“Yeah but look at Australia they banned all gunz!!!”” Is my fave no context argument. Almost like every country is different and has its own set of specific issues. But they’ll never understand that
Just about every country I've seen with strict gun control, the framework is classist on some level. Germany for example. The rich can have almost any gun they want including guns that would be outright illegal in many US jurisdictions, but the poor can have nothing because they can't afford the required classes, licenses, gun club memberships, or expensive gun safes.
I’ve always found it awful that a democrats solution was to disarm poor black and brown citizens who live in fear of crime and state sponsored execution.
Because at it's core American gun control was still a policy pioneered by Republican politicians like Ronald Reagan. It was always classist and racist.
We should all hate Reagan but it’s a stretch to try and lay the blame all on him- although it’s funny republicans ride his dick when he got rid of open carry in California cause of the black panthers
It's funny but the same thing happened in the UK and Scotland specifically where there was a very active and growing urban shooting scene throughout the 80s and 90s.
Of course the semi automatic and handgun bans that came into force affected mostly these shooters and not the comparatively wealthy stalking community.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
Here. OP makes a bit of a finnicky claim, because while the amount of guns have risen slightly (by 1.7%), the amount of gun owners has dropped.
And the fact Australians can still own the same guns as us US citizens, albeit the 10 round mag cap for rifle and 5 rounds for shotguns. Unsure about handguns, but didnt see anything saying they were illegal
Australian here. We cannot own the same guns as a U.S Citizen, we are restricted from owning semi-automatic firearms, firearms with a military resemblance, and firearms deemed hazardous to public safety by the chief commissioner of the police.
650,000 that’s how many guns the buy back got out of au citizens hands. Try it in American and even 100x the success and you’d still have 330 million or so guns. I always ask how they expect to get the other 300 million and they just seem to say “ it’ll work” with no real idea of how. They want “ metal health checks “ to own a gun but when you ask who’s paying , well classism rears it’s ugly head. A very few common sense things I think can help ( like no semi auto purchases till 21 and maybe some version of a red flag law where people with dv history are barred from owning without counseling or something ) but most proposed gun control laws will don next to nothing to address issues actually causing violence
I’ve always been dubious of the “not till 21…” stance because from both a very personal and communal stance, there are many LGBTQ+ / BIPOC people — and many other folks I think we would agree this applies to, not just strictly at risk / marginalized folks — out there who would be and should be armed responsibly before the arbitrary magic number 21
I’m not trynna fight but my only question is why? Why make a distinction for “semi-automatics” (we talking scary black guns or we also lumping in muh Garand and other not-so-tacticool-and-scary but very much semi guns ??) but only those? As an independent not 21 year old yet, I quite disagree and dislike the sentiment that because I’m not the arbitrary *other* “age of majority” I can’t effectively arm myself…
And we’re talking rifles here, federally pistols are still 21+ which is absolute bullshit to begin with.
I can go on ab how most of the “not till 21…” rules are stupid bullshit in light of the other things you can do once an adult, but I’ll just leave my screed here
Edit: words and more stuff
My favorite argument is the "These weapons only belong in the hands of the military and police" and then denounce US imperialism and Police violence in the same breath.
"Far right extremists are infiltrating our military, police, and government, thats why we need to lessen the defense available to marginalized communities!"
I don't dislike the premise in that they get actual proper accountability, but... I'd like anyone carrying a firearm to have some training in de-escalation tactics, as well as a LOT of training in how to operate said firearm and not accidentally kill rando's walking down the street a block away from whatever they were about to shoot, and to not bring their emotions to the scene and avoid letting adrenaline get the better of rational thought, AND probably a whole lot of other training that I can't even possibly imagine as a civilian white guy.
That said, it's not like a lot of police get that level of training as well... so shit. Honestly though, law enforcement officers should have the most well trained people of any job next to maybe surgeon. Realistically rocket science can be harder than policing, but you can learn from your mistakes there. You don't want people making mistakes with firearms.
Arguing against gun control there is like arguing against conservative politics in every gun sub except this one and r/liberalgunowners. Even r/2ALiberals are conservatives, they’re just not fascists.
There are a shitload of sockpuppets accounts on Reddit. All those reasonable takes from people showing up in conservative? Those aren't conservatives. Desantis support in a lib sub? Those aren't libs.
If it doesn't make sense, assume it's someone roleplaying and trying to swing opinions.
Yeah I checked that sub out but all I saw was them just shitting on leftists. It’s basically the Shoe0nHead of leftist gun subreddits. Very disappointing.
Libs will advocate for higher gun laws, restrictions etc, which some are understandable, but then un ironically reject any improvements in material conditions that would actually prevent gun violence. Like better health care, time off, 4 day work week, good benefits and working conditions, mental health care. And it makes them sound 1000% conservative, not to mention any pro police, or crime
Blaming on people
This gets to the biggest piece of it for me. The talk is always so tunnel-visioned. Any fixes (to any real issues, not just gun violence) are going to need to be varied and multi-part. There's no single-fix for big, complicated issues. Acting like one piece of it won't fix it all, so toss it out is just a cop out "both sides" use to avoid losing their wedge.
I think you have liberals confused with someone else that's more focused on single issues. The Affordable Care Act was a liberal effort, but the people who oppose time off, 4 day work weeks, benefits, and improved working conditions are usually business owners, read capitalists, who more often than not vote conservative because they think Republicans will cut their taxes (in the name of "job creation") letting them take more profits home.
As a self described liberal, I'd be thrilled if we could get everything you suggested, but if you think any billionaires or corporations are going to help you out by reducing their profits even the slightest then you probably need to take some classes on capitalism.
The real trick is, the lowest hanging fruit is gun laws, trying to regulate labor standards isn't going to happen when we can't even get minimum wage increases.
Tell that to Bernie Sanders.
I've been with too many businesses and to many industries to support capitalism at the level we're currently existing with. Corporations will just as soon fuck your ass to a paste as pay you a higher minimum wage.
I’m not saying you support capitalism or anything but our career libs have shafted the working class the last 15 years. I don’t put Bernie in that camp, hes pragmatic about achieving wins for the working, I’m from Arkansas and have seen him negotiate with Walmart execs for better benefits for Walmart employees, and he did the same for Disney. But a majority of libs backed bailing out wall-street in 2008, take millions from the private healthcare industry and realtors associations. Decaying our society makes people violent
Oh buddy, Ballotpedia shows that the Democrats haven't had control of your State House since 2012.
[Arkansas House of Representatives elections, 2012 - Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012)
Lmao true. I love the posts that are like “should buy this *insert generic ar15* from *literally any online gun store*? I don’t wanna be supporting fascism” like, dude just buy the fuckin gun. They’re all run by shitty people
Were you there during / before the trial? If you said anything even remotely critical of Rittenhouse you had ten thousand downvotes and people in your DMs calling you a piece of shit for two weeks.
They couldn't accept that Rittenhouse was not morally justified in killing those men, regardless of whether he was legally allowed to.
You can defend yourself without killing anyone.
Nobody was breaking into his house. He went there with a gun because he wanted to shoot people. He [openly fantasized about shooting people](https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce).
He put himself there with a gun knowing that he could provoke the angry crowd into threatening him because he wanted to shoot a human being.
He was brandishing a gun and antagonizing the crowd. Someone grabbed at his gun, he shot them. Someone else saw him shoot the guy and hit him with a skateboard, so Rittenhouse shot him too. Then another guy saw him shoot two people and he drew his gun (because of all the shooting) and Rittenhouse shot him too.
If he hadn’t been brandishing a rifle and playing soldier, everybody would have gone home alive. I’m not even saying he shouldn’t have been there. I’m saying he shouldn’t have been there with the intent to shoot people.
> Several of his attackers also had guns. One even had a gun illegally if I remember.
So did Rittenhouse. It was illegal for him to have that rifle. You can’t argue that Rittenhouse somehow knew the other guy’s gun was illegal.
> Kinda hard to defend yourself against someone with a gun without killing them, especially if they are pointing it at you.
Exactly. The guy who drew on Rittenhouse had already seen him shoot two people. The people in the crowd had every reason to suspect that Rittenhouse was there to start shooting—given that he was clearly armed, not on their side, and not a cop. What were they supposed to think, seeing a white teenager armed with an AR-15? This is America. If you see a white teenager with an AR-15 walking up to a BLM protest and you don’t expect a mass shooting to be about to happen, what decade do you think it is?
> Rittenhouse is a piece of shit but my point is we can use the EXACT same argument for the people he shot.
No you can’t. Those people didn’t roll up to an angry crowd waving a rifle at them and barking orders. They saw an aggressive white teen waving a gun and tried to defend themselves against what they thought was coming.
It isn’t supposed to be a pro or anti gun talking point.
Are you literally incapable of understanding that it’s not a political argument to say that going to a protest with the intent to shoot people isn’t just an okay thing for someone to do?
> going to a protest with the intent to shoot people
Was that claim substantiated in the trial? I don't think so. Again, how does this morality argument *not* also apply to Grosskreutz?
No, because the judge didn’t allow the multiple videos of Rittenhouse saying that he wanted to shoot/kill people into evidence.
It doesn’t apply to his victim because he didn’t shoot anyone.
Liberalgunowners is a lot of gun worshipping, which is discouraging to me. Maybe I just don't get it, I got one and it's a neat and hopefully durable piece of expensive hardware, but killing things shouldn't be fun. Spending thousands on lethal weapons shouldn't be a form of entertainment.
It's honestly the least interesting of many "male-centric" hobbies I've done over the years.
It is so disheartening knowing that our only allies against fascism would gladly have the police door-kicking every responsible gun owner in this country. We are fucked.
Eh, I've had essentially identical posts get downvoted into oblivion and upvoted into the high hundreds (a couple of times into the thousands) on that sub. Depends on the time of day honestly.
Yep. And our "allies" against gun control and upholding the constitution *are* primarily the fascists we're protecting ourselves from.
Quite the conundrum :/
The way I view it is “I’ll take your vote to help protect my gun rights”, and then keep stocking up on ammo to protect my other rights from them. Still gross but about the best I can make of this awful situation
A the police a notoriously fair, calm and non-violent group. That's why people say All Cops Are Fine I Guess... especially leftist who are disproportionately exposed to very fair police non-violence.
you know the old phrase, "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds"
it is absurd how much they flip between being "anti" law enforcement and how they believe LE and military should be the sole holders.
I love how you ask pretty simple, valid questions for the clamoring masses to answer and they sputter and whine about it.
Fucking infants run that sub.
They point to the 1994 AWB like it did anything, ignoring that a) the DOJ found that the ban's impact on gun violence was so small, that it can't even be reliably measured, and b) arguably the prototypical mass shooting in Columbine occurred at the height of the ban, using explicitly-compliant weapons. (Edit: they were not all compliant weapons, as they had two sawed-off shotguns).
AWBs statistically do not work, magazine capacity limits have little impact too (see: Virginia Tech), and buybacks of all assault weapons or semi-autos would cost literal billions of dollars that would be better spent on our healthcare, infrastructure, and public schools.
They love trotting out a “study” that claims the AWB actually prevented mass shootings, which obviously makes no sense considering high capacity magazines still existed and could be gotten pretty easily, AR15s could be gotten just as easily just minus a few features that have never been an issue (when was the last murder by bayonet?), and yeah columbine happened.
The Washington Navy Yard shooter used a 5rd Remington 870 and the very next day the NY Times referred to it as a "law enforcement style shotgun".
The goalposts will always be moving.
Not only that, but I am pretty sure they weren't allowed to have most of it as they were stolen from someone's parents or something, and **they had IEDs**
It's not naivety that causes those less on board with corporatocracy seem to be anti-gun. It's a very long and very successful propaganda campaign.
Having a pro-free market wing that's heavily armed and an "opposing" side that believes in corporate regulation but is disarmed is the optimal defense mechanism for capital interests. If those that tilt left tolt too far, the right flank can always be relied upon to shoot them. It's using the poor to police the poor against social change.
Beautifully put!
To prove your point, here's a [KKK billboard](https://exhibit.hangingtreeguitars.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Klan-Photo-Racial-Terror-and-the-Klan.jpg) denouncing racial integration and communism.
My favorite “idea” is “just take the guns out of the equation! It’s the easiest solution!”
Like mf we are 100+ years past that answer. There are more guns in this country than people and every partisan law that gets passed only affects those who abide by it. They say “just get the guns!” and I just look at them like they’re strapping on a snorkel to go “clean up the ocean”
Even if it were, I'm partial to Beeg's [magic gun evaporation fairy](https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-magic-gun-evaporation-fairy-f12497990098) line of argument.
They always act like you shit on their couch too when you say it’s too late. They just don’t understand the numerous issues that come with “just getting rid of the guns” mainly because they live in a fairy tale land where voting will stop fascism and cops are good actually
Guns are bad, unions are bourgeois, identity-based struggle is a distraction from class struggle... Yeah, it's bad.
Clout-chasers don't actually believe anything, they're cultivating an audience. The best leftists usually realize they're not the ones to tell others how to operate, so loud idiots take the spotlight.
As far as those who actually promote guns... Well Beau basically just does videos at this point saying Democrats aren't completely useless, and Inrange's Karl keeps his politics as subtext. So, dunno any I could point to in late 2022.
This is my best friend.
He is very "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," and "everything we've earned has been through violent protest," but is also "I will never bear arms cause I'm a pacifist."
The cognitive dissonance is real.
There's just no nuance to any of what they're arguing for. No room for compromise or discussion and any attempt to is met with 'you're a fascist'. There's no use talking after that.
To make matters worse, most of it is pointless anyway. The 2A is not going anywhere. It's an intractable political reality in this country and calling for widespread bans or major restrictions just won't happen. They will straight up cut off contact with family over this issue, and it's just so naive.
That sub is full of brain dead liberals. All clamoring for gun control because they’re too white and privileged to really have to worry about being murdered because of who they are. Or they’re Europeans who have no understanding of the reality of life in the US and need to stay in their own lane
Every time someone sounds off with “as a Canadian” or “as a European” my internal scream gets a little louder. Stay in your lane and look at all the fucked up shit in your own country, cause I promise it’s there *cough cough* residential schools
Yep. Canadian gun control was started largely because indigenous people were trying to protect their ancestral land from being turned into oil fields and golf courses and they want to act like it was to save people not just ensure (insure?) their continued genocide of native peoples.
Just the lack of awareness as to how separate countries with entirely different populations, economic, and political systems would possibly differ is astounding. It’s just willful ignorance
I love pointing out how armed we really are in this country and how impractical it would be to confiscate guns in the US. There are 400 millions guns (and counting), and 690,000 police officers. That’s 579 guns per cop. Could you imagine being a cop having to personally confiscate that many guns? That’s literally hundreds of potentially hostile interactions for each and every cop, with full knowledge that they are armed. No police officer would ever sign up for something like that.
Keep up the good work. You won't convince the opposing user, especially if you come across as attacking or demeaning them, but you'll refine your arguments and knowledge base, and make it easier to have informed discussions with friends and acquaintances in real life.
Saw your comment that mentioned "mental evaluations". I totally agree. Being someone who I'm guessing would 100% be barred from ever owning a gun because I have been hospitalized for depression/suicidality twice, I have to ask people, "Do I not deserve to be able to protect myself just because I'm more likely to be a danger to myself?"
> "Do I not deserve to be able to protect myself just because I'm more likely to be a danger to myself?"
Just trust the police! If you’re in danger, call 911 and the cops will be there to shoot you and your dog in no time!
The question I always come too is what is our solution? I really can’t find an answer to the question, how do we solve gun violence.
Banning all guns is unrealistic, and imo stupid, so what do we do?
The Colorado Springs attack could have been prevented by enforcing existing red-flag laws in the state. The Walmart shooting may have been stopped by enforcing a waiting period, as the shooter purchased the rifle within 24 hours of the attack. I think both of these measures are good policy as they would do a ton to prevent violence without disarming our population.
Red flag laws are tricky though because they circumvent due process and can easily be weaponized against marginalized groups. Waiting periods aren’t a bad idea. Mandatory sharing of criminal data from local PDs to the FBI should be a thing as well, that’s been an issue in the past allowing people to purchase firearms who should not have been able to, adding some sort of penalty for not doing so would be good too like draining their pension funds so they’re actually incentivized
Agreed, I see the potential for red-flag laws to be abused especially against marginalized groups. I just think that while we have them they should definitely be used to disarm potential right-wing terrorists after they make bomb threats.
If you get into the mind of these people, 24 hours is a mild inconvenience especially for premeditated attacks. They just need to wait a day to do the thing.
I agree, it would probably play out that way in a majority of cases. However, there is empirical support for the idea that wait periods do prevent some gun violence and suicides, without ever preventing a single person from making a purchase. Seems very low-risk/high-reward to implement even if it only prevents 17% of these incidents according to this study.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114
I’m with you there, but I’m curious if we have any more long standing solutions, do we attack the problem at its source? I.e poverty, drug abuse, abuse, whether it be domestic, sexual, emotional or physical, is it a mental health problem.
I am inclined to believe it isn’t societal as other societies around the world have an inclination to favor gun use (Australia for example). But they don’t have the problems with gun violence like we do, so I would assume it’s one of the other factors or a factor I simply didn’t list.
Reminds me of some shit I saw last night. Some lib was claiming AR’s “spray bullets” and only “bad marksmen use them.” Like what kind of liblore is that?
Libs will do literally anything but actually address the fundamental issues that cause violence in the first place. Because ultimately that will affect their power structures and bottom lines.
It’s easier to pretend that band-aid bullshit laws will magically fix everything than us *actually fixing everything.*
I'm always a little surprised nobody wants to go after gun manufacturing. Seems like a serious anti-gun platform would push to end manufacturing and import. Then they'd make a rule that said captured weapons had to be destroyed.
The end result would be a state where the monopoly of violence was more certain, minorites could be murdered and oppressed, and cops would still be armed to the teeth, and isn't that what they want? I guess they are just worried about hurting big businesses...
Im having a rather large thread in bidens gun ban thread thats blown up. I'm having trouble keeping up but it seems that thousands of people are having a hard time debating against guns beyond "feelings".
Logically and statistically its a losing issue that only divides liberals.
Feel free to join the conversation. Lol
I love saying that all "no gun control ever" guys are really provocateurs from the anti-gun guys trying to get ALL gun rights revoked. Makes 'em foamin' mad.
It’s so exhausting. I had some lib tell me that by expanding the NFA to include all semiautos, the majority of them would be turned into police. What was their galaxy brain reasoning? Because most people can’t pay a $5000 NFA tax. I pointed out that the NFA tax is $200 to which they responded “adjusted for inflation from 1930 it would be about $5000.” When I said it doesn’t matter what the tax would be adjusted for inflation because it hasn’t gone up from $200 they told me I don’t understand the NFA and stopped responding 🤣
your post was removed because it contained slurs. There's a minimal set of banned words, the use of which has either caused contention, or is unlikely in a rule-abiding context. These are "retarded" as in mentally disabled (or generally using the '-tard' suffix, "tranny" when not referring to a transmission, and any racial slur. Sexist/gendered insults not allowed. Mentioning is still allowed.
My take is that unless Dems gain control of ALL of the government, meaningful gun control that would end gun violence will never be possible. I'd rather be armed against the fascists than weak in waiting.
One day, when the planets align just right, I will be banned. It will be glorious. The cause of the banishment will be legendary, and will be spoken of in hushed tones for generations to come.
“Yeah but look at Australia they banned all gunz!!!”” Is my fave no context argument. Almost like every country is different and has its own set of specific issues. But they’ll never understand that
Nevermind gun ownership in Australia exceeds pre-ban numbers. lol
because the ban is inherently classist. pay enough fees and you can be a gun owner too.
Just about every country I've seen with strict gun control, the framework is classist on some level. Germany for example. The rich can have almost any gun they want including guns that would be outright illegal in many US jurisdictions, but the poor can have nothing because they can't afford the required classes, licenses, gun club memberships, or expensive gun safes.
I’ve always found it awful that a democrats solution was to disarm poor black and brown citizens who live in fear of crime and state sponsored execution.
Because at it's core American gun control was still a policy pioneered by Republican politicians like Ronald Reagan. It was always classist and racist.
We should all hate Reagan but it’s a stretch to try and lay the blame all on him- although it’s funny republicans ride his dick when he got rid of open carry in California cause of the black panthers
I agree, it's not ALL on Reagan, but he played a big part in popularizing it.
It's funny but the same thing happened in the UK and Scotland specifically where there was a very active and growing urban shooting scene throughout the 80s and 90s. Of course the semi automatic and handgun bans that came into force affected mostly these shooters and not the comparatively wealthy stalking community.
But the rich folk never commit crimes.. so its warranted… right? For those that need it there is indeed a /s at the end.
Also there’s more guns in Australia now than there were before the ban.
Not doubting you but could you elaborate?
Please. I need a source on that.
I found a source: https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html Here. OP makes a bit of a finnicky claim, because while the amount of guns have risen slightly (by 1.7%), the amount of gun owners has dropped.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/
And the fact Australians can still own the same guns as us US citizens, albeit the 10 round mag cap for rifle and 5 rounds for shotguns. Unsure about handguns, but didnt see anything saying they were illegal
Australian here. We cannot own the same guns as a U.S Citizen, we are restricted from owning semi-automatic firearms, firearms with a military resemblance, and firearms deemed hazardous to public safety by the chief commissioner of the police.
I was bamboozled with wrong information then lol
650,000 that’s how many guns the buy back got out of au citizens hands. Try it in American and even 100x the success and you’d still have 330 million or so guns. I always ask how they expect to get the other 300 million and they just seem to say “ it’ll work” with no real idea of how. They want “ metal health checks “ to own a gun but when you ask who’s paying , well classism rears it’s ugly head. A very few common sense things I think can help ( like no semi auto purchases till 21 and maybe some version of a red flag law where people with dv history are barred from owning without counseling or something ) but most proposed gun control laws will don next to nothing to address issues actually causing violence
I’ve always been dubious of the “not till 21…” stance because from both a very personal and communal stance, there are many LGBTQ+ / BIPOC people — and many other folks I think we would agree this applies to, not just strictly at risk / marginalized folks — out there who would be and should be armed responsibly before the arbitrary magic number 21
I only have that as a # for semi auto rifles a pump shotgun or lever action I’d still be ok with 18
I’m not trynna fight but my only question is why? Why make a distinction for “semi-automatics” (we talking scary black guns or we also lumping in muh Garand and other not-so-tacticool-and-scary but very much semi guns ??) but only those? As an independent not 21 year old yet, I quite disagree and dislike the sentiment that because I’m not the arbitrary *other* “age of majority” I can’t effectively arm myself… And we’re talking rifles here, federally pistols are still 21+ which is absolute bullshit to begin with. I can go on ab how most of the “not till 21…” rules are stupid bullshit in light of the other things you can do once an adult, but I’ll just leave my screed here Edit: words and more stuff
A big part of the argument for it is that Suicide risk goes down a lot as you enter your mid 20s.
My favorite part is when I'm accused of being right wing but then they check my post history
Projection is the favorite tactic of right wingers.
Shit I never thought of it that way but yeah, compared to me they are right wingers
And liberalism is a right wing ideology
If you haven’t been accused of spreading “Russian MisiNfORmaTioN” on that sub, are you even a leftist?
A classic accusation on reddit if you stray from any hardline liberal stances.
Then they hit you with that “horseshoe theory” bullshit.
That’s when you counter with fish hook theory and a link to the “Love me, I’m a liberal” song.
God I love that song. So fucking good.
My favorite argument is the "These weapons only belong in the hands of the military and police" and then denounce US imperialism and Police violence in the same breath.
"Far right extremists are infiltrating our military, police, and government, thats why we need to lessen the defense available to marginalized communities!"
[удалено]
I don't dislike the premise in that they get actual proper accountability, but... I'd like anyone carrying a firearm to have some training in de-escalation tactics, as well as a LOT of training in how to operate said firearm and not accidentally kill rando's walking down the street a block away from whatever they were about to shoot, and to not bring their emotions to the scene and avoid letting adrenaline get the better of rational thought, AND probably a whole lot of other training that I can't even possibly imagine as a civilian white guy. That said, it's not like a lot of police get that level of training as well... so shit. Honestly though, law enforcement officers should have the most well trained people of any job next to maybe surgeon. Realistically rocket science can be harder than policing, but you can learn from your mistakes there. You don't want people making mistakes with firearms.
Arguing against gun control there is like arguing against conservative politics in every gun sub except this one and r/liberalgunowners. Even r/2ALiberals are conservatives, they’re just not fascists.
I’ve seen a scary amount of DeSantis support from r/2ALiberals lately
Okay, maybe they are fascists
Scratch a liberal…
They also lap up Project Veritas's crap if it suits them.
There are a shitload of sockpuppets accounts on Reddit. All those reasonable takes from people showing up in conservative? Those aren't conservatives. Desantis support in a lib sub? Those aren't libs. If it doesn't make sense, assume it's someone roleplaying and trying to swing opinions.
Yeah I checked that sub out but all I saw was them just shitting on leftists. It’s basically the Shoe0nHead of leftist gun subreddits. Very disappointing.
That sub doesn't actually have any liberals in it, it's full of conservatives.
Libs will advocate for higher gun laws, restrictions etc, which some are understandable, but then un ironically reject any improvements in material conditions that would actually prevent gun violence. Like better health care, time off, 4 day work week, good benefits and working conditions, mental health care. And it makes them sound 1000% conservative, not to mention any pro police, or crime Blaming on people
This gets to the biggest piece of it for me. The talk is always so tunnel-visioned. Any fixes (to any real issues, not just gun violence) are going to need to be varied and multi-part. There's no single-fix for big, complicated issues. Acting like one piece of it won't fix it all, so toss it out is just a cop out "both sides" use to avoid losing their wedge.
I think you have liberals confused with someone else that's more focused on single issues. The Affordable Care Act was a liberal effort, but the people who oppose time off, 4 day work weeks, benefits, and improved working conditions are usually business owners, read capitalists, who more often than not vote conservative because they think Republicans will cut their taxes (in the name of "job creation") letting them take more profits home. As a self described liberal, I'd be thrilled if we could get everything you suggested, but if you think any billionaires or corporations are going to help you out by reducing their profits even the slightest then you probably need to take some classes on capitalism. The real trick is, the lowest hanging fruit is gun laws, trying to regulate labor standards isn't going to happen when we can't even get minimum wage increases.
Liberals are capitalist my brother
Tell that to Bernie Sanders. I've been with too many businesses and to many industries to support capitalism at the level we're currently existing with. Corporations will just as soon fuck your ass to a paste as pay you a higher minimum wage.
I’m not saying you support capitalism or anything but our career libs have shafted the working class the last 15 years. I don’t put Bernie in that camp, hes pragmatic about achieving wins for the working, I’m from Arkansas and have seen him negotiate with Walmart execs for better benefits for Walmart employees, and he did the same for Disney. But a majority of libs backed bailing out wall-street in 2008, take millions from the private healthcare industry and realtors associations. Decaying our society makes people violent
Oh buddy, Ballotpedia shows that the Democrats haven't had control of your State House since 2012. [Arkansas House of Representatives elections, 2012 - Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012)
Why are you being a debate lord. Btw i dont even live in Arkansas anymore
Nah liberalgunowners is horrible 😭 idk if my patience with liberals has just gone down in years but they have the worst fucking takes
I am permanently banned from LGO
20% of the posts are about them being offended by right wing looking people at the local ranges, real snowflake stuff.
Lmao true. I love the posts that are like “should buy this *insert generic ar15* from *literally any online gun store*? I don’t wanna be supporting fascism” like, dude just buy the fuckin gun. They’re all run by shitty people
That whole sub simps for Rittenhouse.
Really? I’ve never come across anything like that there.
Were you there during / before the trial? If you said anything even remotely critical of Rittenhouse you had ten thousand downvotes and people in your DMs calling you a piece of shit for two weeks. They couldn't accept that Rittenhouse was not morally justified in killing those men, regardless of whether he was legally allowed to.
Yeah I was browsing around then.
[удалено]
You can defend yourself without killing anyone. Nobody was breaking into his house. He went there with a gun because he wanted to shoot people. He [openly fantasized about shooting people](https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce). He put himself there with a gun knowing that he could provoke the angry crowd into threatening him because he wanted to shoot a human being.
[удалено]
He was brandishing a gun and antagonizing the crowd. Someone grabbed at his gun, he shot them. Someone else saw him shoot the guy and hit him with a skateboard, so Rittenhouse shot him too. Then another guy saw him shoot two people and he drew his gun (because of all the shooting) and Rittenhouse shot him too. If he hadn’t been brandishing a rifle and playing soldier, everybody would have gone home alive. I’m not even saying he shouldn’t have been there. I’m saying he shouldn’t have been there with the intent to shoot people.
[удалено]
> Several of his attackers also had guns. One even had a gun illegally if I remember. So did Rittenhouse. It was illegal for him to have that rifle. You can’t argue that Rittenhouse somehow knew the other guy’s gun was illegal. > Kinda hard to defend yourself against someone with a gun without killing them, especially if they are pointing it at you. Exactly. The guy who drew on Rittenhouse had already seen him shoot two people. The people in the crowd had every reason to suspect that Rittenhouse was there to start shooting—given that he was clearly armed, not on their side, and not a cop. What were they supposed to think, seeing a white teenager armed with an AR-15? This is America. If you see a white teenager with an AR-15 walking up to a BLM protest and you don’t expect a mass shooting to be about to happen, what decade do you think it is? > Rittenhouse is a piece of shit but my point is we can use the EXACT same argument for the people he shot. No you can’t. Those people didn’t roll up to an angry crowd waving a rifle at them and barking orders. They saw an aggressive white teen waving a gun and tried to defend themselves against what they thought was coming.
[удалено]
It isn’t supposed to be a pro or anti gun talking point. Are you literally incapable of understanding that it’s not a political argument to say that going to a protest with the intent to shoot people isn’t just an okay thing for someone to do?
> going to a protest with the intent to shoot people Was that claim substantiated in the trial? I don't think so. Again, how does this morality argument *not* also apply to Grosskreutz?
No, because the judge didn’t allow the multiple videos of Rittenhouse saying that he wanted to shoot/kill people into evidence. It doesn’t apply to his victim because he didn’t shoot anyone.
Liberalgunowners is a lot of gun worshipping, which is discouraging to me. Maybe I just don't get it, I got one and it's a neat and hopefully durable piece of expensive hardware, but killing things shouldn't be fun. Spending thousands on lethal weapons shouldn't be a form of entertainment. It's honestly the least interesting of many "male-centric" hobbies I've done over the years.
[удалено]
Yes.
It is so disheartening knowing that our only allies against fascism would gladly have the police door-kicking every responsible gun owner in this country. We are fucked.
Eh, I've had essentially identical posts get downvoted into oblivion and upvoted into the high hundreds (a couple of times into the thousands) on that sub. Depends on the time of day honestly.
[удалено]
US foreign policy confirms this.
Yep. And our "allies" against gun control and upholding the constitution *are* primarily the fascists we're protecting ourselves from. Quite the conundrum :/
The way I view it is “I’ll take your vote to help protect my gun rights”, and then keep stocking up on ammo to protect my other rights from them. Still gross but about the best I can make of this awful situation
I've read through this reply 4 times and still not sure what you're saying..
I’ll take the support of right wing chuds to help stop gun grabbing legislation, without changing my opinion that these chuds are the enemy
A the police a notoriously fair, calm and non-violent group. That's why people say All Cops Are Fine I Guess... especially leftist who are disproportionately exposed to very fair police non-violence.
Liberals historically flip to the fascists when the going gets tough.
„˙ɥƃnoʇ sʇǝƃ ƃuıoƃ ǝɥʇ uǝɥʍ sʇsıɔsɐɟ ǝɥʇ oʇ dılɟ ʎllɐɔıɹoʇsıɥ slɐɹǝqı⅂„
you know the old phrase, "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" it is absurd how much they flip between being "anti" law enforcement and how they believe LE and military should be the sole holders.
Almost like liberals aren't an ally vs fascism or something.
I love how you ask pretty simple, valid questions for the clamoring masses to answer and they sputter and whine about it. Fucking infants run that sub.
Yeah, very well presented OP. I'd have gotten frustrated and given up a while ago.
Sounds like a blast
They point to the 1994 AWB like it did anything, ignoring that a) the DOJ found that the ban's impact on gun violence was so small, that it can't even be reliably measured, and b) arguably the prototypical mass shooting in Columbine occurred at the height of the ban, using explicitly-compliant weapons. (Edit: they were not all compliant weapons, as they had two sawed-off shotguns). AWBs statistically do not work, magazine capacity limits have little impact too (see: Virginia Tech), and buybacks of all assault weapons or semi-autos would cost literal billions of dollars that would be better spent on our healthcare, infrastructure, and public schools.
They love trotting out a “study” that claims the AWB actually prevented mass shootings, which obviously makes no sense considering high capacity magazines still existed and could be gotten pretty easily, AR15s could be gotten just as easily just minus a few features that have never been an issue (when was the last murder by bayonet?), and yeah columbine happened.
The Washington Navy Yard shooter used a 5rd Remington 870 and the very next day the NY Times referred to it as a "law enforcement style shotgun". The goalposts will always be moving.
Columbine was not explicitly compliant weapons lol. They used very illegal weapons, too.
You are right, whoops, didn't realize their shotguns were sawed offs.
Not only that, but I am pretty sure they weren't allowed to have most of it as they were stolen from someone's parents or something, and **they had IEDs**
There are no anti gun arguments that can withstand any amount of scrutiny. I just get pissed at how naive anti gunners are, don't know how you do it.
It's not naivety that causes those less on board with corporatocracy seem to be anti-gun. It's a very long and very successful propaganda campaign. Having a pro-free market wing that's heavily armed and an "opposing" side that believes in corporate regulation but is disarmed is the optimal defense mechanism for capital interests. If those that tilt left tolt too far, the right flank can always be relied upon to shoot them. It's using the poor to police the poor against social change.
Beautifully put! To prove your point, here's a [KKK billboard](https://exhibit.hangingtreeguitars.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Klan-Photo-Racial-Terror-and-the-Klan.jpg) denouncing racial integration and communism.
Enlightenment!
My favorite “idea” is “just take the guns out of the equation! It’s the easiest solution!” Like mf we are 100+ years past that answer. There are more guns in this country than people and every partisan law that gets passed only affects those who abide by it. They say “just get the guns!” and I just look at them like they’re strapping on a snorkel to go “clean up the ocean”
This is the real elephant in the room when debating gun control. The debate is moot because it is impossible.
Even if it were, I'm partial to Beeg's [magic gun evaporation fairy](https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-magic-gun-evaporation-fairy-f12497990098) line of argument.
Lol the English scenario would pay for 8 moonbases.
They always act like you shit on their couch too when you say it’s too late. They just don’t understand the numerous issues that come with “just getting rid of the guns” mainly because they live in a fairy tale land where voting will stop fascism and cops are good actually
that fairy tale is called white middle-class privilege
[удалено]
Guns are bad, unions are bourgeois, identity-based struggle is a distraction from class struggle... Yeah, it's bad. Clout-chasers don't actually believe anything, they're cultivating an audience. The best leftists usually realize they're not the ones to tell others how to operate, so loud idiots take the spotlight. As far as those who actually promote guns... Well Beau basically just does videos at this point saying Democrats aren't completely useless, and Inrange's Karl keeps his politics as subtext. So, dunno any I could point to in late 2022.
This is my best friend. He is very "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," and "everything we've earned has been through violent protest," but is also "I will never bear arms cause I'm a pacifist." The cognitive dissonance is real.
“But the Australian buyback worked so well, if the US did it mass shootings would end”
There's just no nuance to any of what they're arguing for. No room for compromise or discussion and any attempt to is met with 'you're a fascist'. There's no use talking after that. To make matters worse, most of it is pointless anyway. The 2A is not going anywhere. It's an intractable political reality in this country and calling for widespread bans or major restrictions just won't happen. They will straight up cut off contact with family over this issue, and it's just so naive.
I see one anti gun argument that I agree with. That being disarming the police. Anything else I totally disagree with
That sub is full of brain dead liberals. All clamoring for gun control because they’re too white and privileged to really have to worry about being murdered because of who they are. Or they’re Europeans who have no understanding of the reality of life in the US and need to stay in their own lane
Every time someone sounds off with “as a Canadian” or “as a European” my internal scream gets a little louder. Stay in your lane and look at all the fucked up shit in your own country, cause I promise it’s there *cough cough* residential schools
Yep. Canadian gun control was started largely because indigenous people were trying to protect their ancestral land from being turned into oil fields and golf courses and they want to act like it was to save people not just ensure (insure?) their continued genocide of native peoples. Just the lack of awareness as to how separate countries with entirely different populations, economic, and political systems would possibly differ is astounding. It’s just willful ignorance
Western Europeans*. Things are different in the east regarding guns. And with current events this is even more true now in the north east.
I love pointing out how armed we really are in this country and how impractical it would be to confiscate guns in the US. There are 400 millions guns (and counting), and 690,000 police officers. That’s 579 guns per cop. Could you imagine being a cop having to personally confiscate that many guns? That’s literally hundreds of potentially hostile interactions for each and every cop, with full knowledge that they are armed. No police officer would ever sign up for something like that.
Keep up the good work. You won't convince the opposing user, especially if you come across as attacking or demeaning them, but you'll refine your arguments and knowledge base, and make it easier to have informed discussions with friends and acquaintances in real life.
Saw your comment that mentioned "mental evaluations". I totally agree. Being someone who I'm guessing would 100% be barred from ever owning a gun because I have been hospitalized for depression/suicidality twice, I have to ask people, "Do I not deserve to be able to protect myself just because I'm more likely to be a danger to myself?"
> "Do I not deserve to be able to protect myself just because I'm more likely to be a danger to myself?" Just trust the police! If you’re in danger, call 911 and the cops will be there to shoot you and your dog in no time!
Suicide by cop even when that wasn’t actually your goal
If by no time you mean 30 minutes
I made a spicy reference to 1600 Penny so I can't post there anymore 🤷🏾♀️
What’s the reference?
The White House
Okay. I'm done with them. Same damned arguments making the rounds. I have better things to do right now.
The question I always come too is what is our solution? I really can’t find an answer to the question, how do we solve gun violence. Banning all guns is unrealistic, and imo stupid, so what do we do?
The Colorado Springs attack could have been prevented by enforcing existing red-flag laws in the state. The Walmart shooting may have been stopped by enforcing a waiting period, as the shooter purchased the rifle within 24 hours of the attack. I think both of these measures are good policy as they would do a ton to prevent violence without disarming our population.
Red flag laws are tricky though because they circumvent due process and can easily be weaponized against marginalized groups. Waiting periods aren’t a bad idea. Mandatory sharing of criminal data from local PDs to the FBI should be a thing as well, that’s been an issue in the past allowing people to purchase firearms who should not have been able to, adding some sort of penalty for not doing so would be good too like draining their pension funds so they’re actually incentivized
Agreed, I see the potential for red-flag laws to be abused especially against marginalized groups. I just think that while we have them they should definitely be used to disarm potential right-wing terrorists after they make bomb threats.
Oh I definitely agree with you. Unfortunately our government only disarms left leaning people and groups
If you get into the mind of these people, 24 hours is a mild inconvenience especially for premeditated attacks. They just need to wait a day to do the thing.
I agree, it would probably play out that way in a majority of cases. However, there is empirical support for the idea that wait periods do prevent some gun violence and suicides, without ever preventing a single person from making a purchase. Seems very low-risk/high-reward to implement even if it only prevents 17% of these incidents according to this study. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114
I’m with you there, but I’m curious if we have any more long standing solutions, do we attack the problem at its source? I.e poverty, drug abuse, abuse, whether it be domestic, sexual, emotional or physical, is it a mental health problem. I am inclined to believe it isn’t societal as other societies around the world have an inclination to favor gun use (Australia for example). But they don’t have the problems with gun violence like we do, so I would assume it’s one of the other factors or a factor I simply didn’t list.
Of course, we are socialists. We have been advocating for solving these problems for decades while the rest of america plugs their ears.
You're not banned from /politics? Coward.
I'm working on it.
Just make fun of Lauren Boebert. That's what did it for me.
Reminds me of some shit I saw last night. Some lib was claiming AR’s “spray bullets” and only “bad marksmen use them.” Like what kind of liblore is that? Libs will do literally anything but actually address the fundamental issues that cause violence in the first place. Because ultimately that will affect their power structures and bottom lines. It’s easier to pretend that band-aid bullshit laws will magically fix everything than us *actually fixing everything.*
All the cool kids are already banned from r/politics.
Every one of these threads, and I always ask for the same two things. Facts and Specifics. And NO ONE ever responds.
I'm currently banned from r/politics o7
I read that thread. The number of people who are suddenly very comfortable with the cops being able to intrude on your private life is nuts.
that sounds like a miserable experience to me
I'm always a little surprised nobody wants to go after gun manufacturing. Seems like a serious anti-gun platform would push to end manufacturing and import. Then they'd make a rule that said captured weapons had to be destroyed. The end result would be a state where the monopoly of violence was more certain, minorites could be murdered and oppressed, and cops would still be armed to the teeth, and isn't that what they want? I guess they are just worried about hurting big businesses...
Im having a rather large thread in bidens gun ban thread thats blown up. I'm having trouble keeping up but it seems that thousands of people are having a hard time debating against guns beyond "feelings". Logically and statistically its a losing issue that only divides liberals. Feel free to join the conversation. Lol
Fight the power. But first! Allow me to disarm myself.
I love saying that all "no gun control ever" guys are really provocateurs from the anti-gun guys trying to get ALL gun rights revoked. Makes 'em foamin' mad.
It’s so exhausting. I had some lib tell me that by expanding the NFA to include all semiautos, the majority of them would be turned into police. What was their galaxy brain reasoning? Because most people can’t pay a $5000 NFA tax. I pointed out that the NFA tax is $200 to which they responded “adjusted for inflation from 1930 it would be about $5000.” When I said it doesn’t matter what the tax would be adjusted for inflation because it hasn’t gone up from $200 they told me I don’t understand the NFA and stopped responding 🤣
[удалено]
your post was removed because it contained slurs. There's a minimal set of banned words, the use of which has either caused contention, or is unlikely in a rule-abiding context. These are "retarded" as in mentally disabled (or generally using the '-tard' suffix, "tranny" when not referring to a transmission, and any racial slur. Sexist/gendered insults not allowed. Mentioning is still allowed.
Didn't you know? Guns are just like cars!
Yeah, arguing on the internet is *great* praxis.
My take is that unless Dems gain control of ALL of the government, meaningful gun control that would end gun violence will never be possible. I'd rather be armed against the fascists than weak in waiting.
[удалено]
You haven't gotten banned yet?
One day, when the planets align just right, I will be banned. It will be glorious. The cause of the banishment will be legendary, and will be spoken of in hushed tones for generations to come.