Everybody knows that sane, law abiding citizens become mass murderers the moment they hold a gun in their hands.
Yes, limiting access to the tools of murder will decrease murders caused by those same tools, but it does nothing to eliminate the murderous intentions of those people.
If we truly care about people’s well being we should be doing both, reduce the risk of senseless shootings and massacres (gun control) and assist those with murderous intentions and other mental health issues who, believe it or not, are also victims of our sick culture and so-called societies.
It’s better for all concerned. The would-be murderers have the opportunity to reconsider and seek help before they’re in jail for life or killed by the police.
The Nice, France truck attack resulted in more deaths than someone shooting pseudo-automatic high capacity magazine rifles into a crowd of hundreds of people from an elevated position for like 30 minutes straight in Las Vegas
People in Europe can easily enact their murderous intentions, they just seem to not have them at anywhere near the same scale
The fact that a bag o’ guns enables one lone nutjob to carry out an attack comparable to a targeted attack from an organized terror group / government kind of proves the point that guns are in fact the problem.
I would argue that gun control is more immediately actionable and greatly reduces the capability of the mentally disturbed to commit atrocities of such scale at such a common rate.
Long-term? Yes, access to mental health care and a culture that encourages receiving it will help immensely. But that takes time and will ultimately not save nearly as many people as gun control would. We need both, but gun control can happen today.
I would argue that it isn’t immediately actionable until we amend the constitution. Gun control is being stricken down all over the place, and honestly that’s an appropriate application of the foundational document. If you want real gun control, that is the high bar you need to cross.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
You also can’t make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it’s not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
I understand your point, but everytime I see someone pointing at mental issues, it just seems to be like they will point at anything except the guns. We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved and they are killing childrens with knives instead of bullets.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
No, the same group of people fights against BOTH the solutions.
Reagan is responsible for gutting our mental health infrastructure, and Republicans vote against increasing funding consistently.
They won’t support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won’t support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
What if I want to hunt so I can eat meat without supporting factory farming?
Just playing devils advocate here, I agree we need gun control in the US. But saying “fuck responsible gun owners” seems pretty black and white.
It seems to me that the media loves to latch onto gun stories to further polarize the US. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. Republicans don’t want anyone thinking. They want emotional reactivity and sensationalized, impulsive retorts with lack of reasoning from both “sides” and nothing close to nuanced thought.
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn’t say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn’t take. That’s what I mean about the impulsive responses.
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn’t say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn’t take. That’s what I mean about the impulsive responses.
You asked a question that is very easily answered by looking at any other country. Which is why I referred to any other country.
Nothing about that is an attack lol
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
Take Germany’s laws for example.
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
Yes, in a model similar to Germany. Which means you can only purchase weapons made for hunting, you need to be a trained and licensed hunter, your weapons needed to be unloaded and locked away any time you aren’t hunting, no every day carry, etc.
I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don’t deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.
That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it’s a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that’s the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.
I guess people really can’t have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don’t think that’s really a viable solution, it’s also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.
Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don’t see where the “snowflake” remark comes in. It’s a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a “hobby”. And saying “fuck all everyone who does X” is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You’re using the “attacking someone’s character” fallacy.
Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they’re just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who’s capable of renting them out?
My point is it’s a complex issue, and anyone who says it’s so easily solved by doing “this one thing” isn’t considering every angle.
The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).
You can’t kill a crowd of people with a bow.
The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn’t fit to use it doesn’t get to. The difference is it’s not sitting in someone’s closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you’re in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won’t rent it to you.
You aren’t getting real responses because we’ve heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn’t know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.
So no, it’s not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? There is a small group of us. Also gun owners who need to have them for their job as police, security, or soldiers? Farmers and Hunters have legitimate reasons, too. The government are never going to give up guns. Neither will criminals. The cat is out of the bag on them. We will never be done with guns until a better alternative is developed like the phasers from Star Trek or something. So saying fuck people for just owning a gun is a bit shortsighted, at least in my opinion.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help?
Yes, several times. Even this meme implies that arguing for more and better mental health services as a solution to massacres is foolishly wrong. Also, another reply I got here says:
Nah, we don’t very much need to worry about the murderous intentions, as long as they’re not able to put them into action.
You also can’t make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it’s not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
I think you are a bit confused about what I’m suggesting here, or I’m not understanding what you mean with this.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved
You think banning guns is the easy part? History has shown us time and time again that prohibitions don’t work. Even if possession of a single firearm was punished with death people would still own and trade them as it happens with drugs in places where its punished with death.
Gun control or even prohibition is like a small umbrella under heavy rain, you dont get drenched but you still get wet. We need a raincoat, a hat and rubber boots.
To be fair, better metal health services is not an absolute solution either, there are plenty more stuff we should improve in order to achieve a real solution.
If fires are happening because of so much gas around, and matches that people are lighting, you limit the amount of matches AND the amount of gasoline.
Most gun owners live in a paranoid fantasy world with a hero complex. I’ve heard some wild shit come from the mouths of people who own guns. Many who do own them should have them taken away. It’s mostly brainwashing and less about mental disorders with these people.
Everybody knows that sane, law abiding citizens become mass murderers the moment they hold a gun in their hands.
Yes, limiting access to the tools of murder will decrease murders caused by those same tools, but it does nothing to eliminate the murderous intentions of those people.
If we truly care about people’s well being we should be doing both, reduce the risk of senseless shootings and massacres (gun control) and assist those with murderous intentions and other mental health issues who, believe it or not, are also victims of our sick culture and so-called societies.
Nah, we don’t very much need to worry about the murderous intentions, as long as they’re not able to put them into action.
That’s the problem, guns let people turn those intentions into actions very easily.
Fair enough, at least you are honest in your selfishness.
It’s better for all concerned. The would-be murderers have the opportunity to reconsider and seek help before they’re in jail for life or killed by the police.
The Nice, France truck attack resulted in more deaths than someone shooting pseudo-automatic high capacity magazine rifles into a crowd of hundreds of people from an elevated position for like 30 minutes straight in Las Vegas
People in Europe can easily enact their murderous intentions, they just seem to not have them at anywhere near the same scale
The fact that a bag o’ guns enables one lone nutjob to carry out an attack comparable to a targeted attack from an organized terror group / government kind of proves the point that guns are in fact the problem.
I would argue that gun control is more immediately actionable and greatly reduces the capability of the mentally disturbed to commit atrocities of such scale at such a common rate.
Long-term? Yes, access to mental health care and a culture that encourages receiving it will help immensely. But that takes time and will ultimately not save nearly as many people as gun control would. We need both, but gun control can happen today.
deleted by creator
I would argue that it isn’t immediately actionable until we amend the constitution. Gun control is being stricken down all over the place, and honestly that’s an appropriate application of the foundational document. If you want real gun control, that is the high bar you need to cross.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
You also can’t make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it’s not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
I understand your point, but everytime I see someone pointing at mental issues, it just seems to be like they will point at anything except the guns. We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved and they are killing childrens with knives instead of bullets.
No, the same group of people fights against BOTH the solutions.
Reagan is responsible for gutting our mental health infrastructure, and Republicans vote against increasing funding consistently.
They won’t support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won’t support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980
https://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
This last one is a ddg search - you can just pick which article you want to read about Republicans voting against mental health funding.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans+vote+against+mental+health+funding
What if I want to hunt so I can eat meat without supporting factory farming?
Just playing devils advocate here, I agree we need gun control in the US. But saying “fuck responsible gun owners” seems pretty black and white.
It seems to me that the media loves to latch onto gun stories to further polarize the US. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. Republicans don’t want anyone thinking. They want emotional reactivity and sensationalized, impulsive retorts with lack of reasoning from both “sides” and nothing close to nuanced thought.
Do you really think no one else in the world is hunting?
Copy any weapon possession law from another first world country and it’s already a great step in the right direction.
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn’t say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn’t take. That’s what I mean about the impulsive responses.
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
You asked a question that is very easily answered by looking at any other country. Which is why I referred to any other country.
Nothing about that is an attack lol
Take Germany’s laws for example.
Yes, in a model similar to Germany. Which means you can only purchase weapons made for hunting, you need to be a trained and licensed hunter, your weapons needed to be unloaded and locked away any time you aren’t hunting, no every day carry, etc.
I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don’t deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.
That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it’s a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that’s the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.
I guess people really can’t have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don’t think that’s really a viable solution, it’s also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.
Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don’t see where the “snowflake” remark comes in. It’s a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a “hobby”. And saying “fuck all everyone who does X” is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You’re using the “attacking someone’s character” fallacy.
Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they’re just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who’s capable of renting them out?
My point is it’s a complex issue, and anyone who says it’s so easily solved by doing “this one thing” isn’t considering every angle.
The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).
You can’t kill a crowd of people with a bow.
The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn’t fit to use it doesn’t get to. The difference is it’s not sitting in someone’s closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you’re in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won’t rent it to you.
You aren’t getting real responses because we’ve heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn’t know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.
So no, it’s not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? There is a small group of us. Also gun owners who need to have them for their job as police, security, or soldiers? Farmers and Hunters have legitimate reasons, too. The government are never going to give up guns. Neither will criminals. The cat is out of the bag on them. We will never be done with guns until a better alternative is developed like the phasers from Star Trek or something. So saying fuck people for just owning a gun is a bit shortsighted, at least in my opinion.
Yes, several times. Even this meme implies that arguing for more and better mental health services as a solution to massacres is foolishly wrong. Also, another reply I got here says:
I think you are a bit confused about what I’m suggesting here, or I’m not understanding what you mean with this.
You think banning guns is the easy part? History has shown us time and time again that prohibitions don’t work. Even if possession of a single firearm was punished with death people would still own and trade them as it happens with drugs in places where its punished with death.
Gun control or even prohibition is like a small umbrella under heavy rain, you dont get drenched but you still get wet. We need a raincoat, a hat and rubber boots.
To be fair, better metal health services is not an absolute solution either, there are plenty more stuff we should improve in order to achieve a real solution.
Username checks out
If fires are happening because of so much gas around, and matches that people are lighting, you limit the amount of matches AND the amount of gasoline.
deleted by creator
Most gun owners live in a paranoid fantasy world with a hero complex. I’ve heard some wild shit come from the mouths of people who own guns. Many who do own them should have them taken away. It’s mostly brainwashing and less about mental disorders with these people.