My otherwise based uncle has swallowed the Uvalde propaganda

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (47).

[–] • 3 pts

(edited )

"Nobody needs long guns!"--he has several"

I'd start by asking why he doesn't get rid of them, then? And by "get rid of", I don't mean sell them so that he can get some of his money back...because for all he knows, he may be selling them to the next mass shooter. Rather, I mean break them down and melt them like the government would love to do.

I like throwing facts at these people.

For example, cars kill more people every year than guns. Substantially more, whether on purpose or not. We don't technically "need" cars. We have legs and horses. So, why not outlaw cars, too?

Also, if you outlaw long guns, people will still be able to get them. Only it will be criminals who get them and then who will defend against criminals with long guns? The police? That's laughable considering the police response (if you can even call it that) in Uvalde. Basically, outlawing drugs hasn't done a fucking thing, so why would outlawing guns be any different?

And this one for the kill.. the very response that the Uvalde police provided is one of the best pieces of evidence that you can't depend on cops to protect you or your family. Period. There is no way around this. It's an objectively proven fact just based on the Uvalde case alone, much less the thousands of others you could easily reference.

And even in the cases where cops actually show up and actually do their jobs in a timely fashion, it's still not enough. Because fucking bullets fly faster than cop cars can move.

Oh, and then there's the matter of logistics, expense, compliance.. which would be easier? To have armed guards at schools or to attempt to confiscate all long guns in the country? Which would cause more bloodshed? Which is more or less reasonable? Which would be more or less expensive in the short or long term? Which preserves VS erases freedom? Which would actually be most effective (keep in mind that outlawing guns will never actually get rid of them from the population). The correct answer here is so easy that a fucking 8 year old could understand it. Why is he ok with protecting jewelry stores, banks, politicians, etc. with guns, but not kids? Which then begs the question, why is your uncle such an asshole?

And then of course, why would someone who is "based" as he claims to be accept the premise that the only people who can have guns would be the same government who releases viruses, forces experimental medical tests on its citizens, forces them to shut down their businesses while allowing big box stores to operate, and otherwise oppresses the same people it swears an oath to protect?

The fact that you should even have to explain any of this shit is indicative of deeper problems to begin with. Not the least of which being cognitive dissonance where the logical brain shuts off and the emotional brain takes over completely.

That's really the main problem here. You're trying to use logic to reason with someone who is only going off of emotion to begin with.

*"Nobody needs long guns!"--he has several"* I'd start by asking why he doesn't get rid of them, then? And by "get rid of", I don't mean sell them so that he can get some of his money back...because for all he knows, he may be selling them to the next mass shooter. Rather, I mean break them down and melt them like the government would love to do. I like throwing facts at these people. For example, cars kill more people every year than guns. Substantially more, whether on purpose or not. We don't technically "need" cars. We have legs and horses. So, why not outlaw cars, too? Also, if you outlaw long guns, people will still be able to get them. Only it will be criminals who get them and then who will defend against criminals with long guns? The police? That's laughable considering the police response (if you can even call it that) in Uvalde. Basically, outlawing drugs hasn't done a fucking thing, so why would outlawing guns be any different? And this one for the kill.. the very response that the Uvalde police provided is one of the best pieces of evidence that you can't depend on cops to protect you or your family. Period. There is no way around this. It's an objectively proven fact just based on the Uvalde case alone, much less the thousands of others you could easily reference. And even in the cases where cops actually show up and actually do their jobs in a timely fashion, it's still not enough. Because fucking bullets fly faster than cop cars can move. Oh, and then there's the matter of logistics, expense, compliance.. which would be easier? To have armed guards at schools or to attempt to confiscate all long guns in the country? Which would cause more bloodshed? Which is more or less reasonable? Which would be more or less expensive in the short or long term? Which preserves VS erases freedom? Which would actually be most effective (keep in mind that outlawing guns will never actually get rid of them from the population). The correct answer here is so easy that a fucking 8 year old could understand it. Why is he ok with protecting jewelry stores, banks, politicians, etc. with guns, but not kids? Which then begs the question, why is your uncle such an asshole? And then of course, why would someone who is "based" as he claims to be accept the premise that the only people who can have guns would be the same government who releases viruses, forces experimental medical tests on its citizens, forces them to shut down their businesses while allowing big box stores to operate, and otherwise oppresses the same people it swears an oath to protect? The fact that you should even have to explain any of this shit is indicative of deeper problems to begin with. Not the least of which being cognitive dissonance where the logical brain shuts off and the emotional brain takes over completely. That's really the main problem here. You're trying to use logic to reason with someone who is only going off of emotion to begin with.

link