Oh goodness... Do we have like a gun control thread or something we can revive instead of using this one? No matter...
I just wanted to go over this point first because I really don't like people using misinformation even when I fundamentally agree with them.
The AR-15 is not a hunting rifle. It was explicitly designed as a light-weight fighting carbine intended for use by infantrymen of the US army. It laid all of the groundwork for the M16 and M4 carbines that are still used, at least in some extent, by the US army, and the differences between those military firearms and an AR-15 are subtle. The 5.56x45mm cartridge that the AR-15 was designed around was explicitly designed to kill human beings, with some of the requirements that the army set including the ability to penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards and being fired from a select-fire rifle (which early iterations of the AR-15 were; only later variants intended for civilian sale were made semi-auto only). 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington are not generally considered optimal cartridges for taking large game.
The AR-15 was undeniably designed with the primary purpose being to kill human beings. I think it's irresponsible to try to obfuscate that fact, regardless of which side of the gun debate you fall on.
On a fundamental level, I agree with you. If I could snap my fingers and erase guns on a conceptual level from existence, of course I would do that. The express purpose of all firearms is to enact violence; like I said, I think it would be irresponsible not to acknowledge that fact. However, if an act of violence becomes the only way to prevent a greater act of violence, then it de facto becomes an act of net non-violence.
Here's the unavoidable fact of the matter; there are people in this country who do not want LGBTQ+ and other marginalized peoples to exist. There are a lot of these people. The majority of them have guns. The majority of LGBTQ+ people and their allies do not. Advocating for these marginalized groups to arm themselves and form community aid groups to protect themselves against growing fascist violence is not the same thing as advocating for free guns to be given out willy-nilly with no consideration as to where those guns are ending up.
It has been my experience that LGBTQ+ gun owners are nearly unfailingly the most responsible gun owners I meet. Consider this conjecture, if you will, but I think this stems from the fundamental reasons LGBTQ+ people own guns. They generally don't own guns because they buy into some toxic masculine gun culture bullshit. They generally don't own guns because they want to have the power to do violence to others. They own guns because they want to exist, and sometimes self-defense is the only way to protect their existence. They also usually have a much better understanding of mental health issues, and, ironically, a greater respect for firearms as what they are; tools of violence, than conservative gun owners.
I'm not sure where you're even pulling horseshoe theory from, but that seems like a non-sequitur regardless. My support for leftist and LGBTQ+ gun ownership comes from pragmatism, not a desire to see more guns in the world or ideological masturbation over the 2nd Amendment or whatever.
I just wanted to go over this point first because I really don't like people using misinformation even when I fundamentally agree with them.
The AR-15 is not a hunting rifle. It was explicitly designed as a light-weight fighting carbine intended for use by infantrymen of the US army. It laid all of the groundwork for the M16 and M4 carbines that are still used, at least in some extent, by the US army, and the differences between those military firearms and an AR-15 are subtle. The 5.56x45mm cartridge that the AR-15 was designed around was explicitly designed to kill human beings, with some of the requirements that the army set including the ability to penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards and being fired from a select-fire rifle (which early iterations of the AR-15 were; only later variants intended for civilian sale were made semi-auto only). 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington are not generally considered optimal cartridges for taking large game.
The AR-15 was undeniably designed with the primary purpose being to kill human beings. I think it's irresponsible to try to obfuscate that fact, regardless of which side of the gun debate you fall on.
On a fundamental level, I agree with you. If I could snap my fingers and erase guns on a conceptual level from existence, of course I would do that. The express purpose of all firearms is to enact violence; like I said, I think it would be irresponsible not to acknowledge that fact. However, if an act of violence becomes the only way to prevent a greater act of violence, then it de facto becomes an act of net non-violence.
Here's the unavoidable fact of the matter; there are people in this country who do not want LGBTQ+ and other marginalized peoples to exist. There are a lot of these people. The majority of them have guns. The majority of LGBTQ+ people and their allies do not. Advocating for these marginalized groups to arm themselves and form community aid groups to protect themselves against growing fascist violence is not the same thing as advocating for free guns to be given out willy-nilly with no consideration as to where those guns are ending up.
It has been my experience that LGBTQ+ gun owners are nearly unfailingly the most responsible gun owners I meet. Consider this conjecture, if you will, but I think this stems from the fundamental reasons LGBTQ+ people own guns. They generally don't own guns because they buy into some toxic masculine gun culture bullshit. They generally don't own guns because they want to have the power to do violence to others. They own guns because they want to exist, and sometimes self-defense is the only way to protect their existence. They also usually have a much better understanding of mental health issues, and, ironically, a greater respect for firearms as what they are; tools of violence, than conservative gun owners.
I'm not sure where you're even pulling horseshoe theory from, but that seems like a non-sequitur regardless. My support for leftist and LGBTQ+ gun ownership comes from pragmatism, not a desire to see more guns in the world or ideological masturbation over the 2nd Amendment or whatever.
maybe if you had to turn the safety off with your tongue there'd be less crime, we could use homophobia to the advantage??
