2137
Checkmate gun nuts (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 132 points 9 months ago

If the target audience could read, they d be very upset

[-] oo1@kbin.social 32 points 9 months ago

At least that'll keep them safe from being turned gay.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 26 points 9 months ago

I know a gay person who can read. It checks out.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Whew, they sure dodged a bullet.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 109 points 9 months ago

Books don't gay people. Gay people gay people.

Did I do it right?

[-] negativenull@lemm.ee 48 points 9 months ago

The only way to stop a bad gay with a book, is a good gay with a book

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] trk@aussie.zone 43 points 9 months ago

Books didn't make me gay, it was those stupid sexy men with their penises.

[-] KreekyBonez@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago

stupid sexy Flanders

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Nunya@lemdro.id 12 points 9 months ago

Correct, in the same way that guns are not inherently evil and require someone with bad intentions to use them in a bad way. Both are correct, but sadly the folks who believe a certain way (books are bad or guns are bad) will not be convinced to change their point of view by a snarky sign.

[-] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 44 points 9 months ago

Ofc guns aren't evil. They're objects. A chair can't be evil. And yes, you can bash someone over the head with a chair, yet there is a glaring difference. A gun is made for the sole purpose to shoot someone. You can't really use it for anything else. It's absolutely it's intended purpose and what it's used for. So, if we were to assign 'good' or 'evil' to inanimate objects, guns would certainly lean way more into the evil side.

[-] Nunya@lemdro.id 24 points 9 months ago

A gun can shoot someTHING, not only someONE. I've shot guns many times and have never shot someone. People forget competitive shooting is a thing (and very fun). I know I'll be downvoted, but just trying to show people there is another side.

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't think anybody ever forgets that they are essentially toys to some people. But look at drones. People love to fly them, they are very fun, but those things weilded irresponsibly are a fucking menace to people and there are some laws with hefty penalties for using them in ways that endanger the public incur hefty fines because they are dangerous.

Yet guns don't get the same treatment in the US.

Quite frankly the fun factor isn't really pursuant to the discussion. When you are talking about wide ranging public health issues that make a lot of people more likely to die due to making suicides more successful and escalate your personal conflicts into highly deadly senarios people do not want to take the time to entertain discussion about how fun they are to shoot because it turns one into the adult trying to deal with a maddened six year old trying to make a case for buying lawn darts.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

You need armor piercing rounds to hit a target? How about am ankle holster? What about a silencer? What about a concealed carry permit?

If every civilian who owned a gun owned it specifically to have fun at the range things would be a lot different. Pointing out the one tiny use of a subcategory of it is just a distraction. I could use the air conditioner in my car to cool down my cup of coffee but that is in no way shape or form the primary reason for owning a car.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 15 points 9 months ago

Yes, there are secondary uses that have risen in popularity because people want excuses to have more guns.

That does not mean their primary use has changed. You can use them to hammer nails if you really want to. That doesn't mean that's what they're made for.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[-] SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world 73 points 9 months ago

I am proud to be pro gun and pro lgbtq+ ✊

[-] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

"No, not like that" -- NRA, ATF, and FBI

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

If only the Black Panthers and Native Americans had been armed...

[-] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago

Same! I actually volunteer with an organization called Operation Blazing Sword where we teach LGBTQ+ folks how to safely use firearms by taking them to the gun range and providing ammunition for practice.

Banning guns keeps the people who most need to protect themselves from being able to do so.

Gun control was started in the US as a racist measure to make it difficult for black Americans to protect themselves.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] boborhrongar@lemmy.world 46 points 9 months ago

The same logic in both cases, the books aren't making people gay, they're providing people with knowledge that might make them realize they're gay. Guns don't kill people, they provide people a tool for people who want to kill people to kill people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 41 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you're miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.

And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc... they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.

I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 56 points 9 months ago

What I always find hilarious is that the people who claim to be very well versed in firearms safety are the ones who oppose the idea of making people get a license to use one. They'll tell you that you shouldn't even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark, but feel that anyone, no matter how drunk or crazy, should be able to buy a gun.

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Gunowners don't like licenses because if the goverment can decide who owns guns, then they'll use it to keep guns out of the hands of people they don't like.

New York City abuses its may-issue system to prevent anyone from obtaining a license to carry concealed, unless you pay high bribes to the police (or are police).

Most gun laws disproportionately affect the poor. Polities such as New York State require people undergo a certified training course before they can purchase a handgun (police excepted of course). I see people complaining that a single day of voting is insufficent, that their hourly job doesn't leave them a window to go vote. This is much worse with a carry course, where you have to perfectly attend multiple classes that you're paying hundreds of dollars to attend. It's a steep cost to exercise a right.

These are addressable problems: all handgun licenses should be shall-issue if you meet the requirements, mandated training courses should be free and people should be compensated for their time like jury duty.

As for the "you shouldn't even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark" part/is that really so unreasonable, minus the hyperbole? When Republicans use phrases like "If it's a legitimate rape, the body has ways of shutting it down" and then try to claim that life starts when the heart does, is it OK that they are wildly wrong about the human body and are trying to legislate it?

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Dominojack@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

The difference between a gun and tractor is that a gun is a tool designed to kill. Don't conflate farming equipment with killing machines

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 29 points 9 months ago

The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.

The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.

Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They're only useful if you intend to attack people.

Same goes for handguns.

[-] CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

The US doesn’t have a problem with fully automatic or select fire weapons. They exist, sure. But given they’ve been banned since 1986 and are prohibitively expensive to own, requiring multiple tax stamps and hoops to jump through, they are almost assuredly not used in violent crime. Or for anything other than hobbyist activities.

What seems to garner the most attention here are semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. There is almost nothing mechanical differentiating an AR-15 or similar rifle from a common hunting or farming rifle like the Ruger American Rifle. They’re often mislabeled an “assault weapon”, a term without a concrete definition, or worse an “assault rifle” which does have a concrete definition that aligns to the very guns you call out as not having practical use. Namely, to qualify as an assault rifle, it must be capable of select fire or fully automatic fire.

Ironically, most acts of violence committed using a firearm are done with pistols, which outside of demonstrably ineffective magazine limitations have gone widely untouched by proposed or enacted gun control efforts. Which is especially ironic considering that the NFA was enacted in 1934 primarily focused on handguns - this is why the US has restrictions on ownership of short barreled rifles and shotguns, because the impetus was to focus on weapons which could be easily concealed. By the time the law was passed, however, pistols had been exempted, but the weird language around SBRs and SBSs was left intact.

Broadly, though, gun control in the US has been primarily motivated by class and racial division. Most of the FUD you hear about guns is directly the result of Reagan’s gun control policies as Governor of California in response to not wanting the Black Panthers to have legal access to firearms - which they were using to protect their neighborhoods from violent crime that police wouldn’t respond to. Criminalizing certain weapons gave police the ability to profile and discriminate against minorities under the guise of public safety, and we’ve been treading that water ever since.

The solution to America’s perceived gun problem is universal basic income and universal healthcare. Ending the war on drugs would help too. Without the stress of being impoverished and without having to worry about being able to afford medical care, people tend not to commit crimes. Most gun violence in the US is gang related, and US policies today systemically and disproportionately see the incarceration of people of color for violent and non-violent crime alike. Our penal system is geared for punishment, not rehabilitation, so a person who is now a felon is left with very few options to make an honest living. People turn to gangs to make money, because without income you cannot live in this country.

Eliminate the poverty, decouple healthcare from employers, and stop criminalizing drugs - subsequently arresting and incarcerating so many people for non-violent offenses - and you dramatically reduce the likelihood of a person being left in desperation with few options outside of a life of crime. In turn, gang violence and gun crime overall will plummet.

We’re just too busy picking a team and rooting for the other team’s destruction to actually attack the root of the problem, because doing that might make people realize that it’s all been set up like this to keep us from looking at the class division more closely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UlfKirsten@feddit.de 13 points 9 months ago

Another sane approach by NZ.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 19 points 9 months ago

The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.

Because of that, anything restricting that "right" at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.

With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.

The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.

It's also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don't drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.

And that's the issue here.

The "right" needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.

Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren't in your situation.

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

It's not "perceived" as a right, it literally IS a right, enumerated in the Constitution and confirmed excessively by precedents set in the highest court. There will be no change to that right without an Amendment ratified by 75% of the 50 US states.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 19 points 9 months ago

when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage,

See, this might be the problem. Now I know America is a big place, But you can drone strike a wedding anywhere on the planet, it feels like your nation should have the ability to enforce it's laws on it's own ground without having to rely on individuals wielding firearms. And it's not like there is a shortage of police funding. They just don't care about your area in particular. Other places the polices get's to drive literal tanks/apcs.

[-] Mamertine@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

I don't think you comprehend the vastness and remoteness of the American West.

There are places where the law enforcement response time is over an hour simply because it takes that long for the one deputy working the county to drive from one side of the country to the other. There's no point in having more deputies working a county where there are only 2 people living per square mile. Nor is there the finances to hire additional police protection.

Most of the USA that is not the case, but it is a reality for some places in the lower 48 states. Alaska is that to another level.

Police funding is a function of city or county, and sometimes state population. Metro area have the funding. Rural places just can't afford to employ enough police to reduce response time to under 30 minutes.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] GrimSheeper@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

You cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose.

I've never actually encountered someone either online or in person who things we can or should ban all guns in the US. I don't think this person exists in any significant capacity, except in the imaginations of paranoid gun owners. There's definitely nothing in the image above to imply that, either.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[-] holycrap@lemm.ee 40 points 9 months ago

Remember, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gay is a good guy with a gay

[-] Entertainmeonly 26 points 9 months ago

Hi I'm gay, where are the bad boys?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

Hi Gay, I'm dad. I mean daddy 😈

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 9 months ago

I saw this on Facebook. The dumb typical reply was "the only people who say this are people who want to show children porn" or something else insane

[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago

Every accusation is a confession

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago

The far-right accuses the LGBT+ community (and anyone who supports them) of being child predators because child predators are the last remaining group of people you can openly advocate violence against.

They want to say "lets kill all the gay people" but they need to maintain a shred of plausible deniability.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

"Books are just guns that fire gay rays" - some MAGA, probably.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 31 points 9 months ago

“Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”

Republicans are really going back in time for their policies.

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 34 points 9 months ago

You lost me there. The penis what?

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 25 points 9 months ago

penis mightier than the sword

Title of my sex tape.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

That takes me back to SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! One of the best recurring sketches in their entire 48-year history IMO!

As a side note, it's not every day you get to share a clip that starts with "I hate you" 😂

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] geekworking@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

Especially religious books. Not going along with some religious book definitely holds the record for most people killed.

[-] thorbot@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's why my buddy Mike Johnson and I use CovenentEyes (tm) to protect us from all the hot gayness that just absolutely LEAPS out of the computer screens at us, too bad I can't get an analogue version for all the books with hot gayness that tries to attack us!

edit: 1 downvote? I didn't know my boi MJ was on lemmy! Yo whaddup ya fucking theocratic loon

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

Books don't make people gay. Attractive people of the same sex make you gay.

Well, that, and what I assume is a brain development process before or during puberty that I don't completely understand but I know has to exist, because I don't remember making a concious effort to be attracted to legs and striking eyes, but I sure am. I bet there is a rabbit hole where I could learn about all this.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] steal_your_face@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago

Guns don’t kill people, books kill people.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
2137 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5219 readers
2856 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS