Anonymous #1 1w

yeah let me just tell the government what to do that’ll work super well. my state literally tried to mandate that all printers include software to detect stls of firearm parts if they were sold in the state.

10

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

That sounds like an issue to take up with your state legislature

1

Anonymous #1 1w

also gun control is a net positive for society. we should strive to have less guns, not more.

6

Anonymous #1 1w

yeah they gave up on it when someone told them what an stl is, but this rugged individualism pseudo 2a bullshit is just as lame when it’s from the left as it is from the right

5

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Well you can want what you want, but I think a) guns are cool and b) I might need one to defend my self from bears, rapists, or the government

0

Anonymous #1 1w

you’re not gonna defend yourself from the government. good luck using small arms against a cruise missile. the whole ‘defense against the government’ thing really stops working whenever there’s a threshold of weaponry you can’t possess, and I’m okay with nuclear warheads not being available to the public.

6

Anonymous #1 1w

how many government officials and rapists have you killed so far? none? thought so.

0

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

They wouldn't nuke their own country for a lot of reasons

0

Anonymous #2 1w

None have come to my house either so in my study with a sample size of 1 guns are an effective deterrent

3

Anonymous #1 1w

i wouldn’t put it past the guy who’s got the football now

5

Anonymous #1 1w

"i need them to defend myself but the situation hasn't presented itself so i'll just keep collecting guns until i get to shoot someone"

4

Anonymous #2 1w

and that’s before you include the statistic that if you have guns you are more likely to be shot with them in a home intrusion than defend yourself. but every american thinks they’re the exception.

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Wdym "get to" shoot someone? I'd hope I never have to

4

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Whats the source for that one that sounds ridiculous

0

Anonymous #1 1w

i misremembered it, it’s not shot in a home invasion, it’s just shot to death with your own gun. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

2

Anonymous #1 1w

sample size of 600,000 btw

4

Anonymous #1 1w

and it only covered homicide, not non-fatal intentional shootings, or any accidental discharges

5

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Thats not about being shot to death with your own gun, thats about being more likely to be shot if you live with someone who owns a gun

1

Anonymous #1 1w

yeah, I said I misremembered the study.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

still pretty clear evidence that we should strive to have less guns

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I wouldn't trust a gun owner who lives in California either

1

Anonymous #1 1w

you do realize california is like 42% republican, right?

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I definitely would not trust a California republican. Thats how we got this wave of MAGA instead of Ron Paul/Massie type

1

Anonymous #1 1w

and again, this is about homicide and doesn’t include accidental discharges, how does california play into the study with a sample size of 600,000 in your expert opinion as a researcher on gun violence?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

that’s just a no true scotsman argument

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Also, the assertion that maga is california’s fault is just laughable, and ignores that trump has massive support in just about every single flyover state. He does rallies all over the country, that are all filled to the brim with red hatted cultists.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Either way I'm gonna continue to 3d print my own guns for personal lawful use 💯

1

Anonymous #1 1w

enjoy your visit from the ATF. hope you don’t have a dog.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

3d printing guns for yourself isn't illegal communist

1

Anonymous #1 1w

you think the ATF cares about legal? you’re the one who thinks they’re all out to get you and take your guns.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

you’re still required to ensure the frame/receiver contains 106g of metal

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I know people who've spoken with ATF agents before and they will tell you straight to your face that they would prefer not to engage in every little tiny discrepancy of detail in the NFA (frts, ar pistols yada yada yada) especially when done in good faith for lawful purposes. This isn't even that though, homemade firearms have always been lawful.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

There isn't a single file out there that can be made while your finished gun contains less than that

1

Anonymous #1 1w

the firearm must contain 106g, and the receiver/frame is the firearm, legally speaking, no?

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Not in the undetectable firearms act no. You're thinking of the NFA.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

ah interesting

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I’m sure some ATF agents are chill, but it only takes one who’s a prick to get your shit blown smooth off

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

just seems like a risk that’s not worthwhile imo, especially considering essentially all the data says that the moment you own a firearm your likelihood of death dramatically increases

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Lot of things are dangerous but just saying that on a statistical overview doesn't take into account things like education, experience

1

Anonymous #1 1w

you can’t beat the numbers man. a study of 600,000 people includes a large component of educated, experienced people. you know how many educated, experienced woodworkers don’t have 10 fingers?

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

You absolutely can when its like 8 vs 12 out of 100k level numbers

1

Anonymous #1 1w

also, your argument is logically equivalent to the copium of “no they didn’t do communism right” we’ve seen time and time again through many different studies, that being in proximity to firearms increases your risk of death significantly, and that armed self defense is exceedingly rare, but you’re saying “they just weren’t doing gun ownership right”

1

Anonymous #1 1w

the US is the only county that regularly has school shootings. Our firearm deaths are significantly higher than every other OECD nation. Less guns = less gun deaths. It’s simple math.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

That largely started after we stopped allowing guns on school property, and mass shootings in general (not including gang violence or domestic violence) largely occur in gun free zones.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

https://giffords.org/analysis/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth/ you have a source on the gun free zone thing? or evidence that in the past it was commonplace for mass shootings to be stopped by people with guns at schools, before we stopped allowing that?

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/5273 CPRC stat 94-98% of mass public shootings 1950-2018 happened in gun free zones

1

Anonymous #1 1w

https://gvpedia.org/gun-myths/occur-in/

1

Anonymous #1 1w

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-gun-violence-mass-shootings-nashville-712807001259

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Here's a recorded case of a mass shooter killed by return gunfire prior to the 1990s era bans on guns in schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Chicago_shootings

1

Anonymous #1 1w

ok, and how many other mass shootings were there from 1950-1988, if it was commonplace surely there will be more than one example

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Significantly less school shootings than today, averaging around 50 per decade instead of 500 nowadays

1

Anonymous #1 1w

also, that 94-98% figure is pretty misleading, from 1950-1990 concealed carry was heavily restricted, making the majority of places gun free zones, and the guy who did that study counted every mass shooting death from 1977-1997 as an individual mass shooting, and used an inconsistent definition of mass shooting throughout the years in question

1

Anonymous #1 1w

ok, so let’s do some napkin math, at 50/decade, starting from 1950 and going up until 1988, that’s 190 mass shootings, surely there should still be more examples of return fire?

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Thats why statistics arguments just don't really move the needle for me in politics

1

Anonymous #1 1w

statistics arguments don’t move the needle because you cite garbage studies performed by gun rights activists and funded by the NRA, and those just happen to misrepresent things? and that’s an issue with all statistics?

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

You could argue mine are biased cause they're funded by the NRA, I could say yours are cause they're funded by Bloomberg or Giffords or Brady.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

the math just doesn’t add up on return fire or the good guy with a gun, please explain to me why there aren’t more recorded examples of return fire stopping a mass shooting, if that was commonplace before we banned guns in schools, even if there were half as many mass shootings per decade, that’s still 95 between 1950 and 1988, with one instance of return fire

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I don't think that defensive gun uses were something commonly reported on back then genuinely

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Bloomberg, the financial publication? you’re grasping here. The NRA is a lobbying group, first and foremost, and they stop getting money when less people have guns. They certainly have a far greater incentive than gun violence advocacy groups, who would actually be better off perpetuating gun violence, financially speaking.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Bloomberg the billionaire genius

1

Anonymous #1 1w

i mean even if you look at modern data, self defense with firearms is exceedingly rare. this is an NIH-funded study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2759797/

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Also there is more money in the anti gun lobby with every town alone than in the nra

1

Anonymous #1 1w

ah, got it, though he’s far from a genius imo

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I meant it like "genius" sarcastically

4

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

whatever you get the point

3

Anonymous #1 1w

that’s just flat wrong, lmao https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/gun-rights-lobby-outspends-gun-control-advocates-by-a-wide-margin.html

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

People aren't going to report every defensive gun use to the NIH

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

In a lot of cases there isn't even someone to report it to

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I said the nra not the whole gun rights lobby too but I guess we're splitting hairs here though when really what we should be saying is that we fundamentally disagree with each other. I think gun rights are an extension of the right to defend yourself, which I see as a human right, and am going to try to find statistics to support that regardless of biases in them.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

How many times had the government used a cruise missile against citizens in the united states thought? Weird fucking point to make

1