this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
1435 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
9173 readers
1360 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t think the guns should be on the shelf to begin with.
Well, there's 400 million guns in all of the US and about 1/3rd of all households on the US have a gun on them. Keeping kids ignorant about guns when 1/3rd of them have one at their homes (not owned by them, mind you) is a recipe for accidents.
It is almost like we should do something about this.... I know, I know banning only works for Trans, Gays, Abortions, DEI, Woke, Mail in ballots, Refugees, Immigrants, Books, Drag Queens, Words, etc.
Tell me your brilliant plan about how to get rid of 400 million weapons and I'll listen to it, because the people who need to give up their guns won't sell them on buybacks.
Tell me the right's brilliant plan to get rid of everything I just mentioned.
Oh I get it, it is too big of a problem to take care of.
Pry my guns out of my cold dead hands and all that nonsense.
Just think if you were around during slavery. They are not going to give up their slaves! Lol
Do you have a serious question here or was this just rhetorical?
Feels like this is the same logic that is used to ban sex education - they shouldn’t have sex until marriage so you shouldn’t teach them about it. I accept that kids will have access to fully loaded genitals, so I want them to understand and respect the consequences and to be able to act responsibly.
As much as I would like firearm access to be restricted and regulated, I accept that in the world we live in they’re not going anywhere, anytime soon. I also think alcohol is deadly, both for the consumer and the people around them, but I’d rather teach my kid to drink responsibly than send them off to college unprepared; I’ve seen too many sheltered kids go fucking crazy once they’re out from their parent’s thumb.
I’ve always felt that harm reduction was an admirable thing. Accept and work with human nature instead of against it. I don’t want people shooting up heroin, but I support giving away free, clean needles to prevent even worse outcomes. Doesn’t mean I endorse or encourage the activity.
It was rhetorical! Not you, the other guy.
I mean I am not feeling the sex analogy at all.
Firearm restrictions already exist and work. We just need better ones. You know when you need a regulation? When it has become a problem. Clearly losing 2,500 children and 48,000 adults in one year to guns is a sign something must be done. But clearly we need to deal with trans people in our restrooms!
I am a big fan of thinking around issues so I am open to any ideas that can benefit both parties. There will always be a loser, the devil in the details is minimizing this for the greater good.
Totally agree with harm reduction. Believe it or not there are lots of good solutions to our problems especially if you are willing to entertain harm reduction. We can solve drug addiction, homelessness, gun violence, most crime, incarceration, hell just about everything.
I'm not saying it's too big of a problem, I'm asking what kind of idea you have. Because I would entertain any idea that doesn't result in the biggest string of police brutality incidents ever recorded in history, or is as effective on preventing cancer as a cigarrete filter.
Oh sure, we have thought up several ways. The best in my opinion is to require a combination of psych exams yearly, insurance, and a tax penalty for having more than x many.
This would use our existing system to deal with the problem monetarily.
As far as ending the proliferation this can be accomplished by allowing people to sue manufactures for producing unsafe products. There is no other tool responsible for thousand of child deaths a year and if there was and they didn't stop they would be sued out of existence.
Modern technology can also build a smart gun that won't kill its owner, family members, etc. An Igun if you will. The fact that we don't already have this shows that proper regulations have not been applied.
I have thought of tons of ways to deal with this for sure. It really is not hard, but people are very resistant to even logical solutions.
Your solutions all make sure that the only people that can afford to have guns are rich enough that they wouldn't need guns anyway. Smart guns? We don't even have cars that can drive themselves properly without violating a hundred traffic laws. Be more realistic.
Also your idea of suing manufacturers is also flawed. Nobody puts the responsibility of drunk drivers running people over on their F-150 on Ford. This just shows me you don't actually know what you're talking about.
People can't afford guns without money to begin with, even ammunition is expensive. Not really seeing your point about the rich. Although, I have some great solutions to that problem as well.
Having gun insurance is already used in several countries and is a great tool because riskier people can be charged more. Perhaps you have seen this with car insurance?
Psychological testing is common with many countries unlike the US system that uses an innocent until proven crazy approach. Apparently people need that one chance because? ( answer is: defense fantasies)
Every tool that is made that can cause injury has practical safety precautions built in. It is very common for cars to come to a stop to prevent collisions nowadays. Why can't a gun have additional safety features and more importantly why are they not required like a safety belt.
This would also be great because all other guns can now be outdated and considered unsafe. We could allow for some exemptions for legitimate historian collectors of course.
Manufactures would love it because they get a ton of new sales. See there are solutions were everyone is happy. But we all know you won't be.
Alright that was fun, back to reality
You do know Congress literally passed a law saying you can't sue gun manufacturers!? Yeah it was really fucked, but people have gotten around it by showing manufacturers of guns so completely disregarding safety and ethics that they can be sued anyways.
Of course in my imaginary scenario the law would be repealed and everyone would sue that has lost someone they love to gun violence and BAM they would all be outta business. That would be poetic and justice, but we don't get that in this world.
Don't feel to bad for the gun manufacturers though! I mean they have been doing things like still selling Glocks that can accept a switch when there is a safer model that cannot sold in Europe because of this specific reason. But hey, gun sales are more important than a few people's lives and HEY LOOK shoots off an entire Glock's extended clip in less than a second Wasn't that cool!
You are clearly arguing in bad faith from the very beginning. This was all rhetorical for you. You kind of act like a POS. You know that right?