Someone who says they ran away from the mass shooting at the Chiefs parade on Wednesday says they saw someone else running: a GOP governor who frequently touts his support for firearms.Earlier on Wednesday, between eight and 10 people were shot near the Chiefs Super Bowl parade, and two armed suspec...

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.

  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    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
      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?