369
submitted 2 years ago by farcaster@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Tell me again how gun control laws would have stopped this?

How about I detail all the ways he could have gotten a gun under your laws that you enable that are in effect right now?

  • He bought the guns before he had mental health issues and red flag laws weren't used because police are far-right and pro-gun and put cultish, bullshit ideology before people's lives.

  • He just lied or had someone else lie and the gun laws you're rushing to the defense of completely failed to catch it because they're hopelessly inadequate and designed to put lobby profits before people's lives.

At this point, we've covered 80% of mass shooters so we're looking good statistically.

  • He took the legally purchased, poorly secured firearm of a "responsible gun owner" of a family member or friend because the pro-gun community staunchly insists that the "responsible" part of "responsible gun owner" is 100% optional and punishable only by the tutting of strangers on the internet.

Now we've covered over 90% of mass shooters, but most of these ones are children.

  • He bought the gun in a private sale that didn't require a background check because for some surreal reason, the pro-gun crowd is completely okay with that and fights the closing of the loophole.

  • He bought a previously legally purchased, poorly secured, promptly stolen gun from a stranger, because illegal firearms don't grow on trees, they're endlessly (and profitably!) by millions of people like yourself.

Which covers 99% of mass shooters. Of course deep down, you already knew all of that didn't you?

You're just not allowed to admit it out loud, because the moment you admit that in fact yes, gun control could have stopped many of these clearly telegraphed attacks, you'd have to also admit that you pushed for the laws that killed those people.

So how about instead of me explaining "how gun control laws would have stopped this" over and over again, you go fuck yourself?

You've overthrown zero tyrants. You've done nothing to lower the crime rate. You've let "suicide with dad's protect-my-family gun" become the number one cause of death for teenagers. You've insisted for 25 years that you have the answers and you've failed every single time.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Lol so no you don't have any ideas on how more gun control would have stopped this...also hilarious that you bring up the police being far right....all the while wanting to disarm people lol yes please tell me how giving far right racist bullies Monopoly on force is a good thing.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh did you solve racism with your cool guns? Did you stop state violence?

Nope, of course you didn't. You're full of shit like always and minorities are safer in countries with gun control.

Just another day of the pro-gun crowd delivering on zero of their promises.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
369 points (100.0% liked)

News

36043 readers
2687 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS