this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
714 points (96.1% liked)
The Onion
4566 readers
785 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace
“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”
Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.
Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.
Another common one is
except that never happens in any other developed nation.
Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.
/rant
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.
Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.
In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.
I'm sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s
That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.
Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.
Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.
Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.
It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.
btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.
I want to add to this, because it's never mentioned.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.
Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there's no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.
So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.
But... We did that. We won. We have a "democracy" now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.
Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?
The 2nd Amendment is from 1791, decades after the US had become an independent country. So you can't blame this one on the British.
I don't think they blamed the British. They just explained their theory as to why the colonists could take control.
You may not think so, but your reading skills leaves something to be desired.
Fair enough...
Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s
The quote I've heard most often:
Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren't at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.
"bad people are going to do bad things anyway, may as well make it easier for them!"
Sad watching people like you type out a bunch of nonsense as though it's true.
I guess that's why people like you are so 'up in arms' about gun control; you're living in a fantasy world where you think that criminals don't have guns in other developed nations.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe in Japan literally had to build the gun and was only able to do so efficiently because he was an ex-member of the JMSDF.
That’s how hard it is to get a gun in Japan. And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
Nice cherrypicking.
Thanks for supporting my point about living in a fantasy world, lol.
It must be the guns, right? Not their culture? What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
The only countries that fit this definition outside Central/South America and Sub-Saharian Africa are Russia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Palau and Kiribati.
Literally all of Europe and all of Asia with a functioning democracy have a lower homicide rate than the US. I wouldn’t really call that “cherrypicking”.
Is that what you’re comparing to? You think the US police would be as bad at enforcing a gun control law as the one in Kiribati?
So... what you're telling me is it's not just the guns. It's their culture.
Interesting. I guess we can agree that banning guns doesn't actually reduce homicide rates if the nation has people who want to kill each other.
Lol, so ignoring everything that goes against your argument isn't cherrypicking? Dang. Stay in school, son.
Wow, didn’t know that the entire civilized world except the US has absolutely no desire to kill each other, and all of the underdeveloped countries are full of bloodthirsty assassins.
Guess the very similar culture of Japan, Italy and Australia must be the cause.
It almost feels like the countries with high homicide rate despite the gun laws could have some correlation to being less civilized places with high corruption and/or inefficient law enforcement, but you definitely know better than me I guess.
Dang, there you go thinking in absolutes because you want to avoid information that goes against your arguments.
You mentioned homicide rates. They're not 0 on any of the continents you mentioned. Why are you arguing against me as though I think there's no desire to kill in the nations you mentioned?
Homicide rates are lower in some nations than others, regardless of gun laws, because of their culture. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is my point. You will avoid any information that contradicts what you want to believe and then get mad when people don't live in your fantasy world.
That’s literally what you said.
That means all first world nations with gun control laws “coincidentally” also have no people who want to kill each other (or disregarding the hyperbole, way less people who want to kill each other, which is still unrealistic).
And again, saying “because of their culture” makes no sense when countries with low homicide rates have drastically different cultures. Like, the only thing Italy and Japan have in common is probably the fact that they have a deeply ingrained organized crime, and I really don’t think that’s a factor that would lower homicides. Unless “their culture” means literally “not being the USA” I don’t see how it holds any ground.
Care to mention a first world country with no gun control and low homicide rates? Or one with gun control but high rates? Because if you find none I really think it’s not a “cultural issue”.
You're right. I thought you were smarter enough to equate lower desire to kill to lower homicide rates.
My bad.
Then what is it? Why do these nations have lower homicide rates than other countries that have identical gun laws if it isn't their culture?
Okay buddy, there you go ignoring information that contradicts your argument again. Culture is more than just the desire to kill one another, lol.
You've already admitted it's a cultural issue when you specified 'first world'. This means that you think there's more to homicide rates than banning guns, which is exactly my point from the very beginning. It's culture, not guns. You're trying to cherrypick, again, by ignoring entire continents that go against your incorrect assertion that banning guns equates to lower homicide rates.
Anyways man, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you're just going to twist your brain into knots to avoid admitting when you're wrong. I see it all the time, and the only winning move is not to play.
I'm gonna block you now. Have a nice day, and stay in school.
It's weird, my guns have never committed a mass shooting, yet people say that they're a problem...
A 1km ball of enriched uranium has never committed murder, either. Should I drop one by your pillow at night?
Not a single shooting has been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Here's some light reading for you.
Texas Shooting
Las Vegas
Bystanders Stop Shooters
Oh look, another article
Indiana shooter stopped by civilian
Video proof courtesy of CNN
Snopes article
Why would you make a claim that us so easily debunked? What purpose did that serve?
Over 500 mass shootings. And that's this year alone.
So yah, EXTREMELY light reading bro.
That's your takeaway? Why even comment?
I feel like there's some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I'll be honest, I don't know the statistics on "rightful" and "wrongful" executions.
There's at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.