this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
1765 points (94.7% liked)

Political Memes

5612 readers
1135 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DanglingFury 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

To play devil's advocate (and weather the downvotes for doing so), alcohol doesn't drive drunk, and most people who use it do so responsibly.

If a bunch of peeps who don't drink wanted to stop drunk driving, they would see the best solution as just banning alcohol. Its a simple solution and makes sense. Nations like saudi arabia have banned alcohol and have significantly less drunk driving incidents. It wouldnt make sense to them why so many people would resist such a simple and proven solution. If they won't ban it all then atleast ban the liquor, etc.

Meanwhile the people who drink responsibly wouldnt want to have to give up drinking just because a few idiots drive drunk. They would see the best solution as finding ways to stop people from choosing (or being able) to drive drunk, while still allowing themselves to use it responsibly, but that is a much harder thing to do.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe we should have licensing and registration requirements for guns like we do cars... nobody on the "guns aren't the problem" side of the argument is ok with anything like that either.

[–] DanglingFury 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah i feel like most people would be down with that. Same with taking guns away from domestic abusers. John Stewart (the problem with john stewart) had a great episode on gun control.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership.

*except in Vermont where they allow it for some reason, and the federal govt lets the state get away with that. Your guess is as good as mine.

[–] MIDItheKID 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Those convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership."

But don't cops walk around with guns all day?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

HA!

Also to actually answer: "Yes but we all know laws don't apply to them."

[–] DanglingFury 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do agree, "eat the gun control we have at home before I buy you new cereal" I say.

[–] DanglingFury 3 points 1 year ago
[–] Bgugi 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There is no license, class, physical or psychological examination, registration, age requirement, background check, or permit required to purchase a car.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage 11 points 1 year ago

Only to take it out in public

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are licences, classes, examinations, registration, age requirements and permits required to actually use the car though.

Also, cars have a viable purpose beyond being a weapon. Why are we trying to equate something whose main purpose is to transport but can be used as a weapon with something whose main purpose is to end life? If an object’s sole or main purpose is to cause physical harm, it should obviously be regulated more heavily than objects whose main purpose is not to harm, but can be used as a weapon in certain circumstances.

[–] Bgugi 9 points 1 year ago

To use the car on publicly-owned roads.

I'm just clarifying why "treat them like cars" is a terrible argument.

[–] Frost752 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am on that side of the argument and im fully in favor of registration requirements, in fact I think anyone who wants to own a gun should have to undergo regular psychological, mental, and physical health evaluations as well as required to take a gun safety course. Not that I speak for everyone of course but I also dont think Im a minority in this situation.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

I have an issue with psych evals: Ableism. Just because someone is depressed, has PTSD, has ADHD, whatever, doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to defend themselves. Furthermore it is currently federal law that if you are IVC'd under judge's orders (which does require proof, but it is imprisonment short term and removal of rights for life, there should be proof), you now get flagged in NICs and can't legally buy one, so at least we do have an acceptible version of this already.

Also I'd like to add, it would be a good .2sec before republicans add trans people to the no gun list because "41% suicide yadda yadda" and the democrat party will pass it because "gun bad." It'll get snuck in like they always do, "oh you want psych evals, 'no trans' or no deal." Then they'll have to choose between trans rights and the right to own the thing that can defend those rights from would be right wing attackers.

It is too easily weaponized against people already too stignatized, I don't like it personally.

[–] DanglingFury 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The counter argument to that is that it negatively impacts lower class people who are unable to take time off work to go do those things, thus disproportionately hindering lower class and minority rights.

And the counter argument to that is that there should be enough safety nets in place to allow all people to be able to take time off work as needed.

That would have people really confused. "We have to raise minimum wage to allow everyone the right to bear arms"

[–] Bgugi 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So if working conditions improve, it would be appropriate to implement stricter voter ID laws?

[–] Jimmyeatsausage 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes... but since the purpose of those laws is only to suppress turnout amongst the poor, I don't think anyone would be trying to pass them if being poor didn't make voting harder...the 2nd group most impacted are the elderly and they tend to vote for folks that want to suppress the poor so there's even less reason to pass them at that point.

[–] Bgugi 7 points 1 year ago

Suppress turnout amongst the poor [and consequently certain demographics that are disproportionately poor]. Take a look at the history of gun control and you'll see a familiar pattern to voter suppression.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Of course, it's illegal to buy alcohol under 21, and it's illegal for someone to sell it to you if you're obviously impaired. We have some restrictions about it.

[–] DanglingFury 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's illegal to buy guns under 18 and illegal to buy pistols under 21. And there's the background check with every (in store) purchase, So there's some restrictions

(Corrected)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the US (which I'm assuming you're referring to, since the meme mentions the GOP), There is absolutely not a background check performed for every firearm purchase. That's one of many restrictions people reasonably want placed on guns. Only 17 states have a universal requirement for gun sales. The federal law "requiring" background checks only applies to federally licensed sales. Private sales, gun shows, etc. allow for sale of guns with no background check, and often bypass age restrictions as well.

[–] DanglingFury 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 1 year ago

And dry counties exist. I don't know of many gunless counties.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

What he said. Also it is illegal to private sale one to someone that you have a reasonable suspicion may be a prohibited purchaser. Even better than someone who is "obviously" a prohibited purchaser.

[–] quaddo 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like your analogy. I'm just trying to refactor based on the NotJustBikes mindset of a well-developed city that has little to no requirement for driving a powered vehicle.

"Drunk person riding their bicycle into the canal and drowning" doesn't quite have the same impact.

That said, the Venn diagram of countries with cities designed primarily around car usage vs the countries with a serious gun abuse problem seems to intersect with just one country. So your analogy still stands.

[–] DanglingFury 2 points 1 year ago

Lol interesting take on it. Big fan of not just bikes, climate town as well.