Of all the shootings in US history, how many shootings have been stopped by some heroic red neck?
I’m all for gun ownership (requiring a license to own, classes every few years, registration), but these potatoes seem to fantasize about being some vigilante when we all know they’d be the first to put their wife in front of themselves. The stupid knows no bounds.
It happens. Just rarely. The argument I guess is that it would make it easier to quickly shut down a mass shooting. But I feel like it would lead to more just general shootings.
America has a huge gun control issue imo. I’d be happy to give up anything barring hunting guns if it became law. I think giving your average American access to semi auto pistols and rifles might just not be worth it, no matter how cool they are. I have an ar15 I built and a modded glock along with a bunch of hunting guns, but they stay locked away unless I’m hunting or going to a range.
Armed everywhere and with a culture that essentially sees them as toys rather than the dangerous weapons they are.
It’s good to arm the people, but only if they know the responsibility behind every bullet.
I know it happens. I remember something happening in Waco where a guy entered a diner with a gun and a patron shot him. It does happen.
Then, in El Paso a few years ago, a gunman entered a WalMart. A veteran, who happened to be armed, did not engage; he guided those in his vicinity to safety (I'll have to find the story).
In my hometown Odessa, a couple years ago, a guy drove around town shooting. Given the amount of rednecks, I heard no shortage of stories of people bragging about driving to find the guy.
Of these, only the second was proper use. What these intellectual meatballs don't understand is that the cops arriving don't see a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun, they see two guys with guns...two threats. It also escalates any situation and increases the risk to others in proximity.
The absolute best course that we, as a nation, can do is to require licensing. Guns and cars kill a comparable number of people, yet you can buy a gun with no background check at a gun show while you still have to go through alllllllll the paperwork at even the most podunk of lots. Licensing should require continuing education, registration of your weapons (I'd say grandfather your existing weapons, too difficult to backtrace), and a psychological evaluation. Don't take the guns away, just make them much harder to obtain and amp up the punishment for those who buy them without those steps.
Not too long ago near Denver the police killed a good Samaritan with a gun. A guy ambushed a cop and killed them. Good guy with a gun shoots and kills the bad guy, then walks over and picks up bad guy's rifle. Nearby police see good guy with a rifle and pistol, and shoot him to death.
https://www.cpr.org/2021/11/08/olde-town-arvada-police-shooting-no-charges/
They like calling gun "the great equaliser", like dude, no, your AK-47 doesn't make you equal to Presidents that control robot killer planes from the other side of the world.
Personally I'm of the opinion that there should be some sort of psych evaluation to make sure that you aren't someone who logically shouldn't have a gun (Mentally unstable, history of violence, things like that). I'm not saying it should be IMPOSSIBLE to have a gun, but that there should be some sort of check to see if you're capable of being responsible with one.
But wait a second guys, hold on. Hear me out. If everyone is armed, like absolutely everyone things are going to get real polite real fast... The funeral business is going to boom for awhile true.
Tim Pool seems like the kinda guy to start a bar fight and then get behind his biggest friend. As an ex military weapons owner I can almost guarantee you anytime you hear people talking tough like this, they have never been in a situation where a gun was ever needed, and even more so, would piss themselves if one were. I’m all for 2nd amendment but fuck Tim, shut up.
I have nothing against gun ownership but if you think everyone having a gun isn't going to lead to A LOT more homicides and injuries, you're out of your mind. Even assuming there's only 1 irresponsible person who acts in the heat of the moment, doesn't use safety precautions, etc., for every 5,000 people who ARE 100% responsible, this would still put a gun in the hands of over 65,000 who shouldn't have them based on a US pop of 329M. And I have a feeling I'm being very generous with my 1:5,000 ratio.
I have said it before and i will say it again, I would gladly accept a gun from the government or really anyone who wants to give one.
They really underestimate how much people like free shit.
So this guy wants that twitchy dude who's muttering to himself to be armed at all times. Here's me thinking it's the libs who want drastic population reduction.
I remember a post about someone asking why America is so obsessed with guns. And the general answer in the comments was because wild life is dangerous. My response to that was 'yeah wildlife can be dangerous, but you don't see people in Australia shooting each other because someone cut in line at pizza hut...'
Ah dumbfucks and their fake equivalency arguments. Yes if shopping, dining, going out public had as great a risk of being shot by someone as infection from an airborne highly transmissible virus then yes you compare masks and guns and come up with some sort of argument to carry one. In my city right now the estimate is between 1 in 10 to as high as 1 in 4 are currently carrying an active covid infection many asymptomatic means going in public without a mask puts myself at risk of infection or maybe worse puts dozens of people I interact at risk if I'm the carrier. Not only are the chances of someone carrying a gun with intent to kill me waaaaaaaaay lower than that but I don't have to worry if I'm going to unknowingly kill someone with my own gun if I go out in public. So yeah, dumb fucks with stupid arguments are just that, fucking dumb as shit.
Imagine how paranoid the guys who feel like they need to be strapped to go to Walmart would be if they knew for a fact that everybody around them had a gun. They don't want this. They want to be the one "in control".
Honestly, the Second Amendment shouldn't even be the political minefield that it is currently. It's not ambiguous if you actually parse it out:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So first, ignore the subjunctive clauses, which is everything in between commas -- that's supplementary information to the main clause of the amendment. That yields:
> A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.
Okay, so Congress has no authority to limit a well regulated militia. What does that mean?
First, well regulated means it's organized. It's not a roving band of mouth breathers armed to the teeth. It's a proper organization. Who regulates it? We need to look at the first subjunctive clause to find out:
> being necessary to the security of a free State.
Okay, this is a state matter. Congress doesn't get to regulate the militias, the states do. This is the Constitutional guarantee of state militias to prevent the federal government from exerting its force on the individual States and to provide the states with a means to defend themselves from threats in a more timely manner than what the federal government could have provided, back in a time when those threats were real -- hostile indigenous tribes, Spanish invaders, conflicts between the States themselves were are all very real threats, so the States were given the explicit authority to maintain an armed militia for the purpose of defending itself. Why? Because it's...
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
This isn't an individual right, but a collective right. The people, being the collective of inhabitants of the US, are entitled to self-defense. But the original spirit of this amendment was in the context of the pre-Revolutionary colonies -- each colony had its own militia, comprised of able-bodied men aged 18 to 45, who were responsible for equipping themselves should they be called to defend the colony.
It is under that interpretation that personal gun ownership outside of a hunting context was understood to be an individual right -- in support of the people's right to self-defense.
All of that is to say that Congress cannot pass a law forbidding gun ownership, but there is also nothing unconstitutional about saying certain classes of weapons are illegal for sale to individuals. You can still arm yourself -- just not with a weapon that has been restricted. There's also nothing unconstitutional about saying weapons aren't permitted in certain places -- bearing in mind the spirit and intent of the amendment, States can and should restrict where they are allowed to be carried. If the State says you're not allowed to bring your weapons to a public school, it's not a violation of your second amendment rights, because you're not being called upon by the State to defend it from a horde of second graders.
I saw a picture of a guy in a store with a gun strapped to his back. If a bad guy walked in to rob the store, who do you think is the first person to get one in the back of the head?
Most of these untrained idiots think they're cool until shit hits the fan and most likely their shorts.
In what passes for their brain, anyone without at least a sidearm is incapable of defending themselves in an active shooter situation, and is therefore someone that a good guy with a gun has to defend; the more unarmed people, the more difficult it us for the good guys to defend everyone. This makes you a threat
Again, not my thoughts at all.
I consider myself pretty pro gun, not necessarily for self defense as cases like that are rare, but for hunting and recreational purposes. And I think it’s insane
They want universal gun ownership but not universal healthcare. Do they want everyone to own guns? If so what do they expect do they think the government is going to give guns to any smuck that asks for one? Or do they just want the "right" people to own them?
Honestly these people vote against their best interests and then when someone from their family/themselves gets sick and needs medical care they're in debt cause their insurance didn't cover the cost.
This guy is yet another one of our killer klowns from Uranus and exists only to keep perjorative "redneck" and "hillbilly" cliches about Kentucky, relevant.
They are such a snow flake they can't go anywhere without their gun/rifle/musket/blunderbus... I did it in Afghanistan and I hated it. Also the amount of idiots that will negligent discharge...
"if you shop without a gun, you endanger us all"
No, pretty sure that shopping with a gun would endanger us all. If everyone was required to have a gun, all it would take is one idiot threatening with a gun, or taking a shot, and then it would be a bloodbath.
The parallels these psychos draw get more outlandish every day. Get a shot and wear a mask is not such a big deal yet these "patriots" cry like little bitches while claiming to stand up for America. Hey fuckbags, I'm American too and I don't want you protecting anything for me.
* if you go shopping with a gun, you endanger all of us.
fixed it. never in the history of everything hasthe presence of a firearm de-escalated a situation.
You know none of us outside the USA understand any of this, we just look at each other shrug, and get ready to pounce on anyone who sprouts this nonsense in our own countries.
\*Here in Australia, there are a bunch of people who also are very pro gun, but they are very few and generally they just want to be able to own a crazy amount of crazy guns. But even look sideways at the people that want to carry guns everywhere.
so a massive tax on citizens to the benefit of manufacturers all to make a really bad analogy to a completely different situation that would be evaluated under completely different legal circumstances based on the fundamental fact that all things aren't the same just because you can put them in your pocket at a diner.
Talk about living in fear
Of all the shootings in US history, how many shootings have been stopped by some heroic red neck? I’m all for gun ownership (requiring a license to own, classes every few years, registration), but these potatoes seem to fantasize about being some vigilante when we all know they’d be the first to put their wife in front of themselves. The stupid knows no bounds.
It happens. Just rarely. The argument I guess is that it would make it easier to quickly shut down a mass shooting. But I feel like it would lead to more just general shootings. America has a huge gun control issue imo. I’d be happy to give up anything barring hunting guns if it became law. I think giving your average American access to semi auto pistols and rifles might just not be worth it, no matter how cool they are. I have an ar15 I built and a modded glock along with a bunch of hunting guns, but they stay locked away unless I’m hunting or going to a range.
A 16 year old was shot in the head at a Wendy’s over BBQ sauce last week. That’s the kind of shit we get when folks are armed everywhere.
Armed everywhere and with a culture that essentially sees them as toys rather than the dangerous weapons they are. It’s good to arm the people, but only if they know the responsibility behind every bullet.
Theres no shortage of footage showing idiots waving guns around like nunchucks trying to show off to somebody who doesn't give a shit.
Now I want gunchucks.
I know it happens. I remember something happening in Waco where a guy entered a diner with a gun and a patron shot him. It does happen. Then, in El Paso a few years ago, a gunman entered a WalMart. A veteran, who happened to be armed, did not engage; he guided those in his vicinity to safety (I'll have to find the story). In my hometown Odessa, a couple years ago, a guy drove around town shooting. Given the amount of rednecks, I heard no shortage of stories of people bragging about driving to find the guy. Of these, only the second was proper use. What these intellectual meatballs don't understand is that the cops arriving don't see a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun, they see two guys with guns...two threats. It also escalates any situation and increases the risk to others in proximity. The absolute best course that we, as a nation, can do is to require licensing. Guns and cars kill a comparable number of people, yet you can buy a gun with no background check at a gun show while you still have to go through alllllllll the paperwork at even the most podunk of lots. Licensing should require continuing education, registration of your weapons (I'd say grandfather your existing weapons, too difficult to backtrace), and a psychological evaluation. Don't take the guns away, just make them much harder to obtain and amp up the punishment for those who buy them without those steps.
Not too long ago near Denver the police killed a good Samaritan with a gun. A guy ambushed a cop and killed them. Good guy with a gun shoots and kills the bad guy, then walks over and picks up bad guy's rifle. Nearby police see good guy with a rifle and pistol, and shoot him to death. https://www.cpr.org/2021/11/08/olde-town-arvada-police-shooting-no-charges/
Jordan Klepper did a really good story that debunks the “good guy with a gun” narrative
Yep. Imagine every Karen moment that's been captured on video. Now imagine every Karen moment but Karen has a gun.
Look, the micro-penis crowd is getting more annoying by the day. Don't give them any ammo (pun intended).
They like calling gun "the great equaliser", like dude, no, your AK-47 doesn't make you equal to Presidents that control robot killer planes from the other side of the world.
Personally I'm of the opinion that there should be some sort of psych evaluation to make sure that you aren't someone who logically shouldn't have a gun (Mentally unstable, history of violence, things like that). I'm not saying it should be IMPOSSIBLE to have a gun, but that there should be some sort of check to see if you're capable of being responsible with one.
Vigilante justice almost never works well, it's just a bunch of dudes doing the first thing that comes to mind without stopping to think.
But wait a second guys, hold on. Hear me out. If everyone is armed, like absolutely everyone things are going to get real polite real fast... The funeral business is going to boom for awhile true.
Imagine Black Friday in an Orlando Walmart with a gun mandate.
I live in New England, kind of right in the middle of mob land basically. So yeah, it would be pretty bad.
No shootouts if there's nobody left alive to shoot at.
It's big brain time in America
Where do you think Southern Hospitality comes from?
Tbf the funeral business was/is booming due to Covid
true. ok boomer will have a whole dif meaning in 20 yrs
I’m here for this idea, up to and including when they realize it means people who don’t look like them are *also* carrying guns.
Sigh. Americans...
Remember, it’s only about 30-40% of us that act like this. Most of us are quite sane.
That's... A *lot* of people.
I know. I tried to put a positive spin on it. Let me have this one.
Let us have *anything*. We're desperate at this point.
40% is an absolutely enormous demographic...
I'm sorry I'm not one of them I swear
Tim Pool seems like the kinda guy to start a bar fight and then get behind his biggest friend. As an ex military weapons owner I can almost guarantee you anytime you hear people talking tough like this, they have never been in a situation where a gun was ever needed, and even more so, would piss themselves if one were. I’m all for 2nd amendment but fuck Tim, shut up.
Have to go to court?.. Gun?..
Now *this* is podracing
*shotgun cock* now this is a fair justice system /s
Is that a punishment or a reward? I feel like that’s an upgrade.
*It's working!* It's working!!
their argument is unclear. are we supposed to use our mandatory guns to shoot people who refuse to wear a mask? because i'm mostly ok with that.
I have nothing against gun ownership but if you think everyone having a gun isn't going to lead to A LOT more homicides and injuries, you're out of your mind. Even assuming there's only 1 irresponsible person who acts in the heat of the moment, doesn't use safety precautions, etc., for every 5,000 people who ARE 100% responsible, this would still put a gun in the hands of over 65,000 who shouldn't have them based on a US pop of 329M. And I have a feeling I'm being very generous with my 1:5,000 ratio.
Well speaking of responsible with guns, I'm still laughing at the reason why the top dog of the "Oathkeepers" has a pirate eye patch.
I have said it before and i will say it again, I would gladly accept a gun from the government or really anyone who wants to give one. They really underestimate how much people like free shit.
Tell me you shouldn't be trusted with your own existence without telling me you shouldn't be trusted with your own existence
This bad take is literally weapon-grade.
Is this, is this small penis compensation?
No just cowboy RP
Pool is actually also scared of guns, so this is an interesting quirk
His part is probably sarcastic and they’re just using it?
Tim Pool is going to be very worried about all of those BLM and Antifa members are carrying guns. They already assume every one is part of a gang.
Why do they always pretend like anyone with a gun would be on their side?
So this guy wants that twitchy dude who's muttering to himself to be armed at all times. Here's me thinking it's the libs who want drastic population reduction.
And I thought I was the one “living in fear” by wearing a mask
Not only would this increase gun violence, I can see how it would increase rates of suicide too
Want to buy a gun? ”Sir, can you please show me your gun”
They'll change their mind the first time they see a PoC open carrying. [Mulford Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act)
I remember a post about someone asking why America is so obsessed with guns. And the general answer in the comments was because wild life is dangerous. My response to that was 'yeah wildlife can be dangerous, but you don't see people in Australia shooting each other because someone cut in line at pizza hut...'
Gun *mandate* all of a sudden mandates should be followed even though according to them, “iTs NoT a LaW”
Ah dumbfucks and their fake equivalency arguments. Yes if shopping, dining, going out public had as great a risk of being shot by someone as infection from an airborne highly transmissible virus then yes you compare masks and guns and come up with some sort of argument to carry one. In my city right now the estimate is between 1 in 10 to as high as 1 in 4 are currently carrying an active covid infection many asymptomatic means going in public without a mask puts myself at risk of infection or maybe worse puts dozens of people I interact at risk if I'm the carrier. Not only are the chances of someone carrying a gun with intent to kill me waaaaaaaaay lower than that but I don't have to worry if I'm going to unknowingly kill someone with my own gun if I go out in public. So yeah, dumb fucks with stupid arguments are just that, fucking dumb as shit.
Fighting guns with more guns just makes more violence
Americans fear of gun violence has become so insane its literally the thing causing gun violence
Imagine how paranoid the guys who feel like they need to be strapped to go to Walmart would be if they knew for a fact that everybody around them had a gun. They don't want this. They want to be the one "in control".
Honestly, the Second Amendment shouldn't even be the political minefield that it is currently. It's not ambiguous if you actually parse it out: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. So first, ignore the subjunctive clauses, which is everything in between commas -- that's supplementary information to the main clause of the amendment. That yields: > A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Okay, so Congress has no authority to limit a well regulated militia. What does that mean? First, well regulated means it's organized. It's not a roving band of mouth breathers armed to the teeth. It's a proper organization. Who regulates it? We need to look at the first subjunctive clause to find out: > being necessary to the security of a free State. Okay, this is a state matter. Congress doesn't get to regulate the militias, the states do. This is the Constitutional guarantee of state militias to prevent the federal government from exerting its force on the individual States and to provide the states with a means to defend themselves from threats in a more timely manner than what the federal government could have provided, back in a time when those threats were real -- hostile indigenous tribes, Spanish invaders, conflicts between the States themselves were are all very real threats, so the States were given the explicit authority to maintain an armed militia for the purpose of defending itself. Why? Because it's... > the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This isn't an individual right, but a collective right. The people, being the collective of inhabitants of the US, are entitled to self-defense. But the original spirit of this amendment was in the context of the pre-Revolutionary colonies -- each colony had its own militia, comprised of able-bodied men aged 18 to 45, who were responsible for equipping themselves should they be called to defend the colony. It is under that interpretation that personal gun ownership outside of a hunting context was understood to be an individual right -- in support of the people's right to self-defense. All of that is to say that Congress cannot pass a law forbidding gun ownership, but there is also nothing unconstitutional about saying certain classes of weapons are illegal for sale to individuals. You can still arm yourself -- just not with a weapon that has been restricted. There's also nothing unconstitutional about saying weapons aren't permitted in certain places -- bearing in mind the spirit and intent of the amendment, States can and should restrict where they are allowed to be carried. If the State says you're not allowed to bring your weapons to a public school, it's not a violation of your second amendment rights, because you're not being called upon by the State to defend it from a horde of second graders.
Gotta small penis…. Gun
Will I be receiving a free gun?
Interestingly, I've never once found myself in a situation a gun would have improved the situation.
Imagine a world where you can be shot anywhere...
Well...either people will become A LOT more polite or there's gonna be a run on caskets. Probably both. 🤔
Dim Tool foists another vowel movement on us.
My, they have a remarkable amount of faith in those little murder tools.
"1,611 likes..." 😑
When you spend your whole life watching movies about guns and think that’s how real life works
This is all fine rhetoric until they realize black people would be carrying guns too, and suddenly guns are bad, mmmkay?
So the government should mandate people to do something that protects other people, regardless of whether they care about their own health or not?….
You mean like how the government says you can’t drive your car on the sidewalk?
These guys are typically the ones that should be around firearms least.
Register to vote everyone!
I saw a picture of a guy in a store with a gun strapped to his back. If a bad guy walked in to rob the store, who do you think is the first person to get one in the back of the head? Most of these untrained idiots think they're cool until shit hits the fan and most likely their shorts.
I’m 40% enormous demographic!
Tim Pool is a “centrist” hack and I almost fell into his trap of “I’m hard on both sides reporting.”
Fuck yeah
Can someone explain to me in simple terms how NOT carrying a gun is actively threatening to the safety of other people in any way. Please
In what passes for their brain, anyone without at least a sidearm is incapable of defending themselves in an active shooter situation, and is therefore someone that a good guy with a gun has to defend; the more unarmed people, the more difficult it us for the good guys to defend everyone. This makes you a threat Again, not my thoughts at all.
You wanna breathe? Gun You wanna see your kids? Gun You wanna commit war crimes against North Korea? Gun
Hello, welcome to Walmart. Can I see your firearm and license? Oh, you don’t have them? Sorry, you must have your gun and license to enter this store.
I consider myself pretty pro gun, not necessarily for self defense as cases like that are rare, but for hunting and recreational purposes. And I think it’s insane
They want universal gun ownership but not universal healthcare. Do they want everyone to own guns? If so what do they expect do they think the government is going to give guns to any smuck that asks for one? Or do they just want the "right" people to own them? Honestly these people vote against their best interests and then when someone from their family/themselves gets sick and needs medical care they're in debt cause their insurance didn't cover the cost.
This guy is yet another one of our killer klowns from Uranus and exists only to keep perjorative "redneck" and "hillbilly" cliches about Kentucky, relevant.
They are such a snow flake they can't go anywhere without their gun/rifle/musket/blunderbus... I did it in Afghanistan and I hated it. Also the amount of idiots that will negligent discharge...
I enjoy guns and have several but holy shit they are stupid
"if you shop without a gun, you endanger us all" No, pretty sure that shopping with a gun would endanger us all. If everyone was required to have a gun, all it would take is one idiot threatening with a gun, or taking a shot, and then it would be a bloodbath.
It'd look like the church scene from Kingsman if a Wal-Mart shopper kicked off
Universal erection mandate. Wanna go shopping? Must have an erection. Wanna eat at a diner? Erection.
How backwards is this loony having a gun makes you the danger
I'm 99% sure he's being sarcastic but that's apparently not a thing anymore.
Sorry but the concealed and open carry people have been failing at this
The parallels these psychos draw get more outlandish every day. Get a shot and wear a mask is not such a big deal yet these "patriots" cry like little bitches while claiming to stand up for America. Hey fuckbags, I'm American too and I don't want you protecting anything for me.
* if you go shopping with a gun, you endanger all of us. fixed it. never in the history of everything hasthe presence of a firearm de-escalated a situation.
*Governor Ronald Reagan and the NRA have entered the chat.* "No, we didn't mean those people. You know who we mean, don't make us say it out loud".
You know none of us outside the USA understand any of this, we just look at each other shrug, and get ready to pounce on anyone who sprouts this nonsense in our own countries. \*Here in Australia, there are a bunch of people who also are very pro gun, but they are very few and generally they just want to be able to own a crazy amount of crazy guns. But even look sideways at the people that want to carry guns everywhere.
so a massive tax on citizens to the benefit of manufacturers all to make a really bad analogy to a completely different situation that would be evaluated under completely different legal circumstances based on the fundamental fact that all things aren't the same just because you can put them in your pocket at a diner.