this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2026
338 points (88.4% liked)
Showerthoughts
39137 readers
651 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see how this applies to guns.
If your house is on fire, you would want a fire extinguisher, not another flamethrower.
Americans like to shoot out the flames.
Doesn't look too effective
don't forget the uses in the kitchen.
But... They said to fight fire with fire!
I personally don't find it persuasive, just drawing logical parallels isn't that impressive compared to actual research. But if you can't understand the analogy, then you're probably not mentally fit to have a gun anyway.
If you have an emergency you want the tool that protects against that emergency.
If there's a fire you want a tool to put the fire out. That could be a bucket, but a fire extinguisher works better.
If you are threatened with a violent person who wants to do you harm, can you name a more effective tool than a gun?
Guns don't work like video game guns. You can shoot a person 10 times and inflict 10 fatal wounds, and they can still keep coming at you.
If you aim for the head, who is behind them? A bullet doesn't just stop when it hits something.
What the chance you'll miss? A bullet can go a long way if it doesn't hit your target.
People take time to die. Other people can be behind your target. Guns don't protect, they only kill.
As a gun owner, and someone who has studied many use of force situations, I know all of this.
However someone who takes 10 rounds and keeps coming is extremely rare. And that will generally only happen when none of those rounds hit critical areas.
Part of responsible gun ownership is understanding that you are responsible for every bullet you fire, and it will keep going until something stops it.
However I would challenge your position really with two core concepts:
The overwhelming majority, 90+%, of defensive gun uses end with no shots fired. The criminal sees the gun and runs away. In those situations, the gun did not kill, it protected.
Look up the Wikipedia page on defensive gun uses. Depending on which researcher you go with, there are somewhere between 60,000 and several million defensive gun incidents each year. If what you are saying is true, even if you assume that 90% of them have no shots fired, there would still be tens of hundreds of thousands at minimum incidents where the gun killed rather than protected. Because it didn't stop the assailant, because an innocent bystander was hit, etc. Why is this not major news? Why are the anti-gun lobbyists not showing up to Congress with a stack full of news articles?
I would argue that is simply because it does not happen the way you say.