless drivers every year.

And you want people like that - temperamental uncaring and who misuse NON-lethal items to kill people, to have GUNS??? Can you not see how ridiculous and asking for trouble such a scenario is going to be? It's everyone's job to keep guns out of human's hands - cops being the exception. And we can only do that with good gun control laws, which are (as I've illustrated above) both vital and necessary to our survival as a species.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And you want people like that - temperamental uncaring and who misuse NON-lethal items to kill people, to have GUNS???

I don't want anyone to have guns per se, I just think attempts to restrict them, especially in the U.S. just means only the real bad people will have them. I'm looking for realistic solutions to actual problems, not reactions to tragic events.

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well that's the issue. We need to be going after everyone who owns a gun and going a thorough evaluation of their mental health and past history. We need to make it a felony offense to own a gun if you have any sort of criminal history - I agree we need to get guns out of the hands of all bad people for good.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This sounds like sarcasm based on a misunderstanding of my comment, if not you misunderstood significantly.

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

No it isn't sarcasm at all, I'm 100 percent serious. And I've even had many neighbors express my same point of view so I know I'm not alone nor am I from Mars nor am I delusional. My opinions and self worth don't depend on anyone else's retorts.