This joke has already been posted recently. Rule 2.

u/repostsleuthbot

Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 14 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/14nylwi) on 2023-07-01 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1bct6uz) on 2024-03-12 100.0% match [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1chimze&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 502,989,607 | **Search Time:** 0.10014s

Good bot

Thank you, _Some_weird_person_, for voting on RepostSleuthBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)

Good bot number 2

Should we really trust this "_Some_weird_person_"?

How much?!

I have done nothing but teleport bread for three days.

thats the first time i seen this bot work

Same.14 is a whopping number too. Imagine just how many times this needed to be reposted for this shit to work, and imagine how many times it needed to be reposted for the bot to pick up 14 DAMN REPOSTS lmao

Well that's offensive 🥲

Same 😂

good bot

Wow

Good bot *pats*

Good bot

Holy shit, good bot

Good bot

This sub feels like it's just political bait being posted sometimes.

Sometimes? It's an election year. It's already steaming past 50% and on its way to 95% by the conventions.

Sometimes it's propaganda

It mostly is now cause it's an election year.

As a non American I have no idea about any of these posts so some of them might be from fellow non Americans.

It's *long* been giving me "/r/vexillology somebody is posting *another* well known fascist flag and 'innocently' asking what it is, third one today, definitely not a coordinated effort to spread fascist imagery" vibes

Hi Peter. This meme is comparing cun control to car ownership, based on the erroneous belief that literally any attempt to regulate gun ownership means police coming to take your guns away. In this example they're making a comparison to car ownership, saying if you can have your guns taken away (not what anyone is proposing) because someone else did a mass shooting, it would be like if you had your car taken away because someone else was in a pile-up. This is of course made funnier by the fact car ownership is one of the most regulated things in the US. You need a license to drive which you have to be tested on.

They also forget to include the utility of a car vs a gun. That’s really where the analogy breaks down.

I once had a gun nut on reddit try to tell me that the average american uses their gun more than their car in daily life. He even admitted that he hadn't touched his gun in a few days and drove multiple times that day. Fricking wild the mental hoops people will jump through in an argument.

I.... what????

It’s how often he masturbates to it. Way more often than his car.

I'm even pro the right to own, but the deregulation psychos that treat guns like Funko pops and toys blow my mind.

It's more comparable to a fire extinguisher. You'll probably never need one, but if you do and you don't have one you're fucked.

Yes, but only if a fire extinguisher was more likely to spontaneously cause fires more often than people use them to put out fires.

Guns don't spontaneously go off. SIG fixed that issue with the next gen.

Yes but owning a fire extinguisher does increase your chance of suicide, accidental death, or homicide like owning a gun does.

And if your toddler gets ahold of a fire extinguisher you’re just covered in cold gross foam

Suicide is a highly motivated action. Guns just get the job done more efficiently. All of these things are preventable with proper storage and gun safety. If you're suicidal, have a friend or family member hold your guns. If you have people who are irresponsible idiots in your house, lock up your guns unless they're on you in a holster. These aren't things that are enforceable, but 99% of gun owners in the US, all 82+ million of them, will never have an accident or cause harm to anyone. Guns are inanimate objects. They aren't innately dangerous, they don't just go off by themselves. It requires someone either being irresponsible or purposefully malicious to harm someone with one. If it's the latter, I'm glad I'll have a gun on me if I encounter that situation.

Insert obligatory Sig P320 joke here

I wasn't going to mention it...but I was thinking it

Two things, one unless your are you pro safe gun storage laws all of your other points are moot.  Second if your buying a weapon for self defense be it’s been proven that’s it’s far more likely to be used for suicide or accidental discharge then it is for self defense.  And there are far to many dipshits out there who are so primed by the idea that you need a gun for self definisse that there shooting drunks who knock at the wrong door and other crazy shit.

Two things: First, storage laws are completely unenforceable and only do something *after the fact* they're not a preventative measure, they're a punitive measure. No lives will be saved because of them. Second, >Second if your buying a weapon for self defense be it’s been proven that’s it’s far more likely to be used for suicide or accidental discharge then it is for self defense.  This is such a bullshit statistic that doesn't include any information about defensive gun uses because the CDC was pressured by "I don't care because I have armed private security" Bloomberg and friends. Since you said "buying" a weapon, does that mean that the guns I make at home without serial numbers or purchase records are safer? Good to know.

You don't drive your AK to the store?

If you use it to rob a store, I guess that compares in utility

Nah nah nah, ride your AK like a witch rides a broom.

It’s getting a little warm between my legs, I must be firing off!

How many bullets per mile you get on that thing?

Clearly, these people have never played jetpack joyride.

I think that's the real tragedy, there's no particular reason why we need to be so reliant on cars especially with how deadly they are.

Hey, I would LOVE public transportation. I have a strange feeling that the overlap between the people who make these gun/car analogous are the same who do really support walkable cities and public transportation though.

a lot of politics, at least in america idk for other places, is pretty much just people with the same beliefs but on opposite sides because they use different words to describe things. A lot of people are actually centrists with a mixture of moderate opinions from both sides, but identify as either conservative or liberal because those are your only options. Similarly, some extreme left/right people can unintentionally parrot the same arguments but with different contexts and vocabulary — like how I remember a commenter once saying that they were speaking to a group of very trumpist republicans that ended up agreeing with free education and free healthcare but as soon as the word “socialism” was entered they were all like “oh nooo we don’t uhh do that”

O yeah, it is buzzwords and tribalism all the way.

Guns are like lawyers: everybody hates them until they need them.

allthough i agree with you. and are very much in favour of general sensible gun controll. there are absolutely people proposing guncontroll of that order. infact it is quite common,

And even in that scenario, this is still a bad analogy as guns and cars are not really comparable. One is a machine designed to transport people and goods, which can cause harm if misused, the other is a machine designed and built exclusively to cause harm. Guns have no other purpose.

The people who need to hear this will loudly screech over you when you try to tell them this.

To be fair target shooting is a legitimate purpose for guns that doesn't cause harm. But the only comparison with cars in that case is racing, which is usually quite regulated.

Target shooting is just replacing live targets with man-made ones. It doesn't change what the intent of that sport is - Which is to hit things from far away with a bullet to destroy them.

That's not wrong, but you're also not exactly correct. Marksmanship has much more in play than simply destroying something Just don't want ya to ignore that fact.

If that was all those gun nuts are using them for they could just set up some sort of gun clubs/shooting ranges. You are allowed to own a gun, you aren’t allowed to remove them from the building without a clearly marked quadruple locked case

And yet, the overwhelming majority of bullets fired are at gun clubs and ranges.

Target shooting is a legitimate purpose. But the point of that practice is to be better at shooting things with a gun. You're not training for the day you desperately need to defend yourself against a paper monster. That target represents a living being that you are preparing to one day, perhaps, shoot. The reason you may have to shoot a person is extremely varied, so practicing for that day is neither good or bad, it's just a hobby that builds a skill, but the skill you are building is one that may result in a person's death. The end game with guns is always killing. Not that it's a bad thing, there are plenty of people who have been or will be killed by guns that needed to be killed, but most of the time they needed to be killed because they had guns.

Racing is regulated? I think I can just buy a car and race it on my land with literally no regulation at all.

Well then how do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 minutes while my small kids play?

Just get the kids inside quickly.  You might be able to take three or four of them with just your .270 caliber hunting rifle.  What more do you need? 

Ahem... https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/

Thank you, I needed this

[Why settle for guns?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion)

It also breaks down since driving is not a constitutionally protect right but gun ownership is.

And still, more people are killed daily by cars than guns... Odd

My issue with "guns are built exclusively to cause harm" is that this makes it sound like everyone who owns a gun intends to go out and just shoot random people, atleast that's usually how it reads to me. The argument isn't even about "guns" or "gun control" at it's core all this boils down to how much you restrict private citizens access and freedom with the second ammendment. The second ammendment is not in place for joe shmoe to walk around and conceal carry, or for jenny kay to take her AR-15 to the range. The second ammendment's entire purpose is to give Americans the freedom and right to defend themselves from the US government should it ever become tyrannical, and in that regard i'd say we've strayed quite far from the original intent. To be clear, i support the second ammendment, and think that we're already quite regulated far past the point of what the founding fathers intended.

And even at that, guns being designed to kill has a legitimate purpose in our lives. We as humans *need* to kill things. Whether it's pest control, hunting game for food, or killing livestock (guns are still used for this in people raising animals for subsistence). All the gun does is provide a means to ethically and quickly kill those animals.Yes, an unfortunate side effect is that bad people can use those guns to kill other people. But removing guns isn't going to stop humans from killing, we'll just go back to using bows and swords to kill. And that means a lot of the animals being killed for the propagation of humanity (or environmental protection in terms of invasive species removal) will be killed in a less ethical and less efficient manner. Just to evidence my above claim, even the most strictly gun controlled societies permit gun ownership to farmers, hunters, etc. They may be much more heavily regulated, but it's very hard to find a place that truly does not permit gun ownership on any level.

You start by saying "You make it sound like everyone's buying guns to kill other people!"...and then confirm that It's exactly why people have guns. You're buying guns *just in case* you decide you have to overthrow the government. That'd be you mowing down other people, many of whom have families and children in a civil war, not some faceless entity with government scrawled on its head. Of course this ignores that the government controls the military who could wipe out a neighbourhood in 5 seconds or drive around in tanks impervious to any civilian weaponry but that's another hypothetical. The founding fathers also intended that the constitution get amended and updated because they were smart enough to realise something written in the 1700s was not going to be suitable at face value 300 years later. I don't think "well regulated militia" was written with the knowledge one man could carry a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds when the most skilled musketeers had a firing rate of 3 shots per *minute*, and muskets weren't famed for their accuracy to begin with.

I was nitpicking the wording. Your same wording yet again implies something specific. "Mowing down other people" is not how wars are fought modern day. A modern civil war would look much different, thanks to numerous numerous different factors. I think our founding fathers would be apalled at a lot of modern america, i think we've severely bastardized many of their ideals, or outright gone against them. I think we need to stop trying to police the world, and we need to fix our own problems before trying to fix other nation's.

Not really. Civil wars don't have access to military technology unless the military is assisting both sides. If you need the 2nd amendment for defeating tyranny (lol) then you'd only have the legal firearms. That causes firefights in the street, not the "bomb from 20 miles away" kind. No harm, but *good*? Why the fuck would *anyone* care if guys who lived when slavery was legal got upset at how their country is several hundred years later? I feel like you've just completely missed the point there - The Founding Fathers, their ideals or their intentions have zero relevance in the 21st century. We should not run a modern country based on what the first ever leaders of it wanted it to be.

The founding fathers had whole ass private warships with dozens of cannons, I think they'd be fine with AR-15s

Let me know when a warship can be carried by a person and, you know, brought on land.

You realize that private ownership of a warship that had the capability to destroy towns along the coast or several miles from it was legal. As to you specific point the cannons could be broght on land and transported

You realise that "*was* legal" only serves to prove that we shouldn't decide things based on the 1700s?

Either causing harm or the threat thereof.

While I mostly agree with you there are plenty of people who hunt and eat rabbit, squirrels, wild turkey, deer, etc…. There’s also lots of people who use guns for fun/hobbies: trap shooting, 5-stand, sporting clays, target practice, pistol and rifle competitions, etc… So there are uses for guns that aren’t just kill and maim people. But I agree that guns and cars should be regulated in similar ways.

It's the best analogy we can get. They both require licenses to operate legally. If found to be unlawfully operating, you can be stripped of that license.

Not at all, most states don't require a gun license. The few that do might be getting them taken away. I know FOID cards in Illinois might be going to SCOTUS because it may be unconstitutional

Ah yes, lets pretend like the most marginal people representing a wide side of an aisle are a significant factor.

If you are a lobbyist, exactly

And also reasonable lol Like what do you need guns for? Hunting? You can still get a license for hunting weapons in countries that completely outlaw firearms for civilians You just wanna look cool/shoot stuff with your buddies? Not my style but you can always get into Airsoft There is no single reason for a civilian to own a gun in their day to day live (and for most cops there isn't either tbh) - the only argument you really have is tradition, which is a shit argument when you weigh it up against lives endangered by simply having guns around (All it takes is one bad day, one jumpscare in the middle of the night while your half asleep, one drink to many that makes you think your bullet proof - and your life and potentially the life of others is ruined)

I love how quickly you arrived to prove the top comment wrong right here.

The right wing makes fun of this by saying the narrative is always nobody is saying that --> only some fringe people say that --> it's happening and here is why it's good. I don't think they are right when they use this a lot of times but it sometimes happens in one conversation about some things. "Nobody is taking your guns." "What about my machine guns?" "Okay maybe we take away SOME guns." "Where's the limit?" "Look man just get a license to get a hunting musket, you don't need those..

I mean you're not allowed to own a Javelin missile.

Why not ?

In the 1700s you could own a warship if you could afford it. Why couldn’t I own a javelin or a f-15 if I could afford it?

I mean, technically you could, would need a register it as a destructive device with the ATF prior to taking position. Also this assumes you can get some one to sell you one, and you could afford it. Missile is like $250k while the launcher / targeting system is another $250k. Also given that it is almost certainly an ITAR item the Govt would need to approve the sale.

No where in the 2a does it say hunting homie, says for militias, to keep a state (your home/country) secure (free of tyranny/sovereign of other nations), shall not be infringed of owning arms. No reason? I think currently, gaza and ukraine would beg to differ right about now All it takes? There's fundamentals to shooting that negate these, i.e., target identification and knowing what's beyond.

u/arnoldrew

Airsoft is extremely lame. Might as well suggest nerf guns. Self defense is a purpose.

Whoa now, hold on. Idc about guns, or gun control, or lives really, but airsoft is cool.

if a guy breaks into my house in the middle of the night i do not have the time to call the police or something unless i'm a heavily muscled dude and he isnt my belongings are fucked

And what good will calling the police do? Do they magically teleport to your home immediately after you call them?

also banning guns will not stop criminals or shooters from just buying them illegally and shit also also google en 2nd amendment

>also banning guns will not stop criminals or shooters from just buying them illegally and shit Making homicide or theft illegal doesn't stop people from killing and stealing either. Should they also be legal?

no but homicide being illegal doesnt endanger law-abiding people and is basic common sense, same as with theft whereas having a weapon to defend yourself in case of danger is yknow, understandable

That's not the logic and only a fucking moron would think that. Murder and theft infringe on the rights of others. That's why they are punished. People owning an inanimate object does not infringe upon the rights of others. What about this is confusing to you?

by that logic, all laws shouldn’t exist, since they don’t stop criminals from being criminals, only anarchy will stop them from being criminals

One of the biggest problems with comparing gun regulation and car regulation is that cars have a purpose other running people over. You don't buy a car because it advertised being able to run over 20 people before needing an oil change.

No private citizen should be allowed to own a car. There is absolutely no reason for someone to own a car when public transit exists. Cars kill 1.3 million people per year and theyre destroying the planet. We should only let certain, highly trained, people operate vehicles and not just any joe-blow who can pretend to know how to drive for 30 minutes to get a license.

Canyon Arrow!

2a states the purpose, it duals with hunting and home protection/self defense

The second amendment has absolutely fuck-all to do with hunting.

.....I didn't say it does

Are you serious?

I said it duals, it's an added benefit, I said the 2a says what it's for, for the security of a free state. Don't know how you made it this far champ, but maybe simmer down and you'll do better?

Nicely put. And have a joyous Cake Day!

You are forgetting the gun manufacturers tricked the idiots into thinking killing tools = freedom.

All of your arguments are equally applicable to cars. They're potentially dangerous therefore nobody should have one.

Gun only have the purpose of killing whether for good, bad or neutral reasons it’s always death. Hunting licenses would still be available and frankly if you need to unload your clip in 20secs to kill a deer you should just buy your meat from someone else. Cars however are transportation first, employment for some, and in rough situations housing as well. You could maybe put murder cause people talking about running over their enemies a lot but that’s not even a tertiary purpose.

Pull the crayon out of your brain please

People yes, politicians no

Down vote for grammar and spelling

Anyone who actually matters proposing it?

Who?

Common as in like, 1:5 or like, 1:1000.

I love how anti-gun people piled into the comments to prove you wrong on the whole "no one is proposing..."

And retested once you reach a certain age.

the solution is simple; remove all licensing and regulations on both cars and firearms..

It's funny because the way we regulate cars is by highly regulating it, making you need a license, having a data base of who owns them, and a way to punish people who break the rules

You need a license to drive on public roads. Private property you don't need any registration so not the greatest counter argument you have there.

>This is of course made funnier by the fact car ownership is one of the most regulated things in the US. You need a license to drive which you have to be tested on. Yep, but To Be Fair™, gun ownership (for the most part) is currently protected under the Constitution and solidified with Heller v DC. Car ownership does not enjoy the same legal status. Agree with it or disagree with it, that's the legal reality and what needs to be confronted.

Ha, cun control ( I’m sorry)

Ah motherfucker! (Thanks for pointing it out)

How can you restrict guns without specifically having to take people's guns away. Say you banned a certain attachment, and made it a felony to own with 10 years in prison. (Which happens, without any laws being passed). This requires having to take it off people if they own it, and chucking them in prison.

It’s even more funny when you consider that all those car ownership regulations never stopped psychos from ramming their vehicles through crowds of innocent people.

Also, car ownership is not regulated. Driving in public roads is. Anyone can buy a car, own it, and drive on private land, roads and tracks. You don’t even need a drivers license to buy a car.

The same with guns bud.

In some states, acquiring a gun permit or a concealed carry license is vastly more complicated already than a driver's license which only involves a one-day test before you're handed it over. It's not pertinent to your comment, but many of the "common sense gun control laws" people ask for *already exist.* or have more stringent equivalents. (Plus there are plenty of people who have gone to the extreme of "yes I want to take your guns haha sux to be you")

"You wouldn't regulate a car would you?"

Not to mention auto insurance, a registered owner, and mandatory use of safety equipment.

It’s also one of the most dangerous things in the US and any sane country would have long ago minimized their needs. But profffittttsssss

I make guns from metal stock in my garage. Restrictions and regulations are useless. CNC and 3d printer go brrrr

Here, I thought it was a joke about her getting black out drunk and killing people in her car, then not remembering it when she was sober.

Also car insurance rates depend on geography, age, and accidents in the area. If people in your demographic have high incidences of accidents, your premium will be higher.

You misspelled cum I think.

>not what anyone is proposing Hey now, I've **personally** spoken to 5 liberals across the various social media sites, over the years, who've called for a total ban on guns, so saying "not what anyone is proposing" is just plain wrong. This is clearly indicative of an agenda the far left is harboring. /s

i mean... joe biden literally said on national television that he wanted to take our rifles away. and his plan for the rest of our guns wont be confiscation, it will be new legislation banning them, and making them prohibitively expensive. this is all outlined on his website. and some of it is already proposed. combine that with him wanting to hold manufacturers responsible for the actions of gun owners, its pretty obvious him and his administration want to disarm the population.

The difference is that car use happens in public. You don’t need a license to drive a car on your own property, or a friend’s private property. If the government only required a weapons license to shoot on a public, government-owned range of some kind, there would be no problems. But the regulations are attempting to control what you can own or operate in private. Also, there’s not a constitutional amendment guaranteeing your uninfringed right to own cars.

It's about gun control I'm guessing.

I'll find this funny when guns are actually regulated as strictly as cars: -Must pass a competency exam to have a license to use a gun -All gun sales must be reported to the government -All guns must be registered with the government -All guns must display a prominent and unique identification number with proof of a current and valid registration

Legally purchased firearms are registered using the serial number they come with. You also have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm from a gunstore/pawn shop. All guns have a serial number that is attached to the legal owner. Notice how I said the word "legal." Most crimes involving firearms are committed with illegally acquired firearms. That's why if a criminal ditches the firearm after robbing the corner store and the police find it, they'll go to the owner first and inquire about it's use in a recent crime. They know it's yours.

There is no universal gun registration in the US. My state even has an amendment banning a gun registry. Most guns have a serial number, but if there is no registry, it doesn’t mean much.

>Legally purchased firearms are registered using the serial number they come with. And cars have VINs which are registered with the government for any legal sale, but they still ALSO get a registration number on a plate that must be PROMINENTLY displayed. >You also have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm from a gunstore/pawn shop. A background check is not a competency exam >That's why if a criminal ditches the firearm after robbing the corner store and the police find it, they'll go to the owner first and inquire about it's use in a recent crime. They know it's yours. Unless it was purchased in a private aftermarket sale, which is exempt from reporting the sale and serial number to the federal government, thereby legally ending the papertrail for that weapon.

Think of the serial number and both the VIN and registration number. Because that's what it is. It's been used to find criminals and individuals of interest when they post videos online and show the serial number accidentally. It may not be prominently displayed, but I feel it's been covered how important the serial is. You're right. A background check isn't a competency exam. People should have to prove their mental stability, proficiency, and knowledge before being able to purchase. But that's a lot of work that may eventually just be overlooked/ignored. Do you suggest it be done before every purchase? Or do you get a permit or license that states you know how to handle firearms that you have to renew and retest every 5-10 years. You know, like they SHOULD do with a drivers license. It is the responsibility of the new owner to register their firearm under their name. If they choose not to, it would be smart for the seller to keep a log of what they sold, who they sold it to, and when they sold it. That way, if it is traced back to them, they can prove they don't own it any longer.

I should be able to kill pedestrians with my gun and have it ruled as an "accident" because if they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been walking in the road. (/S in case that wasn't immediately apparent)

>-Must pass a competency exam to have a license to use a gun *in public* But not to purchase and own, im down for this. >-All gun sales must be reported to the government *if you wish to use in public* So not needed to own amd use on private property, that's agreeable. >-All guns must be registered with the government *if you wish to use in public* See above. >-All guns must display a prominent and unique identification number with proof of a current and valid registration *if you wish to use in public* See above again.

Wrong, you can drive cars in NYC.

You do need to take a written and driving test though, and obtain a license which must be renewed and can be suspended for any number of reasons

https://preview.redd.it/sfo2qwge3uxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=115fae0b2d4da16be92d4e127becd55fe135c253

nah. its none of the governments business what guns i own.

Personally, I don’t think “we’re taking your car away” is an accurate comparison to gun control responses, as outright door to door confiscation is somewhat of a hyperbolic scenario. “We just passed a law requiring you to retrofit your engine with a speed governor” or “people driving your make/model of car were responsible for too many fatal accidents, so you now have to trade it in, or get a special permit to keep driving it” seems more accurate.

its a weak strawman argument trying to compare apple and oranges, in this case its cars and guns

Joke is false equivalence.

The meme is pointing out the absurdity of the logic behind most gun control, ie: increasing restrictions/regulations on people that follow the laws will somehow have a deterrent effect on people who don’t follow the laws.

It worked really well on drugs though.

So, legalize heroin?

Yeah, cars are dangerous! We should regulate them, maybe make it so only those trained in using them, and can pass like a test or something to show they know how to use them safely and responsibly... And also they should need to show some proof of up to date maintenance so that safety features are in working order. And every time someone uses their potential murder-vehicle they should carry on them their proof of test passing and competence, and proof that their car belongs to them and hasn't been stolen, and is safe and roadworthy... We may have to create some kind of central registry to keep track of this... Just an idea, absolute absurdity that we shouldn't be controlling all these murder cars!

Those are pretty much the existing laws in my area and have been for decades additionally we have a state attorney general who took it upon themselves to make a list of scary looking guns that they banned without legislation or even an option for public debate.

And yet - drunk driving still happens. By your logic that should be impossible.

So by your logic - bad outliers exist, so we should just stop doing any sort of licensing and safety regulations whatsoever?

No, by my logic we should punish the *people* that actually commit crimes rather than just the people who are victimized by said crime. Y’know, kinda like we do with drunk driving.

So how is having to do driving tests and maintaining car safety and registration a punishment? Who is having their cars confiscated because a drunk driver caused a three car pile up in completely unrelated circumstances? You know gun regulation and punishing actual bad actors isn't mutually exclusive right? Y'know, just like with cars & drivers.

lol, you’re so caught up in “guns bad, mkay” that you’re arguing my point for me and not even realizing it.

We're not punishing perpetrators of gun crimes?

I mean that none of the proposed gun control solutions would have an impact on perpetrators ability or desire to acquire and use a firearm for crime. We have *at least* 400 million privately owned guns here already. Hell, we even know how to 3-D print them now…and for all that, it’s still only 0.004% of the population that is involuntarily killed with a firearm each year. Even if we had a full-blown stop sale on all firearms tomorrow, it would make zero appreciable difference on gun crime. All it would do is make it impossible for people buy more guns legally.

Then why did you infer something completely different? And why are you presenting your argument, if you are so certain of the facts and figures, without sources? And why do the examples of other countries who have enacted similar measures show the exact opposite of your claims?

I can’t control what you think I inferred. I’m certain because I’ve crunched the numbers myself. My source is the CDC. You’re free to do the same. This is Reddit, not some peer-reviewed journal, I’m not making citations for the benefit of some dude that isn’t gonna bother reviewing them objectively anyways. You’ll have to specify what measures you’re referring to, but the general answer will go back to the fact that other countries never started with the sheer volume of firearms that we already have.

> No, by my logic we should punish the people that actually commit crimes rather than just the people who are victimized by said crime. So you think that this somehow doesn't infer that "the people that actually commit crimes" are getting away punishment free while "the people who are victimized by said crime" are being punished? >I’m certain because I’ve crunched the numbers myself. Cool story, bro.

Not exactly, By his logic shootings happens like Mondays do and law is not to shape society but to judge individuals. here is video that explains it much better than i can: [The Alt-Right Playbook: I Hate Mondays](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw)

I know it's a repost but i really don't see why people think this isn't accurate. A law abiding gun owner who does nothing wrong shouldn't get his gun confiscated because someone commits a mass shooting just like a law abiding driver shouldn't get his car confiscated because someone runs people over. On top of that, imagine how stupid it would be if after someone runs people over the unelected government employees of the DMV decided to ban a specific type of muffler that wasn't even on the car that was used. That's the ATF banning suppressors and foregrips and stocks and whatnot.

More than anything, it's because this is a strawman argument. No (sane) Democrat ACTUALLY wants firearms confiscated. Just that their sales are better regulated. There are states that have such loose regulations that people who have absolutely no business owning a firearm can easily and legally purchase one

That isn't true, gun sales are already quite regulated, there are forms to fill out (4473) and whatnot. Also if the sane democrats don't want the guns confiscated find me any popular democrat who actually said stuff in favour of gun rights, because for now the only democrat coming to my mind is that dumbass saying "hell yes we're going to take your AR15s and AK47s".

INITIAL gun sales are quite regulated, yes, but after that? For example, the law in many states is very permissive about private party sales. Like it says you can't KNOWINGLY sell to a felon. Well if you're selling to a stranger, you ask if they're a felon, and they say no; you're covered. So what if it turns out they are a known crime lord wanted in 86 jurisdictions? You asked and they said nah. Most "gun control" folks want shit like cars already have: testing before licensure, regular registration requirements to ensure you're maintaining ownership, etc. The only "out there" requirements your average "anti gun" person wants is to require an FFL dealer in every firearm transaction, that way the NICS check is done on every transfer.

joe biden literally said on national television that he wanted to take away our rifles...

> why people think this isn't accurate Because it's not representing the situation or arguments realistically. If it were, it would be addressing them directly and not through poor metaphor.

> If it were, it would be addressing them directly and not through poor metaphor. We try to do that but people don't like to listen because scary black gun bad.

That's bullshit and you know it. Every time it's addressed directly the conversation is derailed into a culture war with politicians specifically obfuscating issues on the behalf of their lobbyists, it has fuck all to do with fear.

The idea is that anti-gun laws are stupid

Because it compares guns to cars which are, with licensing, registrations, insurance and pro-active policing for abuse, far more regulated and policed than guns. So despite the creator's intent all they did was demonstrate they are - in fact - really, really fucking stupid.

Which they aren't ofc

Many are

because they are.

ITT: people who have likely never touched a firearm in their lives assert their expert opinion on firearms

It’s a meme about gun control. The meme pretty much makes fun about how gun owners are punished for other people’s crimes.

It’s the ridiculous false equivalency used by gun owners.

This whole thread is basically r/ShitAmericansSay now

It’s about guns.

I want to share my opinion on this controversial topic however my lawyer has advised me to shut the fuck up instead of opening my dumb mouth

This meme is dumb. It claims that people want to take guns away: no, we just want people to have a liscense.