Jesus christ people stop bringing this up. Apparently we're incapable of agreeing on the fact that when people have less access to nearly instant handheld murder buttons everything is a bit safer.
@JinxTheCat, I'm still in favor of every citizen owning 1 nuclear warhead
@Youtuber, see it gets to the point where it's so cool that you cant pass it up... agreed 2 million percent.
@JinxTheCat, oh no, it's retarded!
@Doctor Krieger, it’s too late to save it. Put it down
@Doctor Krieger, im not saying that strict gun laws would even make a dent in american murder or crime rates at this rate, But legitimately if I don't have a handheld instant murder machine then I'm safer to be around.
@JinxTheCat, that suggests that you're dangerous, not that firearms are. I'd be safer if I was armed around you.
@Doctor Krieger, yeah but if neither had one then there's no worries anyway. If you decide to aim a pistol straight at my head and pull the trigger then I'll be dead before you can blink. Nobody needs that kinda power. of course none of that will change at this rate so I have no clue in hell why people are trying so hard. I'm honestly not really that worried about this whole issue it's just that if nobody at all had a weapon capable at killing almost instantly at long distances then crime rates for things like rape and murder will be much lower.
@Doctor Krieger, so in short I dont really care whether or not your government changes anything, I just don't understand how what I said doesn't make sense to anyone.
@Doctor Krieger, nothing else to say? Or am I just "too retarded to warrant a response?"
@JinxTheCat, I argee I don't see a way a gun can save you if you are not police or in the millitray.
@Soviet American teo, besides the 2 million plus times that it happens each year in the US?
@JinxTheCat, first off, I don't spend my life on here. Don't pull a Blue Shirt Guy. Cut the shìt.
Second off, there are plenty of ways to kill a person, and in a nation with more guns than people, fists are statistically more deadly. The idea that if I wanted to kill you, I wouldn't because I didn't have a gun is absurd. The idea that if you wanted to kill me, I should just wait for police is also absurd.
Finally, guns PREVENT rapes and murders. Police don't. Police investigate rapes and murders. When Australia completed their gun ban, their rape rates had almost tripled. Every country to ban firearms has had an increase in rape rates.
@Doctor Krieger, alright, thanks actually. I basically was doing this to see what people would think by the way, dont let this whole thing bother you. In truth guns are a pretty fun hobby and they are an absolutely reliable form of defense, so just remember that I knkw this before you actually get angry or something. sorry for the half-troll. I like how you put this whole thing by the way, lots of people just refer to calling people libtards or something when they try this kinda thing. In truth im glad that people are allowed to carry guns in public, my aunt who lives in down in texas saved herself from a potential rape case because she had her pistol with her.
Ah yes, the classic “one side of politics is entirely made up of idiots” argument. God forbid there are non-objective ways to think about things, or that sometimes another perspective is good. This is why fake news is so prevalent, people hear “left/right” or “progressive/conservative” and immediately decide if they’re going to believe something based entirely on that first trigger word.
@YUNoJump, you're making this into a tribalism thing. The picture itself is simply critical of a position. This position exists on both "sides".
@Doctor Krieger, it’s definitely considered more of a left-wing thing though. The NRA has been exclusively supporting right-wing conservatives for decades, gun control advocates in the right-wing are a definitive minority compared to those in the left-wing.
@YUNoJump, and? You were attempting to shame people for making generalizations, now you're making them yourself. Just stop while you're ahead, guy.
@Doctor Krieger, I don’t mean to say that the picture is specifically targeting the left or right, I mean to say that it’s common for people to derivatively insult the groups opposing their own. The left-right, progressive-conservative example is just the most prominent by far, and is also VERY frequently applied to the gun control debate.
@YUNoJump, some positions can only be held through stupidity, ignorance, or both. Let's not pretend that every position is equally valid or sound and therefore improper to mock. I will mock any person who dogmatically believes that a disarmed populace is a safe one. I will scorn those who do not believe it, but push for it anyways.
@Doctor Krieger, of course there are some positions that are based on false information (eg climate change denial or Flat Earth), but people very frequently group people together and dismiss them en masse based entirely on basic political archetypes. The term “libtard” springs to mind. I agree that people who zealously follow their beliefs without regard to sources or facts are in the wrong, but many people refuse to even hear the opposing side’s arguments. The example of gun control fits both sides quite well really, “it works everywhere else” vs “it’s my right to own a gun”
@YUNoJump, "it works everywhere else" is propaganda, not an argument.
@Doctor Krieger, taken as just the statement, without supporting information, yes, the same way that just quoting the 2nd amendment isn’t an argument unless you also argue why that right is necessary or useful. Because of this fact, people dismiss other people entirely without even hearing the proper argument, after just hearing the opening line. That’s where the problem comes from, the debate being over before it even starts.
can my cat have a gun?
@Z0IDBERG, is it of legal age? Is it a US citizen? Has it been convicted of a felony, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery or kidnapping?
@ImNotRacistBut, has it done illicit substances or been involuntarily placed under psychiatric hospitalization?