this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
1009 points (93.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12959 readers
2094 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I choose to protect my body by you not having guns.
Edit: I don't, but I think you can see the error in your argument now.
I'm sure this sounded convincing in your head.
these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn't exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals... they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.
It's the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don't have much gun crime from yours.
There are all kinds of discussions we can have about this, not the least of which is that “no guns” simply isn’t an option in a country with 500 million firearms and no central firearm registry.
But, really, all that stuff is beside the point. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They equalize the weak and the strong. An 80 year old grandma can defend herself against a 25 year old man using a gun. A suppressed populace can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using guns.
Gun crime has negligible impact on most Americans; we have about half as many firearm homicides as traffic deaths annually.
Philosophically, the gun community feels having that equalizer and balance against tyranny is more important than the impacts of gun crime. Whether or not more gun control will decrease gun crime is irrelevant if a person feels that free firearm access is the more important of the two issues.
Btw, regardless of your views, if you come to the US you should shoot some guns. It’s fun and you’ll be glad you did.
preach! This! couldn't have said it better myself.
Wow, so we have too many guns so no reason to regulate has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. It is like common sense showed up to have you shart in their face
Guns are the ultimate equalizer sounds like something a weak assed little Nazi would say. Why does every other modern civilized country not need them then? It is like you look at the worst case and say it is now the best case
I could give a shit about the feels of gun nutters. To think we have to appease homicidal radicals is fucking bonkers.
I think most people will pass on the shooting thing. There is a lot more to the USA than a bunch of gun waving lunatics.
The working class must remain armed.
honestly it is the only way they can throw off the bourgeoisie. people who want to deprive the proletariat of guns are class traitors or posers from the bourgeoisie.
Let's be honest. You just want to see people die as long as they are the "right" group. Pardon me while I go throw up.
lmfao. wut?
Yup, that is what a clown says.
*honk honk
Thanks for that. It really lightens the mood.
I have traveled most of the country and 95% of Americans are normal people who just want the best for the people around them. They just have different perspectives on what that means.
You should let your hate go, my friend. I promise you’ll be happier for it.
Same and it is clear 95% are not gun nutters.
Reality is a harsh mistress and your gun rhetoric is absolute garbage.
We have not only more guns in circulation than people, but a constitutional right to those guns that you would have to overcome to remove them all.
I never expected to see a "those who disagree with me are actual Nazis" in the wild, used apparently straight faced. Godwin's law kicked in very quickly.
Proud of being dumb I guess. Hur dur we got most guns than anyone and a million deaths over the last twenty years to prove it. Aww shucks.
I never expected to see so many gun apologist bootlickers. Better run cause the gun grabbers are cumin fer yah.
I was more pointing out that there are legal and constitutional hurdles beyond the number of guns, the later of which you are hand waving away under a "the second best time is now" argument and ignoring the former. Especially with the current Supreme Court, we have at least 4 years before further gun control legislation attempts can be made. State and county guns bans and control laws are being struck down as unconstitutional left and right.
I am pro private gun ownership personally and believe in a legal right to self defense, but am not even talking about that. You are vigorously arguing for a pipe dream of seemingly "just make guns illegal, it will work out from there", in the current political climate, while calling people with different opinions Nazis. All those blank steps before Profit are doing some very heavy lifting.
We are thirty years past the time for meaningful gun legislation. Congress has been cock blocking any attempts to study gun violence for decades now. We are being held hostage to corporate greed and gunsexuals.
Just to let you know how ridiculous it is. Glock doesn't sell the model that is easily converted into a fully automatic gun through a switch in other countries. This is because other countries are not fucking insane and actually regulate this shit.
Needless to say constitutionalists and their re-envisioning of our legal structure is a crock of shit and just an excuse for big monied interests to flex on our rights. Oh and have they flexed.
You confuse me making fun of people for their retardation for meaningful critique. But certainly someone fantasizing about how powerful a gun makes them is a little fucking Nazi piece of shit.
You show up to defend the indefensible. Your resignation to how things are and defending the wholesale slaughter of our people through the excuse of private gun ownership is garbage.
The US has hundreds of child deaths every year due to guns and Japan has zero. You pretend we can't fix it. That millions more Americans will have to die. That tens of millions of Americans will have to live in fear. Wives will be murdered all for what?
You pointed out you are a fucking tool. You are welcome to walk that back if you want, but don't lecture me on how hard it is to change when the lives of your fellow Americans hang in the balance.
Countries that "don't have much gun crime" = countries with acid attacks
This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!
Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren't trained well enough! This means you wouldn't even need to regulate it!
How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don't need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.
I don't even know where to start.
There will be fewer acid attacks with guns because everyone will have access to a way more convenient and easy way of harming each other, yes.
So....problem solved?
Which side of the argument are you actually on?
How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don't. Because you're lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don't care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.
What is the bigger problem? Acid attacks or gun crime?
I help fix patients who have been shot. Don't lecture me about solving problems. I'm part of the Violence Intervention and Prevention team - we provide services and assistance to those injured by firearms. I work in a level 1 trauma center in the orthopedic trauma department.
Go ahead and guess how many of those patients have been shot by a good guy with a gun in the past nine years. Go ahead and guess how many good guys with guns end up being the patient.
Here's a hint. The answer to the first question is fewer than 1.
Yawn. Your personal experience is not reflective of broader trends. If you work in healthcare, you really should be smart enough to know this. So I will lecture you, because you clearly need it. Besides, you haven't refuted any of my points, you just resorted to logical fallacies like appeals to authority and anecdotal evidence. Proof that you don't have anything useful to say anymore. Smh.
Oh I'm smart enough thank you. Just because you've read an online guide to logical fallacies, doesn't make my personal experience irrelevant, it makes it an anecdote. Its written as food for thought (we're talking zero cases out of multiple thousands of orthopedic gun shot wound injuries). I dont have a duty to refute anything. This isn't debate class. If you want to do that, then why dont we roll back to square one when you mentioned acid attacks as if their prevalence is equal to gun crime in America and that guns would solve the problem somehow. A completely ludicrous claim if ever there was one.
Yawn (asshole)
I really don't think you are smart enough. lol
I really don't think you would know
you've given me all the proof I would need lmfao.
"I know how to think critically" insults and belittles
"I work in health care" Exhibits the intelligence of a ostrich
How so? Why don't you have a real argument instead of hurling crap insults, acid man?
reread your stuff. if you can't understand how it proves your own stupidity, then you really are hopelessly lost.
Only insults then? Ok.
only lack of logic then? ok.
You vastly overestimate your own skills in that department, acid man.
said the man who couldn't refute literally any of my points (and clearly didn't understand most of them in the first place)
I can refute them, but unfortunately you were already being insulting.
The problem of acid attacks is just that. A problem. One that people are actively trying to fix. Nobody thinks acid should not be regulated. Only the weirdest kind of psycho collects different vials of acid based on their ability to stop humans.
The number of acid attack deaths, even in the worst affected countries, are insignificant vs the number of deaths caused by gun crime and gun suicide. Never the less, I still think it's an issue that needs regulation.
I do not think acid should be banned. I do not think guns should be banned. So you can throw away those arguments as far as I'm concerned. In your terms, you knocked down the straw man. I'm bored of arguments revolving around logical fallacies. They make me cringe because they remind me of myself in my 20s. Over 30 years ago now. It doesn't interest me to try to outlogic people.
Anyway, where we we? I believe we've covered a few mistakes with logic, but I'm happy to point out some more...
If there are plenty of other ways for people to hurt other people, and the other ways are so convenient, why are you so worried about not having a gun - simply use the other things to protect your family? Silly idea? Why?
The fact is, guns are used for few useful purposes that don't involve hurting things. Either you're target shooting, doing Robert Deniro impersonations in front of the mirror, or maiming and killing things.
Giving sources of incidences where gun control procedures fail is not helping me believe in your critical thinking skills. Why? Because there isn't just one path to take. There isn't just one way to try and lower the number of injuries and deaths. You don't just give up trying to cure illnesses because one method didn't work.
You tell me I don't know anything. You tell me I don't use logic. You call me "you people" and attack points i haven't made. You have basically not demonstrated any logical thinking skills at all. You haven't made a single valid point.
Meanwhile my days are filled with all kinds of experiences related to gun crime. A baby was shot through because he was being held by the target grandmother. Police obliterating people's limbs because they want the biggest harm possible in their firearms, people still alive with missing faces, amputation both traumatic and because of infections. Kids with one eye missing who were out shopping with their parents 30 minutes ago . Crowds of weeping family members on the street outside the ED. Gang members pushing past security to try and finish off the murder they started. Wounds that you can see through. Threats of gun violence towards me and my coworkers.
All I want is for this to happen less. You don't. By your actions and your stance, you want it to either stay the same or get worse. Not only that, you want it for other countries too.
Approaching mental health issues is a valid path. Nobody argues against that. You have a responsibility to do more.
tldr yawn
Yeah you did
you probably didn't even refute my points anyways. just not worth it.
Uh huh