Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DogParkSniper t1_iulj572 wrote

Reply to comment by Agitated_Tell240 in 1 dead and up to 6 injured in shooting at a Halloween party in Kansas City, Kansas, police say by bonniethegamer223

More will help, though, right?

It's almost as if emotional-support guns, legal or not, are the common problem.

I don't understand being that afraid of stepping out in public without a gun. That kind of constant fear has to be exhausting.

I run to Food-Lion, buy my shit as quickly as possible, and drive home. No need for a weapon to buy dog food and a tub of sour cream. Simply because I'm not that afraid of other people.

Now, if I see the need to arm myself because the other guy is armed... It's the definition of a self-perpetuating problem.

31

NoDoctor4460 t1_iulkjbz wrote

Their televisions are blaring messages of devilish attack from all sides 24/7. When it is pointed out that other Americans, including those in the scary scary cities, do not live in that fear, that’s chalked up to brainwashing by the left. You can’t get halfway through a sentence before any utterance is deemed a lie even if every other country on Earth also believes said lies.

19

Calinope t1_ium66el wrote

I have never heard the culture described as “emotional support guns” but that is genius. They literally are emotional support guns.

7

Fofiddly t1_iuml14h wrote

Tell that to the victims in buffalo just trying to shop. Guns are too prolific, yes I agree. Unfortunately though that means arming yourself sounds a lot more appealing.

If only the bad could be more effectively filtered out but the cats out of the bag.

−1

Agitated_Tell240 t1_iuljltd wrote

If you could have a 199% way to abolish guns I might get behind you but it's impossible since you can build one at a hardware store

−42

NorwayNarwhal t1_ium1sm4 wrote

It’s harder to build a pipe shotgun than it is to buy a pistol, and you’ll only get one shot with the former.

The second amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it never specifies which kind of arms. Give everyone Zweihanders and broadswords instead

12

TrainOfThought6 t1_ium5wk4 wrote

I'm not too keen on AWBs, but if someone gets the chance to point out to SCOTUS that AR-15s aren't exactly part of America's "history or tradition", I'm curious to see where that goes.

4

manbearcolt t1_iumhbrq wrote

I'm sure Clarence "I don't know what 'diversity' means" Thomas would have a completely consistent, good faith response to that.

And that's as far as I could get before the giggling made it way too hard to type.

4

WestAccurate8861 t1_iuns22h wrote

Social media wasn't around when they wrote the First Amendment either.

1

[deleted] t1_iumjijd wrote

[removed]

2

NorwayNarwhal t1_iuo5d91 wrote

Well, fencing is exercise. That’s lawful. I’m getting me a bastard sword for home defense.

If I were a burglar or a home invader, I’d be far more viscerally scared of someone charging at me with a sword than someone pointing a gun at me. The gun isn’t brutal or imminently threatening in the same way.

(Some facetiousness is present, guns are scary too)

1

Agitated_Tell240 t1_iuljjam wrote

Yes knowing you ain't the only one w a gun might actually stop you from shooting some one

−47

DogParkSniper t1_iulna9i wrote

You replied twice in two minutes.

You know what stops me from shooting anyone? Knowing that I won't have to. It really is that easy.

But then again, my six-year-old child knows active shooter drills. That's kinda fucked.

Imagine if falconry had such protections.

We'd still find it stupid, but nobody mows down a classroom with a red-tailed hawk.

30

FHG3826 t1_iuljqg5 wrote

You know what wont help? More gun laws targeting law abiding citizens.

−62

DogParkSniper t1_iulnrep wrote

More laws targeting the people who don't follow said laws won't work, either.

If the laws don't work as they are, they need to be redone until they do.

Wanna aim those laws elsewhere? People who want to solve the problem are all ears.

"Guns good, because guns" isn't gonna fix a damn thing.

16

FHG3826 t1_iun7feu wrote

Gun advocates scream from the mountain tops with other ideas, but grabbers just want to confiscate.

It's not "Guns good," it's "guns are my right". There's a big goddamn difference. Dont strawman the argument.

−1

DogParkSniper t1_iuqj65d wrote

Nobody wants to come after your shitty shotgun collection. Relax.

Sane people just want to keep the most efficient means of killing people out of the hands of the unstable and insane. Which, we're doing horrible job of so far.

2

FHG3826 t1_iurcidn wrote

Yes they do. They say it all the time.

Strawmanning and poisoning the well from a losing position isnt a good look my dude.

The things you and grabbers writ large suggest wouldnt do anything to prevent people from acquiring firearms. So we need to address the root cause.

1

Chippopotanuse t1_ium1l66 wrote

What gun law targets a “law abiding citizen”?

The one that bans felons or domestic abusers from owning guns?

What I’m getting at is this: What gun do you want to own that you are prevented from owning by ANY firearm law past or present? (Because the answer is NONE.)

Because “law abiding citizens” don’t need fully automatic weapons of war.

You can buy whatever you damn well please, and you know it. My uncle had a goddamn arsenal. Close to 100 guns. Bullet making presses. Anything he wanted.

No law said “hey sir…after NINTEY FUCKING FIREARMS maybe you don’t need another AK.” Nope. He was free to pour whatever cash he wanted into weird-ass hobby.

“Law abiding citizens” gun rights are absolutely not under attack in any way, shape, or form. Never have been.

9

FHG3826 t1_iun739l wrote

You obviously didnt come to argue in good faith. And you're just...patently wrong. Lots of places limit the type of firearm you can own and operate. And the laws are obtuse and arbitrary.

E.g. SBR and brace laws. These ONLY affect law abiding citizens, and seem designed to turn them into felons.

E.g. 80 percent lower restrictions. Building your own firearm has long been legal, but now literal blocks of plastic are being called firearms because I can build it into one.

E.g. Suppressors are safety items but require a 200 dollar tax stamp and a 14 month waiting period. Why? Movies, I guess?

1

[deleted] t1_iumki83 wrote

[removed]

0

Chippopotanuse t1_iumm97n wrote

You want a machine gun with a laser sight, a noise suppressor, and a high capacity magazine?

Just as I would have guessed.

You are unhinged and need to check your definition of what “law abiding” people means.

You ain’t one of them if you need a fully automatic machine gun with a laser sight.

Omg.

Also - what city and timeframe are you claiming you couldn’t own a handgun?

2

[deleted] t1_iumn4jy wrote

[removed]

−2

Chippopotanuse t1_iumr790 wrote

You just want “the ability” to own one?

Nice dodge of not answering what you actually want to own.

And nice avoidance of articulating when and where you couldn’t own a handgun. Because I’m not aware of any city that EVER banned handgun ownership in our lifetimes.

There are cases wheee cities wanted to regulate whether folks could carry handguns in public, or with a concealed permit. (See DC v Heller, etc…)

But I’m really curious what city you lived in where handgun ownership was outright banned. And this 30-year struggle you talk about.

0

silver_sofa t1_iumpusq wrote

No new restrictions in the last twenty five years? Well that clearly explains why gun violence has plummeted recently.

1

[deleted] t1_iumw6q8 wrote

[removed]

0

silver_sofa t1_iunjeya wrote

The automobile laws of 100 years ago are relatively nonexistent compared to what we have today. A point no one seems to consider.

1