What are you even trying to argue here?
Actually, no. I was merely using hyperbole and artistic license.
I still don’t own a gun. But when you live in Midland, Texas, it’s assumed that somebody very close is carrying a gun. I imagine that about half of all people out here are carrying at any given point in time.
https://www.kinderzeit.org/en/fertility-by-age/
i sent this to some 30 yo chick complaining about how her boyfriend is saying that she is too old. I got downvoted to oblivion. The most upvoted is an anecdote saying someone they know had a baby at 40. Lol
Maybe you should post the replies as well… Lots of people calling him out. There’s a difference between accidents and murder/terrorism. And there you go again with your whataboutism.
Road ragers in big pick up trucks find any excuse to use guns. I understand that it’s “American” to be given the right to bear arms but at least ban assault rifles. But then again, I don’t believe guns act as a deterrence at all.
FAKE NEWS
I lived in a state with many big pick up trucks and many guns and have never seen one brandished! An armed society is a polite society!
You are literally more likely to die from constipation than an assault rifle.
Why would I post the replies, they were knee jerk emotional responses to a simple statement of fact. I’m unclear what difference you’re referring to between these things. They all killed innocent people. Again, I think you need to look up whataboutism because I’m not sure it means what you think it means, which seems to be added any context to a conversation, lol. There you go with your false characterizations.
Here, let me add some more context. Of the ~10,000 gun deaths in a year, LESS THAN ~150 are from the big bad assault rifles you’re so concerned about. That’s literally less than any of those “accidents” like suicide in a given day or innate objects like ladders on a per year basis, but NPC’s like you spend so much air time obsessing over something that in reality is an incredibly improbable event versus other preventable causes. You’re literally making the point of the tweet. A life is a life, whether it’s a 5 year old dying from the flu, drunk driver or any other method. You’re just responding to spectacle.
Or there’s the context that some of the largest mass shootings in US history didn’t use assault rifles, the further context that none of the three largest used assault rifles or the context that terrorists have proven they will simply turn to bombs and vehicles when they don’t have guns with equal efficacy (France, UK, Ireland, Canada, etc).
But then, everybody calls it an accident, you can hear a pin drop from liberals when their world view doesn’t fit reality.
The reality is more people will die from DUI’s this year than firearms all together, which I guess are also “accidents” in your mind.
Do you really gotta argue that gun violence isn’t an issue just to maintain your sense of intellectual superiority?
BS, yes they all kill innocent people. But if you can’t see the difference between violent killings and accidents, then I don’t know what else to say.
Do I really have a bad understanding of whataboutism?
Example: Gun violence is bad. What about (the larger amount of) deaths caused by the flu, suicide, car accidents? Yes those are bad too but it doesn’t detract from the fact that gun violence is bad.
DUIs are not accidents, which is why it is illegal to drink and drive. You can purchase guns legally. There is no comparison.
Poops, that’s bullsh*t. Gun violence is a major issue, but assault rifles are less than 1.5% of it. It’s a false dichotomy to say we need to fix gun violence then talk about assault rifles and say pistols are OK.
I actually would love to see a change in gun regulation. I just think that banning assault rifles is the one response I would not want to see. In my personal POV, they actually serve a role as a check against state and the misuse is widely mischaracterize in terms of volume by the media as a red herring.
I’d like to see both 1) greater background checks and a more expansive and sophisticated monitoring system and 2) a tax worth the value of the rifle. So a $2K rifle becomes $4K with that money pumped towards things like monitoring and prevention.
I also would like any illegal move of firearms across state lines or illegal purchase recast as gun trafficking with a major sentence and if your gun is used in a crime or found not to be locked up on a unique fingerprint lock (so your emo kid doesn’t have access), you lose it and get a sentence or major fine. I fully support any and all gun bans at the state level, vehemently oppose them at the federal level.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, all states should ban pistols. You can accomplish anything with a rifle you can with a pistol, but rifles are more expensive and more difficult to conceal, as a result, pistols drive nearly the entirety of gun facilitated crimes and 90% of gun deaths, while also being the catalyst behind many cases of police killing unarmed civilians (they aren’t worried about concealed rifles).
What kind of argument is this? Murders are also not accidents and there why murdering people is illegal. You can purchase guns legally, just like you can alcohol. It’s very comparable and if anything focus should be more on alcohol because the right Of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This is where your attempt at logic falls apart miserably.
DUIs are not accidents, they are illegal, but you can buy alcohol and cars.
Mass shootings are not accidents, they are illegal, but you can buy guns.
Saying DUIs (a misuse of alcohol and cars) is illegal, but shootings (a misuse of firearms) are not illegal is librul logic.
A lot of liberals would also like to see greater gun reform, but there are the nuts that think the government banning guns is equivalent to the Nazis rounding up the jews. Arguing that this is number is so small as to be irrelevant doesn’t mean much for the parents of Sandy Hook, Vegas, or El Paso.
The reality is better regulation or care could fix most of those “accidents” at similar cost to fixing gun violence which is almost entirely pistols. More people will die from them and if it’s your kid it doesn’t really matter if it was a preventable accident or a preventable incident. At this point in reality for people not emotionally clouded by the situation, it objectively becomes where can we best expend energy to save the most lives. The answer isn’t 20 years of wasted lobbying, media obsession and senate time over something that kills fewer people in a year than constipation.
I don’t like having any guns freely in society–a shooting range, sure. But I made my point about banning assault rifles and having pistols as a compromise. I guess Americans don’t like to have their rights to bear arms and “self-defense” infringed upon.
So, lets move the goal posts and make an argument of anecdotes. Since it turns out, I’m actually a big fan of gun reform, I just want to see it done in a way that actually saves lives and is effective while preserving what I see as the benefits.
Let this sink in:
Turn it on your head, arguing its all about about Sandy Hook (27 dead, assault rifle) doesn’t mean much to the parents of Virginia Tech (33 dead, pistol). Arguing about the Dayton bar (9 dead, assault rifle) doesn’t mean much to the parents of Thousand Oaks bar (13 dead, pistol).
So to recap, ~90% of gun deaths: Pistols.
VT, more deaths than Sandy Hook using pistol, same thing for Thousand Oaks vs Dayton.
But somehow, if we ban ARs, these rejects won’t just buy a pistol with similar efficacy. Can you see how I look at this willfully ignorant to statistics logic and scratch my head?
I assume this is from one of the most racist and divisive presidents in the history of the United States.
There is nothing in this that I disagree with.
Although to be fair the most recent Dayton one was an anti fa lefty type.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html
HP man, you went from whatever it was you were doing before to a total caricature of yourself. Take it from 11 to like an 8 man.