I mean… isn’t that what is NRA is for?
Or… do they only defend rich white people’s gun rights? 🤔
I appreciate the 100% complete, unbiased and unvarnished picture of the situation Green OP (Gropey?) has painted for us.
Story: Girlfriend cheats This guy: Maybe he deserved it
Weird take. If you ain’t happy with your SO you try and deal with it or you fuck off. Cheating just makes everything worse.
My colleague cheated on her man and now everything is worse. Whatever situation caused her to do it, now the situation is even harder to resolve. No one is gonna go “yeah okay, I probably deserved that. Let’s move on”, haha!
Well? How did this story end? I can’t find it in the 4plebs archive.
Anon hired a decent lawyer who argued that the seizure was frivolous and antagonistic. The court agreed, but by the time his guns were released, they had all converted to Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Linux.
I wonder if anon left something out? Like, threating to kill her or the person(s) she cheated with. Or some of the weapons being illegal? Nah, it would have been included if they weren’t. Some people have high drama lives.
FYI, women are just as capable of being terrible people as men are
There is a definite bias. Especially, ESPECIALLY when it comes to partner violence. And EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY when it comes to gun violence.
This reads like anti red flag law propaganda anyway. Fake and incel recruitment.
Well red flag laws are bad, on the whole. There’s no need to resort to propaganda really. Mostly because they present a disincentive for people to try and find help or share how they’re feeling with others; not whatever bullshit the post is about.
Yes, but this is 4chan, so the odds aren’t in OP’s favor.
Fair enough
Sure, but it isn’t their side we read.
My understanding is there is not a single state with red flag laws that allow all weapons to be seized based on one person’s word. Well other than a doctor giving a professional diagnosis.
For everyone else you have to have some evidence. Either multiple people witnessing threats/harassment video, or text based evidence.
I’m very sure he was very amicable and reasonable about it. He’s on 4chan, after all.
well even if this is the whole truth it would be a testament to his character that his girlfriend would cheat on him and then lie to the police just so he gets in trouble
Some people have bad radars about how dangerous the people they get in bed with are.
Some people self-sabotage by getting with toxic partners in the same pattern over and over again because they have unaddressed psychological issues.
It’s usually people who were victims of past abuse, too.
Especially past childhood abuse.
In the hypothetical scenario that this is the whole truth, what you’re doing is victim blaming.
I didn’t intend to do that at all. The proverb I had in mind was “birds of a feather flock together”. It doesn’t mean he deserved it but I do think people who date people who would do this to them are probably not much better either. Also he wrote this on 4chan which is again, not a complete footprint of his personality but certainly a testament to his character.
C’mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but “if people treat him badly, he must deserve it” is hardly fair.
Probably the part where this never happened, Anon is trying to get people mad at Red flag laws and women
Just buy few cereal boxes and you’ll have new guns and maybe some bullets if you’re lucky
Crazy how someone can just make a call to the cops and that shit happens. Kinda like swatting
if you have multiple guns and can’t afford a lawyer you have kinda fucked your priorities
You either overestimate how much guns cost or underestimate how much lawyers cost.
Or any of the scenarios where op is no longer employed or self employed and between jobs. Court appointed attorneys are based on current income iirc.
LOL, I have shitloads of guns, unemployed. Ya got me! And it’s not like selling them would bring me any amount of lawyer time.
$1,000 AR-15, $800 used, at best. That’s 3 hours of lawyer time and a few emails. I couldn’t get $300 for most of my crappy guns.
Anon can easily get a lawyer pro-bono, with contingency fee, who would nail a case like this to a cross.
In civil court, because she defamed him causing real and considerable loss of property, and psychological harm.
As for defending, Anon hasn’t really outlined any laws he might have broken…? Court for what? Just go to the trial and explain your side clearly and concisely: never a threat to anybody, cheating girlfriend made a false report.
lol I’d love to meet the lawyer who would be willing to defend a 4channer on contingency.
This is the horror story for red flag laws existing.
Now imagine the horror stories of red flag laws not existing.
You don’t even have to imagine, just listen to one of the million true crime podcasts. Then multiply all those cases by 5 for all the minority women who they don’t talk about.
Fake: anon has gf
Gay: anon writing fanfic flirting with male cops
Had
gottem
This is so American. Just give up the damn guns!
Replace guns with anything else and your comment will rightly sound very stupid.
This is so American. Just give up the damn child pornography!
This is so American. Just give up the damn heroin!
This is so American. Just give up the damn National Socialism!
Let me try:
“Just give up the crossbows!”. Nah, sounds fine.
“Just give up the anthrax!”. Nope, totally ok with that.
“Just give up the punji stick pittraps”. Still feeling ok.
I don’t think it sounds stupid at all.
Give up hate. Give up facism. Give up excessive consumerism
All sounds fine to me!
Gun ownership =/= fascism
Agreed. But Americans love both right now
No
I’m tending to side with her, but they were legally purchased and probably expensive, it would be nice if he could at least get a tax write-off or something.
Sometimes you gotta pick your battles. What’s gonna be easier long term, giving up your guns or fighting this in the courts?
and leave the violent fascists in red states and the government to have a monopoly on violence? get fucked.
So you think your 9mm is going to defend you from a government tank when it actually comes down to violence? You’re fucked, gun or no gun.
You’re forgetting that the US lost 3 wars to guerilla tactics, 2 of those in the last decade
Guerilla tactics in foreign countries on the other side of the planet, where they needed to overcome giant logistics problems.
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
It may not, but then the logistics becomes an even more insidious problem- how do you determine who is loyal to the government/military and who will disclose shipping routes or guard routines or other classified info. Further, because it is within the US, and the families of the loyalists are impacted, how do you guarantee their loyalty?
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
You’re forgetting that it’s also where most of the military’s supplies come from. That means their sources are more vulnerable as well
The US lost because of domestic pressure to end those wars. Militarily the US was never in danger of defeat. Do you think that the current US administration is going to give a singular shit about domestic pressure once the shooting starts? If the military sides with the government, the government wins. If the military sides against the government the government loses.
Tanks need parts, tanks need fuel, tanks need ammo, tanks need constant maintenance. I’m not advocating for violence but the truth is an Abrams might have machine guns and ERA, but a factory doesn’t. And look how drone warfare has changed the game, small groups of people can take on tanks, supply lines or factories without even being in line of sight
You don’t need to be in line of sight, your family needs to be. Are you still going to risk it if you know that the government will throw your family into a concentration camp in response?
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they’ve already proven that they don’t.
The government will throw your family into a concentration camp either way. Will you acquiese and die like a dog, or will you stand and fight?
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they’ve already proven that they don’t.
Even more reason to not roll over and let them win.
The concept of an armed populace facing the government doesn’t usually involve a direct head on opposition. Armed resistance to a corrupt government would take a more guerrilla warfare approach. A real world example could be the anti-junta rebellion happening in Myanmar.
I’m not worried about the tank, I’m worried about Tim, the guy from two doors down who has seventeen firearms and an F350 and walks around yelling homophobic slurs.
Tim shouldn’t be allowed guns either.
Tim ain’t gonna give up his guns without violence. Good luck with your proposal now.
Then Tim is probably going to get himself killed in a standoff with the police.
The police in the U.S. are on Tim’s side. Hell, Tim might be a police officer.
If we treated every criminal like that, the world would overflow with murderers and violent thugs even more than it already does.
You’re not an American, you don’t get a seat at this table. A. The state of New York is three times larger than your entire country by land mass. B. The state of New York is larger by population than your entire country. That’s one state out of fifty, what works for you doesn’t work for everyone. Go play with your home-use pocket knife, don’t forget to lock it in the trunk while you drive to the campsite.
What kind of gun do you have for you to take on the government with it?
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
-Karl Marx
I have no weapon but nonviolence.
- Mahatma Gandhi
See, I can quote things too
Gandhi was a piece of shit. I wouldn’t quote him for the most part.
Hmm whom to believe, MLK or some random lemming?
It seems MLK was exhausted by how ineffective peaceful protest throughout his campaigning, and communicated his doubts of whether peaceful means would actually work in his letter from Birmingham Jail. He stuck with peaceful means till he was assassinated, which is commendable.
After King’s death, the violent Holy Week Uprising occurred in response. At the end of that week, the Civil Rights Act had been passed. It sure seems like the Holy Week Uprising got some of what it wanted much faster than King’s years of peaceful protest. What King absolutely brought about, though, was a strong alignment for members of the Civil rights movement, which made the Uprising possible in the first place.
The civil rights movement was full of varied factions both violent and nonviolent, all contributing to it’s eventual partial success. We should not act as though MLK was the sole martyr of it all, though he played an important role. I’d argue that the US government props him up as a savior to try preventing anyone from thinking about violent means of resistance as a viable option. Same with Gandhi, same with Nelson Mandela.
You say people should just give up their weapons. I used to be strictly against private weapon ownership too. Over the years, especially the last few years i see more and more of a necessity for people to be able to fight back against an overreaching government, as we have seen more and more authoritarian developments all across the “Western” nations.
This is what Marx referred to.
There is a political case for private weapon ownership. The obvious counter-argument is that people like MAGA also have weapons then and can use them. As we have seen with previous and current dictatorships, when push comes to shove the regime will quickly supply its paramilitary wings with guns, so i don’t see the benefit of preventing normal people from owning weapons in such a situation.
None of this is a judgement on the green-text, as we lack the whole picture, on whether taking the weapons from anon was justified or not. However the default assertion that people should just give up their weapons is not as obvious as you make it out to be.
Gun ownership isn’t the problem. Gun culture is the problem.
I’ve been the victim of more than one violent crime but it’s only been recently that I’m considering acquiring a firearm. For the exact reasons you’re describing.
OW SHIT! GODDAMNIT! god fucking damnit! Piece of shit!.. Fuck!
-my neighbor the other day
Gun people are suddely literate when someone agrees with them.
Because we should totally trust the US government with our protection…
That is a very controversial take for Americans, and not just from a gun-toter’s perspective. The US has a long history of gun violence, yes, but the US also has a long history of state corruption which only ended by guns driving that corruption back.
In 1946, Veterans in the town of Athens used their firearms to fight against a corrupt police department helping the standing state rig the elections.
In 1921 The Battle of Blair Mountain occurred, where West Virginia miners who’d been stuck in the exploitive company town employment model, battled along the ridges of Blair Mountain against Police. In the company towns you could be fired from your job and evicted from your home without trial - since the mining company owned the houses and only let employees use them - and being in a Union was a fireable offense. This was the largest labor uprising in US history, mine workers fighting deputy sheriffs and strike breakers, with the police actually using biplanes to drop bombs overtop the heads of the miners. This was apart of the Coal Wars of the US, and apart of the broader Labor Wars in the US, which eventually led to the pro-labor regulations we now have in place within the US (which are now being dismantled despite a massive rise in peaceful protests).
In 1968, the Holy Week Uprising occurred in response to Rev. Martin Luther King Junior’s assassination, and fueled by the massive inequality that the black community still faced.
All of these were cases of a overhead government, whether state, town, or federal, failing to provide for it citizens, and those citizens helping change that governments’ behaviour through violent armed uprising. It is a regular occurrence in American history for us to have corrupt officials who start setting inhumane policies, and it’s also been a regular occurrence for that corruption to need violent intervention in order for changes for the better to occur.
I’d like to hear her version
Right? I’m sure the BF is a very well adjusted person that just happens to post on 4chan
I mean more often than not, when a woman accuses a man of doing horrible things and the man denies it, the woman is right
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It’s origin lies in emotion, not reason. It’s filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
The gun control movement is not left-wing. The left supports gun ownership overwhelmingly.
I don’t avoid guns due to a fear of crime. I avoid guns due to a fear of negligence.
Every single day, someone in my family does something negligent, but ultimately harmless. Oops. Now there’s an extra dirty dish. Oops. Broke a coaster. Oops. Dirty towel. Oops. Got sprayed with water.
Putting a gun in that situation would be pretty dangerous.
I suppose some households could keep guns responsibly. Mine could not, despite my personal practices.
I don’t understand how you justify in your head adding guns into any of those situations you listed.
If you own guns, you’re supposed to have a secure way to store them. Especially if you have kids. While some people do leave guns sitting around the house, that is strongly discouraged.
You’re supposed to keep guns inside a safe unless you’re about to use it such as going to a range or hunting. And best practice is to keep ammo secured in a separate safe as an extra measure. And when you are handling a gun, you always check if it’s loaded and follow the 4 rules of gun safety
Thank you for proving my point.
Given how nonsensical your first comment was, I don’t think you had a point
They were talking about the dangers of negligence. You countered with how guns can be relatively safe if one follows safety guidelines.
The ‘negligence’ part is referring to those that don’t follow guides. By listing all the guides and rules to make guns safe, they probably mean you prove their point by showing the burden of responsibility guns require (and thus the risk when irresponsible people don’t meet them).
I’m not sure if you got to see their comments before they were deleted, but I recall their comment being a bit weirder than that. Things like “sometimes my family forgets to pick their wet towels off the floor. What happens if you add a gun to that?”.
As the second part of your comment, yeah I see your point. That being said, the rules of gun safety aren’t as huge of a hurdle as people seem to think they are. I think it’s more that some people are repelled by any form of friction when starting a new activity.
Pro life and pro gun control are both anti-killing positions about preserving human life.
Not true, “pro-life” is actually “anti-woman’s life”. Those people would rather have an adult person die from an ectopic pregnancy than have a clump of cancer removed.
This. Pro-life supporters don’t care if the mother dies. Hell, corpses get more rights than pregnant women, because at least people can refuse to be organ donors
Uh, there is reason in not wanting people to be shot by a culture of fear.
Look up overall crime statistics for both countries that restrict firearm access and those who don’t. You’ll find that overall violent crime ends up being proportional to the countries’ midi coefficient (a measurement of economic inequality). Firearm availability mainly changes the proportion of violent crimes involving firearms vs overall violent crime.
Like I said, most of the statistics you see are cherry-picked to give an overly simplistic view of crime to distract from the fact that economic inequality is a huge correlating factor
While income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is positively correlated with violent crime, firearm availability has been shown to independently influence both the rate and lethality of violence.
According to Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza (2002, The Journal of Law and Economics), there is a significant cross-national association between income inequality and homicide rates. However, firearm access is not merely a determinant of the method used in violent crime—it also affects the frequency and outcome of such incidents.
Data from the Small Arms Survey and the Global Burden of Disease project indicate that countries with high rates of civilian firearm ownership (e.g., the United States) experience substantially higher rates of firearm homicide, suicide, and accidental gun death than peer nations with stricter gun regulations (e.g., the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia), despite similar or lower Gini coefficients.
For example, the U.S. firearm homicide rate was 6.1 per 100,000 in 2021 (CDC WONDER), compared to 0.5 per 100,000 in Canada and less than 0.1 in countries like Japan and the U.K. This disparity persists even when controlling for overall violent crime or economic inequality.
Moreover, studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have found that the presence of firearms in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide and suicide, particularly among women and children (see Kellermann et al., 1993; Anglemyer et al., 2014).
Therefore, while inequality is an important factor, firearm regulation has a demonstrable and independent effect on both the incidence and deadliness of violent crime. The distinction between type and frequency does not eliminate the public health implications of firearm prevalence.
You present yourself as rational while dismissing emotion as weakness. But emotions like shame, fear, and the impulse to protect others are not failures of reason. They are essential to moral awareness.
The need to maintain rigid rational detachment is itself emotionally driven. It often reflects a desire to avoid guilt or to preserve control. That isn’t objectivity, it’s fragility disguised as discipline.
It’s very amusing to read such things from outside the American hellscape. Well, “amusing.”
Let’s say eventually there comes a government overreach that a popular armed uprising puts down. Every day until that day, children die. Accidental death from firearms is one of the leading causes of death of children in your country. (Do you feel that pricking sensation in your neck and face or are you immune to shame?) If the rebellion doesn’t come soon enough (or at all) then you are underwater in terms of dead children. So, how long is that runway? How long do you get to keep killing children until you have to admit, fuck, this is costing us more than it’s worth?
HAVE YOU EVEN DONE THE MATH, or are you just working from feelings?
While preventable child deaths are obviously terrible, I feel like this could be overextended.
Like, how many child deaths has McDonald’s caused vs guns. I’m too lazy to do the math like the other guy, but I’d presume it’s comparable. (Although I suppose by the time it catches up to them they’re no longer children.)
Idk, you see things like, “leading cause of death in children” and it makes the number seem huge, but it’s less than 100 kids a year. And it looks like around 400/yr die from drowning in swimming pools. So if we really care about the children, we should bad swimming pools? They kill 4x the number of kids than guns.
I’m not saying guns are great. But using child deaths as part of the argument just feels like a great excuse to ban literally anything you just don’t like.
Accidental deaths from firearms can be reduced by making people get obligatory training and requiring storage in a gun safe, when not carried.
Okay? So how many years does that push the “break even point”? Do you see how this doesn’t engage with my point in the slightest?
It’s a good argument, but it’s entirely flawed because American policy is that the children have no worth until they pay taxes.
To compare dead children to the cost of failing to check government power, we can reduce both to life-years lost:
🔫 Current Cost: Child Firearm Deaths in the U.S.
- ~2,000 preventable child gun deaths/year
- ~60 life-years lost per death
- 120,000 life-years lost annually
- Over 30 years: ~3.6 million life-years lost
🏛️ Hypothetical Benefit: Preventing Tyranny
Assume a worst-case scenario:
- Authoritarian collapse kills 10 million (based on 20th-century examples)
- Avg. age at death: ~40 → ~35 life-years lost
- 10M deaths × 35 = 350 million life-years lost
Estimate risk:
- Without civilian arms: 0.5% chance over 30 years
- With civilian arms: 0.4% chance
- These figures are speculative; there’s no empirical support that civilian gun ownership reduces the risk of tyranny—many stable democracies have strict gun control.
In fact, high civilian armament may reduce stability:
- Greater availability of weapons increases the lethality of civil unrest, crime, and domestic terrorism.
- Armed polarization can accelerate breakdown during political crises, as seen in failed or fragile states.
- States may respond with harsher repression, escalating rather than deterring authoritarian outcomes.
📊 Expected Value Calculation
- Without arms: 0.005 × 350M = 1.75 million life-years at risk
- With arms: 0.004 × 350M = 1.2 million life-years at risk
- Net benefit of arms: ~550,000 life-years saved (generous estimate)
📉 Conclusion
Even with favorable assumptions:
- Civilian firearms cost ~3.6M life-years (due to preventable child deaths)
- And prevent only ~550K life-years (via marginally lower tyranny risk)
Bottom line: The ongoing cost vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefit, and high armament may worsen long-term stability rather than protect it.
In 2015 I’d agree.
In 2025? Nah, look at what’s happening around the US.
Dems are losing votes because of the guns issue, drop the gun issue, along with promoting a progressive platform and that’s easily winning elections.
In 2025? Nah, look at what’s happening around the US.
Record gun deaths?
Tongue in cheek of course but it still makes a point. The facts-over-feelings crowd has to show that the benefit of firearms outweigh the very observable negative consequences, and they cannot. So they are arguing feelings, not facts.
Gun suicides are a huge problem, so there is a legitimate need for interventions in the appropriate circumstances. Suicidal ideation is also usually an impulsive or fleeting idea, so removing the means of suicide only temporarily can be a solution to that temporary problem.
The Swiss saw suicide rates drop with reduced access to firearms in shrinking their military, and the Israeli military has seen weekend suicide rates drop by simply having troops check in their weapons into armories over weekends, without a corresponding change in weekday suicides.
Anti-suicide nets on bridges work very well, too, because simply making a suicide more inconvenient, or require a bit more planning, is often enough to just make it so that the suicide attempt never happens.
So yeah. I’m generally against restrictions on firearm ownership or access for people who can be responsible with them, but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence. And, like, convicted criminals, too.
but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this. When the police recieve a report, they end up seizing the guns without any due process, and the owners has to sue to get them back.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this.
It’s my understanding that every state with a red flag law imposes a procedure similar to involuntary commitment: a court weighing evidence presented to it under penalty of perjury, with a heavy presumption that these orders are only for extremely rare situations.
Florida’s procedure, for example, requires a petition from the police to the court, and requires the police to show the court that the person is suffering from a serious mental illness, has committed acts of violence, or has credibly threatened acts of violence (to self or others). In ordinary cases the person whose guns are being taken away has an opportunity to be heard in court before the judge decides, but in emergency cases the court can order the guns be taken away for up to 14 days, and requires an opportunity for the person to be heard in court.
So in practice, in Florida, someone would have to convince the police they’re a danger, and then provide enough evidence that the police can persuade a judge. Private citizens aren’t allowed to petition the court directly, and the process requires proof of a serious enough set of facts to justify taking guns away.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The problem is that the system is open to abuse. Anyone who wants to get back at someone can make up allegations and have their guns taken away with no due process.
But on the other hand if you make this process too difficult you can allow someone who is actually dangerous to keep their guns.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The thing is, this isn’t shown in the original post. Also, making death threats on its own is illegal, red flag laws aren’t required if the person making the report has proof.
Said victim could even get a restraining order if they were worried about violence, which won’t completely assure safety but will go down a process that actually uses due process and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.
I never said that Anon made any death threat and the concern you are raising is covered in the rest of my comment.
I mean if someone makes death threats
This is a clear suggestion that Anon was making death threats. Don’t be a liar
I find if interesting that you’ve read that first paragraph and interpreted it as a suggestion of one thing, then read the paragraph immediately below it that could have suggested the opposite, and not only completely ignore that second paragraph, but also fail to realize that they were hypothetical situations to explain a point. Everyone understood that but you.
Sure, force a specific interpretation of my words that you’ve specifically cherry picked to make you sound right so you can feel better about yourself. It ain’t gonna be true and we’ll both know that whether you like it or not, but judging from the fact that you just came back 4 days later for this, I don’t think this fact will bother you. This is a 4 day old thread and nobody is left here to witness the level of mental gymnastics you’re capable of anyway. Go ahead, treat yourself.
then read the paragraph immediately below it that could have suggested the opposite,
Your second paragraph did not suggest the opposite
You claim you were deliberately being vague, then get mad at someone allegedly misinterpreting what you said? The solution is to not be vague, not to gaslight people by claiming you didn’t say something you absolutely did. Grow up.
1/ fake and gay
2/ if you can’t afford a lawyer, then you REALLY need a lawyer
“She’s probably right.” “Dude was probably violent.” “Easier to give up your guns than fight this in court” “Just give up your guns!”
Lmao wowww lemmy. Nobody here likes due process?
Lemmy wants it easier for cops to take away your guns, but simultaneously distrust the cops and want to abolish the police. So which is it lol?
But then again, this is 4chan so Anon probably is on the side of the tyrants anyways; they think they’re part of “the good ones”.
And they’re probably borderline homicidal, just looking at stats.
Due process is dead in America, homie
I think we just don’t like guns.
I like guns.
nice
but that’s bc you are a bad person.
Speak for yourself. God forbid men should have a hobby.
Are you really pretending this is about men having hobbies?
I use my rifles for hunting. Some people like collecting and sport shooting. Some have theirs for self defense in higher crime areas because they can’t afford better. So yeah?
It can be a hobby, sure. But men having a hobby isnt was was being discussed at all. Nobody cares about men having hobbies, the issue is when this hobby is a potential threat to other people. Isnt this rather obvious?
You know exactly as much as I do about this hypothetical situation. Girlfriend cheats. Guy breaks up. Girl calls cops. Guy gets guns confiscated. If your argument is nothing more than “Well maybe he deserved it” you’re an asshole.
Thats just not what im saying.
Eh, the cops are worse than the guns.
Don’t be disarming when gestapo in roaming the streets.
(But Anon probably supports the gestapo tho… 🤷♂️)
Lot of US leftists and liberals hate guns, as a reaction to the right’s obsession with them.
It is a stupid and dangerous reaction, because they give up their means of self-defense against far right militias and a fascist government.
No, lots of liberal hate guns. Lots of leftists are either anarchist or communist, both of which support arming the populace. Many socialists support gun ownership as well.
You’re spot on. I lean HARD left myself and still I’m actively advocating all my friends go out and purchase a firearm while they can. Not for some far fetched rebellion against tyranny, but simply to protect themselves from getting hate-crimed by the scum who will inevitably feel they’ve been given permission to do so by this regime. Furthermore if they do start deporting citizens for undesirable political behavior, I know I’d rather be six feet under than in CECOT or South Sudan.
Exactly. I’m fully capable of both owning a gun and advocating for gun control at the same time… People act like you’re a traitor to the cause.
Then they post about how the gun owners aren’t doing anything to stop the fascist government. Yea, you’ve been alienating them for decades. They’re not on your side.
They’re saying that ironically because the gun fetishists always excused their behavior with fighting tyranny. Then matched in goose-step to vote for a tyrant
I don’t hate guns, I hate the “gun rights” movements and there fetishization of a skewed interpretation of the second amendment where any individual has the unalieanable right to own a gun.
Even if a violent revolution were to happen, which odds are 99 to 1 it wont happen in the US in our lifetimes, then people like op hoarding guns aren’t going to help. A well regulated militia might but that requires social organization and discipline, which most people in the gun rights movement don’t have the time or willingness for.
They aren’t serious about using guns to defend liberty, they just like the aesthetic of it and make it part of there personality. So much so that they get offended by dumb and probably made up stories like this but not the countless other similar stories where there were no red flag laws and the gf gets killed.
😂 right! Like the fascist government that is now taking hold of the US. Not fascist enough to defend themselves yet?
Dunno, someone having guns to shoot normal people is a big red flag to me.
“Ah yes, someone is trying to break into my house, let’s go down to the shop and buy a gun”
If you think before posting, ask yourself: is it normal to break into people’s homes?
And even then, here we don’t worry about criminals with guns that much. The USA is idiotic in that regard, with its pervasive gun culture, resulting in weekly mass shootings.
If you think before posting, ask yourself: is it normal to break into people’s homes?
No. It’s incredibly disturbing behaviour, and in the USA they are likely armed as well. They’re not going to nicely ask you not to resist them. That’s why you need to have a gun so you can shoot them before they shoot you.
With that mindset everyone will have guns, so violence then actually increases.
The only answer is to dearm everyone.
Yeah, I think we’re all in agreement about that here. But everyone isn’t disarmed. I won’t give up my gun until I know with 99% certainty that your average burglar won’t get a hold of an illegal firearm.
In most of the UK, even the average police officer isn’t armed. (In Northern Ireland, the average police officer is armed, but the amount of times the firearms are ever actually fired is incredibly rare. Most of the time they go off is actually negligent. When they do go off, they are always investigated.)
The problem is, how do you disarm the bad guys when you’ve been giving them guns without tracking them for decades
What a terribly privileged take. Not everyone can live up in that ivory tower with you.
I didn’t ask to be born in a country where burglars are likely to have firearms. But now that I am, I have to react to that fact myself.
I am pro gun control, but if I lived in the USA, I’d own a gun. My opinions are for the ballot box and don’t matter whenever someone is breaking into my house and threatening the lives of my wife and my children.
I’m against gun control generally, live in the US, and don’t own a gun. Why? The chance they my kids find my guns and play with them causing a tragedy is much higher than the chance I’ll need to use a gun. Crime is incredibly low in my area, with the most pressing crime on my neighbors’ minds being a “break-in” (nobody locks their doors) several years before we moved in by akid in the neighborhood, and we’ve been here >10 years without any incidents.
So yeah, guns are more of a liability for me than a useful tool. However, not everyone lives in my area, so need for guns absolutely varies by area. I’d absolutely prefer an armed populace to the government having a monopoly on guns.
I do agree w/ sensible restrictions, and most mass shootings would be averted if we actually enforced the laws we have. Most of the time, someone close to the shooter knew they were a risk yet did nothing.
Most firearm deaths are either gang related or suicides. The solution there isn’t banning guns, but solving the underlying problems. For those, I support:
- drug legalization - cuts down on incarceration, which should reduce conversions to organized crime
- cash redistribution - my preference is NIT, which is similar to UBI; helps prevent people from getting desperate
- reform prison system to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment - maybe prisons get funded based on reduced recidivism?
IMO, guns aren’t the problem, they’re a tool. We need to solve the actual problems instead of putting kid gloves on everyone.
Why? The chance they my kids find my guns and play with them causing a tragedy is much higher than the chance I’ll need to use a gun. Crime is incredibly low in my area, with the most pressing crime on my neighbors’ minds being a “break-in” (nobody locks their doors) several years before we moved in by akid in the neighborhood, and we’ve been here >10 years without any incidents.
Valid. But it’s different if you are a transgender person living by yourself (i have heard and don’t question the claim that transgender people in some areas may have their lives threatened)
most mass shootings would be averted if we actually enforced the laws we have.
Wasn’t there a school shooting in America where the police tried to “contain” the shooter instead of confronting him? By contain, leave him in a class of kids.
Someone having guns to shoot the boot soldiers of an unjust regime? All for it. Big green flag to me.
Those aren’t exactly normal people.
When I said, “someone having guns to shoot normal people”, I talked about the MAGA guys having those weapons.
I’m pro gun, I’m just considering the statistics of a 4chan-er. Maybe that’s profiling, but I’m not a judge. He should certainly have his day in court, I’m just predicting the outcome.
