• @rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -241 year ago

        What? You think criminals don’t have guns in yours?

        By the way, a country can’t believe anything, it’s an artificial concept on a map.

        • @RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          Unironically yes. Out of 1000 crime news I hear about here, maybe one of them is about gun violence. Also I have never ever heard about mass killings here like USA seems to have every week.

            • @RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Lol is it really that hard for you to believe? I am not just talking about media channels, also just word around the block, multiple YouTube channels and such.

              • @rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Not that hard. I’d say organized crime will have guns regardless. Usual hooligans will do with many things one can imagine.

        • @Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          That’s what I think. That’s what I observed (anecdotally) and what statistics show. When the sentence for having a gun is higher than robbery or drug dealing or whatever, even criminals avoid that shit.

          Why would you think criminals DO have guns in other countries?

          • @rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -91 year ago

            That’s a weird answer, I didn’t say that obtuseness\pedantry can believe in something.

            You made nobody fail, accusing someone of these traits just means their correctness is socially unpleasant for you.

      • @rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I’ve always been reluctant to rely on papers like any constitution as a base for my perceived rights.

        Maybe as an argument, in the sense of “smart people have said that it should be and made some points in its favor”.

        But in general it’s a horrid mistake to rely on a paper. Some people you haven’t given any consent will stamp a few saying that you are a slave and oops.

        The reality is that there’s no way to consistently defend a right suppressed by legal arguments. If you can check the chain of laws giving you some right or taking it, you’ll always come to the point where it’s just “we all decide that’s law” and you were not part of that decision. And if you go the opposite way and just accept what’s made law, then you are dropping the idea of rights in its entirety, making decisions made by someone else a law for you.

        My point is that this is unsolvable and one can’t replace good and evil with legal arguments. Laws will never be sufficiently good for that, even constitutional laws.

        So I’m for right to arm oneself, but I don’t think there’s any magic allowing to universally prove that a thing is legally right or wrong.

        Which is why, again, a journalism which isn’t outrageous is just public relations, a protest that doesn’t harm economy and break laws is just a demonstration, an a principle which can be overridden by a law or a threat of force is just virtue signalling.