this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
63 points (92.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43956 readers
841 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Usa obsession with keeping the 2nd amendment is doing more harm than good. Your obsession with possession of fire arms in general generates problems that I don't see in other countries, starting for the school shootings...
But no "muh rights, I must gun down anyone invading my home, we do things the muricah way here yeewah, Bald eagle screech! 🦅
Agreed, but it's the second amendment, not the fourth.
The worst part is that I knew that but a movie I saw messed up my memory
Looks like you edited but kept the "th" suffix instead of "nd" :)
Okay mom
Order of operations is important. Yes, if we got rid of all the guns then gun violence would stop being a problem. There's a whole discussion that could be had about sensible gun regulations that is beyond the scope of this comment. Reform on the matter is necessary.
However, that 'order of operations' thing I mentioned: I'll give up my guns when the fascists give up theirs, and not a day earlier.
Yes but we also avoid problems that other countries with gun bans have, such as massacres of civilians by military and police.
It’s sort of a balancing act you see.
Who's gonna tell them?
Oh you must be thinking of the time they shot a student 70 years ago. No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”. Not a trigger happy riot officer killing someone. I’m talking lining 20 people at a time up next to a ditch and shooting them all in the backs of the heads.
Im talking about massacres. Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.
Now I get it. Your teachers may have failed to teach you about human history. But we live in the age of informaron. You can look this stuff up.
We haven’t had what Myanmar had recently.
Like so?
Goalposts status: moved.
I did. It's how I learned about this stuff. But you, in the meantime, apparently think that
Is totally different and not at all a symptom of overall system. Cool. Don't forget to keep your hands on the wheel in a traffic stop, lest an acorn falls.
Okay so you reached back 40 years and found an event where the government made 250 people homeless and killed 6 people.
Using a bombing raid.
Let’s see what I can find in the other column …
Oh look, a few weeks ago the government of Myanmar killed 30 civilians
So by reaching back to May I was able to find a massacre, in a country with a civilian weapons ban, five times larger than the on you found by reaching back to 1985, in a country with an armed populace.
Do you suppose they dropped bombs on these civilians?
So far thar’s two data points. Shall we continue one for one comparing the massacres of unarmed populations to those of armed populations?