4 ms·

It's still moralist pearl-clutching in service of totalitarian horseshit no matter how you'd like to justify it. I don't even think you're strictly 100% incorr

It's still moralist pearl-clutching in service of totalitarian horseshit no matter how you'd like to justify it. I don't even think you're strictly 100% incorrect here. That said, I refuse to entertain the "think of the children" horseshit when parents happily park their kid in front of an iPad for hours a day because it shuts them up, not with kink content they shouldn't see, but with AI/algorithmically generated garbage, or for that matter, human generated garbage, that rots their brains far more than any gimp costume ever could. For fucks sake, 12 kids in America die PER DAY due to mass shootings, and we can't even pass common sense gun regulations that the vast majority of gun owners are completely fine with. We don't give a fuck about our kids here. This has from jump, and continues to be, astro-turfed puritan whining not merely to pornography of whatever preferred kind of the moment, but to the existence of queer people as a whole. It IS parents' fucking responsibility, and maybe that is an onerous burden, but instead of even attempting to meet it, the majority of parents have abdicated it. And it isn't porn fucking their kids up, it's non-stop screen exposure leaving them with no attention span and no ability to simply BE BORED.

AlexandrB 10mo ago
[flagged]
- ToucanLoucan 10mo ago
  Fucking AI summaries. Correct you are, 12-per-day is the combo shot of all gun deaths in children in totality, which includes much more banal things like unsecured firearms in the home. That being said, my point remains: the #1 threat to children in this country is guns, wielded by classmates, road-ragers, gang members, or stored improperly. We still have no meaningful gun regulation in huge areas, and no public will to see it done. And this kind of insipid bullshit is what we're doing instead.
  - wakawaka28 10mo ago
    If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws. Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons. It also doesn't work. The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding.
    - exasperaited 10mo ago
      > the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas The most full stop, yes. But that's not surprising, is it? Since densely populated places disproportionately vote blue. But not the most per capita: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116676/documents/HHRG-118-JU08-20231213-SD004.pdf https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116676/documents/... https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/04/28/red-states-have-higher-gun-death-rates-than-blue-states-heres-why/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/04/28/red-s...
      - wakawaka28 10mo ago
        I haven't read that but "gun death rate" is not the same as "gun crime rate"... Of course I expect guns to be used more in areas where they are available. Many legitimate self-defense cases are imperfect as well, and technically count as crime for BS reasons. Gun suicide rates probably would be higher with more guns owned by the public. In summary, I don't think you are right and I would still support broad gun ownership rights even if you were correct about per capita. I am more worried about the public not having guns than having guns.
        exasperaited 10mo ago
        OK. There isn't any arguing with anyone who doesn't have a problem with the idea that someone else's right not to be murdered is less important than their unlimited gun ownership rights, which is the only conclusion I can draw from what you are saying. So I will leave you to the hell of your own making, I guess.
        wakawaka28 10mo ago
        Guns prevent murder. There's not much you can do besides using a gun to defend yourself against physically superior individuals or groups of people. Banning guns does not prevent murder, it just changes the methods. If you are worried about being murdered, you should probably get a gun lol.
    - 10mo ago
- paulryanrogers 10mo ago
  What's it matter if shooting victims are gang members or just too poor/unlucky to live somewhere with sane gun control? Dead kids are dead kids.
  - wakawaka28 10mo ago
    Well, gang members go out looking for trouble, for one thing. For another, they would just as well use knives, bats, chains, hatchets, or any other terrible implement to commit crime. Banning guns just makes it difficult or impossible for non-gang members to defend themselves.
    - paulryanrogers 10mo ago
      Gangs kill plenty of innocent bystander children in the crossfire. And gang members would be less effective at killing without guns. Which is a net win regardless of whether the victims chose a gang lifestyle or not. How many people are packing and ready to draw in a moments notice? You better be quick because many crimes (gang or not) are ambush crimes. Considering there are many thousands of gun homicides and only a few hundred justified gun killings, I think "guns prevent crime" is just a story people tell themselves. Gotta justify teaching toddlers to hide from active shooters somehow.
wakawaka28 10mo ago
[flagged]
- autoexec 10mo ago
  > 12 deaths per day is VERY low Assuming that the number is real, 12 children dying every day from guns is the opposite of VERY low. It's insane. What is your limit? How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to? Unlike how most Americans want something done about guns, they don't want to be tracked. There is a lot of opposition to it once people are made aware of the issue. Censorship is pretty unpopular too, although while the majority tends to oppose it, it's far more popular with people in the US than is should be.
  - wakawaka28 10mo ago
    >How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to? There are already plenty of gun laws. "Most Americans" are only in favor of more laws to the extent they don't understand what is already in place, except for those that want a blanket ban on guns. There are many millions of legal gun owners in the US, and you should be thankful for that. Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real. How many bodies are worth our freedom? Millions die in wars, for far worse reasons than a few hundred as a natural consequence of being free. It is very hard to quantify the benefits of owning a gun because only crimes are reported. Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick. They might not be able to do it so quick, but a deranged person can go John Wick on your ass with a sharpened pencil. If you walk alone without a gun, you also have no way to defend yourself against a gang of several thugs. But with a gun, even grandma has a fighting chance of escaping nearly any crime.
    - autoexec 10mo ago
AJ007 10mo ago
There is probably nothing that is safe for a toddler to have displayed on a screen 6 inches from their face for an hour+ a day, either for their physical or mental development. Adults suffer as well, but at least by their own agency. Also to point out, if a 10 year old walks in to the street and is hit by a car, their parent gets charged now (in some US jurisdictions.) The idea that the adult is not responsible for the child does not correspond with US law. Maybe it's different in Europe. A secondary issue is tech companies on-boarding children to having public social media profiles (and their parents posting the child's entire lives on their own) -- which is completely asinine and appalling. That bridge was breached years ago and somehow no one complained loud enough. Certainly a mistake.

AlexandrB 10mo ago

[flagged]

ToucanLoucan 10mo ago
Fucking AI summaries. Correct you are, 12-per-day is the combo shot of all gun deaths in children in totality, which includes much more banal things like unsecured firearms in the home. That being said, my point remains: the #1 threat to children in this country is guns, wielded by classmates, road-ragers, gang members, or stored improperly. We still have no meaningful gun regulation in huge areas, and no public will to see it done. And this kind of insipid bullshit is what we're doing instead.
- wakawaka28 10mo ago
  If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws. Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons. It also doesn't work. The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding.
  - exasperaited 10mo ago
    > the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas The most full stop, yes. But that's not surprising, is it? Since densely populated places disproportionately vote blue. But not the most per capita: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116676/documents/HHRG-118-JU08-20231213-SD004.pdf https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116676/documents/... https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/04/28/red-states-have-higher-gun-death-rates-than-blue-states-heres-why/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/04/28/red-s...
    - wakawaka28 10mo ago
      I haven't read that but "gun death rate" is not the same as "gun crime rate"... Of course I expect guns to be used more in areas where they are available. Many legitimate self-defense cases are imperfect as well, and technically count as crime for BS reasons. Gun suicide rates probably would be higher with more guns owned by the public. In summary, I don't think you are right and I would still support broad gun ownership rights even if you were correct about per capita. I am more worried about the public not having guns than having guns.
      - exasperaited 10mo ago
        OK. There isn't any arguing with anyone who doesn't have a problem with the idea that someone else's right not to be murdered is less important than their unlimited gun ownership rights, which is the only conclusion I can draw from what you are saying. So I will leave you to the hell of your own making, I guess.
        wakawaka28 10mo ago
        Guns prevent murder. There's not much you can do besides using a gun to defend yourself against physically superior individuals or groups of people. Banning guns does not prevent murder, it just changes the methods. If you are worried about being murdered, you should probably get a gun lol.
  - 10mo ago
paulryanrogers 10mo ago
What's it matter if shooting victims are gang members or just too poor/unlucky to live somewhere with sane gun control? Dead kids are dead kids.
- wakawaka28 10mo ago
  Well, gang members go out looking for trouble, for one thing. For another, they would just as well use knives, bats, chains, hatchets, or any other terrible implement to commit crime. Banning guns just makes it difficult or impossible for non-gang members to defend themselves.
  - paulryanrogers 10mo ago
    Gangs kill plenty of innocent bystander children in the crossfire. And gang members would be less effective at killing without guns. Which is a net win regardless of whether the victims chose a gang lifestyle or not. How many people are packing and ready to draw in a moments notice? You better be quick because many crimes (gang or not) are ambush crimes. Considering there are many thousands of gun homicides and only a few hundred justified gun killings, I think "guns prevent crime" is just a story people tell themselves. Gotta justify teaching toddlers to hide from active shooters somehow.

wakawaka28 10mo ago

[flagged]

autoexec 10mo ago
> 12 deaths per day is VERY low Assuming that the number is real, 12 children dying every day from guns is the opposite of VERY low. It's insane. What is your limit? How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to? Unlike how most Americans want something done about guns, they don't want to be tracked. There is a lot of opposition to it once people are made aware of the issue. Censorship is pretty unpopular too, although while the majority tends to oppose it, it's far more popular with people in the US than is should be.
- wakawaka28 10mo ago
  >How many child corpses do you think need to be put into the ground every day before the government should pass the kind of laws most Americans are asking them to? There are already plenty of gun laws. "Most Americans" are only in favor of more laws to the extent they don't understand what is already in place, except for those that want a blanket ban on guns. There are many millions of legal gun owners in the US, and you should be thankful for that. Out of many millions of people, 12 per day is a rounding error. You'd probably save more lives by launching a campaign telling kids to tie their shoes or lay off the soda, for real. How many bodies are worth our freedom? Millions die in wars, for far worse reasons than a few hundred as a natural consequence of being free. It is very hard to quantify the benefits of owning a gun because only crimes are reported. Also, what gun grabbers don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that the people who are murdered by their peers with a gun could just as easily be murdered with a knife, or a brick. They might not be able to do it so quick, but a deranged person can go John Wick on your ass with a sharpened pencil. If you walk alone without a gun, you also have no way to defend yourself against a gang of several thugs. But with a gun, even grandma has a fighting chance of escaping nearly any crime.
  - autoexec 10mo ago

AJ007 10mo ago

There is probably nothing that is safe for a toddler to have displayed on a screen 6 inches from their face for an hour+ a day, either for their physical or mental development. Adults suffer as well, but at least by their own agency. Also to point out, if a 10 year old walks in to the street and is hit by a car, their parent gets charged now (in some US jurisdictions.) The idea that the adult is not responsible for the child does not correspond with US law. Maybe it's different in Europe. A secondary issue is tech companies on-boarding children to having public social media profiles (and their parents posting the child's entire lives on their own) -- which is completely asinine and appalling. That bridge was breached years ago and somehow no one complained loud enough. Certainly a mistake.