• Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Look, I wouldn’t mind having a gun personally, I get that they’re fun, but societally speaking, I am very fucking happy basically nobody has them here. Theoretically.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If that works for your locale and you personally, that’s great. No argument. It’s a complicated topic for sure.

      From a perspective here, unfortunately here in the U.S, they’re many times necessary for personal protection, especially out in the boonies, because the territory is just so dang BIG you simply can’t rely on a police service to protect you from skullduggery at all times. (And then, yeah, police are a contentious topic too lol…I digress)

      My only nudge with your comment was “Every gun owner on the Internet seems…”

      The vast majority of us are on the Internet, quiet, responsible, and really hope we’re never forced to sling lead at another human being, and we’re just as embarrassed as you are about the ones you’re talking about.

      If anything, those types’ out of control posturing and dangerous toddler antics will end in screwing us all over once they’ve “othered” every single potential ally the responsible folks could have had.

      I hope maybe in some way it can help you feel like the world is a little less crazy when people on “the other side of the issue” are all too happy to agree with you on how out of hand it’s all gotten.

      I think a huge core of it is that arms companies need to stay in business by putting more product in exponentially more hands every quarter, and they’ll use every astroturfing, lobbying, culture-warping trick in the book to create a never-ending “gun fandom.”

      That can’t be good for anybody.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Thanks for putting in the effort for a good reply.

        I think the way I see it is this:
        https://www.iflscience.com/an-artist-placed-goldfish-in-blenders-and-asked-visitors-to-turn-them-on-they-did-63638

        Briefly, artist put a live goldfish in a blender as an art exhibition, connects blender to a big red button for any attendee to press. If they want. They did.

        The thought being, sooner or later, it doesn’t matter, given time, some bumfuck is going to press it. And they did. Plenty of people did (I think all the goldfish died, there were ten blenders like this, I think the artist even knew that 1 wouldn’t be enough and that 10 might perhaps drive the point home even more).

        If you give people the option to select between life and death for someone else, people are going to die, a lot. It doesn’t matter that it was perhaps one in five hundred who pressed the button for whatever reason, the fish still got massacred.

        You get what I’m saying?