• Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I’m over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN. I don’t give a fuck if you want to keep your happy fun times playing with dangerous weapons as if they were toys. Grow up, this is bigger than your hobby.

    It’s crazy how many activities are available to us in this modern age that don’t involve potential death.

    Obviously, I’m not talking about police or the army. I don’t care about farmers and hunters, they can learn to trap it, bow it or fish it.

    How many innocent people are you willing to cut down so you can have your fun. Put a number on it. Less than 100 school children per year and we get to keep our guns? Sounds gross doesn’t it?

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I’m over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN.

      People need kidneys, it’s sad but decreed yet this Senator’s hoarding one more than she needs I offer this bill and I hope you’ll vote “aye” Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!

      Traffic deaths have many crying with fear Over 30,000 people are dying each year this modest change I propose must be applied Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!

      Alcohol deaths are exceeding comparisons Black people, white people, Native Americans We need to ban alcohol, it can’t be denied Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!

      Murders are bad. They have no defenders yet many are committed by repeat offenders I say lifetime in prison, whatever the crime unless, of course, you want PEOPLE TO DIE!

      These car deaths I mentioned are terrible stuff It just doesn’t seem that one seatbelt’s enough Either vote for my act so that fewer will cry Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!

      The carbs. The container. We cannot ignore Whipped cream’s killing more people than ever before This bill would be passed and be ratified if those people there didn’t want PEOPLE TO DIE!

      • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of those things are remotely comparable to guns lol. Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.

        I don’t understand what the kidney one is about.

        Cars are central to our society, it would collapse without it(although I’m completely for phasing them out). Their main use is transport, not killing people.

        Everything else you mentioned only affects the person using it and killin isn’t their main use. My neighbor can’t kill me because he’s mad about his job and is eating too much whip cream.

        Guns are made to kill. People are using it to kill innocent people. No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I’m clearly not talking about banning it for then). Go back to posting pictures.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I’m clearly not talking about banning it for then).

          name a profession you think needs a gun more than the working people need guns, please.

            • gayhitler420
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your argument against gun ownership by tying it to deaths not caused by the overwhelming majority of gun owners is a rhetorical technique.

              The person you’re replying to has been putting “argumentation for me but not for thee” examples pulled from your comments in big giant letters.

              • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It isn’t. There’s nothing rhetorical about saying that something is so dangerous no one should have access to it, even if they are “safe” with it, because of the risk it posses to society.

                Whats the rhetorical principal involved here?

                He’s also just being immature. He’s spamming me, replying to the same comment multiple times, quoting what I’m saying in bold as if it’s an argument. One of his replies sitting in my inbox is just him saying “fucking liberals” lmao. The guys is clearly an idiot, no need to defend him.

                • gayhitler420
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So there’s two things here, first, arguing that something almost 100% safe is dangerous because people have been hurt or died when it was involved is absolutely a rhetorical technique. It’s famously one of the ways people talk up the various satanic panics. That doesn’t mean your wrong or shouldn’t feel how you do, but it’s what you’re doing.

                  Second, he’s playing to the crowd because he recognizes that arguing online is a spectator sport. Neither you nor him are trying to convince each other, you’re trying to convince the people reading along. What he’s doing when he says “fucking liberals” is speaking directly through the mic hanging from the rafters. It’s what happens before he does the moves everyone watching knows by name: The CIA Already Admitted It stunner, the Armed Agents Of The State turnbuckle slam and the People’s Elbow (that one was just too good to pass up lol).

                  If you feel like he being immature it’s because you’re being clowned on. He may be an idiot, but he’s making you look like a fool.

                  • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Although I agree with most of what you said, guns are inherently not safe.

                    We are talking about something that is 100% unsafe and needs to be carefully handled at all times. Simply goofing off with them can get you killed. And on top of that, they are being used to maliciously hurt innocent people and a tool for crime.

                    Yes, the shootings and accidental discharges are the outliers, but I never pretended any different. I’m saying those cases are enough to justify real bans, that the 99.9% of “safe” gun owners need to deal with it and accept the small sacrifice. There is a clear and direct link to how easily accessible guns are and the abnormal amount of shootings. If I was asked to give up my paintbrushes to stop school shootings, I would in a heart beat.

                    The few cases are enough to justify broad policy changes. Not everything is anecdotal fallacy just because it doesn’t happen often, that would make all our safety measures and precautions based on rhetoric.

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Did you read my comment? I said I would vote for restrictions or bans. That means I would give up my gun. I am not the reason guns are so freely available in the US. Since that’s the way it is, I figured I’d face reality and learn how to use them. It’s not a hobby, I live in a place with a lot of gun crime. I would prefer if they weren’t so easy to get, but here we are. I’m going to continue to choose to live in objective reality here, and if/when restrictions or bans are actually feasible in this country I’ll be all for it.

      You are naive if you think there is no legitimate hunting use for them. I don’t think you understand how important hunting is in certain parts of the US. It keeps the ecosystem from collapsing in more rural places.