You're viewing a single thread.
I just want my gay married friends to have guns to protect their kids.
Protect them from what?
Edit: I love the downvotes trickling in from the pro-gun cultists. Usually they pretend it's because I used rude words but there's nothing to hide behind this time. I asked a simple question and that made gun owners salty.
Scary feelings.
Guns are overwhelmingly not used in justifiable homicides (homicides performed in self-defense).
Guns for self defense is a fantasy.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/
But a fantasy that most of the pro-gun community just can't resist. The reality is likely even worse than those figures show since permissive gun laws arm criminals in the first place, making that justification more common.
Anything really, if you live rurally that be quite a number of things, hell even if you live in an urban environment. Queer people have been arming themselves as of late, given the more restrictive nature that legislation has taken against them. POC and other minority groups have been doing this regularly for decades. None of this is new.
"Anything" is a deliberate non-answer that can't be argued against.
How are guns going to solve oppressive legislation?
If they've been doing it for decades, why hasn't it worked?
How are guns going to solve oppressive legislation?
they aren't. At a federal level, and even a state level, they won't. As for the doing it for decades part, it's because they're pansies who like to dick ride on a concept that makes them feel better. For some reason.
Regardless, it's technically a non answer, but this is also a form of a non question. "why would you need to own a gun" can range from literally anything to "i hunt" to "sport" to "self protection" to "self protection but from the wild" to "the sock pill" There are a million and one reasons someone could own a gun. And a million and one purposes for it to serve.
Okay, so you can answer it, just not without using a homophobic slur.
when did i use a homophobic slur? I'm genuinely confused.
For what it matters, which is probably none, i'm ace. And pretty fucking gay for one.
Here is the definition of "pansy".
And nope, your sexuality doesn't matter at all. You can claim to be absolutely anything online and the pro-gun community seems to be riddled with sock puppets who can't keep their story straight.
to be clear, i googled pansy prior to this, and the only thing that came up was the flower, so i figured it must not be important. Anyway it's literally defined as "a weak man" Which is exactly how im using that, specifically to describe a specific type of right winger. Who could arguably be defined as "weak men" oh and also, i've used that word a lot to define people. I've never once been yelled at for using it, even though i hang around quite a few queer people on the regular. This is my first instance of such, maybe it's becoming a slur now? I don't know. I would think it used to be a slur about 30 years ago, but probably not anymore. I could be wrong, if you have the etymological history of the word at the ready feel free to bring it out.
also i know it doesn't matter, i just thought it would be funny to mention it. The usual "i can't be racist because i have a black friend" joke type beat. I mean, it's the internet after all, if we can't shitpost, then why bother doing anything at all. Right?
Anyway, I can claim to be absolutely anything on the internet, perhaps you should go have a look through my post history, and find out that i'm relatively neutral to everything, except for people explicitly denying others rights. I'm unsure if you're calling me pro-gun, i'm not, i would appreciate it if you didn't pull shit out of your ass, and try to define me as such when i could literally just be making fun of you to amuse myself (i'm not) seems rather hypocritical for you to tell me that i can't state who i am, and then for you to explicitly state who i am, if you are doing that.
Speaking of the pro-gun community, there are a lot of problems in it, notably the fact that there seems to be a specific subset of people who fully "back" 2a, only to immediately double back on it when they realize that it means queer/left leaning people get to own guns because "well it makes me feel unsafe" which for someone who opposes all forms of gun control because "it violates 2a" seems rather authoritarian to me.
but yeah no, continue to tell me how i'm a piece of shit righty, even though i'm not, and continue to exclaim that i'm homophobic even though the contextual usage of that word makes literally zero sense in a homophobic manner. How many gay pro 2a "the government isn't going to take our guns away" conservatives do you know? Definitely not enough to classify it as such.
Just because it's fallen out of fashion with homophobes doesn't magically make it not a slur. Did you go to highschool when kids still described everything as negative as "gay"? Was that fine, as long as they "didn't mean it that way" or were never called out for it?
It's defined as meaning "a weak man" because people used to accuse those "weak men" of being homosexuals, the same way people use "pussies" today. The definition you're ignoring was what it meant and the definition you're clinging to was who it used on.
yeah, and just because it's still technically a slur, doesn't make it automatically offensive. There are a lot of words that we use now that used to be highly offensive, and vice versa, the times change, language adapts, people move forward.
Queer used to arguably be a slur, though more accurately a derogatory term. Now it's literally in the acronym of LGBTQ. A lot of people call themselves queer.
Regardless, looking into the history of the word pansy, it seems to predate the slur usage of it. At a time when women generally had a different place in society, and men were considered to be much more physically active, for lack of a better descriptive term. It quite literally just defines itself out to "a man who is as physically strong as a women" which given the time period, explains the insult. That shifted over time to mean "effeminate" which is basically just the same thing. And was picked up as a slur. And is now currently defined as a slur because nobody uses it anymore (except for me, because i think it sounds funny)
so in some effect, the definition you're using, exists based on the definition of it from hundreds of years ago. And it was just co-opted by shitty people. Hitler manufactured a lot of industrialized weaponry. I don't see anybody calling industrialized weaponry offensive towards jews. Likewise i see no reason for slurs to be offensive when not used in the context one would expect it to be used in.
Part of the reason why slurs are so offensive, is because they're used to denigrate a certain group of people. Of which, i am not doing. Perhaps i'm wrong about the historical definition of this word in particular, but from my knowledge slurs are sourced from words with related meanings, and the thing that makes it a slur, is the colloquial/societal usage of that word at regular, in that context.
In fact, the very definition of the term slur itself is generally used to describe things that "are roughly like this" or more homogeneous. Which ironically, given the typical usage of slurs, and how they generally work. Lines up pretty well with my definition of them. If what it meant was all that mattered, then we wouldn't be here right now arguing the contextual relations of the slur itself, because everybody would agree with you when you state that "what it meant" matters more than "who it was used on" and like i've said, so far you're the only person that's particularly upset about this.
It’s defined as meaning “a weak man” because people used to accuse those “weak men” of being homosexuals
or was it that it was being used to accuse homosexuals of being "weak men" questions and answers that will never be satisfied...
Zombies, aliens, foreign armies, roving feral pigs, cosmic horrors, muggers handing you mugs. It's about having the option if you need it. Same way I feel about going prochoice. It's there if you need it. Besides No one wants to occupy a country with more guns than blades of grass.
So when you finally give a list, most of the threats are imaginary and the 2 that are left are spectacularly unlikely.
the police probably
Okay, so please tell us all exactly when they should pull a gun on police and what the outcome is because otherwise, you sound like someone who is either far-right or has taken on far-right propaganda without thinking.
Guns have brought zero police reforms. Pulling a gun on police gets you shot and killed. There won't even be an investigation. American police get away with executing minorities because they might have a gun.
Oh, no, the implication wasn't that you would normally pull a gun on the police. That wouldn't normally be effective. They close their ranks pretty quick and are pretty prime to kill, maim, abuse, and mud sling at cop killers, and I don't think you'd probably get away with that with the proliferation of body cams and all the other forms of digital recording devices.
No, the implication I was trying to suggest was that you would have a gun on you to dissuade the police from killing you. I.E. The same strategy that the black panthers employed when they patrolled their neighborhoods, one most effectively done in numbers. Really a lot of forms of civil disobedience are made available with the use of guns.
I mean if you're visibly not cis or straight then the police really don't need a whole lot of reason to kill or harass you anyways, going by the numbers. Certainly I don't think that mere possession of a gun would be a terrible idea, in that circumstance, though I couldn't really encourage drawing or shooting at the police or otherwise giving them a reason to shoot you if you're pulled over.
The same strategy that the black panthers employed when they patrolled their neighborhoods, one most effectively done in numbers
This strategy didn't work. The BPP was painted as a dangerous group of extremists and the police used their guns as an excuse to execute multiple members of the party.
So again, unless your goal is to get minorities killed by police, I have no idea why you're advocating they walk around with guns.
Certainly I don't think that mere possession of a gun would be a terrible idea, in that circumstance, though I couldn't really encourage drawing or shooting at the police or otherwise giving them a reason to shoot you if you're pulled over.
Then it's nothing more than a magic talisman that's supposed to ward off bad things. We're supposed to accept a homicide rate far in excess of other countries -- complete with the biannual execution of a room full of children -- and you can't even tell people when they're supposed to use their guns and what it will fix.
This strategy didn’t work. The BPP was painted as a dangerous group of extremists and the police used their guns as an excuse to execute multiple members of the party.
Yeah, cause they needed an excuse to do that, it's not like they were doing that already/are still doing that commonly, which was the main problem they were seeking to solve. It's not like the tactic of stealing from wealthy white neighborhoods in order to fund the free meal programs was already a pretty dangerous tactic that also was pretty likely to get them shot, but I dunno. maybe you'd advocate against that as well. Despite all of this, I can't really find any evidence of any member of the black panther party getting shot before the Mulford act was signed, at which point that form of protest was basically no longer possible. I dunno, maybe you can prove otherwise. You also say "painted as a dangerous group of extremists", but that kind of makes it pretty hard to take you seriously. MLK was painted as a dangerous extremist. Anyone seeking any change will be painted as a dangerous extremist, an argument against that is an argument against change, and an argument in favor of the current state of affairs in which the current violence is occuring.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's more frequent than a biannual execution of a room full of children, at this point. That's evidenced as a pretty high profile instance of gun crime, but if you wanted the real story on that, you'd probably look at the violent crime statistics and find out that the majority of gun crime comes about as a result of both suicides and gang violence, i.e. poor mental healthcare and drugs being overly valuable property which gangs use guns to protect. Other gun violence is a much lower fraction. Most of the time the people committing crimes like school shootings are already flagged as having serious problems and could've been stopped beforehand.
Nowhere here have I advocated against common sense gun laws or licensing that would stop the production or overwhelming supply of guns into this country, but I do also find it suspicious that, say, shit like the mulford act seems to be some of the only times politicians are really willing to roll out gun laws. I can explain to people how the prison industrial complex works, how the school to prison pipeline works, how the government doesn't give a shit about moving anywhere to combat climate change, how we exploit third world countries for resources at a massive institutional level and subvert their governments constantly, even to the point where there's currently war in the Congo ongoing as a result. People will wholeheartedly agree with all of that as the reality, but then when you turn around and start talking about gun ownership, or armed resistance, as a means to combat this, armed resistance that doesn't even require like, actually shooting anybody, necessarily, or even having a loaded gun, and suddenly people are super trusting of the government which we've previously established to be pretty relentlessly villainous and despicable, super trusting to make legislation that limits this responsibility rather than functionally limiting just like. Black people, from having guns.. If you look at any of that legislation, it's always the most insane, dumb bullshit that doesn't actually make any sense. Go look into the origins of the difference between a pistol, a short barrelled rifle, a destructive device, a shotgun. None of that shit's even necessarily a distinction which makes things illegal, as long as you have the dosh, you can pay tax stamps and get your shit. You can still get automatic firearms, if you have the money. Alternatively, you can acquire them illegally, or use a wheel grinder from harbor freight and then spend like 20 dollars once. Felons also can't own firearms, as an example of the idiocy. Check the difference between sentencing of felonies on the propagated crack throughout the hood vs the cocaine that the CIA was intentionally smuggling in. Even just possession of weed is a felony in some states. It can also even be the case with the illegal possession of hormone treatments, like what trans people might use, which I'm pretty sure is the case in New York.
Like I dunno, even at a basic level here, if you don't trust the fucking police to protect you, the fucking, institutional mechanisms by which you are to be protected, who is to protect you then? I dunno. If Trump gets elected and project 2025 comes to pass, I would probably not trust the government, and me personally, I would probably want a gun, yeah.
I also like how you're framing it that, because I'm just advocating for guns generally, right, as a devil's advocate, or, advocating for the use of guns as a legitimate political tactic, you're framing it that actually, what I'm advocating for is that minorities get shot and killed by the police, as though that's something that doesn't already happen in extremely large numbers. Yup, that's definitely a good faith extrapolation there.
Yeah, cause they needed an excuse to do that, it's not like they were doing that already/are still doing that commonly, which was the main problem they were seeking to solve
This paragraph functionally just admits that there was a problem and walking around with guns didn't solve it. They did nothing except give the illusion of power which was no match for actual power.
look at the violent crime statistics and find out that the majority of gun crime comes about as a result of both suicides and gang violence, i.e. poor mental healthcare and drugs being overly valuable property which gangs use guns to protect
Means reduction is one of the most effective methods of suicide prevention but sure, sweep them under the rug.
Gang violence is still gun violence so I've got no idea why you're trying to present it as "this doesn't count". Also, there is no magical gun fairy arming gang members -- the current gun laws give them an infinite supply of cheap, accessible firearms (including ones that are perfect for crime).
poor mental healthcare and drugs being overly valuable property which gangs use guns to protect
Most wealthy countries have underfunded mental health services and drugs. America the only one that enthusiastically escalates these problems into homicide and mass killings.
Most of the time the people committing crimes like school shootings are already flagged as having serious problems and could've been stopped beforehand.
But they weren't and one group consistently opposes anything designed to address that.
Nowhere here have I advocated against common sense gun laws or licensing that would stop the production or overwhelming supply of guns into this country
You suggested an answer and I asked you to justify that answer.
This paragraph functionally just admits that there was a problem and walking around with guns didn’t solve it. They did nothing except give the illusion of power which was no match for actual power.
I don't understand how you got that from the paragraph on the black panthers doing armed copwatching. You also don't make any attempt here to prove that the guns, in that circumstance, increased the violence directed at the black panthers, so I guess you're ceding that point?
Again, I don't contest any of the other points. Sure, go nuts, I guess, go like, have mental health screenings to prevent firearms. I've never said anything against that, I support that wholeheartedly, sure, go nuts. Probably there is a minor hurdle there of figuring out who's actually mentally unwell, considering that the measures currently in place are just kind of like, a little slip of paper that asks you whether or not you're going to use the gun to kill yourself, and if you answer yes then they don't give you the gun and commit you, and other solutions would probably present both aesthetic and real concerns with overreach, right, but I realistically don't think that's a major problem towards the policies in and of themselves, mostly that would just be an issue of practically getting them passed, which isn't really a legitimate argument against it.
I don't pretend as though gang violence "doesn't count" for gun violence, I'm bringing that up to expand the dialogue and focus on different, more prevalent types of gun violence than school shootings, which you see as being in the news pretty frequently for pretty obvious reasons, compared to gang violence, despite it making up a smaller minority of violence.
My goal is not to advocate for guns unilaterally as an end all be all solution to every problem as pro gun nut idiots would believe. My goal is to complexify the debate from "guns good" and "guns bad/scary" into examining the contexts in which gun violence occur so we can understand and analyze them. As I see it, you could have two courses of action, right, for gang violence. Making drugs legal (or at least decriminalizing them) would do a hell of a lot to totally drain gangs and cartels of their economic viability, and is a measure that you could pretty immediately enact, which we can assume in good faith would be the main motivation behind making guns less accessible. Making guns less accessible, sure, that would slowly increase the prices of firearms and decrease their availability over time, as we've seen with pre-ban automatic weapons, which are now mostly pursued by historical collectors for the aforementioned reasons. You would probably see an immediate rise in local black market price, depending on the size and isolation of the community in which whatever legislation you enacted, was enacted, combined with efficacy, but you'd probably also see little progress on the needle in that respect unless whatever you were doing was present at the federal level, because guns could just be taken in from a neighboring state for like, usually an afternoon's worth of gas.
Here, let me link you a different comment thread on the matter in which I thought the guy arguing against me raised some pretty good points and theorized a pretty good set of nuanced policies that could be implemented for a very small amount of effort. This is a thread in which I also take the opposite position from what most people would probably think I'm arguing here, so, give that a go, if you want. Lower down in the chain I maybe better summarize my current positions here, I was just kind of throwing out "the police, probably" as mostly a half-hearted attempt at a comedic answer to which people could kind of empathize with since lots of people do not find the police to be very tolerable individuals and queer people or racial minorities are an order of magnitude more likely to be killed be police on top of threats from other sources.
I can absolutely understand why people don't trust the police but I want a solution to institutional racism and police brutality that actually works, not some bullshit that uses guns like "healing crystals" for social problems.
These days, cop-watching can be done just as effectively with the cameras everyone has in their pockets, without unintended side-effects like fucking school shootings.
We've even seen it actually work with George Floyd. The closest only reason those cops faced justice is because their brutality was recorded. If people pointed guns at them instead of cameras, the cops would have walked free and more minorities would have been killed or imprisoned.
I want a solution to institutional racism and police brutality that actually works, not some bullshit that uses guns like “healing crystals” for social problems.
That's not like, the problem guns are really meant to solve, it's kind of unrealistic to expect guns to fill that role. At least, in full, right. If you want a solution to institutional racism and police brutality, guns are kind of secondary to that whole conversation, as I see it, you'd ideally want to just like, abolish the police, and probably you'd want some form of reparations, you'd probably also want to enact more federal funding for local civic infrastructure to bridge the gap while also not forcing people to abandon their own communities, you'd wanna do a lot of stuff. The guns are kind of a secondary order of thing, if we're talking about racial inequality.
I agree that cop watching can pretty effectively be done with cameras as well. I'd also like to add, though, that had people pointed guns at them instead of cameras, the cops probably would've stopped killing him, in that moment. It's hard to say anything with certainty, though, I'm not one to try and make claims on that front. Part of the issue is the cops are extremely unpredictable, consistently well-armed, and consistently poorly trained. They might just scramble to shoot someone immediately on seeing anyone with any kind of gun, regardless of whether or not they're in the right, because "their life was in danger", or whatever, just like that guy with the acorn. Probably this would be less likely in a scenario in which you were consistently cop-watching enough that so-and-so cop knew who you were, but yeah, it's gotten pretty bad. I think probably there's a mild element to which this has escalated due to increased police militarization and paranoia, compared to the 70's.
I dunno, it sort of depends on your definition of working, of success, I guess. The cops still choked that man to death, it's just that his death led to a lot of backlash, riots, and the cop being actually charged for once. I mean, someone still died, so that's pretty bad, but a cop finally got put in prison, so that's good. Pretty sad, that that's what it takes, and I would probably say that it's a massive shame if that's really the case. I dunno if any institutional level of police reform has taken place in minneapolis specifically where it happened, and I guess you could blow that up nationwide. I do know that post-protests, a lot of cities scrambled to fund their police more, like atlanta with the stupid cop city shit they're pulling, but that arguably would've happened anyways since both before and since, we've seen an increasing ramp up in the "crime wave" type of narratives, which are trying to pour more into police funding.
If cops are hard to predict, knock on effects from social media spread of police brutality videos are really hard to predict. It's hard to know if, had he not died, would those protests have still happened with a slightly different catalyst? It seems like there's a pretty consistent set of protests taking place at least in minneapolis almost every time a high profile nationwide or local incident occurs. Would we be in a better or worse position, afterwards, had he not been murdered? I don't really know, I still think it shouldn't probably be a controversial position to take that he should probably not have been killed. I don't know whether or not someone doing an armed cop-watch could've solved that, at this point, or if it would be kind of moot, and the only solution is an unwavering dedication to more radical political reform under which all other tactics are rendered kind of moot, or at least secondary. Certainly I've always been in favor of a diversity of tactics, even including electoralism and reform, mostly under the guise that it doesn't take too much extra effort and time spent fighting over it is time better spent doing other shit. I don't even necessarily think that armed protests are a bad idea in all instances, and that's another possible political use for guns. Certainly, the right has found success with that tactic, though they also benefit from a being in a position that most police are going to be more sympathetic too. I think a lot of it probably comes down to local gun laws and how they're enforced, being a major factor in their political use.