“My gun can’t just fire on its own!” actually dipshit as a machine (one that just so happens to be designed for killing) your gun is subject to mechanical error at any time independent of what you do or do not do short of building a flawless gun with your bare hands and necessary materials dipshit and, in fact, the only gun-related concept that “can’t just fire on its own” is an absolute lack of guns in that the only way to never accidentally shoot and kill someone you love with your gun is to never have a gun in the first place dipshit given that human error hasn’t vanished (example) but I guess those who hold these opinions are, as gun advocates, the least likely dipshits to weigh the responsibility of owning a gun with the gravity it deserves haha its cool im cool to drive gutys
I have to wonder: just how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses based on her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support a Quaker government official who refused to issue them gun permits based on a religious commitment to pacifism?
– Lambda Legal Legal Director Jon Davidson with a mild false equivalence but still one worth thinking about, given how often pacifism is shit upon.
This may be the The Onion’s best headline ever. There isn’t a story attached, because why do you need one? Implying so much in so few words. I’m in awe.
Considering the rule of responsible gun ownership that “you only draw your gun if you intend to fire it.”
The rule must be discussed this strictly otherwise it will lead to irresponsible gun usage. We discuss it this way because it is the safest way to mentally-prepare gun owners for the possibility of firing their gun and taking life. Whether or not real-life situations unfold otherwise, the hypothetical must be presented this way.
If you talk about it any other way, you are introducing doubt, doubt in the decision-making process, doubt that could lead to someone getting killed. A gun owner a) must fire their gun upon drawing it, and if they don’t, b) they can end up murdered or c) it is not truly life-or-death. Those are the three outcomes when we speak of this in the hypothetical. To state otherwise is dishonest, this is how you must talk about it or some gun-owner will remember what you said about how you don’t always have to fire the gun when you pull it and that’ll be the day that the criminal is a little quicker on the draw.
These fuckers can’t understand the gravity of what they’ve been trusted with. This is why I state that guns are killing manifest, and I didn’t know how to elucidate why ‘til now. Goddamn I feel like I’ve taken four levels in Gun Understanding over the course of the night (I also hit the level cap to choose my next class, it’s been a busy twelve hours, but I’ll be writing about that soon. I really feel like I’m winding down now. Shitty sad role-playing game references notwithstanding).
If anyone wants to argue this, please re-state my argument first to prove you understand this point, because I honestly feel like it’s too abstract for the tumblr audience given how the discussion has progressed so far.
It is the same way in South Carolina. You CAN present a weapon in order to scare off a threat, and 99% of the time, it works, and you do not need to fire a single shot. Most criminals are cowards, and like animal predators, they look for the weakest, easiest prey, the ones least likely to harm THEM. As soon as they realize that their intended victim is capable of not only hurting, but killing them, most will retreat rather than risk injury or death to themselves. You are allowed in my state to meet force with equal or greater force, but once the threat is nullified, or the instigator backs down or retreats, you must also reduce your force. In other words, you are not allowed to continue with force once your attacker backs away. You are only allowed to use whatever force is needed to stop the attack on your or another person. If you have a REASONABLE reason to believe that your life is in danger, you are allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat. IF you do have to fire a shot, however, it is recommended to aim for the center of mass, in other words, shoot to KILL. You cannot shoot a retreating attacker or one who has been incapacitated by other means, and modern ballistic investigations WILL prove the circumstances under which someone was shot. That can make all the difference as to whether a defensive shooter has no charges filed against them, or whether they themselves will wind up with murder charges.
First off: when was the last time you had to draw a gun on someone in a life-or-death situation? If you’re alive or you haven’t killed anyone else, the answer is never. You may have been in a dangerous situation where you pulled your gun, and you demonstrated irresponsible gun ownership in that moment.
The moment you give an instigator to back down or retreat is the moment that they can kill you.
If you believe they are retreating, then the situation was never as life-or-death as you thought because the possibility of their retreat exists. It is “life-or-death,” not “life-or-death-or-wow-guess-i-lucked-out”
It would be so easy for you to say “hm yeah I guess that’s right” and nothing about your position on gun control or gun rights has to change. You’re just going “SHIT NO I DEMAND THAT THIS GUY WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING, WE GUN-PARTNERS GOTTA STICK TOGETHER (TO OUR GUNS LOL RIGHT GUYS? TOTAL LOL)” This doesn’t preclude that responsible gun ownership exists— why are you refusing to learn anything?
Is it because you’re scared? Scared of the power you hold? Scared that you may find yourself in a situation where you use your gun? Doesn’t seem worth owning a gun to me.
Don’t worry I won’t argue this further I’m just glad my thoughts made it to you.
yeah, duh, the people who are paranoid enough to own guns are also paranoid enough to move far away from crime as they prioritize fear above most things in life
Queue in the millions of people who live in cities who can afford a $150 gun but can’t afford to move out…
Keep coming up with correlations and I’ll happily acknowledge one that’s actually got some causation involved
Do you know anything about statistics? The correlation is negative, but too low to prove anything.
i.e. apples to orange soda. It’s completely independent. New Orleans is violent and has a lot of legal guns, Chicago is just as violent and a lot less legal guns.
and don’t confuse a back-pat for a pistol whip or you might kill someone
“LOT LESS LEGAL GUNS”
sorry man you gonna suggest I don’t know anything about statistics based on an abstract statement of mine, I’m down to suggest you don’t know a thing about writing and, in fact, may be illiterate, which really limits the possibility of this conversation
Also: I am getting help. Wish you could talk to my therapist about how copacetic a person she believes I am (whether or not she’s lying is besides the point, you’re the one who suggested help and I’m here to tell you it’s going so well) and how the reasons I’m speaking with her are utterly unrelated to how I’m functioning on tumblr outside of my current manic attention on this topic. Meanwhile, how’s it going over there in the morass of gun-worship? Learned anything lately? Seen any new pretty pictures?
You are frightened of yourself and people. Don’t get help because the idea of you gaining the tools to effectively convey your feelings might help you climb out of the hole that you seem happy to remain in, and I, as said before, cannot think of a better (peaceful!) torture.
As long as there are people, there will be those who want to use violence against others. As long as there are governments and nations, there will be war, and genocide. Violence and murder are, unfortunately, part of human nature. Keeping weapons, and a fair rule of law helps keep those kinds of people in check.
look at this sad frightened child
“we’re animals, might as well engage in some mutually-assured destruction” *fires every gun into the air, a rain of bullets drowns us and there is no Noah*
YOU TALK ABOUT FREEDOM AND YET YOU ARE A SLAVE TO VIOLENCE
Hm, can it be? No matter who plots the data the correlation always seems low, whether it is for homicides in general or gun homicides.
Shall we reduce the number of nations? Leave only the so called “developed” ones?
Almost the same correlation.
oh damn oh damn I feel the epiphany, i feel it all, yall. see the problem was i never gave the time of day to these arguments but I finally looked at these stats that in the back of my head I knew meant nothing but didn’t want to dig into and figure out why they meant nothing. all my talk about acknowledging one’s fear and abstract thought would really come in handy for these fuckers
I took a moment to explore why something so counter to what I know is true would seem to be factual, and after a bit of thinking and not rushing to counter an argument, I arrived: yeah, duh, the people who are paranoid enough to own guns are also paranoid enough to move far away from crime as they prioritize fear above most things in life. Montana has a small population of conservatives who likely own lots of guns. And no scared craven child is gonna own just one gun, nah, they need an arsenal to polish waiting for the coyotes to attack the sheep or the Bradleys to storm the compound, dying of old age before getting the chance to wing an intruder because they’re in the middle of fucking nowhere and nobody cares about them. Meanwhile a place like NYC has tons more people, less guns thanks to gun control, a dense, stressed-out population, a full socio-economic spectrum breeding envy, materialistic/commercial culture on a grand scale, and acts as a hub for organized crime based on location. Naturally: places with more guns have less violent crime because there would be less crime otherwise.
Keep coming up with correlations and I’ll happily acknowledge one that’s actually got some causation involved. But actually I don’t think there is one so it’s probably best to just lay down your arms and try not being spooked for once since you can’t prove anything and guns are a net loss for people where peace is a net gain. NICE
It’s so cool because I hadn’t even thought of this shit before. Just by removing myself from the debate, I’m able to work on what actually matters, which is developing my own line of thought.
what u up to elpatron56? copying-and-pasting these graphs everywhere and enjoying the congratulatory slaps on the back? Don’t answer that or any of this cause it’s gonna fall on deaf, unenlightened, falsely-transcendent ears (mine). oh and don’t confuse a back-pat for a pistol whip or you might kill someone
lol you argued that i ignored context yet you clearly haven’t read my tumblr and by a quick scan of the first few pages of yours, it’s clear that you don’t give a fuck about moving past gunlust. but hey your interpretation of those rules was interesting and i’ll def do more research. i also liked your Bushido sword-tasting-blood analogy, it sincerely summed up how i see responsible gun ownership but both of us are ultimately colliding anecdotes
double lol at the snark about sex— sex is creepier than violence to you, dude
while i’ve got your attention: you govern your life by fear. you’re a coward who cannot accept death. otherwise why do you own a gun? (that’s rhetorical, you’re out of your element, sorry to condescend but idgaf anymore, this is more fun)