• breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace

    There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted

    “But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”

    Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.

    Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.

    Another common one is

    “buh only criminals will have guns”,

    except that never happens in any other developed nation.

    Its for self defense

    Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.

    /rant

    • Jesus_666@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.

      Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.

      In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.

      I’m sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.

        Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.

        Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.

        Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.

        It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.

      • user134450@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.

      • too_high_for_this@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.

        I want to add to this, because it’s never mentioned.

        As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.

        Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there’s no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.

        So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.

        But… We did that. We won. We have a “democracy” now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.

        Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?

        • yata@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The 2nd Amendment is from 1791, decades after the US had become an independent country. So you can’t blame this one on the British.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think they blamed the British. They just explained their theory as to why the colonists could take control.

            • yata@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism.

              I don’t think they blamed the British.

              You may not think so, but your reading skills leaves something to be desired.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s

    • NegativeNull@lemm.ee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The quote I’ve heard most often:

      No law (sometimes: piece of paper) is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren’t at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.

        • Nelots@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “bad people are going to do bad things anyway, may as well make it easier for them!”

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A 1km ball of enriched uranium has never committed murder, either. Should I drop one by your pillow at night?

      • xxcarpaii@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like there’s some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I’ll be honest, I don’t know the statistics on “rightful” and “wrongful” executions.

        There’s at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.