Gun drama in /r/Europe! (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
101 ups - 40 downs = 61 votes
338 comments submitted at 14:02:46 on Mar 20, 2014 by drdrama
Gun drama in /r/Europe! (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
101 ups - 40 downs = 61 votes
338 comments submitted at 14:02:46 on Mar 20, 2014 by drdrama
Can someone explain to me why the gun nuts view availability of guns as the only measure of a society's freedom?
This question is so horribly loaded I don't think it should be answered as it's presented.
Welcome to Reddit.
haha "loaded"
American culture values personal responsibility and personal freedom much more than social responsibility.
This means that the loose gun laws that allow criminals to get their hands on guns are viewed as valuable because they allow you to also get your hands on guns that you can use to protect yourself.
Flawed or not, that's just the way people feel here.
But most people do support stricter guidelines and background checks on people here when buying guns, it just takes a while to get that passed into law because our government is controlled by rich old men.
Old people believing in certain older and less-progresive ideas, rich people believing in keeping the world similar to the ones they or their families got rich in, and old rich people being a combination of the worst qualities of both.
Gun laws don't always factor in to criminals getting guns though. Stricter laws don't prohibit criminals from obtaining them. If they have already decided to use it to commit crimes then they may as well get an illegal one that can't be tracked. That said I do support heavy background checks and the like
It isn't about prohibiting but about restricting. Obviously it isn't going to be 100%, but you can't possibly think that stricter laws will have no benefit over less strict laws towards preventing criminals from getting weapons.
Illegal weapons won't exactly be the easiest or cheapest thing to obtain if its the only method criminals have at bypassing gun control laws.
They are not hard or expensive to obtain, at least not where I live. But further restrictions also hurt the millions of hunters and sport shooters. And look at the recent attack in china people find a way. Look at the Czech republic an astounding number of guns and a very low crime rate. I should also note that not a single one of my firearms is owned for self-defense purposes, and I hope that is never the case.
Because that's only thing they can come up with.
Access to healthcare? Development of infrastructure? Reliability of the rule of law? But what about MUH GUNS, OH GAWD OBAMA'S CUMIN FOR EM
Access to healthcare?! But then people I shoot might survive!!!
^^^^don't ^^^^shoot ^^^^me ^^^^gun ^^^^people
[deleted]
Please avoid using slurs and hate speech, even if it is ironically.
B-but... muh first amendment! muh freedums! you damn commies haven't seen the last of me, FREEDOM always wins!
Going by your name, I assume you're female?
Also, what happened to your twin /u/Iwanttofuckellenpage? Did he commit suicide when she came out to something?
> MUH GUNS, OH GAWD OBAMA'S CUMIN FOR EM
Doing an impression of your opponents in a capslocked dumb-person voice is probably not a good representation of the arguments you are trying to refute.
Looked like a pretty fair interpretation of the average gun nutter argument to me. In his very first post he did specify "gun nuts" and not just "people who happen to own guns."
Hardly anyone like this exists in real life, unless you walk around turning real people into cartoons in your head.
You can have a nuanced view of a disagreement, or you can make dumb-people voices.
>Hardly anyone like this exists in real life,
Clearly you have never been to the deep south. I live here and "OBAMA GUNNA GIT OUR GUNS" is practically my state's motto.
>You can have a nuanced view of a disagreement, or you can make dumb-people voices.
Occasionally having a nuanced view of a disagreement involves acknowledging that some dumb people are saying dumb things in dumb voices. I would love it if every conversation about gun control down here was a regular Algonquin Round Table of carefully considered opinions and compromise, but that has never been the case.
EDIT: Hell, let's return to your "nobody like this exists in real life" statement. Google Agenda 21 and prepare to be buried under an avalanche of aggressively crazy stupidity. A tremendous amount of Americans subscribe to pants-shittingly insane conspiracy theories about this incredibly trivial non-event, and it's not even a fringe movement. Actual democratically elected representatives of the United States government believe that a nonbinding UN resolution that has precisely fuck-all to do with guns in any real sense is part of a massive Obama/UN conspiracy to send Illuminati stormtroopers to every home in America and steal all their guns. Again, this is not a fringe movement, actual elected Congressmen are ranting and raving about this idiotic nonsense. Don't tell me people like this don't exist, they exist and vote in such large numbers that they're able to get their fellow reality-divorced maniacs positions in our actual government. If anything I'm being too kind to their beliefs when I call them idiotic.
> Clearly you have never been to the deep south. I live here and "OBAMA GUNNA GIT OUR GUNS" is practically my state's motto.
This is how their existence enters your perception and comes out of your mouth. Even if I had been to the deep south, and I have, this wouldn't matter to you; your way of describing the views of people you presumably know in real life is a caricature of those people.
> Occasionally having a nuanced view of a disagreement involves acknowledging that some dumb people are saying dumb things in dumb voices.
A dumb voice impression of another person is a caricature. It is by definition a distortion and exaggeration of what is actually the case. You are attempting to justify the way preteens have disagreements.
I'm sorry, but you are very wrong about the existence of people with those exact opinions. Take a look at the edit I added to that post a minute ago. Seriously, google American responses to Agenda 21 and then try telling me with a straight face that "MUH GUNS, OH GAWD OBAMA'S CUMIN FOR EM" isn't a perfectly accurate representation of that position. If anything it's giving them too much credit because the word "Obama" is spelled correctly, and this crowd usually prefers dogwhistles like "Obongo" or "Obunga."
It's not a caricature when it is completely, 100% accurate.
But surprisingly it's usually a good indicator of the arguments you will receive if you engage people like them.
Can reddit circlejerk any harder? That's a question I ask myself every day when I log on and every day the answer is "absolutely yes". This picture gets more relevant every time this drama comes up.
I honestly cannot tell whether you're agreeing with my sentiment ("gun owners need to STFU with their crazy paranoia") or disagreeing.
My opinion on the topic has no bearing on how annoying you and everyone else in this thread is being with their loaded questions and circlejerky nonsense. I agree that a lot of the pro-gun people on Reddit need to take a chill pill as a gun owner myself but holy hell the anti-gun crowd is just so unbearable I can't stand it.
We're not the ones shouting MUH GUNS MUH GUNS MUH GUNS every time LaPierre and his stooges tell us to.
> we're not the ones shouting MUH GUNS MUH GUNS MUH GUNS
If this is how you express your position, you have gotten too used to being around people who overwhelmingly agree with your position and who will not ever seek out information or reasoning against it.
Fair enough, I guess, but it seems that the paranoia from the gun community is a direct byproduct of manufacturer lobbies who find that constant fearmongers and chestbeating is the best way to market their products.
> MUH GUNS MUH GUNS MUH GUNS
Case and point. You're acting like a damn fool despite how right you may be. Being correct doesn't give you license to act like a babbling idiot that sounds right out of /pol/.
Thanks, Obama
I can only speak from an American standpoint, but I view it as a sign of respect for the Constitution. I actually would not have a problem with amending the Constitution to introduce stricter gun control. But passing gun control laws without such an amendment is selectively ignoring constitutional prohibitions, which is a terrible precedent.
I know the argument about "a well-regulated militia", but there is definitely ambiguity there, and I take a Jeffersonian approach that civil powers not explicitly granted to the government are disallowed. (Fiscally is a different issue; Hamilton was on the right side of that argument.)
Thanks for being honest and having a viewpoint rooted in actual historical precedent and not absurd paranoia. I don't view the 2nd Amendment as being as absolute as most of the 2Afolk view it, considering that the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, while valuable tools for ensuring American freedom, have limitations to it. However, I think that the view that the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide for armed rebellion is absurd and, considering how it was viewed in the courts until the early 20th century, it seems rather hypocritical that so-called "constitutional originalists" seem to make an exception for the Second Amendment wrt arms made after 1789.
The 2nd amendment is much more limited than others though. It wasn't even incorporated onto the States until McDonald in 2010, and even that was a controversial decision.
I don't think very many people consider the 2nd Amendment "absolute". You'll find very few people who seriously think you should be allowed to own a functioning tank or nuclear missile.
There do seem to be a disproportionate number of those people frequenting Reddit though. As always, the internet draws out the crazies.
I don't see it as being absolute, either: it's perfectly reasonable that private citizens can't own rocket launchers (at least, without a lot of background checks and an explicitly issued license). And the fact that rocket launcher related violence doesn't seem to be a real issue seems to indicate that these licences are hard to get.
But there is a lot to be said about erring on the side of personal freedom, too. The 1st Amendment does indeed have limitations when it comes to causing others harm, but I personally am pleased that "hate speech laws" are unconstitutional in America. This is a case where America really does differ from many other developed countries, and it's a good illustration of how different laws might work better for different countries.
well the Constitution was ratified with the understanding that the Bill of Rights would follow it soon after.
> gun nuts
That's a big part of your answer, right there. They are enthusiasts responding to what they perceive as a threat to a culture and hobby they consider a major part of their identities.
Do they trump up the role gun ownership plays in ensuring a society's freedom? Yes. But is there anyone whose world view isn't influenced by at least some level of perceived self-importance? I mean, I challenge you to find a tech enthusiast who doesn't view digital rights as one of the most important barometers of a society's freedom.
If you really want something, and the law forbids it, it's a bit of a bummer to your view of freedom in society.
Most people who use guns are perfectly law abiding citizens, who just enjoy the peace of mind of having one around the house, or who like sport shooting and hunting.
Most people who use drugs just want to feel good, very few murder people or steal to support their habit. It's a mostly harmless pursuit. Don't we see drug prohibition as detrimental to a free society? There are about 10,000 homicides with guns a year (Most gun-related deaths are suicides). The NRA alone has 5 million members, estimates of total gun owners in the USA range up from 75 million. No matter what way you interpret the statistics or cherry pick facts, only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of gun owners will ever harm anyone.
I don't think gun ownership is the only measure of a society's freedom, but I think it is one none the less.
No to abortions, instead of letting people choose, is restrictive. No to drugs, instead of letting people choose, is restrictive. No to guns, instead of letting people choose, is restrictive.
I understand that guns, in the hands of criminals or the irresponsible, can be dangerous and this makes people uneasy, but I think "I'm scared of it" is a terrible reason to take a choice away from the >99% of owners who do exercise responsibility and do follow the law. I think guns, like drugs and abortion and so many social issues, suffer from an opposition that lets fear, preconceived ideas and unfamiliarity dictate their opinions.
Borderline fetishistic monomania.
i like shooting guns + i hunt
sadly they make easy way to kill people so people don't like them :/
It's a morsel of outrage, tossed our way to keep us distracted from the actual problems facing our society and our planet.
Mainly because the second thing the people who founded America (shortly after fighting a war for independence mind you) thought was important enough to put in our Bill of Rights was the right to keep and bear arms.
What it boils down to is basically that whenever people hear 'Gun Control' or 'Assault Weapon Ban' they also hear 'Hey you know this list of things that our government and society was founded on to protect the common man from government over stepping it's bounds? Well one of them is FUCKING INSANE so we, the government, are going to put restrictions on it.'
Now I personally believe that while easier access to guns does lead to more gun violence in first world countries that are as unstable as the US, it's just one of the things we'll have to live with.
Just like the pedophiles who get away with it because they were questioned without a lawyer.
Just like the Nazi's who can spew hate openly on the streets.
Just like the drug dealers who get time to dump drug stashes because the cop who came to their house didn't have a warrant.
EDIT:For those of you who don't get the last half of the post, I'm saying that every right in the Bill of Rights has horrible consequences that wouldn't be a problem if we just got rid of them. But we shouldn't.
"my little pea shooter can totally take on my government!" Like seriously, if you think your AK can take on armed troops, you're delusional. My action plan for "if" (very big IF) my country goes to hell? fucking leave.
Um...in some parts of the world the AK-47 is itself a symbol of revolution and resistance.
The AK-47 is included in the flag of Mozambique and its emblem, an acknowledgment that the country's leaders gained power in large part through the effective use of their AK-47s. It is also found in the coats of arms of East Timor, the revolution era coat of arms of Burkina Faso and the flag of Hezbollah.
Then pack up and move there.
I never said I wanted to overthrow my government, I'm just saying that it is an effective tool in the right hands.
And in the wrong hands, 30-some children die. I don't think the benefits outweigh the cost we pay. We need tighter regulation.
I never denied that! I was responding to
>Like seriously, if you think your AK can take on armed troops, you're delusional.
with evidence that, yes, that's exactly what happened. I don't want looser gun regulations and I'm not some "gun nut." All I was doing was correcting your comment.
Are you sure you aren't confusing the AK-47 with the AR-15? The rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre was modeled after the -15.
So in the right hands, it can give freedom and democracy to an entire population but in the wrong hands it kills 30 people. The utilitarian in me doesn't see your logic.
Plenty of things can be effective in the right hands and destructive in the wrong hands, like airplanes, explosives, and Pine-Sol.
If Iraq and Afganistan are "freedom and democracy" I believe you've been swallowing the George Bush koolaid for a bit too long. And way more people have died than just 30 children, but if you don't see a problem with the amount of mass shootings America has had, then you're more sociopathic than I thought.
No one mentioned GWB or anything even related. The words freedom and democracy weren't coined or made popular exclusively by him. Also the United States has never and will never field the AK47 so I'm not sure why you mention the US.
Way more (around 10x more) people die of car collisions every year than firearms in the US. Should Americans ban cars as well? As a ratio the amount of gun violence vs guns owned is much less than the ratio of car deaths vs cars owned. Again, the utilitarian in me is much more afraid of a highway than a gun. Your sensationalism doesn't affect me.
SO BRAVE.
More Comments - Click Here
You underestimate the efficacy of insurgencies. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
I thimk you're overestimating the success of those insurgencies. Neither has the capabilities of overthrowing the U.S. government. The U.S. hasn't been able to completely eliminate the insurgency, but that's light years away from the insurgency defeating the U.S.
Being across the ocean probably affects that too.
Those insurgencies are only effective because NATO shows restraint. In any situation in which a tyrannical government takes over the US, and somehow makes the soldiers go along with it, I guarantee they'd go no holds barred and wipe out anything within a mile of even a scent of resistance.
I don't think that telling US military to gun down/bomb US civilians will go over well.
Ah, the Kissinger approach - napalm first, ask questions later.
Still lost, though.
The Vietnam war was lost in Washington. The VC was on its last legs. And they had significant foreign backing and military-level hardware.
Well, if the US had a civil war, do you seriously believe that third parties wouldn't be funding opposition movements?
We had one already with exponentially more people on the side of the insurrectionists than any modern Glorious Teahadist Revolution could ever hope to claim, and the insurrectionists had total parity of arms with the US military (which is definitely not the case anymore) and they were still curbstomped.
We're the largest military superpower on earth and spend more on our grotesquely bloated military industrial complex then the next seven or eight biggest spenders combined. Cletus and Bubba are not going to overthrow that apparatus with Wal-mart AR-15s. Anyone who still thinks the 2nd Amendment is protecting our ability to revolt against the government is so crazy they probably shouldn't have access to guns in the first place.
>Anyone who still thinks the 2nd Amendment is protecting our ability to revolt against the government is so crazy they probably shouldn't have access to guns in the first place.
Oh, I completely agree. I just also recognize that were a civil war to happen here, other nations would definitely want to curry favor with various factions.
>Oh, I completely agree. I just also recognize that were a civil war to happen here, other nations would definitely want to curry favor with various factions.
Absolutely, but like I said we spend more on war machines than the rest of the top ten combined. Even if Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia went all in with the rebels (which is unlikely given their economic interests would be better represented by the actual government and not the xenophobic splinter group) AND, inexplicably, France, Britain, and Japan all chipped in too they'd STILL be a drop in the bucket compared to what the US government is bringing to bear.
I'm not exactly proud of how much money this country wastes on military hardware while we have people starving in the streets and 3rd world quality public healthcare options, but we're doing it, and there's exactly zero chance of anyone overthrowing the government with the small arms available to private citizens, even with a giant pile of other countries inexplicably raining money down on them.
After all the victory conditions for any 2nd Amendment revolution aren't just barely surviving as a low-level guerrilla insurgency; they actually need to take over. It will never happen. We have a better chance of being conquered by leprechauns riding unicorns than we do disgruntled hillbillies.
Sure they would, but unless it was Canada or Mexico (and they wouldn't want to piss off a government in control of a military much more capable than their own) I find it extremely difficult to believe they'd be able to provide tanks and aircraft and heavy weapons.
> In any situation in which a tyrannical government takes over the US, and somehow makes the soldiers go along with it, I guarantee they'd go no holds barred and wipe out anything within a mile of even a scent of resistance.
And then, just to keep us under their thumbs, they'd make our children fight to the death in a rip-off of the Japanese dystopia.
Yeah, those countries aren't shitholes at all!
The insurgency in Afghanistan is partly the reason why the Soviets left.
And it's still a shithole, fancy that.
Nobody's saying it's not.
Rule of law don't real, only MUH GUNS
I think Freud would really love the gun nut crowd.
Wow, the gun brigade hit us pretty hard, didn't it?
> Wow, the gun brigade hit us pretty hard, didn't it?
I'm getting down voted, must be a brigade!
Every fucking thread in this sub. Could it be that your opinion is unpopular or the way you've phrased is rude? Nope, brigade!
Unpopular opinions shouldn't be downvoted. Reddiquette and all that.
No, you're just acting like an ass.
Yeah, and people complain about the meta subs being bad. The gun brigade is probably the worst in terms of obviousness. They have an awful itchy trigger finger
Unless you're a hunter, there's a 99.9% chance you have no need for a gun. The home defense fantasy is laughable to be but ultimately allowable, because that's your choice, but if you're one of the morons who owns guns with your absurd fantasies of shooting police officers and resisting against Obama's Big Bad Police State, you deserve to have your guns taken away.
Skeet shooting and target shooting always seemed like legit reasons to me.
Okay, that too.
When I was a kid my mom's life and mine were saved due to her having a pistol.
Check out /r/dgu . Self defense is not just a fantasy.