this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1389 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
5453 readers
2909 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
what’s so frustrating is that this “they’re a fact of life” mentality is a self-fulfilling prophecy. and the longer it continues to used as a justification for inaction, the harder it becomes to convince people that gun violence is a solvable problem.
yeah, but the solution is taking peoples guns away and many people (as do I) belive that the right to bear arms is an important human right
Only important in the US, though.
Gun rights are very important in Myanmar, where the army has been massacring unarmed civilians.
no, there are many countries with some gun rights actually (though they don't really have school shootings), like austria for example (you don't need a license for a lot of guns here and those you need the license for it's easy to get)
I'm usually pro gun-rights, though with reasonable restrictions. I have two issues with your comment though.
First, not human right, American right. It'd be such a weird thing to say it's a human right to own firearms when they're a pretty modern thing, meanwhile shelter, food, and water are not.
Second, the second amendment is invalid. It's based on an assumption that isn't true anymore "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A standing professional army was not the norm of the time and it wasn't expected that the newly form small US would have one. It was expected we would have to rely on a citizen militia for defence. I know what the courts have ruled, but they ignore this first section. Since the first assumption isn't true, the following assertion must be invalid. IANAL but I have no idea how it's made it through the courts so long without this being shown.
> First, not human right, American right.
it's one in my belive system (I didn't really mean it as in the by the un defined human rights, just as some people belive abortion is a human right) and I don't necesarily mean guns, I mean any weapon, so in ancient rome I'd be pro swoard rights for example
> Second, the second amendment is invalid.
have to agree with you there, however, I belive it to be a good thing
I understand your intent, and I also understand the feeling, and I largely agree with it. However, there must be limits. Should people be allowed RPGs, fighter jets, bombers, tanks, nukes, etc.? If not, where are we drawing the line, and for what reasons? Can those reasons apply further to other weapons? There are reasonable restrictions we must have. The issue is that every person is going to have a different idea of where the lines should be drawn. Some will draw it at a sword, some a handgun, some a machine gun, some a nuke.
I don't know what the answer is, but it obviously isn't "all weapons" and probably shouldn't be "no weapons."
i mean this as a genuine question: why do you think it’s important that people have access to guns? i never really got the appeal, but also haven’t talked to many people who do think guns are important, so it would be nice to hear a different perspective on this
You can find all sorts of well reasoned arguments if you just do a basic web search. And I mean that honestly. There are plenty of intelligent people who can reasonably argue that the Second Amendment ought to continue to exist, and it ought to be interpreted in a way that allows people to have their own shotguns or rifles or handguns.
I think a lot of the arguments that are made on paper look okay at a glance, but whether they stand up to statistical analysis is a different question. For example, we know that when seconds count police are minutes or hours away, you just can't expect the police to keep you safe, so you might argue that you should have guns in your house to protect yourself from home invasion. And there's some truth to that. At the same time, the fact that you have guns in your house makes it more likely that your kids are going to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else, or that you're going to. So the problem you're trying to solve by owning a weapon creates another risk, which offsets the overall value. But then that gets into a question of priorities and how much control you think you have over guns in your own home. Or you might remark that perhaps the solution is to decrease poverty, so that there is less likelihood of anyone trying to break into your house, or you could suggest that we try to fix the broken police system in the country, so that cops actually have some incentive to respond quickly to home invasion calls, and the cops won't accidentally shoot you if they think you're the criminal when you're actually the resident.
And even if you can argue that people ought to be able to have weapons to protect themselves from home invasion, then there's a lot of disagreement about what kind of weapons ought to be permissible. Perhaps shotguns or rifles should be allowed but handguns shouldn't, because you can't easily hide a shotgun or a rifle. And then you get into strange statistical analyses of what kind of guns tend to be used in what kind of shootings, and which ones are relatively safe, and which ones criminals would switch to if they had no other option.
So I think all of that is complicated enough that people who really want to keep their guns can get lost in the statistics and logic, and I didn't even go into depth, but you can imagine how people who want to make the affair complicated would do so. And all of that happens so that they don't have to answer the question about why your children got shot and Australia no longer has that problem, because they fixed it the last time their children got shot.
for one I just belive that every human should be able to defend themselfs with weapons, if we didn't have guns I'd belive in the right to bear swoards or a bow
but now to why I belive this:
so you should know I'm an anarchist, so I reject every authority, that's why I think we should have guns, so we can stand up against authority if we need to or even if we lived in an anarchist utopia, we should have them in case a forgein nation would attack
then you also have to realize, that you can kill someone without a gun, but only if you're the stronger one. now who is stronger than the avarege woman? the avarege man! so the avarege man could rape and traumatize the avarege woman with no instant consequences so how can the avarege woman defend themself? with a gun
now I am a transgender individual in a country growing more fascist by the day, should I have to fear assault, rape and murder only because I'm different? no, I should have to be able to defend myself
I accept that your opinion may be different, and that's ok, there are good reasons to ban guns, this is just my stance on it
also, it basically boiles down to one thing: do you preffer freedom or safety? because freedom isn't safe and safety isn't free, I personally like freedom more, that's why I like my guns (and the fact, that gunsmithing is my favourite hobby)
Here in Australia people defend themselves fine without guns
Guns are better at killing lots of innocent people than defence.
Great for suicide too , and angry people who have a bad day and are unstable
You're better off with pepper spray and a rape whistle
In shootings, trained people don't stand there shooting back, they run. That should tell you more about the effectiveness of guns as an offensive weapon instead of defensive.
Lots of people with guns out there who think they're the good guys
what if your guy wears glasses and no help comes tho?
don't get me wrong, ik that guns can do lots of evil, but the thing is: people who want to break the law won't care if it's illegal to own a gun
Don't allow criminals to own guns, and they increasingly drop out of circulation. Don't issue them unless there is good reason for them to have it and they have a clean record
Self defence here in Australia isn't a valid reason to own a gun
This also allows the people who sold the guns to be arrested too.
The fact is, if a criminal has a gun, you're not using a gun to defend yourself. They have more experience and are more prepared.
Here in Australia, I was actually in a near school shooting which was stopped because it was only a hand gun and because someone with martial arts experience took him down
Your other problem is that you guys let kids use guns, so that turn it into paet of their identity
You know, if nobody had weapons then you wouldn’t need a weapon to defend yourself with
yes, I would, as I statet, physically stronger people could easily beat or strangle me to death
Just like someone with a bigger/better gun could.
It's a slippery slope.
For real. Any gun I could obtain as a private citizen is not going to stand up to the weight of the police, let alone the US military if a true authoritarian regime took over. My right to a hunting rifle doesn't matter when they have tanks and drones.
"Why do all the people who know anything at all about guns not care what I think about guns?"
that's not rly how guns work, if I was rly good with guns I could kill someone with a .22lr if they had a 9mm and were bad with guns, the thing is different guns are good for different things, you won't be able to use a shotgun effectively at 50m++ for example or a sniper rifle at 7m--
also how good you are with guns isn't a genetics thing like physical strength
of course I'd rather live in a world without guns, but the moment one person has a gun everyone should have one
I always wonder why the usa is so against iran or north koera getring nukes... if some countrys have nukes, everyone shiuld have them...
Yes, they should
yeah, I do belive that if any all countries should have nukes
> I always wonder why the usa is so against iran or north koera getring nukes
this is because their intention isn't for countries to defend themselfs, but to be the world power and have a monopoly on violence (as every state does), that's also the reason I don't like the state.
now, why do you think most states don't want you to get guns?
Its not that "states" dont want me to have guns but the people of that state dont want there to be so many guns.
If i have a argiment with my neighbor i can be reasonable shure that he wont pull a gun out if he is mad. Pulling a trigger on someone is much easier than beating someone to death. If you fear the state becoming a facist regime maybe put mechanisms against that into your consitution instead of saying " just have guns" because thats is not a working mechanism. Against facism you need free public media that isnt privatly owned or government controlled. You need good public education and a working democratic system. America has neither of these things and instead of demanding that either of these get implemented the idiots freak out about gun co trol as if they could do anything against a facist state. Half of americans think that trump is fit for office, do you think that your right to a gun will solve the problem? If you want to kill him fine, but that means there is still a maga group full of idiots who will rally behind the next dude that wants a to build a facist state. Do you really think that ton of maga idiots with guns who think that immigrants eat their pets will not be more destructive than people not having guns at all?
I stopped reading there
Just so you're aware, the anti-government Anarchist trope isn't real. Anarchists generally see the government as useful. It's also not about the government. It's about power structures in general which restrict people's freedoms. It's a very good philosophy, but the name has been ruined (probably purposefully) by the media portrying them as edgy total anti-government idiots.
If you've ever in your life thought Libertarians had decent ideas, Anarchism is the actual good version of that that isn't just created to allow people to have sex with children. Anarchism wants government to protect people and wants to remove restrictive and coercive power structures.
there are definitely anarchists that are anti government, just not as extreme as most people portrait us
Lol
ok, and you won't have to read it
No, force him, with the power of the state!
nah, we don't do that here