PJ @pj@qoto.org

@freemo

Again. It is not about how you define "people". It is about having #criteria on who can and who cannot have a gun, drive a car or buy cigarettes or alcohol ...

The founding fathers had such criteria, as ***everyone could not bear a gun***, and we should also have them.

That's all I have to say.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

You've said it is not the gun that is a problem, it is the person, and I agreed with that.

I just don't agree that we all should have to protect ourselves (supposedly with more guns) from bad persons with guns, instead of, as a civilized society, minimizing the chances these people can do harm.

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere
No. Are you?
@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

Or what? You'll shoot me?

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@freemo

Sorry, didn't realize your automatic weapon is a "classic".😀

@lmrocha @mike805

@freemo

I believe the definition of "people" at that time, as @lmrocha pointed out, might have been very narrow.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805

@thatguyoverthere

Ad 1: So you are OK to inconvenience a lot of innocent people by having to protect themselves and the places they work or study rather than have someone who wants to own a deadly weapon jump through a few hoops before they can get one? Nice.

AD 2: I wasn't talking about the morals of your founding father figures, I was merely pointing out that they also had some (unwritten) criteria of who can and cannot have guns, that you think we don't need today.

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@freemo

Yes, they don't explicitly state in the constitution who is and who isn't allowed to have guns, but I think it is pretty clear what would have happened if one of their slaves went for a gun.

You can't run a society without qualifying clauses.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

So this guy with an automatic weapon shooting beer cans recorded himself committing a crime? Smart.

https://twitter.com/KidRock/status/1643090302410936323?s=20

@lmrocha @mike805

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

Bingo! You've got it!

Nobody wants to ban guns and nobody is coming for your guns. We just want to be sure that they don't end up as easily in the hands of a person that may start shooting indiscriminately in a school or other public place.

Even the founding fathers had some "well-regulated" criteria for who can and who cannot have a gun (white men with wigs yes, founding mothers and people with slightly dark complexion no).

The criteria arguably changed from then but the principle stands.

@rrb @freemo @DutyBard

From everything (not much) that I was able to find on the topic, this one seems like a pretty decent, leveled accounting of the matter:

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

@freemo

Any idea where to find out more or maybe an analysis about such occurrences?

Does the NRA maybe keep record and track such instances? If I was in their position and making the argument that "more guns in the hands of good people is stopping bad people with and without guns" I would have a database of such instances and constantly trumpet them to the public but I don't recall having seen anything like that.

@DutyBard @rrb

@freemo

You for sure have a lot of examples or even statistics that shows how many good people with guns avoided being killed or raped by people without guns.

@DutyBard @rrb

@rrb @freemo

Agree. As I've said all governments are oppressive by definition, because they have to #regulate things that inevitably infringe on an individual's #freedom (e.g. the "freedom" to shoot at whomever they want).
All I'm saying is that guns are not the only and, I would argue, not the most effective tool to get rid of oppressive undemocratic governments.

@freemo @rrb

This is a "strawman" argument. You can't base your current safety policies on the remote possibility that the government may one day become oppressive.

All governments are more or less oppressive but the good thing is that they don't survive for too long and inevitably collapse when they become too oppressive.

@freemo @rrb

Yes, and it would help a lot if the country from where they are smuggled wouldn't sell them like cupcakes.

One has to register appliances these days, but guns? God forbid.

@freemo @rrb

It is not just the police. Their role is to react to incidents and investigate afterward. I'm talking about #prevention. Gun ownership regulation is a part of it but not all.

The killer in this instance had a history of domestic abuse and obvious mental issues but nobody bothered to check his guns, two of which were smuggled from the US.

@freemo @rrb

This is not in the Wild West anymore. I thought the government as an instrument of a civilized society was responsible for the protection of its citizens, especially the weak.

You say these people would be alive today if only they had guns. I believe some of them may have owned one, and one of the people killed, a police officer Const. Heidi Stevenson had used her and died anyway:

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/a-look-at-the-22-nova-scotians-killed-in-canada-s-worst-mass-shooting-1.6335839

@freemo @rrb I don’t understand how's having a gun to protect oneself from a sick (or just evil) person is a better solution than making sure those people can't get a gun in the first place.
Using more guns to protect against bad people with guns is only good for gun manufacturers.
And nobody is asking the outright *banning* of guns, just to make sure peoplw that want them have the capacity to use them safely.

@freemo @rrb
That's the thing you think having a gun is a *right* while I believe it is a *privilege*, you have to first assure the community you will not do them harm if they give you that privilege.