• dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Hand guns are made for killin’

      They ain’t no good for nothin’ else

      And if you like to drink your whiskey

      You might even shoot yourself

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      94
      ·
      10 months ago

      They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          How is that sexist? I agree it sounds sexist, but is the content actually sexist?

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              The argument doesn’t sound as convincing this way:

              A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of assailants on an equal field with the burliest of women.

              • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                that is not a resonable test in this situation.

                Dont use ‘woman’ as an adjective. No need. Just use dainty/frail vs. burly.

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

                  Okay, but they did. I see how it sounds sexist, but how is it actually sexist? Dainty women do exist, and are on average, more dainty than dainty men.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          So the more guns there are the less gun crime

          That is not the claim

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

              A gun allows physically weaker people to defend themselves from physically stronger people

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

                  In the example only the initial victim had a gun, presumably the ‘burliest of asailants’ was using physical strength as their weapon.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  No it is not, you are saying two completely different things.

                  Does having a pilots livense reduce your likelihood of dying in plane crash?

                  Vs

                  Does having a pilots license give you the ability to be responsible for your own safety in plane?

                  Two completely different things

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

                    Yeah and we’re not talking about pilots or flying here so I don’t know what your point is.

                    Their claim is that having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works (more guns reducing gun crime), but that facts clearly show that gun control is the way to reduce gun crimes and having a personal defence gun is a liability and increases your risk of being a victim of gun crime.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.

        The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.

        Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.

        • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it’s why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.

          • Landsharkgun
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it’s easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.

            • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren’t evil machines only used for crime, you’re a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.

        • TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not even just guns, in the UK people who carry knives around are more likely to be stabbed than people who don’t carry them. That’s why there are so many laws about when you’re allowed to have one with you even if you need it for work.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.

          You missed the obvious solution:

          You need a sniper covering your position whenever you are in public.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          10 months ago

          Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!

          Brilliant, did you think that up all by yourself?

      • ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        That must be why the homicide rates in the rest of the world are so much higher than the US.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ho ho, buddy! I don’t agree, but I won’t keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they’re right. But don’t take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!