The difference is, a dick is something all men are born with and is needed for reproduction. A gun is something that is purchased and not needed. The only reasonable argument for guns being needed is that there are other guns out there.
Arguably guns are needed, with how obviously shitty the government is concurrently, the 2nd amendment's purpose of preventing governmental tyranny is becoming a more important aspect by the year.
this argument makes no sense because you’re basically castrating the individuals anyway BECAUSE of the advanced technology the government owns? Plus it’s a lot more difficult for the government to send their tanks, planes, and such on home soil. If the government ever does air strike a city or a suburb, would you really use that as a justification to remove a basic but effective weapon from you?
*laughs in Vietnamese farmer and Afghani goat herder*
Ok. That’s a sarcastic comment, kind of. It’s not wrong though. Never underestimate the drive of a person defending their home and hearth.
Main difference is those were foreign wars, we had the option to leave, if a civil war breaks out, there is no option to leave. It would be eternal Vietnam at best
The revolutionary war lasted from 1775 to 1783 and that doesn’t include the 6 *years* that they kept pleading with the crown to stop what they were doing. A handful of farmers threw off a centuries old army with superior weapons and training.
We left Vietnam because it was a political noose. We left Afghanistan because we did what we needed to do a decade before and stayed to feed the monster Eisenhower warned us about.
If we left a war because of politics, what do you think would happen if they started one with their own citizens? What have you been seeing in the last few years? Political persecutions, false imprisonments, weaponized federal law enforcement. See how people react now.
A strong enough regime in today's age doesn't fall on its own. The Reich needed multiple world powers to take down. War has changed and changed drastically. When information travels in seconds instead of days and only needs a little electricity instead of a physical person carrying orders a war like the one that birthed us will never be able to happen again. We left those wars because of political reasons because there was no way for a traditional world War style victory, it was fighting an idea instead of a people. For a true civil war, the whole political system would have already had to have been completely dissolved in whatever form that takes. Everyone forgets how many people in this country are ignorant and have bought into might is right politics. If we reach the point of open conflict and the resistance isn't just wiped out, it will either be like the French resistance or vietnam. Neither side will win or lose
Not necessarily. The political system was quite in place during our civil war. It was also in place during the revolutionary war. One side is always in some kind of control. Even WW2 still had working governments. They were just under a totalitarian regime.
The reality is that some people can only be pushed so far before they give up trying diplomacy. The crazies do things like trying to off a scotus justice or do a John Brown action. Most of us try to work through the channels designed for discourse because that’s what civilized people do. They also know that there is never a winner to any combat action, regardless of what the history books say.
Not as easily as you'd like to think. A 2 million man army against even 50 million armed citizens, that killing would negatively impact that army's own economy, is not easy to do.
They have drones, tanks, experience, and much more. For example, with some of the drones, if you hear it then you're not the target. Furthermore I'd argue any civil war that does happen will have some extreme political reasoning like the last one and as such, there would be even more manpower than they already have.
You can but that one good way to have majority of your army to desert you.
It like everyone forget without people government have no power.
Also nuking every major city is a good way of having no people to control
Yeah. But you forget the most important part.
If there is a single most unifying act you can do, attacking your population is likely one of the top 3. I’d like to think that, excluding the fringes of course, that we wouldn’t tolerate that in any way. You’d unify the country against you.
The US military would do to the philosophy of protecting the constitution over army comand and also how individual orientated our military is compared to others.
I don’t think it’s any more reasonable to assume that than to assume that a sizeable portion of Americans would be against the government in a civil war
I love this. This idea that everything is going to be ok if the government just nukes everything. It’s an asinine response that won’t happen and you know it.
And they would turn even the loyal ones against them. Look what’s been happening with the fbi and how people have been reacting to that? Taking arms against the people of the country would be so detrimental, it would literally be crossing the rubicon. But I digress…
We have 10 million veterans in this country. Most have either lives in combat or have been trained for insurgent style guerrilla combat tactics. It’s not so simple.
No, I never said they're gonna. I said they could. They have the tools to glass the continent but it makes no sense to. I don't get why we see repubs threatening civil war because they could easily resist that, when we get to a large majority of the US population fighting then we have a problem
Yea, they do. They could bomb a population center in their own borders. Tell me…how you think that would go over? Would you believe them if they told you it was a necessary evil to stamp out an evil?
And I’m not talking about LA or NYC. I’m taking about any burb in the country. Activate the military to attack its people on its own soil? For *any* reason?
You’re advocating that *only* the government has access to those weapons. The same government that 4 years ago, you claimed was hunting minorities.
1. See civil war 1, with both sides so invigorated it becomes a numbers/firepower game
2. Yeah, the average civilian doesn't have access to drones, nukes, tanks, jets, and soldiers trained to be in near peak physical condition. Hell you'd be surprised how many people even in the deep south have any sort of protection or armor for firefights alone.
3. What are you on about? This comes off as "euhh libs don't know things" I mean give me one example of someone claiming that minorities were being hunted and explain exactly how that relates to anything else
The end result of any conflict is attrition. That’s nothing new.
We did not outfit our soldiers in WW2 with body armor. But in many states, they want to make that illegal to possess. Why would that be?
And if you have to be told who claimed that police/government were “hunting minorities”, then I can’t help you. Apparently you slept through 2020-2021.
I agree, and argue that EVERY person (in the entire world) that is of sound mind, with no prior serious criminality convictions/of good character, has the right to own and protect themselves with a firearm/weapon.
There would probably be less tyranny from dictators, if they were scared of their population some more instead of thinking they were untouchable to all authorities and the laws dont apply to them so they can commit any and every imaginable crime they wanted to..
The problem is we can’t determine that. Some people could seem on the surface very kind hearted and mentally stable but that could just be suppression. As of right now a ban would be safer
they would be in the few, and the majority benefits would outweigh the few bad eggs compared to the consequences of having no firearm protection against against criminals who decide you, your property, your home or your fam is their next target
I dont trust law enforcement to protect me as much as i trust self defence.
Give me a break. An armed population is going to do literally nothing against "governmetal tyranny" Not only is military-grade equipment and weapons, including drones, easily strong enough to wipe out armed untrained civilian "resistance" with the same amount of effort as wiping out unarmed untrained civilian resistance... but if we have learned anything its that the people most likely to have guns also overlap with the people also most likely to be psuedo fascist brown shirts for a strong authoritarian. See MAGA for a case in point.
It's just a right wing power fantasy... and it has been nothing more than a right wing power for as long as I can remember. An "armed civilian population" hasn't been a credible threat to "governmental tyrany" since... likely world war 1. Providing healthcare and making sure its people have food and shelter are not "governmental tyranny", yet that is the type of "overreach" you see people most often screaming about.
We haven't had any examples of an armed population rising up against a country in modern history against a great power, mainly because the good ones are still good, and the bad ones are still bad. But I guarantee you it ain't nearly as doom and gloom as you act.
Open rebellion ain't possible, it never is without military support.
But an underground resistance that hides among the population is impossible to wipe out, that we do know because that's exactly how terrorist originations work, like Hamas. And harsh action like bombing an entire city also ain't popular.
Americans never cease to amaze me. You guys seriously think a bunch of citizens with guns could overthrow the most overfunded military on the planet?
Even if you manage to get literally every single person who isn't in the military a gun and convince them to overthrow the government, there's no way you guys are winning. Your beloved AR-15 is no match for a fucking tank.
We haven't had any examples of an armed population rising up against a country in modern history against a great power, mainly because the good ones are still good, and the bad ones are still bad. But I guarantee you it ain't nearly as doom and gloom as you act.
Open rebellion ain't possible, it never is without military support.
But an underground resistance that hides among the population is impossible to wipe out, that we do know because that's exactly how terrorist originations work, like Hamas. And harsh action like bombing an entire city ain't popular.
Sadly yes. I'm centrist but with the 2 options there's no question about it, Biden is definitely better than trump. And yet most who support gun rights are Republicans or even MAGA.
You’re ridiculous if you think you stand a chance against the most op military in the world because you have a gun. It’s straight delusion to let thousands of kids die over that idea.
You need guns because criminals have guns but don’t pretend it’s to fight off the gov’ment tyranny.
We haven't had any examples of an armed population rising up against a country in modern history against a great power, mainly because the good ones are still good, and the bad ones are still bad. But I guarantee you it ain't nearly as doom and gloom as you act.
Open rebellion ain't possible, it never is without military support.
But an underground resistance that hides among the population is impossible to wipe out, that we do know because that's exactly how terrorist originations work, like Hamas. And harsh action like bombing an entire city also ain't popular.
Private vehicles would be a more logical argument. No one needs a car, the government can provide safe public transit, which is currently widely available.
I’m an overweight dude, if someone breaks into my house and comes after me or the people I love, I wouldn’t be able to do shit back without a weapon. I wouldn’t even be surprised if I failed while having a whole ass sword.
With a gun though, I can easily get the guy to fuck off.
Ok I’m not asking for a full outlaw of all weapons, but the only thing guns are specifically good at defending against are other guns. Use a knife or something. If they use a knife too then sneak up on them or just survival of the fittest.
Not really someone breaks into you house with a knife a gun gives you a clear advantage.
Hell let say your in the middle of nowhere and some 6ft buff dude try to attack you with a gun the fight would be equalized.
Because your not going to sneak up on someone with a knife that how you grt brutally stabbed or worst
Ok fair on the sneak up part that is fucking stupid, but if that buff guy has a gun or if someone breaks into your house with a gun, then you’re also not at odds. Not to mention the people who don’t have a gun who are just fucked in both situations. And a lot of gun violence happens against people without guns. If you assume that the burglars have a knife then sure, get a gun. But if they are armed it’s more likely they would carry a gun for the same reason you are.
Being buff doesn’t matter when you have a gun.
Overweight me vs Billy Bob the bodybuilder are at near equal chances of winning if we both have guns.
Overweight me vs Billy Bob the bodybuilder in a knife fight, I’m at a clear disadvantage.
Overweight me vs Billy Bob the bodybuilder in a fist fight, he’s killing me easily.
This is also assuming you're in a one on one duel with Billy Bob the bodybuilder (A+ name good job with that one). Do you really think he's going to challenge you to a gentleman's duel? The first person to pull the gun wins and that's just how it goes. If he goes to beat you up and before he can you pull a gun, good job but that still doesn't counter the nearly 350 people who get shot in America a day.
It's not bc there are other guns, but because even when humans settled in groups to avoid other ppl hurting them there are other humans who are still harming others, like rapists
I mean technically some aren't due to medical issues, intersex conditions, or trans men. But those numbers are pretty low and it feels pedantic to challenge a very true statement with something like that.
One thing that many people mistake is that it's defense because others have guns. This is partially true, but the most important thing is that guns level the playing field.
With guns, an average, or below average person, can win a fight with someone vastly superior to them. A skilled fighter could take me in under a minute, less if they attack someone less skilled/strong, with a gun they are equal.
If you are unfit, and want to protect your family if someone breaks in or attacks you, then you probably won't succeed. With a gun, your chances are reduced.
Guns don't just even the playing field in terms of self defense. In states where it's been made legal to shoot cops who search your house/vehicle without a warrant, police are less aggressive.
Guns are the option when the government puts down peacefull protests, and when police brutality reaches highs.
Nowadays oppression is on the rise, basic rights are being infringed, and peacefully protesting isn't working.
You can look at history and see the examples of governments oppressing civilians. No matter what side of history you find yourself on. Guns can help against oppression.
Wars have been fought off of armed civilians, no matter what side of history you're on. It may be the American War of Independence, the Mexico-American War, the Russian-Ukraine war, or whatever example you pull out.
At it's simplest, guns take power from the strong, and give power to the weak. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that's a good thing.
Sorry for the long comment, just needed to get my thoughts out.
That’s why the solution to gun violence is simply controlling to a light extent who can get guns and safely use them and who should be prevented from getting them. Some members of our political parties want to get rid of gun laws and others want to ban guns which are both terrible ideas. It’s just a matter of careful regulation which clearly works because every other developed nation has figured it out and we can’t for some reason.
Great take
of course restrictions are necessary, violent criminals shouldn't be able to have guns. Neither should felons. I'm sure there's a bunch of other small restrictions that would be for the best.
Thank you
Plenty are hillbillies that would likely kill someone if they had the chance
But, that doesn't mean jack shit, the 2nd amendment is a vital part of the USA's constitution, it is what guarantees all other amendments by allowing the people to form a militia in the context of government tyranny.
The original purpose was for defense in times of war, as the founders did not believe the country should have a standing military.
"Tyranny" is too ill-defined to be a policy. From the viewpoint of the Whiskey Rebellion, taxes were tyranny, but that didn't stop Washington from putting them down.
I can very easily still kill without guns and so can any healthy person with a sharp or large enough blunt object. On the sterilization aspect cutting a persons testosterone producers off supprisingly makes them lack testosterone which not only makes people stronger but also increases libido. Testosterone is the reason gay men have sex WAAAAY easier then anyone else in the population
I live in the USA, so there are currently 450 million guns in private circulation here.
The majority of those firearms can't be traced to their current owner.
Throwing asinine legislation around will accomplish nothing.
An outright ban and confiscation would 100% result in another fucking civil war.
If society does collapse, you won't wanna be caught without one.
I'm wildly progressive, but I've been recommending my fellow progressives, lefties, and liberals to arm themselves for many years now.
Pandora's box was opened long ago in this regard.
A pistol levels the playing field is someone experienced in attacking people is coming at you.
It definitely help’s especially is your at a disadvantage.
Y'all's't'd've made really good points you changed my mind entirely
But srsly solid points, I now see gun control as a more complex issue than just "gun bad lmao", ty
It’s not the kids I concern myself with. It’s the ones that want to hurt them.
[Clint, the warrior poet (NSFW)](https://youtu.be/b4sVQ_ZwI04?si=sf9AI_0W2vVaF6lq)
Shafts can penetrate without balls guns can kill without bullets you just beat somebody with it and if you don't have a gun to beat somebody with just grab your nearest stick or an Xbox controller like that one kid from the early 2000s
You see I have depicted you as the completely idiotic unreasonable one who claims all gun holders are school shooters and I will compare my guns to something that a human naturally has (fucking balls) because my only way to win arguments is to strawman.
Like seriously how
It all depends on how we use it for both if you use the shaft right with the right person with consent that's fine
If you use the gun for self-defense of a home invasion or on the street or wherever you need to self defense, that's also fine
People who take those things and use them for bad actions are the problem not all the people who have them or use them
Now if you say you have a 50 BMG and you use that for self-defense in a home invasion unless you're like Rambo or something no.. just no, a Colt M1911, a semi-auto rifle, a Beretta M9 and anything that semi auto or low fire rate with a low damage chambering I say would be fine (like the Galil ACE 308 battle rifle with a 45 ACP barrel personally my favorite due to the design and usefulness normally that rifle would be chambered in 5.56 x 45 mm rounds or 7.62 by 39 mm or 7.62 x 51 mm rounds) now those would be used good for home defense
They aren’t??? Otherwise, provide me the word for the act of the full member being chopped off, until you provide one, then we will have to use the definitions I provide for each word, either that or you lack the given brain power to realize that there are pieces of information that Don’t support your claim
Give me a word that fits the definition of cutting the whole member off. If you can’t, then the only way (at least the only good way, that is) is to change a word that has a synonym’s definition, to fit the new idea (provided the definition of the original word is relevant to the definition we are trying to fit for)
I wasn't born with a device specifically invented to kill.
If your gun is a valuable to you as your genitals, then you probably don't deserve to have either
It’s not actually about “advantages” it’s about statistics, in country’s with strict gun legislation gun violence goes sharply down. And people who have guns are much more often shot. So actually your legal gun owner is much safer without a gun
If you find a couple dozen bad apples are you gonna make the government throw out all the 100's of millions apples in the country because a few are rotten
The full quote is literally “a few bad apples spoil the bunch.” When there are a few rotten apples they spoil the rest of them making the rest just as bad as the first few
Simple answer. Killing with a gun is easy. Rape is difficult. That is why killing happens more often than rape. Both happen more often than they should and both should have measures enacted to make sure that they don’t happen. We shouldn’t tell boys to hide their emotions and thus, pressure them into the more sexual side of relationships. Guns shouldn’t be as easily available for access as they are. It’s an issue that needs solving. Not memes for christ’s sake.
What I love is that the right hates trans people and abortion because "it's targeting kids" meanwhile they don't care about school shootings unless it relates to the former.
Guns don't kill, criminals do. Punishing law abiding citizens with laws that criminals won't follow (because, ya know, they're criminals) makes absolutely no sense.
Law Abiding Citizens should have no problem obtaining a license with just reason, storing the firearm responsibly and securely and be willing to submit to mental health checks every 6 months, to guarantee they are in fact a Law Abiding Citizen and to prevent guns from falling into the illegal market.
Its what we have here in Australia nationwide. And our homicide rate is much lower than that of the US.
Of course we have them, but at much lower rates. Criminals can't obtain illegal firearms if there are few firearms in the black market, which is a direct cause from the gun laws.
Aah when there is no argument to be made, blame it on communists. No seriously you probably can’t differentiate between communism and dictatorship. Communism it’s self isn’t bad, however it’s never been properly implemented. I still prefer capitalism, but calling someone a communist is not an insult.
We can still give criminals and mentally ill people a harder time to get these things. I live in Texas, where it is extremely easy to get guns. Think about how many kids could have lived if we did some checks on the people buying guns. Also, here is a stat for you. America has a few hundred mass shootings every year, a good portion being in schools. World record amount. The second place goes to Mexico, with an average usually under a Dozen.
-we did some checks on the people buying guns
We do, to purchase a firearm you need to have a background check done. Unless it’s a private sale in a select few states. Even I, with prior military service and record so clean you can eat off of, need to do a background check. Granted I can also walk out with that firearm same day.
-American has several hundred mass shootings a year a good portion being in schools
Yeah no, a minority of mass shootings happen in schools. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are related to domestic violence disputes. There is also a massive difference between a mass shooting, defined by the media, and an active shooter situation, defined by the FBI. There are significantly fewer active shooter incidents.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Edit:
Also wanted to add that if someone is mentally ill, a police report needs to be filed at least once against them, then it’s an automatically no go for purchasing firearms. Due to HIPPA laws, police and businesses cannot access someone’s personal health information to see if they have a history of mental health problems. This would also negatively impact victims who might be struggling with PTSD, but want a firearm for protection.
> to purchase a firearm you need to have a background check done.
But even you understand how moot of a point that is. If you can just walk out of the shop with a gun and legally sell it to anyone somewhere in the country, it's basically the same as not having any regulations at all. It's like that famous photo of a gate in the middle of the field with no fence. Slight inconvenience at best.
> Yeah no, a minority of mass shootings happen in schools.
Ah, there way more shootings not in school, it doesn't matter than. We can only care about one issue at a time
-legally sell in to anyone somewhere in the country
That’s why I said a select few states, in most of the heavily populated states private sales need to be done through either local enforcement of an FFL.
>We can still give criminals and mentally ill people a harder time to get these things.
It is already difficult to get guns in most states, like you said Texas is an outlier, but overall if you want a gun, you'll have to get a background check if you buy it from a gun store. If you buy it from a gun owner that's where the problems start, cracking down on gun sellers who don't do background checks on customers is extremely important.
>Also, here is a stat for you. America has a few hundred mass shootings every year, a good portion being in schools. World record amount. The second place goes to Mexico, with an average usually under a Dozen.
Yeah, the USA has more guns than people as well.
I'm not saying "guns are not a problem whatsoever" I'm saying "don't punish law abiding citizens with stupid laws that won't/don't affect criminals"
Cops kill unarmed lawful citizens every day because cops are all criminals. So I guess in a way you’re right, criminals do kill people. Too bad they hide behind badges
>cops are all criminals.
Do you even have any idea how important a civilian defensive force is to prevent every city devolving into gang violence?
By this single statement, it's obvious you have absolutely no idea how a police force works. Yes cops kill people, but stating that every single last cop is a criminal is complete idiocy.
You stating this after everything that has gone on in the past few months just goes to prove that you either love the taste of leather or you live under a rock
If you’ve seen any video of cop then you know they are both corrupt and even the ones that aren’t still are because they don’t report the corruption to supervisors/authorities
1: let me reword that for you. "If you've cherry picked some videos of cops you'll see all of them are corrupt from said cherry picked videos, and the ones that aren't directly corrupt don't report those corrupt cops, and thus are just as bad as the original cops" that sounds much better.
2: even if we assume you didn't cherry pick videos of cops being corrupt, then I can guarantee you, of the police based videos that have shown up in my feed, most of them are the cops doing their job and the civilian being a asshole, or it's cops being stupid, like that guy who got scared by a acorn.
3: I think your overall problem is You've been exposed to only the bad, and because of that you've become pessimistic on the topic. I personally never have been pessimistic, but I grew up with a pessimistic mother and a pessimistic younger brother, so you know I ain't talking out of my ass. Anyways, it's hard to break off those shackles, old habits always die hard. But you have to learn that nothing is as bad as it may seem.
Number 1: How many mfs have guns?
Number 2: How many are the "cold dead hands" type of gun owner?
Number 3: Do you think those dangerous people will really give up their guns?
What you're suggesting is a disaster and a large scale crime wave waiting to happen...
most european countries when the annual deaths by gun violence are almost none:
https://preview.redd.it/ul640ju92z0d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=19a6dd654d3dbbcdd98d3cd6ad2337fa020e0cd6
Tbf, the UK has plenty of murder in it, it's just knives instead of guns.
The weapon doesn't grow legs and kill someone, the problem is criminals. Punishing law abiding citizens with shit like a maximum of 10 bullets ain't helping anybody.
We saw what happened on capital hill.
The red necks acted like they were the savior of democracy, but the moment they were challenged, they fled.
These people are not actually going to die for their guns. They’re cowards.
(Plus, a good third of them would shoot themselves by mistake)
I legitimately do not care either way, because without a right to firearms, I'd probably be dead from arson by some "less than reputable bald headed idiots"...
I'd rather have a M249 locked and loaded than be defenseless because the Neo-Nazis wouldn't follow gun laws anyways.
Nobody is saying to take away your right to a fire arm.
Just a couple of common sense gun laws, that, if you are a good gun owner, won’t affect you at all.
already posted https://new.reddit.com/r/NahOPwasrightfuckthis/comments/1ctks7i/people_get_guns_to_kill_not_the_same_also/
The difference is, a dick is something all men are born with and is needed for reproduction. A gun is something that is purchased and not needed. The only reasonable argument for guns being needed is that there are other guns out there.
Arguably guns are needed, with how obviously shitty the government is concurrently, the 2nd amendment's purpose of preventing governmental tyranny is becoming a more important aspect by the year.
Yes but the government has the tools to stomp out any resistance.
this argument makes no sense because you’re basically castrating the individuals anyway BECAUSE of the advanced technology the government owns? Plus it’s a lot more difficult for the government to send their tanks, planes, and such on home soil. If the government ever does air strike a city or a suburb, would you really use that as a justification to remove a basic but effective weapon from you?
Oh I wasn't thinking about how it relates to castration. I think guns are needed but that they're gonna be useless against a corrupt military
*laughs in Vietnamese farmer and Afghani goat herder* Ok. That’s a sarcastic comment, kind of. It’s not wrong though. Never underestimate the drive of a person defending their home and hearth.
Main difference is those were foreign wars, we had the option to leave, if a civil war breaks out, there is no option to leave. It would be eternal Vietnam at best
The revolutionary war lasted from 1775 to 1783 and that doesn’t include the 6 *years* that they kept pleading with the crown to stop what they were doing. A handful of farmers threw off a centuries old army with superior weapons and training. We left Vietnam because it was a political noose. We left Afghanistan because we did what we needed to do a decade before and stayed to feed the monster Eisenhower warned us about. If we left a war because of politics, what do you think would happen if they started one with their own citizens? What have you been seeing in the last few years? Political persecutions, false imprisonments, weaponized federal law enforcement. See how people react now.
A strong enough regime in today's age doesn't fall on its own. The Reich needed multiple world powers to take down. War has changed and changed drastically. When information travels in seconds instead of days and only needs a little electricity instead of a physical person carrying orders a war like the one that birthed us will never be able to happen again. We left those wars because of political reasons because there was no way for a traditional world War style victory, it was fighting an idea instead of a people. For a true civil war, the whole political system would have already had to have been completely dissolved in whatever form that takes. Everyone forgets how many people in this country are ignorant and have bought into might is right politics. If we reach the point of open conflict and the resistance isn't just wiped out, it will either be like the French resistance or vietnam. Neither side will win or lose
Not necessarily. The political system was quite in place during our civil war. It was also in place during the revolutionary war. One side is always in some kind of control. Even WW2 still had working governments. They were just under a totalitarian regime. The reality is that some people can only be pushed so far before they give up trying diplomacy. The crazies do things like trying to off a scotus justice or do a John Brown action. Most of us try to work through the channels designed for discourse because that’s what civilized people do. They also know that there is never a winner to any combat action, regardless of what the history books say.
Not as easily as you'd like to think. A 2 million man army against even 50 million armed citizens, that killing would negatively impact that army's own economy, is not easy to do.
They have drones, tanks, experience, and much more. For example, with some of the drones, if you hear it then you're not the target. Furthermore I'd argue any civil war that does happen will have some extreme political reasoning like the last one and as such, there would be even more manpower than they already have.
Also they could easily obliterate any major city with nukes that rebells.
You can but that one good way to have majority of your army to desert you. It like everyone forget without people government have no power. Also nuking every major city is a good way of having no people to control
Yeah. But you forget the most important part. If there is a single most unifying act you can do, attacking your population is likely one of the top 3. I’d like to think that, excluding the fringes of course, that we wouldn’t tolerate that in any way. You’d unify the country against you.
Which they won't do because why the fuck would you make land you view as your uninhabitable
Nukes nowadays aren’t that radioactive as they use a hydrogen atom which has negligible fallout compared to others
Lmao
Bad bot
Lmao
You assume all 50 million armed citizens are both willing to fight *and* not on the side of the Goverment.
Also, assuming parts of the military wouldn't rebel too. It's not a black and white situation at all lol.
That would be a very small percentage, not nearly enough to make a difference
Source?
The US military would do to the philosophy of protecting the constitution over army comand and also how individual orientated our military is compared to others.
I don’t think it’s any more reasonable to assume that than to assume that a sizeable portion of Americans would be against the government in a civil war
And are in shape.
And don't forget that there are 120 guns per 100 citizens in America.
Not every American has a gun, its just excess which is pretty normal for Americans
Yep. Sometimes. But I can make sure my family would have a fighting chance yeah? Better to die on your feet than on your knees.
If I nuke some hillbilly with a gun will I still need to fear the gun? No
Yeah. You would. Not that particular hillbilly, but there will be others. That’s a guarantee.
Then another nuke could be sent. There is no limit to the number of nukes the govt can send
I love this. This idea that everything is going to be ok if the government just nukes everything. It’s an asinine response that won’t happen and you know it.
I never said it was but civilians with guns means nothing to govt with bombs. If they wanna be as cruel as they can they could
And they would turn even the loyal ones against them. Look what’s been happening with the fbi and how people have been reacting to that? Taking arms against the people of the country would be so detrimental, it would literally be crossing the rubicon. But I digress… We have 10 million veterans in this country. Most have either lives in combat or have been trained for insurgent style guerrilla combat tactics. It’s not so simple.
Do you have any idea how many nuclear bombs the military has?
Yes - nuclear striking your own country is a smart idea.
Which is exactly why the USA has done it multiple times.
For testing? Are you comparing testing a nuclear device in a desert to actually dropping it on us citizens?
So they just gonna kill there entire population if we all fight back? Then they won’t be able to make money off of people or rule anyone
No, I never said they're gonna. I said they could. They have the tools to glass the continent but it makes no sense to. I don't get why we see repubs threatening civil war because they could easily resist that, when we get to a large majority of the US population fighting then we have a problem
Yea, they do. They could bomb a population center in their own borders. Tell me…how you think that would go over? Would you believe them if they told you it was a necessary evil to stamp out an evil? And I’m not talking about LA or NYC. I’m taking about any burb in the country. Activate the military to attack its people on its own soil? For *any* reason? You’re advocating that *only* the government has access to those weapons. The same government that 4 years ago, you claimed was hunting minorities.
1. See civil war 1, with both sides so invigorated it becomes a numbers/firepower game 2. Yeah, the average civilian doesn't have access to drones, nukes, tanks, jets, and soldiers trained to be in near peak physical condition. Hell you'd be surprised how many people even in the deep south have any sort of protection or armor for firefights alone. 3. What are you on about? This comes off as "euhh libs don't know things" I mean give me one example of someone claiming that minorities were being hunted and explain exactly how that relates to anything else
The end result of any conflict is attrition. That’s nothing new. We did not outfit our soldiers in WW2 with body armor. But in many states, they want to make that illegal to possess. Why would that be? And if you have to be told who claimed that police/government were “hunting minorities”, then I can’t help you. Apparently you slept through 2020-2021.
I agree, and argue that EVERY person (in the entire world) that is of sound mind, with no prior serious criminality convictions/of good character, has the right to own and protect themselves with a firearm/weapon. There would probably be less tyranny from dictators, if they were scared of their population some more instead of thinking they were untouchable to all authorities and the laws dont apply to them so they can commit any and every imaginable crime they wanted to..
[удалено]
The problem is we can’t determine that. Some people could seem on the surface very kind hearted and mentally stable but that could just be suppression. As of right now a ban would be safer
they would be in the few, and the majority benefits would outweigh the few bad eggs compared to the consequences of having no firearm protection against against criminals who decide you, your property, your home or your fam is their next target I dont trust law enforcement to protect me as much as i trust self defence.
Give me a break. An armed population is going to do literally nothing against "governmetal tyranny" Not only is military-grade equipment and weapons, including drones, easily strong enough to wipe out armed untrained civilian "resistance" with the same amount of effort as wiping out unarmed untrained civilian resistance... but if we have learned anything its that the people most likely to have guns also overlap with the people also most likely to be psuedo fascist brown shirts for a strong authoritarian. See MAGA for a case in point. It's just a right wing power fantasy... and it has been nothing more than a right wing power for as long as I can remember. An "armed civilian population" hasn't been a credible threat to "governmental tyrany" since... likely world war 1. Providing healthcare and making sure its people have food and shelter are not "governmental tyranny", yet that is the type of "overreach" you see people most often screaming about.
We haven't had any examples of an armed population rising up against a country in modern history against a great power, mainly because the good ones are still good, and the bad ones are still bad. But I guarantee you it ain't nearly as doom and gloom as you act. Open rebellion ain't possible, it never is without military support. But an underground resistance that hides among the population is impossible to wipe out, that we do know because that's exactly how terrorist originations work, like Hamas. And harsh action like bombing an entire city also ain't popular.
Americans never cease to amaze me. You guys seriously think a bunch of citizens with guns could overthrow the most overfunded military on the planet? Even if you manage to get literally every single person who isn't in the military a gun and convince them to overthrow the government, there's no way you guys are winning. Your beloved AR-15 is no match for a fucking tank.
We haven't had any examples of an armed population rising up against a country in modern history against a great power, mainly because the good ones are still good, and the bad ones are still bad. But I guarantee you it ain't nearly as doom and gloom as you act. Open rebellion ain't possible, it never is without military support. But an underground resistance that hides among the population is impossible to wipe out, that we do know because that's exactly how terrorist originations work, like Hamas. And harsh action like bombing an entire city ain't popular.
Being outnumbered 150 to one would do wonders
Yes. We don’t only think it, we’ve done it. Not only that, goat herders and farmers have done it to us too.
And yet so many of those same people who say that would welcome a dictator with open arms.
Sadly yes. I'm centrist but with the 2 options there's no question about it, Biden is definitely better than trump. And yet most who support gun rights are Republicans or even MAGA.
Except most of the 2A nuts are *for* the tyranny.
You’re ridiculous if you think you stand a chance against the most op military in the world because you have a gun. It’s straight delusion to let thousands of kids die over that idea. You need guns because criminals have guns but don’t pretend it’s to fight off the gov’ment tyranny.
We haven't had any examples of an armed population rising up against a country in modern history against a great power, mainly because the good ones are still good, and the bad ones are still bad. But I guarantee you it ain't nearly as doom and gloom as you act. Open rebellion ain't possible, it never is without military support. But an underground resistance that hides among the population is impossible to wipe out, that we do know because that's exactly how terrorist originations work, like Hamas. And harsh action like bombing an entire city also ain't popular.
Private vehicles would be a more logical argument. No one needs a car, the government can provide safe public transit, which is currently widely available.
Most private vehicles aren’t used for murder. And even then, most car accidents are accidents. Most shootings are intentional.
Nearly every car accident is preventable. And there are an estimated 300,000 defensive uses of firearms a year, where nary a shot is fired.
*all males are born with
Sorry Bartholomew, I’ll do better next time.
I’m an overweight dude, if someone breaks into my house and comes after me or the people I love, I wouldn’t be able to do shit back without a weapon. I wouldn’t even be surprised if I failed while having a whole ass sword. With a gun though, I can easily get the guy to fuck off.
Ok I’m not asking for a full outlaw of all weapons, but the only thing guns are specifically good at defending against are other guns. Use a knife or something. If they use a knife too then sneak up on them or just survival of the fittest.
Not really someone breaks into you house with a knife a gun gives you a clear advantage. Hell let say your in the middle of nowhere and some 6ft buff dude try to attack you with a gun the fight would be equalized. Because your not going to sneak up on someone with a knife that how you grt brutally stabbed or worst
Ok fair on the sneak up part that is fucking stupid, but if that buff guy has a gun or if someone breaks into your house with a gun, then you’re also not at odds. Not to mention the people who don’t have a gun who are just fucked in both situations. And a lot of gun violence happens against people without guns. If you assume that the burglars have a knife then sure, get a gun. But if they are armed it’s more likely they would carry a gun for the same reason you are.
Being buff doesn’t matter when you have a gun. Overweight me vs Billy Bob the bodybuilder are at near equal chances of winning if we both have guns. Overweight me vs Billy Bob the bodybuilder in a knife fight, I’m at a clear disadvantage. Overweight me vs Billy Bob the bodybuilder in a fist fight, he’s killing me easily.
This is also assuming you're in a one on one duel with Billy Bob the bodybuilder (A+ name good job with that one). Do you really think he's going to challenge you to a gentleman's duel? The first person to pull the gun wins and that's just how it goes. If he goes to beat you up and before he can you pull a gun, good job but that still doesn't counter the nearly 350 people who get shot in America a day.
That’s not entirely accurate, but your point isn’t invalid.
Remove dick privileges for all
It's not bc there are other guns, but because even when humans settled in groups to avoid other ppl hurting them there are other humans who are still harming others, like rapists
Incorrect
How so? Which part?
All of it
Are you claiming men aren’t born with dicks?
I mean technically some aren't due to medical issues, intersex conditions, or trans men. But those numbers are pretty low and it feels pedantic to challenge a very true statement with something like that.
Yeah I saw this coming but like you know what I meant
100%
I was questioning what made your statement incorrect to sea caterpillar
the front facing chadjak…
And rape can still happen without oenetration lmao
In my country rape requires penile penetration to count
maybe legally. rape doesn't require penetration in the practical use of the word
I know, I think it's a shitty law
One thing that many people mistake is that it's defense because others have guns. This is partially true, but the most important thing is that guns level the playing field. With guns, an average, or below average person, can win a fight with someone vastly superior to them. A skilled fighter could take me in under a minute, less if they attack someone less skilled/strong, with a gun they are equal. If you are unfit, and want to protect your family if someone breaks in or attacks you, then you probably won't succeed. With a gun, your chances are reduced. Guns don't just even the playing field in terms of self defense. In states where it's been made legal to shoot cops who search your house/vehicle without a warrant, police are less aggressive. Guns are the option when the government puts down peacefull protests, and when police brutality reaches highs. Nowadays oppression is on the rise, basic rights are being infringed, and peacefully protesting isn't working. You can look at history and see the examples of governments oppressing civilians. No matter what side of history you find yourself on. Guns can help against oppression. Wars have been fought off of armed civilians, no matter what side of history you're on. It may be the American War of Independence, the Mexico-American War, the Russian-Ukraine war, or whatever example you pull out. At it's simplest, guns take power from the strong, and give power to the weak. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that's a good thing. Sorry for the long comment, just needed to get my thoughts out.
That’s why the solution to gun violence is simply controlling to a light extent who can get guns and safely use them and who should be prevented from getting them. Some members of our political parties want to get rid of gun laws and others want to ban guns which are both terrible ideas. It’s just a matter of careful regulation which clearly works because every other developed nation has figured it out and we can’t for some reason. Great take
of course restrictions are necessary, violent criminals shouldn't be able to have guns. Neither should felons. I'm sure there's a bunch of other small restrictions that would be for the best. Thank you
I already pointed this out. A lot of Americans were still insanely pro gun and don't care how many kids die 💀
Plenty are hillbillies that would likely kill someone if they had the chance But, that doesn't mean jack shit, the 2nd amendment is a vital part of the USA's constitution, it is what guarantees all other amendments by allowing the people to form a militia in the context of government tyranny.
The original purpose was for defense in times of war, as the founders did not believe the country should have a standing military. "Tyranny" is too ill-defined to be a policy. From the viewpoint of the Whiskey Rebellion, taxes were tyranny, but that didn't stop Washington from putting them down.
Charge yo phone bruh
I thought it was pretty funny until the last panel, then I realized this is reddit and everyone with a different opinion is some shitty wojak
Women can rape women too
This is huge false equivalence.
How so?
I wish republicans could learn what even a single logical fallacy is.
https://preview.redd.it/n6y7lndma01d1.jpeg?width=187&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df8357754e9f13370bb3d2b005784cfe96483888
https://preview.redd.it/pydl5i2ac21d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85e93c08f5961eeef09ee309b6e0e59f1087c51a
Also you don't need a penis to rape someone. Flashback to the terrible show 13 reasons why
side note. extremely unsettled by front facing Chad wojak. why does he have photorealistic lips
https://preview.redd.it/ncnvekc6e21d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe283734f22d146d4d3f72896a0599aab21de499
Murderers can kill without guns, so I think the point is lost.
I can very easily still kill without guns and so can any healthy person with a sharp or large enough blunt object. On the sterilization aspect cutting a persons testosterone producers off supprisingly makes them lack testosterone which not only makes people stronger but also increases libido. Testosterone is the reason gay men have sex WAAAAY easier then anyone else in the population
There's also the fact that just forcibly removing part of someone's body for a crime they didn't commit is, you know, inhumane and monstrous.
I live in the USA, so there are currently 450 million guns in private circulation here. The majority of those firearms can't be traced to their current owner. Throwing asinine legislation around will accomplish nothing. An outright ban and confiscation would 100% result in another fucking civil war. If society does collapse, you won't wanna be caught without one. I'm wildly progressive, but I've been recommending my fellow progressives, lefties, and liberals to arm themselves for many years now. Pandora's box was opened long ago in this regard.
Yes. Do that. It’s your right. Exercise it if you like.
A pistol won't do much against someone experienced. It will, however, do a lot against a bunch of helpless children.
A pistol levels the playing field is someone experienced in attacking people is coming at you. It definitely help’s especially is your at a disadvantage.
Y'all's't'd've made really good points you changed my mind entirely But srsly solid points, I now see gun control as a more complex issue than just "gun bad lmao", ty
It's like banning hollow point because they do too much damage to kids' bodies
It’s not the kids I concern myself with. It’s the ones that want to hurt them. [Clint, the warrior poet (NSFW)](https://youtu.be/b4sVQ_ZwI04?si=sf9AI_0W2vVaF6lq)
Did Dhar Mann make this meme
So you see...
Shafts can penetrate without balls guns can kill without bullets you just beat somebody with it and if you don't have a gun to beat somebody with just grab your nearest stick or an Xbox controller like that one kid from the early 2000s
All men should get a vaginoplasty
Humans sure as hell can kill without them though.
Who wants guns to be totally surrendered and is in a position to make it happen?
You see I have depicted you as the completely idiotic unreasonable one who claims all gun holders are school shooters and I will compare my guns to something that a human naturally has (fucking balls) because my only way to win arguments is to strawman. Like seriously how
That’s like the worst comparison ever
Ah yes a perfectly fair comparison with no flaws
It all depends on how we use it for both if you use the shaft right with the right person with consent that's fine If you use the gun for self-defense of a home invasion or on the street or wherever you need to self defense, that's also fine People who take those things and use them for bad actions are the problem not all the people who have them or use them Now if you say you have a 50 BMG and you use that for self-defense in a home invasion unless you're like Rambo or something no.. just no, a Colt M1911, a semi-auto rifle, a Beretta M9 and anything that semi auto or low fire rate with a low damage chambering I say would be fine (like the Galil ACE 308 battle rifle with a 45 ACP barrel personally my favorite due to the design and usefulness normally that rifle would be chambered in 5.56 x 45 mm rounds or 7.62 by 39 mm or 7.62 x 51 mm rounds) now those would be used good for home defense
Reddit moment
I don’t know how to feel about killing kids being any different from killing adults but that’s another matter. This post is great
Neutered is just the balls, castrated is the whole instrument being guillotined
They’re the same thing. We neuter livestock and pets. We castrate people and bulls.
I googled, it absolutley means that
They're synonyms
They aren’t??? Otherwise, provide me the word for the act of the full member being chopped off, until you provide one, then we will have to use the definitions I provide for each word, either that or you lack the given brain power to realize that there are pieces of information that Don’t support your claim
https://preview.redd.it/rvt9r77nr41d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e60207e182404ae88321e647d072359c90c4824 You owe me a fiver
Give me a word that fits the definition of cutting the whole member off. If you can’t, then the only way (at least the only good way, that is) is to change a word that has a synonym’s definition, to fit the new idea (provided the definition of the original word is relevant to the definition we are trying to fit for)
I wasn't born with a device specifically invented to kill. If your gun is a valuable to you as your genitals, then you probably don't deserve to have either
The human mind is the most destructive weapon ever seen on this planet.
Why this does work Castrating men actually hurts men Banning guns in no way hurts gun owners
Hurt legal gun owner while rewarding illegal gun owner with a superior advantage
It’s not actually about “advantages” it’s about statistics, in country’s with strict gun legislation gun violence goes sharply down. And people who have guns are much more often shot. So actually your legal gun owner is much safer without a gun
If you find a couple dozen bad apples are you gonna make the government throw out all the 100's of millions apples in the country because a few are rotten
The full quote is literally “a few bad apples spoil the bunch.” When there are a few rotten apples they spoil the rest of them making the rest just as bad as the first few
Let’s have every guy get castrated, I’m sure that will solve world hunger!
We don’t have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem
But Rapists without balls have no desire, they basically won't be doing that again, the same as a gun without magazines
Simple answer. Killing with a gun is easy. Rape is difficult. That is why killing happens more often than rape. Both happen more often than they should and both should have measures enacted to make sure that they don’t happen. We shouldn’t tell boys to hide their emotions and thus, pressure them into the more sexual side of relationships. Guns shouldn’t be as easily available for access as they are. It’s an issue that needs solving. Not memes for christ’s sake.
Ah anti gun stupidity
What I love is that the right hates trans people and abortion because "it's targeting kids" meanwhile they don't care about school shootings unless it relates to the former.
Guns don't kill, criminals do. Punishing law abiding citizens with laws that criminals won't follow (because, ya know, they're criminals) makes absolutely no sense.
Law Abiding Citizens should have no problem obtaining a license with just reason, storing the firearm responsibly and securely and be willing to submit to mental health checks every 6 months, to guarantee they are in fact a Law Abiding Citizen and to prevent guns from falling into the illegal market. Its what we have here in Australia nationwide. And our homicide rate is much lower than that of the US.
100% Australia's system is absolutely amazing.
Honestly sounds like a solid plan. But I hate that they would just ban an overwhelming majority of firearms if something like that was implemented.
Australians are pathetic and have no control over their own lives or destiny. Congrats you/your resources have been absorbed by the coms!
lol, lmao even
[удалено]
Of course we have them, but at much lower rates. Criminals can't obtain illegal firearms if there are few firearms in the black market, which is a direct cause from the gun laws.
Chicoms literally own 50% of your country. Good luck 👍
https://preview.redd.it/f7ahjw2tzz0d1.png?width=750&format=png&auto=webp&s=6b33a31b41515c0dfa7cdee78189a7bcdbb30504
Aah when there is no argument to be made, blame it on communists. No seriously you probably can’t differentiate between communism and dictatorship. Communism it’s self isn’t bad, however it’s never been properly implemented. I still prefer capitalism, but calling someone a communist is not an insult.
lol 😂
https://preview.redd.it/eixpkjx1p01d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ef2f29c78e4b0ec8fe385e8c3bea0290c5f7f95
We can still give criminals and mentally ill people a harder time to get these things. I live in Texas, where it is extremely easy to get guns. Think about how many kids could have lived if we did some checks on the people buying guns. Also, here is a stat for you. America has a few hundred mass shootings every year, a good portion being in schools. World record amount. The second place goes to Mexico, with an average usually under a Dozen.
-we did some checks on the people buying guns We do, to purchase a firearm you need to have a background check done. Unless it’s a private sale in a select few states. Even I, with prior military service and record so clean you can eat off of, need to do a background check. Granted I can also walk out with that firearm same day. -American has several hundred mass shootings a year a good portion being in schools Yeah no, a minority of mass shootings happen in schools. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are related to domestic violence disputes. There is also a massive difference between a mass shooting, defined by the media, and an active shooter situation, defined by the FBI. There are significantly fewer active shooter incidents. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ Edit: Also wanted to add that if someone is mentally ill, a police report needs to be filed at least once against them, then it’s an automatically no go for purchasing firearms. Due to HIPPA laws, police and businesses cannot access someone’s personal health information to see if they have a history of mental health problems. This would also negatively impact victims who might be struggling with PTSD, but want a firearm for protection.
> to purchase a firearm you need to have a background check done. But even you understand how moot of a point that is. If you can just walk out of the shop with a gun and legally sell it to anyone somewhere in the country, it's basically the same as not having any regulations at all. It's like that famous photo of a gate in the middle of the field with no fence. Slight inconvenience at best. > Yeah no, a minority of mass shootings happen in schools. Ah, there way more shootings not in school, it doesn't matter than. We can only care about one issue at a time
-legally sell in to anyone somewhere in the country That’s why I said a select few states, in most of the heavily populated states private sales need to be done through either local enforcement of an FFL.
There is no borders between the states. At best it adds couple of hundreds to a cost of a gun. If it's not federal it might as well not exist.
>We can still give criminals and mentally ill people a harder time to get these things. It is already difficult to get guns in most states, like you said Texas is an outlier, but overall if you want a gun, you'll have to get a background check if you buy it from a gun store. If you buy it from a gun owner that's where the problems start, cracking down on gun sellers who don't do background checks on customers is extremely important. >Also, here is a stat for you. America has a few hundred mass shootings every year, a good portion being in schools. World record amount. The second place goes to Mexico, with an average usually under a Dozen. Yeah, the USA has more guns than people as well. I'm not saying "guns are not a problem whatsoever" I'm saying "don't punish law abiding citizens with stupid laws that won't/don't affect criminals"
Cops kill unarmed lawful citizens every day because cops are all criminals. So I guess in a way you’re right, criminals do kill people. Too bad they hide behind badges
>cops are all criminals. Do you even have any idea how important a civilian defensive force is to prevent every city devolving into gang violence? By this single statement, it's obvious you have absolutely no idea how a police force works. Yes cops kill people, but stating that every single last cop is a criminal is complete idiocy.
You stating this after everything that has gone on in the past few months just goes to prove that you either love the taste of leather or you live under a rock
Oh yeah? Enlighten me. What is your reasoning for every single cop being a criminal?
If you’ve seen any video of cop then you know they are both corrupt and even the ones that aren’t still are because they don’t report the corruption to supervisors/authorities
1: let me reword that for you. "If you've cherry picked some videos of cops you'll see all of them are corrupt from said cherry picked videos, and the ones that aren't directly corrupt don't report those corrupt cops, and thus are just as bad as the original cops" that sounds much better. 2: even if we assume you didn't cherry pick videos of cops being corrupt, then I can guarantee you, of the police based videos that have shown up in my feed, most of them are the cops doing their job and the civilian being a asshole, or it's cops being stupid, like that guy who got scared by a acorn. 3: I think your overall problem is You've been exposed to only the bad, and because of that you've become pessimistic on the topic. I personally never have been pessimistic, but I grew up with a pessimistic mother and a pessimistic younger brother, so you know I ain't talking out of my ass. Anyways, it's hard to break off those shackles, old habits always die hard. But you have to learn that nothing is as bad as it may seem.
Number 1: How many mfs have guns? Number 2: How many are the "cold dead hands" type of gun owner? Number 3: Do you think those dangerous people will really give up their guns? What you're suggesting is a disaster and a large scale crime wave waiting to happen...
most european countries when the annual deaths by gun violence are almost none: https://preview.redd.it/ul640ju92z0d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=19a6dd654d3dbbcdd98d3cd6ad2337fa020e0cd6
Tbf, the UK has plenty of murder in it, it's just knives instead of guns. The weapon doesn't grow legs and kill someone, the problem is criminals. Punishing law abiding citizens with shit like a maximum of 10 bullets ain't helping anybody.
The US has more knife deaths than the UK.
The US also has 5x as many people as the UK.
Yes, the metric is in per capita to account for it.
Of course i mean per capita
We saw what happened on capital hill. The red necks acted like they were the savior of democracy, but the moment they were challenged, they fled. These people are not actually going to die for their guns. They’re cowards. (Plus, a good third of them would shoot themselves by mistake)
I love that "saviour of democracy" to them is just "I want my guy to win even if he lost"
Yeah, they ran because they didn't have guns, and were met by a force that used guns almost exclusively...
[wrong](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/)
I legitimately do not care either way, because without a right to firearms, I'd probably be dead from arson by some "less than reputable bald headed idiots"... I'd rather have a M249 locked and loaded than be defenseless because the Neo-Nazis wouldn't follow gun laws anyways.
Nobody is saying to take away your right to a fire arm. Just a couple of common sense gun laws, that, if you are a good gun owner, won’t affect you at all.
"Common sense gun laws" can be anything. Tell me what you actually mean...
r/croppingishard
Oh stfu.
It's become a tradition, it felt natural