Submitted by TheFrederalGovt t3_10oa87q in nottheonion
Comments
kevinds t1_j6ez6d3 wrote
>any fellow american can tell you that if you want to reduce violence, you just need more guns!
You forgot the /s....
Slav_Vapor t1_j6kpl3i wrote
He didn’t forget
SomebodyInNevada t1_j6eq9hd wrote
The Palestinian terrorists are provided guns by their government. As usual, gun laws basically only are relevant to the law-abiding.
popejubal t1_j6f43bj wrote
It’s very hard to stop violence like this in an occupied land.
SomebodyInNevada t1_j6fdtkj wrote
Occupied? There's no contesting government claim on the land.
And right/wrong has almost nothing to do with the level of violence. Terrorist movements only exist where there is outside funding for the terrorism. If oppression were the factor then Western Sahara would be a bloodbath--but since it's Muslim vs Muslim with no outside backers we almost never hear a peep about it.
popejubal t1_j6fynox wrote
SomebodyInNevada t1_j6guc63 wrote
Except for the little detail that the former owners of the land quickly disclaimed ownership as soon as Israel captured them (they never wanted them, the whole purpose was to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state)--at this point there is no competing claim and Gaza is claimed by nobody at all.
geminiexpress t1_j6f9cxq wrote
This doesn't belong here - it wasn't a random "shooting", it was a terrorist attack targeting civilians, including a 14 y/o boy. More guns to army-trained Israelis to fight random terrorist attacks sounds like a good idea. In fact, more than half of terrorist attacks between 2020-2023 were foiled by armed civilians.
Still_There3603 t1_j6gz2fl wrote
They have mandatory military service for both men and women so this isn't a bad idea at all. All of the adults over there know how to handle a gun and they have a right to defend themselves and their homeland.
RingGiver t1_j6fjbri wrote
It's not like anyone with a brain honestly thinks that the intent of restrictions is to make people safer.
acrylic_light t1_j6djbqo wrote
It’s a good idea
mamawantsallama t1_j6dtm40 wrote
I feel more comfortable about this because they have mandatory military so they are trained already.
SomebodyInNevada t1_j6eqkgl wrote
Not everyone has to serve. That being said, supporting gun rights for the trained is not the same as supporting gun rights for the untrained. Constitutional Carry is a disaster looking for a place to happen.
moriel44 t1_j6f2c2b wrote
if you dont serve its very unlikely that you can get a license.
SomebodyInNevada t1_j6fdd5o wrote
I didn't know that but I don't have a problem with that. I favor shall-issue permitting of those who are trained. (Think driver's licenses.) I do **not** support guns for the untrained.
moriel44 t1_j6g72si wrote
that's exactly what we do here, also you need to renew your license every year (i believe), and you also need to shoot a pretty large amount of bullets at the range, this isn't America and gun control is VERY strict here.
assault_pig t1_j6e9ril wrote
any fellow american can tell you that if you want to reduce violence, you just need more guns!