431–440 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average city dweller in the US doesn’t own a gun either. There are plenty of guns around, but often it feels more like a boogeyman than a real threat.
Is this statistically true? It's not even slightly true in my experience, but I've lived in NY, Philly, and Texas...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Don't take guns away from people to protect the populace because if you try to do it nutters with guns will shoot people"? That sounds like justification for taking people's guns from them.
Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Societies evolve and social views change. That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change. I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment. The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is rea…
The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, lik…
This is a site about startups and tech and hacking. Doesn't this sound like a golden opportunity for someone to stand up a video service dedicated to this niche? Basically Google and Reddit are stating that they don't want to lose ad revenue from other channels which they deem as more important. Sure they are wrapping it up as being socially conscious or something but it comes down to money. They are ad companies. La…
This isn't saying that someone shouldn't try - it's just tough to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about. Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that…
The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon impact to maximize internal damage. It really is a poor choice for anything but warfare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S How would something like that possibly be carried out?
Just like drugs. It’s easy.
And while we're at it, we can use it as an opportunity to crack down on minorities we don't like, and maybe do some good old selective enforcement, genius.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??
Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families. Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.
The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls.
Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation.
To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed people will shoot (at) those who oppose them.
In this hypothetical case that would be police attempting to arrest them for unlawfully keeping controlled firearms.
You appear to be saying if tighter gun controls were enacted your family members who are policemen would leave their jobs in order to shoot anyone attempting to confiscate their controlled weapons? Do you think that's a reasonable position? Kill your own countrymen now in order to protect your right to more efficiently kill others in some intangible imaginary future scenario?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you say guns are safe when so many get killed by them in the U.S.?
To be fair, in the U.S. about the same number of people are killed by cars every year. Most people would generally consider cars to be safe. (About 60% of gun deaths are suicides, 30% are homicides, and only 10% are accidental. Unlike with car deaths, where almost 100% are accidental.)
If you compare it to other nations, the statistics are also worrisome:
"Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why not defend yourself with something less likly to accidentally kill some random people?
It's a valid question. If we had something like phasers instead of firearms, I'd be more than happy to use those exclusively. The problem is we don't really have a good alternative. Tasers that shoot tend to be one shot solutions, and even then they don't always bring down targets, or they might prove as lethal. Rubber bullets you can fire multiple of, but they could cause serious damage too, especially if shot in su…