this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
276 points (95.4% liked)

News

23275 readers
4546 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.

This is from a gun owner.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it'll stop criminals.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public.

Than the general public in America maybe, but legal gun owners in other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero, since they're properly vetted through laws that aren't dogshit.

But even giving you that point, what about all the violent crime those permissive laws enable?

Over 70% of mass shooters use legal firearms. Of the remaining, most are teenagers who took the poorly secured firearm of a family member.

There is no magic gun fairy distributing illegal firearms. Every firearm in the hands of a criminal was either bought legally, stolen from a "responsible gun owner" who didn't secure it, straw purchased or purchased through a loophole.

Nevertheless, the pro-gun community opposes more robust background checks, mandatory safe storage laws or the closing of loopholes.

And what does the public get in return? Mostly just shot because none of the pro-gun promises have come true.

Good guys with guns intervene in 3% of shootings. The crime rate remains the same as comparable countries. The country is no more free when measured by any metric except guns. The government spies on and kills its own citizens.

The gun laws are a failure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero

The US isn't far removed from homicide rates of other countries when comparing the rates.

Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Fun little exercise for anyone clicking that link: Sort by highest homicide rate and scroll down until you hit "United States", counting the number of countries along the way that you'd be comfortable moving to and would expect to have a reasonably comparable quality of life to the USA.

Was the number zero? Probably, because most of those countries are not doing well. Wars, widespread poverty, corruption, exploitation, poor educational and medical outcomes.

I'm sure plenty of them are full of amazing people and cultures and would be great for a holiday, but they're not exactly nipping at the USAs heels when it comes to GDP.

Anyway, we've identified all the countries that are worse, what about the ones that are better? Keep scrolling down past the USA, still looking for that country you'd actually want to live in.

Takes a while huh? You'd think with all the promises the pro-gun people make and comparative wealth of America, it would be firmly in the #1 spot.

Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop all violence. But the existence of violence doesn't obligate us to provide quick, easy access to the means to escalate violence and maximise damage, even to people with a long history of red flags.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, I wasn't commenting about the ban. Just the desire to carry a gun in public.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ah gotcha. Its about wanting to be safe. Violence happens unfortunately, so I concealed carry to give me the ability to defend myself (and more importantly my partner) if I ever am faced with that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No offense but that is extremely paranoid. I love in a not so great part of a major city and have never really felt unsafe enough to feel the need to carry. Hell, even my step dad, who was a police officer and has been shot at, does not feel the need to carry. I guess I could see if you live somewhere super dangerous like St Louis or Wichita but it seems a bit silly otherwise.

Also, shouldn't your partner be the one carrying of they are the less safe of the two of you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not in st louis but I've had a knife pulled on me for attempting to enter walmart. Luckily however the guy decided not to attack, idk if it had anything to do with me grabbing the grip of my carry pistol or not, but I'd imagine it's pretty likely that's the reason he started running away.

Paranoid or not, I was able to afford food for that night and avoid being stabbed, so I'll just consider it my "good luck charm."

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

sorry you feel unsafe in your country. You should move

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Crime happens everywhere, some places more then others sure. But I prefer to have the right to the tools to protect myself, rather than just hope that I'll never need them.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

That's a horrible selection bias though. That is basically saying "this group of people with no violent crimes in their records has a lower violent crime rate than the general public which does." Of course they do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Good thing open carry isn't protected then.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think the last time we cared about another country's opinion of how we live our lives was in 1775.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

my God do you realise how cringe this statement is

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Well, how the people who haven't been shot yet live their lives at least.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Hah, a classic!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

I wish I could give you a gold award.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"This from a gun owner" is my favorite take on the "how do you do, fellow kids" meme.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well I own 5 guns and would never even consider carrying in public ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nifty. Neither being a firearm owner nor count of firearms in any way invalidates the decisions of those who choose to do so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're right. It was only a side point to imply that not every gun owner is as loony as certain American ones.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately, the only loony stance here is that legally carrying firearms is somehow a loony thing to do.

It's always weird seeing how incapable some people are of considering that a different point of view is every bit as valid as their own.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not all views are valid. That should be pretty obvious. I don't consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view. It's paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not all views are valid.

I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view.

It's interesting that you seem incapable of considering yours may be the invalid view.

It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.

I'd argue being so terrified of the possibility someone might be legally carrying a firearm to, itself, be the indicator of paranoia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're making a lot of assumptions. I have considered both views and formed an opinion. You also seem to be implying that I'm "terrified" that someone could be carrying a gun, but I'm not sure how your jumped into my brain to figure that out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have considered both views and formed an opinion.

And yet, it's somehow unfathomable that a person might simply wish to exercise their rights in carrying a firearm - to you, the only possibility is such absurd hyperbole as paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government. Truly, deep consideration.

You’re making a lot of assumptions.

You also seem to be implying that I’m “terrified” that someone could be carrying a gun, but I’m not sure how your jumped into my brain to figure that out.

I find one's absurd hyperbole to be an apt indicator. For example, seeking to portray those with a different view as unhinged and paranoid for - by all appearances - simply not agreeing with you.

That aside, it's simply the ironic mirror to your assumption of paranoia in others. Unless, of course you jumped into their brains.