362
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
362 points (96.6% liked)
Not The Onion
12540 readers
416 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think that's fair. I've taken gun/hunting education classes from some volunteer instructors that seemed to me to be about the most serious, responsible people I've ever met.
Cool beans. Everyone considers themselves to be a "responsible gun owner" right up until the moment they shoot someone or themselves. It's not a matter of if but when it's going to happen.
Edit: Gun nuts and apologists line up here to get blocked.
I’m not a fan of guns myself, but this is quite a reach.
There are certainly many, MANY more irresponsible gun owners than responsible ones out there. But to say that there are none is just objectively false.
Do accidents happen? Yes, and they can happen to anyone. The difference is that a responsible owner’s accident isn’t going to end up with a person getting shot.
No, there are far more responsible gun owners than irresponsible ones. There are roughly 100 million gun owners in the USA. If "most" of those people were irresponsible then there wouldn't be 100 million of them left. We only hear about the irresponsible ones having accidents or committing crimes, which is a tiny percentage of the overall 100 million.
Unless the most responsible thing to do is not own guns, then there’s twice as many more of us.
Well considering that car accidents and other accidents not involving cars are typically the 4th or 5th leading cause of death in the USA, versus homicides of any kind being farther down than 10th to 15th place (varying by year).... it would be even More Responsible of you all to not drive or be a passenger in any motor vehicle, and to wear impact-resistant personal armor at all times to prevent injuries from falling. You could wear your protective suit and stay indoors at all times to be Even More Responsible.
Also considering that heart disease and cancer are the permanent top causes of death in the USA, to be Most Responsible you should do all of the above (never travel and always wear your protective suit and stay indoors) and eat only a healthy diet with plenty of cancer fighting vitamins for every meal.
I’d be inclined to agree with this argument if any of the other causes of death were from devices that are only designed to kill things.
Excellent example of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Well done! Bit of a shame you're trying to use it in an actual debate, but you do you.
That's an absolutely absurd claim. The fraction of gun owners that ever shoot a human being is very close to zero.
If they didn't have guns, it would be zero.
This is like the claim that humans are addicted to oxygen.
I have some friends who are adamant anti gun folk and I get that. It's what the numbers say is ideal. I used to be pro gun (grew up in a very conservative cult), then anti gun, now I'm somewhere in the middle with "yeah it would be better to reduce the amount of guns but this is kind of where we're at" and feel like a more pragmatic approach to getting us towards a gun free utopia (read: idealized society that can never be achieved) is probably best. Unfortunately it requires national cooperation and my country, uh, that is not what they do. On a personal level tho I somehow have become the person who gets to inherit all the guns in the family and except for the cool, inoperable civil war rifle we've had them all destroyed. That thing's a show piece though. It's a historical paperweight. It's more dangerous as a club (even the bayonette is dull) than as a gun.
Made me think of the is this a pigeon meme but the person being replaced with an American gun nut and the image being a referee to gun violence
With the text: "is this a responsible gun owner"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/is-this-a-pigeon
Actually, as someone who doesn't have a strong stance either way, maybe I'll just block you.
k bye
Go ahead and block me too.
You're saying all gun owners have incidents at some point, but that's just availability bias. You don't see stories on the news of the millions of gun owners who never have incidents.
I have also taken gun safety classes and never had an incident. My guns live in a safe and are only taken out when it is time to use them for sport, which hasn't been in over a decade, actually.
No responsibile gun owner would use a gun firing to get the attention of a group, so the "all gun owners are responsible until there's an incident" argument doesn't really hold water here. The guy in the story broke several gun safety rules here. Rules that in my 10+ years of gun use I have never broken once.
Edit: not sure why this old post showed up in my feed. Oh well.
Done. And no, I didn’t read the rest of your multi-paragraph little hissy fit over a MONTH OLD POST. I despise gun nuts because they're always the type of person like you that will butt into a months-old conversation you weren't part of in the first place because you go around the internet compulsively defending your gun fetish. Fuck off, Cletus.
I didn't realize it was a month old. Lemmy's algorithm is bad.
The key word there is "seemed"