Because American media keeps pushing the idea that the Democrats are “the left” and because Democrats oppose guns because the Republicans promote them, they equate owning a gun with being a part of “the right”.
Also far right conservative men are given all the permission in the world to threaten violence whereas many groups of people on the left, and leftism in general are defined by conservatives as inherently dangerous which both makes it practically much more dangerous to own guns and carry them (because you will just got shot by a cop and the cop won’t even get in trouble they can just say “they looked dangerous”) and also makes a culture of responsible gun ownership way harder to grow because the societal conditions around it are aggressively hostile to leftwing people owning guns.
Listen to the way centrists talk about the threat of violence from the far left and far right in the US, of course there are shitty, dangerous people on the left, but to compare the two as if there were similar amounts of violence coming from both is a ridiculous misstatement of reality.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…if they want to shot you they will. Being a responsible gun owner also has nothing to do with politics, get strapped and keep the 4 rules in mind. There are a ton of us on the left who own guns and more and more are arming themselves on the left.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…
As someone who noticed the difference between how police treated BLM protestors vs Jan 06 insurrectionists I think it’s pretty clear that if they do have an inkling of your leanings it’s gonna make a difference, at least in preconceived notions as they enter into their interaction with you, and how aggressively they come at you in the first place.
Depending on what you are implying regarding which was which, I have a hunch we aren’t going to agree on that detail, and I’m doubtful either will change the others mind, so I’m just going to cut this off here.
Edited because my original wording was nearly gibberish.
Whats funny is I keep hearing about bots and operatives on Lemmy that go around promoting things that arent the status quo like we are the next social media. And the kind of people saying it thinks everyone needs to stick to a party line or else! Like or else what? If I do not love every thing Big Dem is pushing, I am a Russian shill bot trying to destroy America. The downvotes you have are from people barely able to form thoughts past doing what they are told.
Yeah - in non US places gun ownership only means one thing: you own a gun. It says nothing about your politics. And yes, US democrats being referred to as “left” is ridiculous. The Democrat party wouldn’t even be a centrist party in most (western) democracies.
Good. I’m glad. I had my suspicions that was the case but it’s nice to have it confirmed by an insider. I always struggled to believe that an entire nation of so many millions of people would have a one size fits all pro/anti stance on any one topic; it’d be absurd.
Pepsi - the choice of a new generation… of woke, pronoun-shifting libtards. As an aside I like your spelling. It’s reminded me to listen to Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most Wanted again.
I remember that now you mention it. Bartering with a super power seemed crazy to me back then. It’s amazing how little seems to have genuinely improved for Russians (specifically) since the fall of the USSR - we had high hopes of a new age but… gestures broadly at the current state of Europe and shakes head.
Are you familiar with sarcasm / irony / satire? I’m quoting and subsequently mangling a slogan from 1985. (c. Forty years ago) Surely you haven’t taken that comment at face value?
Democrats don’t oppose guns. Democrats are for base-level gun control. Republicans are insane, NRA-supporting fools who would rather 5 year old children get massacred weekly instead of have any potential gun controls.
Really? Yeah, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with, you know, actually keeping kids safe. No, that actually makes sense, and even worse, isn’t about “me”!
For the record, even if there’s anything to your absurd statement, I’m all for gun control. I care more about kids’ lives than yours.
You’re not making a very good case. Historically speaking, American gun laws have universally been about disarmament as opposed to harm reduction.
If, for example, the awb had included free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
You mean what used to be taught in high schools? But slowly over time was removed from every school in the whole nation?
We had archery in our high school. Years prior to mine had classes on guns… Years after mine, not even archery.
No, and clearly you didn’t bother to read. My point was that WE DID do public education on the matter. For some reason we decided to stop doing it. And now people like you are claiming that we should be freely and publicly conducting classes.
I made no case for anything other than outlining that we used to teach this shit in schools.
Clearly schools have failed to teach you reading comprehension.
R always deflect to mental health. But Reagan dismantled our mental health infrastructure, and R consistently votes against spending in that area. (Probably because they won’t ever seem to vote for anything that helps people, only for taking things from people.)
So R needs to support gun control, OR support funding mental health services, OR come clean and admit that school shootings are a price they are willing to pay as long as they get to keep their weapons and do as they will with them.
(They did like the mulford act, but we all know what that was really about. The one thing more important that guns to that crowd.)
It’s always one political party’s fault, never the clear result of what a system of government was designed to do.
The nfa was bipartisan, gca was bipartisan, fopa was bipartisan, the Brady bill was bipartisan.
The majority of child gun deaths are accidental or suicide.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
First, I don’t how that could be your response to my comment about the current state of mental health. So R is magically going to vote for two things they never (in recent history - say since school shootings became the big issue they are now - or even say since death by gun became the top cause of childhood death) vote for as long as we put those things together?
It seems kind of ridiculous to argue here over the content of the regulations when there is literally no possibility that half of our legislature will vote for it anyhow.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
Hmm. Yep, everything stemming from our system of government is just peachy. We don’t still have problems rippling through our culture due to slavery and civil rights issues, one political party that has sold their soul to Trump and his cronies (oh and let’s not forget how they’ve welcomed the white supremacists into their midst) and is just itching for an excuse to go full secession, unsustainable wealth inequality, a large percentage of families living paycheck to paycheck, a healthcare system that routinely makes people choose between paying for food and shelter or healthcare and medicine and etc etc etc.
Clearly with two hundred years of extremely well documented history of all these problems and our ineptitude and lack of will to solve many of them, we should conclude that the system is working as intended.
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay to prevent the government from massacring civilians like they did in Myanmar recently.
If we really want a gun-free society we need to make sure the government doesn’t have guns. Given that’s impossible, the next best thing is letting citizens have guns.
I hope you at least vote for candidates who support mental health initiatives. (Though that would rule out Republicans.)
But anyway hey, at least you are honest. (Kinda. Aside from assuming I’m pushing for gun-free just because I wish republicans would even talk about gun control.)
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay
It’s the price the victims pay. You see that price, that those dead people have paid, as something that you are willing for them to pay. Let’s not mince words. It’s your value judgement that it’s worth it for them to have died. I wonder if they and their families felt it was.
Suppose you get falsely charged by the state because of your politics, what are you going to do? Get into armed conflict against the police officers coming to arrest you?
It’s not like armed insurgencies don’t happen in modern countries. Look up the IRA. Even if you are not keen on blowing up billionaires, you can still shoot meal team six as they try to bring back lynching and the KKK.
That said, disarming the country including the police, especially the police, would be more conductive to a peaceful life. So would actual democratic representation.
Absolutely not, I’m all for defunding the police but if your idea of a peaceful country doesn’t involve someone owning and being willing to defend themselves with firearms you’re just living in a fantasy where crime just magically doesn’t exist.
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family, and thus establish a military goverment. Because it’s apparently it’s 19th century now.
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family
Sounds good
thus establish a military goverment.
Nah, I just defeated the military. I would prefer a less authoritarian system
When you killed everyone in a coup, you are by definition a new military. You might prefer less authoritarian system now, but all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power, it’s just how the selection process goes, for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
We know that, because actually I deceived you earlier, it’s not 19th century now, and we already saw how that happened. And also, both technologies and situations are different now
I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals
you are by definition a new military
No, I am a member of one of many militias
all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power
Not all of them, but I understand what you mean
for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
Yes. Thats how war works.
both technologies and situations are different now
An armed left is like base level marxism, how are people still surprised by that at this point?
Because American media keeps pushing the idea that the Democrats are “the left” and because Democrats oppose guns because the Republicans promote them, they equate owning a gun with being a part of “the right”.
Also far right conservative men are given all the permission in the world to threaten violence whereas many groups of people on the left, and leftism in general are defined by conservatives as inherently dangerous which both makes it practically much more dangerous to own guns and carry them (because you will just got shot by a cop and the cop won’t even get in trouble they can just say “they looked dangerous”) and also makes a culture of responsible gun ownership way harder to grow because the societal conditions around it are aggressively hostile to leftwing people owning guns.
Listen to the way centrists talk about the threat of violence from the far left and far right in the US, of course there are shitty, dangerous people on the left, but to compare the two as if there were similar amounts of violence coming from both is a ridiculous misstatement of reality.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…if they want to shot you they will. Being a responsible gun owner also has nothing to do with politics, get strapped and keep the 4 rules in mind. There are a ton of us on the left who own guns and more and more are arming themselves on the left.
As someone who noticed the difference between how police treated BLM protestors vs Jan 06 insurrectionists I think it’s pretty clear that if they do have an inkling of your leanings it’s gonna make a difference, at least in preconceived notions as they enter into their interaction with you, and how aggressively they come at you in the first place.
Removed by mod
Depending on what you are implying regarding which was which, I have a hunch we aren’t going to agree on that detail, and I’m doubtful either will change the others mind, so I’m just going to cut this off here.
Edited because my original wording was nearly gibberish.
Removed by mod
Ah, I misinterpreted not only who you were saying was armed, but also your implied result.
I agree, but that just makes police look even worse than if it were mere bigotry and bias.
Whats funny is I keep hearing about bots and operatives on Lemmy that go around promoting things that arent the status quo like we are the next social media. And the kind of people saying it thinks everyone needs to stick to a party line or else! Like or else what? If I do not love every thing Big Dem is pushing, I am a Russian shill bot trying to destroy America. The downvotes you have are from people barely able to form thoughts past doing what they are told.
Yeah - in non US places gun ownership only means one thing: you own a gun. It says nothing about your politics. And yes, US democrats being referred to as “left” is ridiculous. The Democrat party wouldn’t even be a centrist party in most (western) democracies.
Removed by mod
Good. I’m glad. I had my suspicions that was the case but it’s nice to have it confirmed by an insider. I always struggled to believe that an entire nation of so many millions of people would have a one size fits all pro/anti stance on any one topic; it’d be absurd.
Shit in Amerika the kind of soda you drink can get you called a commie libruhl
Pepsi - the choice of a new generation… of woke, pronoun-shifting libtards. As an aside I like your spelling. It’s reminded me to listen to Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most Wanted again.
the ussr worked with pepsi and almost gave them a naval force
I remember that now you mention it. Bartering with a super power seemed crazy to me back then. It’s amazing how little seems to have genuinely improved for Russians (specifically) since the fall of the USSR - we had high hopes of a new age but… gestures broadly at the current state of Europe and shakes head.
Some day you’ll have an original thought and it is going to scare you.
Are you familiar with sarcasm / irony / satire? I’m quoting and subsequently mangling a slogan from 1985. (c. Forty years ago) Surely you haven’t taken that comment at face value?
Honestly I think its just that you overestimate how effective your satire is.
Just had to check I wasn’t miraculously back on Apollo trawling the Snoo site. Thanks for the laugh…
Republicans “support” guns up until black people start marching with them.
Democrats “oppose” guns except for the police who shoot black people.
Democrats don’t oppose guns. Democrats are for base-level gun control. Republicans are insane, NRA-supporting fools who would rather 5 year old children get massacred weekly instead of have any potential gun controls.
We have lots of gun controls. Are you satisfied with the gun controls we have in place?
Gun control is for the quiet majority to disarm the minority through things like false charges and disqualifying their opposition.
Really? Yeah, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with, you know, actually keeping kids safe. No, that actually makes sense, and even worse, isn’t about “me”!
For the record, even if there’s anything to your absurd statement, I’m all for gun control. I care more about kids’ lives than yours.
You’re not making a very good case. Historically speaking, American gun laws have universally been about disarmament as opposed to harm reduction.
If, for example, the awb had included free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
You mean what used to be taught in high schools? But slowly over time was removed from every school in the whole nation?
We had archery in our high school. Years prior to mine had classes on guns… Years after mine, not even archery.
I can’t help but notice that you are simply making the argument that we’ve done it wrong before, therefore I want it done wrong again.
Okay, sure. What a strong case you made. You win, or whatever.
No, and clearly you didn’t bother to read. My point was that WE DID do public education on the matter. For some reason we decided to stop doing it. And now people like you are claiming that we should be freely and publicly conducting classes.
I made no case for anything other than outlining that we used to teach this shit in schools.
Clearly schools have failed to teach you reading comprehension.
R always deflect to mental health. But Reagan dismantled our mental health infrastructure, and R consistently votes against spending in that area. (Probably because they won’t ever seem to vote for anything that helps people, only for taking things from people.)
So R needs to support gun control, OR support funding mental health services, OR come clean and admit that school shootings are a price they are willing to pay as long as they get to keep their weapons and do as they will with them.
(They did like the mulford act, but we all know what that was really about. The one thing more important that guns to that crowd.)
It’s always one political party’s fault, never the clear result of what a system of government was designed to do.
The nfa was bipartisan, gca was bipartisan, fopa was bipartisan, the Brady bill was bipartisan.
The majority of child gun deaths are accidental or suicide.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
First, I don’t how that could be your response to my comment about the current state of mental health. So R is magically going to vote for two things they never (in recent history - say since school shootings became the big issue they are now - or even say since death by gun became the top cause of childhood death) vote for as long as we put those things together?
It seems kind of ridiculous to argue here over the content of the regulations when there is literally no possibility that half of our legislature will vote for it anyhow.
Hmm. Yep, everything stemming from our system of government is just peachy. We don’t still have problems rippling through our culture due to slavery and civil rights issues, one political party that has sold their soul to Trump and his cronies (oh and let’s not forget how they’ve welcomed the white supremacists into their midst) and is just itching for an excuse to go full secession, unsustainable wealth inequality, a large percentage of families living paycheck to paycheck, a healthcare system that routinely makes people choose between paying for food and shelter or healthcare and medicine and etc etc etc.
Clearly with two hundred years of extremely well documented history of all these problems and our ineptitude and lack of will to solve many of them, we should conclude that the system is working as intended.
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay to prevent the government from massacring civilians like they did in Myanmar recently.
If we really want a gun-free society we need to make sure the government doesn’t have guns. Given that’s impossible, the next best thing is letting citizens have guns.
I hope you at least vote for candidates who support mental health initiatives. (Though that would rule out Republicans.)
But anyway hey, at least you are honest. (Kinda. Aside from assuming I’m pushing for gun-free just because I wish republicans would even talk about gun control.)
It’s the price the victims pay. You see that price, that those dead people have paid, as something that you are willing for them to pay. Let’s not mince words. It’s your value judgement that it’s worth it for them to have died. I wonder if they and their families felt it was.
Are you aware of this little place called “The entirety of Earth except 'murica” ? Gun control seems to work pretty well, there.
What does that have to do with whether Americas gun laws are intended to reduce harm or disarm different segments of the populace?
Well not so much in Myanmar. Or Nanking. Or Germany. Or Gaza.
But sure. All the places the government isn’t massacring unarmed civilian populations, gun control is working out great.
It’s as much for keeping kids safe as the kids online safety act. You think the police keep them safe? Watch out for fireworks.
So just your average gun nut willing to keep stacking the corpses of children.
And then what?
Suppose you get falsely charged by the state because of your politics, what are you going to do? Get into armed conflict against the police officers coming to arrest you?
Is that what Steven Donziger should have done?
It’s not like armed insurgencies don’t happen in modern countries. Look up the IRA. Even if you are not keen on blowing up billionaires, you can still shoot meal team six as they try to bring back lynching and the KKK.
That said, disarming the country including the police, especially the police, would be more conductive to a peaceful life. So would actual democratic representation.
So then the government just sends the military in to quell rebellions by unarmed/poorly-armed citizens.
Yeah, and they kill them and also some others, and some guy’s wife. The guy takes up arms in revenge and the cycle continues.
It’s not an open armed rebellion, it’s constant terror attacks. How do you send in the military to quell a car bombing or an assassination?
Absolutely not, I’m all for defunding the police but if your idea of a peaceful country doesn’t involve someone owning and being willing to defend themselves with firearms you’re just living in a fantasy where crime just magically doesn’t exist.
In my part of the world, people grow up just fine without owning firearms. This whole gun worship is mostly a US thing.
In your part of the world there’s no cops, no one owns firearms, and there’s just no crime?
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family, and thus establish a military goverment. Because it’s apparently it’s 19th century now.
Sounds good
Nah, I just defeated the military. I would prefer a less authoritarian system
When you killed everyone in a coup, you are by definition a new military. You might prefer less authoritarian system now, but all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power, it’s just how the selection process goes, for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
We know that, because actually I deceived you earlier, it’s not 19th century now, and we already saw how that happened. And also, both technologies and situations are different now
Also the final movie of the hunger games.
I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals
No, I am a member of one of many militias
Not all of them, but I understand what you mean
Yes. Thats how war works.
Exactly
Not how civil wars work unfortunately
Which makes you a part of the military power of the new rule. So yeah.
Yes. That’s my point actually.
Ok, but that’s worse. You do get how that’s worse, right?
Liberalism is considered “left” to most people
'murica moment.
The impression is that the left is the only side calling for gun control.
Despite the most sweeping gun control implemented by Reagan, and Trumpty dumpty literally floated illegal search and seizure for firearms.
Removed by mod
Liberals aren’t leftists
Removed by mod