i found this picture of guillermo del toro with a gun and i don’t have a good caption so i am passing it on to you, the consumer
this is my oc gunillermo del toro
More you might like
The reason the conservatives do not support a gun registry, which would otherwise be an entirely sane idea, is that it’s the first step in “round up all the guns.”
There is no “round up all the guns” without first knowing their locations. Going house to house doing a deep search is prohibitively expensive.
They’ll just hide them. There are so many guns in this country, the round-up won’t even get half of them.
Any event dramatic enough to make the current crop of conservatives agree to round up all the guns isn’t going to be small, either, and most of them would involve said conservatives not wanting to give up their guns.
Mass shootings? Mass shootings by Muslims? Not enough. The response has been to want guns even more in order to shoot back.
You’d need something bordering on an ethnic armed insurrection, at which point many of them would want guns to fight against the ethnic armed insurrection.
It’s true that this hasn’t always been the case in the past, that previous gun control laws were deliberately racist.
However, the clock ticks Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. Do the GOPpers trust that the following Democratic President will have their best interests in mind once the guns are gone? I’m guessing no.
So the kind of event we’re talking about, the one that convinces the current conservatives in this country to yield their firearms (and not bury them in boxes in their back yards) is likely one where Leftists start talking about how they need guns…
Trump’s election made a lot of leftists start talking about how they need guns, although I suspect that group of leftists wasn’t the same group that strongly cared about gun control previously.
Grotesque fantasies about how leftist radicals could “turn gun-ism upon itself” are definitely a thing that exists.
Some forms of the unpleasant “urban containment doctrine” would benefit from some kinds of “gun control” though the idea would be to deny guns from enemies.
So….it’s claimed that it’s really really easy to get a gun from a shady source, that laws against guns wouldn’t matter.
Why then don’t those people just deny they have guns an go buy from those so easy to get criminal access places, if gun control did get passed? That’s exactly the fantasy they have in their “I need my gun against the gubmint” rhetoric.
Well it’s claimed that it isn’t that difficult to buy a black market gun in Europe, but then I’m not the black market type and neither are most of them. But where this falls apart from their perspective should be obvious - why go buy a gun on the black market and depend on the black market when you can just not have gun control? They don’t have criminal contacts, they don’t want criminal contacts, and all those guns have to come from somewhere anyway so what benefit do they get out of it?
And what’s more, the kinds of people that bring up gun control after every mass shooting insist that the number of deaths from terrorist attacks is too small to justify stricter limits on immigration, even though mass shootings, the kind that make the news, are also fairly rare on a per-capita basis, and so it makes sense from their perspective to guess another motive is at work.
I was aiming for “if it’s not going to affect it then why bother”, the same reasoning they use to argue against gun control. They say it won’t affect mass shootings, they say it won’t affect availability, it won’t affect anything. If it won’t affect anything, then we can do it.
Idk Europe, but the shootings in USA are like 98% born citizens, white guys. Not immigrants, not even POC citizens.
Because they could still get arrested or hassled, they explicitly say it will only effect legal gun owners. They say “if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns” repeatedly, frequently. It’s like their official slogan.
You are way off on those stats, dude. Waaaaaay off. Setting aside that even PoC mass shooters make the news sometimes, like the VT shooter, the racial rates for shootings are far more balanced than 98% white guys. I’m not at a computer, so I can’t fetch the stats for you, but if someone told you it was 98% white they were either lying or exaggerating. And if you think America is 98% white, then frankly you don’t live here.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a badder guy with a gun.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a bad guy with a bigger gun.
The only thing that can stop a nice guy with a gun is the friend zone, apparently.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is agents of the state monopoly on legitimate violence, who have legitimate-violence-guns.
If guns are outlawed by the state asserting a monopoly on the use of force, then only outlaws and agents of the state whose sworn duty is to oppose outlaws will have guns.
If states are outlawed, only outlaws will have states
You’re memeing, but, like, Anarchism.
That’s sort-of a nonsequitor, because the incentives and practical considerations around slavery are very different from those around guns.
One of the chief questions is - is your government strong enough to actually prevent people from importing black market firearms in notable numbers? Some governments are, such as Japan and the UK, which are both islands. Some governments have large numbers of historical firearms that could not all be removed, and lengthy borders, such as the US.
If you can’t reasonably get enough firearms out, then gun control looks worse. If you can, then it looks better.
The presence of firearms acts as a force multiplier for criminal activity, but also for civilian defense, however the key elements of gun-based combat center around cover, movement, surprise, and so on, so attacking is easier than defending. This isn’t a total wash, but the effects are unclear. It also offers the opportunity for a decentralization of power and probably makes what conflicts do erupt more likely to end in death.
A lot of this also depends on what’s meant by “gun control,” for instance banning fully-automatic weapons vs all handguns.
Actually, let me just link the SSC on this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/
One of the things Scott points out is that we kill as many people per capita in this country without guns as the Europeans do in total, before we even add in the murders with guns.
For my part, I note that the Rightful Caliph of our community pointed out that American non-gun homicides are almost as high as total homicides in Western European countries, before you even add in the gun crime.
We have a lot of work to do in this country. I have some ideas, which some of you know if you’ve been reading this blog.
Guns laws themselves often seem relatively uncorrelated with crime.
And, over time, I’ve been shifting in favor of the second amendment, whereas in the past I wasn’t so sure about it.
When people are actually being rounded up and sent to concentration camps in this year of 2017 to be beaten and killed for who they are but that doesn’t matter because a fast food chain founded by people with different views than yourself has opened near your college campus
Honestly it would do fags some good to be sent to a filthy disgusting concentration camp for a while; we remove a problem from society AND they get to experience the real oppression they obviously crave so much.
are you ok
tbh I agree with the princess.
youd be the first to the camps tho
Wanna know the fun part? No one knows how I swing. I don’t keep it a secret but I dress and act like any normal person, not a walking std vial. So no I wouldn’t thivus. You on the other hand… hohoho
wow rude
ugggggggh
you can’t have military units composed entirely of fashionably-dressed ultranationalist gay men marching in beautiful parade formation as their banners fly proudly overhead if you don’t have any homosexuals
ffs, no appeciation of aesthetics by gunny here, barely even D-level supervillain tier. disgusting.
American needs gun control, seriously. Omg, please stay safe if you’re in Cleveland!!!
Why is it obvious?
Gun control? Stay safe? How does one stay safe with no guns, hide?
@sharingan-rasengan-chidori Hi there. My name is Red and I was shot at in Cleveland with illegally obtained guns back nearly 10 years ago. There was no law then or now that would have prevented the thugs that unloaded several rounds at me into the cars I was near or into the brick wall behind me. The guys they had were illegally obtained.
Criminals don’t care about laws. The people that are shooting other people aren’t the ones that follow laws.
Gun control does not work.
If gun control works then how come the UK still has a death toll for death via gun
If guns make you safe then why does the USA have such a hilariously high crime rate
Because gun free zones are where most crime happens
fire engines are (((accidentally))) nearby wherever there’s fire
What?
I’m saying that rain is caused by all the wet roads.
The USA actually has a high crime rate even after you remove the gun crime, relative to europe/jp etc. Some other countries have less crime with similar amounts of guns.
Gun Confiscation Compromise Proposals
1. Guns are indeed totally banned. Swords are now completely legal, and are normalized to the point that if many private-public places want to prohibit them (and don’t have excellent security plus lockers for you to use) they would be considered the weird ones.
2. Eliminationist gun buyback program, at the actual market value, which starts off fairly low and eventually rises towards “have me set up to be a rich man for life” as supply falls below demand and fewer and fewer people are willing to give up assets they know they would never be legally allowed to replace.
3. Guns are indeed totally banned for ordinary people. Everybody now is allowed to hire armed private security with special licensing and regulation – people with said armed private security licences make up around 20 percent of the population, with a pretty even cross section between race, class, etc.
(one of the biggest talking points in the gun lobby is the hypocrisy of politicians who are protected by security, though I suspect that they overestimate how heavy security for politicians below the level of the President is.)
4. The federal government forms the American Home Guard. All gun owners are required to be members in good standing of this national militia, which can be called on in the event of either natural disaster or the invasion of the American homeland. After an initial training period of six weeks and clearance for membership, there is one week of follow-up training each year with a payment of $500-800 as compensation. Membership status must be renewed each year. Guns may be owned and traded, but not in unsupervised personal possession (thus at gun storage facilities) if no valid membership is held.
Various things, including crimes, can disqualify future membership in the Home Guard. Members receive a card that they can carry with them for law enforcement to see when inspecting guns, each year.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“
I actually really like #4. Done properly, most of the gun people I know would totally love being part of the American Home Guard.
Mitigated Chaos
known for Lack of Familiarity with Soviet History, Accidentally Turning Gun Ownership in America into a Heavily-Armed Boy Scout Troop
Gun Confiscation Compromise Proposals
1. Guns are indeed totally banned. Swords are now completely legal, and are normalized to the point that if many private-public places want to prohibit them (and don’t have excellent security plus lockers for you to use) they would be considered the weird ones.
2. Eliminationist gun buyback program, at the actual market value, which starts off fairly low and eventually rises towards “have me set up to be a rich man for life” as supply falls below demand and fewer and fewer people are willing to give up assets they know they would never be legally allowed to replace.
3. Guns are indeed totally banned for ordinary people. Everybody now is allowed to hire armed private security with special licensing and regulation – people with said armed private security licences make up around 20 percent of the population, with a pretty even cross section between race, class, etc.
(one of the biggest talking points in the gun lobby is the hypocrisy of politicians who are protected by security, though I suspect that they overestimate how heavy security for politicians below the level of the President is.)
4. The federal government forms the American Home Guard. All gun owners are required to be members in good standing of this national militia, which can be called on in the event of either natural disaster or the invasion of the American homeland. After an initial training period of six weeks and clearance for membership, there is one week of follow-up training each year with a payment of $500-800 as compensation. Membership status must be renewed each year. Guns may be owned and traded, but not in unsupervised personal possession (thus at gun storage facilities) if no valid membership is held.
Various things, including crimes, can disqualify future membership in the Home Guard. Members receive a card that they can carry with them for law enforcement to see when inspecting guns, each year.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The reason the conservatives do not support a gun registry, which would otherwise be an entirely sane idea, is that it’s the first step in “round up all the guns.”
There is no “round up all the guns” without first knowing their locations. Going house to house doing a deep search is prohibitively expensive.
They’ll just hide them. There are so many guns in this country, the round-up won’t even get half of them.
Any event dramatic enough to make the current crop of conservatives agree to round up all the guns isn’t going to be small, either, and most of them would involve said conservatives not wanting to give up their guns.
Mass shootings? Mass shootings by Muslims? Not enough. The response has been to want guns even more in order to shoot back.
You’d need something bordering on an ethnic armed insurrection, at which point many of them would want guns to fight against the ethnic armed insurrection.
It’s true that this hasn’t always been the case in the past, that previous gun control laws were deliberately racist.
However, the clock ticks Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. Do the GOPpers trust that the following Democratic President will have their best interests in mind once the guns are gone? I’m guessing no.
So the kind of event we’re talking about, the one that convinces the current conservatives in this country to yield their firearms (and not bury them in boxes in their back yards) is likely one where Leftists start talking about how they need guns…
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.