745
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 99 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace

There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted

“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”

Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.

Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.

Another common one is

“buh only criminals will have guns”,

except that never happens in any other developed nation.

Its for self defense

Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.

/rant

[-] Jesus_666@feddit.de 32 points 1 year ago

The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.

Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.

In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.

I'm sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 10 points 1 year ago

That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.

Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.

Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.

Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.

It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.

[-] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.

I want to add to this, because it's never mentioned.

As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.

Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there's no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.

So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.

But... We did that. We won. We have a "democracy" now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.

Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] user134450@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.

[-] SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Not a single shooting has been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Here's some light reading for you.

Texas Shooting

Las Vegas

Bystanders Stop Shooters

Oh look, another article

Indiana shooter stopped by civilian

Video proof courtesy of CNN

Snopes article

Why would you make a claim that us so easily debunked? What purpose did that serve?

[-] xxcarpaii@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I feel like there's some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I'll be honest, I don't know the statistics on "rightful" and "wrongful" executions.

There's at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.

Over 500 mass shootings. And that's this year alone.

So yah, EXTREMELY light reading bro.

[-] negativenull@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

The quote I've heard most often:

No law (sometimes: piece of paper) is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren't at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.

[-] Nelots@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

"bad people are going to do bad things anyway, may as well make it easier for them!"

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Infynis@midwest.social 61 points 1 year ago

I hope the writer for this article makes residuals. They're getting a lot of use out of it

[-] Alerian@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 year ago

They do actually rewrite it slightly each time they repost it, even though the title is the same

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 year ago

They just change the date, city, number of victims, and then change the fake person's name for the quote. The rest stays exactly the same.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Damage@feddit.it 29 points 1 year ago

Wait, did it happen again?

[-] thesprongler@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago
[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

old news, there's been another in Samson County, NC today.

The US media should save time and report on days when mass shootings don't happen.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, yesterday unfortunately.

[-] Damage@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

Shit... Sorry guys, don't know what to say..

[-] AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago

"We did nothing and we are all out of options!"

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
745 points (100.0% liked)

The Onion

4465 readers
998 users here now

The Onion

A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.

Great Satire Writing:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS