this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1194 points (96.2% liked)

The Onion

4542 readers
1051 users here now

The Onion

A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.

Great Satire Writing:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 147 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (46 children)

I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace

There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted

“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”

Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.

Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.

Another common one is

“buh only criminals will have guns”,

except that never happens in any other developed nation.

Its for self defense

Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been ~stopped~ prevented by “good guy with gun™️”.

/rant

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.

Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.

In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.

I'm sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.

Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.

Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.

Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.

It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.

I want to add to this, because it's never mentioned.

As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.

Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there's no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.

So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.

But... We did that. We won. We have a "democracy" now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.

Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.

Man, you shouldn't have included this last line. Everyone replying to you is completely ignoring the relevant and accurate content of your comment in favour of "Well Ackshually" pointing out the handful of times a good person with a gun did successfully stop a shooting.

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] [email protected] 81 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hope the writer for this article makes residuals. They're getting a lot of use out of it

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They do actually rewrite it slightly each time they repost it, even though the title is the same

[–] jballs 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They just change the date, city, number of victims, and then change the fake person's name for the quote. The rest stays exactly the same.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, that's how all news sites do it now

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

But in this case it's part of the point of the repeating article that the article is nearly identical every time

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would be darkly funny if they had an “____ Days Since We Had to Repost This” counter for it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] AMillionNames 71 points 1 year ago

"We did nothing and we are all out of options!"

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's the real American tragedy, that we've been beaten into believing that "nothing can be done to prevent this." Something COULD be done, it just won't be. I'm sure as we learn more about this reprehensible idiot who caused this sick misery, we'll come to find out there were all kinds of red flags on his social media posts and his emails and his past arrest records and yet nobody bothered to take them seriously, or cared enough about him to connect him with psychotherapy and medication. Sad. Because the truth is, this kind of thing is always ENTIRELY preventable - if only Americans were smarter about gun control and less obsessed with violence as some sort of solution (which it never is). A sad country indeed.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

He was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks in the summer of 2023. He's talked about hearing voices. He's threatened to shoot up a National Guard station. He and his associates are well-known local right-wing militia gun nuts that "people knew to stay away from." None of that was sufficient to restrict his access to firearms.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If this is true, then I think it's safe to say that these shootings aren't being taken seriously by our government on purpose. I don't know what the purpose is, but it sure feels like it.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

The best thing about Rage songs is that they're still relevant after 30 years.

The worst thing about Rage songs is that they're still relevant after 30 years.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The GOP benefits from these attacks in my view, especially when they're in power. It makes it impossible for the news to cover the reprehensible things they do when mass murders happen every week.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you’re terrified of being shot you won’t mind having armed police everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

But that's why I'm terrified of being shot

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Ok, so I'm not crazy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't even really care about guns. I don't like them and wish there were far fewer of them, but if reducing the number and availability of guns is off the table, there's still plenty of room to work -- and if this political conversation had even one shred of honesty, we'd be working even with that constraint.

Even in gun policy, there's so much reform we could make to reduce danger that doesn't impact someone's ability to own a gun. For example, universal registration, repeal the Dickey amendment and fund research, impose strict liability to gun owners for crimes committed with their guns.

And most people seem to support red flag laws and universal background checks, but for some reason we can't expand those either?

Not to mention that it is a simple matter of fact that the US can and does ban all kinds of arms. And, aside from a tiny lunatic fringe, no one really thinks it is an issue. You can't just have and bring with you a fighter jet, a tank. You can't open carry explosive ordinance. You can't go to a gun show and buy chemical WMDs or bio-weapons. You can't drive around with a full machine gun mounted to the flatbed of your 3-ton pickup. We have rules that are uncontentious, and the idea that maybe some types of modern guns should be in the same category is fiddling with a line in the sand.

And guns are only a small part of the picture. We need poverty intervention and social welfare. We need consent-based policing and the better training that comes with it. We need to fix our urban design so people have better third places and are less isolated from one another. Yet if you try to do anything like this, the same people that fetishize guns will absolutely refuse to even think about it and will indeed try to roll back what does exist to make the problems worse.

At the end, it's a very two-sided debate. One side wants to test and try changes to make things maybe even just a bit better. The other refuses to do anything and would like for it to even be a bit worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"if only Americans were smarter" we can just leave it at that. This fucking country is full of idiots who will never do any good in this world because they're too stupid to even know where to start

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Wait, did it happen again?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] funkless_eck 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

old news, there's been another in Samson County, NC today.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The US media should save time and report on days when mass shootings don't happen.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Since our general discourse has gotten so stupid: I did the math, and this was a Maine 9/11

load more comments
view more: next ›