Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
you guys have cried about your guns for two hundred years in case of this exact situation
i think the gun people might be voting for trump
Never underestimate dem/liberal gun ownership. We are just quiet about it and don't make it our entire personality.
I can't be the only one to roll my eyes at comments like this. Like in one respect I get it, we want to say we will fuck up the fascists. But on the flipside, what the fuck are you guys actually suggesting here?
Bear in mind per Propublica reporting that the right-wing extremist groups want to incite a race/Civil War. They hate the fact that there is such a stark contrast in violence between the left and right and it's making them look TERRIBLE.
Bear in mind firearm manufacturers are actively trying to break into the leftist market to sell more guns. Pretty obvious.
Forgetting the evidence that guns for all intents don't make you safer. We need to use our brains before bullets, lest we've all already lost.
I’d say it’s a reaction to where ammosexual conservatives talk as if they have all the guns and would therefore win instantly in the civil war scenarios they masturbate over.
Fair I can see that. In the event they threw the first punch a la Fort Sumter, it may take a while for the left to spin up but I have no doubt they'd get steamrolled as they always do, from the Confederacy to the Third Reich.
After all, we'd just have to wait for their heart meds to run out.
For real, diabetes and war marches don’t exactly pair nicely.
You seem to be taking an "either / or" approach here. In my opinion the left should do everything possible to avoid violence, and also own guns in case these efforts are unsuccessful. It doesn't need to be one or the other.
It's really kind of a matter of definitions to me. In my view, there exist situations where a firearm is about the only way to prevent super bad outcomes for myself. Those situations are uncommon, there are many good ways to avoid them usually, and I hope to never find myself in one. But by definition, if I find myself in a situation like that, having a firearm available is the difference between having agency and having none.
Some people feel that the likelihood of such a scenario is so small that it's a bad idea to prepare for it. Maybe this is how you feel? I do understand that point of view, I simply disagree. I don't really understand points of view that seem to argue there is no scenario where firearms are useful, or that we're magically "past that" as a society (and to be clear, I'm not sure you're taking that stance). To take one example, just look at the response to Hurricane Katrina as an example of how flimsy our law and order really is. Once a situation is bad enough to overwhelm the existing structures we have in place, all bets are off and rules for behavior evaporate. We've seen this happen, in our country, in our lifetimes, more than once. I don't understand the derision - why eye roll?
Fair points.
I view it mostly as either/or chiefly for two reasons:
The statistics to me suggest that the possession of a firearm generate greater alternative risks than the probability of the positive use-case we all imagine in our heads. For me, I am not in a bad neighborhood. Nobody is out to get me. Despite how bad things have become, we are a long ways away from some civil war. So to me it's a net-negative.
Any time focused on firearms is time taken away from focusing on preventative measures to shift this country in the right direction. One more phone conversation with a friend or relative on the fence to alter their vote to me is far more impactful at preventing what we all come to fear.
I roll my eyes because some people get very gung-ho akin to the whole "fuck around find out" vibes of righties that I cannot stand. Big talk almost yearning for civil war when they're focusing on the wrong things.
Ah, those are reasonable points of view to me. I think responsible gun ownership is fairly straightforward and the statistics look that way because of the extremely irresponsible folks who don't take it seriously, and because suicide is usually included. Proper gun safety really only requires diligently following a few simple rules, make those consistently followed - habitual - and the additional risk drops to pretty close to zero.
But I concede that owning a gun does - at again just a definitional level - create a path of escalation which is almost always inappropriate to pursue, which is not available without that gun, and that's inherently risky too. It's not a decision to be taken lightheartedly, but we all face risk at varying degrees and have to make our own decisions about what are good and bad tradeoffs there.
There are a lot of folks (of all political persuasion, which is not to say it's evenly distributed at all) who are definitely LARPing, and I think their idiot rhetoric is foolish and potentially harmful. I just think the quiet gun-owning left shouldn't be automatically associated with that group, and if I remember the original comment right, I don't think the poster indicated any hidden desire for violence.
I agree that we should be discussing and insisting on action for way more substantive and impactful stuff, guns are a ridiculous wedge issue that will never be "resolved", and our limited time is definitely better spent trying to force improvements that would benefit and be popular with a majority of people.
I’m kind of coming around on the idea of liberal/progressive gun ownership. Maybe we should start hitting the gun shows and buying them off the cons. If we have enough to scare them, maybe we can get some sensible gun laws passed too, then turn them all in like Australia did.
But only if we can follow the example of Swiss-like compulsory service and training. I have some liberal friends who I do not want handling guns.
Edit to add: I have some conservative acquaintances that also shouldn’t be anywhere near firearms either, but of course they already own dozens.
I'm not ready to recommend others become gun owners, that's too personal a decision, but I do think it's unwise for only one side of a major political rift (manufactured / artificially maintained as it may be) to be well armed. Especially when law enforcement is also overwhelmingly on that same political side that's already well armed. Especially when that same political side is the source of the folks who said "we better storm the capital to make sure elections turn out how we think they should".
I'm okay with brief compulsory service, in favor of "sensible gun laws", and firmly against any approach to full disarmament at present - that solution could only be remotely feasible after maybe a full generation where firearm ownership was not a hot button issue. Any approach to disarmament in the US without a long quiet period would be received as hostile action by ~half of the country and rejected categorically, along with any good will on other issues. We need to drop that and find people to elect who will cooperate on issues of broad popularity.
As a liberal gun owner, I can't agree more. I hate that I have to own a gun to feel safe. I have been within 1 mile of no less than 5 mass shootings, and in 2 scenarios where I had to put my hands on my gun ready to use in the last 5 years. My wife was 100 yards from the shooter at the Texas State Fair shooting last year.
I own guns to protect my family. I also own them in case civil war breaks out and all my right-wing, crazy neighbors lose their shit.
There never is a suggestion. It’s never thought through. It’s all just abstract. Civil war is an abstract thought that can be talked about without anyone needing to consider how it would actually play out.
So how does it work? Do conservatives from Texas take a greyhound bus to california, get out, and start blasting indiscriminately? Do they stop people on the street and randomly ask their political views before blasting?
It’s hard to have a civil war when your enemy is ill defined. People arent going to be standing in fields with blue and grey uniforms.
What is more likely to happen is simply clashes during protests .
Cool so when they come for you, you'll be unarmed.
🤔
Ah yes, I'll have my Mini-14 and 1911 and fend them off as the mighty hero as the nation burns to the ground!!
...
You probably slipped about 20 steps where you could've had more viable impact at preventing that. You also are probably distracting yourself with hero fantasies when you could be more focused on something else.
Forgetting the fact that mere possession of a firearm in your house elevates your risk of everything from a safety accident, domestic homicide, suicide, etc. That are probably all more probabilistic than you defending yourself from roaming right-wing mobs.
Guns dont mass murder people, mass murderers do.
Blaming guns wont fix social injustice and wealth inequality, so you'll just end up creating the next unabomber or OKC bombing.
Shit will only get worse if we dont focus on the underlying issues.
Well, more accurately, mass murders with guns do. I'm not saying we ban guns. But let's not ignore half the issue. It's mental health and easy access to weapons of mass murder. Some gun control makes sense. Doing something about mental health makes sense.
But you'll never see a Republican vote for either. Government provided mental health programs? That's communism! They are fine to let both problems run rampant.
Im ok with barriers of entry, 5 day waiting period, etc.
Im less ok with people carving lines in the sand on a wedge issue and instead focus on ones that has high approval ratings and enact change.
Medicare for all/single payer is widely popular and would greatly reduce mental health issues in America.
Legalizing cannabis will also help.
UBI and the like arent quite as popular, so will be more difficult for those things that curb poverty to get passed, but probably still easier than banning guns in USA.
Sure, but the guns help.
Try for a mass casualty event with some knives. It’s doable, but you have to work for it.
In the hospital we address both the disease as well as the symptoms. If the symptoms aren't controlled, the prognosis of the disease is worse.
A deranged person who slips through the cracks of society can inflict more devastation with a firearm than a knife, as seen time and time again.
So sure let's focus on underlying issues. But let's stop pretending aRmInG tHE leFt will do jack shit, too.
The issue is military and police tend to side with fascists, and fascists know this so it's a 3 way fight
While police will always side with fascists - it's a purely fascist institution, after all - there is some caveats when it comes to the military, and, surprisingly, the prospects of the US military simply joining with fascists does not look promising for them. The problem is that the military-industrial complex has it's bread buttered on both sides by the liberal status quo - it simply has nothing to gain from a fascist regime in any way whatsoever.
The bad news is, of course, is that they might not actually need the military if they just plan on doing it through lawfare as they are currently doing it.
sure, but they're in the minority, and i wouldn't bet on even the majority to win against the national guard and their tanks
Tanks need support personnel.
Ask the Russians how well it goes when the tanks fight alone.
how many PG-7VLs do you have at hand? or maybe do you have a 2A36 howitzer stashed in garage? believe or not, you can't fight tanks with good vibes only
Thank you for explaining to this former 11-H / 11-M the difficulties in fighting tanks. :D
You're not wrong but infantry against tanks that have no infantry support will win every time. Tanks are fuckin blind when buttoned up and will get absolutely wrecked by close in infantry, even without anti-armor weapons. It's almost trivial to immobilize them from up close.
yeah i guess so that situational awareness is limited, but still M1A1 is not T72. without any AT weapons, i see that, but without any explosives, outside of occasional tannerite IED and whatever can be spun on local lathe, there might be some problems
You can immobilize an M1 by pouring shit into the exhaust grills over the turbine. You can also blind the driver and TC with a can of paint. You don't have to kill it to take it out of the fight. That's my point. If they don't have counter-infantry to keep you off them, they are fucked. Tanks really really suck against infantry in situations that aren't endless flat desert like the Gulf War.
Okay? What's your point? That the national guard will rise up against the system?
The national guard are famously conservative. Which side do you think they'll pick when push comes to shove?
in the real military yeah
but usually the national guard are made up of people who wanted a "military" career without the risk
fortunate sons and all that
My point is you don’t hit the tanks, you hit the support infrastructure. Maintenance, fuel depots, Supply lines. Tanks (or planes, or whatever) don't run in a vacuum. You create a vacuum and stuff doesn’t go. See Ukraine.
Wait so we're getting Jan 6 Part 2 if Trump wins?
I am still sure that the right has more. Like you might have 1 or 2. A lot of those nutjobs have 1 or 2 hundred.
What, are they going to aim 200 guns at once?
Knowing some of the redneck mother fuckers I've met:
They'll figure out how to do it, yes
"I've gon' an' dun it, y'all! I dun made a weapon to surpass Metal Gear, I tell you hwhat."
Arm their friends? Make boobie traps?
Actually, there's this one Demolition Ranch video... lol
Making boobie traps is illegal they can't do that /s
Well they've only got 2 arms at the most (maybe 3 in Alabama) so they can only hold 2 guns at once. Kinda hard to hold an arsenal dual wielded
Your absolutely right. But how many guns can you shoot at once?
I mean, those weren’t just fireworks making noise in America’s major liberal cities last night. The blue cities are drowning in guns. That why those cities want regulations to dial shit down.
Biden just said he's going to roll over and kiss the ring. "Liberal" gun ownership, lol.
While they have a large number of guns, they can still only operate one at a time.
Not me.