Current Events > If being pro-gun is "macho" then why are so many of them so whiny?

(+) Yeah! (+)

scar the 1 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

This is a false premise.

Being pro-gun isn't "macho", the people who founded this country thought that citizens should have gun rights, and this country was founded on that idea, among others.

The people who founded this country also thought women were property, so they fall a little bit outside of today's standards of machismo

Still doesn't change the fact that it's a mentality that doesn't exist among people that are for the right to bare arms. It's only used by people who are opposed.
---

The more interesting argument is if assault weapons should be sold any longer.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

The more interesting argument is if assault weapons should be sold any longer.

There is no such thing as assault weapons. It's a buzzword created by hoplophobes just like "common sense gun laws."
---

Herugrim posted...

Here we go!
Gun violence is at an all-time low in the united states. The epidemic you're referring to doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#List_of_mass_shootings_(2013-present

Seems pretty bad to me

"Fix this or we take your rights away?"

See how misrepresentation works? The idea that people will stop killing each other without firearms is ridiculous. Like crime doesn't exist in the UK or Australia, where guns are illegal.

Nobody is saying take your rights away. You have a right to arms, not arms without background check the day you show up when you are 18 years old and a repeat violent criminal.

And gun crime is INSANELY lower in UK or Australia, you are proving my point for me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html

No, clearly you don't get it. The Right to bare arms and for civilians to be able to legally organize a well-maintained militia was integrated into the constitution to give us a defense against a potentially tyrannical government, so we wouldn't lose our other rights like free speech or the right to privacy.

And they can still do that, just not people with a history of violent crimes and people have to do a universal background check. You can still play mr soldier against a government that has no interest in taking your houses and with the added benefit that mass shootings go way down!

Also people who support the second amendment don't think guns are 'macho'. That comes from people that want to repeal the amendment, insisting that firearms are a phallic symbol that have nothing to do with personal protection (including the ability to protect our liberties).

You need to grow up, kid. The adult world is more complicated than your liberal arts campus.

You claim firearms have nothing to do with a smug bravado thing and then end your next sentence with a smug bravado line.

I can't wrap my head around how you can be so invested in this to not care about solutions that could save lives and risk effectively nothing. That is the definition of insecurity. Being so unwilling to hear something that could literally save hundreds of lives that you don't even entertain the thought because it risks your pride.
---

GregShmedley posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Herugrim posted...

You need to grow up, kid. The adult world is more complicated than your liberal arts campus.

Only someone insecure would end with a snobby remark like that.

Weird how that's where you have a problem and yet are silent here.

joe40001 posted...

We get it, you love shooting your fucking quail and having a big metal dick that you could murder obama with if he ever invaded your house, but the fucking adults would really love to do something about all these innocent people getting murdered all the fucking time so unless you have a goddamn solution or a goddamn thing you are willing to try, get the fuck out of the way and let others try something.

joe40001 posted...

I don't understand how the sane among us have just given up because the pro-gun people whine so much. They don't even make arguments. They just whine.

What's funny is this topic is nothing but dishonest whining from the TC. Perrrrty sure this is a gimmick topic.

It's honest, and it's me being insulting, because I'm so sick of people who would rather have hundreds more people die in mass shootings than risk some additional paperwork or any element of their pride.

I don't have a lot of respect for such people. And yes, for all their self-professed confidence and security they don't seem generally capable of having a honest objective discussion about solutions to the mass shooting issue.

If you and I have big disagreements on a movie, that's fine, we can rabidly disagree and maintain respect, but if you are really willing to let tons of people die rather than take the slightest bit of introspection towards potential solutions, that is much harder to have respect for.
---

GregShmedley posted...

joe40001 posted...

You claim firearms have nothing to do with a smug bravado thing and then end your next sentence with a smug bravado line.

He told you to grow up...you compared guns to a big metal penis. Shut the fuck up lol.

People defend their any perceived threat against their guns as if it's a threat to their manhood. This isn't news.

Sure, I could phrase things kinder, if people's delicate sensibilities need protecting, but I'm really low on patience towards people who prioritize avoiding the smallest bit of bureaucracy over the lives of others.

I'm getting too worked up and my anger probably isn't serving my point anymore. So I think I'll stop

But please, anybody who is against all forms of gun reform. For the love of god, look at the facts: Other countries have implemented similar things, their gun violence is WAY WAY WAY down compared to ours, most experts who study this for a living argue that Universal background checks and bans to gun ownership for violent offenders would make a big positive difference, neither of those things threaten your "rights". So could you just let your ego/pride sit on the sidelines for just a second and consider that MAYBE allowing such things to happen could save a lot of innocent lives at very little cost to you?

Hell, if making fun of me is something you want I'll through that in too, you can make fun of me freely, but just please open yourself to the possibility to try to make the problem better.
---

Herugrim posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

This is a false premise.

Being pro-gun isn't "macho", the people who founded this country thought that citizens should have gun rights, and this country was founded on that idea, among others.

The people who founded this country also thought women were property, so they fall a little bit outside of today's standards of machismo

Still doesn't change the fact that it's a mentality that doesn't exist among people that are for the right to bare arms. It's only used by people who are opposed.

Not sure if you're literally blind or dishonest. Like, who do you think the NRA are trying to appeal to? Or Republicans like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TJS7cleb7E" data-time="
?
---

Um who is saying gun ownership is macho?
---

joe40001 posted...

Like we have an epidemic of mass shootings

Not really

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent

How many times per year does a gun go off in an American school?

We should know. But we don't.

This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, "nearly 240 schools ... reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting." The number is far higher than most other estimates.

But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government's Civil Rights Data Collection.

We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.

In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn't confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn't meet the government's parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn't respond to our inquiries.

"When we're talking about such an important and rare event, [this] amount of data error could be very meaningful," says Deborah Temkin, a researcher and program director at Child Trends.
---