PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

But they're a conspicuous luxury, which many people clearly feel the pressure to own, even if it means sacrificing more basic needs.

Also, his ego would insist he call it "Trumpmerica"

Shithead? I think you mean "legal gun owner".

Sounds like America shouldn't be selling guns until Republicans have finished curing mental health issues.

I honestly can't imagine being so self-absorbed that I felt entitled to choose death for other people.

Of course, it's apologist bullshit anyway, which means you've had a single thought about it and decided "job done".

Most people being murdered in America aren't being killed with that level of premeditation. Someone (usually a man) has a gun on their person or laying around their house, they lose control of their emotions, then they shoot someone.

People don't tend to have a cup of acid in their bedside drawer but in the extremely likely event acid attacks became even a fraction of gun deaths, you have my full support to change the laws to address it.

Because I'm not on a death cult.

They're on damage control following the Maine shooting.

I mean, they're always on damage control because the impact they've had on society is completely fucked, but they're really putting the hours in on this one.

Not just another "responsible gun owner", but a qualified instructor of responsible gun owners, who would have actually had a place in a militia. Clearly mentally ill, but did everything mentally ill people are supposed to do, including holding on to his guns like the gun lobby wants.

Then he killed a bunch of people with a legal firearm.

The number of people who support gun control but oppose socialised healthcare is virtually zero.

Voting Republican ensures they get no help before they decide to become domestic terrorists but the moment they decide to buy a gun and kill as many people as possible, Republicans have their back.

Yes keep telling me how your ok with calling it democracy to using force to take firearms from people.

"Democracy is when you give people guns"

A very small minority want all the guns banned

Yes, because people who advocate for gun controls don't actually want to ban all guns, they want to reduce the number of violent people with guns.

But that will hurt gun lobby profits, so the pro-gun crowd calls everything a gun ban and continues selling guns to murderers.

To go kill civilians who you disagree with. How Nazi of you.

Your gaslighting doesn't really work on the internet when all the comments are right there.

I already explicitly stated all the peaceful ways the new laws could be resolved and unsurprisingly, you threatened to kill anyone enforcing them in a civil war because you'd rather see half a million people killed than prove you know how to safely handle a firearm.

Or do you think you should be able open fire on anyone you disagree with and face no repercussions? That tracks with the people in pro-gun forums who struggle to hide how much they'd love to fire their AR-15s into a crowd of progressive protesters.

Like single payer? Etc etc etc

Oh shit, that's a massive list of issues it looks like you're going to have to fix before your gun laws are safe to reimplement. Best of luck with the Republicans who will oppose every single one.

These men are on the opposite side of the world.

Yet here he is proudly claiming "its his worldview". As far as red flags go, I'd put that on par with him saying his celebrity crush was Jeffery Dahmer.

If by 'limit' you mean 'bare minimum' then I agree. Because it definitely is not the amount of help he would've received in some other countries..

There was only a few months between him receiving emergency mental healthcare because he'd been hearing voices and him killing as many people as he could with a legal firearm.

That is not enough time for any doctor, in any country, with any form of treatment and any known medication, to have made significant progress.

This was not the fault of doctors.

Yet with all these amazing weapons of mass destruction in their pantry, every single domestic terrorist just goes and buys a gun instead.

I'm sure the executives over at Chlorox are thrilled to hear that if radicalised psychopaths started killing and maiming thousands of people a year with their products, you'd fight to protect their profits.

But I'm not interested in solving every vague act of violence you're able to inflict on the people in your imagination, I'm interesting in solving the violence that is happening right now, to real people, using a specific tool.

Again you want a civil war?

I'm completely okay with you repeatedly admitting that gun owners would use violence to overthrow democracy if that democracy decided that human lives were more important than their hero fantasies.

There's no need to dress it up with self-aggrandising threats of civil war, you can just say what you mean: If anyone ever comes to your door to peacefully enforce a law you've broken, you'll kill them.

So while you only pop your head up to kick and scream when a shooting like this occurs, the rest of us are trying to push for policies that actually will curb the suicides and violence overall.

A lie that doesn't hold up with even a glance at the history books.

But alongside that, it's a fact that this guy did not get the help he needed, certainly not all the help anyone could give him. Two weeks on a ward is nowhere near enough time to treat someone in acute psychosis.

No, it's not nearly enough time. But it's also far more time than it takes to buy a semi-automatic weapon in America.

The help he received is the limit of what any healthcare system, anywhere in the world could have given him.

The only mental healthcare system that would make America's gun laws safe is one that involuntarily comitted people for the rest of their lives, purely because they weren't healthy enough to sell guns to.

Aww. Have the people in your imagination upset you again?

He got all the help anyone could give him. We simply can't cure "I'm hearing voices and want to kill people" in a couple of weeks.

What we can do is ensure that it's not cheaper, faster and easier to go on a killing spree instead of recovering.

But that might impact the profits of the gun lobby, so they insist we instead cure every single person of every single mental health problem before they kill people with their legal guns.

I'm just happy that you're admitting that "responsible gun owners" would become domestic terrorists if democratically decided laws didn't suit them and police selectively enforce laws and procedures.

I guess they're not "good guys with guns" after all but violent, political extremists who are one inconvenience away from killing innocent people and wow, doesn't that lens bring the last 25 years of pro-gun policy into a sudden, sharp focus.

Anyway, you'll have the same options as everyone always does when laws like this change.

1. You can surrender any illegal weapons, admitting that you never actually needed them and all of your flowery, self-aggrandising rhetoric was nothing by role-playing.
2. You can undergo the background checks, take the safety courses, register your weapons, wait through a usefully long waiting period, store your guns securely and accept that you'll lose your firearm rights if you hit your wife or have your gun recovered in a crime -- things that you could have done at any point, but chose to let people keep getting killed by legal gun owners instead.
3. You can hide your illegal guns away, unable to take them to ranges, show them off on the internet or point them at your wife because if you're ever caught with them, congratulations, you're now a felon and are no longer entitled to your gun rights anyway.
4. You can become the next Maine shooter in a bizarre attempt to convince the country that you should have been allowed guns with minimal oversight, optional safety and widely published loopholes.

Notice how there isn't a single way out where you're not a piece of shit?

That's because gun owners who fight to preserve a clearly flawed system are pieces of shit, just like the people who fought to keep slavery, or keep segregation, or prevent women voting, or keep homosexuality illegal or any of the other morally bankrupt things the right-wing has rushed to defend.

That's the neoliberal secret -- you have to play the game, no matter how immoral the rules.

They can either comply with the new laws or become illegal gun owners that get found and charged like any other illegal gun owner.

Of course, the "are you going to take them? " isn't meant to be a logistical problem, it's meant to be a threat.

If you want to fire on innocent people because you didn't like democracy, go right ahead -- it's not like legal gun owners aren't doing that every day already.

At least it will be the cause of the problem dying in a hail of bullets, rather than innocent people.

Kick any dog enough and it'll bite.