• CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    America, can we stop it with the guns and violence?

    I get the idea of wanting to defend oneself, but that ultimately means a shootout. It’s hardly going to matter who shot the first bullet in the history books. The far right are also going to arm themselves when they see other people arming themselves. And it’s only going to ‘prove them right’ in their eyes.

    Do I have a better solution, no. But more mass shootings isn’t going to be the answer. And it’s only going to take one shootout before it’s used in a legal sense against people. And guns aren’t going to be what’s made illegal in the United States, especially with a republican-controlled government…

    • CafeFrog@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You could make that same argument to the countries neighboring Nazi Germany.

      We have examples in history of what happens to unarmed people when fascists take over and few fight back, and it does nothing to quell the fascist’s efforts or ‘fears’. We also have examples of armed people fighting back, like the leftists in the Spanish Civil war. Their defeat was not a given, and they made the fascists work bloody hard for it. The alternative would’ve been the leftists having to blend in or be disappeared/killed, or they could’ve left everything and fled. The less you fight them, the stronger they become, until they become too big to run from or ignore.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The far right have already armed themselves. Pacifists just end up at the bottom of the mass grave.

      As long as you have no better solution, then defending oneself is on the table. Nobody is talking about mass shootings, but when people are getting beaten up in the streets because the emboldened nazis are walking around feeling their oats, then maybe their intended victims should be given a chance to stay alive, even if it conflicts with your morals. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I get the idea of wanting to defend oneself, but that ultimately means a shootout.

      Study a concept called “deterrence”. It’ll blow your mind.

      It’s hardly going to matter who shot the first bullet in the history books.

      Generally speaking whoever shoots first lives while the other one dies. Above statement makes no sense?

      The far right

      Admit it. You only refer to “the far right” and never “the right”.

      are also going to arm themselves when they see other people arming themselves

      We’re already armed, in response to the other people who’ve been arming themselves for thousands of years. The world being a dangerous place is not something we are just discovering now.

      Do I have a better solution, no.

      Awareness is always a good first step to growth

      But more mass shootings isn’t going to be the answer.

      Buying a gun does not cause maas shootings to happen.

      And it’s only going to take one shootout before it’s used in a legal sense against people.

      ?? explain

      And guns aren’t going to be what’s made illegal in the United States, especially with a republican-controlled government…

      You guessed it. We republicans are going to make women illegal. Such clear headed insight on your part

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t like it, but we’ve made a fucked up situation. Likely the only way we get the momentum to fix it is if things get bad enough though, which I’m not encouraging just pointing out that a large segment of our society has a stupid concept of gun rights which isn’t actually in the constitution.