PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

Bullshit semantics to defend a reckless gun owner shooting a child with home-made ammunition. The child suffered a wound from the firing of a gun for which they were treated at a hospital.

Although the childs injuries were considered non-life threatening, so is breaking your arm in 4 places. Are you going to volunteer to show us how that's no big deal because it wasn't a bullet?

The guy at least had the foresight not to stick a real bullet in there

The next one might not because America's gun laws -- especially in Texas -- are based on voluntarily following good practises.

Whenever something like this happens, pro-gun people flock to the comments to pat themselves on the back by telling everyone that they would never do that with a gun because they have trigger discipline and they treat guns with respect.

But so what? They might never drive drunk but that doesn't mean we can abolish DUI laws.

What laws did this guy break and what is his punishment? Was it illegal to make his own sketchy blanks? Was it illegal to injure an innocent person with a firearm? Was it illegal to have a firearm at a wedding or to brandish it? Is he going to be prevented from owning firearms in the future now that he has proven to be a dumb fuck?

And most importantly, what is the pro-gun community going to do to prevent things like this happening again?

But we know the answer. He probably broke zero laws and will still be able to own all the guns he wants and take them to all the weddings he wants. His punishment will be minor or non-existent. The pro-gun community will do absolutely nothing to address the shortcomings of their laws, they'll just tut about it on the internet.

Republicans value $16 million a year and a voting bloc that will tolerate anything over people's lives. The gun lobby values profits over people's lives.

But the pro-gun community sells people out for convenience.

Are you sure you're not being dishonest?

I think it was right before he called that rescue worker a pedophile. Before that, there were reports poor working conditions, but it's hard to tell that early if they were legit or just people who never had a job before.

"There's so many privileged people in the work force that you can't take worker complaints seriously"

True, but I've meet people who quit their first job out of college because they felt they weren't being respected, then I found out they never had any job before that.

"There is more than one person in the work force that I have met that is like that"

His life plan was to get a house near a college and rent to students while writing.

"I once met a guy"

Depends on if they're politicians or voters.

For the politicians, it usually means conserving public funds so they can hand out tax breaks and bailouts to the wealthy. Occasionally it means conserving the status quo which in turn conserves their reactionary voting bloc.

For those voters, it usually means conserving their own way of life, no matter how unhealthy or bigoted, no matter how small a change it would be for them nor large a positive impact for others.

Of course, it's only a tiny jump from "conservation" to greed.

If you're carefully rationing out food to get through a scarcity, that's conserving food.

If you're rationing out other people's food so that scarcity never touches your family, that's just greed.

But unless you're invited to dine with them, you'll never know which it was.

The sentiment remains disgusting no matter how factually accurate it is.

"I only have a few dollars to feed my children"

"Oh fuck have you tried giving it to billionaires?“

Was she? Any posts about "why isn't X banned too?" were buried under an avalanche of reactionary tantrums about losing their platform to discuss hitting children. For the overwhelming majority of users, it was "this goes too far", not "this doesn't go far enough".

Which means that realistically, she never got past the low hanging fruit. These were the days when a lot of these places still had plausible deniability so it was easy to pull in wider support.

My baseless guess is that she came in as CEO and noticed they were handing over some very predictable post histories every time there was a mass shooting but couldn't come out and say "check out all these domestic terrorists" because it would damage the brand.

And looking back, she was absolutely in the right clearing out those communities.

I'm surprised it survived the Epic acquisition without enshittification.

I really hope it can continue to do so now it's starting to be passed around. It seems to be a good place for employees, artists and users alike.

Without it, there's just the 15c a year from Spotify.

He doesn't actually know what he's talking about. He's flailing around trying to reconcile what the word actually meant with Republicans deciding to make it a trigger word for reactionaries.

He can't just say "I don't like him because I've been told to not like him", but that's functionally what it boils down to.

You could treat both at once if it wasn't for Republicans.

And look at that, here you still are, pushing analogies to their breaking point, a second chance that thousands of people never got because they had access to a firearm.

The pro-gun crowd doesn't care. There's no such thing as a body they won't sweep under the rug and suicide makes it easy.

Only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die by suicide. The number is much the same the world over, regardless of method.

Very few people survive putting a gun in their mouth and pulling the trigger.

There is a record high number of children doing exactly that with their father's guns. I wonder how many of those fathers claimed the gun was to "keep their family safe"? I wonder how many of them taught their children how to load and fire the round that killed them?

There's actual lives behind those numbers.

People's gut feelings about how suicide works are often demonstrably wrong. Means reduction and survivability are huge factors in prevention.

Would you have built a deck if you had a tool that built decks instantly and with no effort whatsoever?

Ah, I see we're forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.

Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he's secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.

Feel free to highlight any comment I've made where I suggest doing nothing.

You're a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.

In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.

Did you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since "curing everybody of violence forever" is 100 years away.

Accessing someone's past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you've invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved

And you clearly didn't get mine. You print yourself an RPG and fire it. Use an actual 3D printer that you actually own, print yourself an RPG (and whatever ammo you need for it), hold it in your own hands and fire it.

People have walked on the moon. You can link a YouTube video of it and pretend you totally could too if you wanted to.

Yep, we know. It's the climate change denier strategy. However much evidence there is, demand even more before you'll consider acting.

But who gives a shit if you're ever convinced? We can just build something without your rubber stamp of approval and you can join the ranks of people who opposed things like food safety and DUI laws.

You already used that joke and it was shit the first time.

Oh well fire up the 3D printer because apparently guns are fucking awesome and everyone needs them, with absolutely no oversight or accountability.

That's the usual level of pro-gun honesty though. "I don't own any guns except for the 2 guns I own".