this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1189 points (92.7% liked)
Political Memes
5313 readers
2781 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
Everybody knows that sane, law abiding citizens become mass murderers the moment they hold a gun in their hands.
Yes, limiting access to the tools of murder will decrease murders caused by those same tools, but it does nothing to eliminate the murderous intentions of those people.
If we truly care about people's well being we should be doing both, reduce the risk of senseless shootings and massacres (gun control) and assist those with murderous intentions and other mental health issues who, believe it or not, are also victims of our sick culture and so-called societies.
Nah, we don’t very much need to worry about the murderous intentions, as long as they’re not able to put them into action.
That’s the problem, guns let people turn those intentions into actions very easily.
Fair enough, at least you are honest in your selfishness.
The Nice, France truck attack resulted in more deaths than someone shooting pseudo-automatic high capacity magazine rifles into a crowd of hundreds of people from an elevated position for like 30 minutes straight in Las Vegas
People in Europe can easily enact their murderous intentions, they just seem to not have them at anywhere near the same scale
The fact that a bag o’ guns enables one lone nutjob to carry out an attack comparable to a targeted attack from an organized terror group / government kind of proves the point that guns are in fact the problem.
It doesn't exactly take an organized terror group to rent a truck and get one single pistol, anyone with the will to do it could have committed that attack
Well whenever we have a massive problem with frequent mass killings involving trucks we can talk about truck control too.
I would argue that gun control is more immediately actionable and greatly reduces the capability of the mentally disturbed to commit atrocities of such scale at such a common rate.
Long-term? Yes, access to mental health care and a culture that encourages receiving it will help immensely. But that takes time and will ultimately not save nearly as many people as gun control would. We need both, but gun control can happen today.
I'm not saying it will, I'm saying it CAN. If suddenly there were an armed militia of private liberal citizens who were protesting outside the capitol buildings and offices of enough pro-2nd amendment congresspeople, laws would be passed very quickly to make that not happen.
Most of us don't want to be murdered by the local police or CIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Assassination_and_targeted_killing
I would argue that it isn't immediately actionable until we amend the constitution. Gun control is being stricken down all over the place, and honestly that's an appropriate application of the foundational document. If you want real gun control, that is the high bar you need to cross.
Congress could absolutely amend the constitution and control access to guns faster than we could solve the mental health crisis.
If fires are happening because of so much gas around, and matches that people are lighting, you limit the amount of matches AND the amount of gasoline.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
You also can't make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it's not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
I understand your point, but everytime I see someone pointing at mental issues, it just seems to be like they will point at anything except the guns. We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved and they are killing childrens with knives instead of bullets.
No, the same group of people fights against BOTH the solutions.
Reagan is responsible for gutting our mental health infrastructure, and Republicans vote against increasing funding consistently.
They won't support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won't support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980
https://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
This last one is a ddg search - you can just pick which article you want to read about Republicans voting against mental health funding.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans+vote+against+mental+health+funding
What if I want to hunt so I can eat meat without supporting factory farming?
Just playing devils advocate here, I agree we need gun control in the US. But saying "fuck responsible gun owners" seems pretty black and white.
It seems to me that the media loves to latch onto gun stories to further polarize the US. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. Republicans don't want anyone thinking. They want emotional reactivity and sensationalized, impulsive retorts with lack of reasoning from both "sides" and nothing close to nuanced thought.
Do you really think no one else in the world is hunting?
Copy any weapon possession law from another first world country and it's already a great step in the right direction.
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn't say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn't take. That's what I mean about the impulsive responses.
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
You asked a question that is very easily answered by looking at any other country. Which is why I referred to any other country.
Nothing about that is an attack lol
Take Germany's laws for example.
Yes, in a model similar to Germany. Which means you can only purchase weapons made for hunting, you need to be a trained and licensed hunter, your weapons needed to be unloaded and locked away any time you aren't hunting, no every day carry, etc.
I am one of these people who think the only meat you should eat is hunted by yourself. Not just because of the animal rights violations in the farming industry but also because birthing something to eat it is immoral in my eyes and I feel there's a weight that comes with killing something. I don't count hunting with a gun as hunting, its simply unfair, there's no challenge and the animal doesn't have a chance. If you can't make it yourself in nature, you shouldn't use it. I'm okay with bringing knives n all but I personally prefer to make them myself.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? There is a small group of us. Also gun owners who need to have them for their job as police, security, or soldiers? Farmers and Hunters have legitimate reasons, too. The government are never going to give up guns. Neither will criminals. The cat is out of the bag on them. We will never be done with guns until a better alternative is developed like the phasers from Star Trek or something. So saying fuck people for just owning a gun is a bit shortsighted, at least in my opinion.
Yes, several times. Even this meme implies that arguing for more and better mental health services as a solution to massacres is foolishly wrong. Also, another reply I got here says:
I think you are a bit confused about what I'm suggesting here, or I'm not understanding what you mean with this.
You think banning guns is the easy part? History has shown us time and time again that prohibitions don't work. Even if possession of a single firearm was punished with death people would still own and trade them as it happens with drugs in places where its punished with death.
Gun control or even prohibition is like a small umbrella under heavy rain, you dont get drenched but you still get wet. We need a raincoat, a hat and rubber boots.
To be fair, better metal health services is not an absolute solution either, there are plenty more stuff we should improve in order to achieve a real solution.
Lol, guns aren't an addicting substance thats consumed, you can't make guns easily with veggies and a vat. It isn't comparable to alcohol or the prohibition.
And again, it becomes clear that anyone arguing for other solutions just wants to keep their guns, they don't actually care about the situation or how it's affecting people.
Get a better hobby than aiming a stick at paper targets. It's menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.
wrong
there's a direct comparison.
false dichotomy
Get a better hobby
It’s menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.
Username checks out
Nope, fuck you. We will not ban guns, and there is nothing you can ever do about it. Our gun rights are set in stone.
I know it's hard since you have built your personality around it and without guns, everyone becomes stridently aware how uninteresting you are but it's necessary for society so deal with it.
Your snowflake feelings aren't more important than innocent lives, loser