• Shortstack@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re not wrong and I mainly don’t disagree with you.

    But look at it from another perspective.

    Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.

    Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.

    My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that’s not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn’t sit well with me.

    • Digitalprimate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree and think the core problem of too many guns could be solved the same way other Anglophone nations did it.

      However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.

      • tacosplease@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m open to a solution, but it’s unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.

        We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn’t though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Demanding people give up their guns would just cause an open civil war. The solution that worked in other countries wouldn’t work here because the ideology is different.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I’m not sure we would be in this situation now.

        I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I’m simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.

        However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.

        Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.

    • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean… I kind of get where you’re coming from but “with impunity”? The shooter is now dead. If they weren’t dead they’d be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The trouble with this is that like @Liz@midwest.social pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.

        That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.