• DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      10 months ago

      What are they supposed to do with all those guns, just look at them? Come on bro, be chill. They just want to do a lil brownperson hunting.

      And what the fuck are you gonna do to stop em?

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s kind of funny how it sneaks up on you…

        I never thought I’d own a gun, but had an apartment in a bad neighborhood, lots of drugs and crime, loose pit bulls running around.

        So I bought a gun:

        https://www.beretta.com/en-us/product/92fs-FA0043

        Roll forward 20 years, my grandfather passes away, leaves his guns to my dad. My dad passes away… suddenly I’m the owner of 14 guns. O_O

        • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          10 months ago

          I consider myself left of center, in the US at least. I’m in favor of a more careful and measured approach to gun ownership in general. That all being said, when I watched an angry mob attempt to overthrow the federal government, my liberal ass went out and bought a gun. Those lunatics proved they’d happily lynch politicians from their own party, I sleep sounder with my gun safe nearby.

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            I keep repeating: Women, POC and LGBT folks have been the largest gun purchasing demographic in America for the past few years. Maybe liberal suburban boys should wonder what those people are seeing?

            And I repeat again: Owning a gun does NOT make you safe. Unless you practice, train, practice some more and carry (carrying is another form of practice), you’re less safe. If you haven’t put 1,000 rounds through your weapon, in varying conditions, keep going.

            It’s a big responsibility. If you don’t want to take it on, that’s your right. I chose to take it on, as is my right. If they start loading trains, I’ll fight for you all, best I can anyway, which ain’t much.

          • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            And that is 100% understandable despite the fact that the mere act of owning a firearm increases your chances of being involved in gun violence. What a world we live in

            • shalafi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              Perhaps the people who own guns are more prone to violence, or live in more violent areas? Believed that stat for years, but since I started shooting, I’ve read a lot more and now question it.

              • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                The responsable gun owners outnumber the nutters by a wide margin.

                It comes down to the nature of probability. Say there is a 5% chance of something happening. At 5% you could see 100 or more potential instances that never come to fruition, or it can happen the first time the potentiality comes into play.

                Being a responsable owner, who only would ever rely on the gun when all other options are exhausted greatly reduces the risk but it can never go all the way to zero.

                The other side of this coin is guns make it so easy to commit impulsive suicide over something that isnt going to bother you anymore in a few weeks if you actually had faced the situational depression or whatever it is. Making suicide inconvenient stops a lot of people stuck in an ‘I give up!’ headspace, and of course it does, they will give up on that too if it isnt easy to pull off.

            • meco03211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              I’ve heard this and don’t doubt that it’s true. I just can’t help but wonder what causal effects have been determined for that.

              • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                When you fight the robber, their bullets will hit you and your family. When the road rager draws on you first and you draw too, even if your faster his bullets might hit you or your family. Dont even get me on the cops… 5 of their 82 shots will hit you just because you informed them of your cc permit and firearm at a traffic stop.

                And say you successfully defend your life with a gun, but one of your shot’s missed and strikes a child? I couldnt live with that, it would be time to fire my last bullet.

          • rayyy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If you bought a firearm for protection you must watch this. Too many people think owning a firearm is all they need. Lack of skill and knowledge will get only you and your family killed. Please share this rather dark video with your like-minded friends - it very well may save their lives in the near furure.

          • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Left liberal Asian American who’s owned various pellet guns/rifles for plinking, and have a lovely antique shotgun that I’ve fired a handful of times. My dad passed and shortly before Covid, I ended up with his .22 Colt pistol from the 60s. Did the legal inheritance transfer, cleaned it up. Covid happened and although I knew there would never be a lynch mob at my doorstep, I felt a pinch safer having it around.

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m definitely of the mindset that I want more guns and I could easily afford them. I don’t buy them because I am likely inheriting dozens of firearms when certain family members pass. It’s still decades away (hopefully), but I don’t want to have to deal with so many multiples of similar firearms.

        • frostysauce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I would love to inherit 13 guns. I’d turn them in at the first local buy back so they could be destroyed.

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, my immediate thought was "Melenated people are targets more than ever in my lifetime. I’m the same age as people who still weren’t allowed in designated schools, hospitals, despite federal laws. Yes, one of those states

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

    It’s important, I think, to remember that our nation, and much of civilization chooses to put property rights over human rights. Some nations do not, many of which are the happiest on Earth according to the world happiness index.

    We choose, to be vindictive, petty, murderous monsters, many of which are willing to kill over their pile of crap, and some of which are extremely eager, going by their door signs, to kill over their pile of crap.

    But Freedom to roam countries tend to be societies, whereas we’re more of a burlap sack fillled with turds, Metaphorically speaking.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    How do you morally justify allowing yourself to kill other people? Where does that authority come from?

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s been a while, but I do vaguely recall a footnote on the sixth commandment about how it doesn’t count if you really don’t like the person you are killing or something.

      Same people who really insist that the bible and the ten commandments are the immutable word of god and that alone is a justification for things being illegal.

      • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well the thing is that after the commandment to not kill thing, there come something like three whole books where that same god directly instructs his chosen people to commit one tribal genocide after another after another after another. There’s even a cool story in there where he gives such an instruction and his chosen ones are like, “Nah, they have more people and better resources and we’re going to all die if we try to genocide them.” And that god says, “If you don’t go kill them right now, I’ll just kill you right here and now.” And then within a book or so after that he’s all, “Actually it’s bad to kill again, starting… NOW!” Can’t expect consistency or logic from people who think these are true stories.

    • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Republicans have wanted to hunt people for sport for ages. Also, they don’t see them as “people” so they have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yeah no, you are an ex food delivery driver. You just don’t know it yet. By that I mean quit. Don’t put yourself at risk for these people’s sake. Tell the company they cannot pay you enough on hazard pay to justify working there anymore

      • MinusPi@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Believe me, I’m gone the instant I can afford to. I’ve been trapped here basically my whole life.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Remember the parable of the man who was beaten on the road to Damascus? In the New Republican Version, it ends with the Samaritan gunning him down from 100yds, just in case.

    • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Scene: The road to Damascus

      Samaritan: laying on the ground, beaten and bloody

      Repub: GET ON THE GROUND GET ON THE GROUND!!!

      Samaritan: lifts head slightly to see who is yelling

      Repub: HE’S COMING RIGHT AT ME!! pew pew pew

      Samaritan: dies

      Repub: you guys all saw that right? He was coming right at me, I had to stand my ground! (from 100 yards away)

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      what’s hilarious about that (OG) parable was… it’s original purpose.

      some cultural context is important there; not rendering aid if it could be rendered was viewed every bit as much as stabbing a dude would have been. It was the only commandant that could have been broken by inaction.

      now the merchant and the pharisee were both seen as righteous men. So as jesus was telling the story; everybody expected him to stop. When the merchant kept going by, everyone thought (more or less,) “oh, the pharisee had it.”

      When the Pharisee kept going… he was literally calling the rich fucks and their puppets (the pharisees) murderers. The point of the parable was that those two were worse than the “unclean” and broadly despised Samaritans. (which were viewed in very similar manner to how Trumpian broke-dicks view migrants seeking asylum, in point of fact.)

  • ____@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wasn’t but a few hours ago that I was telling someone elsewhere in the fediverse that food is a human right and directly causing famine (Palestine) is unacceptable use of human rights as weapons.

    Fortunately, when Israel couldn’t quite be offensive enough at that exact moment, Arizona sat up and said “Hold my beer, y’all!”

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    There’s some nuance here. INAL, but I’m reading that this bill would allow someone to confront a trespasser, far from home, yet on their property, and call it castle doctrine. If that’s the case, I disagree mightily. Fuck around outside? That’s for 911, even if they’re far away. Don’t care what you do outside, I’ll wait on law enforcement. Inside? FAFO.

    If passed, the change of “and” to “or” in state law would give a much broader defense to people who use deadly force, as property would only have to satisfy some of the requirements instead of all of them, said criminal defense attorney Jack Litwak. [emphasis mine]

    “The idea with the Castle Doctrine is that you are supposed to be able to defend house and home,” he said.“This seems to broaden it to say you can shoot someone that’s just on your actual property.”

    On the surface, this doesn’t seem like much of a change. But I’ve seen cases revolve around seemingly minor details. Words have very specific meanings in law. Very specific.

    Remember the guy who shot a YouTube bully who was fucking with him in a food court? And we all cheered him on? Here James Reeves, gun nut and attorney, breaks it down. Yes, being somewhat cheesy is part of his shtick. In any case, he’s expert on both firearms and related law (ex-military and a practicing attorney.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMkL5wlcaM

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    In committee, Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, praised the bill for protecting people who could be accused of using excessive force in these situations.

    “This is a great Second Amendment bill, that is also protecting the rights of the accused to make sure we are taking ambiguity out of our law,” Kolodin said.

    These people are absolute acorns.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well, you have to admit, it’s one way to ensure these republiQan dickhead office-holders will never set foot near the border again.