People who are “anti-gun” are not anti gun. They are activists for direct gun violence through the state against innocent people. Explicitly.

They are the most pro gun violence demographic in society.


💯
nostr:nevent1qqsxzu4fq4ec0s84mdzqchg7zekx04q4spwcurgt8glqv5xy8pw38lspz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcpzpw08v4rt5pj9dmfsrk0990zflfywwznt7g5zheap4eefgasjqg7uqvzqqqqqqywar7e3


Not sure about that, I think they are just really naive. COVID really opened my eyes to the need for a well armed and civil society. Speaking as a non US person.


Violent because they are misinformed is exactly the same as violent because they are evil. Makes no difference if the result is the same.

Get them talking about it, you will see their anger and hate rise, and they will pour the blame onto millions who had nothing to do with anything they hate, and openly and explicitly show relief to have them attacked by the state.

That is violence, whether for naive reasons or not.


Ok end result is violence, not going to argue that, but the misinformed/uneducated masses don’t think they are advocating for violence. That was my point. It takes a bit to get your head around this point in my view. Took me a government fabricated global pandemic…


Onward 🫡

Onward 🫡


I do agree with this. Ignorant is the proper term, I think.


Would approach it also with caution. If a society leaves guns laying around the house, barn, office and in vehicles etc., then less guns are better for sure. If a society is smart in average and has similar understanding in regards to common sense then it looks like a good idea. So how does society look like atm, you tell me?


Isn’t the ultimate conclusion from this realisation that government simply shouldn’t exist? If they shouldn’t have a monopoly on violence, then what are they good for? “Absolutely nothing, say it again”


100% agree, but that’s just called being stupid 🤣. And “hiding” guns from people rather than being smart and active about safety and knowledge of how to use it is exactly what leads to this level of disregard and stupidity.

I believe the current way we treat and act like we should be afraid of guns, rather than understand and respect them, is exactly what leads to the current state of things.


Exactly. Because no amount of "anti gun" is going to make guns disappear. It will just change who has access.


Bitcoin is Hope 🧡

Bitcoin is Hope 🧡


Zap ‘em⚡

Zap ‘em⚡


Stay Humble and Stack Sats, Jesus Saves

Stay Humble and Stack Sats, Jesus Saves


There are 13 deaths by gun a year per 100K citizens in the US vs 2 in the rest of the OECD countries.


Without admitting or realizing it, they probably feel it’s more comfortable and easy to outsource responsibility. No government should have a monopoly of violence


Bitcoin business? Try ZapAdd.com

Bitcoin business? Try ZapAdd.com


And the amount of gun ownership has exactly zero to do with this. The point is irrelevant because you have simply stated something with no understanding of what actually causes it.


I stated a fact, you can interpret it as you want. How do you know what other people understand or not based on facts?

To reach a real understanding it's important to analyze all data, not only the data that agrees with your narrative.


Apparently people outside of the US that don't have access to guns commit suicide by other means? You can play with the statistics any way you want.  His point is obviously that anti gun people only want the government to have them


Just for more information. https://image.nostr.build/0afde7a797c39b2728d7abe27daf1223a74175e39ed2034d03d934b4fd797122.jpg


Didn't see the point of state. That's obvious giving a gun and a batch to any idiot with inferiority complex who passes an exam it's the most dangerous thing you can do.


Do "idiots with inferiority complex" not have the right to self defense?  Or just not self defense with a gun?


How I really see it, is guns give people an unreal sense of superiority or strength and creates a nasty industry across the globe. There are very few people that really used their guns to protect their families, it's a good excuse to spend money and go have fun.

Sorry to get in this thread. I do agree if government are allowed to have them the people too.

People with interiority complexes with the power of a batch are going to use that power to feel superior against others,  not to defend them selfs.


Your data doesn’t counter anything, That’s my point. And yes, I happen to have heard this particular political regurgitation that is brought out in practically every single discussion about gun control.

If you thought you were adding new information then I’d assume you haven’t explored this topic very much.


Totally see your point and for the sake of understanding I partially agree with you.

For my understanding, do guns give governments or "people with authority" superior power against others?  Eg a police officer might feel superior to others when having a gun.


That's correct. I'm exploring it now, and it's interesting.


Except for all the tyrannies and dictatorships they've had.

Once you add back that ~1,000,000 deaths a year on average things look different.


LOL... 13.


I always say I'm in favour of a gun-free society; it makes normies happy.

Then I say the government should go first, since each government firearm is thousands of times more likely to kill someone than a civilian one.

Really annoyed my Woke professor uncle with that a few times


That's a good point. What I'm finding out is only on Nostr you can find people open to debate.


#gunstr


Now that you bring it to scale. I was continuing giving it a thought and reach to the following conclusion:

The US has this armament industry (not counting government) that in one side provides the citizens with arms to go to the shooting range to say Fuck Yeah, and support their industry, while in the other side provides arms all around the world to undeveloped countries to kill each others in perpetual civil wars. (Basically a very nasty industry)

It's true that an armed population keeps the government in balance, and also keeps away a possible insurrection of military forces. That's a great point.

It's not easy, I hope Bitcoin fixes this.


I consider myself anti-gun in the sense that I don't think having guns actually protects you from states, because the damage caused by states to its people is no longer correlated to their ability to bear arms against them.

the argument of the US 2nd amendment, however valid at some point in time, seems to me to have been completely nulled at this point.

IMHO, violence and armed conflicts are more a symptom of a failing system than a strategy through which to defend or advance any idea.


I hope so, too.

Among countries with populations over 100M, only the USA and Brazil were not involved in a major democide last century.

They are democratic republics, sure, and large enough to be functionally independent, but so were Germany, Indonesia and Pakistan up to the start of their respective rampages. (Arguably Russia was too, very briefly under Kerensky before the October Revolution kicked off.) So its not that.

USA and Brazil are notable among their peers for widespread citizen ownership of rifles, as well as traditions of decentralised governance. Our sample size here is too small to prove anything, of course, but I think the evidence is rather suggestive.


And this applies to most of government employees/enforcers, too.

As some other Nostriche said it. I am pro gun free society. But government needs to go first as they claim to be superior in their judgements and actions speak louder than words.

But the realistic take is that this is never going to happen. So it's equal rights for all to bear arms that can kill. Almost all material things can be used to kill anyways, so it's about making it easier.

Free trade to fulfill bilateral needs
An impartial monetary system
And evolution of consciousness

Are the decisive questions of our time. The combination ofthee things mentioned above will increase sanity in individuals and the collective.


This is a stretch. To say that because a believe A then I actually knowingly or I’m unknowingly believe B is not a logical argument.

I’m anti gun. I also believe that are are numerous systemic problems that need to be fixed that don’t automatically get better because everyone has a gun.

Take the USA as an example. Their political system is not functioning in the best interest of the population.  Everyone having guns hasn’t stopped this from happening.

The same thing is true in the UK where there are much stricter gun laws but the outcome is very similar.

Guns are not the simple solution ‘pro gun’ would have you believe and they are not the only way to have a functioning democracy.


People who are “anti-gun” are not anti gun. They are activists for direct gun violence through the state against innocent people. Explicitly.

They are the most pro gun violence demographic in society.


What is your take on Ghandi?


Onward 🫡

Onward 🫡


1. If belief A and B are the same, then it isn’t a stretch. To believe in gun control is to explicitly believe in the state monopoly on gun violence and to support their direct violent use against its citizens. It’s even in their actual words most of the time, they project whatever hate and anger they have against some murderer onto every innocent person who owns a gun, and some of the shit they openly say “should be done to gun owners” is horrifying. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

2. If you think guns don’t play a part in the state vs citizen power dynamic then I believe you’ve made a massive miscalculation. People are the same as they’ve always been. The *difference* in power is exactly what causes arrogant tyrants to become more bold and reinforces their worldview that the weak citizens are subjects of the state, not sovereign individuals. The overwhelming violence that follows gun control is something that builds very slowly for a long time, and then explodes all at once. If you are looking at the “very slowly” era and saying things are different, you are just like millions before you in history who made the same mistake. This would not even slightly be the first time people said “it’s different now, we don’t need guns because the state is on our side.” To the contrary this is said EVERY time with the same predictable results. If they didn’t think that, then it wouldn’t have happened.

To the contrary, regardless of how much conflict happens over information and perception, its entire purpose is to control what people allow for direct violence. It doesn’t obsolete guns, it decides who gets to use them with the benefit of appearing like they are “the good guys.”

An armed population remains an irreplaceable deterrent of aggressive, direct state violence against the people. And no, this time is not different.


Just realized that I responded with number 2 to a different post. Sorry got confused with my notifications. 😆


I accidentally combined two posts in my head when responding, so #2 is more a response to this one.

nostr: nostr:note1aunzefdrn6vt9809rlndec5stkn2rsnrhus75f2sf8zeyrr87ygs0hmwvz


On #2:   The very people saying that the U.S. needed gun control were demanding we use our taxpayer money to give guns to citizens of Ukraine to defend themselves against invasion.

Just because your political party has the same name as the tyrannical "leader" doesn't mean you should demand to limit the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

The defense of 2A has been rather successful, which is a positive.

10A needs to be vigorously defended, or challenged and re-instated and then we can start to work on paring down the federal monster.  Send it all back to the states, like Dobbs did with Roe vs. Wade.


No idea what Ghandi’s stance was, but luckily it doesn’t matter. I have a take on the principle of non violence and individual rights. To support gun control is to support the state monopoly over guns and support of their explicit use of them against innocent people.

So whatever Ghandi said should be easy to compare against that.


Decentralized resistance with small arms can successfully counter powerful state militaries. This has been proven recently in Afghanistan. Don't underestimate what an armed population can achieve. The state wants you to believe you are powerless.


They also tend to not be anti war.


Can you give any examples of countries that had a functioning democracy, instituted gun control and then ceased to have a functioning democracy because the state exercised its monopoly on gun violence?

I’m generally open to having my mind changed on things but having grown up and lived in several countries where guns are very rare I find it hard to get on board with the argument that guns are needed to keep a government in check.  My lived experience just tells me that isn’t true.


Ghandi led a non-violent resistance that helped end the British rule in India.

Anyway, the idea of the state's monopoly on violence is that all others can settle their disputes without violence. That works pretty well in my experience.
Of course this monopoly has to be controlled and restricted, but there are better ways than arming up.

You seem to be pointing at the scenario that the monopoly goes completely rogue and it is used to violently suppress the population. Other than that I don't see why state actors use guns against innocent people. At least not more than a random person with a gun.


if a state can be countered by small arms militia, I'd argue that is not a powerful state. which is my point. the violence that ensues is just a symptom of a failing state, not the vehicle of change


不管那个国家侵略中国。中国会一败涂地一盘散沙。当然中国政府要采取一切措施制止战争。无偿送钱无偿搞基建》已保住自己手中的财富权利。.中国内地送土地用于各国使用的租界》现在中国已占有许都地方..建学校工程养老院等场所：现在的政府很聪明不走慈禧式救济——挨打了割地赔款没面子.........政府主动送钱送土地换取和平很广泛...只要不挨打送老婆送亲妈也舍得