It’s also because “the free market will fix it” is neoliberal bullshit that is pushed precisely because it doesn’t work. It’s just a way of blaming consumers for the horrifically immoral actions of corporations and they’ve suckered you right in.
Regulations could immediately stop Nestle using child slaves, no boycotts required.
A firearm by itself does not cause direct harm to anyone. A N Y O N E. It is the illegal use of a firearm that causes harm, in much the same way that illegal use of a hammer can cause harm.
Yes, every single person in the world is aware of that. Not a single one thinks there are guns just going out and doing mass shootings and murders by themselves. Do you even understand your own talking point?
But put them in the hands of a dangerous psychopath and there’s few objects more dangerous – certainly not legal ones with such a low barrier to entry. Hammers and baseball bats don’t even come close.
And boy, do you ever love putting them in the hands of dangerous psychopaths. Around 80% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Why is this acceptable to you? Why will you do nothing to lower that number, even slightly?
I did say that widespread gun ownership doesn’t–by itself, or as a primary cause–create crime
Doesn’t matter, still bullshit. Compare the crime rates of wealthy countries the world over and they’re all much the same. You know what stands out? America has a layer of gun violence on top. Just as many robberies, only sometimes the cashier gets shot and killed. Just as many assaults, but the only country with more than 1 mass shooting a year.
Because guns, in the hands of fuckstains, absolutely do create crime. They give dangerous, impulsive and damaged people the opportunity to kill another person just as easily a they can unlock their phone.
And try as you might to twist it into some idiotic “guns don’t kill people” strawman, only in the deepest depths of idiocy do you find people who genuinely think gun-control is about banning a harmless, inanimate object, rather than keeping that object out of the hands of scum.
Why do you support selling guns to violent people? Why do you support reckless gun owners arming criminals by leaving their guns unsecured? Are you even able to pretend you don’t after 20 years of opposing every reform that tries?
So you have a problem to contend with; if guns are causing crime, by simply existing
Nope, I don’t. Crime rates are falling because of social reforms and access to services. You know, the things the pro-gun community have finally decided are the answer (since it wasn’t Marilyn Manson, Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Hiphop, gay people or the 5000 other times they were complete fucking liars).
But even with that falling crime rate, oh look, this months mass murder, a problem no other country has. While we’ve been actually improving things, what has the pro-gun community done? Maximized the damage criminals can do by making semi-automatic weapons cheap, accessible and easy to steal.
Is that weak shit genuinely all you’ve got to offer your country? “Look, if you ignore all the schoolchildren being shot in the face, our crime rate is falling at much the same rate as the rest of the world”.
Oh, very interesting that you can diagnose over the internet. Where did you get your PhD in psychology or sociology, or which medical school did you go to, and where did you do your residency in psychiatry?
Why? It’s not like you’re not already ignoring hundreds of people with those exact qualifications. It’s no great mystery why so many domestic abusers and mass murderers put a bullet through their skull before the cops arrive.
I just watched my mother-in-law commit suicide while in hospice by intentionally dehydrating herself
Sounds like bullshit to me. Medical staff aren’t exactly unfamiliar with patients who are terminal and ready to go and I’m skeptical they’d sit around and watch someone torture themselves to death without ever reaching for the saline.
Why didn’t you give her one of your cool guns so they could have scraped her brains off the floor? Sounds to me like yet another case of a gun owner claiming that guns are the solution, then not using them to solve anything.
An anti-suicide stance forces people to suffer without offering any options.
Have you forgotten that there are ways to kill yourself without a gun? I’m pretty certain you’ve literally said “they’d just use another method” to me before.
Anyway, that jab was pillow soft because I’ve been an advocate of right to die legislation for literally decades. You can do it without arming school shooters or forcing your family to clean up fragments of your skull.
Anti-suicide hotlines are the same bullshit; you keep someone alive, with no care for whether or not their quality of life improves.
The world over, only 1 in 10 people who attempt suicide will go on to die by suicide. If they use a gun, their chances of survival are functionally zero and they won’t even be cold before you sweep them under the rug claiming “suicide doesn’t count”.
I’m done with you
No you’re not. Every time you post your pro-gun bullshit, I’m going to be right there making sure everybody can see how slimy and self serving you are as you use tortured old ladies and suicide victims to attack someone who would have helped them, because they won’t use a gun to do it.
Oh, you’re upset that pot is illegal? Just, like, grow your own, dude.
I did.
The examples you cite are behaviours, things that cause direct harm to other people. The existence or ownership of a <> does not cause direct harm.
Yep, that’s the usual self-centered pro-gun bullshit. It doesn’t cause direct harm to you, so it’s fine. All the women it demonstrably endangers don’t count.
The car does not cause the crash
No shit. Thats why we ensure the people know how to competently and responsibly drive them as part of licensing, charging anyone who endangers others.
Guns though? Sell them to any dumb fuck.
We know, for instance, that economic distress is a major root cause for a lot of violence, and that eliminating wealth inequality would likely result in enormous reductions in violence across the board.
Yep, I agree. But that isn’t the world we live in today, which is why I don’t give a fuck about how good your gun laws were in 1800 or how good they’ll be in 2100. They’re dogshit today.
It didn’t solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s–which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply–and they’d had their gun ban for decades.
It didn’t solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s–which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply–and they’d had their gun ban for decades.
Cool story, doesn’t matter. Widespread gun ownership has had zero chilling effect on crime and has instead just armed more criminals.
There is no magic gun fairy arming gangs, just your gun laws that are no better at identifying threats than your “responsible gun owners” executing children for ringing their doorbells or getting in the wrong car.
…And? I support individual bodily autonomy. That encompasses both abortion and suicide. Moreover, it meant that I had to give up two rifles that my grandfather had left to me, which were–and are–the only thing I have left from him.
I was being polite. You were also a murder-suicide risk and a mass shooting risk. You’re also not a hero for enabling other people to blow their brains out.
When your grandfather left you those guns, did he say “I hope you kill yourself with these one day”?
It’s so weird that people will say, “my body, my choice” when it’s abortion or marijuana, but not when it’s someone choosing to end their own life. Like, naw, fuck off, we’re not going to actually give you any help, but we’re going to make sure you can’t kill yourself
Go fuck yourself. I have volunteered at multiple suicide prevention organisations and your opinions about suicide are those of a self absorbed cunt. Every minute you can keep a suicidal person alive dramatically increases their chances of getting the help they need and you’d rob them of that, even after you got that help.
This particular guy had other reasons that he shouldn’t have been able to legally possess a firearm, so it’s all kind of moot anyways.
Cool, I grabbed the wrong article by mistake and you openly supported a domestic abuser keeping his guns, even knowing he used them to murder his partner.
How noble of you to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. Didn’t Ben Franklin have something to say about that…?
Who has the false sense of security? You’re in measurably more danger than me right now, let alone people in other wealthy countries with gun control.
which is essentially a gift to large corporations
So no different that the gun laws then.
It’s ridiculously easy to make a silencer
Then why are you upset they’re banned? Just go and make one. I hear it’s ridiculously easy.
Fortunately, nobody outside of the pro-gun community is stupid enough to repeal a law just because its easy to break. Do you think “making a suppressor” is easier or harder than driving while intoxicated? What about smothering a baby? Should we get rid of those laws too?
Despite this, there have not yet been any uses of silencers in mass murders.
Doesn’t matter. The pro-gun community gets to make laws based on imaginary boogymen so it’s only fair that gun control advocates can too.
If you want to campaign for strictly evidence based gun laws, go right ahead, I’ll support you. You’re going to hate the results though.
You can make a lightning link by bending a wire coat hanger that will make an AR-15 into a machine gun; the information is pretty freely available, and yet it’s not been used by mass-murderers yet.
Yep, because mass murderers use whatever is most convient and thanks to people like you, that’s almost always a legally purchased, semi-automatic firearm.
To be quite frank, the tools have not changed all that much since the late 1970s, but we didn’t see very many mass-murder prior to Coumbine.
Then jump in your time machine and fuck off back to the 70s. The rest of us are stuck here in 2024 where mass murders are commonplace.
No, that’s actually happened. It happened in New York City; the city made it nearly impossible to get a license to even own a firearm, and made it an annual fee of several hundred dollars for each firearm that you owned.
Oh shit, you mean the problem was identified and solved without the pro-gun community shooting people?
My license to own a firearm in Illinois was revoked because I was voluntarily held for observation at a hospital immediately after my–physically, mentally, and emotionally abusive–wife left me.
Good. You were a suicide risk and removing firearms is literally the first thing you do as suicide prevention. It’s a super weird thing to get indignant about.
If you have been convicted of any domestic violence crime, misdemeanor or felony, you are already legally, federally barred from owning a firearm
Except for when they’re not. This also isn’t a policy that the pro-gun community supported, even though it still gave them ample time to execute their partners before they were convicted.
I’m opposed to revoking rights of any kind without a criminal proceeding.
How noble of you to sacrifice other people’s lives so that no gun owner is temporarily inconvenienced.
Change the social conditions. Fix the problems that are leading to mass shootings in the first place.
Off you go then. Better hurry, because there’s no way America will give you another 20 years of insisting you alone have the solution to a problem you still haven’t solved.
We’ve done this dance before remember? All you’re doing is admitting that under the conditions we have right now, the gun laws you’re defending are not fit for purpose.
Uh oh, looks like you’re lying again, this time by omission. I did read the article and I know the what the sentence you surgically removed said.
However, in all but the most extreme environments, this will be sufficient protection. For all but the most susceptible ears and all but the most extreme amounts of gunfire, noise reduction that equals the attenuation imposed by the bone-conduction limits should be quite sufficient.
Your other quotes are simply the explanation of what the bone conduction limits are, which you’re carefully presenting to make it sound like he is talking about “when firing your cool guns with your cool gun friends”.
You’re a real slimy motherfucker. Somewhere, deep down inside yourself, surely you know that.
Anyway, I’m done with this conversation. You’ve undermined your positions so thoroughly that there’s nothing more I need to say. Best of luck psychologically abusing your friends and family.
I wonder who I should believe? The gun owner who has already claimed “supressors are mandatory in Europe” or the guy with extensive qualifiications in the field of hearing loss that says the gun owner is full of shit.
The rest of your comment is denigrating nonsense
I accused you of demanding a standard from others that you don’t hold yourself (nor other gun owners) to and this is now the second time you’ve done exactly that.
I not only stand by that “denigrating nonsense”, I’m happy to escalate it: Take your propaganda and fuck off.
The deafening report from unmuffled firearms is a consequence of the prohibition from implementing a simple, technological solution. It is not a consequence of widespread gun ownership.
Not what I claimed, just bits of my sentences glued together like a ransom note.
It’s also bullshit anyway. If Republicians are too insecure in their masculinity to use safety equipment this is widely available, the only reason they’d use supressors is because they make their hero fantasies look more like an action movie.
This report should be the basis of a lawsuit against the National Firearms Act. The government should be forced to weigh actual, tangible, measured harm from unsilenced guns against imagined, hypothetical forms of harm from quieter guns.
So the pro-gun community is going to hold the government to a standard they blatantly don’t hold themselves to? Sounds like a sleazy bit of manipulation to get suppressors and full-auto weapons to me.
I’m told that Europe requires silencers.
Which has outed you as someone who will believe any old bullshit if it gets them what they want, repeating it to others without 5 seconds of fact checking.
Yep, I knew all of that but thanks for gunsplaining.
But if someone does claim “Mass shooters will use supressors and subsonic ammunition to obfuscate their position and intentions in order to kill more people”, what are the pro-gun community going to do? Claim “that’s never happened, there’s no genuine evidence it will be a common problems and you can’t sacrifice my safety just because a bad thing exists in your imagination”?
The pro-gun community routinely does exactly that. They claim we can’t have gun licenses because they can imagine them not being issued by a progressive government. They claim we have to keep selling guns to domestic abusers because they can imagine a spiteful ex-girlfriend getting someone’s poor innocent guns taken away.
And as long as they can imagine problems with gun control, we’re just going to have to keep getting maimed and murdered until we come up with a solution that they can’t imagine problems for.
So I’m going to show as much compassion for their eardrums as they have for victims of gun crime and say “fuck the lot of them, what we have suits me fine”.
If you don’t like that, come up with a solution I can’t imagine problems for.
Well next time you’re thinking “gun regulations are a failure and force me to risk my health for someone’s ideology”, just remember that’s exactly how every gun-control advocate feels (only they’re not worried about hearing loss, they’re worried about being maimed and murdered in property crimes and school shootings).
Really, any demands to legalize suppressors are asking the general public to give up just a little bit more safety so that gun owners can be even more insulated from the consequences of widespread gun ownership.
It wouldn’t matter. You could have 20 different metrics to rate a post and people would use all 20 to bury things they didn’t like.
If you could give people something indistinguishable from cows milk, you could make millions of foods and drinks vegan overnight.
Canada does have soy, and it’s failed to do that.
A criminally low amount of views for someone who had an ass hair grafted onto his head so that’s he’d never go truly bald.
You don’t need the question mark. If something is for-profit (or can be used for profit) then sooner or later it will be enshittified.
They have teams of people whose entire job is figuring out ways to wring a few more cents from somebody. Put them at the helm of a company that’s stood for 1000 years and they’ll be thrilled at how easy it will be to use that name to sell plastic dogshit at a premium price.
Of course, neoliberals don’t actually believe in neoliberalism, they profit off it’s failure.
If you give a rich person even more money and it never trickles down, you just gave a rich person money. If you’re claim companies will regulate themselves and they don’t, you just gave companies the freedom to do exploitative, dangerous things in search of bigger profits.
If neoliberalism actually delivered on any of its promises, neoliberals wouldn’t support it.
It’s nothing more than a book of pre-made lies that sound plausible enough for a press conference and signal to other neoliberals that their feeding trough is being filled.
They claim “well-regulated” means “properly functioning” and not “subject to regulations”, but how functional is a militia of morbidly obese men with no combat training, no psychological assessments and no demonstrated ability to use or safely handle a weapon, who probably enthusiastically voted for the government that needs overthrowing?
They’re children claiming they need a PlayStation 5 “for homework”.