Jaded

joined 2 years ago
[–] Jaded 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If Apple and Nike get in on this, we've got all the similarities

[–] Jaded 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

Id ban all sale of them and offer generous buybacks. You can't actually disarm a population, everyone just ends up saying they dropped their gun in a lake.

I'm guessing you have some thoughts on this, where do you think the line is? What regulations would you accept?

[–] Jaded 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)

Although I agree with most of what you said, guns are inherently not safe.

We are talking about something that is 100% unsafe and needs to be carefully handled at all times. Simply goofing off with them can get you killed. And on top of that, they are being used to maliciously hurt innocent people and a tool for crime.

Yes, the shootings and accidental discharges are the outliers, but I never pretended any different. I'm saying those cases are enough to justify real bans, that the 99.9% of "safe" gun owners need to deal with it and accept the small sacrifice. There is a clear and direct link to how easily accessible guns are and the abnormal amount of shootings. If I was asked to give up my paintbrushes to stop school shootings, I would in a heart beat.

The few cases are enough to justify broad policy changes. Not everything is anecdotal fallacy just because it doesn't happen often, that would make all our safety measures and precautions based on rhetoric.

[–] Jaded 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Regardless of who started, it makes you a hypocrite to try to call me out on it when you exhibit the same behavior. That's more my point.

Also, it's not a good thing to stay on a high horse. The expression means you are being arrogant and snoby but you do you.

[–] Jaded 1 points 2 years ago
[–] Jaded 1 points 2 years ago (13 children)

It isn't. There's nothing rhetorical about saying that something is so dangerous no one should have access to it, even if they are "safe" with it, because of the risk it posses to society.

Whats the rhetorical principal involved here?

He's also just being immature. He's spamming me, replying to the same comment multiple times, quoting what I'm saying in bold as if it's an argument. One of his replies sitting in my inbox is just him saying "fucking liberals" lmao. The guys is clearly an idiot, no need to defend him.

[–] Jaded 0 points 2 years ago (15 children)

Are you okay there buddy?

[–] Jaded 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

That's easy since working people don't need guns.

Infantryman, swat, police(but the UK policemen don't have them so probably not after a few years of a gunless society), ice cream truck driver

[–] Jaded 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You support all rights except the one to feel safe in public places.

The supreme Court is busy dismantling abortion rights, they are obviously not a beacon of sanity and justice.

Believe what you want but your little hard-on for gunpowder is costing innocent lives.

Also, get off your high horse. You started your reply literally with a fuck you, it's a bit late to cry about me calling you a snowflake lol

[–] Jaded 0 points 2 years ago (23 children)

None of those things are remotely comparable to guns lol. Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.

I don't understand what the kidney one is about.

Cars are central to our society, it would collapse without it(although I'm completely for phasing them out). Their main use is transport, not killing people.

Everything else you mentioned only affects the person using it and killin isn't their main use. My neighbor can't kill me because he's mad about his job and is eating too much whip cream.

Guns are made to kill. People are using it to kill innocent people. No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I'm clearly not talking about banning it for then). Go back to posting pictures.

[–] Jaded -1 points 2 years ago (26 children)

What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I'm over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN. I don't give a fuck if you want to keep your happy fun times playing with dangerous weapons as if they were toys. Grow up, this is bigger than your hobby.

It's crazy how many activities are available to us in this modern age that don't involve potential death.

Obviously, I'm not talking about police or the army. I don't care about farmers and hunters, they can learn to trap it, bow it or fish it.

How many innocent people are you willing to cut down so you can have your fun. Put a number on it. Less than 100 school children per year and we get to keep our guns? Sounds gross doesn't it?

[–] Jaded 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Lol, guns aren't an addicting substance thats consumed, you can't make guns easily with veggies and a vat. It isn't comparable to alcohol or the prohibition.

And again, it becomes clear that anyone arguing for other solutions just wants to keep their guns, they don't actually care about the situation or how it's affecting people.

Get a better hobby than aiming a stick at paper targets. It's menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.

view more: ‹ prev next ›