Well, a lot of FOSS advocates are also cyberanarchists. I personally am leaning somewhere towards that, where while I oppose viruses, I don’t know if I agree writing one should be illegal.
Most FOSS advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin–it’s why we have the GPL instead of all using MIT or LGPL license. Your right to acess the source is sacred.
Gun advocates don’t give a shit. Your death means nothing to their desire to roleplay mad max or zombie apocalypse or cowboy or whatever.
Most FOSS advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin–it’s why we have the GPL instead of all using MIT or LGPL license. Your right to acess the source is sacred.
I’ve never seen a FOSS advocate argue that all software should legally be required to be FOSS. Would that include server-side code? Instead they oppose IP protection, so that anyone could simply crack your software and freely distribute it.
Gun advocates don’t give a shit. Your death means nothing to their desire to roleplay mad max or zombie apocalypse or cowboy or whatever.
“Most FOSS gun advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin”
Because, you know, owning a gun doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.
I just got my restricted possession and acquisition license in Canada (RPAL), which gives me the ability to own firearms and ammo.
It was fascinating to see just how different Canada and US laws are in this regard; and how much less likely a widespread ‘unrestricted gun rights’ movement is here.
How difficult did you find the process? Over here we basically just go to the store and buy it after a simple background check. Even the background check seems to be avoidable if you do a private gun sale. At least this is how it was described to me by friends who have firearms, I don’t own any myself.
For (most) long guns and shotguns, you need to take a day-long safety course, followed by both a written and practical exam. If you pass that, then you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years. Then there’s a background check and a 28 day waiting period before they process it. (Also, I understand that the background check is far stricter here.)
If you want to be licensed for restricted firearms (handguns and some long guns), there’s a separate 6-hour course and exams. Most people do the courses and exams back-to-back, so they can apply for restricted weapons at the same time.
Purchase, storage, transport, and use rules are vastly different as well. Restricted firearms can only be used at a licensed range, and to buy one you need to be a member at a range in your province.
Generally speaking, firearms have to be stored empty and locked. Restricted firearms also have to be registered to a specific address, and if you move, you need to fill out the change of location ahead of time and are given a window in which you can move them between houses.
I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.
I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.
In signing, the references are saying that “I have known this person for three years and don’t believe them to be a high risk for violence.” One might argue that if you don’t know two people who don’t consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!
Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn’t have firearms.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it’s a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.
I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren’t a right in Canada - they’re a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.
At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)
So the process is arduous, it’s restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.
Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it’s not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn’t more than twice as high as Canada’s rate.
Never really liked his channel but wasn’t aware of this video until now. What a fuckwit. Has no idea what communism is but keeps saying it when he really means authoritarianism. Says that a gun is “great for children”, I’m hoping he meant for children to use…
I don’t understand why I need to buy a gun to deal with downstream problems where there is an upstream solution. The reasons he gave for owning any gun are really societal issues. Instead of encouraging everyone to have a private army, why not encourage people to vote for politicians who will fix the upstream problems
Dad (a mountain Appalachian man who did own guns but always hated gun nut culture) always said it was better to use your brain than bullets. I wholly agree with your assessment that if we’re at the point where we need guns, then we’ve already lost.
ok so extrapolate the rise in gun violence with YET MORE FIREARMS.
Man, I love the art and science of firearms and learning to use a new system. I thoroughly enjoyed the range while I was in the military and though I wasn’t infantry, took it seriously and appreciated the skill it takes to employ weapons of war to make war on our enemies.
Let’s look at the 2a: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2a nutbags will tell you none of the first dozen words count. Look at the situation we have today. Help me make ‘more guns are the answer’ make sense man.
well your answer is nutbags if you live in the USA. sorry I had a retort to your uninformed / wildly delusional idea of an even more armed US being desirable. sorry if the points I presented prompted some kind of difficulty in your reasoning chum.
sigh… go through the thread to the top buddy. I ask how many firearms does it take, you say… sigh, I have better things to do with my day, you know what, just gonna block you now, this isn’t worth my time.
Probably closer to 10:1 or 15:1 in the cases that matter. But since the cases in fact wont willingly surrender the most likely outcome is a Ruby Ridge style stand off for most. Resulting in a body count that dooms national elections. Democrats aren’t stupid enough to endorse even for one term.
I see what you’re saying but, I feel like Milton and the ghouls would just come after the fact. Shock doctrine and all that jazz happens in the wreckage of the act.
To prepare for peace one must prepare for war. I have no delusions that I am some secret spec ops action hero, its more that me and other citizens be8ng armed changed the calculus for people that would want to oppress us.
This is a weird fantasy gun people like to imagine. There will never be a war like that, nor do they need to confiscate anything to control you. They already do through laws and your bank account. There’s zero chances that gun nuts will suddenly rise up and start fighting the government.
It happened in the Ukrainian revolution, the police were sweeping the streets beating people with batons, some protesters we fighting back with rubble, but when they managed to get the guns the police were using on the crowd things changed dramatically.
In my personal experience whether not a place had armed citizens changed how cautious police were in that area, they may push and fuck with people they thought they could but were more likely to be trying negotiate with people on more equal footing as them.
No doubt there are other methods of oppression then men with guns and batons marching in the streets and fighting those require different tools and tactics.
Funny, the time I almost got stabbed was in a walmart parking lot, it’s at least a little warzoney depending on locale. Glad you live in a nice neighborhood though!
(Before you don’t look at unames I’m a different guy)
That’s pretty standard in retail. Some get smoke breaks, some get stab breaks. Walmart just goes above and beyond and loves to help their customers even on their breaks!
having been around the block pretty recently with shit related to this. And my personal opinions coinciding quite nicely, i’ll leave this food for thought. Have a stroll down in the comments section, see whats going on down there :)
There are problems in the gun community. That much i’ll say.
just ask your fellow yarr friends whether there are “open source” gun designs. I’m sure they’ll give you a bit of a rough time for the question, and then immediately point you to the materials required to make illegal guns.
Legal mostly, a few states ban them but not many. Just can’t sell em, that one is federal. The “illegal” part comes in if the person themselves isn’t legally allowed to own them because of age or criminal history.
They don’t have to be serialized unless you sell them (for a living, and have a manufacturer’s license, hobbyists kinda just can’t sell guns they make.) Or if you take them into a gun shop to be worked on, then they have to serialize it.
There’s like 6 states that have harsher laws than federal on them, I think in those states they have to be serialized, I don’t think they can stop you from making one though, but all other laws apply too so it kinda ends up being a “you can but really not” type thing.
But even then, even in states where it has to be serialized, the only way they’d ever know someone had an unserialized one is if someone was caught in a crime with one or defended themselves with one, and imo crime is already illegal but defense being criminalized because of the lack of a few letters stamped on is dumb, and it really just gives the police another excuse to “crack down” on minorities (as if they need another reason for what seems to be their occupational pastime.)
interesting, i suppose that makes sense. One would think they would be more heavily restricted, but i suppose that’s expecting too much from governmental bureaucracy lol.
I mean tbh technology has exploded in the last like, 15yr, it didn’t used to be this easy to make em this good. Always been able to make pipe shotguns easily though, but better guns required a bit more skill and it was more niche/rare.
Also they kinda can’t stop it, both due to the second amendment binding them and physical impossibility, for instance the guy who invented the LutySMG, P. A. Luty, is (was?) a british citizen. Sure they got him, because he published two books on how to make his guns in protest of the UK gun laws, but his designs live on, and could be reproduced by anyone so inclined over there.
yeah, im not surprised frankly, but one would think that in some capacity, by nature, they would be illegal. Given the regulation surrounding it. I always knew pipe shotguns were technically legal. It’s never been a particularly good idea though. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out going forward though. Wouldn’t surprise me if something like that did happen tbh.
I dont think I’m American enough to understand this. How does wanting people to have freedom to use their systems as they please correlate with everyone being able to own and freely carry weapons that can kill instantly?
to put it blatantly. Pro 2A people (they should, on paper at least, in practice a significant portion of them are cunts and shouldn’t be allowed in the community but that’s a different rant all together) support the idea that people have rights. specifically to do with guns.
There is a very fundamental overlap in the whole “i believe i should be able to run whatever software i want, with no restrictions” and “i believe i should be allowed to own guns with minimal restrictions” crowds. It’s that simple, doesn’t matter whether you agree with it or not. If you’re a linux user, and you support open source software, and believe users should have rights. You automatically have a pretty significant moral overlap with pro 2A people. (on paper, again, fuck it, im ranting about it)
Also, minor nitpick, they don’t kill instantly, they certainly can. But if i shoot you in the toe, you probably won’t keel over and die immediately. That’s a gross mischaracterization of them.
The following is a tangential rant, feel free to ignore, it’s about gun owners being cunts. There is a non insignificant portion of the gun community who, when presented with the concept of “everybody should be taught gun safety, because it’s a right granted to us” relating specifically to (liberals edit, i misspoke here, i meant republicans, LOL) (go figure) happen to get really fucking antsy at the thought of people they don’t like owning guns.
Now i feel like i don’t have to explain why this is maybe a very bad thing. But to put it bluntly, there are two good solutions here. Ban guns forever, permanently (which i disagree with, but that’s just my opinion on it) or, make it accessible to everybody, and give everyone access to them, and the materials required to be safe and responsible with them. Because after all, gun safety, is what keeps us safe when using them. While im sure the latter would make some amount of gun owning republicans uneasy, i propose they get a taste of their own fucking medicine.
Upvoted for the last sentence. Gun and weapon ownership represents the counterbalance of incumbent control. Current control should always be nervous of new powers and new powers should always have the ability to intrude. The lac will introduce a reproductive drift to the detriment of intelligence.
Gun people and Open Source people both can appreciate the right to repair, although Americans, particularly southerners, have a certain tendency to have more gunowners across the land than people who can libreboot a chromebook. Both groups of people can use their devices for good or bad, and I think that was the original message the oop failed to relay; I don’t really know what they think they’re saying.
you’ve got the right idea. I was going a little more fundamental though. More along the lines of “we have the right to libreboot a chromebook if we wish” just as they “have the right to own a gun legally, if they wish”
From that standpoint they’re very similar, and tie in to a lot of the same underlying points.
I see what you’re saying… I’m picking up what you’re putting down…
There’s an overlap of free rights to freedom and free rights to guns, but I think that they’re on different fields.
I agree with you, surprisingly, about a lot of what you said. But guns are a weird subject for a lot of people. The issue that is always brought up is that guns are designed to kill. The counter is good safety foundation, training, and practice. The counter to that is, humans are stupid greedy assholes.
For the sake of conversation, I’m mixed. I have guns myself but I treat them with respect. My kids know how to handle them and can cite the rules of gun ownership. The guns are locked up at all times. My family does the same. I can’t imagine that everyone is doing the same thing.
Jordan Klepper noted that a firm overlap on both sides is stricter regulatory control of deeper background checks, but the NRA makes this impossible. Jordan Klepper Solves Guns.
I agree with you, surprisingly, about a lot of what you said. But guns are a weird subject for a lot of people. The issue that is always brought up is that guns are designed to kill. The counter is good safety foundation, training, and practice. The counter to that is, humans are stupid greedy assholes.
like wise you could argue that censorship resistant platforms, self hosting, and e2e encryption can cause acts of violence to be carried out against people. I don’t see anybody complaining about that though, that’s just an understood cause and effect of having freedom in regards to censorship. Shitty people exist, they will proceed to be shitty. You can censor them, but if you want to maintain truly uncensored speech, you must allow them to speak, unfortunately.
There is always a benefit, and a negative to any action taken. Guns can indeed kill people, you can argue they were made to kill, but you can also argue that the vast majority of guns in existence have never once killed a person. And therefore, statistically, are probably safer than a lot of other things. Like eating junk food.
Like you said, you treat guns with respect, because they can be dangerous, much like someone who interacts with powertools on the regular, understands the dangers of powertools, and how they can be used to hurt people, intentionally or otherwise. Just like when creating open source software, or using it, you have to respect it’s licensing, and use it appropriately.
The lack of respect is certainly a problem, but it is drastically upset when republicans, who disproportionately, understand gun safety, and utilize it to their benefit (as they should) don’t want to educate people they don’t find very appealing on how to be safe with them. Which not only leads to potential self inflicted dangers and injuries, but also potentially to others as well. If we want everyone to be safe and respectful of guns, we can’t simply ignore an entire segment of the population, it just doesn’t matter. You can’t justify that.
putting them on different fields is certainly understandable, they are different things after all, but i think it’s important to consider the underlying structures and mechanisms behind something, and seeing how those can be effectively applied elsewhere, if for no other reason than to prevent bias and hypocrisy. As well as ensuring consistent beliefs. Seeing as a non-insignificant portion of gun owning republicans seem to be experiencing this issue right now. I would say that’s fair.
I know this is about to sound stupid but I promise it isn’t as dumb as it sounds.
Guns are not designed to kill, nothing is designed to kill. Guns were designed to propel a projectile at incredible velocities, they were INVENTED to kill. What you do with the gun is what makes the difference.
i’ve never really found that argument compelling tbh. Guns are designed to kill.
So are knives, and machetes. And daggers, swords, etc… Nobody ever complains about those. Mostly because they have other uses, and aren’t in particularly heavy use.
I mean hell, you could argue a car is designed to kill people. F150s are a big contender there.
So you mean to tell me that knives and machetes are primarily used to kill people every day instead of cutting rope, vines, etc?
Cars were designed to kill people? Is that why the 1894 velo was designed? To kill people? Definitely not designed to transport people I guess. If you walk in front of a train going even 15 mph, your corpse would be so destroyed that it would not even be recognizable. Are trains designed to kill then?
Hell, by your logic, anything that has the capability to kill is designed to kill, did you know that if you drink too much water, you can die? Guess water’s designed to kill too, I guess.
Guns have uses besides killing, the very presence of a firearm is a deterrant, that alone is a purpose that is given besides killing. I don’t agree with it, and I don’t even think everyone should just have easy access to firearms, but they definitely work for that purpose. Mentally unstable folks, it won’t work on those, but is that really the fault of guns themselves, or our country’s lackluster healthcare system, especially with the stigma around seeking mental help? A lack of access to guns is not going to stop someone from trying to kill someone, I am telling you that it is not. At the end of the day, external factors like economical reasons, mental health problems, stress related factors such as family issues, social issues, or work related issues, that’s what even drives people to do crimes like mass shootings in the first place.
Honestly, I could give less of a shit if guns even got taken away, but at the end of the day, there is still a problem to be dealt with and that is people who need help are not getting it, and as a result, are suffering.
So you mean to tell me that knives and machetes are primarily used to kill people every day instead of cutting rope, vines, etc?
Cars were designed to kill people? Is that why the 1894 velo was designed? To kill people? Definitely not designed to transport people I guess. If you walk in front of a train going even 15 mph, your corpse would be so destroyed that it would not even be recognizable. Are trains designed to kill then?
Hell, by your logic, anything that has the capability to kill is designed to kill, did you know that if you drink too much water, you can die? Guess water’s designed to kill too, I guess.
this is exactly my point. It’s such a broad and wide reaching statement, that it completely excludes sport, and hunting. As well as defense, from what guns were designed to do. It’s just frankly a stupid statement to make.
Yes, and so is a lathe, and a mill, and a wheel, and a grinder, and hell, even a firearm! Did you know that anything that isn’t a shotgun has a rifled barrel? Meaning it spins the projectile so that it has potential energy keeping it better on target, even in windy conditions? That fact wasn’t really relevant though just figured I’d throw it in there.
Pretty much almost all work done by humans involves some kind of circular motion to perform it. When you swing your arm, you are going along a circular motion. Even most machines that perform work linearly use circular motion, such as a reciporicating saw or a band saw, as they still use gears/sprockets to perform motion.
Though saying it was designed to spin fast is a bit of a misunderstanding. You don’t necessarily need to spin fast, different materials need different speeds and feeds in order to be machined properly and efficiently(drilling is in fact, a form of machining).
A drill doesn’t technically spin either, the toolholder is what spins. I was mostly referring to how pretty much almost everything we do involves some sort of circular motion as a method of action. I guess you could technically say that it is until the projectile leaves the barrel? Idk I say your point stands better on that front.
Btw, we are so off topic at this point that this is basically just a discussion on how tools work, honestly more interesting than hearing the trillionth discussions on guns though tbh
Pretty much lol. At the end of the day, an object that you use with a purpose is a tool, what you use that tool to accomplish, i.e. running someone over with a car, bashing someone’s head in with a hammer, or shooting someone with a gun, that’s what is important. I won’t comment on the gun rights thing because I honestly think I’ve spent too much time in my life talking about it, but I think something that gets overlooked that could help alleviate the problem is widespread mental healthcare and awareness!
Unfortunately, that will probably never happen though.
Guns are designed to kill that is why they are inherently political.
If I don’t like what you do, say, or are I can kill you. That is what guns do. That is what everyone wants.
If you don’t like that guess what you need guns too. That’s why arms dealers always win.
It’s why both sides are opposed to gun control. Gun Control means authoritarian governance, Your kids are sacrificed on the alter of incumbent Control (assuming Global Dominance 2011+).
it has fuck all to do with " people they don’t like owning guns." it has fucking everything to do with people unqualified and unsafe to own guns being able to obtain guns - whether through gun show loopholes, straw buyers, no yellow/red flag laws, etc.
fuck outa here with liberals getting antsy bullshit. if you weren’t paying attention, there’s a fucking gun violence epidemic going on, every fucking week there’s another mass shooting.
if that’s liberals getting antsy, maybe you should fucking wake up and realize this bullshit only happens here. bellend.
it has fuck all to do with " people they don’t like owning guns." it has fucking everything to do with people unqualified and unsafe to own guns being able to obtain guns - whether through gun show loopholes, straw buyers, no yellow/red flag laws, etc.
you misunderstood my point here. The problem here is people who support 2A, and then immediately double back when presented with a group of people they don’t vibe with and go “uhm, ok, maybe they shouldn’t have guns, i think”
fuck outa here with liberals getting antsy bullshit. if you weren’t paying attention, there’s a fucking gun violence epidemic going on, every fucking week there’s another mass shooting.
It’s written in a messy way but I actually read it the opposite way.
There is a non insignificant portion of the gun community who, when presented with the concept of “everybody should be taught gun safety, because it’s a right granted to us” relating specifically to liberals (go figure) happen to get really fucking antsy at the thought of people they don’t like owning guns.
I think what @KillingTimeItself meant was that the 2A people don’t seem to be very interested in defending gun rights for people outside their circles. I don’t know if I’d use liberals as the example here. I think Black people would be far more salient.
While 1967 was a long time ago, the “antsiness” has remained. How often do you hear of these people doing anything to defend the people who are the primary targets of anti gun laws? Which is, by a large margin, Black and other racialized people.
I heard an interview with some Public Defenders who had submitted an amicus brief in relation to a guns rights case on the basis that even though the actual case was stupid, changing the law would materially improve the lives of overincarcerted communities. I thought it was on 5-4 podcast in follow up to the first ep that covered the case in a less friendly way: https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/new-york-state-rifle-and-pistol-association-v-bruen/. I don’t find the subsequent ep where they had the PDs on for an interview… maybe it was taken down.
this pretty much. I used liberals specifically because that was an actual example of where i had seen it crop up. It applies broadly to “people they don’t like” however.
My main complaint here was that people who supposedly defend the rights that everybody have, get hypocritical about it, when presented with something that counters their personal beliefs. Directly contradicting their whole argument related to 2A.
Reagan and the NRA were all about gun control when it was Black Panthers.
I just want sane controls preventing nutbags from acquiring arsenals. I’m not anti-gun, I’m a prior service gun loving person who’s watching the idiots ruin it for the rest of us.
that article is cool and all, but please try to explain to me how the intrinsic and very explicit link, between republican politics, and 2A, isn’t political posturing in some manner.
You may not be. But there is a very clear tie between the conservative rhetoric, and 2A. If it weren’t political posturing the issues that i was talking about, which do exist (go have a look at some of the comments on this video), would not be happening. As it wouldn’t fucking matter.
none of this - gun safety, sane gun policy - is a political issue. Mr 9mm doesn’t stop to ask your political affiliation before it blows through your cranium.
Do you think 5.56 or .223 give a flying fuck if the rifle shooting them was wielded for political gain?
“ooh boo hoo I think you’re making it political” yeah well get fucked, no matter your affiliation, if you think more dead kids is a political issue. sick.
I watched the video. He says that if you support FOSS you should support guns, but never once advocates for guns to be free.
He says the problem is that politics are tribal, and people are simply in their corner, cheering for their teams - without acknowledging that there are Americans that want different levels of gun control, and there are reasons that people want gun control outside of tribal politics, and there are Republicans/conservatives/gun enthusiasts that have nuanced opinions, and support things like red flag laws and certain gun control policies.
You do know there are left wing people out there who own guns and go to the range, right? Because when them nationalists show up in their leather boots, knocking on doors, they won’t give a damn if you’re a pacificist. They gonna go pop-pop-pop.
Learn from the black panthers. If proliferation of guns is the standard, abstaining will only make you - and your children - a juicier target.
But, even if you’re anti-guns, there’s one more thing.
One talking point you could use with pro-gun people though, even if you’re anti-gun…
“So let me get this straight… you’re against the government taking away your guns, but for the government taking away your encryption?”
I struggle to see Japan as a bastion of freedom lol. Fun place to visit for sure, but between the archaic drug laws and suicide forests I’m not sure they are a society others should be modeling themselves after.
this is moving goalposts, they specified sharing software and ideas. But check out this list of suicide rates if you think our gun culture is beneficial at all en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r…
Compared to Japan, I mean yeah. Living in Japan & South Korea is absolutely hell, they’re probably some of the most conservative governments/societies in the world, certainly the most conservative in the first world.
It’s better when it’s the government with guns against criminals, randos, and children with guns.
More guns is always the solution. If it only causes more violence and bloodshed like a tribal civil war in the jungle then you clearly did not get enough guns.
Plus, they’re FUN! People forget that it’s FUN to shoot guns. Isn’t that worth a dysfunctional society crippled by violence and murder?
Since your on board with the government only having guns, then please explain to me how Putin has stayed in power for the last 24 years? What about Nazi Germany?
Innocent lives lost due to “law abiding citizens” mishandling guns: a metric shit ton
Corrupt governments toppled by gun lovers: 0
The thought of how many people might be stocking ammo and thinking to use out if their favorite politician loses makes me happy for having an ocean between me and them.
If a country like the US had a lower violent dead per capita than other first world countries like France or Germany, I would agree with you. But given that the numbers are 3 to 6 times those of EU countries, it doesn’t seem to be working.
Still, if you want to quantify how many lives were saved in any given year I can give you how many innocent ones were lost. Hard to measure, you say? Then it’s a weak arguments based on feelings not facts.
“We have dug this hole for ourselves so deep we can’t get out of it. At this point our chances are better if we keep digging straight down, it has to bottom out somewhere, right?”
If a country like the US had a lower violent dead per capita than other first world countries like France or Germany, I would agree with you.
It doesn’t have as high of a gun ownership rate as the US (no one does), but Czechia has some of the laxest gun laws in Europe, including allowing the concealed carry of a handgun like the US (at least 1 million Czechs have permits to own a firearm, a large portion of which conceal carry them for self defense) and they have a lower homicide rate than Germany or France (Source: World Bank)
Even as a supporter of gun rights, I don’t think that definitively proves that guns, on a societal level, prevent deaths. I don’t believe that in general. I do believe, however, that on a personal level, a well trained individual who sees the need to defend themself or people they love can prevent harm by owning a firearm. I do also believe that in a society (America) with a broken policing system, and an increasingly authoritarian Republican party that wants to crack down on my rights and the rights of people I love, I’d like the option to protect myself and my friends/family.
Who do you even need to fight bro? If I was say getting mugged I would give them all my valuables save a 10 % tip that I could give them when I was allowed to run the hell away from there. Do not be a stupid macho idiot. Be a smart coward without neither a wallet, gun nor a fatal wound.
Jokes aside, the main uptick is the smaller chance of someone less mentally stable than you with less to lose also having a gun.
So what about when you are getting raped? What about when someone doesn’t want to let you go? Do you know what its like to almost be murdered?
If you want to say “Why do you even need to fight bro” you’re basically just saying good luck to all the people who can’t defend themselves and just letting them die. And do you not understand how regimes come to light? Just take a look at Russia, Putin just got to serve for another 6 years. Do you wonder how somebody stays in power for 24 years and more? Because nobody can fight back.
Russia has pretty high gun ownership… comparable to Europe/Australia and not far from Canada. The US has like 4x the guns per capita as the next highest countries, and it’s far from the most free.
How are you supposed to go an get your gun from the locked cabinet where I assume you keep it to prevent a psycho from stealing it and using it against you? Unless you keep it attached to you at all times risking a misfire or your attacker grabbing it and using it against you. What if you accidentally kill someone who was infact innocent when you think you’re doing the right thing but you misjudged a situation? How do I know that you can be trusted with a firearm? What distinguishes you from a school shooter just by looking at you? If the US is so free why don’t you fight back against the corrupt two-party system?
Do you like the two party system? Do you like the electoral college? Do you like the lack of accountability your politicians face? I’m assuming you must assuming you’re a gun owner who hasn’t tried to liberate the US
i would argue that you probably lean more on the side of sharing user rights and freedoms generically. Rather than the more specific “software and ideas”
You can certainly have different opinions relating to guns. But they do have a fundamental overlap of underlying concepts. Rights are rights at the end of the day. Either you have them. And they’re justified, or you don’t, and none of them are.
Rights are what a community agrees on that they should have. I’m happy my community has agreed that owning guns is a priviledge, not a right. There is no sufficient reason owning guns should be a right, so I can be completely in favour of rights and freedoms without including any right to own guns.
i mean, technically if we’re arguing that it’s a privilege more than a right. That wouldn’t really change the point being made here, considering that legally, the government does have the ability to prevent you from owning a gun. Minor semantic shenanigan though so meh.
Add comment