• PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Impedes the rights of other to live? Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?

    Criminals, armed with guns bought legally, or without a background check or stolen from a “responsible gun owner” whose idea of safe storage was in the glovebox of their car.

    Rapists, like the domestic abusers who use their legal guns to threaten and intimidate their family, like the prominent Trump support that recently tried to execute his wife in the street.

    Murderers, like the 80% of mass shooters using legal firearms or the majority of the remaining 20% using the unsecured guns of a family member.

    But don’t worry guys, in 3 out of 100 mass shootings, a good guy will kill them after they’ve only killed 3 or 4 people. That’s only slightly worse than unarmed people!

    What’s really fucked in the head is that you haven’t even realised that most people aren’t like you and don’t throb in anticipation at the idea of killing someone.

    “If you don’t want to be raped, just use your cool gun to murder them before they murder you with their cool gun, replacing one trauma with another”.

    What a shithole of a place a pro-gun utopia is.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Unless you can grok the concept of a violent event that was prevented being significant, I don’t think you’re qualified to weigh in on the ethics of deterrence.