Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!
My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.
This isn’t a “gotcha”. I’m a big fan of classic cars but that doesn’t mean I’ll stand there when one is driving fast straight at me.
I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.
Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.
I carry to protect me and mine.
You and yours can make the decision to carry or not. I’m not going to go out of my way to save anyone but my own kin. The police have no legal requirement to save you and they have legal protection from liability if they shoot something they should not. A conceal and carry holder has none of that.
This ain’t a movie, hero.
I never stated I’m a hero. I only wish to defend me and mine.
You’re more likely to be killed with your own gun, and possibly others. With your gun. If you’re that afraid, stay at home.
No, I choose to exercise my rights. If they scare you then that is your problem.
Freedom is scary, get over it.
Life is scary. Be all the puss you wanna be.
Lol, username should be brain dead or unalive cuz not much is happening up there.
Damn, you must live in a shithole if you need a gun in order to feel safe in your own country and home.
It sounds like you are privileged to live in an area bereft of all violence. Those of us who are not as privileged as you are still want to defend ourselves.
So your solution to the issue of mass shootings is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, and everyone should be ready to kill if necessary? And you don’t see the issue with that?
I’m not saying you specifically should not carry or be ready to defend yourself, and I would be a fool to pretend that you shouldn’t be willing and able to defend yourself, especially with how things are now. But do you really want to live in a world where every citizen has to be ready and willing to kill his fellow man at the drop of a hat when things go to shit? Do you want your kids, grandkids, etc. to live in a world like that?
The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself. The point is that the fact that you need to is fucked up, and we shouldn’t accept it as the status quo.
My solution is to treat the cause. Mental Health and crime are certainly the two leading causes of mass shootings.
A living wage, universal healthcare services, and a fair regulated economy Are solutions to the cause of the problem.
I am not a liberal, I am a leftist. I think we have moved far too much to the right in this country which is why we have many of these problems in the first place.
That’s cute from a casual. I love the light anarchy manifesto.
Now that I don’t carry an automatic weapon for part of my work, I see no reason to be part of the problem and I’m happy to leave it to the pros. But dunning-kruger is a hell of a thing.
Dunning Kruger is the cry of the retards can’t conceive a decent argument and are too chicken to just say “'retard”
Feel free to trust your personal safety and the safety of your family to a “pro”. When seconds count the police are just 20 minutes away.
So you don’t give a fuck if anyone lives except your “kin” and we’re supposed to feel safe with people like you walking around armed?
You are free to ensure your own safety. If you choose to depend upon others that is certainly your decision to make.
Statistically conceal and carry holders are the safest segment of society. I would much rather be in a room full of registered conceal, and carry holders than police, or any other segment of society.
That’s a lie. Save that NRA apologist bullshit for the firing range.
I apologize for nothing. I merely assert my rights.
If your “rights” endanger others, then those rights should be voided.
Which every healthy democracy has done so far.
Perhaps he simply wasn’t armed. I’m against gun control but am also not armed 24/7 either. Unlike most on the website, I’ve been in the situation of having to approach a shooter. Some of us still believe what we did before that after.
Well good on you for getting through that situation, but you saying “oh, well maybe he just wasnt carrying” doesn’t really help your point. We can’t expect everyone to be carrying, at all times. And even if everyone could carry at all times, we still can’t expect everyone to be able to pull the trigger. You did, but that’s why people in your role are hailed as heroes for what they do: because most could not do it.
I fail to see how him not carrying at the time doesn’t help my point of him maybe not carrying a the time.
Because him not carrying at the time demonstrates why guns could never truly be a solution to these shootings. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and you can’t be prepared at every moment. You can’t live your life never letting your guard down.
Not to mention, if anyone should be carrying and take action in these situations, it should be the ones advocating against gun control. Missouri has some of the loosest gun control in the country. If the main argument against is the right to defend yourself, and when the time comes this guy is either not prepared or not willing to defend the people he is meant to serve, how can we expect others to?
Are we really to say “everyone should be carrying so they can defend themselves in these situations”, when the Missouri governor himself isn’t?
And when you advocate against gun control, that is the statement you’re making. That the issue of these shootings is simply solved by a good guy having a gun. If you’re saying “gun control isn’t alright because i deserve the right to defend myself”, you’re implying that everyone else has the same right, and their only chance to save themselves is to also exercise that right.
But can we expect women and children to do this? And I’m sure there are plenty of people of color who would not be super hyped to have a weapon on them during a police interaction. If the Missouri governor, one of the loudest voices against gun control can’t be expected to exercise this right, how can we expect everyone else?
Yeah in a country with a 2nd amendment, it’s not just your right, it’s your responsibility to carry. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if people weren’t scared of responsibility.
Maybe he’s just not a good guy. In fact in this day and age I would say by being Republican does indeed make him the bad guy.
Of course, this being funny kinda hinges on him having a gun on him at the time of the incident. Just because he is a proponent of a right being available if one so chooses doesn’t mean he chooses to exercise it daily, and you can’t use what you don’t have on you.
Furthermore gun owners are under no obligation to have the hero fantasies often ascribed to them, many do it for simply self preservation who wouldn’t run towards gunfire either, opting only to use it if they absolutely have to. That is a decision someone can really only make in the moment, too, many think “I’d blah blah blah,” you might blah blah blah, it’s an instinctual reaction.
And lets not forget the story of John Hurley who shot a shooter and was then shot by cops.
True, tbf it’s always a risk like any fight, even just a fistfight you could get knocked out, hit your head on the pavement, and that’s all she wrote.
There are some things you can do to mitigate it though, whoever calls the cops should give an accurate description of the shooter if possible, and the defender if possible, including clothes etc. And as the defender, after the defense either reholster if you’re sure it’s safe to do so or leave as you’re under no obligation to stay, call the police and say “there’s been a shooting at [location],” hang up, call laywer.
No, it is not always a risk.
It is only a risk if you think you are some damn super hero because you like loud explosions and go to a shooting range once every week, without any other gun safety training what so ever, including knowing how to de-escalation a situation.
Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.
No, it is not always a risk.
Yes it is, every fight is a risk same as every time you drive you risk some idiot T-Boning you after running a red. Even deescalation doesn’t always work for the professionals, even that’s a risk.
It is only a risk if you think you are some damn super hero because you like loud explosions and go to a shooting range once every week, without any other gun safety training what so ever, including knowing how to de-escalation a situation.
Cute, but no.
Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.
Trained to do what exactly? Risk their lives defending others (which they don’t actually have to do per warren v dc, gonzales v castle rock, and the other one)? Risk? People die from lesser fights all the time, there’s no ref like on the TV.
Nah, it doesn’t. If I advocate for the right for everyone to carry grenades on them, and then I get put in a position where someone actually has one and I get scared shitless and run away, thats funny, regardless of whether or not I carry a grenade myself. Its funny because we all can obviously see that the right to carry fucking grenades is ridiculous, and by advocating for it I kinda got whats coming to me.
In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!
And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.
I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.
Except that isn’t what you said, what you said hinges on the “good guy with a gun” thing, so, yes, what I said is applicable.
This new argument is a little closer, but even then simply not wanting to further restrict rights for those who use them correctly even though they can be abused is not unreconcilable with also not wanting to be shot unjustly. I’d agree if he was a proponent of “the right to commit mass shootings” but nobody has ever said that, so I doubt he’s the first.
In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!
Fair point, so long as you don’t cause collateral damage since you’ll still be held responsible just as you would be with a gun today, why not? I mean, it isn’t the right tool for home defense imo since guns are much more targeted, but who am I to tell you you can’t cut off your nose to spite your face by destroying your own house?
And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.
And cars, but “that’s different” since while cars will be a cause of many more deaths than guns due to climate change, and they can kill 80 preople and injure 486 on Bastille day in France, they weren’t “designed to,” so it’s fine, and nevermind that while guns were designed to kill people, sometimes it is necessary and acceptible to do so in self defense. We’ll ignore all that because “reasons.”
The difference is that a cars only purpose isn’t to kill or maim. There are very obvious positives to having widespread access to cars. I can point you countries where there is not widespread access to guns that do not have these problems. Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?
Because I know your next argument will be about knives or cars again, let me address both of those: A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife, its much more personal so less people are willing to use it, and you at least have a chance of fending off the attacker. Against a gun, your only hope is that they miss. And regarding cars, you’re right, they can be used as a weapon! Do you know what solves this issue while also still allowing people to commute? Public transport! Im glad we agree cars are an issue, and that public transport is needed.
Since you clearly don’t think everyone having grenades is ridiculous, how about rockets? Missiles? Should any citizen be able to obtain those too? Mustard gas? Nuclear weapons? How far are you willing to let that go before its obvious the cons outweigh the pros?
A gun is not a car.
One can jump out of the way of a car, because it isn’t faster than the speed of sound.
Got any more brilliant fucking insights about tools meant for specific purposes?
No, I don’t need a brilliant insight to know that your analogy was false.
A car is a tool. It moves humans and goods from spot A to spot B. A gun is a tool to convert living critters into dead ones. They are not the same and comparing the two, like in your example, won’t work.
Yet I can kill people with both, someone’s being disingenuous (it’s you)
Bananas and the sun both appear yellow to me. Are bananas and the sun the same thing?
Two things can have something in common and not be the same. Guns are not cars. You can personally attack me all you want but your analogy will still have failed.
Man, you’re not even clever enough to fake being.
And another personal attack.
Depends, got any other false analogies to be taken down?
A gun is a deadly weapon. Its purpose is to kill. It has no other purpose, therefore it is not a tool. That’s firearms training 101. If you don’t know that, your opinion isn’t worth listening to because you don’t know the literal first thing about wielding one.
I assume you’re not a big fan of totally unregulated cars and I doubt you claim that the only way to stop a car crash is with another car.
deleted by creator
Typical GOP chickenshit.
So the solution to getting republicans on the side of gun control is just… shooting at them? I can get behind that.
There was a shooting at a congressional baseball game and the Republican who was shot still refuses to pass any kind of gun reform.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
Just shoot more next time.
Didn’t work when they tried it with Steve Scalise.
Gotta be a better shot I guess
I mean, it worked for the Black Panthers, and they weren’t even trying to get gun control laws put in place.
For the unaware, modern gun control laws basically started with the Black Panthers. During the civil rights movement, peaceful protests would get violently busted by the cops. But people quickly noticed that heavily armed protests would have the cops politely watching from across the street. (Turns out, cops are way less likely to fire into a crowd when the entire crowd can immediately return fire.) So the Black Panthers started arming themselves, to keep the cops from shutting down their protests.
When Republican lawmakers realized that the cops weren’t going to shut down the heavily armed protests on their front lawns, they got really fucking sweaty, really fucking fast. So conservatives pushed the Mulford Act, which was (at the time) the most restrictive gun control law the country had ever seen. It was authored by Ronald Reagan (yes, the same Reagan that the right upholds as a paragon of conservative values) and endorsed by the NRA, (yes, the same NRA that lobbies for looser gun control in the wake of mass school shootings.) All because the wrong people had guns.
The goal of the Mulford Act was to criminalize gun ownership, so the cops could bust individual protesters after the fact, instead of needing to break up an entire protest as it was happening. And it basically set the stage for modern gun control laws. The cops would follow individual protesters home, and kick in their front door while they were having dinner with their family the next evening. This is ironically what led to the Black Panthers becoming so militant, as they implemented anti-espionage tactics to protect the group. Code names, so busted members wouldn’t be able to positively identify other members by name. Segmented information, so a busted member (even a high ranking member) wouldn’t be able to compromise an entire protest. Randomized meeting locations, so cops couldn’t set up stings ahead of time. Etc, etc…
And that was bad.
It was done for the wrong reasons, and used for nefarious purposes, yes.
"I don’t see any peaceful way to disarm America’s whites. There’s only one thing that’s going to save this country from itself. Same thing that always saves this country from itself. And that is African-Americans. And I know the question a lot of y’all have in your minds is, should we do it? Fuck yeah, we should do it.”
“No matter what they say or how they make you feel, remember, this is your country, too. It is incumbent upon us to save our country. And you know what we have to do"
"Every able-bodied African-American must register for a legal firearm. That’s the only way they’ll change the law.”
– Dave Chappelle (2019)
So what you’re saying is that he wasn’t the good guy with a gun?
They never are. And by “they,” I mean everyone who carries a gun for “protection,” and by “never,” I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings.
Just look at the numbers of justifiable homicides vs the number of murders by guns in the US. The justifiable homicides are almost statistically insignificant in comparison.
I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
I’m a firm support of much strong gun control laws, and so this claim is something I would really love to be true …which is exactly why I’m pausing here and asking to see the evidence. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
So what is this based on?
It was a while back, so i can’t remember the caveats (if any). It may have been for that year or something. A quick dig looks like it holds up though.
This media investigation, aided by Texas State University shows the stats.
According to the data, citizens stopped shooters 50 times in the 316 attacks. But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun. The other 40 times, it was with their hands or another weapon.
It also briefly touches on the trauma when an actual good person kills someone.
“I don’t feel like I killed a human,” says Wilson. “I killed an evil and that’s how I’m coping with the situation.”
“The individual did not make any attempt to get up because of his head wound. He didn’t make any… it was just quivering and that was it.”
He is actively forcing himself to not see the shooter as a person and it’s clear the image of the person he killed twitching on the ground will haunt him forever.
The pro-gun crowd didn’t save that man, they sold him and everybody else in that church out. They armed the mass shooter then used Wilson as propaganda, claiming his trauma is actually the gold standard for dealing with gun violence and that teachers and targeted minorities should be enthusiastically following suit.
I’m sure the fact that it would preserve or increase the profits of a lobby group that gives $16 million a year to Republicans is purely coincidence.
After all, if an industry was causing massive social harm, they’d immediately cease operation for the public good, not suppress research and statistics about how many people they’d killled while astroturfing and hiring politicians as shills.
But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun.
And this begs the question. . .what percentage of people actually carry a gun? If it’s less than 20% then that means gun owners were more effective at stopping it (well, it would actually be more complicated, but I’m just trying to demonstrate my point).
Not only is it more complicated, it doesn’t even matter.
Around 80% of mass shooters bought the guns legally. Of the 20% remaining, the majority are teenagers who used their parent’s legally owned firearm.
Criminals in America have better access to firearms than they do in anywhere else in the world, with many of the guns in South America being originally purchased from a store in the United States.
This has resulted in a homicide rate that is far higher than it should be. Sort this list by homicide rate and take note of just how far before and after “United States” you have to scroll before finding a country you would consider “wealthy and stable”.
As compensation for that, we’re told things like “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. But the “good guys” have been given all the guns they want and they stop exactly fuck all. It’s not even close to the number of shootings they enable.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper? In the real world, police and unarmed civilians stop more mass shooters and it doesn’t require arming the mass shooters in the first place.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper?
If it doesn’t matter, why did you bring it up?
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide, you can’t compare that statistics
The person you are most likely to use a gun on is yourself.
The second most likely person you are to use a gun on is your spouse, with men overwhelmingly preferring firearms as a form of spousal homicide.
The third most likely person you are to use a gun on is a family/tenant.
Home invaders are way down on the list of “at-home gun use” targets. And, to make things even more stick, police tend to be more concerned with facing an armed resident than actual burglars. This leads to a high rate of police homicides ruled justifiable, on the grounds that the officer entering the home believed that the resident possessed a gun.
So, we’re looking at a solid four different likely ways keeping a gun in your home will result in the death of you or another lawful resident of your house.
I don’t know, shooting an unarmed teenager in the head and claiming you were scared makes it sound like homicide is the point for some people.
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide
That’s interesting because I was always told never to point a gun at anything I didn’t want to kill.
“Defensive use” does not implicitly imply pointing and shooting a gun at anyone. Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot. This IS a defensive use of a firearm in the clearest sense. And in such a scenario, it will not make the news for you to hear about nor is it likely to even be reported to law enforcement. And this is more likely to happen than drawing and shooting - because very few people actually want the extreme problems that will follow. Shooting someone is the last resort.
As far the this governor running away well, as governor it was very unlikely he was armed - he has a security detail carrying the guns for him, (just like any liberal person with money or power). And secondly, if you’ve ever taken a self-defense class for a carry permit, there is a checklist of things to do BEFORE you draw and shoot. And guess what, running away if at all possible is at the top of the list…
Still, this guy is an idiot and much like most loud idiots no matter their political beliefs they get the most ink. But there is more to this argument than the circle jerk that is happening here. You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot.
They can’t be too concerned since the crime rate in America is functionally identical to countries with gun control (except there is much more murder).
The rest of your comment just undermines the gun laws you’re trying to defend, functionally claiming “We need to keep selling guns to the public to keep them safe from the people we’ve sold guns to, but only if they can’t run away or hide, even if they have a gun or a team of people with guns”.
You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
I was raised around guns. Had some (superficial) training in the military with guns. I’m not a gun owner now, but while I think R and the right in general are absolutely culpable regarding our gun violence problems due to their refusal to acknowledge them or do a damn thing about them, I’m not anti-2A, and not being disingenuous with my comment here.
I was told by everyone who was ever responsible for training me in gun safety that you don’t pull it out unless you are prepared to use it, and you should not be prepared to use it unless you are prepared to kill with it. I was also taught that brandishing was illegal, and more likely to escalate than defuse a situation.
You can be prepared to use it and not have to use it when the criminal decides to disengage.
I’m not going to redo this entire discussion. You can see the other replies in this same comment chain that trod the same ground.
The brandishing part is why it’s not reported or on the news. But that does not mean it doesn’t happen successfully.
So one of the best uses of a weapon defensively is to break fundamental gun safety rules that are in literally every gun safety course (and the law)? Aren’t R the party of law and order?
Someone setting out to kill another is NOT comparable to someone trying to stop a threat.
Stay strapped or get clapped. Gov. was probably lackin.
Just going to post some of my copypasta I wrote that unfortunately remains timeless:
Lethal Effectiveness
To those saying “it’s not the guns, it’s the people!” There is a reason why shortly after the Las Vegas shooter committed one of the worst mass-shootings ever, bump-stocks became illegal. There’s a reason there is increased REGULATION on fully-automatic firearms. Just look up how much damage a deranged guy in a tank that wasn’t armed wreaked on San Diego.
Go either direction and see the result:
-
If you permit folks more power, such as easy access Abrams battle-tanks complete with depleted-uranium ammunition and various other armaments; if you permit them to have nukes, Apache helicopters, etc… You can see just how much more damage a deranged individual can inflict within the same time-frame. (But hint: these are more highly regulated or completely off-limits in the first place, and the price itself imposes an effective barrier on who can attain such weapons of war… More on this concept later).
-
If you LIMIT the average lethal-effectiveness the average Joe can attain to something less-than a firearm, you see the opposite trend. Less capacity to inflict mass-casualty harm in a limited time-frame. And let me be clear: I don’t think too many people would opt to fight Fist vs Firearm in a surprise attack than Fist vs. Knife. We need only look to the UK to see the net-homicide rates do not carry over to stabbings.
So, sure, the person is who pulls the trigger. But what’s important is how much power you’re willing to put into the hands of the average deranged individual who will always have the element of surprise.
Squirt-gun scenario
Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let’s pretend we’re in a game and all armed with squirt-guns (the utopian wild west, according to righties) and I just so happen to be playing the “bad guy with a squirt-gun.” At any given moment, it’s my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe…Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I’d fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it’s a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market. Which is also why the Wild West was not safer and Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun-control measures in later years.
- Even if you got the drop on me in that 1 in 100 times, it doesn’t matter because it still benefits the offensive individual an order-of-magnitude more. Always a losing race. I mean if I’m being mugged with or without my family, I’m just going to give them my stuff. It’s meaningless compared to my life or loved ones and now I run the risk of making myself a target as opposed to my property. Do I really think I can react even if I have my firearm holstered on my side while someone else already has the draw on me? If you feel this confident, I’d love to play that game with you and and make a betting-game out of it.
If I am a mass-squirter (don’t.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
- Now you understand why our firearm-related homicides are higher than any other Western OECD nation.
- Now you understand why our total homicides are an outlier among Western OECD nations.
- There is no correlation with reducing homicides and firearm possession / ownership
- Statistically, you and your family are more likely to survive a violent encounter by (a) fleeing, (b) hiding, © cooperating, and/or (d) calling law-enforcement (suddenly these Blue Lives Matter folks scatter and they Hatteeeee cops when you raise this point; funny how that is).
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you’re addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
Supply-And-Demand
A pretty basic concept is that when supply is reduced, the cost of a product rises. The moment firearm manufacturers must cease churning out new firearms and ammunition; the mere moment (independent of gun-buyback programs, etc.) firearms would become illegal in a hypothetical… The black-market price of said firearms soars out of reach of the vast-majority of people, including the vast-majority of criminals (which overlaps with poverty and crimes made out of desperation).
If a car salesperson’s job is to make it easier to impulsively buy a car, regulations serve as hoops and friction to inhibiting such an impulse-purchase. Perhaps then a teenager like the Sandy Hook shooter wouldn’t just steal his mom’s gun where he then probably could not navigate the black market without being caught up in a sting operation. Perhaps that’s why the Uvalde shooter himself waited until he could legally purchase a firearm. Just a thought.
Conversely from the criminal side of things, sure there will be a black-market for firearms as they are everywhere. But when a Glock 18 costs $15,000 cash on the black market, these criminals are either good at doing business or not going to rob or mug you for petty cash.
Finally, if printing guns was so effective, then why aren’t gun subs littered with them? Why haven’t they been used in any mass shootings? They’re ostensibly cheaper no less, riiighttt…?
Those questions were rhetorical. The answer: They’re inferior in pretty much every way. Anyone remotely trained in engineering knows the quality of printing at a consumer level will never meet commercial or industrial tolerances and be REMOTELY affordable. Leaving aside the fact that raw materials needed to build such things are of course going to be monitored. Leaving aside the fact that one cannot print plastic ammunition with any level of reliability. I’d also love to see the likes of Lanza make his own brass, gunpowder, and gun and (a) not have anyone notice and tip off police, and (b) not have it blow up in his face.
Root Causes vs. Symptoms
Many defending guns will deflect attention from firearms to society and root-problems elsewhere. I will grant that it is not JUST the firearm; there is more to the story and the firearm is just a simple means of slowing a symptom down, not the root cause. But just like any ER doctor must treat the symptoms alongside the root causes, so too must society. Thing is, addressing the symptoms tends to be easier than addressing the root causes. And it strikes me as funny that we go, ““Well okay if you don’t want to focus on the guns let’s give healthcare to all, widen education, reduce stress in society!”” and they protest that as well…
…
So WHY don’t these pro-gun advocates care in the wake of facts as solid as proving climate-change itself? Well it’s simple in that they kind of look at guns the way they look at climate change: they value their toy that makes them feel strong over society and don’t care about the future. In short, despite draping themselves in the flag they are NOT patriots. They do NOT care about their fellow Americans one iota."
-
Now that we’re in election season I see political ads for Republicans running for various things on TV, almost all of them show them brandishing or firing some sort of military style assault weapon. These politicians spew bullshit about protecting kids but instead are a big reason why we now have so many dead ones .
It’s so ridiculous that in a country where social nets are so poor people go bankrupt from going to the doctor that they expect people to suddenly act like heroes and risk life and limb when a shooter pops up.
Since that’s the crux of the gun-clutcher platform, yeah.
It’s the entire basis for our lax gun laws. Seems appropriate to point out what an empty promise it is.
Clearly he forgot to bring his Good Guy Gun.
He did - they [KCPD] were busy running away too!
Run faster, you fuck.
I wouldn’t mind slower actually
I don’t need to be the fastest on 2 feet, I just need to be faster than you trips other person
I would love to be wrong, but it’s too bad one of the injured or killed weren’t connected to the governor. That seems to be the only time some people give a shit.
They’ll just say more guns and you know it.
If you had a gun would you pull it? There were likely hundreds of guns there. But there was also hundreds of police officers ready to take down anyone with a gun.
Lol the fuck would I want a gun for? I think you misunderstood my sarcasm
“Well… why wouldn’t you want a gun? It’s badass. What, are you one of them huggy, feely readin’ queers?”
Yes actually.
That was sarcasm.
So what are we tolerating all these mass shooters for, if gun owners aren’t delivering on their promises?
At least two of the shooters were taken down by unarmed bystanders who immediately tackled them to the ground.
Not an option you have if theres people between you and the shooter like a dense crowd, and firing through a crowd is general frowned upon, even when you’re trying to not hit them. The last thing you do if you have a gun in that situation is pull it out before you have cover and know where the threat is coming from or your will absolutely be shot by the cops if not the shooter. Dense crowding also played a part in why they were able to be tackled to the ground. A lot harder to get close if the shooting starts and no one’s physically near the shooter.
Linebackers, not guns.
But I keep being told that these mass shooters only target gun free zones because they’re easy targets.
“Clearly, the 800 police officers that were there weren’t enough. 1,600 cops would have made those villains think twice!”
Highschool dropouts need jobs too
As the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away.
Whimper… if only the federal government hadn’t banned sales of Milkor MGLs to the public, my relative would still be alive now.
If my armed drones had been circling, I could have dealt with the problem with minimal, minimal additional casualties.
But you could be sure the bad guy would be caught up in the kill zone I circled on my drone app on the IPad
Soon with AI it will be:
But what if the streets themselves had guns.
They still don’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
The only difference is they were a lot faster to admit it was an act of terrorism. No efforts to limit the access to firearms to prevent it in the future.
I like how little attention this got in the news at the time. /s
I was reading a book about how people change their minds and this is true. Horrible trauma is one of the ways people change.
Fuckin jowls must have been all kinds of flappin.
Like a basset hound in a hurricane
“Jowls A’Quiver: A Survival Story”
Coming to TBN this November.
Once he picks up enough speed they flatten out like plane wings and he’s able to get some air and fly away.
Wait, you mean he wasn’t suddenly transformed into a good-guy action hero with a gun? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
This event only marks the beginning of his metamorphosis.
In the future, when an unsuspecting minority youth mistakenly knocks on his mansion’s gate, the transformation will be complete.
Not until they reverse to back down the driveway and leave will it complete.
I’m starting to think that the gun lobby might be lying to us…
Guess what. The good guys didn’t have guns.
