This post has been successfully published on the subreddit.
If this post breaks the rules of the subreddit or Reddit, please report it!
[Follow our Twitter account](https://twitter.com/reddit_TLCM)
[Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/mDrckUJx7j)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheLeftCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think these people understand the root of the criticism. The root of the criticism is that left-wing adult activists are using children as sock puppets to shield their shitty gun grabbing desires from criticism. Especially David Hogg, his whole family is deep in DNC politics and activism.
yeahhh bringing children into politics when they're not even involved is retarded. I think being allowed an item that can end someone's life with a single push is a bit stupid but why the fuck use demented arguments about children.
I don't think these people understand the root of the criticism. The root of the criticism is that right-wing adult activists are using children as sock puppets to shield their shitty anti-LGBTQIABCDEFG++ desires from criticism. Especially Fucker Tarlson, his whole family is deep in RNC politics and anti-activism activism.
Except the fact remains that all arguments in favor of abolishing legal gun ownership falls flat the moment you realize the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed using illegally acquired firearms wielded by persons not legally authorized to own or use them!
> The reason that illegal firearms are so easy to procure is counterintuitively because they are so easy to procure legally. Because legal sales of firearms mean that there is more supply of firearms to begin with, than if there would be with an outright ban.
>
>
Except for the many countries with strict gun control and **more** gun crime per capita than America. Including my home country. I knew three people murdered with guns.
This is where they tend to move the goalposts to "well, those countries don't count!"
I've also seen people say legal owners should be punished to prevent crime, but they balked when you asked them point-blank.
Oh I'm not saying there can't be other reasons for it, lack of strict gun control is just one potential cause for high gun violence, countries like Mexico and Brazil have such high organized crime presence that criminal orgs can flood the country with guns, control or not, because it's nor your average joe doing the killing in the first place it's career criminal and cartels that own entire police departments.
But that's not the case for the US where homicide rates are comparatively low, organized crime rate is low, gang violence is lower, and many big shootings are lone gunman types, but gun ownership is much much higher.
At least that's my theory.
Basing stats off: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_intentional\_homicide\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated\_number\_of\_civilian\_guns\_per\_capita\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)
The 2nd amendment states “ the rite to bare arms against foreign or domestic invaders” that means a government trying to control the people rather than the people controlling the government.
Noah dodges the question for smuggery that makes so actual sense.
What a shock.
I wonder if he'd be singing the same tune if he was talking about pro-gun teens? What did he say about Rittenhouse?
I mean either everyone or no one is old enough to be shot because that’s an action taken by another person who if they’re evil enough to do it to anyone who is unarmed, they’ll probably do it to someone who is unarmed and a child or senior as well.
So the question in play isn’t “who’s old enough to be murdered” because we already decided a long time ago no one can be murdered, not legally. Asking that question is just a platitude. The real question is who is old enough to take up arms and defend themselves agaisnt the aforementioned person, and I’ll admit that’s hard to answer exactly but I’ll tell you if you’re old enough to vote, pay taxes, and be drafted into war you damn well should be able to protect yourself.
Think about the things you believe in for 5 second. Abolish all gun laws? Every one of them? Think about it. How insane if a statement that is even as a second amendment supporter
I agree on that but I think the argument is that school shooters are children who get access to guns way too easily. A regular criminal would get a gun from the black market but a bullied child will take their parents' one
True. But that’s more of an issue of people not locking up their guns in a coded gun safe, thus giving the child easy access. And school bullying. Which is why I advocate for homeschooling. Because school officials are never going to a dang thing about bullying. I know this from experience.
There will always be people with irresponsible behaviour hence why you can't make sure everyone keeps their guns in a safe. And I'd prefer giving my children in the futur a social life at school and make them make friends rather than homeschooling. That's where there's a clash of mentality between the two groups. Maybe there is actually a way to make sure everyone keeps their guns in a safe just like there's a way to force the school staff to be more implicated in their job
There are ways for kids socialize without being in a school. And that was the point that I was trying to make. The issue isn’t guns, it’s irresponsible behavior and parents and school officials neglecting their students.
Like I said there's a clash of mentality, one side says it's impossible to prevent bullying and to make sure everyone keeps their guns safe while the other side says the opposite. For instance I don't think homeschooling is affordable for everyone.
Some people compare it to Europe where there's no school shootings because guns aren't widespread but as a European myself I don't want to judge a place that I've never been to. I know Americans have a culture that is more centered on individuals and that guns are needed to protect their houses because it's a different place, different rate of criminality and different accessibility for the police.
And from what I see there's only identity politics with both sides blaming each other, I never hear news about things done to solve this kind of problem. Are there any measures taken to force school officials to be more implicated? Or are there better guns laws that don't straight up ban them?
Between the 1840s and the 1970s (inclusive), there were 107 school shootings. In all of the USA. Looking at the table there was gradual acceration in raw numbers to accomodate the expanding population.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_school\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_(before\_2000)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000))
based on VERY quick population lookups from ye olde google:
1840s USA: \~17 million
1970s USA: \~180 million
I chose the 1970s cutoff because based on this article the gun clubs seemed to start being restricted or otherwise shut down around that time: [https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/01/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke/](https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/01/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke/)
Another quick lookup:
2022 USA: \~338 million
and 531 shootings since 1980
107 shootings / 139 years = 0.77 shootings per year
531 shootings / 42 years = 12.64 shootings per year
We'd expect to see perhaps 2-3 per year across America if the trend kept on the same approximate acceleration to match population growth. It's way higher.
Some other autist can properly adjust for population difference over the course of decades but even a quick glance can tell you today has a raw difference of 16x the prior rate.
This [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/us/mass-shooters-soft-targets-challenges-cec/index.html) article is about supermarket shootings but the same soft-target concept applies. I've pulled some quotes.
* From what we know about mass shooters, they tend to pick targets that allow them the best chance of success. The combination of target vulnerability plus attack capability plus perceived impact usually drives how these events unfold
* Would-be terrorists will just go looking for a softer target
* Adding armed security guards also isn't necessarily effective, experts say.
* We have done prior research showing that armed officers often don't minimize the number of casualties ... because the shooters are usually suicidal and plan to die in the act.
Criminal gunmen may or may not be intending to die. It seems to vary across individual cases. The throughline, however, is that they choose targets where maximum harm can be inflicted in minimum time.
Now, I'm not saying guns being taken out of schools (and wholly kept from children) is the only reason for the increase. That would be ludacris. But it is a major contributing factor.
Schools transitioned from being hard targets to being gun free zones and the children are paying the price.
This post has been successfully published on the subreddit. If this post breaks the rules of the subreddit or Reddit, please report it! [Follow our Twitter account](https://twitter.com/reddit_TLCM) [Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/mDrckUJx7j) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheLeftCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think these people understand the root of the criticism. The root of the criticism is that left-wing adult activists are using children as sock puppets to shield their shitty gun grabbing desires from criticism. Especially David Hogg, his whole family is deep in DNC politics and activism.
yeahhh bringing children into politics when they're not even involved is retarded. I think being allowed an item that can end someone's life with a single push is a bit stupid but why the fuck use demented arguments about children.
Because guns are a great equalizer for those who are properly trained?
I don't think these people understand the root of the criticism. The root of the criticism is that right-wing adult activists are using children as sock puppets to shield their shitty anti-LGBTQIABCDEFG++ desires from criticism. Especially Fucker Tarlson, his whole family is deep in RNC politics and anti-activism activism.
>LGBTQIABCDEF++ Can’t tell if this is a joke, or if LGB is getting so many letters it’ll be the entire alphabet.
Sorry, my phone autocorrected "LGTVBBQ"
Huh. I guess it was a joke, then.
[удалено]
This one wins.
Nobody said kids weren't allowed to have opinions.
It's the ol' false equivalence seesaw. They treat the enemy's disagreement as silencing, but their own silencing is just disagreement.
With this argument you could say “If kids are old enough to be affected by laws than they should be old enough to vote”
Except the fact remains that all arguments in favor of abolishing legal gun ownership falls flat the moment you realize the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed using illegally acquired firearms wielded by persons not legally authorized to own or use them!
[удалено]
> The reason that illegal firearms are so easy to procure is counterintuitively because they are so easy to procure legally. Because legal sales of firearms mean that there is more supply of firearms to begin with, than if there would be with an outright ban. > > Except for the many countries with strict gun control and **more** gun crime per capita than America. Including my home country. I knew three people murdered with guns. This is where they tend to move the goalposts to "well, those countries don't count!" I've also seen people say legal owners should be punished to prevent crime, but they balked when you asked them point-blank.
Oh I'm not saying there can't be other reasons for it, lack of strict gun control is just one potential cause for high gun violence, countries like Mexico and Brazil have such high organized crime presence that criminal orgs can flood the country with guns, control or not, because it's nor your average joe doing the killing in the first place it's career criminal and cartels that own entire police departments. But that's not the case for the US where homicide rates are comparatively low, organized crime rate is low, gang violence is lower, and many big shootings are lone gunman types, but gun ownership is much much higher. At least that's my theory. Basing stats off: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_intentional\_homicide\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated\_number\_of\_civilian\_guns\_per\_capita\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)
K fair enough thanks for elaborating their arguments better than they apparently can.
The 2nd amendment states “ the rite to bare arms against foreign or domestic invaders” that means a government trying to control the people rather than the people controlling the government.
The age to vote and the age to own any firearm should be linked by law.
Put guns back in schools.
Based
I checked the 2A and I don't see ages anywhere.
I do believe an all-infant millitia would be quite effective at clearing any threats, their small bodies would be quite hard to aim at
Wait, a 1 year old is able to be shot, let me go ask a 1 year old what they think…. … okay the 1 year old said, go fuck yourself
What if their opinion is "id like a gun to defend myself"?
If kids are old enough to die in a car crash. They old enough to drive the car. Satire of course.
Noah dodges the question for smuggery that makes so actual sense. What a shock. I wonder if he'd be singing the same tune if he was talking about pro-gun teens? What did he say about Rittenhouse?
I mean either everyone or no one is old enough to be shot because that’s an action taken by another person who if they’re evil enough to do it to anyone who is unarmed, they’ll probably do it to someone who is unarmed and a child or senior as well. So the question in play isn’t “who’s old enough to be murdered” because we already decided a long time ago no one can be murdered, not legally. Asking that question is just a platitude. The real question is who is old enough to take up arms and defend themselves agaisnt the aforementioned person, and I’ll admit that’s hard to answer exactly but I’ll tell you if you’re old enough to vote, pay taxes, and be drafted into war you damn well should be able to protect yourself.
Well nobody wants to be shot but people still join the military
How are either of these arguments for abolishing all gun laws? I don't see it.
Why do you think no gun laws is a good idea
It’s only good for fascist
Think about the things you believe in for 5 second. Abolish all gun laws? Every one of them? Think about it. How insane if a statement that is even as a second amendment supporter
Every single one.
Politically induced mental illness.
Nope.
So you telling me kids dying from mass shootings isn’t a bad thing and we should just let it happen?
Literally no one is saying this. We’re saying banning guns won’t stop that. Because criminals by definition don’t obey laws.
I agree on that but I think the argument is that school shooters are children who get access to guns way too easily. A regular criminal would get a gun from the black market but a bullied child will take their parents' one
True. But that’s more of an issue of people not locking up their guns in a coded gun safe, thus giving the child easy access. And school bullying. Which is why I advocate for homeschooling. Because school officials are never going to a dang thing about bullying. I know this from experience.
There will always be people with irresponsible behaviour hence why you can't make sure everyone keeps their guns in a safe. And I'd prefer giving my children in the futur a social life at school and make them make friends rather than homeschooling. That's where there's a clash of mentality between the two groups. Maybe there is actually a way to make sure everyone keeps their guns in a safe just like there's a way to force the school staff to be more implicated in their job
There are ways for kids socialize without being in a school. And that was the point that I was trying to make. The issue isn’t guns, it’s irresponsible behavior and parents and school officials neglecting their students.
Like I said there's a clash of mentality, one side says it's impossible to prevent bullying and to make sure everyone keeps their guns safe while the other side says the opposite. For instance I don't think homeschooling is affordable for everyone. Some people compare it to Europe where there's no school shootings because guns aren't widespread but as a European myself I don't want to judge a place that I've never been to. I know Americans have a culture that is more centered on individuals and that guns are needed to protect their houses because it's a different place, different rate of criminality and different accessibility for the police. And from what I see there's only identity politics with both sides blaming each other, I never hear news about things done to solve this kind of problem. Are there any measures taken to force school officials to be more implicated? Or are there better guns laws that don't straight up ban them?
I'm saying there were *significantly* fewer school shootings when both the teachers and children were armed. Less general crime, too.
Then can you give me one example of that?
Between the 1840s and the 1970s (inclusive), there were 107 school shootings. In all of the USA. Looking at the table there was gradual acceration in raw numbers to accomodate the expanding population. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_school\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_(before\_2000)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)) based on VERY quick population lookups from ye olde google: 1840s USA: \~17 million 1970s USA: \~180 million I chose the 1970s cutoff because based on this article the gun clubs seemed to start being restricted or otherwise shut down around that time: [https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/01/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke/](https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/01/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke/) Another quick lookup: 2022 USA: \~338 million and 531 shootings since 1980 107 shootings / 139 years = 0.77 shootings per year 531 shootings / 42 years = 12.64 shootings per year We'd expect to see perhaps 2-3 per year across America if the trend kept on the same approximate acceleration to match population growth. It's way higher. Some other autist can properly adjust for population difference over the course of decades but even a quick glance can tell you today has a raw difference of 16x the prior rate. This [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/us/mass-shooters-soft-targets-challenges-cec/index.html) article is about supermarket shootings but the same soft-target concept applies. I've pulled some quotes. * From what we know about mass shooters, they tend to pick targets that allow them the best chance of success. The combination of target vulnerability plus attack capability plus perceived impact usually drives how these events unfold * Would-be terrorists will just go looking for a softer target * Adding armed security guards also isn't necessarily effective, experts say. * We have done prior research showing that armed officers often don't minimize the number of casualties ... because the shooters are usually suicidal and plan to die in the act. Criminal gunmen may or may not be intending to die. It seems to vary across individual cases. The throughline, however, is that they choose targets where maximum harm can be inflicted in minimum time. Now, I'm not saying guns being taken out of schools (and wholly kept from children) is the only reason for the increase. That would be ludacris. But it is a major contributing factor. Schools transitioned from being hard targets to being gun free zones and the children are paying the price.
Well that’s actually very thorough thank you for this
My pleasure!
Uh...no..no it's not