r/nottheonion Jan 22 '22

‘People will be murdered’: Boy who wrote governor about gun law killed in shooting Removed - Not Oniony

https://kfor.com/news/u-s-world/people-will-be-murdered-boy-who-wrote-governor-about-gun-law-killed-in-shooting/

[removed] — view removed post

891 Upvotes

109

u/MonkeyTacoBreath Jan 22 '22

“When he got shot, the only thing he could do was run to his mama,” Newson said. “It took her two days to wash the blood off her hands.”

Not gonna lie, that just made me cry.

16

u/ralmeida Jan 22 '22

The governor will have the blood in his hands for the rest of his life.

17

u/SBAdey Jan 22 '22

Think he gives a shit?

0

u/Laurier_Rex Jan 22 '22

Don’t get me wrong, this is awful! But how does it take someone two days to was blood of their hands? English isn’t my first language, what am I missing?

36

u/simp4-myb3lchvng3r Jan 22 '22

She probably didn't want to clean up because that would be letting him go. I dont know if you've ever experienced loss but sometimes it just is hard to do the smallest thing that acknowledges finality.

20

u/Fizurr Jan 22 '22

My dad died in my arms and I didn’t shower for a week, and didn’t wash the clothes I had on, idk where the clothes are now

5

u/simp4-myb3lchvng3r Jan 22 '22

I'm sorry for your loss. I cant imagine.

3

u/Fizurr Jan 22 '22

It happened 10 years ago it was one of the scariest days of my life

5

u/audrasuxx Jan 22 '22

It could just be an exaggeration but if her hands were covered in blood, it can be hard to clean blood out from under your fingernails and around the edges of your nails

4

u/mindtoxicity27 Jan 22 '22

Stains the pigment in your skin.

1

u/TheDotCaptin Jan 22 '22

There is an expression that someone "has blood on their hands" if they are responsible or a cause of a person death.

But here it may actually be the mother was not able to have the chance to wash, since the loss of a child is very impactful, and it may be that she had cried herself to sleep, if she even slept.

1

u/ERSTF Jan 23 '22

This is brutal. It rattled me. I can't even imagine the pain...

182

u/thunderpig1973 Jan 22 '22

…Tennessee Governor Bill Lee.

Who is probably popping a cork off a bottle of champagne at this news.

239

u/SomeGuy565 Jan 22 '22

What the fuck is with the gun fetish in this country? People are too fucking stupid to be trusted with weapons.

101

u/AshamedofMyFarts Jan 22 '22

They're petrified of a rogue government that will turn on them. That's why the most ardent supporters own guns. They view it as exercising a right against a potentially tyrannical government. The ironic part is they also support policies that give our defense department a black budget and would be so out gunned in a fight against the U.S. that it'd end before it began. I'm talking drone strikes, custom tailored viruses, frequency modular attacks, etc.

They don't understand, that the kids shooting up schools do not qualify as the bad guys they so creativity envision. These are one and done crimes. A person on the edge of mental sanity who's never before committed a crime, but chooses to take a bunch of people with them in their quest for suicide or infamy.

43

u/EvenBetterCool Jan 22 '22

My cousins are like this and joke about the ATF coming to take their hoard. "All I need is enough ammo to take theirs after they try coming in here."

They actually think a paramilitary force wouldn't just roll right over their pathetic little gun house.

They are also somehow thin blue liners.

23

u/AshamedofMyFarts Jan 22 '22

They are also somehow thin blue liners.

I always found it weird. Like maybe they don't realize this but as a paramilitary force, it may be those police and soldiers they love and support so much that'll be coming for their guns. They'll have to shoot the very guys they claim to support. It's weird as fuck.

2

u/royalsanguinius Jan 22 '22

Does threatening federal agents not actually count as a threat if it’s only a masturbatory fantasy? Because this totally sounds like a terroristic threat, joke or no joke

3

u/Maanee Jan 22 '22

The ironic part is they also support policies that give our defense department a black budget and would be so out gunned in a fight against the U.S. that it'd end before it began. I'm talking drone strikes, custom tailored viruses, frequency modular attacks, etc.

TIL Iraq got lucky we didn't go all out against them. We coulda, just feel like it tho.

32

u/McGreed Jan 22 '22

And the irony is that they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the government will come after them, because they are turning into nutbag extremists who is a danger to society and everyone else, because of their addiction to violence and nutjob ideas.

14

u/pasher5620 Jan 22 '22

The funny thing I always hear in defense against the argument that the “government outguns you” is that the US would never be allowed to kill its own citizens with tanks, bombs, missiles, etc. because the world would sanction them and also that they are somehow good enough at guerilla warfare that the US, who has been fighting a guerilla war for like 20 years, couldn’t kill/capture enough of them to shut them down.

They tend to forget that if they are a big enough deal that the government would use such tools, then they would be branded terrorrists. The US would also pretty quickly annihilate any homegrown terrorist cells because it’s like the main reason the CIA’s budget is so hyper inflated. Spying on its own citizens is the US governments past time. Also, I find it laughable that anyone thinks allied countries would do jack shit to stop the US from doing anything.

6

u/Grineflip Jan 22 '22

Funnily the same guys who see no issue with militarization of police

8

u/mtcwby Jan 22 '22

And yet a bunch of goatherders managed to force a retreat recently enough.

1

u/Eianarr Jan 22 '22

Thinly veiled goatherder shit aside, the difference between an invasion on the other side of the planet with supply lines, infrastructure issues, an established entrenched and organized guerilla force, with other foreign backing, international boarders allowing for retreat waaaaay less mapped territory. It's not apples and oranges, it's not the same ballpark dawg. Completely different fucking sport.

0

u/mtcwby Jan 22 '22

And somehow the afghans managed to do it despite not blending in with us at all well. To fight a group you first have to identify them. Try to do that here with any accuracy. How much support do you think our government would have after the first case of mistaken identity? It's not going to happen but any sort of mass support of more than 10% of the population would render the tech relatively irrelevant because of the inability to apply it. And 10% isn't that hard to achieve. And I'm not sure how you think logistics chain is any easier when it's suddenly completely exposed.

2

u/Eianarr Jan 22 '22

The supply chain is exposed cause there isn't one?

You honestly think that in the case of tyrannical government 1 out of 10 would instantly all be in contact, oranizes rebel movement and not mostly joining forces with the hypothetical tyrannical government?

0

u/mtcwby Jan 22 '22

And you honestly think that a true civil insurrection is somehow a slam dunk for the government? That has been borne out in recent history short of actual genocide and typically the divisions are much more obvious. With as fragmented as the US is in so many ways it's doubtful a government would have the backing needed.

2

u/Eianarr Jan 22 '22

Dawg, I'm not arguing about all the incredibly complex issues and fragments and sides of a "true civil insurrection" with you on Reddit. All I'm pointing out is your "goatherder" dig as some sort of proof or reasoning about the "success" of a civil uprising has literally no bearing on the realities of the situation. They are completely and utterly separate issues. That's it. That's all. Never said it would be a "slam dunk" or any such thing. Just pointing out how stupid tryna compare the middle east conflicts with a "civil insurrection" is. How many touchdowns in baseball type of shit reasoning.

0

u/mtcwby Jan 22 '22

Please explain the sophistication of that society after what we've seen. Would you be happier if I added dirt poor opium farmer, religious zealot, subsistence farmer? The point is it is not at all a sophisticated society and yet they managed to fend off the superpower in the world with mostly light weapons. All the tech shit in the world doesn't work when it can't be targeted.

1

u/Eianarr Jan 22 '22

Wtf are you talking about? The sophistication of their society? Like... That has literally no bearing on any of the things I mentioned? A war on foreign terrorist groups, groups supplied and trained by American and other international forces, groups that have existed in one form of another for 40+ years, that move and shift between the borders of MULTIPLE nations, has absolutely nothing to do with the efficacy of warfare conducted within the borders of the US on these hypothetical civil uprisings. Like the problems and issues with one are not transferable to the other. You get that right? Your "points" are wind and dust, they are of no merit or bearing. The problems of conducting warfare across the globe in foreign territories against these terrorist factions are completely and utterly different "problems" then the ones that would arise in your hypothetical civil insurrection.

→ More replies

11

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/dtreth Jan 22 '22

You're much more likely to use your gun on yourself than an attacker. And pink pistol members are a minority of a minority of gun owners, so you're not representative of anything the OP was talking about.

13

u/Ma1eficent Jan 22 '22

Weird, cause I didn't use it on myself, and did use it to stop being raped by my ex. And no shit it's not what the op was talking about, they'd like to pretend those of us who need guns to not be preyed upon dont exist and abuse statistic slices of already rare events to pretend a gun is more dangerous to me than my attacker.

-12

u/OnePotMango Jan 22 '22

I bought a gun after a stalker ex broke in and raped me

Weird, cause I didn't use it on myself, and did use it to stop being raped by my ex

Um... if you want people to believe you, best get your story straight.

6

u/Ma1eficent Jan 22 '22

Yeah, the next time he came back I pulled it on him and didn't get raped again. Is it your hobby to be an asshole whenever you dont understand something?

0

u/OnePotMango Jan 22 '22

No, I just don't instantly believe everything I read on the Internet, and put it through a reasonable amount of scrutiny.

-2

u/ericfussell Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

Wow and gun owners are apparently the assholes...

0

u/OnePotMango Jan 23 '22

If I was afraid of some rando on the Internet calling me an asshole because I use reasonable doubt to question what I read, I'd be a sycophant with no backbone and absolutely no bearing on the truth.

I'd rather take the occasional L, thanks.

0

u/dtreth Jan 23 '22

Actually, that's what you did. You used your own anecdote (I'm glad it worked out for you, of course) to negate every statistic ever collected on the subject, which shows that your gun was statistically more likely to have been used to murder you than to have protected you. I'm so glad you're safe. Stop doing what you're accusing me of.

0

u/Ma1eficent Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 23 '22

No, you are grouping suicide data in to make that claim, and non-suicidal people don't actually have to worry about that, which is why it's a bullshit statistical scare claim. Further, there are great statistics on deaths by firearm, because bodies, and terrible statistics on how many cowards who prey on women were scared off because they had a gun pointed at them. Which makes a bare comparison of those numbers entirely disingenuous. Something you'd know if you had any actual statistical training, or acknowledge if you had a shred of intellectual honesty.

0

u/dtreth Jan 23 '22

I'm not "grouping" anything. I'm literally bringing up suicide. That's the point. And we don't really know who's suicidal or not. Nothing else in your comment is worth replying to.

0

u/Ma1eficent Jan 23 '22

Lol, pretending suicide is murder, you said I am more likely to be murdered, which is your great lie. Intellectually honesty, gain some.

0

u/dtreth Jan 23 '22

I wasn't lumping in suicide with murder in that statement. There were several made. I'm sorry for the miscommunication. But the fact remains that without suicide you're still much more likely to be killed with your weapon than successfully use it to stop an assault.

4

u/mtcwby Jan 22 '22

And you trot out that tired old trope. Many of us can manage to not be suicidal.

0

u/dtreth Jan 23 '22

It's not a tired old trope, it's the literal most common use of a gun.

0

u/mtcwby Jan 23 '22

It's absolutely not the most common use of a gun.

0

u/dtreth Jan 23 '22

Besides Target practice

-3

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

You're much more likely to use your gun on yourself than an attacker.

*if you are suicidal

There are roughly 500 accidental gun deaths a year, out of 80+ million gun owners in the country. You are likely to never use a gun to hurt/kill yourself accidentally and not intentionally if you aren't suicidal. That drops the intention risk to nearly 0.

And pink pistol members are a minority of a minority of gun owners

You mean like the minority of gun owners that hurt/kill themselves and others with guns? Which isn't representative of nearly all the other 80+ million people who own guns?

9

u/OnePotMango Jan 22 '22

A rogue government armed to the gills that could wipe them off the face of the planet with the ease of a palm swatting a mosquito.

Guns also won't be helpful when the rogue government starves them out, denying them basic utilities. Those very guns will be pointed at each other while they fight over the final remaining scraps of food and water.

Once upon a time maybe having an armed populace could effectively overthrow the government. Today, their entire militia can be reduced to atoms with the press of a button. It's a fairytale for jughead morons with delusions of grandeur.

3

u/Stagnant_shart Jan 22 '22

Those superweapons can't really occupy an area. Hell, even a tank is only really good for anti armour and troop support. The problem with using firebombs and nuclear weapons is they cause a considerable amount of infrastructure damage, so if you do decide to retake the area, you have to build it up again if at all possible.

1

u/OnePotMango Jan 23 '22

Who said anything about using superweapons?

All they would need to do is target strategic positions with surgical strike weapons. It's home turf, so supply lines are far easier for the government/military to maintain, and they have a better lay of the land + established surveillance infrastructure to tap into.

Basically what would end up happening is the insurgents would have move themselves in highly populated areas to escape the constant targeting of their supplies and HQs, which stifles their ability to amass and organise. Given heightened military presence within bigger towns and cities of course, which is highly likely.

1

u/Stagnant_shart Jan 23 '22

What are these strategic positions? 9/10 any hideouts will be invaded by ground using soldiers. Even these "surgical strike" weapons would cause considerable damage to infrastructure, because even a guided bomb will deal quite a lot of damage in a wide area. I think you're forgetting that the US has had riots and fringe break-off groups before. The Waco siege was fighting between a group of religious zealots and the FBI and ATF. That siege lasted 51 days before tear gas ignited the facility. Again, no precision weapons were used. I think you are severely overestimating the capabilities of the armed forces to stop a rebellion should it come to that.

1

u/OnePotMango Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 23 '22

What are these strategic positions?

I Imagine the best they can manage is amassing supplies in the wilderness as built up areas will be closely monitored and patrolled. So at that point, a drone strike in the woods won't exactly do much infrastructure damage at all.

The Waco siege was an inevitable failure. If we are truly talking about a rogue government, then it wouldn't be surprising for more indiscriminate and devastating means would be used than what was effectively a police stand-off. Given the overriding control the government will have in the flow of major goods, they can starve out a major rebellion. As soon as rebels start turning their weapons on other citizens just so they can get by and survive, they start to lose considerable support.

1

u/Stagnant_shart Jan 23 '22

Implying the government won't starve themselves.

2

u/extralyfe Jan 22 '22

I always like seeing the argument that Afghanistan and Vietnam were able to defend themselves, so, obviously Americans could do the same thing if they needed to fight off the US Army.

I feel like it's ignoring the fact that we have thousands of miles of infrastructure in place that would be just perfect for rolling a few units of mobile infantry and tanks down your street if you and your neighbors got a little uppity.

that's all ignoring, as you said, all the fun new toys that we've had for the last few years. drone strikes would definitely be on the table, and your fucking .45 isn't gonna do much against that.

1

u/OnePotMango Jan 23 '22

I'd think the best they can manage is a few IEDs, and given the tight control the government would have over the movement of goods (weapon supplies) it would be very difficult for a militia to maintain a supply chain consistently.

It's home turf, with better infrastructure, established surveillance, tighter control over the movement of materials within and into the country, advanced weaponry with practically no way to defend against. It'll be very different to fighting thousands of miles away

1

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

A government doesn't want to exterminate the people it wants to rule over or destroy all of its infrastructure it needs to function thats dumb. Also assuming everyone in the military would willingly go kill a bunch of civilians.

If the US started dropping nukes and massacring its people you would see international involvement for war crimes against citizens.

4

u/FlameOnTheBeat Jan 22 '22

Also assuming everyone in the military would willingly go kill a bunch of civilians.

All you need is enough but let's hope we don't need to find out. However, look at Kent State...

0

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

If people in the government started killing a bunch of people they would lose a lot of support very quickly from many citizens, many politicians, and people around the military.

4

u/originaljbw Jan 22 '22

Cause that didn't happen in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Rwanda, Somolia just to name a few off the top of my head.

2

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

Yugoslavia's war broke up up Yugoslavia (creating countries like Croatia)

Libya and Yemen they did overthrow the government successfully. Politicians there were booted from power.

Somalia is almost a lawless land through large parts of the country with the government barely having control.

Syria the government still can't beat the rebels 11 years later. Despite them using chemical weapons and much more advanced equipment on civilians.

In many of those countries either they were overthrown by the rebels or they are still engaged in fighting them, the countries being crippled and weakened by the fighting.

Considering in the US there are 80+ million gun owners, roughly 1 million soldiers (a good bit are gun owners), and its a massive country where you could be dealing with cells of insurrectionists everywhere in that scenario it wouldn't be winnable.

Anyone who thinks the US government is going to roll in with tanks, jets, and nukes and start massacring a bunch of people and "win" a war against a civilian uprising quickly is an idiot. Thats is not how these wars have ever worked and what likely would happen is countries like Russia and China would be funneling weapons to the rebels to help destabilize the country and soldiers wouldn't desert their posts with military equipment/sabotage.

1

u/anythingthewill Jan 22 '22

It's my understanding that the US military focusses on targetted killings in counter-insurgency operations.

So I assume they'd try to identify/locate the main insurgent cells and try to wipe out those specific groups of insurgent gun owners. Can't wipe out 1 million US citizens and return to normal, even in an insurgency.

I doubt they'd whip out the artillery/missiles, since it would be far too difficult to control the amount of damage caused and who wants to fuck up their own backyard even more than they have to?

I could see the deployment of drones or maybe even weaponized land-based robots be a thing, again for the goal of "surgical" strikes.

All in all it's an interesting thought experiment, not that it would ever happen I think.

2

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

So I assume they'd try to identify/locate the main insurgent cells and try to wipe out those specific groups of insurgent gun owners. Can't wipe out 1 million US citizens and return to normal, even in an insurgency.

Good luck with that. We were in the middle east for 20+ years and couldn't succeed in that, because that is the will of the people there. This assumes all the states and people in those states would side with the federal government ideologically to fight a rebel group over some proposed civil war. You would have large parts of the country (local law enforcement, government, and citizens probably be against the government).

You can't win an ideological war with tanks or planes.

0

u/anythingthewill Jan 22 '22

The intelligence resources and the supply lines would be far more in favour of the US military rather than what they have had to deal with in Afghanistan / Iraq.

However, the US is a very big country, with a lot of small towns, so I'm pretty sure you'd have clusters of resistance that would be hell to dislodge.

What if part of the armed citizenry decided to form impromptu militias to bring the insurgency gun owners back into the fold? I can't imagine 80 million people all being in agreement simultaneously. Would the federal government even allow it?

0

u/OnePotMango Jan 23 '22

This assumes all the states and people in those states would side with the federal government ideologically to fight a rebel group over some proposed civil war.

This cuts both ways. It's equally unlikely that the insurgents would have large numbers or support either. The moment they turn arms towards the government, they'll be declared terrorists and enemy's of the country. Taking the current political climate in the US, the split would be closer to half and half. Except I this case one side has extreme fire superiority, control over the infrastructure, control over supply lines, established surveillance, etc.

1

u/OnePotMango Jan 23 '22

Don't need nukes. Just surgical strike weaponry. I doubt armed civilians have an iron dome to protect them from a cruise missile or the ilk.

1

u/OnePotMango Jan 23 '22

The moment you point a weapon towards the government they will brand you a terrorist and an enemy of the country. You are no longer just a citizen at that point.

Again, with most insurgencies, they are merely small groups. It won't be millions of Americans fighting, most will just be trying to survive the carnage that follows.

And as for the militias themselves, I highly doubt US allies will abandon the government to support the insurgency. I also xpect the US to have tighter control over incoming goods/materials/supplies being smuggled in to support an insurgency.

0

u/TBTabby Jan 22 '22

They watched too many action movies growing up, and they're dreaming of being just like Rambo, shooting his way through armies of soldiers, spewing one-liners. They don't seem the understand "plot armor" as a concept.

2

u/Vegan_Harvest Jan 22 '22

They're petrified of a rogue government that will turn on them.

I hate this argument, if the military turned on us no amount of guns would help. Have they seen a tank, a warship, or a drone?

0

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

Have they seen a tank, a warship, or a drone?

A warship and tank can't go around a town and enforce curfew. A warship and tank need to have tons of people to repair and maintain them. Drones have to be piloted from somewhere.

We have lost every war against Guerilla fighters no matter how much better equipment we had.

1

u/Grow_Beyond Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

Phillipines was largely pacified. Apaches ain't striking from the hills anymore, either.

2

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

Phillipines was largely pacified.

Except now the Philippine government is still fighting rebels across their own country lol. Lots of videos on youtube of them getting into combat with rebels and seizing caches of weapons.

1

u/Vegan_Harvest Jan 22 '22

The same people that maintenance tanks now do it in this scenario. It's not two guy in a jeep going rogue, it's the military.

They pilot the drones from the ships. What now?

We lose those wars when we decide to quit and bring our troops home, where are they going to go?

0

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

The same people that maintenance tanks now do it in this scenario. It's not two guy in a jeep going rogue, it's the military.

Its a lot of civilians on bases doing the work and military mechanics (who could be sympathetic to a resistance and easy sabotage a bunch of equipment which has happened in many other conflicts like this). They also need supplies and stuff sent to those bases. If groups cut off power, water, supply routes they couldn't maintain that equipment. Thats why people thinking the government would level cities and towns is pure stupidity because they need those resources, and access to roads, airports, ocean ports, to function.

We lose those wars when we decide to quit and bring our troops home, where are they going to go?

Yes back to their home towns with their friends and families some bureaucrat from a state those people aren't even from giving them an order to murder people there. Do you think people in the military, not politically appointed brass but combat soldiers, have more sympathy for some politicians or their neighbors and family?

I know from talking with a lot of soldiers who served combat roles who they value more.

0

u/Vegan_Harvest Jan 22 '22

Do you think people in the military, not politically appointed brass but combat soldiers, have more sympathy for some politicians or their neighbors and family?

You're arguing with the wrong person. This scenario isn't mine, it's some gun owner's justification for owning guns.

I'm just pointing out that it's fucking stupid to think you have a chance against a rogue US military.

0

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

I'm just pointing out that it's fucking stupid to think you have a chance against a rogue US military.

A rouge military is not going to win against 80+ million armed people and countless other civilians and people in the military.

0

u/Vegan_Harvest Jan 22 '22

See yeah, I knew this was a dishonest argument. Go have fun with your Rambo fantasy somewhere else.

0

u/420blazeit69nubz Jan 22 '22

Are you telling me my AR15 won’t help against a Gray Eagle drone with hellfire missiles?

1

u/Vegan_Harvest Jan 22 '22

My money is on you never even knowing it was there.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3

u/cesarmac Jan 22 '22

They have also recently (2016-2020) supported elected officials undermining democratic traditions, separation of powers, and check on the executive branch.

-4

u/b_9uiet Jan 22 '22

Good luck convincing the military to fire on their own civilians without greatly lowering morale and inevitably switching sides.

12

u/AshamedofMyFarts Jan 22 '22

Right now law enforcement act like community soldiers. I've seen them do some pretty disgusting things to their own citizens when they thought it was justified. Having served myself, I don't think the military would be much different under the right circumstances. Of course you'll have defectors if they turned on their own civilians, but you'll still have people who think they're justified attacking what they think are people who want to destabilize the country, not build a better one.

2

u/LordBoxington Jan 22 '22

A quickly growing number of the killing done by the military now is by a person in a shipping container office in the desert in Nevada/California who just pushes a button that launches ordinance from a drone. The lines are already very, very blurred.

Combine that with a growing number of civilians and military who see half the country as a threat to their way of life, and you're just a couple steps from this no longer being a deterrent.

4

u/OnePotMango Jan 22 '22

What makes you think the military wouldn't be the ones throwing a coup, or be in on the take? All they need to do is offer incentives.

In the real world, not everyone will be on the same side united against the government. There are always loyalists, there are always those who can be bought.

0

u/originaljbw Jan 22 '22

If you substitute the word police for military...

chef's kiss

2

u/afedyuki Jan 22 '22

We have (so called) police that refuse to take drug tests and have a reputation for killing unprivileged for sport. Of course people are scared of the government.

3

u/AshamedofMyFarts Jan 22 '22

Yeah, but the point you're missing is the people I'm talking about who are scared of government, get thin blue line flags tatooed on their bodies. They love police, and get violent with anyone who talks about defunding them.

Edit: then turn right around and say they have all their guns to stop a tyrannical government. They just don't see police killing minorities as "tyrannical." But telling them to wear masks apparently is tyranny.

1

u/afedyuki Jan 24 '22

They are cultists.

-1

u/Doingthis4clout Jan 22 '22

‘We need them incase the government become tyrannical’

The government have nukes, tanks and helicopters tf are guns going to do against them

4

u/Praxician94 Jan 22 '22

It gets even better - a few years ago my state removed the CCW permit requirement for concealed carry. Now any shmuck can toss a pistol in their pocket with no holster or safety and no training and it’s perfectly legal. Good luck being a cop trying to figure out if the person with a concealed gun in their pocket is a law abiding citizen or not.

EDIT: I didn’t even read the article all the way through. It’s describing exactly this (I’m in a different state though). It’s absolutely moronic.

0

u/Asta_la_Bestia Jan 22 '22

Dude, do you think a law is going to stop anyone willing to murder someone in cold blood? They only stop well intentioned people from being able to carry in self defense.

The punishment for carrying an otherwise legal gun is negligible. The only thing a CCW law like this could *possibly* to enable the crazies is if also gave them the ability to "skip" the background check when buying guns (Since the CCW permit already app did that) ASSUMING the gun store their only way to get a gun (never is rly, but let's assume)... regardless, you still gotta be checked in those states

Removing CCW permits doesn't do shit but help the innocent

1

u/Praxician94 Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

I’m not going to get into a gun control argument on Reddit. I myself am a CCW holder. What I don’t want is some dipshit who’s never owned a gun before buying a Hi-Point and tucking it in his waistband without a holster (or pocket carrying some cheap Kel-Tec in his pocket). That person is not only a danger to themselves but to everyone around them. At least a CCW class served as some minor check on that due to the basics needing to be taught. There are still plenty of people with CCW permits that have no business owning a gun though.

-2

u/Cylius Jan 22 '22

Its got nothing to do with guns. If the second ammendment was "the right to bare crossbows" youd see the same attitudes. Its about people who think their rights are being violated, even though you cant possibly apply a law from the 1700s to todays standards. The 2nd ammendment should be thrown out, or atleast revised to be applicable to firearms available to today. Sadly itll never happen

10

u/StarLiftr Jan 22 '22

Look at it this way: If the 1st amendment was “the right to “Free speech via Parchment paper”… Do you believe that “Free speech” should not apply to radio, TV, or the internet?

0

u/Cylius Jan 22 '22

I think the whole constitution is due for a revision tbh

1

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

The 2nd ammendment should be thrown out, or atleast revised to be applicable to firearms available to today.

It doesn't need to be revised like the 1st amendment, the supreme court has ruled several times that modern innovation in technology is covered by the bill of rights.

It already is applicable to firearms today and in the future.

0

u/Cylius Jan 22 '22

Yea the supreme court is known for being totally unbiased and always voting in the best interest of the country 🙄

I dont think the authors of the 2nd ammendment had any clue what guns would be like today. You couldnt just whip out a pistol and instantly murder 8 people in the 1780s

1

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22

The supreme court has always ruled the 2nd amendment is an individual right and encompasses modern weaponry.

0

u/Cylius Jan 22 '22

Well imo theyve ruled wrong. Just because 9 old heads decided its fine doesnt mean we all have

0

u/Cylius Jan 22 '22

Out of curiosity I checked the most recent 2nd ammendment vote from the supreme court. 5-4 voted against restrictions in dc, with a conservative majority. Crazy

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-3

u/Maxwe4 Jan 22 '22

The article didn't say who shot him or why.

Was he shot by someone who was carrying a pistol who otherwise wouldn't have if it weren't for that new law?

Or was he shot by a criminal trying to shoot someone else?

Criminals tend to disregard the law in the first place which is why in most cases stricter gun control laws don't usually work.

5

u/LowJacK604 Jan 22 '22

Tell that to every other country in the world and then compare it the gun violence in the US. It does work. It's proven to work. Take your head out of the sand. US has a gun problem. Admit it.

0

u/Maxwe4 Jan 22 '22

It doesn't work in the US though, there are statistics that show that gun bans don't reduce firearm related crime.

We have a crime problem is the US, and criminals will use whatever weapons they can get which is why knife crime is such a problem in the UK. They have almost as much knife crime in the UK than we do even though we have more than 5 times the population.

0

u/LowJacK604 Jan 22 '22

Are you saying that the US is special?

STOP MAKING FUCKING EXCUSES!!!! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR COUNTRY!!!

6

u/Turmfalke_ Jan 22 '22

If the law means it is harder to get the gun in the first place it does. Here in Europe not every criminal has a gun.

2

u/ericfussell Jan 22 '22

Yeah you guys just get splashed by acid and slashed by knives. Humans will kill no matter what. At least here in the states we have a fighting chance against criminals.

3

u/TehOuchies Jan 22 '22

In Mexico, where guns are illegal, they are also in excess.

One of the border crossings I used to frequent, had a giant billboard made of confiscated guns on location.

But that may be, the more lucrative the trade route, the larger amount of firepower by criminals. From Organized to Corner.

-1

u/Maxwe4 Jan 22 '22

Criminals don't follow the laws though so it doesn't actually make it any harder for them to get guns. It just makes it harder for law abiding citizens to.

There are a lot less guns in the EU than in the US which is why not every criminal has a gun over there, not because they follow the laws.

2

u/AspiringArchmage Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

If the law means it is harder to get the gun in the first place it does.

The law had literally nothing to do with acquiring a gun only carrying one which prior to the law being passed anyone could do in Tennessee if they paid for a license and didn't have a criminal record, all that changed was you didn't need to pay for a license to carry.

If someone wants to go shoot people they won't get a permit to do it. Its interesting how this article doesn't go into detail about the person who shot this kid like did they obtain a gun legally or were prohibited from carrying due to a prior conviction?

1

u/SomeGuy565 Jan 22 '22

Criminals tend to disregard the law in the first place which is why in most cases stricter gun control laws don't usually work.

So we shouldn't have any laws then,right? I mean, criminals gonna criminal.

1

u/Maxwe4 Jan 22 '22

No, we should stop people from breaking the law and penalize people that do.

2

u/HairyManBack84 Jan 22 '22

You just answered your own question in the same comment. Lol

Because people are scared someone is going to come for them, be it a civilian or government. America has over half of the world's guns in civilian hands. There's nothing gonna stop it now.

Also, I hate to say it, but the kid was in Memphis. Gun laws aren't gonna do shit when those weapons are stolen already.

1

u/baronjosefr Jan 22 '22

And the government cannot be trusted when we are without them. I’m not against certain bans (bump stocks, automatic conversion kits, etc.), better regulations of gun shows, restricting ownership of weapons by the the mentally, the destruction of the NRA, etc., but it’s not a coincidence that the worst dictatorships of the last 100+ years, their first order of business was to disarm the populace, resulting in hundreds-of-millions of deaths (no exaggeration, as you should already know if you have any inkling of history).

It’s a sad fact that there are people who obtain weapons, who I wouldn’t normally trust with an ice cream scoop. But the alternative is worse.

Snd before you say it: “No”, I do not own a gun, “No”, I have never owned a gun. “No, I do not plan to own a gun, unless my government forced me to through their actions.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/bodhitreefrog Jan 22 '22

It's the only thing the Republican party has left. They tell their own people that their 2A rights are safe while they grift every single American of their paychecks and constantly allow corporations to offshore their tax havens, use charities, and dodge all taxation.

It's just a giant Ponzi scheme. Corporations at the top and all Americans feeding their taxes to the corporations.

But I got a gun, and low gun regulations, so I'm a powerful, independent, real free American! Because the Republican party says so!

32

u/myeverymovment Jan 22 '22

I’m NOT saying this should happen, but I will bet we would see changes in gun laws if lawmakers started getting shot. I’m not condoning gun violence. Sometimes a problem needs to hit home before real action will be taken.

16

u/Seydaigato Jan 22 '22

Problem is, politicians have been shot at and still nothing. Remember that charity baseball game in 2017? Republican Steve Scalise was shot. Nothing changed.

8

u/BigBossWesker4 Jan 22 '22

And that one representative from…Arizona? She was shot in the head and survived.

3

u/Seydaigato Jan 22 '22

Yup. Gabrielle Giffords. Crazy.

7

u/BigBossWesker4 Jan 22 '22

This reminds me of a joke from "American Dad" he said "CIA Agents are supposed to distribute crack to the inner city, not smoke it!"

10

u/EvenBetterCool Jan 22 '22

"If guns are criminal, then only criminals will carry guns."

So you're saying there'd be a lot less guns?

2

u/Blueballyogurt Jan 22 '22

This heartbreaking!

2

u/OldGamerPapi Jan 22 '22

A stray bullet from who’s gun?

12

u/bluegreenred_yellow Jan 22 '22

This is completely unacceptable in any "civilized" society.

6

u/jayfeather31 Jan 22 '22

Why must we continue to allow senseless deaths to occur like this? And after hearing this, how could any person with any emotional capacity continue to support gun ownership over saving lives?

Governor Lee just looks like a heartless bastard to me at this point.

15

u/Papasmurphsjunk Jan 22 '22

American gun owners are willing to trade the lives of children in exchange for minimal regulation of their hobby. That's why these shootings have been happening and will continue to happen without anything changing. Sandy Hook would have been enough to drive change in any other country, but gun culture goes too deep here.

10

u/Smiling_Mister_J Jan 22 '22

with any emotional capacity

Welp, there's yer problem

4

u/TheSenileTomato Jan 22 '22

My friend, Hazmat Lee throws a hissy fit when schools try to protect themselves and their students during the pandemic, meanwhile keeps preaching that he trusts people “will do the right thing.”

And.

He puts ketchup on his well-done steak.

(Trust me, sensible people here hate him, but we’re surrounded by insensible people.)

2

u/HalfdanSaltbeard Jan 22 '22

Lee's a fucking idiot. People in Memphis are tired of his bullshit. It's like every single time he speaks, it brings the apparent collective intelligence of the entire state down.

-4

u/ihaveahotredhead Jan 22 '22 Take My Energy

It’s simply accepted that criminals will carry guns. No one is outraged by that. And how they get the guns is rarely topic of discussion in threads like this. Yet the second I defend my choice to have a 9mm for my protection and rifles for hunting…I become the problem. Prejudice and stereotype characterize me. Then the masses that can’t think for themselves squawk like a parrot invoking Sandy Hook and the like. Then somehow it makes you feel justified blaming me. We have become a weak, scared culture looking to others to take care of you. I got me and mine, and if necessary yours. If you need someone to defend you because you won’t think or act for yourself, I will! 🍻

2

u/Johr1979 Jan 22 '22

Yep. This poor kid's life was ended by hood rat culture which most posters want to gloss over.

1

u/ihaveahotredhead Jan 22 '22

Exactly the kind of crap I’m talking about Johr. You make a dismissive comment and I’m just supposed to do what…shut up? This thread became about guns, gun rights and who is to blame. And the blame went to those of us who want own guns legally. Not the criminals that killed a child. I AM NOT A VICTIM. “I’m” just the one it appears is to blame. Not the criminals.

-3

u/apexmedicineman Jan 22 '22

You're not the victim here.

0

u/ihaveahotredhead Jan 22 '22

That was directed at Apexmedicineman not Johr.

1

u/Elli933 Jan 22 '22

It’s so fucking hilarious that Americans believe more fervently, than an orthodox monk believes in Christ, that them having a few guns will protect them from a rogue government. When said rogue government has a total military spending of around 700 billion. Absolutely fucking hilarious how so many Americans are this delusional.

2

u/Murfdirt13 Jan 22 '22

Such a naive take it’s hilarious. Rogue government is just one of the many counterpoints the anti gun stance.

Guns are always the scapegoat in acts like this because they are the easiest target. Instead of discussing more complex issues like inequality, culture, mental health, society at large or how criminals even get their hands on guns, you’re tossing it up to the weapons fault for violence.

To put it another way, where is the overwhelming evidence that the outlawing of guns has actually been the sole reason for a reduction in homicides?

Prayers to this kid and his family, but until there is a cure for human nature, these types of senseless acts of violence will continue.

-20

u/EnglishmaninBelfast Jan 22 '22 edited Jan 22 '22

If this boy had been given a gun for Christmas then he would have been able to defend himself…

12

u/GaaraMatsu Jan 22 '22

Better yet a competing gang of terrorists-turned gangsters amirite Belfast? /s

Real serious: Oh wait... KFOR is Oklahoma. Open-carrying while black (like my buddy David, formerly of Oklahoma City) WILL get you targeted by locals for "suspicious persons" calls. Gun rights wouldn't effectively apply to this kid unless he got real bad revitaligo like Michael Jackson, know what I mean?

-1

u/BerriedTwo Jan 22 '22

You win the most ignorant comment on Reddit award today?

8

u/Dymdez Jan 22 '22

I think he was joking

0

u/Lambchoptopus Jan 22 '22

I think it's sarcasm. Their username says they are English which has strict gun laws.

1

u/CraziestPenguin Jan 22 '22

His shooting has nothing to do with this law, but sure get the propaganda machine cranking.

-5

u/BotanicFurry Jan 22 '22

America. In comparison even a turd shines like diamonds.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/AdDesperate2498 Jan 22 '22

Damn, this fucked me up.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jan 22 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/fromthewombofrevel Jan 22 '22

Heartbreaking.

1

u/P-redditR Jan 22 '22

Freedom!

Where’s the public outcry for the human rights violations? This kid was shot inside his house. How is there no outrage? Where’s the NRA?

-5

u/Flair_Helper Jan 22 '22

Hey /u/Ok-Razzmatazz9144, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:

Rule 2 - Sorry, but this story isn't oniony.

Please consider submitting your article to /r/offbeat or similar subreddits unless it truly reads like The Onion wrote it. The title and article itself must both be "Oniony". This can be highly subjective; you are encouraged to upvote articles that should be here and downvote those that should not. Moderators can also remove posts at their own discretion under this rule.

Please read the sidebar and rules before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you!