US Politics on Sidechat | The “future that liberals want“ is not one where you are deprived of guns for self-defence, but rather, a future where they are not necessary

Sidechat

Download

Join communities on Sidechat Download

US Politics 23h

The “future that liberals want“ is not one where you are deprived of guns for self-defence, but rather, a future where they are not necessary

37 upvotes, 20 comments. Sidechat image post by Anonymous in US Politics. "The “future that liberals want“ is not one where you are deprived of guns for self-defence, but rather, a future where they are not necessary"

Anonymous 19h

Liberals seriously think that bringing back a force multiplier in terms of physiology would make self defense a more equitable affair 😂.

Anonymous 21h

But the problem is we have yet to target the problems that would make it unnecessary. And yet we are getting of protection, in a large part of Europe women can’t carry pepper spray for protection

Anonymous 18h

in a future where they are not necessary for self defense I will still own them. So are you going to try and take them away. or not?

-1

Anonymous 21h

But they currently are necessary, and they want to take them away from you

-3

Anonymous 23h

Wrong, liberals think guns are evil and want them taken away from people who love America

-4

Anonymous

#1 22h

Anonymous

#5 19h

A grandma can shoot you no problem, but fat chance they can beat you up with a baseball bat. Guns are a force equalizer, a huge guy up against a gun is actually a disadvantage because more mass = bigger target

Anonymous

#5 18h

Exactly. If someone breaks into my house I am NOT going to get into a melee battle with my silly club and shield. I want them dead 4 inches past the door.

Anonymous

#3 17h

Anonymous

#7 17h

What specifically do you disagree with?

Anonymous

#6 17h

you're more likely to die by your own guns than you are to successfully defend yourself with them. i'm banking on that happening before this future arrives 🤞

Anonymous

#3 17h

both claims

Anonymous

#7 16h

i don't know where you got that fact from but certainly is not the case lol. for someone to kill me with my own gun would mean they would need to take it off me, which if that happens i'm already dead.

Anonymous

#7 16h

Okay, in what way do you disagree?

Anonymous

#6 16h

why the hell would you assume i'm talking about somebody actively taking it from you?

Anonymous

#6 16h

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762

Anonymous

#6 16h

you face twice the risk of dying by gun simply by living in a home with a gun. that could be a misfire, suicide, a domestic dispute getting out of hand, an untrained person getting it, and intruder knowing you have one and shooting first, etc etc etc etc the list goes on you know what there isn't evidence of? civilian gun ownership preventing or reducing crime - in fact it's the opposite

Anonymous

#7 13h

the only way someone can kill me with my gun is if they take it from me that's why.

Anonymous

#7 13h

well none of things will happen because i'm a responsible gun owner, i can speak for idiots. play stupid games win stupid prizes, but that's the peoples fault. and i know quite a few people who have stopped a crime legally with their firearms, i know zero people who have been killed with their own gun.

-3

Anonymous

#7 13h

i dated a girl who's dad shot his hand in his garage trying to clean it (loaded?!?) but again that ain't the guns fault it was that dumbasses fault.