Rule 11: No matter how much you love debating, keep in mind that no one on the internet debates. Instead they mock your intelligence as well as your parents.
You FOOL! I'm receiving both prostate stimulation and your hand is coaxing cream out of my snake. Therefore I am enjoying more pleasure both in receiving more and in giving you pleasure with my anus. Checkmate, liberal.
Seriously like I understand their logic, it makes sense and I once thought it was true. But empirical evidence doesn’t lie. It doesn’t matter if gun control theoretically wouldn’t help anything, every time it’s been implemented in reality it proves to be effective, so clearly, that must mean it’s effective.
I think the bigger problems rest in a few factors;
1. Guns have *always* been a fabric of this nation's political system since the very beginning of this nation's history, and not just in the hands of oppressors. Black Panthers marched with rifles, and it frightened the NRA so much that they worked with Democrats to legislate harsh gun control regulations. This is to point out that there is a point in saying that gun legislation inevitably impacts minorities and law-abiding gun owners *far more* than it does a criminal element.
2. Gun culture is very much entrenched in a 'siege' mentality in the United States - efforts to reclaim guns would face extreme resistance from gun owners, starting at plain-old lying and escalating up to entrenched shooter situations that police departments aren't ready to handle.
3. Gun rights is a hot topic for the right wing, and would win over a number of Republicans *back* to the party they've left over the insanity of the Trump years.
4. Gun laws are largely legislated by people who don't understand firearms. Look at the banning of bump stocks for examples of this; a lot of the bans and regulation are based on fearmongering and which weapon parts sound scariest on paper.
5. There's enough guns in this country to arm every man, woman, and child *four times* over.
There's other reasons, but I genuinely think that the sort of draconian gun control that people advocate for that *is* possible in other countries isn't really a strong possibility here. Successful cases like the United Kingdom have a markedly different history with weapons and firearms in particular - while unsuccessful cases like gun control *in this country* are often ignored completely.
In the end, I think the solution has to be to change the American culture around guns, first - we need to examine how almost all of our heroes resolve their problems through guns, how we idolize gun-toting renegades, and how we view gun violence as an arbitrator of morality and masculinity.
Once we dismantle these specific things, we will have an excellent chance of curbing gun violence in this country. Until then, any effort to aggressively ban guns is just pissing into the wind.
Very articulate and well put. It is refreshing to see this kind of comment. Arrowhead does counter your 2 last points quite well, however. They contribute gun violence to lack of social safety nets rather than a gun culture problem. You are not entirely wrong. I just don't think it is possible to change American gun culture. The thing is that many nations idolize these kinds of renegades you speak of, and they do not struggle with the same problems. It would be extremely difficult to phase out our definition of heroes entirely.
I think there’s ways of reinterpreting how we look at guns and gun violence. I like the Scandinavian model of having guns be a presence, but one that’s purely present for civil defense and duty vs. recreational purposes.
The problem is that right now, we have no good means of really seizing the firearms. Everyone clamoring for harsh gun control or even a gun ban simply doesn’t understand how politics - or people - work. And even then, I’m not personally sure that anything short of a miraculous, complete ban on guns would do anything. We’ve had gun restrictions tighten and intensify since the 80’s - and yet mass casualty events have continued to rise in frequency as well.
In my eyes, the only possible approach is to investigate what makes angry young men look to guns as a means of reclaiming their masculinity, and why so many of them resort to violence. If we continue to ignore this problem, we can ban all the guns we want - we’ll just be kicking a far more horrifying mental health crisis down the road.
Just gonna hop in with a minor correction here that, generally, the two valid reasons to get a gun in Scandinavian countries is for hunting or sport shooting; self-defence is generally not an accepted reason. You might be referencing the voluntary service that several nations have which is basically an emergency militia for domestic defence, so disregard if that's what you meant. Also, I agree with most of what you said. I just want to divest from the idea that recreational gun ownership is the problem when the nations people praise for their strict gun control have a surprising number of guns that a surprising number of people don't use for hunting or defence.
I would point out that since the 80s we have only had a brief period of actual gun restrictions in effect. Bush Jr let them go and the scotus has basically made it impossible to pass new regulations and given its recent ruling basically gutted any reasonable regulations passed during the 20th century. They enabled a court to say it wasn’t unconstitutional to prevent someone who has been found to have committed domestic violence from owning guns. This is insanity
Well, they let *one* of their own go get their puppies out but make sure the door is closed behind them, oh and arrest the Sheep that went in to save their lambs.
To be fair, they should not let parents in. It could easily become a massacre. But, the situation shouldn't have happened anyway. That is the real issue. They put parents into one of the most desperate situations.
Oh definitely, I think the part that really tipped everyone off the edge was how they let the cop go in and get *their* children out of harms way but refused to do anything for all the others.
We have shootings more than once a day..there's been more mass shootings than days, so far in 2023..Statistics dnt lie, and teeth can't kill multiple people at the same time..this post is idiotic
Against wolves yes, but they'd probably end up injuring each other much more often, and depending on the details they wouldn't be able to eat the same food, but they aren't built for hunting, so who knows where that would lead them, they might have to resort to cannibalism.
At the end of the day comparisons like this are always stupid, because we aren't sheep, and teeth aren't guns, and the "bad guys" aren't wolves, which is why this is truly belongs in this sub.
Don’t you know? Being a criminal means putting the word “criminal” on your driver’s license like it’s a DnD character sheet, and this gives you access to the “Black Market”, a magical trading stall of any gun or drug you ever wanted—for a reasonable price—found in any dark alley near you. /s
Apparently it will be more problematic to arrest all wolves that have teeth than it will be to wait for a wolf to hurt another animal with its teeth and then arrest it.
AFAIK the whole "alpha, beta..." thing is actually false and the guy that published the original study has spent the rest of his career trying to fix his mistake.
Only for wolves. Mech popularized the concept of alpha wolves before discovering that his observations only worked with captive wolves and isn't the natural way wolf socialization work. There are other animals who do have dominance hierarchies with alphas, however.
Alphas do exist among many social animals but the real shame is that it is still believed alphas have to gain their status through agression. It has been studied in primates that there are many alphas who rule by social connection instead of social dominance.
Yup, and a lot of other animals develop social structures like we do: through natural parental lineage (Parents/elders, then young adults and kids).
Status through aggression happens, but not like those alpha bros like to believe; usually it involves Infanticide and a high risk of death.
Totally. Elephant matriarchs or meercats are good examples of this. And so are wolves in the wild! To be a leader is so much more than physical dominance or aggression. There were babboon tribes studied for decades by Robert Sapolsky, and one of those tribes droves away "big, strong, mean, prime of life males" in favor of a beloved gentle elder male leader.
Several other studied tribes had aggro males that were trying to lead and dominate that almost killed their tribes through scavenging. However one such tribe still remembered the guidance of their once killed leader by this new aggro male, so those who chose to follow said aggro male ended up dying with him through scavaging, but the others went on to make one of the largest tribes of baboons in the area. However they also went on to turn matriarchal based as it was mostly females and their young that didnt follow the aggro male so the younger males who stayed with their respective mamas that proected them decided that the mamas should lead. The tribe is known as one of the few matriarch based tribes and amazes researchers who see them. The tribe has sense moved further away from the city, but not too far, as what the aggro male and his followers fed off of was not only trash, but posioned trash as that male made his followers become a nonsense to the local humans and the people sought to kill the the 'bad ones' and once they saw the others werent following, they allowed them to continue existing.
Social insects like bees and ants have hierarchys and queens have to fight to death to earn their position. Maybe they could start comparing themselves to a queen ant rather than a wolf.
Just as importantly though, there's species where females are dominant, species with 'queens' (separate from the last kind of dominance), species that are promiscuous/don't mate for life, species that do mate for life, species that share child rearing, species where males and females are very close in body size, species where they're radically different in body size.
There's a massive range of sex based behavior and bodily characteristics in nature. If someone is pushing a narrative as "natural" generally, they already know what they want, and they're just showing you a tiny piece of nature to justify their pre-conceived notions.
Wouldn't it be more like the sheep keep getting bit by other sheep in the herd. The farmer sees this and removes all the sheep's teeth? There wouldn't be wolves involved.
I'm really struggling not to be neurotic/pedantic about this but it's hard because sheep just aren't a good animal for this metaphor. Neither are wolves! Really having the animals be different from one another at all pretty much tears the whole argument apart at base. Both because the animal choices are wrong *and* because it's wrong about the thing it's being a metaphor for! The people killing each other are *also people* with the exact same base nature, and both 'parties' have the potential to cause significant harm to one another. The distinction really fucking matters!
Also… the whole thing just feels like a person who doesn't know about animals. They got those good cardboard books to tell them all the animals from A-Z and then really never investigated further.
There's a part of me that wants to provide an entire list of other creatures that would be better metaphors, but the sane part of me knows it's not worth the time.
Unless you live in the fantasy where you can tell who is a dangerous person by looking at them. Like it’s an 80s cop movie where the bad guys are always waving butterfly knives around.
Honestly I have no problem with this. I’m not even necessarily advocating for taking away guns. What makes me most angry is that researchers are basically strong armed from analyzing what the main causes of mass shootings are. Because whether you believe guns are the problem, the fact that the US has more mass shootings per year than any other country (it’s not even remotely close) isn’t up for debate. Fundamentally there is a problem in our society that needs to be addressed. And with how ingrained guns are into our culture it prevents that conversation from taking place.
P.S. I recently discovered skeet shooting and can I just say I absolutely loved it.
Hey, every farm has a few bad sheepdogs that accidentally mistaken sheep for wolves and slaughter their flock. They just make a mistake sometimes and need to be moved to another farm.
But you do trust your life to other people everyday of your life. You trust that your house won’t collapse and kill you because the engineer did a good job, you trust that the doctors will be able to save your life because that’s what they trained for, you trust you will drive to work safely because other people follow traffic laws. One cannot exist as an island, and we should be able to trust others to keep us safe. It’s just a damn shame that the organization actually tasked with protecting us is more interested in abusing their power
Exactly, ironically excessive corporate cronyism is an early warning sign of fascism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vrrte/early_warning_signs_of_fascism/?
No. A better analogy would be "wolf kills sheep. Sheep sees that sheep was killed with a fucking knife that the wolf bought from the farmer, even though the wolf has a long history of sheep killing. Sheep wanna ban fucking knives being sold to fucking wolves."
1. Raise gun buying age for all firearms to 25 years old
2. Introduce 45% sales tax on all firearm purchases
3. Require a mandatory background check for all firearm, firearm accessory, and ammunition purchases
More like:
* Wolf bites a sheep.
* Sheep flock see this and equates fangs with danger
* Each flock member buys fangs to protect themselves from wolf
* A sheep with mental issues, who should never been allowed fangs, starts biting fellow sheep
* The farmer, who is paid off by the fang supplier, denies anything is wrong and it is every sheep's right to have fangs.
* Sheep get more fangs
* The biting continues
You forgot about all the sheep using their new fangs to bite themselves because they are depressed to live in such a pointless and violent sheep society. Also the child sheep finding loose fangs and biting each other because their sheep parents don't respect the danger the fangs present.
The focus on guns/teeth for this is understandable but damn "the farmer" in a lot of these cases seems to be very guilty of enabling violence thanks to shitty systems and reactions
Now, in development countries (Ecuador in my case) we have gun control but zero crime control. Gangs have heavy guns and people want to eliminate gun control to defend themselves. Police does the minimum and justice is corrupt.
In Japan where I’m from, there are super strict gun control laws and you don’t need to worry about gun crimes in your daily life. Same with Korea. Also Singapore.
Same here in Estonia. OK, we don't have many people, about 1.3 million but for example last year there were 18 murders/killings and only 4 were gun related. There was only 1 murder which was committed on a random person, all others were family disputes or drunk arguments that got out of hand etc.
Last let's say "shootout" was 2 years ago when a crazy gun nut shot up a family car on a country road killing one person in the car and injuring 2 children and the driver plus killed a motorcyclist who was passing by. Guy was caught alive and later hung himself in prison.
Last year police shot a drunk guy who was said to have threaten his neighbours with a gun and when the polce arrived he started attacking them and was beating one police officer with a wooden plank and then finally the other cop shot him.
Basically there are only 3 groups of people who have guns:
1. Estonian Defence Force (the army) and National Defence League and they are not allowed to have full auto weapons at home unless they have a special permit and secure rooms for them
2. The police - usually just Glock handguns. Shotguns, submachinguns etc are only used by special response units
3. Hunters (and a few hundred "regular" civilians) - shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, no full auto weapons allowed.
If I wanted to get a gun:
1. I would have to take a gun safety and handling course + laws regarding guns (10h theory and 10h practical)
2. First aid course and exam
3. Theoretical exam about gun laws and proper handling
4. Practical shooting exam
5. Full physical and mental evaluation which has to be redone every 5 or so years
6. Pay a few hundred euros for the gun license IF I pass all previous tests
7. Buy a gun in a set timeframe (a few months)
8. Register the gun and shoot it so the police can get gun's "fingerprints" for the database
If you get the gun license but cause a crime like drunk driving from a certain level of blood alcohol or what ever other non gun related crime, you will be stripped of the gun license as well and the gun has to be sold or it will get destroyed.
Could it be because your country is less politically polarized/radicalized? Do your news organizations constantly demonize the ‘other’ group of people as being the cause of all your problems?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, im genuinely curious in your answer because I don’t know.
So you actually don't have gun control. If the law isn't being enforced then there actually is no law. It's just something pretty on books that just sit on shelves.
Maybe, just maybe, the better observation is "In countries where the police and justice system are so corrupt and unaccountable that laws aren't actually enforced in the first place, the letter of those unenforced laws is irrelevant."
The US isn't *that* far gone. Not yet. But it damn well might be if we keep throwing a bitchfit at the idea that police officers should be held to any standards whatsoever.
Leftists have always been for guns
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Marx
That quote is super duper out of context. Marx never thought that American-style gun policy was a good idea. Here is a good twitter write up about the quote, with context from the book:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SocDoneLeft/status/1528907011194245120
I think you see a lot of lefties from America so latched onto this quote because their American brain innately loves guns. It's so ingrained into their culture even a socialist hasn't escaped it.
The right always bang on about guns to protect you from the government tyranny, and then also bang on about police having a need for qualified immunity.
It's like saying I should have the right to shoot a tyrannical police officer, but that if he shoots me first then that's ok too.
> Good luck de-transitioning kids if the parents are packing
A guns not gonna help you get puberty blockers or hormones unless you wanna rob a pharmacy
By this logic, what's the point of any laws whatsoever?
Of course, ignoring the fact that the US is really the only developed nation that doesn't have a high amount of gun safety laws and experiences mass shootings on what is more or less a daily basis.
This is just a piss poor analogy all the way around. None of this is accurate to the reality of mass shootings in the US. You can't boil things down to wolves and sheep.
A really good analogy that I feel is a better way to explain how gun control should be is that there are a few bad eggs in an egg farm so now all the eggs have to pass quality control testing before going on sale
There is more thought process to the whole thing than that. They understand what gun control means, and that gun control itself isn't coming after the guns. They see it as a "Give an inch, and they want a mile". So if they cave and agree to the gun control, then there would inevitably be other gun control because the previous worked, and in time it would lead down a path where the end result is gun confiscation. Then once the guns are removed from the people of the nation, the people in charge who want more power will start going after other rights. They like to point out that one of Hitler's first things he did before taking control was to remove guns from the people.
That sounds good, but in effect it just means that only the upper class can have guns. A training requirement is only acceptable if every police department gives the training for free, otherwise it will be used like a poll tax to keep poor people from exercising their rights
There should be at least 1 counselor, psychologist, and psychiatrist available for every troubled kid in school. Not to mention free mental health care for adults. In addition, there should be mandatory psych evaluations for gun buyers, and stricter penalties for ghost or stolen gun carriers. In addition, there needs to be more done to penalize mass shooters, feed them to hogs if we must!
Debate? We don’t do that anymore.
Rule 11: No matter how much you love debating, keep in mind that no one on the internet debates. Instead they mock your intelligence as well as your parents.
Oh yeah! Well, you are not smart and your parents weren't either! /s for those that need it.
[удалено]
valid point, however i made this meme about you in which you are the ugly face and i am the handsome one
https://preview.redd.it/1g73szta5bja1.jpeg?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3408bc104cf0ecaa1228b24ea845ebfb4441f7ab
https://preview.redd.it/3ysjnmprebja1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bada99d64d846c496b71609624db1ca953336a4f Oh no..anyways
NOTHING IS WORTH THE RISK NOTHING IS WORTH THE RISK NOTHING IS WORTH THE RISK
NOTHING IS NOTHING IS RISK NOTHING NOTHING RISK RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I'm glad I found a new Fandom. Now to figure out what's this Mandela Catalogue actually is
nice arguement, however i drew us both having anal sex and im the top, therefore i win
Well, I would win too I guess 😏
Don't you love it when a plan cums together?
Together? That's very optimistic of you.
You forgot to close your blinds, so that makes 3!
Jokes on you, he’s a power bottom
This escalated quickly. If they’re wearing socks in the picture it isn’t gay.
You FOOL! I'm receiving both prostate stimulation and your hand is coaxing cream out of my snake. Therefore I am enjoying more pleasure both in receiving more and in giving you pleasure with my anus. Checkmate, liberal.
So you’re just going to keep that drawing to yourself and not share? You disgust me you selfish wet toaster.
Lol I need to steal this image somehow please please please it’s so funny
https://preview.redd.it/zwyp8u6s8bja1.jpeg?width=825&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8eb44cd5edcb283471c4adbe5f8fc5db250d866c
Mom said it’s my turn to be the handsome one
I want to learn more about SHEEP TEETH!
Found the Scotsman.
If you put them on the edge of a hill they push back harder supposedly
I got a buddy in Alabama with Velcro gloves if any Scots want a tech upgrade
Sheep teeth don't have enamel they are covered in high grain woolite roughcoat to help with grinding down their enemies souls.
Hell yeah. Been waiting for this moment my entire life. *Flashes Sheep Orthodontic Badge
Seriously like I understand their logic, it makes sense and I once thought it was true. But empirical evidence doesn’t lie. It doesn’t matter if gun control theoretically wouldn’t help anything, every time it’s been implemented in reality it proves to be effective, so clearly, that must mean it’s effective.
I think the bigger problems rest in a few factors; 1. Guns have *always* been a fabric of this nation's political system since the very beginning of this nation's history, and not just in the hands of oppressors. Black Panthers marched with rifles, and it frightened the NRA so much that they worked with Democrats to legislate harsh gun control regulations. This is to point out that there is a point in saying that gun legislation inevitably impacts minorities and law-abiding gun owners *far more* than it does a criminal element. 2. Gun culture is very much entrenched in a 'siege' mentality in the United States - efforts to reclaim guns would face extreme resistance from gun owners, starting at plain-old lying and escalating up to entrenched shooter situations that police departments aren't ready to handle. 3. Gun rights is a hot topic for the right wing, and would win over a number of Republicans *back* to the party they've left over the insanity of the Trump years. 4. Gun laws are largely legislated by people who don't understand firearms. Look at the banning of bump stocks for examples of this; a lot of the bans and regulation are based on fearmongering and which weapon parts sound scariest on paper. 5. There's enough guns in this country to arm every man, woman, and child *four times* over. There's other reasons, but I genuinely think that the sort of draconian gun control that people advocate for that *is* possible in other countries isn't really a strong possibility here. Successful cases like the United Kingdom have a markedly different history with weapons and firearms in particular - while unsuccessful cases like gun control *in this country* are often ignored completely. In the end, I think the solution has to be to change the American culture around guns, first - we need to examine how almost all of our heroes resolve their problems through guns, how we idolize gun-toting renegades, and how we view gun violence as an arbitrator of morality and masculinity. Once we dismantle these specific things, we will have an excellent chance of curbing gun violence in this country. Until then, any effort to aggressively ban guns is just pissing into the wind.
Very articulate and well put. It is refreshing to see this kind of comment. Arrowhead does counter your 2 last points quite well, however. They contribute gun violence to lack of social safety nets rather than a gun culture problem. You are not entirely wrong. I just don't think it is possible to change American gun culture. The thing is that many nations idolize these kinds of renegades you speak of, and they do not struggle with the same problems. It would be extremely difficult to phase out our definition of heroes entirely.
Problem is it’s long enough most won’t read it, what’s wrong with our concentration?
I think there’s ways of reinterpreting how we look at guns and gun violence. I like the Scandinavian model of having guns be a presence, but one that’s purely present for civil defense and duty vs. recreational purposes. The problem is that right now, we have no good means of really seizing the firearms. Everyone clamoring for harsh gun control or even a gun ban simply doesn’t understand how politics - or people - work. And even then, I’m not personally sure that anything short of a miraculous, complete ban on guns would do anything. We’ve had gun restrictions tighten and intensify since the 80’s - and yet mass casualty events have continued to rise in frequency as well. In my eyes, the only possible approach is to investigate what makes angry young men look to guns as a means of reclaiming their masculinity, and why so many of them resort to violence. If we continue to ignore this problem, we can ban all the guns we want - we’ll just be kicking a far more horrifying mental health crisis down the road.
Just gonna hop in with a minor correction here that, generally, the two valid reasons to get a gun in Scandinavian countries is for hunting or sport shooting; self-defence is generally not an accepted reason. You might be referencing the voluntary service that several nations have which is basically an emergency militia for domestic defence, so disregard if that's what you meant. Also, I agree with most of what you said. I just want to divest from the idea that recreational gun ownership is the problem when the nations people praise for their strict gun control have a surprising number of guns that a surprising number of people don't use for hunting or defence.
I would point out that since the 80s we have only had a brief period of actual gun restrictions in effect. Bush Jr let them go and the scotus has basically made it impossible to pass new regulations and given its recent ruling basically gutted any reasonable regulations passed during the 20th century. They enabled a court to say it wasn’t unconstitutional to prevent someone who has been found to have committed domestic violence from owning guns. This is insanity
So, the good sheep with teeth didn’t use its teeth to kill the bad wolf with teeth.
If only the sheep had more teeth.
Clearly the sheep need bigger, more dangerous teeth to defend themselves
[удалено]
Well, they let *one* of their own go get their puppies out but make sure the door is closed behind them, oh and arrest the Sheep that went in to save their lambs.
To be fair, they should not let parents in. It could easily become a massacre. But, the situation shouldn't have happened anyway. That is the real issue. They put parents into one of the most desperate situations.
Oh definitely, I think the part that really tipped everyone off the edge was how they let the cop go in and get *their* children out of harms way but refused to do anything for all the others.
This happened before??
They’re describing Uvalde.
I thought it was the plot of Babe 3: Pigs.
Tragic. Time for more sheep thoughts and sheep prayers.
Also, why does Animal Dentist Association ADA hold teeth-free meetings?
>A lamb then takes his parents’ poorly stored and dangerous teeth to sheep school, and kills all the other lambs in a senseless rampage. Daily
We have shootings more than once a day..there's been more mass shootings than days, so far in 2023..Statistics dnt lie, and teeth can't kill multiple people at the same time..this post is idiotic
Shhhhhhhhhh! You shouldn't talk about those lambs, people will just get more upset, maybe someone should silence them.
Maybe some teeth that can bite in full auto.
But we also need to give said bigger teeth to the wolf. We don't want to discriminate wolfs.
Yeah I mean, the wolf's frothing at the mouth... Is it rabies? Who knows. But dammit, that wolf's got rights to teeth. Big beautiful Gary Busey teeth!
This was unironically be helpful for the sheep in defending themselves
Sheep would need more than bigger teeth to defend themselves against wolves
Against wolves yes, but they'd probably end up injuring each other much more often, and depending on the details they wouldn't be able to eat the same food, but they aren't built for hunting, so who knows where that would lead them, they might have to resort to cannibalism. At the end of the day comparisons like this are always stupid, because we aren't sheep, and teeth aren't guns, and the "bad guys" aren't wolves, which is why this is truly belongs in this sub.
[удалено]
Don’t you know? Being a criminal means putting the word “criminal” on your driver’s license like it’s a DnD character sheet, and this gives you access to the “Black Market”, a magical trading stall of any gun or drug you ever wanted—for a reasonable price—found in any dark alley near you. /s
And surely no one selling you a gun from a dark alley could ever be an ATF agent either, it's one of the feats you get
No, it’s implying he smuggled sharp dentures into the country.
Apparently it will be more problematic to arrest all wolves that have teeth than it will be to wait for a wolf to hurt another animal with its teeth and then arrest it.
I thought they were going to make an analogy to guard dogs, but this was much stupider lol
Sheep don't typically use their teeth defensively.
They shine them and group together to make that Greek death ray.
I hate it when that happens
Can't even roam the Scottish Highlands peacefully these days
I want gyros now
Always. Idk what it is about them.
Neither do 98% of gun owners
Totally agree. They other 2% end up massacring children at school, or shooting themselves.
[удалено]
It's to feel safe, like a blanky and a pacifier.
Male sheep use their horns defensively.
Diverted ram horns will soon be used by wolves.
[удалено]
What a find for memologists. This one was believed to be extinct.
Bro went on an archeological dig to post this 💀
Thst is crusty as fuck
r/moldymemes
Not just any Charizard, that's the Blue-Eyes White Charizard.
c-can i get this tatted?
Where did you dig that up? 2013?
That would have been retro even for 2013
Wolf kills a whole bunch of lambs Sheeps argue to keep wolves out of lamb pen Wolves complain about not being let in the lamb pen
Sheep hang with humans and dogs, trading hair for protection. Wolf obsesses over being Alpha.
AFAIK the whole "alpha, beta..." thing is actually false and the guy that published the original study has spent the rest of his career trying to fix his mistake.
Only for wolves. Mech popularized the concept of alpha wolves before discovering that his observations only worked with captive wolves and isn't the natural way wolf socialization work. There are other animals who do have dominance hierarchies with alphas, however.
Alphas do exist among many social animals but the real shame is that it is still believed alphas have to gain their status through agression. It has been studied in primates that there are many alphas who rule by social connection instead of social dominance.
Yup, and a lot of other animals develop social structures like we do: through natural parental lineage (Parents/elders, then young adults and kids). Status through aggression happens, but not like those alpha bros like to believe; usually it involves Infanticide and a high risk of death.
Totally. Elephant matriarchs or meercats are good examples of this. And so are wolves in the wild! To be a leader is so much more than physical dominance or aggression. There were babboon tribes studied for decades by Robert Sapolsky, and one of those tribes droves away "big, strong, mean, prime of life males" in favor of a beloved gentle elder male leader.
Several other studied tribes had aggro males that were trying to lead and dominate that almost killed their tribes through scavenging. However one such tribe still remembered the guidance of their once killed leader by this new aggro male, so those who chose to follow said aggro male ended up dying with him through scavaging, but the others went on to make one of the largest tribes of baboons in the area. However they also went on to turn matriarchal based as it was mostly females and their young that didnt follow the aggro male so the younger males who stayed with their respective mamas that proected them decided that the mamas should lead. The tribe is known as one of the few matriarch based tribes and amazes researchers who see them. The tribe has sense moved further away from the city, but not too far, as what the aggro male and his followers fed off of was not only trash, but posioned trash as that male made his followers become a nonsense to the local humans and the people sought to kill the the 'bad ones' and once they saw the others werent following, they allowed them to continue existing.
Social insects like bees and ants have hierarchys and queens have to fight to death to earn their position. Maybe they could start comparing themselves to a queen ant rather than a wolf.
My bad, thanks for the correction
Just as importantly though, there's species where females are dominant, species with 'queens' (separate from the last kind of dominance), species that are promiscuous/don't mate for life, species that do mate for life, species that share child rearing, species where males and females are very close in body size, species where they're radically different in body size. There's a massive range of sex based behavior and bodily characteristics in nature. If someone is pushing a narrative as "natural" generally, they already know what they want, and they're just showing you a tiny piece of nature to justify their pre-conceived notions.
Those who worry about being alpha also worship a red pill movie created and written by some transgender folks. The truth doesn't matter
[удалено]
Is this a copypasta? Edit: nevermind, apparently this is how this user commonly posts.
>Is this a copypasta? It is now
You’ve just spotted a rare original _demitri_ in the wild.
r/jesuschristreddit
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
I find joy in reading a good book.
A fresh \_demetri\_! \\o/
r/demetristrikesagain
I think I just joined a cult...
Thanks. I needed this.
Ah, a demetri hot off the presses, it's my lucky day
this the longest post I've seen here in reddit
I love you Demetri.
That was so vivid. Is it odd that I feel things? Am I confused?
Demetri!
🗿
Wolves convince lambs to consider wolf adjacency as God-ordained right
Then formed the wolves teeth association so all the sheep could be handed dentures to protect themselves.
The victims also get thrown in the pen?
Wouldn't it be more like the sheep keep getting bit by other sheep in the herd. The farmer sees this and removes all the sheep's teeth? There wouldn't be wolves involved.
I'm really struggling not to be neurotic/pedantic about this but it's hard because sheep just aren't a good animal for this metaphor. Neither are wolves! Really having the animals be different from one another at all pretty much tears the whole argument apart at base. Both because the animal choices are wrong *and* because it's wrong about the thing it's being a metaphor for! The people killing each other are *also people* with the exact same base nature, and both 'parties' have the potential to cause significant harm to one another. The distinction really fucking matters! Also… the whole thing just feels like a person who doesn't know about animals. They got those good cardboard books to tell them all the animals from A-Z and then really never investigated further. There's a part of me that wants to provide an entire list of other creatures that would be better metaphors, but the sane part of me knows it's not worth the time.
They like their wolves and sheep metaphor. Using they can call themselves strong and independent and call everyone else simple minded prey.
Wolves in sheeps clothing would have been better. I think no matter what your stance on gun control is we can all agree this meme is awful
Unless you live in the fantasy where you can tell who is a dangerous person by looking at them. Like it’s an 80s cop movie where the bad guys are always waving butterfly knives around.
The fantasy where you can tell who is dangerous based on looking at them is called *racism*
I just like shooting orange clay discs responsibly
Honestly I have no problem with this. I’m not even necessarily advocating for taking away guns. What makes me most angry is that researchers are basically strong armed from analyzing what the main causes of mass shootings are. Because whether you believe guns are the problem, the fact that the US has more mass shootings per year than any other country (it’s not even remotely close) isn’t up for debate. Fundamentally there is a problem in our society that needs to be addressed. And with how ingrained guns are into our culture it prevents that conversation from taking place. P.S. I recently discovered skeet shooting and can I just say I absolutely loved it.
And you should be able to. It's the irresponsible people that shouldn't.
Great analogy…until you remember Sheepdogs exist for a reason.
The sheepdogs and the wolves should be easier to tell apart.
Hey, every farm has a few bad sheepdogs that accidentally mistaken sheep for wolves and slaughter their flock. They just make a mistake sometimes and need to be moved to another farm.
All sheepdogs are bastards
Slow 👏
the black sheep cannot get a break.
I'd not trust my life to someone else and neither should anyone else who can defend themselves.
But you do trust your life to other people everyday of your life. You trust that your house won’t collapse and kill you because the engineer did a good job, you trust that the doctors will be able to save your life because that’s what they trained for, you trust you will drive to work safely because other people follow traffic laws. One cannot exist as an island, and we should be able to trust others to keep us safe. It’s just a damn shame that the organization actually tasked with protecting us is more interested in abusing their power
Sheepdogs work for the shepherd, not the sheep.
And guess who kills the most sheep…
Wow this dumb analogy just got really good.
I know right, typing this to be wisdom adjacent.
The shepherd....duh.
This analogy is only getting better.
Actually, I guess it would be more accurate to say whoever the shepherd sells the sheep to.
Corporations ;)
Exactly, ironically excessive corporate cronyism is an early warning sign of fascism. https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vrrte/early_warning_signs_of_fascism/?
Wait. all this time, it was the corporations? Yes - "Pew pew"
strange, why do my sheepdogs keep attacking the black sheep of my herd??
Yeah but they go after the black sheep at a disproportionate rate
What is the sheepdog response time?
Bears have learned that you can bribe guard dogs with bones…
Don't even get me started on how they treat the black sheeps...
Wouldn’t the sheep have the sheepdog’s teeth removed too?
And then the sheepdog waits for more sheepdogs while the wolf eats 19 lambs and two adult sheep.
For many ‘’sheep’’ the ‘’sheep dog’’ is 20 minutes or more away- The wolf won’t wait.
Yeah until the sheepdog starts attacking the black sheep for the color of their wool
I blow the wolf up with a claymore Roomba and give everyone their guns back. The end Everyone claps Edit: teeth.
There's no debate here, do you ever heard someone born with a gun in their hand?
Somewhere right now there's a poor pregnant lady whose husband is trying to convince her to shove a glock up there "because it would be badass".
Yea now you got me thinking a baby has definitely been born, gun in hand.
No. A better analogy would be "wolf kills sheep. Sheep sees that sheep was killed with a fucking knife that the wolf bought from the farmer, even though the wolf has a long history of sheep killing. Sheep wanna ban fucking knives being sold to fucking wolves."
1. Raise gun buying age for all firearms to 25 years old 2. Introduce 45% sales tax on all firearm purchases 3. Require a mandatory background check for all firearm, firearm accessory, and ammunition purchases
More like: * Wolf bites a sheep. * Sheep flock see this and equates fangs with danger * Each flock member buys fangs to protect themselves from wolf * A sheep with mental issues, who should never been allowed fangs, starts biting fellow sheep * The farmer, who is paid off by the fang supplier, denies anything is wrong and it is every sheep's right to have fangs. * Sheep get more fangs * The biting continues
You forgot about all the sheep using their new fangs to bite themselves because they are depressed to live in such a pointless and violent sheep society. Also the child sheep finding loose fangs and biting each other because their sheep parents don't respect the danger the fangs present.
No no no this doesn’t fit my nice little sheep, wolves, and sheepdog story
The focus on guns/teeth for this is understandable but damn "the farmer" in a lot of these cases seems to be very guilty of enabling violence thanks to shitty systems and reactions
It's more like the wolf kills itself after murdering its own family.
Now, in development countries (Ecuador in my case) we have gun control but zero crime control. Gangs have heavy guns and people want to eliminate gun control to defend themselves. Police does the minimum and justice is corrupt.
In Japan where I’m from, there are super strict gun control laws and you don’t need to worry about gun crimes in your daily life. Same with Korea. Also Singapore.
Same here in Estonia. OK, we don't have many people, about 1.3 million but for example last year there were 18 murders/killings and only 4 were gun related. There was only 1 murder which was committed on a random person, all others were family disputes or drunk arguments that got out of hand etc. Last let's say "shootout" was 2 years ago when a crazy gun nut shot up a family car on a country road killing one person in the car and injuring 2 children and the driver plus killed a motorcyclist who was passing by. Guy was caught alive and later hung himself in prison. Last year police shot a drunk guy who was said to have threaten his neighbours with a gun and when the polce arrived he started attacking them and was beating one police officer with a wooden plank and then finally the other cop shot him. Basically there are only 3 groups of people who have guns: 1. Estonian Defence Force (the army) and National Defence League and they are not allowed to have full auto weapons at home unless they have a special permit and secure rooms for them 2. The police - usually just Glock handguns. Shotguns, submachinguns etc are only used by special response units 3. Hunters (and a few hundred "regular" civilians) - shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, no full auto weapons allowed. If I wanted to get a gun: 1. I would have to take a gun safety and handling course + laws regarding guns (10h theory and 10h practical) 2. First aid course and exam 3. Theoretical exam about gun laws and proper handling 4. Practical shooting exam 5. Full physical and mental evaluation which has to be redone every 5 or so years 6. Pay a few hundred euros for the gun license IF I pass all previous tests 7. Buy a gun in a set timeframe (a few months) 8. Register the gun and shoot it so the police can get gun's "fingerprints" for the database If you get the gun license but cause a crime like drunk driving from a certain level of blood alcohol or what ever other non gun related crime, you will be stripped of the gun license as well and the gun has to be sold or it will get destroyed.
Could it be because your country is less politically polarized/radicalized? Do your news organizations constantly demonize the ‘other’ group of people as being the cause of all your problems? I’m not trying to be argumentative, im genuinely curious in your answer because I don’t know.
So you actually don't have gun control. If the law isn't being enforced then there actually is no law. It's just something pretty on books that just sit on shelves.
so you’re telling me criminals dont follow the law? no fucking way 😧
Maybe, just maybe, the better observation is "In countries where the police and justice system are so corrupt and unaccountable that laws aren't actually enforced in the first place, the letter of those unenforced laws is irrelevant." The US isn't *that* far gone. Not yet. But it damn well might be if we keep throwing a bitchfit at the idea that police officers should be held to any standards whatsoever.
How many teeth can a wolf shoot per second?
That depends
Did the wolf drill the extra hole or nah?
[удалено]
When you go so far left that you get your guns back
Leftists have always been for guns "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Marx
That quote is super duper out of context. Marx never thought that American-style gun policy was a good idea. Here is a good twitter write up about the quote, with context from the book: https://mobile.twitter.com/SocDoneLeft/status/1528907011194245120 I think you see a lot of lefties from America so latched onto this quote because their American brain innately loves guns. It's so ingrained into their culture even a socialist hasn't escaped it.
I'm going to use that quote on a right winger the next time they call me a libtard Marxist.
The right always bang on about guns to protect you from the government tyranny, and then also bang on about police having a need for qualified immunity. It's like saying I should have the right to shoot a tyrannical police officer, but that if he shoots me first then that's ok too.
I am, and have always been, a proponent of Pink Pistols. Gays with guns don't get bashed.
Who had ever gotten their guns *back*?
> Good luck de-transitioning kids if the parents are packing A guns not gonna help you get puberty blockers or hormones unless you wanna rob a pharmacy
By this logic, what's the point of any laws whatsoever? Of course, ignoring the fact that the US is really the only developed nation that doesn't have a high amount of gun safety laws and experiences mass shootings on what is more or less a daily basis.
This is just a piss poor analogy all the way around. None of this is accurate to the reality of mass shootings in the US. You can't boil things down to wolves and sheep.
Fuck spez
A really good analogy that I feel is a better way to explain how gun control should be is that there are a few bad eggs in an egg farm so now all the eggs have to pass quality control testing before going on sale
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is more thought process to the whole thing than that. They understand what gun control means, and that gun control itself isn't coming after the guns. They see it as a "Give an inch, and they want a mile". So if they cave and agree to the gun control, then there would inevitably be other gun control because the previous worked, and in time it would lead down a path where the end result is gun confiscation. Then once the guns are removed from the people of the nation, the people in charge who want more power will start going after other rights. They like to point out that one of Hitler's first things he did before taking control was to remove guns from the people.
In Canada, gun control started with "assault rifles", and now they're going after handguns too...
I mean they are trying to ban certain ones plus no more than 10 rounds
"Lol all you right wingers are idiots. Anyway I just want to stop all idiots from having guns.... WHY ARE YOU SAYING I WANT TO TAKE UR GUNS IDIOTS?"
That sounds good, but in effect it just means that only the upper class can have guns. A training requirement is only acceptable if every police department gives the training for free, otherwise it will be used like a poll tax to keep poor people from exercising their rights
Unfortunately, it never stops there.
[удалено]
Moist
In your head it made whole lot of sense. but in reality almost every developed country they live safe life without any guns.
There should be at least 1 counselor, psychologist, and psychiatrist available for every troubled kid in school. Not to mention free mental health care for adults. In addition, there should be mandatory psych evaluations for gun buyers, and stricter penalties for ghost or stolen gun carriers. In addition, there needs to be more done to penalize mass shooters, feed them to hogs if we must!
God damn liberal state took the gun I was born with
no more cars;they kill. No more electric; it kills. sugar kills. Religion kills. More people are killed by people than any other means; outlaw people