Anonymous #1 2w

There’s always ways to kill ppl if someone is motivated. Also criminals still get guns either way. From illegal imports, etc.

-3

Anonymous OP 2w

Im not even anti gun but that logic is flawed illegal gun imports? Why doesnt that happen in china japan all of europe austrialia the only countries that have issues with them are our neighbors because we manufacter most of them

10

Anonymous OP 2w

okay so if there’s always ways to kill people why would you give them the best way to kill them

16

Anonymous OP 2w

And yea a motivated person will find a way to kill someone but they aint gonna find a way to kill 30 as easily if they arent armed with military weaponry

15

Anonymous OP 2w

like if people are going to kill people regardless why would you allow them to kill people with the deadliest thing available

11

Anonymous #2 2w

I argue that it’s the most effective way for innocent people to defend themselves

-3

Anonymous #1 2w

Military weapons are fully automatic

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

Not all and full auto guns are legal dumbass

12

Anonymous OP 2w

well every time mass shootings happen you never see people defending themselves now do you?

15

Anonymous #3 2w

No abortion is safe. It always results in the termination of life

-13

Anonymous #2 2w

Probably because we aren’t arming teachers or providing security staff that we should at schools

-5

Anonymous OP 2w

Incorrect. An abortion that results in the termination of a fetus and the mother is unsafe. A termination of a fetus alone with medical equipment is inherently safe. Just because you’re viewpoints don’t match with abortion doesn’t mean that there isn’t a wrong and a right way to do it

15

Anonymous OP 2w

Teachers shouldn’t become soldiers and get shit pay on top of that. If you want teachers to be soldiers you need to pay them triple than the average salary now.

9

Anonymous #3 2w

Fetus is just the Latin word for offspring. The scientific consensus is that it is still a life.

-10

Anonymous #5 2w

Then put police officers there? These teachers are already willing to die for these kids. Why not give them a fighting chance. Also police officers get paid less than most teachers in my state so I don’t understand your salary claim or basis

-3

Anonymous OP 2w

"we will be safe from GUN violence" is what your post said but you switched to "theres always ways to kill ppl if someone is motivated" so which is it

18

Anonymous OP 2w

ok dude

15

Anonymous OP 2w

You just lied. There is no scientific consensus regarding “life”. Fetus is the Latin word for offspring but that still doesn’t mean any relevance towards the original claim about safety of abortion. Again, I ask for any literature backing your claims

25

Anonymous OP 2w

why put them in harms way at all? I mean, I’m not a teacher or anything, but I assume when you get licensed to teach it doesn’t come with a shooting class. the teachers are there to teach children, not shoot maniacs with ak47s

10

Anonymous #3 2w

It’s interesting you claimed there’s evidence showing that taking away guns reduces violent acts and you didn’t cite any information. Yet you demand literature from me

-8

Anonymous #2 2w

They are adults who are in charge of educating and protecting the children in their care. Why make it harder for them to protect children in the event of a shooting

-5

Anonymous OP 2w

why let the shooting happen at all. when you are willing to allow children to die at all for so called ‘freedom’ can you actually claim you care about life at all?

14

Anonymous OP 2w

There are already police officers in school. Maybe do the research if you actually care? Maybe realize every other first world country has gun control stricter than ours and shockingly also has less death per capita from guns? Why the fuck do you care about guns more than children. The number 1 cause of death in children in the US is homicide by guns.

3

Anonymous #2 2w

I’ll be the first to admit that liberty and freedom have great cost. However, I don’t think the solution to those issues is taking away freedoms or liberties

-5

Anonymous OP 2w

Politicians are in charge as well. And they are letting children get shot in the head

8

Anonymous #5 2w

This is incorrect. Literally go the CDC please.

-4

Anonymous OP 2w

I don’t think the cost of liberty is the lives of children. I’ll ask you again. Do you think putting the lives of children at stake is worth it for your right to own guns?

15

Anonymous OP 2w

“In the United States, unintentional injury is the fourth leading cause of death among infants (i.e., children aged <1 year) and is the top cause of death among children and ado- lescents aged 1–17 years; firearms are a leading injury method.” From the cdc

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Furthermore, they state that the leading weapon from these deaths were firearms

5

Anonymous OP 2w

So what cdc are you looking at?

9

Anonymous OP 2w

Your firearms are so much more important that children’s lives you’d let so many children be shot and die that it’s the lead cause of death

11

Anonymous #5 2w

For babies, assault is almost tied with cancer

5

Anonymous #5 2w

For preteens, cancer was 0.463% and assualt was 0.338%

12

Anonymous OP 2w

There are many things that use Latin words that don’t make sense anymore. Your “reason” is based on us speaking Latin and us living a thousand years ago

7

Anonymous OP 2w

It’s well known. Australia, UK, and more have all implanted strict gun laws and have seen a stark difference pre and post ban regarding violent crimes. I know you will reference the UKs murder rates with knives but that is folly since those rates are still a decrease from pre weapon bans

8

Anonymous #3 2w

https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/draft_of_trends_issues_paper_mass_shootings_and_firearm_control_comparing_australia_and_the_united_states_submitted_to_peer_review.pdf

5

Anonymous #3 2w

This goes in depth regarding a multitude of articles and their limitations for both gun reform and no reform prior to the 1997 gun reform in Australia. Now provide me your evidence that shows abortion is more safe when we ban it

7

Anonymous OP 2w

yeah that’s what I thought. run away when the hard questions come out.

15

Anonymous #2 2w

Dude shut the fuck up cause he said “check the cdc” without himself checking the cdc

11

Anonymous #5 2w

If you’re saying that unintentional injury is the leading cause of death in adolescents 1-17, those are shootings. Shooting are intentional. Even if it’s an accidental firearm discharge, it’s not a shooting. So I don’t understand how this supports any of your claims regarding schook shootings

-3

Anonymous OP 2w

*school

-3

Anonymous OP 2w

*aren’t

-3

Anonymous OP 2w

You wanna cite your evidence? Or will you admit that your points are invalid

3

Anonymous OP 2w

SFL means strict firearm law btw

1

Anonymous #5 2w

PYLL is Potential Years of Life Lost

1

Anonymous OP 2w

And your source is?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

So the leading cause of death in children is they are shot. Gun control would prevent a LARGE number of these deaths. It’s not just about shootings, it’s about these numbers too. You’re not helping your case by saying “yeah number one cause of death in children is being shot but at least it’s not a shooting”

2

Anonymous #5 2w

How would gun control change personal gun safety or negligence?

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

Mmkay so that’s gun control 101

2

Anonymous OP 2w

maybe people should know anything about how to CONTROL their GUNS. oh, wait....

10

Anonymous #6 1w

That’s not gun control that’s gun safety

-3

Anonymous OP 1w

So fun fact! That’s a subcategory of gun control!

7

Anonymous #5 1w

I think we know we’re talking about broad government regulation not personal gun safety among owners. Thanks for contributing tho

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Pro America propaganda is everywhere. That's a special kind of brainwashing called "conditioning" where you see something (the American flag for example) so often you believe a message behind said thing. Guns is another great example of this. Guns are bad, they're illegal in every other developed country. Do you think there's a reason for that?

3

Anonymous OP 1w

aye why wont you respond to me, too, brodie? you don’t think children dying should come before your right to carry right?

6

Anonymous OP 1w

Gun safety regulations, and how to use safely is regulated by the government. So it is by definition gun control

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Because they want the ability to oppress their people

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

Should not be infringed was pretty clear.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah…it means you have the right to guns. Doesn’t say anything about not allowing the government to put safety measures in place for public safety. I’m assuming you won’t respond to me since you refuse to respond to my thread above

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Safety measures like what?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

that is… not an answer to my question! I will ask again. do you think that the deaths of children should in any context come before your right to carry? yes or no?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

How does my right to carry effect the deaths of children? If anything, good citizens carrying firearms decreases the likelihood of more crimes and violence against children and other people

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Because of all the points I’ve stated above. Number one cause of death in children in the US is gun related. If you don’t see a problem you are the problem

1

Anonymous #5 1w

You do realize suicides are included in that statistic right? Why is crime and violence so bad in places in America with stricter gun laws? They don’t seem to help..

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Exactly. Still from guns. That doesn’t change anything. Gun control would prevent those from happening.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Why does Australia have almost no gun violence? Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Finland? It’s because of gun control. I’ll say it again. The leading cause of death in children (including babies) is because they were shot with a gun.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You’d rather have the leading death for children to be them shot than to accept more regulation in gun control. You don’t care that children’s brains are being blown out because at least you have a gun

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I’m sorry to say this, but people who wanna commit suicide are still gonna try to commit suicide

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Those counties have also given up some measure of liberty and freedom.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s a lot harder when they don’t have a gun, what’s your next excuse to allow children to be shot in the head

5

Anonymous #5 1w

I do care. I’d rather just have well armed citizens prepared to stop evil people than just take everyone’s guns away

0

Anonymous OP 1w

and yet the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings. and yet the leading cause of death for children in this country is by fire arms. and yet you never ever ever hear of heroic Americans saving other Americans with their guns. if that was true none of what I said would be true.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

If you cared you would see the problem with the leading cause of death in children being “accidental firearm injuries”, which btw is not influenced by suicide. Suicide falls under “self harm/intentional suicide” category

1

Anonymous OP 1w

so I’m gonna ask you one more time. Just a simple yes or no. Do you think children dying is okay if it lets you own a gun? Yes or no.

2

Anonymous OP 1w

Which as you can see, is half the amount of pre teens as accidental injury (leading cause is firearms) and also in children 0-5, suicide isn’t even top ten, yet the lead cause of death is still by guns

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Exactly! You never hear the stories of people defending themselves with firearms bc the media doesn’t think it’s newsworthy. We’ve had firearms in this nation since its birth yet these shootings are a somewhat recent problem. Why is that?

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

Children dying is never good. Me owning a gun doesn’t change that though

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

YOU’RE SO CLOSE TO GETTING IT OH MY GOD

5

Anonymous OP 1w

So you think children dying is okay as long as you have a gun

1

Anonymous OP 1w

bro. answer my question. you dodge it every time I ask like a pussy. children dying is okay for your right to own a gun, yes or no.

3

Anonymous OP 1w

Okay so maybe because more and more and more and more guns are being created and bought. There are now generations of guns in rotation. You believe that children dying is okay cause you want your 50 rifles

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yes it does. Maybe not you personally, but that’s the problem. You’re only thinking about yourself. Maybe think about the children who are dead because of the lack of gun control

1

Anonymous #2 1w

How am I dodging your question? I said no, children dying is not okay. Me owning a gun doesn’t change that. And it doesn’t magically solve gun violence either

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Or because they lacked protection

0

Anonymous OP 1w

It does. If you literally look at the facts and other nations that actually care about their children you would see gun control= less children being killed by guns

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re just a fucking dumbass who refuses to look at statistics. Hell, you didn’t believe when I said that guns are the lead cause of death in children, and told me to “check the cdc” as an ignorant dumbass who didn’t check himself first. Children are dying but at least you have the gun to kill them

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Or because the mental health in our society has declined rapidly? Again ur point doesn’t make sense bc guns don’t pull their own trigger. You need crazy ppl to have a shooting, not just the gun

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Those nations have also surrendered a degree of personal liberty, freedom, and protection from a possibly authoritarian government

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Both can be true. Fucking idiot. Let’s once again look at Australia, Sweden, Findland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, South Korea, Japan, Singapore

1

Anonymous #5 1w

What do they all have in common? Strict gun control and gun laws

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Bitch shut the fuck up you’re saying Australia has an “authoritarian government” you’re fucking insane

1

Anonymous OP 1w

so if children dying isn’t okay, like you said, but the number one cause of death for children is directly linked to guns, why do you think it doesn’t solve gun violence to restrict fire arms. under the bill of rights courts have consistently ruled that rights can be limited when they clash with another. the highest, of all cases, has been the right to life.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

The root of the issue is mental health issues, not firearms.

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Okay

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Omg what if? WHAT IF??? It’s both. And also, it’s not fucking mental health if the lead cause of death in children is accidental firearm injuries. It’s a lack of regulation

1

Anonymous OP 1w

if we can assume that the right to life is the supreme right upon which we are endowed, then it should not be considered an overreach to restrict in part some freedoms in order to assure that right to life. life should come before guns. i really don’t get how this is so difficult for you to understand.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Exactly. Me owning a firearm doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s right to life and it helps me ensure I can defend my own right to life

0

Anonymous OP 1w

A child accidentally being shot in the chest isn’t mental illness related. Stop changing the point and stop trying to say it’s other things and not the fucking thing right in front of your goddamn ugly ass face. You’re happy children are dying cause you have a gun

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Okay sweetie. Because it’s totally mentally healthy ppl shooting children

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You just are okay with children being shot in the head cause at least you have a gun

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Accidental injury isn’t someone pointing a gun and shooting a kid. It’s accidents. Accidents aren’t related to mental health, you would know that if you actually read anything from the cdc

1

Anonymous #5 1w

This can’t be fixed unless you wanna encourage citizens to be safe with gun storage, or take guns way guns completely.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

YOU owning it doesn’t. It’s OTHER PEOPLE that matter. Think outside of your own little bubble for two seconds. Do you seriously trust each and every person in America to own a gun? If you don’t, you’re categorically in favor of stricter gun control.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Or regulate guns. Guess what? All those safety requirements are because of gun control. Why do you ignore every other first world country where when they made stricter gun laws, children stopped dying. Odd how there’s dozens of countries that did it and it worked, yet you claim it could never work

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I thought you said shootings were included in that CDC stat? Or is it truly just accidents? Which wouldn’t be solid grounds for taking away guns bc again it’s a result of negligence

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You just blatantly ignore and lie about facts. All so you can have a gun while there’s a child bleeding out next to you

1

Anonymous #2 1w

We already have laws restricting who can have firearms

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

dear god it takes skill to be this dense

3

Anonymous OP 1w

We really don’t. I can go to Walmart with my license and get a gun right now. The only “requirement” we have is to be 18-21

1

Anonymous #5 1w

In this situation I would have the ability to deter or neutralize the threat no? I’d rather be in that situation and have a firearm to defend myself and others, than be in that situation and not have one.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

and yet other countries have more and they don’t have this problem. no other country has this issue but we do. coincidentally, the U.S. also has some of the least restrictive gun control laws in the world. please PLEASE put two and two together.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Some states are stricter, but that’s the requirements we have. Other countries require you to take a government mandated course, a mental health evaluation, a test, and also don’t allow automatics to be given to a civilian

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Also there’s a cap in other countries of how many guns you can have. In the us there’s no cap, you can have hundreds of guns and the government will give you a gold star

0

Anonymous #5 1w

And not have any red flags, be a criminal, or give the seller any reason whatsoever to be suspicious of your reason for purchase. Also you have to be 21 to buy guns at Walmart. Not 18

0

Anonymous #5 1w

We don’t allow automatics off the shelf either

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Who’s right is it to say how much of something I can buy

0

Anonymous OP 1w

No it’s only to give a license and “no criminal record” (which actually you can have). It should be “submit a form, take a required course mandated by the government, heavy criminal background check, take a mental health exam by a psychiatrist, submit a form of why you need a gun, take an exam of gun education and safety” this should be bare fucking minimum

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The government actually. There are plenty of caps on other things. It’s their job to keep us safe yet they’re failing since children are being shot to death

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

2

Anonymous #5 1w

“hey children get shot way too much in this country” “well I’M not shooting them so that means it’s okay” bro 😭

3

Anonymous #5 1w

You can’t even effectively fire more than one gun at once. How would having more suddenly be more dangerous 😂

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Because one could go missing, a kid could find it, someone could steal it. More guns means more chances to misplace. Imagine caring about guns more than children

1

Anonymous #5 1w

This. I do not have full trust in the government to keep me safe at all times. Which is why I want to arm myself and other good citizens so we don’t have to depend on big brother government

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Never said this 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Well, as you said, only one at a time. If someone robs you, they now have 30+ or however many guns you had, free to distribute them to their criminal buddies.

6

Anonymous #5 1w

Someone could steal your car and run over ppl too

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Blatantly ignored everything I said to say “more guns is fine who cares children are dying but at least I have a gun”

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Or just secure ur guns?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns that children

1

Anonymous OP 1w

and yet every time I ask you always respond with anecdotal evidence about how YOU act. YOU are not representative of the majority. If you were, guns wouldn’t be the leading cause of death for children. you don’t care about children, if you did you wouldn’t want them to be shot.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous OP 1w

They’re robbing you in this hypothetical, do you think they’re not gonna grab your gun safe key or something?

2

Anonymous OP 1w

and yet every time a shooting happens it’s always “thoughts and prayers” instead of action. if you cared about children like you claim to, you would advocate for stricter gun control.

3

Anonymous #2 1w

I actually do think I’m representing the majority. Think about how many gun owners there are in this country vs have many shootings there are.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

One murder is too much

2

Anonymous #2 1w

There should be action. Immediately. From a good guy with a gun

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Murder is still gonna happen?

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Think about how many children have been killed in this country by bullets

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

3

Anonymous OP 1w

But there never is. Ever. You always think it’ll happen, but it never does. You’re not Superman and neither am I.

5

Anonymous #5 1w

God forbid I pray for something sad

0

Anonymous OP 1w

But not as many. It’s a step in the right direction.

4

Anonymous #2 1w

No one can be if we take away the right to defend ourselves effectively.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

2

Anonymous OP 1w

“Nobody can be” nobody IS right now. Do you really think the answer to school shootings is to teach teachers to shoot instead of just removing the problem entirely? Like you’re so close to getting it. You’re SO CLOSE to understanding it’s not the people it’s the guns.

7

Anonymous #5 1w

Imagine wanting to disarm good citizens like single mothers

0

Anonymous OP 1w

If no one has guns, no one’s shooting children. You fucking dumbass who cares more about guns than children

5

Anonymous #2 1w

Hahahah. There it is. “It’s not the people it’s the guns.” Utterly ridiculous argument. Make that make sense please. When has a gun wandered into a school by itself and shot someone?

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

3

Anonymous OP 1w

When has someone wandering into the school and killed 10 kids without a gun?

3

Anonymous OP 1w

If it was the people we would hear about more than just guns. Why do we not hear about mass stabbings? Why do we not hear about mass bow and arrow attacks? If it’s not the guns, and it’s the people, then why is it always people with guns killing people?

8

Anonymous OP 1w

I mean clearly if it’s not the guns than there must be something wrong with the people of the United States! A state of mass hysteria for the last fifty years and counting. But of course. It can’t be the guns right?

6

Anonymous #2 1w

Why don’t we hear abt shootings in Chicago by criminals every single day? Bc it’s not newsworthy

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Answer my question. Why is it always guns? Why don’t we have mass stabbings?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous #2 1w

There is a massive mental health crisis

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

come on bro you’re so close. You can do it I know you can.

7

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Probably because citizens have guns, making them harder to stab

0

Anonymous OP 1w

The reason children in schools aren’t victims of mass stabbings are because of guns?

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Nope, wrong. If you compare the rates of homicide between the UK and the U.S. they’re very similar. The difference is that the U.S. has maniacs with AK47s. The UK has maniacs with knives. I’m no murderer, but if I was going to walk in and kill as many people as possible in a school, and I could choose the AK47? I’m picking the AK47.

7

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So if you care about life like you claim you do. Why do you give the murderers the deadliest weapons available? It’s almost like the wrong people can get access to guns!

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Wait so if ur saying the homicide rates are similar, taking away their guns didn’t make them stop murdering ppl?

-2

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes exactly! They can still get them if you take them away from good citizens! Just like in Chicago, New York, etc…

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Like I said. So close. The number of incidents in which people are killed are similar. In individual incidents of murder, multiple people can die. We’re aware that people can be shot in the same incident right? The difference is that in the U.S. more people are killed per incident. More people are killed at once. More people die here because more people have guns here.

2

Anonymous #5 1w

Yeah that’d be crazy. Like killing them by the millions before they’re even born. Eesh😬

0

Anonymous #2 1w

You said murder rate. Not incident rate

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Oh my god why are we getting into the semantics? Why are you so concerned with how I said it? You know what I said.

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes I know what u said. U said murder rate

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Imagine only having one thing to say..

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Argue against my point not how I said it. Put up or shut up.

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Take ur own advice sweetheart

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Please point to when I did that. Take a screenshot.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children, I won’t stop saying it cause it’s just true

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Okay sugar

0

Anonymous #2 1w

You said put up or shut up.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

oh no I’m asking you. where did I dive into the weeds of where you used one word over another? that’s your claim, isn’t it? or… have you ran out of things to say?

2

Anonymous OP 1w

also you still haven’t answered my question… again. why do you think it’s okay to give people the deadliest weapons available? they never seem to defend their fellow Americans with them…

2

Anonymous #2 1w

What? Saying what u mean and meaning what u say matters😂. Take ur time and breathe while ur typing so ur argument is coherent. Don’t get mad and me for taking what u said as what u meant

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

Because I should have the most effective tool possible in the event that I had to defend myself or other people. The writer defend oneself is given by God and not by the government just like many of the other inalienable rights

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I was worried you left! Glad to see ur still here buddy

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Well have you ever had to defend yourself with that gun? Have you ever had to be a superhero and shoot someone to defend someone else? You’re totally like… John Wick aren’t you.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Not yet. But in the unfortunate event that I have to, I will and I am prepared to. I would also say that in the event, someone had to defend their selves but didn’t have a firearm, They’d probably give anything in the world to have one so they could properly defend themselves.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Oh! So you’ve never shot someone… and you don’t seem to see anyone shooting anyone on TV… but it totally happens right? Or.. well… it COULD happen so that’s reason enough. Am I getting that right? Yeah. That totally makes sense.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Exactly. Owning a firearm isn’t about using it and shooting people all the time. It’s about in the unfortunate event that you have to, you are prepared to defend innocent life. Something that the left obviously doesn’t necessarily care about given the mass genocide of unborn children since Roe V Wade

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“I could be a superhero with my Glock” be fucking real. If it happened here it would happen everywhere and you’d see it on your local news. You don’t see it because it doesn’t happen.

3

Anonymous #3 1w

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2830297

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I mean, honestly, what would you give to be able to defend your family in the event that someone broke into your home and wanted to harm them? That what-if scenario is enough for me to want to be prepared

0

Anonymous OP 1w

I don’t want the risk of that happening in the first place that’s the difference between you and I.

5

Anonymous #2 1w

Again, you don’t see it because the news doesn’t want you to see it. According to crimeresearch.org, civilian stopped about 50% of shootings and non-gun free zones in a 2023 study

0

Anonymous #3 1w

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272724000483

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I’m sorry to break it to you, but people can still break into your home and try to hurt you with or without a gun. I’d rather shoot someone breaking into my home with a knife and try to wrestle them into the ground lol

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Well now show me the study. Send a link.

4

Anonymous #2 1w

https://crimeresearch.org/2025/02/a-deep-dive-into-cases-where-civilians-stopped-active-shooters-did-they-accidentally-shoot-bystanders-get-in-the-way-of-police-get-their-gun-taken-away-or-more/

0

Anonymous OP 1w

You are LITERALLY the kind of person the Punisher was written for.

2

Anonymous #5 1w

https://docs.iza.org/dp16608.pdf

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

You mean, the guy that kills bad guys with guns?

0

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re not supposed to idolize him. If you do, you’re missing the point of his story.

6

Anonymous OP 1w

So this is a study out of only 180 cases. Those 180 cases are exclusively ones where an attempt was made to stop an active shooter. I hate to break it to you but there’s an obvious bias in your study! To quote the article directly: “During the ten years from 2014 to 2023, there were 180 active shooting cases (as defined by the FBI) where a concealed handgun permit holder stopped an active shooting attack.”

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

I never said I idolize him. You’re the one that brought him up.

0

Anonymous #5 1w

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2806878

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine caring more about guns than children

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I’m no expert but there were certainly more than 180 active shooting cases in 10 years.

5

Anonymous OP 1w

Your comment painted the punisher in a positive light without going into the moral of his story. Sorry for my assumption.

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

I’m not disrespecting your punisher name drop I just wasn’t thinking about it. Obviously the daredevil is more of a role model. But I think the punisher would support innocent people defending their own lives🤷🏻‍♂️

0

Anonymous #3 1w

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792291

4

Anonymous #9 1w

Pass

1

Anonymous OP 1w

just because it means something in latin isn’t a moral argument. they also belied the earth was flat and you’d fall off the edge if you went too far

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Wouldn’t have expected anything else from the anti-freedom party. 😂 you don’t want abortions or guns, how interesting.

1

Anonymous #9 1w

I do want guns :). I do not want abortions

1

Anonymous OP 1w

L take

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Imagine I made a law saying you specifically can’t drive on Sundays. That’s the same as an abortion ban. I’m making laws to inconvenience you that don’t affect you at all. Again, party of anti-freedom.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I want guns too. But can you see how democrats saying your guns should be taken away sound more reasonable when you’re saying their right to abortion should be taken away? Abortions don’t affect you at all, you just wanna put your nose in others business. My guns don’t bother anyone so they shouldn’t be taken from me personally.

1

Anonymous #9 1w

Abortions have no risk of harming you. Guns could hurt anyone around you. Are you familiar with LiveLeak by any chance?

1

Anonymous #4 1w

That’s what I’m saying, abortions shouldn’t be banned bc they don’t hurt anyone. My gun specifically can’t hurt anyone bc I’m a responsible owner and keep it locked in my closet unless I’m going target shooting. I also don’t plan to kill anyone. So in my case, neither my gun or abortions should be banned for me. Gun ownership for the whole country is a different thing. As long as mine isn’t banned idc

0

Anonymous #9 1w

Your gun accidentally explodes, it hits someone with shrapnel and kills them instantly. Your gun fires without pulling the trigger, you lose your foot.

1

Anonymous #9 1w

Your daughter knows the code to your gun safe, you say something she doesn't like and she ends her own life. This happened in my family. I just left her grave. Guns are bad.

9

Anonymous #9 1w

Driving on Sundays doesn’t directly end lives lol

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Every legal person in the US has an SSN. Unborn children don’t bc they’re not born yet, therefore not a life. Do you nut in a tissue and throw it away or keep your sperm in a glass jar and grow it until it’s 18 years old?

3

Anonymous #9 1w

What abt double homicides when a pregnant woman is murdered? Sperm is on a haploid cell with 23 chromosomes sweetheart. It will never become a person on its own

3

Anonymous #8 1w

You posting articles showing that birth rates increase when abortion is restricted is dumb. Post an article that refutes the safety of abortion and make sure you actually understand what the article is saying

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Double homicide is because pregnant women are planning on carry the fetus to term thus making it a legal “human”. An abortion means the fetus isn’t planned on being carried to term thus isnt listed as a “human”. This is a simple google search you dumbass.

8

Anonymous OP 1w

Not valid since it can’t be two people since they need to have a SSN if they’re a person. It’s a Phony republican activist judge charge to fudge crime stats to make them look worse than they are

5

Anonymous #3 1w

Ahh so the value of human life is determined by what someone wants to do with it?

0

Anonymous OP 1w

I never said that. You are arguing ethics and morality now when your original claim was the legality/law. Legally what I stated is factual. If you want to make an ethical argument you can. But you don’t get to use your prior claim since it’s outside the framework

0

Anonymous OP 1w

You ignored my argument. Respond.

4

Anonymous #4 1w

IT HAS BEEN 3 DAYS YOUR NOT GONNA CONVINCE THE OP THEYRE SET IN THERE WAYS GIVE UP

9

Anonymous #3 1w

Legal law comes from moral law. Not the other way around

0

Anonymous OP 1w

You really don’t know the punisher at all dude

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I never was super into the punisher. Spider-Man was always my favorite

0

Anonymous OP 1w

I never claimed that you said punisher was your favorite? But you clearly don’t know him at all so why are you acting like you do?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It is the other way around

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Brother what

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Ah so if the government legalized killing Jews just like a certain country did in the 1930s-40s it would become moral?

0

Anonymous #3 1w

Moving the goalposts already?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Abortion is not breaking moral law. You can’t just say anything that triggers you breaks moral law. Toughen up buddy. If aborted fetuses were people they’d have an SSN.

5

Anonymous #9 1w

Killing one’s own offspring seems to break moral law.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Incorrect use of the word offspring

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s not their offspring bc they’re not born. Stop letting what other people do trigger you so much that you try to ban it. What if I said guns trigger me and tried to make it illegal for you to own a gun? That would break the constitution, similarly to how banning abortion would break decades of case law and Supreme Court decisions. We can’t just outlaw things bc we don’t like them.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

There is also no universal moral law. You think it’s wrong, I think it’s right. If it was really immoral it would be illegal anywhere to get an abortion, but it’s still legal bc it’s moral. You’re too soy to understand.

1

Anonymous #8 1w

Nope. I can show you that the abortion rates are still prevalent and lead to a higher risk for the mother. You are debating a slightly different part of the conversation

5

Anonymous OP 1w

Legal may incorporate parts of moral frameworks but it isn’t from moral law that it came to be

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Fetus literally mean offspring in Latin so I don’t think so

0

Anonymous #9 1w

So being legal makes something moral? Got it

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

There are a bunch of things that are legal that may break a persons moral framework. Bad argument

1

Anonymous #3 1w

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restriction-laws/index.html?cid=ios_app

1

Anonymous #3 1w

U might not like it since it’s cnn but it’s a combination of multiple scientific articles throughout the mid to late 2010s. All peer reviewed and accurate

1

Anonymous #3 1w

So you don’t believe in any objective morality?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Not necessarily. But in this case, yes abortion is both legal and moral. Cope.

3

Anonymous #9 1w

Okay buddy

2

Anonymous OP 1w

We don’t speak Latin now do we?

1

Anonymous #5 1w

The definition and roots of modern words we have today came from Latin and other older languages lol

1

Anonymous OP 1w

This is America pal assimilate or leave. Talking bout Latin in the great USA😂

1

Anonymous #9 1w

We’re talking about the English language lol

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s American here bud, if you like “English” so much then take your sorry ass to England

1

Anonymous #9 1w

Dude ur being dumb😂 ur speaking english 😂

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I do. But you are shifting the goalposts really heavily now in this argument.

4

Anonymous #3 1w

What?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I don’t talk to Brit’s so please stop responding

1

Anonymous OP 1w

My comment made perfect sense. Reread it and the past responses we have had. Double homicide isn’t a moral question but a legal question. Abortion is a separate concept from that as well. Decide what topic you want to debate and stop interchanging between the two

1

Anonymous #9 1w

Ur literally commenting on my post 😂

1

Anonymous #3 1w

That article is about a study from Guttmacher (a pro choice activist group). They use countries without reliable abortion data and substitute flawed estimates instead. Even the UN called those estimates “quite speculative.” Thats how they were able to get results that contradict reliable data. Their report suggested that Chile’s abortion rate remained constant after restrictions were passed even though birth rates increased and maternal mortality fell.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah never would’ve commented if I knew you were an America hating brit go eat some beans and tuna

1

Anonymous #8 1w

I won’t deny that guttmacher is a pro choice group. However, you are not acknowledging that increased abortion restrictions leads to increased mortality rates. Idk where u got the idea that it leads to decreased mortality rates since it’s well known across a multitude of studies since the 90s.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Furthermore, this article (2017) is well known in the community due to its expansive and extensive research. The biggest question marks within the report are not the statistical side but rather the framing of some terms within the article

1