Been working out so well with around 50k Americans dying every year needlessly. We are also clocking in at around one thousand child deaths every year. Japan had zero child deaths from guns this year, and the last, and the last, ad nauseam.
I know you gun nutters love your defense fantasies, but arming the gays isn’t going to solve any problems and will result in more dead people
We already have more guns than people. How many moar guns until we are finally safe!?
But we’re not talking specifically about protecting children here, I’d agree with you that less guns are better to those ends. For fighting fascism though? It took a lot of gun deaths to unseat Hitler and Mussolini
Sure in a hypothetical alternate reality where the only way to defeat evil is to shoot it. Unfortunately we live in the real world and it just means more dead people.
Maybe I’m feeling cornered, vulnerable, angry, as is often the case with these things. But how do you suggest we protect ourselves and our allies from an evil that strengthens itself off of your sickness, your hunger, your homelessness, and has absolutely no qualms about meeting you with violence and coming up with an excuse later?
Pretty cool suggesting at risk groups should stay vulnerable when their enemies are armed.
Interesting position you’re taking.
General gun violence is unlike targeted political violence against minorities, so things like school shooting and gang violence stats mean nothing.
Comparing to Japan is irrelevant as there isn’t an armed and empowered group publicly discussing hunting at risk folks there.
Pretending you care about human life when a hundred people die everyday from preventable gun violence is an interesting position you have taken.
Imagined political gun violence in your head or actual dead people. Clearly your imagination must take priority.
Oh it is not just Japan of course. But you knew that.
I never said the general preservation of human life was what I was discussing. Of course I’d prefer no one die at all.
I’d also prefer immigrants, lgbt+, and others wouldn’t be hunted for who they are.
I clearly highlighted that an at risk group is trying to empower themselves due to the impending risk from actual threats made publicly against them.
Who am I (or you) to tell those folks they are in the wrong to reach for whatever tools they can access? (Be it speech, political action, or indeed self defence)
IM not worried (or therefore the actor in your suggested paranoid imaginings), because I’m not a member of a target group. The trick is I can empathize with their position, and I can recognize that although I’m not in a target group now, I sure could be in the future.
For those reasons I would never get in the way of folks defending themselves, especially when this group is interested in training and safe practices.
The people who “take priority” are those in harm’s way, and we aren’t the ones to tell them how to live right now, there hearing MORE them enough of that as it is
