News @lemmy.world some_guy @lemmy.sdf.org 1y ago

'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting

www.rawstory.com 'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting

Someone who says they ran away from the mass shooting at the Chiefs parade on Wednesday says they saw someone else running: a GOP governor who frequently touts his support for firearms.Earlier on Wednesday, between eight and 10 people were shot near the Chiefs Super Bowl parade, and two armed suspec...

Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!

My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.

276

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

276 comments

I do support unregulated guns, but I am willing to compromise. Right now guns are extremely regulated particularly in some states, which is wrong. I think the biggest problem is that the regulations that some people want are ineffective at best.
- I do support unregulated guns
  
  Really? So guns for toddlers? Guns for people who have been institutionalized multiple times? Guns for people who have committed treasonous acts?
  
  A former school shooter gets out of prison- give them a gun?
  
  Guns for people who have committed treasonous acts?
  
  This is the exact reason I support unregulated gun use, because people can claim things and then people lose rights.
  
  Right, so you think clinically insane people and toddlers should have guns.
  
  I think the only valid point you have is that insane people shouldnt have guns; toddlers parents should be in charge of what they have access to. So if you proposition is that we only limit guns to insane people, I agree to this compromise.
  
  toddlers parents should be in charge of what they have access to.
  
  Got it. Parents get to decide whether or not toddlers should have access to drugs.
  
  Strawman
  
  Nope, logical inference based on what you said.
  
  Or does "toddlers parents should be in charge of what they have access to" mean something non-literal? Was it metaphorical? I doubt it.
  
  If you're going to make sweeping general statements that apply in every situation, that's not my fault.
  
  Nope, drugs are directly harmful, a child could hold and carry an unloaded weapon with no issue. Or they could shoot a gun that shoots something non lethal.
  
  I said 'access,' not 'use.' A toddler cannot be harmed by picking up a bag of meth any more than they can be harmed by an unloaded weapon.
  
  So it's okay to let them do that, right?
  
  A toddler cannot be harmed by picking up a bag of meth any more than they can be harmed by an unloaded weapon.
  
  Of course they can... Have you not noticed how cops wear gloves when they deal with drugs, the residue on a bag could literally kill someone.
  
  But if your gun control counter negotiation is no toddlers or insane with guns, I will accept that counter offer.

276 comments