If the target audience could read, they d be very upset
At least that’ll keep them safe from being turned gay.
I know a gay person who can read. It checks out.
Whew, they sure dodged a bullet.
Books don’t gay people. Gay people gay people.
Did I do it right?
The only way to stop a bad gay with a book, is a good gay with a book
The second amendment clearly states that the “right of people to keep and read gay books shall not be infringed”
Yep, according to it, Americans have the right to bear arms. In fact, a whole bear fursuit.
As a bear, let me tell you that you are welcome to have my bear arms wrapped around you.
The only way to stop a bad guy with the gay is a good guy with the gay.
Books didn’t make me gay, it was those stupid sexy men with their penises.
stupid sexy Flanders
And those hot trans women and their penises!
Unexpected plot twist of the year.
Ironically South East Asia and the middle east would like you to respect the lady boys hehehe
Hah! This made me laugh much harder than it should have. Nice.
At least it didn’t make you gay, or did it?
It made him much harder than it should have, at least.
Correct, in the same way that guns are not inherently evil and require someone with bad intentions to use them in a bad way. Both are correct, but sadly the folks who believe a certain way (books are bad or guns are bad) will not be convinced to change their point of view by a snarky sign.
The responses to your comment are mind-blowingly stupid and small-minded. And that’s not even to mention the ones that totally misrepresent what you said. It’s very disappointing and disheartening.
Thank you. I really like the Lemmy community, but most are extremely anti-gun. I’ve been able to show multiple people IRL how much fun guns can be when used responsibly, but it’s much harder to do online.
But you absolutely don’t need to own a gun to have fun with one. You can go to a shooting range, they’ll give you one, you have your fun and go home. No everyday citizen owns a gun in that scenario, but fun was had. (This is how it works in the EU mostly.) I have had my fair share of fun with guns and I agree with you: they are indeed great fun! But I’ve never felt the need to own a gun because of that.
No gun ranges where I live. Very rural, tons of space. If I want to shoot a gun, the most practical way is - by far - simply owning it myself. I also trust myself to take care of it and keep it safe. Considering how far I’d have to drive to get to a gun range, and how unsafe driving is statistically… I’d say it’s also safest to take out that variable.
Not needing something is never a good argument to not have something. I don’t need the vast majority of the things I own, but I do have them.
I understand your point. Not necessarily agree, but understand.
Anybody that takes the sport of shooting seriously owns their gun. That’s also the way it was in much of the EU before gun laws there got stupid, especially in the UK, and that wasn’t even that long ago.
“Need” has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I’ll be honest, Lemmy has some of the worst showings of good faith discussion I’ve ever seen. I’m glad you like the community, but be careful not to spend too much time here. It’s already unwelcoming to many people, and I certainly see more and more extremist rhetoric on it every time I log in.
Don’t forget the other issue, half these people could actually agree with you, and they’d still cry and downvote, just because. For a place that was supposed to solve half the issues of Reddit, it’s just as bad if not worse.
I grew up around guns and totally agree with you as far as that goes, but my larger point, the source of my disappointment where this discussion is concerned, is that people are misrepresenting what you actually said in the first place.
It’s one thing to disagree with an argument, but it’s an entirely different thing to disagree with an argument that no one actually made.
My complaint here is that most of the comments in opposition to your initial comment were made on the basis of bad-faith or idiot misunderstanding of your original point.
In other words, my complaint is not about anyone’s position so much as it is about how they use rational (or irrational) thoughts to arrive at said conclusions.
Someone with good intentions can absolutely use guns the wrong way.
Correct, the same way that someone with good intentions can use a car the wrong way. I know you are not going to be convinced, but I’m just trying to provide another point of view.
Cars are a good example because they’re dangerous and therefore heavily regulated. (Not heavily enough if you ask me, but nobody asked me lol).
… guns are not inherently evil and require someone with bad intentions to use them in a bad way.
You’ve reversed yourself. Which is it? Do guns require bad intentions to be misused or not?
Also, cars are more strictly regulated than guns in most parts of the US. If you’re pro gun then you might want to think of a better comparison.
There is no need to attack me for bringing up a point of view that’s different from yours. To answer your question, no, guns don’t require bad intentions to be misused. If someone causes harm but did not intend to, that scenario is called an accident. Have a nice day.
Also, cars are more strictly regulated than guns in most parts of the US. If you’re pro gun then you might want to think of a better comparison.
For every person killed in the US by homicide in a year, about 1.65 are killed in motor vehicle accidents (~26k vs ~43k). About half of those homicides are with guns, so cars are around 3.3 times as deadly as guns. To go in on the “assault weapon” laws from this angle, those laws tend to target rifles, rifles are ~10% of homicides, so cars are ~16 times as deadly as rifles.
Seriously, motor vehicles are one of the most deadly things out there that people routinely interact with, and driving is one of the most dangerous things people routinely do.
Just set the speed limit to 10mph and make everyone put a fin on their shifter and we should be good. Common sense.
I don’t remember being turned, and neither does anybody I know. To the contrary, there was so much constant pressure to be straight from a very young age and you can guess how well that worked.
My comment wasn’t intended to suggest gay people can be (or should be) convinced to be straight, I apologize if it came off like that. I don’t believe sexual orientation is something that should be forced on to someone. You be you.
Sorry, just the sentence that said “both are correct” sounded to me like you’re agreeing that people kill people and that gay people gay people, but I probably misunderstood. lol
Guns do not require someone with bad intentions use them in a bad way. A 4 year old near me blew her head off while her family was in the next room. Plenty of other people with no bad intentions have liked themselves and others with guns.
And knives, power tools, ladders, alcohol at celebrations. That rationale doesn’t work.
A 2 year old was killed in a car accident near me. We should get rid of cars.
Funny how nobody wants to realize its the same argument isn’t it? Same goes for DUIs fatalities and prohibition.
Thing is, I’m only half joking. Driving really is about the single most dangerous thing most of us do regularly, people don’t take it seriously enough. I’d much rather have viable public transportation options, but I live in the suburbs of Phoenix so that’s not going to happen in my lifetime.
I agree, the numbers are clear. But cars and prohibition aren’t good virtue signals to get people elected, so people don’t do it.
Also funny how nobody ever says you don’t “need” a car, and then tell you to take public transit.
Especially those cars with evil features like comfort shifter handles, and rear spoilers, you know, assault cars.
Who let a 2 year old drive
It was a wrong way driver. I can’t help but feel like the kid could have done better.
A 2 year old is not going to kill themselves operating a vehicle, unlike a gun. Even left unattended, they maybe put it in neutral.
Pretty sure I’ve heard of at least a couple cases where small children accidentally knocked a car into drive and caused serious damage, but that’s not really the point I was making…
Guns do not require someone with bad intentions use them in a bad way.
Let’s rephrase - someone with bad intentions or terrible safety practices.
You did! But I hope you don’t think that discredits what you think you’re making fun of, because you’re showing why it makes sense.
I am proud to be pro gun and pro lgbtq+ ✊“No, not like that” – NRA, ATF, and FBI
If only the Black Panthers and Native Americans had been armed…
Black Panthers in California were famously armed, until Ronald Reagan signed the NRA-supported “Mulford Act” which prohibited them from carrying loaded weapons.
There were similar racial motivation behind the wave of legal prohibitions on concealment in the late 19th century. The thinking was that only “criminals” needed to hide the fact that they were armed; “honest” and “law abiding” people had no need to hide their weapons from other “honest” and “law abiding” citizens or the police. The supporters of these laws didn’t make it a secret that their intentions were to disarm former slaves, who would certainly draw unwanted attention from racists if they attempted to carry openly as the law allowed.
Before the emancipation proclamation, the only restrictions on guns were based on criminal conviction and race, specifically, the disarmament of “Negroes” and “Indians”.
Because gun control is racist and classist.
There’s “gun control” and then there’s “gun control”. Disarming people because you’re afraid of them and disarming people that have a criminal record and mental health issues are not the same thing.
disarming people that have a criminal record
This is already the law.
mental health issues
As NAMI says:
The truth is that the vast majority of violence is not perpetrated by people with mental illness — in fact, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime or self-inflicted injury. The myth that people with mental illness are violent perpetuates stigma and distracts from the real issues.
NRA-Supported
That’s a bit reductive, the NRA was a casual gun club when that happened. In response to them supporting the Mulford Act, the membership overthrew the leadership and turned it into the very political organization
The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act. It’s the same as when modern Republicans claim to be the party of Lincoln
The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act.
There was a presidential race three years after the “Revolt”. The NRA chose to endorse a candidate in that race. Given what we discussed so far, (and knowing I involuntarily rolled my eyes so hard that I sprained them after reading your quoted claim above), can you tell me which presidential candidate the NRA endorsed in 1980?
That’s right, sports fans, the Mulford Act supposedly had gun owners revolting against NRA leaders in '77, but by '80, they were endorsing the asshole who had signed it.
In 2012, there was exactly one presidential candidate in the race who had previously signed a gun ban. That candidate was the one who somehow “earned” NRA endorsement.
The NRA is a Republican front that occasionally masquerades as a gun rights organization, and its members are suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, repeatedly going back to their abuser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_at_Cincinnati
It’s not a matter of opinion
Before 1977, the NRA supported Reagan’s Mulford Act.
After 1977, the NRA supported Reagan’s presidency.
You do understand that these aren’t two people who both happened to be named Reagan, right? You are aware that both of these Reagans are actually the same person?
“Well, I know he fucked us over in 1967, but he can change! And if we don’t support him now, he might not be there when we need him!”
It was despicable for the NRA to support him in 1980. It was despicable for the NRA to support Romney in 2012. The Revolt in '77 was the membership calling the police against an abusive husband, then refusing to press charges.
That it happened? No, not a matter of opinion.
But post-revolt NRA still backed the Governor who signed the Mullford Act when he ran for President just 3 years after the Revolt at Cincinnati. So clearly the supposed goals of post-revolt NRA weren’t so important as to not support any and every Republican to follow.
What I’ve always thought would make an interesting alternative-history story would be if the Native Americans (or aboriginals in any place really) had something akin to a modern compound bow.
I’ve been shooting bows since I was six. I’ve also fired matchlock smoothbore guns. The matchlock is more powerful, but less accurate, slower to fire, noisy, it takes some setup before you can fire it the first time. Compound bows are crazy accurate in the right hands, and some can launch an arrow weighing 40-50 grams at 100 meters per second. Add a sharpened tip and it will penetrate a lot of armor, too.
Those things are crazy. I sometimes wonder why nobody has gone into a killing spree with one, but I suppose a brain that is able to train using such a thing successfully is not compatible with a brain that does killing sprees.
edit Well ok, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/world/europe/norway-murder-bow-arrow-terrorism.html
Same! I actually volunteer with an organization called Operation Blazing Sword where we teach LGBTQ+ folks how to safely use firearms by taking them to the gun range and providing ammunition for practice.
Banning guns keeps the people who most need to protect themselves from being able to do so.
Gun control was started in the US as a racist measure to make it difficult for black Americans to protect themselves.
Hey! Nicely done I have my own private range and have been wanting to volunteer for blazing sword. Especially in this rural ass area I’m in.
Self defense with a firearm is exceedingly rare in the US. People who claim that guns are used for self-protection haven’t done any research to back it up and don’t realize that more guns in people’s hands just leads to more danger for everyone.
https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/
https://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf
And often, firearms in the home cause more danger for domestic violence victims than protection because abusers escalate to homicide using the weapons available to them.
Here’s the thing though, I’m me. Statistics aren’t convincing because I’m exceptional. Are most people less safe with guns around? Maybe, but most people are a lot shorter than I am too.
Sorry if you’re being sarcastic, but why then do the workers with the guns have the least rights?
The bourgeoisie takes rights away from the proletariat. The bourgeoisie have outlived there usefulness and the proletariat should rise up against them.
Yeah but how come workers in Europe, who don’t have guns, have 100X the rights of workers in the US, who do have guns?
Is it because people with guns are scared little pussies?
Because, to be honest, that’s how it looks!
In the US the bourgeoisie is so powerful and have brain washed the people so much that the bourgeoisie feels comfortable letting the proletariat fuck around with guns. All the gun owners are so caught up with being scared of the people the bourgeoisie told them to be scared of that they don’t realize that lgbtq+ community and other races are still more or less in the same bloat and that the bourgeoisie harms them all. One day the tools of the oppressors will be used by the oppressed to gain control.
One day
I’ll be honest mate, I’m old and I’ve been hearing this for forty years.
All that’s happened is that public shootings have increased, dramatically
I unfortunately agree with this take. Blips of independence here and there get crushed by inexorable legal/monetary punishment of those who disagree with the system.
I wait quietly for the right opportunity, but am concerned I’ll be waiting for a long time.
What rights do you think European workers have that American workers don’t have?
Basic healthcare for one
That’s a national issue, not a worker’s rights issue, unless you’re saying that employment is required for you to have healthcare. All citizens should have healthcare, regardless of their employment status.
It’s a worker’s rights issue when your healthcare is tied to your employment, as is the case for the majority of Americans.
deleted by creator
Vacation, illness/disability benefits that pay you for sick days regardless of your job, livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment…
livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment
I wasn’t aware that Europe has such a thing. Which European countries? All of them? Certainly it’s being paid for somehow. Americans get retirement in the form of social security. That does require that you pay into it, but I’m assuming the European version does as well, just as a general tax instead of a specific charge. Is the European version based on how much you made while working? What is the program called?
I said livable. Social security is not livable.
It’s paid for in Germany through a tax, but not personal investment in a retirement account (maybe my phrasing was unclear). The level of retirement pay is dependent on the time you worked and your pay, but it’s complicated. Someone who works full time for minimum wage will still get enough for healthful survival into old age. Each European country handles things differently.
Also, parental leave, I don’t know how I missed that one.
How much paid time off does your job give you?
What rights do you think we don’t have in the USA? I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.
I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.
Get hurt and get treated at a hospital without paying.
I actually have done that in the USA. Emergency departments have to provide medical treatment to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay.
Additionally, when I was in poverty I was able to get very discounted health services at the county health department. They provide healthcare with an income-based rate, so that poor people can afford it.
Your attempt has been debunked, good day.
Yup, I guess all those people with medical debt are just fuckin liars, and we actually do have free healthcare
It is “free” healthcare if you just don’t pay! Tapping head.
Just waiting for the day when my Dr hands me a screen and tells me it’s gonna ask me a question before looking away like a dip shit right before writing a prescription
The problem is that both are telling the truth. Some hospitals have discounts for low income people and others don’t. Some medical emergencies are easy to write off while others aren’t. If you don’t have decent insurance in the US it becomes kind of a lottery system, which in the end makes it harder to change voters opinions.
Or if you do have decent insurance and also have cancer.
Medical needs extend far beyond the occasional emergency
How about getting good healthcare outside of emergencies or living in poverty?
I have always had access to good healthcare in the poorest part of the USA actually. My health needs have all been taken care of well, as have the health needs of every member of my family.
I don’t understand why all you people think we don’t have good healthcare in the USA. We literally have the top doctors in the world here, and the best medical technology that exists.
Kinda funny how some Americans always confuse “having” and “having access”. But I guess you’re the one person in the whole country who gets good healthcare, because pretty much everyone else tells a different story. Good for you I suppose.
Depending on which state your in, determines your individual freedoms.
In Michigan:
I can light up a joint on my porch and wave to the passing cop car.
I cannot legally operate an unlicensed vehicle on city streets.
I cannot launch my own aircraft.
I cannot turn Right on Red.I’m fairly certain that you do not have the freedumb to cook meth in your kitchen.
I will concede the “I can do whatever I want; once.” argument. Kind of like how I could go outside and fire off a few rounds into the air. Sure, I CAN do it, but it’s illegal for me to do so for public safety reasons.
Also, you cannot strike a member of Congress regardless of the state.
You may be right about some of that but I’m downvoting you for saying “freedumb” because I hate that dumb malapropism.
Freedom is never dumb. Dumb is being against freedom.
You absolutely can turn right on red in Michigan unless a sign prohibits it.
Getting an abortion 🤷🏼♀️
Abortion is legal in the USA actually. It might require a drive to a neighboring state for some states’ residents but it is still something that Americans have the right to do.
Although many Americans do not have the means to do so. Also some states are trying to (already have?) outlaw this.
The same logic in both cases, the books aren’t making people gay, they’re providing people with knowledge that might make them realize they’re gay. Guns don’t kill people, they provide people a tool for people who want to kill people to kill people.
I was of the opinion that less guns resulted in less murders, based on data from Australia. Before I read this I thought banning books didn’t affect quantity of gay people, now I’m doubtful…🤔
Less gun ownership is correlated with fewer murders, but it’s a complicated equation.
Part of it is what gun control measures are in place. Having 100 guns in safe hands may not be safer than 10 guns in random hands, but it is safer than 75 guns in random hands.
Part of it is the ownership culture. Some parts of the US may have the laxest gun laws in the world, but not enough to account for the sheer quantity of guns available. Most people can get guns in most European countries. They just choose not to, or choose to get fewer.
So do less guns result in less murders? Or do we get less murders by not having a toxic relationship with firearms and not letting dangerous people buy a gun at the liquor store along with a handle of vodka?
It’s as “complicated” with gay people and books. But the “toxic relationship” in that case are people who are closeted gay because they think it’s horribly unacceptable and nobody will tell them better.
Banning books affects the quantity of happy, self-assured gay people. By how much? Fuck if I know, the general culture is probably way more important. But, books affect culture and culture affects books and their availability.
The difference between being a murderer and being gay is that, generally speaking, murderers are made and gay people are born.
I saw this on Facebook. The dumb typical reply was “the only people who say this are people who want to show children porn” or something else insane
Every accusation is a confession
This guy took the last slice. 😐
The far-right accuses the LGBT+ community (and anyone who supports them) of being child predators because child predators are the last remaining group of people you can openly advocate violence against.
They want to say “lets kill all the gay people” but they need to maintain a shred of plausible deniability.
“the only people who say this are people who want to show children porn”
This is what you call “projection”. Normal people don’t think about that at all.
Emphasis on “Facebook” here…
No, the only people that say this are people that don’t realize that anarchists and leftists in general (tankies are not leftists) support the right of the people to be armed, and also support your right to read books that you want to, as long as you don’t fuck with other people over their choices.
Remember, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gay is a good guy with a gay
Hi I’m gay, where are the bad boys?
Hi Gay, I’m dad. I mean daddy 😈
Dude talks about bringing the big guns out, unzips and an actual pistol falls out! Anyone would be shitting themselves at the balls
“Books are just guns that fire gay rays” - some MAGA, probably.
“Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”
Republicans are really going back in time for their policies.
You lost me there. The penis what?
penis mightier than the sword
Title of my sex tape.
I hope you don’t use a sword for the same purpouse as a penis.
The word vagina is derived from the Latin word for “sheath” so…
That takes me back to SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! One of the best recurring sketches in their entire 48-year history IMO!
As a side note, it’s not every day you get to share a clip that starts with “I hate you” 😂
PENIS MIGHTIER, TRABEK!!!
There was nothing about a penis. What have you been reading???
That sign won’t stop me because I can’t read!
Or
If those kids could read they’d be very upset.
That’s why my buddy Mike Johnson and I use CovenentEyes ™ to protect us from all the hot gayness that just absolutely LEAPS out of the computer screens at us, too bad I can’t get an analogue version for all the books with hot gayness that tries to attack us!
edit: 1 downvote? I didn’t know my boi MJ was on lemmy! Yo whaddup ya fucking theocratic loon
Books don’t make people gay. Attractive people of the same sex make you gay.
Well, that, and what I assume is a brain development process before or during puberty that I don’t completely understand but I know has to exist, because I don’t remember making a concious effort to be attracted to legs and striking eyes, but I sure am. I bet there is a rabbit hole where I could learn about all this.
You mention before puberty, but the research is quite fascinating. There is strong evidence a hormone imbalance in your mother when your are still a fetus can have a dramatic effect on your sexual orientation as an adult. But also on a negative side sexual abuse of adolescents can also have a significant effect on adult sexuality. Human sexual orientation and the factors at play are very diverse and interesting.
Human sexual orientation and the factors at play are very diverse and interesting.
I know! So interesting, but some people make you feel like a pervert for being interested in it. I just want to know how it works, like literally everything else.
My theory is that everyone is becoming more attractive so it’s less inappropriate or irrational to think of having sex with said person anymore
Does somebody think that books make people gay?
Acknowledging the existence of gay people is grooming kids for rape, I’m told.
This isn’t even the quiet part for these dumb monsters.
I mean, if they actually cared about kids being raped they might not be so bad, but show them actual evidence of children being raped, i.e. by priests or coaches, and all of a sudden they’re a skeptic…
Standard fascist self-contradiction and projection.
Yes. Republicans are banning books left right and center that have LGBTQ content in them because they consider it “grooming” and “propaganda”.
No, it’s Adderall that makes you gay. Or am I just speaking for myself?
“everyone hot” made me bi. 🥲
I suggest we ban everyone.
It’s the motte and bailey fallacy. Take one hot issue, then downplay it as far as possible to make it seem the other side is nuts.
Some of these “banned” books have sexual content, from how to masturbate to the use of sex toys, etc. People take to reading them at school board meetings, YouTube on the street interviews, etc to point out how graphic they are. Should they be in a 3rd grade (age 8) or lower public school library? They aren’t banned from all stores. A parent that wishes to teach their kids these topics are free to buy them for the kids. How much should public schools cover in sex ed, and how young do you start? Those are questions we should discuss.
But no, they will just say these books teach that “gay people exist.” As if blow jobs and anal sex are for the gays only?
Here’s a list of my personal favorite books that were banned by Frisco school board in Texas:
1984 (allowed in hs)
20,000 leagues under the sea (allowed in ms)
All of A Song of Ice and Fire (never allowed)
The adventures of Tom Sawyer (allowed in ms)
American gods (never allowed)
Brown v board of education: a fight for justice (allowed in ms)
Fahrenheit 451 (allowed in hs)
Jane Eyre (allowed in hs)
MLK: journey of a king (allowed in ms)
Pride and prejudice (allowed in hs)
Queer: the ultimate LGBTQ guide for teens (never allowed) this might be my absolute favorite because there’s no claim of obscene content. The reason for banning is “does not align with curriculum”.
The fellowship of the ring (allowed in ms)
The hobbit (allowed in ms)
The lovely bones (never allowed)
The other two LOTR books (allowed in ms)
Trans mission: my quest to a beard (never allowed) also no claim of sexual content, “does not align with curriculum”
The full list of books banned in Frisco can be found here: https://www.friscoisd.org/departments/library-media-services/library-collection-review-project/materials-removed
For a full list of every book banned in a Texas school district: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/list-of-texas-banned-books-shows-state-has-most-in-us-17480532
I think that I’ve made my point, but I do want to also make mention of the fact that this does not affect children who have parents that are wealthy enough to buy them books or those who have enough time to take their kids to the public library. This targets exclusively under privileged students, and those who do not want their parents to know that they are reading LGBTQ literature.
Also because I assume somebody is going to claim this is cherry picking, I just googled “books banned in Texas 2023 list”, and chose Frisco because it was the first one with such a long list.
This is the completely rational discussion that is entirely appropriate to be having.
However, this is decidedly not the discussion being had.
The voices making the rational arguments are either completely outnumbered, or intentionally squelched by corporate news because rational discussions do not sell adverts.
Personally, I’ll always take the side of “burning books is bad.”
I never hear that from anyone, much less from gun people in particular. I’m amazed that this sticker exists
Guns don’t kill people, uh uh
I kill people, with guns
And I make people gay
With books?
With me
Can confirm.
Pow
Guns don’t kill people, books kill people.
Gun laws give control of guns to the government. The government is not made up of people better than us, arguably the government is comprised of the worst of us, specifically the least empathetic, most greedy, and most power hungry.
Guns are tools, tools don’t do things on their own. Of course fewer guns means fewer people killed by guns, the same way fewer saws mean fewer boards cut by saws. But if cutting boards is a goal, new methods will be found. If accidental board sawing is a problem, don’t ban saws, be more careful.
It’s the community’s job to keep guns from dangerous people (like people who would be cops), not the state’s. Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem.
If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools? Because guns are actively deadly and used to kill people. In the 1700s, that would have had a different societal context, as the colonies were tumultuous and had a rocky relationship not only with Britain but with each other. But in the 2020s, they’re just used to commit murder. You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children. Rights are a man made invention and aren’t actually real. “Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem” is a sentence you made up and could easily be debated.
When the government gives up its guns, I’ll give up mine. Not before.
If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools
I’d say two reasons – one, because there are no organized successful efforts to ban tools like saws and hammers. And the other is that saws are not a fundamental means of personal protection.
But in the 2020s, they’re just used to commit murder.
Guns are used for protection of homes, for sport, for hunting for food, and some people just thing they’re really cool.
You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children.
You hear what is profitable to show you. You’re not hearing about a great many smaller events involving guns.
“Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem” is a sentence you made up and could easily be debated.
Just taking your argument a bit further, if you’re ok with this, do you think a dictator is OK so long as they keep you safe? Why or why not?
Taking away guns does nothing for the anger people have when they want to kill another. They will just resort to other lethal tools.
What you hear about, comes from what you’re listening to. Traditional news doesn’t cover many defensive uses because it doesn’t generate as many views as a mass shooting. “If it bleeds, it leads” has been the motto of news organizations for decades. Look to other spaces and you’ll hear stories of people defending their home, business, etc. Colion Noir on YouTube has done some really interesting interviews with people doing that in the last couple of weeks. The FBI stats had something like 3-5 million defensive gun uses a year in the US. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away
Ban guns and who is left with them? The government and criminals. Do you trust them for all eternity?
You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children.
Media bias. If it bleeds it leads, if it’s scary it gets ratings, and tragedies involving children draw even more attention.
Hell let’s try this, without looking it up: How many homicides do you think happen in a year in the US? How many of those do you think happen with rifles (since those tend to be the target of “assault weapon” legislation)?
How many people do you think have been killed in public mass shootings (defined as a shooting with more than three casualties, that did not wholly take place in a single private residence, and was not secondary to some other crime - aka Columbine/Aurora/Sandy Hook style shootings, as opposed to something like gang violence or robberies gone wrong), between August 1966 and May 2021?
If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools?
Because no one has historically tried to de-tool the populace, so one hasn’t been needed. Assault the right to repair a bit harder and maybe we’ll get there.
Why is it so important to have the rights to have guns? Have you seen any country got destroyed because the people aren’t allowed to have guns?
Because guns are one of if not the most effective way to protect oneself when other measures have already failed. I want to be free, have freedom, that means the freedom to posses an effective way to protect myself.
An elevated murder rate isn’t a problem of guns, it’s a societal ill. If you’re sick and vomiting, the solution isn’t to plug your mouth.
Logical fallacy. Me vomiting doesnt kill classrooms full of children. Also, how does owning a gun protect you? The studies have been done. People who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves and their family than they are to kill an attacker.
Logical fallacy. Me vomiting doesnt kill classrooms full of children.
I assumed you were familiar with concepts of analogies and models, my mistake.
Also, how does owning a gun protect you?
Is your imagination really that poor? I’m a trans woman so I want to protect myself from potential crazy neighbors that think I caused all their problems. I lived alone, I like to not be completely helpless against an invader.
The studies have been done. People who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves and their family than they are to kill an attacker.
Other people’s carelessness should not be a reason to take my rights to protect myself.
Cars kill many people too should we ban those?
Because, as a country that already has so many guns, it’s not so simple to just say, “fuck it, no more guns”. Just three days ago my neighbor lost his marbles and decided to shoot up his apartment at 2am. I share a wall with this psycho.
The cops didn’t even bother to come out even though I had video proof of the incident.
I own a weapon for this exact reason. I have a family to protect and if I can’t even depend on the resources that are supposed to be there to protect us from this, then I will continue to own a weapon.
I lived in Japan for almost a decade, guns are almost non-existent there. It was awesome.
I wish it could be like that here in the US but there would need to be a radical shift in public perception of the police and each other for that to ever happen.
Edit: corrected spelling from weapoon to weapon lol.
You just said it how awesome it is to live in a country without guns… something has to be done. Stricter gun control is a step in the right way. Like you’ve said, it will need a long time to correct that. Years, even decades. But if nothing is changed, it will stay like that forever.
I absolutely agree. Mental evaluations or other processes or restrictions would be welcomed. I by no means feel that we should just leave things exactly as they are. However too many people just scream about banning weapons with no forethought into the subject.
Why is the #1 cause of death for children in the US firearms then? Countries with stricter gun control don’t have these issues.
It’s true tools don’t do things on their own. Cars don’t run over people on their own, baseball bats don’t bash people’s heads in on their own. But the big difference between those tools and a gun are, those tools are not DESIGNED to be lethal or used as weapons against other humans.
And I’d point out, people have survived stabbings and car accidents - most never survive being shot by a gun.
People misuse inanimate objects, and sometimes death results. People weaponize knives, guns, bats, folding chairs etc etc - they drive under the influence, they don’t buckle up, they text on their phones and thus thousands of people get killed by careless drivers every year.
And you want people like that - temperamental uncaring and who misuse NON-lethal items to kill people, to have GUNS??? Can you not see how ridiculous and asking for trouble such a scenario is going to be? It’s everyone’s job to keep guns out of human’s hands - cops being the exception. And we can only do that with good gun control laws, which are (as I’ve illustrated above) both vital and necessary to our survival as a species.
And you want people like that - temperamental uncaring and who misuse NON-lethal items to kill people, to have GUNS???
I don’t want anyone to have guns per se, I just think attempts to restrict them, especially in the U.S. just means only the real bad people will have them. I’m looking for realistic solutions to actual problems, not reactions to tragic events.
Well that’s the issue. We need to be going after everyone who owns a gun and going a thorough evaluation of their mental health and past history. We need to make it a felony offense to own a gun if you have any sort of criminal history - I agree we need to get guns out of the hands of all bad people for good.
This sounds like sarcasm based on a misunderstanding of my comment, if not you misunderstood significantly.
No it isn’t sarcasm at all, I’m 100 percent serious. And I’ve even had many neighbors express my same point of view so I know I’m not alone nor am I from Mars nor am I delusional. My opinions and self worth don’t depend on anyone else’s retorts.
People kill people and you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Just because one group of people can’t live within reality doesn’t mean you need to be as equally moronic to ‘prove a point’, especially when the point being presented as ‘equal’ is unabashedly fatuous.
Alleles becoming dominant or recessive based on upbringing? My brother, what publications have you been reading?
The heritability of sexuality is not a scientifically defensible claim at this point—let alone the other claims you just made.
If you read what I actually wrote down allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment, regardless of what people want to think or want to believe the research supports the hypothesis that sexual identity is not simply a matter of genetic influence nor of just upbringing but a combination thereof.
At no point was heritability mentioned or posited.
Please read what people write and if you don’t understand what is being said you should ask questions instead of exhibiting a clearly sciolist position.
Here’s a couple of current research papers to get you started: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
And here’s research on genetic expression and how the environment can impact such expression:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248887/
Once again, and to be extremely clear, heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
Yep, my bad. Misunderstood the term, I should have said “genetic roots” or something.
allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment
That claim is quite fair. Stating a relationship can exist is uncontroversial.
… you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Frankly I see no other way, from cold context, to read this other than as a claim that there is a “gay gene,” followed by a bit of hedging against the influence of other factors.
Apologies if I’m misinterpreting you. It could be you’re just stringing together a bunch of broadly true claims about what types of relationships can exist between all these factors.
It’s a bit of a “shovel, lye, and a hacksaw in the shopping cart” type scenario. Too many broadly true and relatively unoffensive claims in a particular order start to look suspiciously like a particular argument.
You’re reading into this too much. We’re here to talk about the logical inconsistencies in conservative identity politics. You’re here to have some kind of pedantic debate.
Not everyone who says “guns don’t kill people” is a conservative. I say it, and I’m pretty far from conservative. Go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Oh, no, I’m most assuredly not here to debate.
I stated facts, not opinions.
deleted by creator
