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.

  • goetzit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • ZeroPoke@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Maybe he’s just not a good guy. In fact in this day and age I would say by being Republican does indeed make him the bad guy.

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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?

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • S_204@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Lol, username should be brain dead or unalive cuz not much is happening up there.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Damn, you must live in a shithole if you need a gun in order to feel safe in your own country and home.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Shenanigore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Dunning Kruger is the cry of the retards can’t conceive a decent argument and are too chicken to just say “'retard”

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • goetzit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          My solution is to treat the cause. Mental Health and crime are certainly the two leading causes of mass shootings.

          A living wage, universal healthcare services, and a fair regulated economy Are solutions to the cause of the problem.

          I am not a liberal, I am a leftist. I think we have moved far too much to the right in this country which is why we have many of these problems in the first place.

    • Shenanigore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Perhaps he simply wasn’t armed. I’m against gun control but am also not armed 24/7 either. Unlike most on the website, I’ve been in the situation of having to approach a shooter. Some of us still believe what we did before that after.

      • goetzit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well good on you for getting through that situation, but you saying “oh, well maybe he just wasnt carrying” doesn’t really help your point. We can’t expect everyone to be carrying, at all times. And even if everyone could carry at all times, we still can’t expect everyone to be able to pull the trigger. You did, but that’s why people in your role are hailed as heroes for what they do: because most could not do it.

        • Shenanigore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I fail to see how him not carrying at the time doesn’t help my point of him maybe not carrying a the time.

          • goetzit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Because him not carrying at the time demonstrates why guns could never truly be a solution to these shootings. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and you can’t be prepared at every moment. You can’t live your life never letting your guard down.

            Not to mention, if anyone should be carrying and take action in these situations, it should be the ones advocating against gun control. Missouri has some of the loosest gun control in the country. If the main argument against is the right to defend yourself, and when the time comes this guy is either not prepared or not willing to defend the people he is meant to serve, how can we expect others to?

            Are we really to say “everyone should be carrying so they can defend themselves in these situations”, when the Missouri governor himself isn’t?

            And when you advocate against gun control, that is the statement you’re making. That the issue of these shootings is simply solved by a good guy having a gun. If you’re saying “gun control isn’t alright because i deserve the right to defend myself”, you’re implying that everyone else has the same right, and their only chance to save themselves is to also exercise that right.

            But can we expect women and children to do this? And I’m sure there are plenty of people of color who would not be super hyped to have a weapon on them during a police interaction. If the Missouri governor, one of the loudest voices against gun control can’t be expected to exercise this right, how can we expect everyone else?

            • Shenanigore@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah in a country with a 2nd amendment, it’s not just your right, it’s your responsibility to carry. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if people weren’t scared of responsibility.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • goetzit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nah, it doesn’t. If I advocate for the right for everyone to carry grenades on them, and then I get put in a position where someone actually has one and I get scared shitless and run away, thats funny, regardless of whether or not I carry a grenade myself. Its funny because we all can obviously see that the right to carry fucking grenades is ridiculous, and by advocating for it I kinda got whats coming to me.

        In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!

        And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          Except that isn’t what you said, what you said hinges on the “good guy with a gun” thing, so, yes, what I said is applicable.

          This new argument is a little closer, but even then simply not wanting to further restrict rights for those who use them correctly even though they can be abused is not unreconcilable with also not wanting to be shot unjustly. I’d agree if he was a proponent of “the right to commit mass shootings” but nobody has ever said that, so I doubt he’s the first.

          In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!

          Fair point, so long as you don’t cause collateral damage since you’ll still be held responsible just as you would be with a gun today, why not? I mean, it isn’t the right tool for home defense imo since guns are much more targeted, but who am I to tell you you can’t cut off your nose to spite your face by destroying your own house?

          And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.

          And cars, but “that’s different” since while cars will be a cause of many more deaths than guns due to climate change, and they can kill 80 preople and injure 486 on Bastille day in France, they weren’t “designed to,” so it’s fine, and nevermind that while guns were designed to kill people, sometimes it is necessary and acceptible to do so in self defense. We’ll ignore all that because “reasons.”

          • goetzit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            The difference is that a cars only purpose isn’t to kill or maim. There are very obvious positives to having widespread access to cars. I can point you countries where there is not widespread access to guns that do not have these problems. Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?

            Because I know your next argument will be about knives or cars again, let me address both of those: A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife, its much more personal so less people are willing to use it, and you at least have a chance of fending off the attacker. Against a gun, your only hope is that they miss. And regarding cars, you’re right, they can be used as a weapon! Do you know what solves this issue while also still allowing people to commute? Public transport! Im glad we agree cars are an issue, and that public transport is needed.

            Since you clearly don’t think everyone having grenades is ridiculous, how about rockets? Missiles? Should any citizen be able to obtain those too? Mustard gas? Nuclear weapons? How far are you willing to let that go before its obvious the cons outweigh the pros?

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              No, it is not always a risk.

              Yes it is, every fight is a risk same as every time you drive you risk some idiot T-Boning you after running a red. Even deescalation doesn’t always work for the professionals, even that’s 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.

              Cute, but no.

              Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.

              Trained to do what exactly? Risk their lives defending others (which they don’t actually have to do per warren v dc, gonzales v castle rock, and the other one)? Risk? People die from lesser fights all the time, there’s no ref like on the TV.