I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don’t deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.
That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it’s a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that’s the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.
I guess people really can’t have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don’t think that’s really a viable solution, it’s also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.
Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don’t see where the “snowflake” remark comes in. It’s a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a “hobby”. And saying “fuck all everyone who does X” is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You’re using the “attacking someone’s character” fallacy.
Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they’re just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who’s capable of renting them out?
My point is it’s a complex issue, and anyone who says it’s so easily solved by doing “this one thing” isn’t considering every angle.
The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).
You can’t kill a crowd of people with a bow.
The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn’t fit to use it doesn’t get to. The difference is it’s not sitting in someone’s closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you’re in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won’t rent it to you.
You aren’t getting real responses because we’ve heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn’t know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.
So no, it’s not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.
I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don’t deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.
That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it’s a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that’s the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.
I guess people really can’t have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don’t think that’s really a viable solution, it’s also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.
Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don’t see where the “snowflake” remark comes in. It’s a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a “hobby”. And saying “fuck all everyone who does X” is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You’re using the “attacking someone’s character” fallacy.
Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they’re just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who’s capable of renting them out?
My point is it’s a complex issue, and anyone who says it’s so easily solved by doing “this one thing” isn’t considering every angle.
The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).
You can’t kill a crowd of people with a bow.
The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn’t fit to use it doesn’t get to. The difference is it’s not sitting in someone’s closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you’re in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won’t rent it to you.
You aren’t getting real responses because we’ve heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn’t know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.
So no, it’s not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.