,
34 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Hey gun defenders, guess what, maybe we no longer believe you are decent people and we're done listening to your shit. 
After a while, if something keeps happening, and you keep shrugging at it, we rightly start to think you like the thing that's happening.
Gun defenders and never-responders:
Gun massacres are a problem. And the root cause of the problem is your defense.
Discussion closed.
Gun massacres are a problem. And the root cause of the problem is your defense.
Discussion closed.
It's not just that we don't believe you when you say there's no solution to massacres.
We don't believe you think they're tragic.
We don't believe you think they're tragic.
People who think massacres are tragic seek ways of preventing massacres.
Put up or shut up.
Put up or shut up.
People who think massacres are tragic don't pursue policies that make massacres more likely.
Put up or shut up.
Put up or shut up.
There is no evidence the gun defender position has any intention of doing anything at all about gun violence, or even wants to.
Admit it is a problem.
Admit we need to seek a solution.
And begin.
Otherwise, shut up always. You're out of the conversation.
Admit we need to seek a solution.
And begin.
Otherwise, shut up always. You're out of the conversation.
This idea that freedom is intricately tied into everybody carrying machines that can kill a person a second has got to go.
The idea that walking the streets without worrying about half a billion guns in circulation is some curtailing of basic freedom is psycho.
It really is completely piss-porridge-cotton-candy crazy to think having every person strapped like a paramilitary marine equals freedom.
How do we let people make this argument without putting them in the stocks and slapping them with Charleston Chews.
Notice how the gun defense arguments are all in service of simply not solving the problem.
Ingenious Americans will always find a way to kill each other.
Well what if they didn't have the most efficient way possible, what then?
Well what if they didn't have the most efficient way possible, what then?
A rogue engineer could always find a better way than guns.
Well what if most mass shooters weren't engineers, what then?
Well what if most mass shooters weren't engineers, what then?
GUN CONTROL WILL RESTRICT THE FREEDOMS OF EVERYBODY.
Not as much as those bullets just did, motherfucker.
Not as much as those bullets just did, motherfucker.
Resolve to solve the problem. It's solvable.
Don't accept the excuses of gun defenders any more.
Don't accept the excuses of gun defenders any more.
One other point. There are many gun owners who see massacres as a problem and agree we should solve it.
This🔼🔼🔼 wasn't addressed to them.
This🔼🔼🔼 wasn't addressed to them.
What I *will* say to those gun owners is: As gun owners, you have an outsized voice in this.
You have to get a lot louder. We need you to.
You have to get a lot louder. We need you to.
The people I'm talking about are those with unending bad arguments that amount to doing nothing and refusing to acknowledge a problem.
It's not that they *approve* of this massacre. But they want to keep the option open.
They like guns. And they just don't give a shit.
They like guns. And they just don't give a shit.
Keep asking them, "Do you think gun massacres are a problem?"
They don't think they are, but they don't want to say it. Make them dance.
They don't think they are, but they don't want to say it. Make them dance.
What if we realize most mass shooters actually aren't ingenious criminal masterminds with lots of knowledge and skill, what then.
This is perhaps a well-meaning point but it's a bad one. Dialogue is good when everyone is acting in good faith. That's not our situation.
Our situation is that we need a conversation about how to solve a real problem, and gun defenders intentionally derail that conversation.
They want to argue "IS this a problem requiring a solution."
We're not having that conversation anymore. We're just not.
We're not having that conversation anymore. We're just not.
People who refuse to take part in the conversation about how to solve the problem aren't a part of that conversation, to state the obvious.
That isn't exclusion. That's observation.
Gun defenders will lean on reasonable people's natural inclination toward dialogue to draw us back into the wrong conversation. We mustn't.
Everyone's been part of a project w/people who only talk about how we shouldn't do the project. Eventually you just have to shut them down.
Otherwise, you never start solving the problem. Which is the result gun defenders want. They're out.
All they have to do to join...is join.
All they have to do to join...is join.
I 100% welcome the day that our problem is mass knifings, and resolve to work to find the solution to that problem.
And I have not yet mentioned gun banning, btw, or any other remedy. We're not even at the idea stage yet. We have to agree it's a problem.
To be fair to Liv:
