You're viewing part of a thread.
Would you think the same if it was a comment about taking women's conception rights/bodily autonomy? The whole "handmaid's tale" thing is exactly this. Everything is the handmaid's tale when it comes to women's rights, but these rights are just problematic. I want women to have rights, and Americans to have gun rights. Rights for everyone, tyranny for no one.
When did women's right shoot up a school the last time?
Ironically it's probably because of all the unwanted children due to legal or cultural prohibitions on abortion that cause the misery needed to lead to school shootings. Aside from that, people sucking does not mean I lose my rights. Tell the media to stop reporting gang shootings near schools as school shootings and drive-bys as mass shootings. Tell the media to stop publicizing the shooters and making them "interesting" to the public. Lots of that shit is copycats.
You don't have the right to make a nuclear bomb in your backyard, either.
When they passed laws against drinking and driving, people complained that the government was taking away their rights. Same with requiring you to wear a seatbelt.
When a nuclear bomb becomes something a regular person can make without a nation-state worth of backing let me know them we can worry about that.
As far as driving goes it has never been a right guaranteed by the constitution. Maybe they'd have a point if it was.
Where is it written in the Constitution again? The 2nd Amendment? So it's only in there because the Constitution can be changed?
And? Then change it then. If the 2nd Amendment is still there and not repealed then it's a moot argument. Stop trying to whittle more and more of the right guaranteed by the 2nd by couching it in "common sense" bullshit.
And when it was written militaries where standing in lines firing round shot out of inaccurate tubes en-masse hoping that they might hit something. A single person with a modern SAW could have taken out an entire company unaided. You're suggesting that there should be no adjustment based on changes to society and technology because it's written on a specific piece of paper.
Grapeshot. Pickleguns. There were many advancements in weaponry during the lives of the founding fathers but I don't remember them writing all about how they were wrong because weapons are too dangerous for mere mortal civilians to own.
Would you think the same if it was a comment about taking women’s conception rights/bodily autonomy?
No, because Women's right are good. Taking away some of them is bad. The point your missing is I don't want you to have guns. Any argument you make about "taking away some rights is a step towards taking away more rights" is going to be met with me saying "Good."
None of this is an argument that it is good for you to have guns. I find it interesting that the comic equates guns to cake, something that is a luxury that serves no purpose other than the users enjoyment. If someone takes away all your cake your not suddenly living in some hellscape, you're just not as happy as you would be with cake. If you own guns just because it makes you happy, you are exactly the type of person who should not be allowed to own guns.
That's what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn't be so sneaky and two-faced we'd have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not "won't someone PLEASE think of the children" emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
I think most of the public doesn't want to worry about being shot.
If you actually look at the statistics you wouldn't. Just like you're extremely unlikely to get measles but we do innoculate ourselves. The innoculation to gun crime is a lead innoculation for those commiting it. Criminals don't stop commiting crime because it's illegal you know.
If you actually look at the statistics
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
The only country with more gun deaths than the US is Brazil. The US is 4% of the world's population and 14.85% of the World's Gun Deaths. I wonder what could possibly be the reason for that.
"There's no way to prevent this from happening" say the only Country where this regularly happens...
Suicide and gang wars are the source of you're actually interested.
Look at your source and sort by per capita statistics, because no shit a 350 million population country will have high total stats in any number of things while having lower per capita.
The US is 4% of the world’s population and 14.85% of the World’s Gun Deaths.
More than 3 times one would expect if there wasn't an issue.
Suicide and gang wars are the source of you’re actually interested.
Okay, let's try to keep guns out of the hands of people in gangs or with mental health issues.
My dude, it's already illegal for criminals to use guns and crime, so what is another law going to do? Felons cannot own guns and many criminals are felons but a lot of them still find guns. What is a law going to change about that? Death by suicide is a primarily male problem. Are we going to ban men? Just because somebody used a gun to kill themselves doesn't mean they were not going to do it in some other way.
My Dude, gun crime is higher in states that have less restrictive gun control laws, and the cities that neighbour them. If it's harder for criminals to buy guns then there will be fewer criminal with guns. It's not complicated.
"Gun crime is caused by gang!"
"Okay, let's try to stop gangs getting guns."
"IMPOSSIBLE!"It's really not, you just don't want a solution because the problem excuses your big pew pew toy.
"IMPOSSIBLE" yes. Without killing a fundamental right which built the nation it is impossible. If there's the political will to do it then ces't la vie, but my job, and the job of others who care and understand the situation is to call out the politicians hiding their goal of banning guns behind euphemisms and dog whistles. If they can repeal the 2nd then fucking do it. If not then fuck off on more gun control. That's the only thing I don't like about most Democrat candidates. I agree with most everything else. It still makes it difficult to support them though.
That’s what we call mask off
What mask? I never claimed otherwise.
“won’t someone PLEASE think of the children” emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
What do you think is the reason for the "real goal"?
The mask is used by politicians trying to hide banning all guns as sensible gun control. I'm just stating that you are telling the truth the politicians will not.
I don't know if you've ever watched The Simpsons but that is a quote from a reactionary trying to get what they want with no real reason so they say it's for the kids. It has been a very successful political tool. Just think of cispa and other various internet censorship and spying tools.
The mask is used by politicians trying to hide banning all guns as sensible gun control. I’m just stating that you are telling the truth the politicians will not.
Politicians probably realize banning guns is not going to happen, so putting some reasonable gun control laws in place is a good middle ground. You're talking about a slippery slope fallacy, which does not address if a proposed measure is actually bad in and of itself.
I don’t know if you’ve ever watched The Simpsons but that is a quote from a reactionary trying to get what they want with no real reason so they say it’s for the kids.
It's literally for the safety of the general public (kids included). How many school shootings does there have to be before it's reasonable to point out "This will help protect children."
Children in the US literally have drills on what to do if there is a school shooting FFS.
we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/politics/cnn-poll-gun-laws/index.html
Overall, 64% say they favor stricter gun control laws, with 36% opposed
That's difficult to say because they don't say what the question is. It could be as simple as "do you think common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals/children/immigrants are a good idea" or it could be even more weasely. Without knowing the actual question the survey results are meaningless.
That’s difficult to say because they don’t say what the question is.
The survey is directly linked. If you were actually interested in "What the public wants" you could have easily clicked the link and found out for yourself what the question is, the results, and what the results have been in previous years. Seeing as actually informing yourself seems like too much effort, here is the question asked:
G1. Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?
People were free to interpret that however they want, and 64% of people said they were in favor.
Didn't see the link. Well, people are getting more and more brainwashed, so I'm not surprised. Honestly, when the news calls every shooting near a school a school shooting and goes on and on about how there's hundreds a year it's not a surprise the ignorant masses are fooled.
Well, people are getting more and more brainwashed, so I’m not surprised. Honestly, when the news calls every shooting near a school a school shooting and goes on and on about how there’s hundreds a year it’s not a surprise the ignorant masses are fooled.
That’s what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn’t be so sneaky and two-faced we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not
“won’t someone PLEASE think of the children”"PeOpLe ArE bRaIn WaShEd" emotional arguments hiding the real goal.So you're concerned about what the public wants, until it is shown that the public very much does NOT want the thing you want, and which point you immediately know what the public REALLY wants better than they do.
I'm concerned (reasonably) that mass media and constant misinformation/disinformation campaigns on social media and other platforms are changing peoples' minds not with facts but with lies and deception. I don't think this is controversial.
So am I, that's why a third of people oppose stricter gun control laws. Without the constant misinformation/disinformation campaigns on social media and other platforms it would be over 90% in favour of stricter gun control laws.
You see how that works? You didn't actually present an argument, you just assumed you are correct without any need of supporting your claims, and the argument goes nowhere.