Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!
My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.
I would love to be wrong, but it’s too bad one of the injured or killed weren’t connected to the governor. That seems to be the only time some people give a shit.
Wait, you mean he wasn’t suddenly transformed into a good-guy action hero with a gun? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Just going to post some of my copypasta I wrote that unfortunately remains timeless:
Lethal Effectiveness
To those saying “it’s not the guns, it’s the people!” There is a reason why shortly after the Las Vegas shooter committed one of the worst mass-shootings ever, bump-stocks became illegal. There’s a reason there is increased REGULATION on fully-automatic firearms. Just look up how much damage a deranged guy in a tank that wasn’t armed wreaked on San Diego.
Go either direction and see the result:
-
If you permit folks more power, such as easy access Abrams battle-tanks complete with depleted-uranium ammunition and various other armaments; if you permit them to have nukes, Apache helicopters, etc… You can see just how much more damage a deranged individual can inflict within the same time-frame. (But hint: these are more highly regulated or completely off-limits in the first place, and the price itself imposes an effective barrier on who can attain such weapons of war… More on this concept later).
-
If you LIMIT the average lethal-effectiveness the average Joe can attain to something less-than a firearm, you see the opposite trend. Less capacity to inflict mass-casualty harm in a limited time-frame. And let me be clear: I don’t think too many people would opt to fight Fist vs Firearm in a surprise attack than Fist vs. Knife. We need only look to the UK to see the net-homicide rates do not carry over to stabbings.
So, sure, the person is who pulls the trigger. But what’s important is how much power you’re willing to put into the hands of the average deranged individual who will always have the element of surprise.
Squirt-gun scenario
Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let’s pretend we’re in a game and all armed with squirt-guns (the utopian wild west, according to righties) and I just so happen to be playing the “bad guy with a squirt-gun.” At any given moment, it’s my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe…Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I’d fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it’s a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market. Which is also why the Wild West was not safer and Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun-control measures in later years.
- Even if you got the drop on me in that 1 in 100 times, it doesn’t matter because it still benefits the offensive individual an order-of-magnitude more. Always a losing race. I mean if I’m being mugged with or without my family, I’m just going to give them my stuff. It’s meaningless compared to my life or loved ones and now I run the risk of making myself a target as opposed to my property. Do I really think I can react even if I have my firearm holstered on my side while someone else already has the draw on me? If you feel this confident, I’d love to play that game with you and and make a betting-game out of it.
If I am a mass-squirter (don’t.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
- Now you understand why our firearm-related homicides are higher than any other Western OECD nation.
- Now you understand why our total homicides are an outlier among Western OECD nations.
- There is no correlation with reducing homicides and firearm possession / ownership
- Statistically, you and your family are more likely to survive a violent encounter by (a) fleeing, (b) hiding, © cooperating, and/or (d) calling law-enforcement (suddenly these Blue Lives Matter folks scatter and they Hatteeeee cops when you raise this point; funny how that is).
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you’re addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
Supply-And-Demand
A pretty basic concept is that when supply is reduced, the cost of a product rises. The moment firearm manufacturers must cease churning out new firearms and ammunition; the mere moment (independent of gun-buyback programs, etc.) firearms would become illegal in a hypothetical… The black-market price of said firearms soars out of reach of the vast-majority of people, including the vast-majority of criminals (which overlaps with poverty and crimes made out of desperation).
If a car salesperson’s job is to make it easier to impulsively buy a car, regulations serve as hoops and friction to inhibiting such an impulse-purchase. Perhaps then a teenager like the Sandy Hook shooter wouldn’t just steal his mom’s gun where he then probably could not navigate the black market without being caught up in a sting operation. Perhaps that’s why the Uvalde shooter himself waited until he could legally purchase a firearm. Just a thought.
Conversely from the criminal side of things, sure there will be a black-market for firearms as they are everywhere. But when a Glock 18 costs $15,000 cash on the black market, these criminals are either good at doing business or not going to rob or mug you for petty cash.
Finally, if printing guns was so effective, then why aren’t gun subs littered with them? Why haven’t they been used in any mass shootings? They’re ostensibly cheaper no less, riiighttt…?
Those questions were rhetorical. The answer: They’re inferior in pretty much every way. Anyone remotely trained in engineering knows the quality of printing at a consumer level will never meet commercial or industrial tolerances and be REMOTELY affordable. Leaving aside the fact that raw materials needed to build such things are of course going to be monitored. Leaving aside the fact that one cannot print plastic ammunition with any level of reliability. I’d also love to see the likes of Lanza make his own brass, gunpowder, and gun and (a) not have anyone notice and tip off police, and (b) not have it blow up in his face.
Root Causes vs. Symptoms
Many defending guns will deflect attention from firearms to society and root-problems elsewhere. I will grant that it is not JUST the firearm; there is more to the story and the firearm is just a simple means of slowing a symptom down, not the root cause. But just like any ER doctor must treat the symptoms alongside the root causes, so too must society. Thing is, addressing the symptoms tends to be easier than addressing the root causes. And it strikes me as funny that we go, ““Well okay if you don’t want to focus on the guns let’s give healthcare to all, widen education, reduce stress in society!”” and they protest that as well…
…
So WHY don’t these pro-gun advocates care in the wake of facts as solid as proving climate-change itself? Well it’s simple in that they kind of look at guns the way they look at climate change: they value their toy that makes them feel strong over society and don’t care about the future. In short, despite draping themselves in the flag they are NOT patriots. They do NOT care about their fellow Americans one iota."
-
I don’t care who he is, if he was just running for his life in a mass shooting then leave him the fuck alone. At least give him a little grace period before you start weaponizing his traumatic experience to push your beliefs.
What a brain-dead response.
There are many real arguments you could make against me, but instead you just insult me. You aren’t making yourself look very reasonable here.
Things to do during a mas shooting:
- Try to escape
- If you can’t escape, hide.
- If you can’t escape or hide, fight back.
Supporting gun ownership or even carrying a gun on your hip doesn’t change that. All carrying a gun does for you in a mass shooting is mature the odds a little less terrible if it comes to option 3.
A handgun is imprecise, low-power, and difficult to aim accurately. On top of that a “good guy with a gun” has to care about collateral damage.
The purpose of carrying a handgun is personal defense, not civil defense. It’s good defense against assault or a mugger. It’s a good deterrent from someone who why’s to harm you and walk away. It’s not good for taking on an unhinged maniac that’s fully intending to die.
Mass shooters are the suicide bombers of the US.
You don’t get the main point of gun control. Gun control means vetting out bad people from getting the guns. Like driver’s license, if you don’t know how drive or regularly violated traffic regulations your license is revoked. Similarly if you have gun license, good people with proper training can get the gun. But people who don’t follow laws will be banned from getting guns.
People who don’t obey laws are already banned from owning guns.
Clearly new agencies & laws are required, old laws are not effective they need more scrutiny.
So what you’re saying is that he wasn’t the good guy with a gun?
They never are. And by “they,” I mean everyone who carries a gun for “protection,” and by “never,” I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings.
Just look at the numbers of justifiable homicides vs the number of murders by guns in the US. The justifiable homicides are almost statistically insignificant in comparison.
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide, you can’t compare that statistics
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide
That’s interesting because I was always told never to point a gun at anything I didn’t want to kill.
“Defensive use” does not implicitly imply pointing and shooting a gun at anyone. Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot. This IS a defensive use of a firearm in the clearest sense. And in such a scenario, it will not make the news for you to hear about nor is it likely to even be reported to law enforcement. And this is more likely to happen than drawing and shooting - because very few people actually want the extreme problems that will follow. Shooting someone is the last resort.
As far the this governor running away well, as governor it was very unlikely he was armed - he has a security detail carrying the guns for him, (just like any liberal person with money or power). And secondly, if you’ve ever taken a self-defense class for a carry permit, there is a checklist of things to do BEFORE you draw and shoot. And guess what, running away if at all possible is at the top of the list…
Still, this guy is an idiot and much like most loud idiots no matter their political beliefs they get the most ink. But there is more to this argument than the circle jerk that is happening here. You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
I was raised around guns. Had some (superficial) training in the military with guns. I’m not a gun owner now, but while I think R and the right in general are absolutely culpable regarding our gun violence problems due to their refusal to acknowledge them or do a damn thing about them, I’m not anti-2A, and not being disingenuous with my comment here.
I was told by everyone who was ever responsible for training me in gun safety that you don’t pull it out unless you are prepared to use it, and you should not be prepared to use it unless you are prepared to kill with it. I was also taught that brandishing was illegal, and more likely to escalate than defuse a situation.
The brandishing part is why it’s not reported or on the news. But that does not mean it doesn’t happen successfully.
So one of the best uses of a weapon defensively is to break fundamental gun safety rules that are in literally every gun safety course (and the law)? Aren’t R the party of law and order?
The person you are most likely to use a gun on is yourself.
The second most likely person you are to use a gun on is your spouse, with men overwhelmingly preferring firearms as a form of spousal homicide.
The third most likely person you are to use a gun on is a family/tenant.
Home invaders are way down on the list of “at-home gun use” targets. And, to make things even more stick, police tend to be more concerned with facing an armed resident than actual burglars. This leads to a high rate of police homicides ruled justifiable, on the grounds that the officer entering the home believed that the resident possessed a gun.
So, we’re looking at a solid four different likely ways keeping a gun in your home will result in the death of you or another lawful resident of your house.
I don’t know, shooting an unarmed teenager in the head and claiming you were scared makes it sound like homicide is the point for some people.
I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
I’m a firm support of much strong gun control laws, and so this claim is something I would really love to be true …which is exactly why I’m pausing here and asking to see the evidence. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
So what is this based on?
It was a while back, so i can’t remember the caveats (if any). It may have been for that year or something. A quick dig looks like it holds up though.
This media investigation, aided by Texas State University shows the stats.
According to the data, citizens stopped shooters 50 times in the 316 attacks. But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun. The other 40 times, it was with their hands or another weapon.
It also briefly touches on the trauma when an actual good person kills someone.
“I don’t feel like I killed a human,” says Wilson. “I killed an evil and that’s how I’m coping with the situation.”
“The individual did not make any attempt to get up because of his head wound. He didn’t make any… it was just quivering and that was it.”
He is actively forcing himself to not see the shooter as a person and it’s clear the image of the person he killed twitching on the ground will haunt him forever.
The pro-gun crowd didn’t save that man, they sold him and everybody else in that church out. They armed the mass shooter then used Wilson as propaganda, claiming his trauma is actually the gold standard for dealing with gun violence and that teachers and targeted minorities should be enthusiastically following suit.
I’m sure the fact that it would preserve or increase the profits of a lobby group that gives $16 million a year to Republicans is purely coincidence.
After all, if an industry was causing massive social harm, they’d immediately cease operation for the public good, not suppress research and statistics about how many people they’d killled while astroturfing and hiring politicians as shills.
But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun.
And this begs the question. . .what percentage of people actually carry a gun? If it’s less than 20% then that means gun owners were more effective at stopping it (well, it would actually be more complicated, but I’m just trying to demonstrate my point).
Not only is it more complicated, it doesn’t even matter.
Around 80% of mass shooters bought the guns legally. Of the 20% remaining, the majority are teenagers who used their parent’s legally owned firearm.
Criminals in America have better access to firearms than they do in anywhere else in the world, with many of the guns in South America being originally purchased from a store in the United States.
This has resulted in a homicide rate that is far higher than it should be. Sort this list by homicide rate and take note of just how far before and after “United States” you have to scroll before finding a country you would consider “wealthy and stable”.
As compensation for that, we’re told things like “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. But the “good guys” have been given all the guns they want and they stop exactly fuck all. It’s not even close to the number of shootings they enable.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper? In the real world, police and unarmed civilians stop more mass shooters and it doesn’t require arming the mass shooters in the first place.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper?
If it doesn’t matter, why did you bring it up?
Everyone should run scared for their life from a mass shooting. It’s a mass shooting.
Everyone should also do what they can to minimize gun deaths in this country, obviously this guy isn’t doing that, but that is unrelated to how he should act during a mass shooting.
Everyone should run scared for their life from a mass shooting.
This Private School Trains Student “Warriors” To Swarm An Active Shooter
Literally a thing Republicans were advocating right after the Uvalde Shooting, on the grounds that it was the kids’ own fault for getting slaughtered.
This isn’t a “gotcha”. I’m a big fan of classic cars but that doesn’t mean I’ll stand there when one is driving fast straight at me.
I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.
Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.
Of course, this being funny kinda hinges on him having a gun on him at the time of the incident. Just because he is a proponent of a right being available if one so chooses doesn’t mean he chooses to exercise it daily, and you can’t use what you don’t have on you.
Furthermore gun owners are under no obligation to have the hero fantasies often ascribed to them, many do it for simply self preservation who wouldn’t run towards gunfire either, opting only to use it if they absolutely have to. That is a decision someone can really only make in the moment, too, many think “I’d blah blah blah,” you might blah blah blah, it’s an instinctual reaction.
And lets not forget the story of John Hurley who shot a shooter and was then shot by cops.
True, tbf it’s always a risk like any fight, even just a fistfight you could get knocked out, hit your head on the pavement, and that’s all she wrote.
There are some things you can do to mitigate it though, whoever calls the cops should give an accurate description of the shooter if possible, and the defender if possible, including clothes etc. And as the defender, after the defense either reholster if you’re sure it’s safe to do so or leave as you’re under no obligation to stay, call the police and say “there’s been a shooting at [location],” hang up, call laywer.
No, it is not always a risk.
It is only a risk if you think you are some damn super hero because you like loud explosions and go to a shooting range once every week, without any other gun safety training what so ever, including knowing how to de-escalation a situation.
Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.
I carry to protect me and mine.
You and yours can make the decision to carry or not. I’m not going to go out of my way to save anyone but my own kin. The police have no legal requirement to save you and they have legal protection from liability if they shoot something they should not. A conceal and carry holder has none of that.
So your solution to the issue of mass shootings is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, and everyone should be ready to kill if necessary? And you don’t see the issue with that?
I’m not saying you specifically should not carry or be ready to defend yourself, and I would be a fool to pretend that you shouldn’t be willing and able to defend yourself, especially with how things are now. But do you really want to live in a world where every citizen has to be ready and willing to kill his fellow man at the drop of a hat when things go to shit? Do you want your kids, grandkids, etc. to live in a world like that?
The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself. The point is that the fact that you need to is fucked up, and we shouldn’t accept it as the status quo.
So you don’t give a fuck if anyone lives except your “kin” and we’re supposed to feel safe with people like you walking around armed?
You are free to ensure your own safety. If you choose to depend upon others that is certainly your decision to make.
Statistically conceal and carry holders are the safest segment of society. I would much rather be in a room full of registered conceal, and carry holders than police, or any other segment of society.
That’s a lie. Save that NRA apologist bullshit for the firing range.
I apologize for nothing. I merely assert my rights.
If your “rights” endanger others, then those rights should be voided.
Which every healthy democracy has done so far.
This ain’t a movie, hero.
I never stated I’m a hero. I only wish to defend me and mine.
You’re more likely to be killed with your own gun, and possibly others. With your gun. If you’re that afraid, stay at home.
No, I choose to exercise my rights. If they scare you then that is your problem.
Freedom is scary, get over it.
That’s cute from a casual. I love the light anarchy manifesto.
Now that I don’t carry an automatic weapon for part of my work, I see no reason to be part of the problem and I’m happy to leave it to the pros. But dunning-kruger is a hell of a thing.
Feel free to trust your personal safety and the safety of your family to a “pro”. When seconds count the police are just 20 minutes away.
Damn, you must live in a shithole if you need a gun in order to feel safe in your own country and home.
It sounds like you are privileged to live in an area bereft of all violence. Those of us who are not as privileged as you are still want to defend ourselves.
Lol, username should be brain dead or unalive cuz not much is happening up there.
As much as I’m on the same page as everyone here; America’s gun laws need to change, are you not allowed to be afraid of the very well known thing your hobby does? Like, being afraid of being shot doesn’t make you a hypocrite for liking guns.
Being afraid of being shot does make you a hypocrite if you are against gun restrictions and regulations.
Your world view is getting people killed, you SHOULD be scared.
So the solution to getting republicans on the side of gun control is just… shooting at them? I can get behind that.
I mean, it worked for the Black Panthers, and they weren’t even trying to get gun control laws put in place.
For the unaware, modern gun control laws basically started with the Black Panthers. During the civil rights movement, peaceful protests would get violently busted by the cops. But people quickly noticed that heavily armed protests would have the cops politely watching from across the street. (Turns out, cops are way less likely to fire into a crowd when the entire crowd can immediately return fire.) So the Black Panthers started arming themselves, to keep the cops from shutting down their protests.
When Republican lawmakers realized that the cops weren’t going to shut down the heavily armed protests on their front lawns, they got really fucking sweaty, really fucking fast. So conservatives pushed the Mulford Act, which was (at the time) the most restrictive gun control law the country had ever seen. It was authored by Ronald Reagan (yes, the same Reagan that the right upholds as a paragon of conservative values) and endorsed by the NRA, (yes, the same NRA that lobbies for looser gun control in the wake of mass school shootings.) All because the wrong people had guns.
The goal of the Mulford Act was to criminalize gun ownership, so the cops could bust individual protesters after the fact, instead of needing to break up an entire protest as it was happening. And it basically set the stage for modern gun control laws. The cops would follow individual protesters home, and kick in their front door while they were having dinner with their family the next evening. This is ironically what led to the Black Panthers becoming so militant, as they implemented anti-espionage tactics to protect the group. Code names, so busted members wouldn’t be able to positively identify other members by name. Segmented information, so a busted member (even a high ranking member) wouldn’t be able to compromise an entire protest. Randomized meeting locations, so cops couldn’t set up stings ahead of time. Etc, etc… It took them from “the people who really like guns and peacefully protest with them for self defense” to “a full blown armed guerrilla-protest group.”
"I don’t see any peaceful way to disarm America’s whites. There’s only one thing that’s going to save this country from itself. Same thing that always saves this country from itself. And that is African-Americans. And I know the question a lot of y’all have in your minds is, should we do it? Fuck yeah, we should do it.”
“No matter what they say or how they make you feel, remember, this is your country, too. It is incumbent upon us to save our country. And you know what we have to do"
"Every able-bodied African-American must register for a legal firearm. That’s the only way they’ll change the law.”
– Dave Chappelle (2019)
How much do you want to bet this coward bought his tickets and paid for his travel to Las Vegas and the food and hotel and whatever else while there with state taxpayer money?
what does this have anything to do with vegas? the parade was in kansas city…
ok, but what does it have to do with this?
This strikes me as like implying that I’m hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.
A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.
Apples to oranges argument and a straw man argument all in one. Bravo sir, brav-fucking-o. Yall never cease to amaze me.
You could explain why, but that would actually take thought and effort and open your position up to being challenged, which is scary. I get it. Empty insults are much easier.
I see this soooo much on Lemmy. even more so than on reddit.
I’m hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.
It would be ironic to loudly and repeatedly declare “If you don’t want to get hit on at a bar, put on that wedding ring” and then get chased out of a bar by a bunch of married men slapping your ass.
A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.
A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society” fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society” fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
Of course not.
A handgun compares to a rifle like a dagger to a sword.
What?
What did you not understand? A pistol is a gun, a rifle is a gun, a Soviet D-20 howitzer is a gun.
You can’t be that stupid to call somebody a hypocrite for supporting carry of weapons for self-defense because they ran from a mass shooter with a rifle. People usually don’t carry rifles for self-defense.
You can’t be that stupid to call somebody a hypocrite for supporting carry of weapons for self-defense because they ran from a mass shooter
I don’t see this guy making any effort to distinguish between gun and rifle ownership. The Barret .50 plastered on a “Come and Take It” flag was part of the Governor’s pro-2A rally display as recently as last October.
A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy, regardless of their stance on guns. He is however reaping what he has helped sow. Hypocrisy is simply the wrong word. This isn’t the same as being anti-abortion and then paying for your mistress to get one. Being pro-gun doesn’t mean you just stand there.
A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy
A person who insists everyone should be armed everywhere they go and then isn’t armed when he asserts a gun would have been handy is ironic.
If Guns are so Safe why were people running AWAY from the Gun? Wouldn’t the Gunman be the Safest person there?
“You proclaim to love the ocean, yet you flee from the tsunami… Curious”
[Charlie Kirk.png]
I am pro second amendment also, and would run from someone shooting a gun at people. What is he supposed to be doing?
Be the good guy with the gun. Isn’t that the reason we need unfettered access to guns?
I dont carry a gun, and my access to something is not why I am in favor of it being legal. Do you want legalized marijuana just because you want to use it or because you think everyone should be allowed to use it?
Do you support them being legal and almost entirely unregulated? Because that is the GOP position and there is a big gulf between the two.
I have no problem with guns being legal. Unlike Republicans, though, I don’t want them in the hands of, for example, the criminally insane.
I do support unregulated guns, but I am willing to compromise. Right now guns are extremely regulated particularly in some states, which is wrong. I think the biggest problem is that the regulations that some people want are ineffective at best.
I do support unregulated guns
Really? So guns for toddlers? Guns for people who have been institutionalized multiple times? Guns for people who have committed treasonous acts?
A former school shooter gets out of prison- give them a gun?
Guns for people who have committed treasonous acts?
This is the exact reason I support unregulated gun use, because people can claim things and then people lose rights.
Right, so you think clinically insane people and toddlers should have guns.
Everyone should be allowed to use it, because cannabis isn’t a deadly weapon.
Knives and bats are deadly weapons too, so no knives and bats?
“I support face eating leopards and would run from one”
Guns are a federally protected right, and yes I would run someone that was shooting at people. You wouldnt?
my dude… of course I would, thats why I dont support gun rights… thats my point…
How would you not supporting gun rights take the guns out of the hands of the shooter(s)?
The same way it works in all other countries. Is not a coincidence that the US is the only country where gun ownership is a right in the constitution and the country #1 in school shootings.
The purpose of a joint isn’t to kill people. Go ahead, say guns aren’t for killing, it’ll save a lot of back-and-forth.
I was responding to the idea I want gun rights so I can be a hero. I want people to have guns because they want guns for any variety of reasons. I want legal marijuana because people want marijuana. Both have externality and benefits.
I want people to have guns because they want guns for any variety of reasons
Everyone who takes firearms training learns that the purpose of a gun is to kill things. It is a weapon, and killing is its only purpose. Any reasons to want a weapon involve harming or killing others, or the threat thereof - even if the reason given is “protection”, it’s only protection in the context of hurting or killing someone before they hurt or kill someone else. This is why cannabis and cars are not a valid comparison.
Guns are for a lot more than just killing. Two other obvious things are target shooting and threat deterrent. Then there is the reason to prevent tyranny.
Target shooting, to make sure you can hit what you’re aiming at. Threat deterrent, with the threat of force. “To prevent tyranny” by killing people.
Every reason is a derivative of causing harm. Every single one.
