• Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is it that my guns are the problem here? I’m a law abiding citizen and yet people think taking my guns away will stop mass shootings?

      I fail to see any logic here. I’m not going to give up MY freedoms when others can’t behave properly. You’ll never catch me shooting at innocent people, so why is it that all these politicians want to restrict MY guns?

      • QuodamoresDei@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We need more responsible citizens carrying firearms, so if whacko decides to shoot at Innocent people they get readily clapped and the mass shooting is over.

        Trained armed police, security, citizens, etc. the thug, thief, ought to fear quick and equal or greater force.

        I would even say that I am pro-store owners dropping looters and mass thieves. A few of those instances, where people get dropped, and maybe the idea of such theft won’t be so appealing anymore.

        • Deftdrummer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And harden schools. We piss money away to Ukraine and Israel. Bail large corporations out left and right…

          Mexico has had hardened schools since the 80s. Lots of guns, lots of criminals.

          If ever you needed any indication that both political parties do not give a flying FUCK about the average citizen and children; it’s the fact that hardening schools “costs too much.”

          Disgraceful.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it’s never your guns until it is.

        I’m sure the owner of every firearm that’s been used in a mass killing would have brought that exact question if they had been asked.

        All of those guns proceeded to become part of the problem, why should we ever just take your word that yours won’t?

      • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        This isn’t about your guns. It’s about guns.

        This isn’t about you. It’s about us.

        It’s such an absurd argument to equate guns with freedom - most free people live without them just fine.

        Why is it that not allowing you to own certain types of guns is an infringement on your freedom, yet the ability to drink alcohol before 21, or buy a manpad, or inject heroin into your veins not an equal violation of your freedom?

    • GiddyGap@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      An unlimited amount, because nothing will make the US change. Kids being massacred in school, nothing. Concert-goers being plowed down from a hotel window, nothing. Bowlers killed while enjoying a game, nothing.

      Apparently no price is too high and Americans will seemingly prioritize their weapons over everything else.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It won’t change until people fill the streets. The supreme court has interpreted a right to be in a state militia as the right to carry a gun anywhere. That kind of power bows to nothing less.