PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

505

Joined

2 yr. ago

No

If you could give people something indistinguishable from cows milk, you could make millions of foods and drinks vegan overnight.

Canada does have soy, and it's failed to do that.

What is a murder rate that you would consider to be acceptable such that you wouldn’t attempt to restrict the ownership of firearms of any kind by individuals?

Well you see since I'm not pro-gun, I don't think in terms of "all of these murders are acceptable".

Instead, whenever the laws failed, I would look at what could have been done to prevent that failure. If there truly was nothing that could have been done and no way of knowing, I would accept that.

But nope, we're not allowed to do that with guns. We just have to accept failure after failure because there is no amount of violence that will ever make the pro-gun crowd accept minor inconvenience.

Guns sold to people with a history of domestic abuse? No change. Guns sold to people who shoot children in the head for ringing a doorbell? No change. Guns sold to people who let toddlers get their hands on them? No change.

It's also useful to point out that NZ enacted sharp restrictions after the Christchurch murders, and then realized that they were functionally useless, and have since relaxed and are on the cusp of abolishing those same laws, Because the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

Sorry, this can't be true since you insisted it was an impossibility and surely you wouldn't be a melodramatic liar?

"The results speak for themselves" was a perfect way to undermine your own argument.

A criminally low amount of views for someone who had an ass hair grafted onto his head so that's he'd never go truly bald.

Dictatorships are not intrinsically bad. You can have good dictators, even if they are rare.

Yet they can't handle competition, accountability or limits to their power? Fuck off fascist.

It's just the pro-gun crowd. They can't shoot people over the internet, so they brigade, downvote and drown out.

I would fully support laws that required people to train in the arms that they choose to own, and provided the ammunition and expertise as part of income taxes that everyone is supposed to pay.

Congratulations, you are now a gun control advocate. Be sure to tell your pro-gun friends and all the lobby groups that claim to represent you.

This isn't a straw man; I'm steel manning your argument

Everything that followed this sentence was just another straw man.

You also talk about an "impossibility" with the confidence of someone who doesn't care if they're wrong because it won't change their views either way.

Countries like Australia have relaxed their gun laws in order to make recreational shooting more accessible, so i guess it's not impossible at all.

What they don't do is go back to selling semi-automatic weapons to known domestic abusers and people struggling with psychosis because that's a level of complete fucking idiocy that only America's pro-gun community can hit.

So, what you're saying here is that people are having to make choices about which rights they want.

If that's supposed to be my view, then I guess yours is "rights are granted by slavers and rapists 300 years ago and may never be changed for any reason, even as public attitudes switch".

Patently false. Theodore Kaczinski is perhaps the most famous one, but there was also the Weathermen, the Boston Marathon, at least one attempt on the World Trade Center, the McVeigh/Nichols bombing in Oklahoma City

Sure, we can play the list game if you want. You name a bombing, I'll name a shooting and we'll see who runs out first. If you want to play hard mode, we can limit it to the last 10 years.

Columbine murderers had improvised bombs that failed to explode

So in in other words, the only reason anybody died at Columbine was because they had guns.

The killed 168 people; the 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed less than half of that

Sure, we can play the numbers game too. We can start at Oklahoma and count up "bombs vs guns" since. Honestly though, do we even need to? By your own admission, a single "responsible gun owner" got half way to a literal truck full of explosives that demolished a building.

The pro-gun community opposes this because the intent of 2A was always to protect the ownership of militarily-useful arms.

Isn't it cool how the intent of the amendment happens to align exactly with what the pro-gun community wants, which in turn aligns exactly with what is most profitable to the gun lobby?

It's a good thing it does too, otherwise you'd have to say things like "I want to play with a full auto and I think the consequences will happen to people I don't care about".

Militias were groups of armed citizens, separate from the army, and they were often expected--and legally obligated in some cases--to provide their own arms in serviceable condition, and to train themselves in their use.

So do the gun laws in America mandate that a gun is kept in serviceable condition and it's owner is trained in how to use it? Or have we shrugged off "intent" before the second paragraph?

The way to effectively curtail violence without curtailing rights is to change the circumstances that lead to violence

And while you spend the next 100 years doing that, the best way to minimize the amount of violence those people can inflict is to not sell them semi-automatic weapons after token checks that routinely fail.

I hate to break it to you, but gun control isn't about stopping all violence forever and never has been. It's about turning a murder into a black eye.

The fact that you slipped so effortlessly into that straw man makes it clear that you let pro-gun groups tell you what gun control is and then never thought critically about it.

We have deemed the way they use those rights to be socially acceptable.

At least most of them will be far-right.

I think that realistically the push back is because the full auto ban undermines a lot of their rhetoric.

After high profile mass shootings such as the Saint Valentines Day Massacre -- which includes the kind of photo you'll never see on a Wikipedia page about Sandy Hook or Ulvade -- killed 7 people, fully automatic weapons were deemed an unacceptable public risk without stricter regulations.

Like you say, they have functionally zero redeeming qualities and are far more useful to criminals than to "responsible gun owners". The laws have stood for a long time, the sky hasn't fallen and full auto weapons aren't turning up in mass shootings or organised crime. The regulations worked and they weren't even an outright ban.

But now people are asking why we can't do the same thing, for the same reasons, with semi-automatic weapons and the pro-gun community desperately doesn't want that for various self-aggrandizing, baseless reasons.

They know that "some weapons should be more tightly regulated because of the risk they pose to the public but not these ones" is a much weaker position than "no weapons should ever been regulated", so they opt for the latter.

If they actually succeeded, we would absolutely see those weapons used to create higher levels of violence, but the pro-gun community is fine with sacrificing more innocent lives for their hobby, especially if they get 2 seconds of fun at the range.

Cars don't need to go 100mph

Cars are subjected to licensing and safety regulations that are being constantly changed. Heavy vehicles will soon include mandatory ECU speed limiters to address exactly this. As far as I'm aware, drivers haven't been parading around making flowery death threats over it.

Highly flavored foods are not necessary and actually may harm people with the preservatives and whatever else may be in the food.

The FTC has had principles for marketing junk food to children for almost a decade and harmful additives are routinely banned. As far as I'm aware, children haven't been parading around making flowery death threats over it.

You're doing the same thing that conservatives do with border patrol reasons. "they could be terrorists and rapists

Which is why legal immigration processes scrutinize character and intent and can be revoked at any time.

All your "but other things are dangerous" list does is demonstrate that gun laws aren't held to the standard as any every other public risk.

I know you want to clean up after him and pretend there's some noble use for high capacity, semi-automatic weapons but it's literally the reason he gave for owning them.

In a 2-way shooting scenario with 5 rounds the most likely outcome is you miss all 5 shots.

Then the same is true for the person attacking you.

Anyone with a lick of training knows they're going to miss most of their shots and that they're more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the shooter.

The pro-gun community insists that even "a lick of training" should be entirely optional.

Oh you mean the things we are constantly adjusting legislation for to reduce the risk to the public?

Fortunately, the alcohol lobby isn't donating millions of dollars to Republicans to make sure DUI laws never happen.

Going by the pro-gun communities own statistics, it takes 75 million gun owners to see 100,000 "defensive gun uses" that can be independently verified.

So it looks like for 99.9% of gun owners, they needed exactly 0 rounds.

Do you think this logic should be used for statutory rape laws? Should we let the experts in having sex with children write them because surely nobody else could get it right?

We can all clearly see the problems and we can all clearly see the "experts" doing absolutely nothing to solve them.

It's a person on social media making a comment. It's not even actual legislation.

But anyway, just to let us know your qualifications, how many people have you killed in self defense and how many bullets did it take?

Yeah I didn't read any of that (and I'm not going yo read your reply to this one either) but I just realised how dogshit your DGU stats are and wanted to share.

There are 82 million (legal) gun owners in America and 100,000 DGUs a year.

That's 0.1% of gun owners. 75 million children have to wonder if their school is next so that 99.9% of gun owners can have guns that are never used for anything except fun with their buddies.

Thanks, I'm definitely going to be using this.