• empireOfLove@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.

    And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc… they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.

    I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.

      Because of that, anything restricting that “right” at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.

      With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.

      The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.

      It’s also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don’t drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.

      And that’s the issue here.

      The “right” needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.

      Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren’t in your situation.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.

      The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.

      Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They’re only useful if you intend to attack people.

      Same goes for handguns.

    • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sorry if you’re being sarcastic, but why then do the workers with the guns have the least rights?

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        What rights do you think we don’t have in the USA? I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.

      • SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        The bourgeoisie takes rights away from the proletariat. The bourgeoisie have outlived there usefulness and the proletariat should rise up against them.

        • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah but how come workers in Europe, who don’t have guns, have 100X the rights of workers in the US, who do have guns?

          Is it because people with guns are scared little pussies?

          Because, to be honest, that’s how it looks!

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Vacation, illness/disability benefits that pay you for sick days regardless of your job, livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment…

              • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment

                I wasn’t aware that Europe has such a thing. Which European countries? All of them? Certainly it’s being paid for somehow. Americans get retirement in the form of social security. That does require that you pay into it, but I’m assuming the European version does as well, just as a general tax instead of a specific charge. Is the European version based on how much you made while working? What is the program called?

                • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I said livable. Social security is not livable.

                  It’s paid for in Germany through a tax, but not personal investment in a retirement account (maybe my phrasing was unclear). The level of retirement pay is dependent on the time you worked and your pay, but it’s complicated. Someone who works full time for minimum wage will still get enough for healthful survival into old age. Each European country handles things differently.

                  Also, parental leave, I don’t know how I missed that one.