• PizzaMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    These 12 Defensive Uses of Guns Support Student’s Plea for Armed Self-Defense

    If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.

    Impedes the rights of other to live?

    Yes. The unrestricted access to guns in this country has lead to countless deaths and mass shootings.

    It is impeding on people’s right to life.

    Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?

    I never alluded to crime being a right. If you can’t make an argument without jumping to strawman arguments, then politics may not be for you.

    I know the statistics of gun deaths (mass shootings, firearm suicide statistics, general gun deaths in the US), but so what?

    People are dying. What do you mean so what? Do you have no empathy?

    As Pizza man said:

    I think one of us is confused about who is saying/arguing what.

    It’s enumerated and says don’t infringe on it.

    The constitution was built to be able to be changed. And it can be changed so that firearms are no longer the leading cause of death for children.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.

      Hey Genius, he means College Students

      • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        College students basically are children, though I will I admit I only skimmed the article.

        Regardless, nobody shouldn’t have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn’t be any threats at all.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody [should] have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn’t be any threats at all.

          What are you seven?

          Consider this: somebody ought to tell nature about how “no threats existing” is a better state of affairs, because literally every organism in existence has weapons.

          If it’s a better strategy to just “say no to threats”, nature wouldn’t waste enormous quantities of energy arming literally every living thing.

          • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you seven?

            No.

            Consider this: somebody ought to tell nature about how “no threats existing” is a better state of affairs,

            This is a naturalistic fallacy.

            because literally every organism in existence has weapons.

            That is objectively not true.

            If it’s a better strategy to just “say no to threats”

            You have fundamentally failed to understand what I am suggesting.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a Just World Fallacy in which you assume the world is just, thus unsavory actions not be taken and anyone who dies is suspect.

          Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place, and big cities, many of which are host to a lot of the universities in the country of United States of America, are typically the most dangerous in the first world.

          Although there are many negative stereotypes but americans, especially American gun owners, people are more complicated than stereotypes.

          There is a saying amongst responsible gun owners, and that the only good gun owners are the ones who hope that they never have to fire a single shot.

          Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of “Better to have it and not need it…”

          Sure you have your gun nuts that masturbate over the idea of getting to legally kill someone who tried breaking into their house, people who may even be tempted to intentionally create an attractive nuisance in order to try to create the scenario which would still count as a murder charge by the way. However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners, it’s just the craziest tend to be the loudest.

          • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place

            That’s by design. The intentionality of that design varies person by person who’s in charge. But the design of our society itself is most often to blame.

            The design ought to be changed to one in which there is no danger.

            However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners

            And if you are that’s great for you. But the reality is that the more a population owns guns, and the more unrestricted, the more untrained, the more deaths there are. Avoidable deaths.

            And we should avoid them.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There is a saying amongst responsible gun owner

            Ah yes, the mythical “responsible gun owners”. How do we know they’re responsible? Why, because they promised us on the internet of course! They followed every completely optional safety rule! They loudly tutted at videos of people who didn’t!

            And the thousands and thousands of former “responsible gun owners” like the Ulvade shooter? They don’t count, despite buying the same guns from the same stores with the same checks and same legal requirements.

            Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of “Better to have it and not need it…”

            This is a marketing slogan for the gun lobby, not actual wisdom.

            Do you know what’s even better than “having it and not needing it”? Just not needing it, like everybody living in comparable countries the world over.

            Do you know what the crime rate is like in those cities? Basically identical across the board, except with a thousandth the gun violence. So what exactly are all these guns preventing?

            If you want your family to be safer, the best thing you could do is move to a country with gun control and the worst thing you could do is buy a gun.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How do we know they’re responsible?

              There are about 70 million gun owners in the United States. If it weren’t for the vast majority of them being responsible, every American would die of gunshot wounds in about 15 minutes.

              • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The “responsible” part is entirely optional, at your own staunch insistence and every single person who commits a crime with a legally purchased gun was once one of your “responsible gun owners”.

                The Ulvade shooter was a former “responsible gun owner”. The Republican donor who just tried to execute his wife in the street was a former “responsible gun owner”. The man who shot a black child through his door, then tried to execute him as he lay bleeding on the ground was a former “responsible gun owner”.

                And where do the people with illegal guns get them? Why, from “responsible gun owners” of course!

                Over a million “responsible gun owners” allow their poorly secured firearms to be stolen each year, because responsibility is optional.

                Millions more conduct private sales without a background check, because responsibility is optional.

                The dirty secret is that you don’t care if they’re responsible or not. You don’t care if they don’t know how to safely handle a gun, if they leave it sitting loaded in a drawer or if they sweep their friends 50 times each hunting trip. You don’t care if they kill their wives or mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition.

                The only thing you care about is that you will never have to prove you’re responsible or be held accountable when you’re not.