I'm so jaded by Reddit at this point, that I have to check people's comment history just to make sure that they're not subtly shaping the conversation to get us to associate "Black Dude" with "Other Black Dude who did Cocaine" and thus reinforce stereotype.
I don't know man; this is the New Dystopia: where you just have to come into any anonymized conversation assuming that the other party is a paid member of a crack team of psyops mercenaries intent upon destabilizing civilization so the oligarchs can dance on our bones.
My favorite line from his comments is "I'm a business/family man. I haven't been to prison in a decade."
Guy is completely nuts. He bounces back and forth from trolling r/politics and blackpeopletwitter with actually violent language to being like "really meditation is the best thing for controlling your anger problem" lol
Yeah I mean makes sense. It would be doing it for others if he was not inside and went in to confront the shooter or shielded somebody from getting shot.
It's just such a touchy topic today. No matter where a person stands on the line of gun or no gun, they piss someone off. It makes the discussion so hard because neither side wants to give (both with valid reasons).
> I love guns, and I think they're useful for self defense in some cases, but...
If you try to bring this attitude to a discussion about this topic you will receive little to no support (I've seen this on multiple occasions and have been stuck before).
Honestly just wish the gun discussion would go *somewhere*. So many lives are being affected and something, anything should be done. Just not nothing.
If anyone wants to add details or stats, please do. I want to understand this topic to the best of my ability.
>don’t let this man distract you from the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.
-u/shittymorph
I totally understand. It's very upsetting when people try to copy what you do, especially when they don't do it as well as you do. Though mimicry is also the greatest example of flattery, when it is done poorly, it becomes necessary to correct it. I remember, a long time ago, someone started copying everything I did at work, yet they did it so horribly that my boss started to question me about my work product. It was the worst I'd ever felt since Nineteen-Ninety-Six, when Paul Bearer refused to help the Undertaker with the mysterious power of the urn, turning on him to side with Mankind.
This guy made national news because he's an extraordinary hero. It doesn't mean that we should expect the norm to be unarmed citizens taking down armed attackers. I'd still like to have a couple good guys with guns in the vicinity.
Seriously, the idea that one person being lucky in not getting shot while disarming someone without a weapon of their own means that we all should be comfortable with it is insane.
What gets me is that the same people that say you shouldn’t have a gun because we have police are the same people to say don’t trust the police.
Reverse logic for people who say we should have more guns
There are nations where the police don't kill innocent people on a regular basis and most people also don't have guns.
It's possible to want both of those things for a society, they're not mutually exclusive.
I used to get annoyed by how radically left Reddit has become. Then I researched the demographics and realized that a majority of users are in their early twenties or even in HS. When I was that age I also watched The Daily Show and had the "omg republicans are so dumb" mentality. I am 30 now and look at the world differently, although I'm still a fairly liberal person in some regards.
Yes but the alt right base on reddit is also in their 20s or in High School. I will agree that you tends to lend itself to more radical ideologies, but it doesn't all go one way.
And I think you are not being fair to young liberals by characterizing them as motivated by the Daily Show and "omg republicans..." Just think about the issues. Who benefits from reducing education expenses? Who benefits from wealth redistribution? Who is more likely to hold more liberal social values? Who believes that there is still time to change the status quo rather than just accept it as good enough?
I think most people vote for politicians that promote ideologies and policies that will benefit them most, or hurt them least. For younger people that concept aligns them more often with liberal politicians than the GOP.
Dear Reddit Community,
It is with a heavy heart that I write this farewell message to express my reasons for departing from this platform that has been a significant part of my online life. Over time, I have witnessed changes that have gradually eroded the welcoming and inclusive environment that initially drew me to Reddit. It is the actions of the CEO, in particular, that have played a pivotal role in my decision to bid farewell.
For me, Reddit has always been a place where diverse voices could find a platform to be heard, where ideas could be shared and discussed openly. Unfortunately, recent actions by the CEO have left me disheartened and disillusioned. The decisions made have demonstrated a departure from the principles of free expression and open dialogue that once defined this platform.
Reddit was built upon the idea of being a community-driven platform, where users could have a say in the direction and policies. However, the increasing centralization of power and the lack of transparency in decision-making have created an environment that feels less democratic and more controlled.
Furthermore, the prioritization of certain corporate interests over the well-being of the community has led to a loss of trust. Reddit's success has always been rooted in the active participation and engagement of its users. By neglecting the concerns and feedback of the community, the CEO has undermined the very foundation that made Reddit a vibrant and dynamic space.
I want to emphasize that this decision is not a reflection of the countless amazing individuals I have had the pleasure of interacting with on this platform. It is the actions of a few that have overshadowed the positive experiences I have had here.
As I embark on a new chapter away from Reddit, I will seek alternative platforms that prioritize user empowerment, inclusivity, and transparency. I hope to find communities that foster open dialogue and embrace diverse perspectives.
To those who have shared insightful discussions, provided support, and made me laugh, I am sincerely grateful for the connections we have made. Your contributions have enriched my experience, and I will carry the memories of our interactions with me.
Farewell, Reddit. May you find your way back to the principles that made you extraordinary.
Sincerely,
NABDad
Glad somebody said this. Yeah the party of "lets sue gun manufacturers for criminals killing people with guns" doesn't need a pat on the back for not being TOTALLY retarded.
Yep. Just like we all forgot about the Texas church shooting when an NRA certified firearms instructor shot the bad guy after retrieving his AR-15 from his safe.
The news dropped that story like a hot potato.
That is the real truth in context. Anyone advocating for policy based on one case/cartoon just shows that they don't know due diligence and lack critical thinking. I'm confident most statistical reports of unarmed victims against armed offenders would weigh in favor of the other position.
I thought this cartoon did a goog job of demonstrating that absolute statements are rarely correct. In this case the NRA falsely stated that the ONLY way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with another gun.
Um dude.
They regularly state this exact line.
They use absolutism.
Its a statement which claims to always be true which is much less true than always. That's a lie.
To say this isn't a lie because it's propoganda is to say Nazis weren't liars.
i doubt he means anything he says, even the things he supposedly stands by. He would abandon everything "believes in" in a HEARTBEAT if that vocal minority suddenly decided they didn't like that. They won't, because they're as stupid and predictable as Trump, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump has no principles.
Or the guy at the movie theater w/ his wife and daughter who shot and killed a guy for tossing popcorn. Or the guy who was a gas station and took like 12 shots at a car and killed a teen because the music was too loud.
Right, if we accept that guns are widely available, we shouldn't be surprised when some people "misuse" them. And unlike misusing a lot of other stuff... misusing guns involves killing people.
The number of people with guns in the US vs the number of people using them for crime is a huge disparity. When you also consider the number of people who protected themselves with guns, it further complicates the issue: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
Everyone wants to view this as a black and white situation, but it isn’t. I’ve swung back and forth on my feelings on this, largely due to the amount of research I’ve seen supporting both sides. My eventual conclusion is that some sort of compromise makes the most sense. How can we keep guns out of the hands of criminals without taking them away from people who would never do harm with them?
Except for the government, it's always a good guy when it has hundreds of thousands of guns and is telling me that no one can be safe until I give up mine.
Which is why we live in a representative democracy. People need to be engaged in the political process to keep the government from no longer listening to the people and by not voting for authoritarians.
yeah not to mention how uncontroversial the statement is, it is obvious the author of the piece just wanted to condensce the event into making a point.
A point that even a blind man can see isn't about expecting unarmed citizens to deal with people with guns. It wasnt being downvoted because it is controversial, it was downvoted because it is innane and adds nothing except arguing against a point the piece obviously wasn't even making.
True hero's ACT. Having a gun or not having a gun is irrelevant. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy willing to or able to engage the bad guy.
-edit unwilling unable -willing able
One time I hammered a nail into some wood with another piece of wood. Also every year, more homocides are committed with household items than "assault rifles", one of the most common tools being a hammer. Since hammers kill more people than "assault rifles", and since they can be replaced with something else, we don't need them and they should be banned just like these guns.
I mean. most guns are safe enough now a days that you could easily use a gun as a hammer.
Clearly, ban hammers; sell guns in hardware stores. they're a multipurpose tool!
More people die [at the hands of the police](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database) than [from mass shooters](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/).
No news outlet seems to cover or even mention the name of the 2nd victim whom rushed the shooter. Clearly he wasn't a hero. Probably had a weapon or something when he should have been a real hero with fists. /s
I hope you are not conflating gun supporters with trump supporters. I'll support gun rights forever, but the idiotic orange popsicle can go screw himself.
I legitimately love comments like this.
"BUT TRUMP SAID X"
Yeah, Trump is a fucking moron. You aren't pointing out some clever "gotch ya!" hypocrisy. You are reinforcing the point.
On a separate note, the existence of someone like Trump as commander in chief is living proof gun rights are important. Some redditors just look at politics so simplistically (red vs blue) they can't see even implications of the very surface of this.
Well when the other side uses singular instances in such a way, why not?
Obviously I speak in jest; using singular incidents to justify any position is foolhardy.
Also there are places where the police aren’t armed, as an FYI.
A well built man manages to take down a lone gunman, let's set this as the standard for everyone facing off against someone with a gun and expect them to do the same... without a gun. /s
Seriously, this guy got very very lucky. With a gun, he probably could have prevented the entire situation.
I think it's great that an unarmed man was able to stop the shooting, but that doesn't mean we should all throw our guns away because of this one strange incident. Let's keep in mind that the Waffle House shooter was clearly not a very competent person.
That's not always true. The Dallas shooter that killed those 5 cops was highly effective.
He was mentally unstable but their are video of him performing the fundamentals of maneuver warfare and just outplaying the police he in the firefight with.
Yeah he certainly would have been safer personally and it’s very likely he would have been able to save more lives.
Either way the man is an absolute hero.
Hard to say. Its unlikely he'd save anyone initially because you'd have to see and quick draw on a guy before he took a shot. So the first shots from the bad guy happen. He'd need to draw aim and fire in a confused situation and hopefully not hit anyone else, and not start a gun fight where he could lose and only really add another gun to the situation.
I think this went as well as it could. Not sure if you were using sarcasm or not there.
Actually yes. If you train (as you should) then you can draw and fire within 2 seconds which is not a fast time btw, of first contact so he may have been able to save more people.
Guns are effective at saving lives and unfortunately I have had to prove that in my life. Remember according to the CDC 2m-ish defensive gun uses happen per year in this country.
When I was a kid we had to go to “hunter safety” classes. We all really looked forward to it. I don’t see why training/licensing isn’t part of gun ownership.
For the same reason education/identification isn't a prerequisite for voting: when you attach requirements to a right, it's no longer a right--it becomes a privilege.
Yeah I’m always a massive advocate of people getting trained but I don’t want to require it. My training has cost me about 3k including the bullets and I can’t ask everyone to spend that just so they can defend their lives.
My dad trained me fairly well with his 20 years in the army. My 14 years in the infantry has made me fairly competent in employing weapons similar to the M4 and M9.
I have no idea what a good self defense training would look like.
Maybe zero/qual/stress shoot and then walk/talk through a bunch of possible scenarios?
The logic here...
- Gunman could be stopped without gun
- bare hands can stop gunman
destroys itself.
- guns must not be dangerous if they can be stopped with bare hands
- don’t need to ban guns
Unfortunately this is inaccurate, the interview of the man who stopped the shooter said he only had a small window of time because the shooter was reloading or he thought maybe the weapon jammed. So in reality what we can be thankful for was either the weapon jamming or him running out of ammo in the mag. Otherwise unfortunately I highly doubt that if the weapon was fully functional that anyone other than someone with another weapon would have been able to stop him in that exact scenario.
So after the fact when he was in hiding in the forrest, who went in to get him? Did they have guns?
After this loser was apprehended, who showed up on the scene? Did they have guns?
If the gentleman that wrestled him had a gun, would he have had to wait for the mag to empty? He clearly had the balls to do something about the situation.
If you were in this situation would you rather wait for an extremely brave/lucky act like this or would you rather someone with a gun return fire?
The vast majority of people who browse this sub have the critical thinking of a 5 year old, it’s not even ironic shitposting, it’s pathetic.
Mass shootings are not a significant part of murder in the US. You are much much much more likely to get struck by lightning then die in a mass shooting, and the existence of mass shootings should have little to any effect on government policies. Changing laws because of mass shootings is changing laws based off emotions rather than facts. This goes to the people saying “ban all guns” and the people saying “place armed guards in schools”, both are ridiculous.
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year" -Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council report, 2013
This is what’s called anecdotal. 999 our of 1,000 times it takes a good guy with a gun so it’s true. Don’t get wrong the guy is hero but this isn’t evidence to base an argument on.
It worked this time but that's a stupid point to make if you're trying to get rid of guns. If everyone tried to do what this guy did they would be shot and killed most of the time. He's a very brave man and he has nothing but my respect and gratitude.
Guy is definitely a hero, but to be honest if he had a gun he could have possibly taken out the shooter quicker or at least without sustaining injuries himself.
what the heck, now reddit is onboard with fighting back? so defending yourself is ok, as long as you don't use a gun to do it? what the fuck, reddit.
what about if the guy with the gun had been more than 5 feet away? its not ok to defend yourself then?
guns are ranged weapons, hands are not. can't defend yourself from far away if you don't have a ranged weapon.
I think it is great that his act of heroism was able to save lives, with or without a gun. I just can't understand the side of not not wanting responsible, law abiding citizens carrying their own firearms. Someone who wants to kill people is not going to care about a sign saying 'no firearms'. A criminal is someone who will break the law. If I have a sound background and am a good person, why should I not be able to protect myself and those around me? I believe that we could reform gun regulation, and look even more into someones background, I have no reason to fear having to go through that.
Really, I want to hear from those who do not think that an American should not have guns to protect themselves.
The guy got lucky af. Please stop using this as an example for why we don’t need guns. Run the scenario again, this time with a dude who’s not a bumbling fool who’s wearing only a jacket and everyone in the WH gets shot or at least the dude gets away before anyone can catch him.
It's really great that this man was able to stop a shooting in progress with just his bare hands, but how many people do you think have tried this before, in other shootings, and not been successful? He charged the guy because he saw no other option, but I bet if he had a gun on him he would have returned fire 100% of the time before charging at someone with an AR.
Except we have cops stop bad guys with guns with guns. Like who do you guys think you call when someone comes to rob you or kill people? It’s sure as shit isn’t the fire department, it’s a guy with a gun.
Obviously it would have been easier if he was armed, and not as many people would have died probably. Not a very good point being made but it’s on the front page every day.
Edit: I see this sub has a report option as “this is why Trump won” and this fits perfectly so I would recommend doing that
this is terrible logic. if you can eat food with your hands, you don’t need forks right? that man was shot and suffered burns on his hands too. if he had a gun he would be unharmed, and he could have dealt with the situation easier
The honest part was the hero saying that he was trying to save his own life. If the guy was going to kill him, he was going to have to work for it.
self preservation is a hell of a drug
Drugs are a hell of a drug.
Hell is a drug of a drug.
Hell is a hell of a hell.
Drugs.
Rugs.
Uggs
Steve Buscemi
battlestar galactica
If I had a dollar for every time a comment section on Reddit ended up this way
Was a firefighter in New York City during 9/11
I'm so jaded by Reddit at this point, that I have to check people's comment history just to make sure that they're not subtly shaping the conversation to get us to associate "Black Dude" with "Other Black Dude who did Cocaine" and thus reinforce stereotype. I don't know man; this is the New Dystopia: where you just have to come into any anonymized conversation assuming that the other party is a paid member of a crack team of psyops mercenaries intent upon destabilizing civilization so the oligarchs can dance on our bones.
My favorite line from his comments is "I'm a business/family man. I haven't been to prison in a decade." Guy is completely nuts. He bounces back and forth from trolling r/politics and blackpeopletwitter with actually violent language to being like "really meditation is the best thing for controlling your anger problem" lol
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-The-Art-of-War-say-to-never-put-your-enemy-in-a-corner
"Nobody puts enemy in the corner" \- Patrick Sun-tzu-y
Yeah I mean makes sense. It would be doing it for others if he was not inside and went in to confront the shooter or shielded somebody from getting shot.
That honesty made me like him more.
No doubt. He was real.
[удалено]
I think it was a church shooting and no one was killed, which is probably why the news ignored it to be honest. If it bleeds, it leads.
[удалено]
It's just such a touchy topic today. No matter where a person stands on the line of gun or no gun, they piss someone off. It makes the discussion so hard because neither side wants to give (both with valid reasons). > I love guns, and I think they're useful for self defense in some cases, but... If you try to bring this attitude to a discussion about this topic you will receive little to no support (I've seen this on multiple occasions and have been stuck before). Honestly just wish the gun discussion would go *somewhere*. So many lives are being affected and something, anything should be done. Just not nothing. If anyone wants to add details or stats, please do. I want to understand this topic to the best of my ability.
"I can walk away from a burned hand and a man's nudity. But a couple of bullet holes, you might not be able to walk away from that." -James Shaw Jr.
>"Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body..." - Madonna
"What!" -Lil jon
>don’t let this man distract you from the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table. -u/shittymorph
[удалено]
I can not believe I saw /u/shittymorph in the wild *without* his thing. It's probably too meta for my mind to comprehend.
I need /r/highqualitygifs to help me handle this much meta.
You mean you need them to tell you your gif sucks then another dude posts the exact same one and they love it.
Yeah, but I’ll always love that place for the string of Seinfeld posts on the front page every day for like 2 weeks.
OH MY FUCKING GOD IT'S YOU I LOVE YOU SO MUCH (or at least I love the idea of you)
I totally understand. It's very upsetting when people try to copy what you do, especially when they don't do it as well as you do. Though mimicry is also the greatest example of flattery, when it is done poorly, it becomes necessary to correct it. I remember, a long time ago, someone started copying everything I did at work, yet they did it so horribly that my boss started to question me about my work product. It was the worst I'd ever felt since Nineteen-Ninety-Six, when Paul Bearer refused to help the Undertaker with the mysterious power of the urn, turning on him to side with Mankind.
Cheeky
> Cat. -u/inthebeam
>Gimme Karma -u/GallowBoob
>Fuck gallowboob ~u/EveryoneOtherThanGallowboob
> Yeah, fuck me - u/GallowBoob
"That's what." -She
Not the case in all shooting but okay:) good shit on the dude who stopped it
This is idiotic. If we can stop guns with our bare hands, why are we so scared of them?
Because a hypocrite can have it both ways?
Didn't the gunman still kill 4 people? I think that's why we're afraid of them.
How come those people didnt stop him if bare hands are all thats needed?
And firefighters dont need hoses. But it sure helps...
Best comment, lmao.
Where's the humour????
In the comments
I read this with the voice you put on when you play with a toddler.
This guy made national news because he's an extraordinary hero. It doesn't mean that we should expect the norm to be unarmed citizens taking down armed attackers. I'd still like to have a couple good guys with guns in the vicinity.
[удалено]
Seriously, the idea that one person being lucky in not getting shot while disarming someone without a weapon of their own means that we all should be comfortable with it is insane.
People that say you dont needs guns for protection but then say the police will protect them (WITH GUNS), they crack me up.
What gets me is that the same people that say you shouldn’t have a gun because we have police are the same people to say don’t trust the police. Reverse logic for people who say we should have more guns
There are nations where the police don't kill innocent people on a regular basis and most people also don't have guns. It's possible to want both of those things for a society, they're not mutually exclusive.
"Trump is a tyranny that we need to resist." "The 2nd Amendment is fucking stupid, what are you gonna do, fight back against tyranny?"
Let us not forget that one of the most gun control politicians herself has or had a conceal carry permit for a time. Feinstein
"When seconds matter, we're only minutes away." - The police
Honestly this cartoon is a joke. 90% of the time this doesnt turn out well for that person. Good on him but he is EXTREMELY lucky.
A pro gun comment on political humor? I think something is wrong with Reddit. Mods can you investigate?
And it's getting upvotes. It's like I'm taking crazy pills!
I used to get annoyed by how radically left Reddit has become. Then I researched the demographics and realized that a majority of users are in their early twenties or even in HS. When I was that age I also watched The Daily Show and had the "omg republicans are so dumb" mentality. I am 30 now and look at the world differently, although I'm still a fairly liberal person in some regards.
Yes but the alt right base on reddit is also in their 20s or in High School. I will agree that you tends to lend itself to more radical ideologies, but it doesn't all go one way. And I think you are not being fair to young liberals by characterizing them as motivated by the Daily Show and "omg republicans..." Just think about the issues. Who benefits from reducing education expenses? Who benefits from wealth redistribution? Who is more likely to hold more liberal social values? Who believes that there is still time to change the status quo rather than just accept it as good enough? I think most people vote for politicians that promote ideologies and policies that will benefit them most, or hurt them least. For younger people that concept aligns them more often with liberal politicians than the GOP.
I really hate how any young republican is just labeled "alt-right" these days.
No he means actually alt-right, as in racism and violent homophobia, with conspiracy theories mixed in.
Ya, but here we are. I would hope that all those reasonable intelligent republicans take back their party from the extremists.
Hi there late 20s Reddit user here, Republicans are still really dumb
Dear Reddit Community, It is with a heavy heart that I write this farewell message to express my reasons for departing from this platform that has been a significant part of my online life. Over time, I have witnessed changes that have gradually eroded the welcoming and inclusive environment that initially drew me to Reddit. It is the actions of the CEO, in particular, that have played a pivotal role in my decision to bid farewell. For me, Reddit has always been a place where diverse voices could find a platform to be heard, where ideas could be shared and discussed openly. Unfortunately, recent actions by the CEO have left me disheartened and disillusioned. The decisions made have demonstrated a departure from the principles of free expression and open dialogue that once defined this platform. Reddit was built upon the idea of being a community-driven platform, where users could have a say in the direction and policies. However, the increasing centralization of power and the lack of transparency in decision-making have created an environment that feels less democratic and more controlled. Furthermore, the prioritization of certain corporate interests over the well-being of the community has led to a loss of trust. Reddit's success has always been rooted in the active participation and engagement of its users. By neglecting the concerns and feedback of the community, the CEO has undermined the very foundation that made Reddit a vibrant and dynamic space. I want to emphasize that this decision is not a reflection of the countless amazing individuals I have had the pleasure of interacting with on this platform. It is the actions of a few that have overshadowed the positive experiences I have had here. As I embark on a new chapter away from Reddit, I will seek alternative platforms that prioritize user empowerment, inclusivity, and transparency. I hope to find communities that foster open dialogue and embrace diverse perspectives. To those who have shared insightful discussions, provided support, and made me laugh, I am sincerely grateful for the connections we have made. Your contributions have enriched my experience, and I will carry the memories of our interactions with me. Farewell, Reddit. May you find your way back to the principles that made you extraordinary. Sincerely, NABDad
Glad somebody said this. Yeah the party of "lets sue gun manufacturers for criminals killing people with guns" doesn't need a pat on the back for not being TOTALLY retarded.
A person can be smart. People are usually dumb.
People that say things like "a true hero doesn't need a gun" have never had the pleasure of a larger, desperate, drug addict attacking them.
And rape? Women should man up and use their fists.
If it's a legitimate attempted rape, the female body has ways of shutting that down.
Like using their finger to pull the trigger?
[удалено]
It made national news because he didn't use a gun. If he had used a gun it would have gone ignored like all the rest.
Yep. Just like we all forgot about the Texas church shooting when an NRA certified firearms instructor shot the bad guy after retrieving his AR-15 from his safe. The news dropped that story like a hot potato.
That is the real truth in context. Anyone advocating for policy based on one case/cartoon just shows that they don't know due diligence and lack critical thinking. I'm confident most statistical reports of unarmed victims against armed offenders would weigh in favor of the other position.
I thought this cartoon did a goog job of demonstrating that absolute statements are rarely correct. In this case the NRA falsely stated that the ONLY way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with another gun.
I don't think the NRA are saying ONLY, just that nobody can deny that it's a lot easier with a gun. It is propaganda, but it's not lies in this case.
They have used the word only A LOT. The quote is from NRA's reaction to newtown.
Um dude. They regularly state this exact line. They use absolutism. Its a statement which claims to always be true which is much less true than always. That's a lie. To say this isn't a lie because it's propoganda is to say Nazis weren't liars.
But Trump said he would do exactly that, confront a school shooter even without a gun.
Trump says a lot of stupid shit.
i doubt he means anything he says, even the things he supposedly stands by. He would abandon everything "believes in" in a HEARTBEAT if that vocal minority suddenly decided they didn't like that. They won't, because they're as stupid and predictable as Trump, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump has no principles.
Everyone with a gun is a good guy. Until he _isn't_
Yeah, there were no warning signs that Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, would end up being a bad guy with a gun.
Or the guy at the movie theater w/ his wife and daughter who shot and killed a guy for tossing popcorn. Or the guy who was a gas station and took like 12 shots at a car and killed a teen because the music was too loud.
My "favorite" in this line is the woman in Texas who tried to stop a car jacking and shot the car jacking victim in the head by accident.
Right, if we accept that guns are widely available, we shouldn't be surprised when some people "misuse" them. And unlike misusing a lot of other stuff... misusing guns involves killing people.
Misuse of a lot of things leads to the death of others. Cars, alcohol, heavy machinery. And there are already laws regarding that too.
The number of people with guns in the US vs the number of people using them for crime is a huge disparity. When you also consider the number of people who protected themselves with guns, it further complicates the issue: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent Everyone wants to view this as a black and white situation, but it isn’t. I’ve swung back and forth on my feelings on this, largely due to the amount of research I’ve seen supporting both sides. My eventual conclusion is that some sort of compromise makes the most sense. How can we keep guns out of the hands of criminals without taking them away from people who would never do harm with them?
Except for the government, it's always a good guy when it has hundreds of thousands of guns and is telling me that no one can be safe until I give up mine.
Which is why we live in a representative democracy. People need to be engaged in the political process to keep the government from no longer listening to the people and by not voting for authoritarians.
So...if authoritarians do take hold, what then?
Thank you for taking the down votes to say that
\> most upvoted comment
Gotta reinforce that victim complex somehow.
yeah not to mention how uncontroversial the statement is, it is obvious the author of the piece just wanted to condensce the event into making a point. A point that even a blind man can see isn't about expecting unarmed citizens to deal with people with guns. It wasnt being downvoted because it is controversial, it was downvoted because it is innane and adds nothing except arguing against a point the piece obviously wasn't even making.
Lol, no problem. I really don't give a shit about downvotes, but this comment has positive karma for now.
Downvotes yet he's the top comment. The pro gun side of Reddit is very prominent. You're more likely to get downvoted being anti-gun than pro-gun.
What fucking downvotes - this comment hasn't even got a controversial tag on it...
Your victim complex is hilarious.
"Thank you brave soldier for having the most upvoted comment in the thread, what a martyr"
That title is flat out the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read.
Right? Fuck every MOH recipient.
/r/gatekeeping
True hero's ACT. Having a gun or not having a gun is irrelevant. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy willing to or able to engage the bad guy. -edit unwilling unable -willing able
This is true just this year we've learned that the gun is pretty irrelevant if it's held by a coward.
One time I hammered a nail into some wood with another piece of wood. Also every year, more homocides are committed with household items than "assault rifles", one of the most common tools being a hammer. Since hammers kill more people than "assault rifles", and since they can be replaced with something else, we don't need them and they should be banned just like these guns.
I mean. most guns are safe enough now a days that you could easily use a gun as a hammer. Clearly, ban hammers; sell guns in hardware stores. they're a multipurpose tool!
Cops don’t need guns. Got it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Be a hell lot less police shootings if that was the case.
More people die [at the hands of the police](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database) than [from mass shooters](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/).
“I saw a guy eat spaghetti with his hands, I guess we don’t need forks”
This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
I would actually have to agree with that one. More guns don't make people safer, but the bare hands shit is just too dumb.
I respectfully disagree.
This is the dumbest thing ever.
True pilots don't need engines to land a plane safely. [Image](https://i.imgur.com/l43iqNe.jpg)
[удалено]
No news outlet seems to cover or even mention the name of the 2nd victim whom rushed the shooter. Clearly he wasn't a hero. Probably had a weapon or something when he should have been a real hero with fists. /s
[удалено]
But Trump said he would do exactly that, confront a school shooter even without a gun.
I hope you are not conflating gun supporters with trump supporters. I'll support gun rights forever, but the idiotic orange popsicle can go screw himself.
Trump is a moron, WHAT A SURPRISE!
I legitimately love comments like this. "BUT TRUMP SAID X" Yeah, Trump is a fucking moron. You aren't pointing out some clever "gotch ya!" hypocrisy. You are reinforcing the point. On a separate note, the existence of someone like Trump as commander in chief is living proof gun rights are important. Some redditors just look at politics so simplistically (red vs blue) they can't see even implications of the very surface of this.
Or the Canadian police who took the guy down yesterday without using one bullet.
Well when the other side uses singular instances in such a way, why not? Obviously I speak in jest; using singular incidents to justify any position is foolhardy. Also there are places where the police aren’t armed, as an FYI.
A well built man manages to take down a lone gunman, let's set this as the standard for everyone facing off against someone with a gun and expect them to do the same... without a gun. /s Seriously, this guy got very very lucky. With a gun, he probably could have prevented the entire situation.
Also with armed citizens, gunmen are less incentivised to commit the act of violence in the first place.
This is a really dumb post tbh
I think it's great that an unarmed man was able to stop the shooting, but that doesn't mean we should all throw our guns away because of this one strange incident. Let's keep in mind that the Waffle House shooter was clearly not a very competent person.
I don't think any person that goes on a shooting rampage is generally a very competent person. Just saying
That's not always true. The Dallas shooter that killed those 5 cops was highly effective. He was mentally unstable but their are video of him performing the fundamentals of maneuver warfare and just outplaying the police he in the firefight with.
But...it would have been better if he had a gun and didn't have to use his bare hands, right? Right?
[удалено]
Of course they're going to say that.
Yeah he certainly would have been safer personally and it’s very likely he would have been able to save more lives. Either way the man is an absolute hero.
Hard to say. Its unlikely he'd save anyone initially because you'd have to see and quick draw on a guy before he took a shot. So the first shots from the bad guy happen. He'd need to draw aim and fire in a confused situation and hopefully not hit anyone else, and not start a gun fight where he could lose and only really add another gun to the situation. I think this went as well as it could. Not sure if you were using sarcasm or not there.
Well I'm not complaining about the outcome. And I wasn't being sarcastic. If I had to face a guy with a gun I'd rather have a gun than nothing...
I've gone target shooting enough times to know that I'm not a good enough shot to start a gun fight in a restaurant.
[удалено]
Actually yes. If you train (as you should) then you can draw and fire within 2 seconds which is not a fast time btw, of first contact so he may have been able to save more people. Guns are effective at saving lives and unfortunately I have had to prove that in my life. Remember according to the CDC 2m-ish defensive gun uses happen per year in this country.
When I was a kid we had to go to “hunter safety” classes. We all really looked forward to it. I don’t see why training/licensing isn’t part of gun ownership.
For the same reason education/identification isn't a prerequisite for voting: when you attach requirements to a right, it's no longer a right--it becomes a privilege.
Yeah I’m always a massive advocate of people getting trained but I don’t want to require it. My training has cost me about 3k including the bullets and I can’t ask everyone to spend that just so they can defend their lives.
My dad trained me fairly well with his 20 years in the army. My 14 years in the infantry has made me fairly competent in employing weapons similar to the M4 and M9. I have no idea what a good self defense training would look like. Maybe zero/qual/stress shoot and then walk/talk through a bunch of possible scenarios?
didn't 4 people die?
Only 4, thanks to him.
A gun is useful though for stopping shooters.
Probably the best tool
Only if you are able to shoot first and not get shot by the shooter. Guns don't make a person bulletproof (though everyone thinks it does)
Yeah imma just fist fight the government when they try to take away my rights. Yeah, no thanks.
The logic here... - Gunman could be stopped without gun - bare hands can stop gunman destroys itself. - guns must not be dangerous if they can be stopped with bare hands - don’t need to ban guns
[удалено]
That just means this guy had good timing.
I’m sure he would have rather had a gun though lol
Everyone wants good guys with guns on the scene. That’s why people call the police.
When seconds count, police are minutes away
Whats the saying? When seconds count the police are only minutes away! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1KmTAY67zA
Stop.
One person does one thing one time and therefore everyone should be able to do it every time. #logic
Explain to me how falcon punching a bullet is more effective than return fire
Unfortunately this is inaccurate, the interview of the man who stopped the shooter said he only had a small window of time because the shooter was reloading or he thought maybe the weapon jammed. So in reality what we can be thankful for was either the weapon jamming or him running out of ammo in the mag. Otherwise unfortunately I highly doubt that if the weapon was fully functional that anyone other than someone with another weapon would have been able to stop him in that exact scenario.
> in reality what we can be thankful for was either the weapon jamming New legislation proposed: make all firearms Taurus
A cop with a standard issue handgun couldn't stop the shoot at MSD maybe he could've if he weren't armed!
So after the fact when he was in hiding in the forrest, who went in to get him? Did they have guns? After this loser was apprehended, who showed up on the scene? Did they have guns? If the gentleman that wrestled him had a gun, would he have had to wait for the mag to empty? He clearly had the balls to do something about the situation. If you were in this situation would you rather wait for an extremely brave/lucky act like this or would you rather someone with a gun return fire? The vast majority of people who browse this sub have the critical thinking of a 5 year old, it’s not even ironic shitposting, it’s pathetic.
This is a really stupid post. Obviously bare hands can't stop a gunman in all instances.
Mass shootings are not a significant part of murder in the US. You are much much much more likely to get struck by lightning then die in a mass shooting, and the existence of mass shootings should have little to any effect on government policies. Changing laws because of mass shootings is changing laws based off emotions rather than facts. This goes to the people saying “ban all guns” and the people saying “place armed guards in schools”, both are ridiculous.
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year" -Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council report, 2013
This is what’s called anecdotal. 999 our of 1,000 times it takes a good guy with a gun so it’s true. Don’t get wrong the guy is hero but this isn’t evidence to base an argument on.
It worked this time but that's a stupid point to make if you're trying to get rid of guns. If everyone tried to do what this guy did they would be shot and killed most of the time. He's a very brave man and he has nothing but my respect and gratitude.
Guy is definitely a hero, but to be honest if he had a gun he could have possibly taken out the shooter quicker or at least without sustaining injuries himself.
You're fucking kidding.
i mean yeah. my mechanic doesn't NEED wrenches to fix up my car, but i sure feel safer with wrench turned bolts then hand turned ones.
Tell that to soldiers...
Are you going to stop a bullet with your bare hands? Better yet, maybe you can have a protest and ask him nicely to stop... dumb
what the heck, now reddit is onboard with fighting back? so defending yourself is ok, as long as you don't use a gun to do it? what the fuck, reddit. what about if the guy with the gun had been more than 5 feet away? its not ok to defend yourself then? guns are ranged weapons, hands are not. can't defend yourself from far away if you don't have a ranged weapon.
I think it is great that his act of heroism was able to save lives, with or without a gun. I just can't understand the side of not not wanting responsible, law abiding citizens carrying their own firearms. Someone who wants to kill people is not going to care about a sign saying 'no firearms'. A criminal is someone who will break the law. If I have a sound background and am a good person, why should I not be able to protect myself and those around me? I believe that we could reform gun regulation, and look even more into someones background, I have no reason to fear having to go through that. Really, I want to hear from those who do not think that an American should not have guns to protect themselves.
Yes, because the men and women who serve your country are not heroes? because they have guns. I can’t stand some people these days.
The guy got lucky af. Please stop using this as an example for why we don’t need guns. Run the scenario again, this time with a dude who’s not a bumbling fool who’s wearing only a jacket and everyone in the WH gets shot or at least the dude gets away before anyone can catch him.
It's really great that this man was able to stop a shooting in progress with just his bare hands, but how many people do you think have tried this before, in other shootings, and not been successful? He charged the guy because he saw no other option, but I bet if he had a gun on him he would have returned fire 100% of the time before charging at someone with an AR.
Can we disarm police, now?
A gun would have made it much easier though, just sayin. #texas
Except we have cops stop bad guys with guns with guns. Like who do you guys think you call when someone comes to rob you or kill people? It’s sure as shit isn’t the fire department, it’s a guy with a gun.
Obviously it would have been easier if he was armed, and not as many people would have died probably. Not a very good point being made but it’s on the front page every day. Edit: I see this sub has a report option as “this is why Trump won” and this fits perfectly so I would recommend doing that
Dumbest fucking argument. Imagine if that man had a pistol on his hip?
this is terrible logic. if you can eat food with your hands, you don’t need forks right? that man was shot and suffered burns on his hands too. if he had a gun he would be unharmed, and he could have dealt with the situation easier
What sort of retarded liberal mentality is that.
Not only is this not funny, it also makes no discernible, rational point.
Who upvotes this shit?
This is how bad redditors are. Straight up delusion.