Anon breaks up
-
Someone having guns to shoot the boot soldiers of an unjust regime? All for it. Big green flag to me.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Those aren't exactly normal people.
When I said, "someone having guns to shoot normal people", I talked about the MAGA guys having those weapons.
-
You do you. But I challenge you to go and look at gun prices at your local Walmart in the USA. Not every guy you buy has to be an FN-Scar 17 in pricing.
Turn around a look at how much it costs to defend yourself criminally in the USA.
Guns are about $200 at Walmart.
Robust criminal defense is about 30-40 hours.
Also good luck selling a gun you don’t have in your possession. Try going to a gun shop and saying “give me the cash now, I promise to give you the gun when the police give it back to me”
You might legally have that right but practically… good luck.
We do agree that you should be responsible for your actions. But looking at the meme here nothing wrong was done.
defend yourself criminally
Robust criminal defense
These court proceedings aren't criminal cases. They're more like hearings on restraining orders and things of that nature. Like I said, this is generally less than a single day's work for a lawyer, 2-5 hours.
I'm comparing middle of the road prices for handguns ($500-$1200) to middle of the road prices for a lawyer who can handle one of these hearings ($500-$1500). I still think it's financially irresponsible to own more than 3 guns and not have a $1000 emergency fund.
-
This post did not contain any content.
1/ fake and gay
2/ if you can't afford a lawyer, then you REALLY need a lawyer
-
Thank you for proving my point.
Given how nonsensical your first comment was, I don't think you had a point
-
This post did not contain any content.
I mean... isn't that what is NRA is for?
Or... do they only defend rich white people's gun rights?
-
"She's probably right." "Dude was probably violent." "Easier to give up your guns than fight this in court" "Just give up your guns!"
Lmao wowww lemmy. Nobody here likes due process?
Lemmy wants it easier for cops to take away your guns, but simultaneously distrust the cops and want to abolish the police. So which is it lol?
But then again, this is 4chan so Anon probably is on the side of the tyrants anyways; they think they're part of "the good ones".
-
I think we just don't like guns.
Eh, the cops are worse than the guns.
Don't be disarming when gestapo in roaming the streets.
(But Anon probably supports the gestapo tho...
️) -
To compare dead children to the cost of failing to check government power, we can reduce both to life-years lost:
Current Cost: Child Firearm Deaths in the U.S.- ~2,000 preventable child gun deaths/year
- ~60 life-years lost per death
- 120,000 life-years lost annually
- Over 30 years: ~3.6 million life-years lost
️ Hypothetical Benefit: Preventing TyrannyAssume a worst-case scenario:
- Authoritarian collapse kills 10 million (based on 20th-century examples)
- Avg. age at death: ~40 → ~35 life-years lost
- 10M deaths × 35 = 350 million life-years lost
Estimate risk:
- Without civilian arms: 0.5% chance over 30 years
- With civilian arms: 0.4% chance
- These figures are speculative; there’s no empirical support that civilian gun ownership reduces the risk of tyranny—many stable democracies have strict gun control.
In fact, high civilian armament may reduce stability:
- Greater availability of weapons increases the lethality of civil unrest, crime, and domestic terrorism.
- Armed polarization can accelerate breakdown during political crises, as seen in failed or fragile states.
- States may respond with harsher repression, escalating rather than deterring authoritarian outcomes.
Expected Value Calculation- Without arms: 0.005 × 350M = 1.75 million life-years at risk
- With arms: 0.004 × 350M = 1.2 million life-years at risk
- Net benefit of arms: ~550,000 life-years saved (generous estimate)
ConclusionEven with favorable assumptions:
- Civilian firearms cost ~3.6M life-years (due to preventable child deaths)
- And prevent only ~550K life-years (via marginally lower tyranny risk)
Bottom line: The ongoing cost vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefit, and high armament may worsen long-term stability rather than protect it.
In 2015 I'd agree.
In 2025? Nah, look at what's happening around the US.
Dems are losing votes because of the guns issue, drop the gun issue, along with promoting a progressive platform and that's easily winning elections.
-
You either overestimate how much guns cost or underestimate how much lawyers cost.
Or any of the scenarios where op is no longer employed or self employed and between jobs. Court appointed attorneys are based on current income iirc.
-
In the hypothetical scenario that this is the whole truth, what you're doing is victim blaming.
I didn't intend to do that at all. The proverb I had in mind was "birds of a feather flock together". It doesn't mean he deserved it but I do think people who date people who would do this to them are probably not much better either. Also he wrote this on 4chan which is again, not a complete footprint of his personality but certainly a testament to his character.
-
Anon can easily get a lawyer pro-bono, with contingency fee, who would nail a case like this to a cross.
In civil court, because she defamed him causing real and considerable loss of property, and psychological harm.
As for defending, Anon hasn't really outlined any laws he might have broken...? Court for what? Just go to the trial and explain your side clearly and concisely: never a threat to anybody, cheating girlfriend made a false report.
lol I'd love to meet the lawyer who would be willing to defend a 4channer on contingency.
-
Or any of the scenarios where op is no longer employed or self employed and between jobs. Court appointed attorneys are based on current income iirc.
LOL, I have shitloads of guns, unemployed. Ya got me! And it's not like selling them would bring me any amount of lawyer time.
$1,000 AR-15, $800 used, at best. That's 3 hours of lawyer time and a few emails. I couldn't get $300 for most of my crappy guns.
-
Story: Girlfriend cheats
This guy: Maybe he deserved itWeird take. If you ain't happy with your SO you try and deal with it or you fuck off. Cheating just makes everything worse.
My colleague cheated on her man and now everything is worse. Whatever situation caused her to do it, now the situation is even harder to resolve. No one is gonna go "yeah okay, I probably deserved that. Let's move on", haha!
-
Without context, this could be easily dismissed.
However, OP is posting on 4chan, so it's likely he did pose a threat.
That said, it's fake and gay.
fake: Anon didn't have a gf.
gay: anon had a bf.
-
Given how nonsensical your first comment was, I don't think you had a point
wrote last edited by [email protected]They were talking about the dangers of negligence. You countered with how guns can be relatively safe if one follows safety guidelines.
The 'negligence' part is referring to those that don't follow guides. By listing all the guides and rules to make guns safe, they probably mean you prove their point by showing the burden of responsibility guns require (and thus the risk when irresponsible people don't meet them).
-
I wonder if anon left something out? Like, threating to kill her or the person(s) she cheated with. Or some of the weapons being illegal? Nah, it would have been included if they weren't. Some people have high drama lives.
Probably the part where this never happened, Anon is trying to get people mad at Red flag laws and women
-
Then they post about how the gun owners aren't doing anything to stop the fascist government. Yea, you've been alienating them for decades. They're not on your side.
They're saying that ironically because the gun fetishists always excused their behavior with fighting tyranny. Then matched in goose-step to vote for a tyrant
-
They were talking about the dangers of negligence. You countered with how guns can be relatively safe if one follows safety guidelines.
The 'negligence' part is referring to those that don't follow guides. By listing all the guides and rules to make guns safe, they probably mean you prove their point by showing the burden of responsibility guns require (and thus the risk when irresponsible people don't meet them).
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm not sure if you got to see their comments before they were deleted, but I recall their comment being a bit weirder than that. Things like "sometimes my family forgets to pick their wet towels off the floor. What happens if you add a gun to that?".
As the second part of your comment, yeah I see your point. That being said, the rules of gun safety aren't as huge of a hurdle as people seem to think they are. I think it's more that some people are repelled by any form of friction when starting a new activity.
-
There is a definite bias. Especially, ESPECIALLY when it comes to partner violence. And EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY when it comes to gun violence.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well red flag laws are bad, on the whole. There's no need to resort to propaganda really. Mostly because they present a disincentive for people to try and find help or share how they're feeling with others; not whatever bullshit the post is about.
-
Red flag laws, as written, don't come anywhere near a strict scrutiny standard and rarely involve a judge. Usually police are empowered to make the decision, or worse, instructed to always seize weapons immediately until a judge says give them back, even if the police think it sounds like bullshit (as in the scenario of the greentext).
From the Wikipedia page, emphasis mine:
In the United States, a red flag law (named after the idiom red flag meaning “warning sign“; also known as a risk-based gun removal law,[1]) is a gun law that permits a state court to order the temporary seizure of firearms (and other items regarded as dangerous weapons, in some states) from a person who they believe may present a danger. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6][7]
Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone's home for guns without a judge's permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.
I didn't see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.
