Me too. Thanks.

  • FluorideMind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    Reading these comments it seems like most of the anti gun crowd thinks pro gun is about machismo at the cost of tragedy. It’s mainly about protection of the people from the government. It’s the last failsafe to keeping free in the case of tyranny. We all agree there needs to be better regulation because in the past and currently the laws are designed over feelings and not facts, for example barrel length restrictions or pistol grips that mainly only effects the ergonomics.

    • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Your government fucks you up, every single day, week after week, year after year and the only people who own guns are the ones that are too cowardly to use them.

      They couldn’t protect you against a fucking duck

      Prove me wrong

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      As someone who flips between the two I’ve noticed neither side seems to really get where the other side is coming from. The anti gun people don’t get that there is a certain amount of fear of government, or how guns work. The pro gun people tend to not understand that the government is already tyrannical, the cops have military weapons, and that a lot of gun enthusiasts are exactly the sort of people who we shouldn’t let have guns.

      The people I want armed are the people who dread having to use a gun on another person and have a level of fear and respect for these tools and a level of trust that very few strangers have any desire to initiate violence. Meanwhile I keep hearing coworkers talk about how they have couch guns and saying how they draw when strangers approach them. Mentally unstable people with guns are a real problem and we as a country seem to insist on doing nothing that could actually help.

    • zaphod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s mainly about protection of the people from the government.

      Lol sure there John Wayne.

      I legit can’t think of another country with people that LARP more about revolution than the US. Most affluent country in the world and you’re constantly imagining youselves forming up and fighting back against tanks and helicopters (or your fellow citizens who happen to vote for the other team). It’d be funny if it wasn’t so tragic and bizarre.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      to be fair, being pro gun is typically about machismo power fantasy at the cost of that.

      if youre going to fight the people who are genuinely ruining your life, guns, especially in the way Americans think of them, are not the primary tool for the job. if youre going to defend your home, also a bad tool. do not fire a gun indoors.

      add to that: the people mostly advocating for chemical guns are against the proliferation of other effective weapons for the purpose (anti drone and anti armor weapons, ied’s) and against fighting the people you actually need guns to fight, and can’t just talk shit out with.

      so while I do not give a shit about guns, someone saying they’re pro gun is a huge red flag, and most ‘pro gun’ rhetoric is shit.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’ve read too many fairy tales if you think a gun will protect you from the government … Haha

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      guns to me, are more about sport and the potential for them to be useful to you in rare circumstances, more than shooting at an f35 that is launching a nuclear warhead at me from three miles away.

    • rsuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      One problem with the anti-tyranny argument is that guns would much more easily be the means by which tyranny is implemented than the means by which it is taken down. Imagine a more well-armed Jan 6. Then of course once the dictatorship is in place, eliminating the right to bear arms - or more likely, making it exclusive to the dictator’s allies - becomes trivial.

      Now in that case, conceivably a pre-existing right to bear arms could be used to stash weapons for a resistance movement that might gradually over the course of a decades-long civil war reestablish some semblance of democracy. But by that point we’ve already lost, haven’t we?

    • spiderwort@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Underpinning that argument is the argument that you need a good argument if you want me to respect your opinion.

      Which is fucked up.