dprflagemoji reblogged your photoset and added:
Yes, because if you’re depending on the police or anyone else to protect you or your home then I got some bad news for you buddy.
I feel like this will go to deaf ears but welp.
For one, I am merely for gun control. I don’t care for guns otherwise.
Anyways, the issue is that your logic victim blames people who don’t have a gun for whatever reason. If someone hurts people and they have no gun, it is still the assaulter’s fault. Not the person who didn’t have a gun.
And it technically should be the cop’s duty to protect you. Yes, they may not be on time (or some may not even care), but there’s a reason we rely on cops because that’s kind of the whole point of their existence. (if we’re gonna argue their only duty is to abide by the law, well that must really say a lot about the laws if protecting citizens isn’t part of it).
I know realistically, that “well the asshole is still gonna attack you durr” but constantly shaping our views, our values and our lives just to protect ourselves from these assholes is just living in fear. It may seem like merely being prepared, but it becomes a slippery slope of victim blaming and other junk.
What if you did have a gun but didn’t use it on time, or the assailant was faster? Why didn’t you shoot fast enough?!?! Or what if someone shot someone out of fear? They can’t hurt me if I hurt them first! That mentality will just go on and on. And besides if everyone has a gun, then who’s gonna protect each other from each other with the guns..? Is it gonna be grenades next?
As far as gun-control goes, I just don’t see what’s so wrong with having some sort of screening with guns. Gun control isn’t anti-gun. It’s literally just seeing if someone is responsible enough to own one and randomly buying one from Walmart is probably the least safest way into getting one. Which is what the gifset was implying. (If you’re not actually anti-gun control then ignore this paragraph.)