this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1190 points (92.7% liked)

Political Memes

5494 readers
2298 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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
[–] Umthisguy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] teichflamme@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Umthisguy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] teichflamme@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

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.

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

In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?

Take Germany's laws for example.

So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?

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.

[–] Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don't deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.

That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it's a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that's the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.

[–] Umthisguy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I guess people really can't have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don't think that's really a viable solution, it's also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.

Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don't see where the "snowflake" remark comes in. It's a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a "hobby". And saying "fuck all everyone who does X" is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You're using the "attacking someone's character" fallacy.

Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they're just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who's capable of renting them out?

My point is it's a complex issue, and anyone who says it's so easily solved by doing "this one thing" isn't considering every angle.

[–] Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).

You can't kill a crowd of people with a bow.

The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn't fit to use it doesn't get to. The difference is it's not sitting in someone's closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you're in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won't rent it to you.

You aren't getting real responses because we've heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn't know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.

So no, it's not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.