News
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.
view the rest of the comments
There literally is, it's called a constitutional amendment and they've been enacted many times before.
Of course, there's not the political will for it, because, like I said, The US is so fucking dumb.
"Hey guys, they passed a constitutional amendment. We better turn all our guns in."
-Like 4 Americans
Guns wouldn’t disappear overnight ofc. But make owning guns illegal, arrest people who own them and create buyback programs. It might take some time. It might be super fast.
But you know what for sure wouldn’t solve anything? Doing nothing.
Australia did it and it worked pretty well for them. You just make gun ownership illegal, ask for them back in a reasonable timeframe, and then tell the cops to stop murdering unarmed black people for a minute to go chase down the rest of the guns that weren’t turned in at the end of the process. Then when youre done, you disincentivize bad actors by ramping up the penalties for gun possession significantly, and actually enforce those laws.
It’s not hard, just needs to be done.
Like I said:
If people want to be felons that's their choice, but it's absurd to suggest any armed resistance would occur, or matter, in such an instance
As the previous person said there is no way to get it done. Yes there is something called a constitutional amendment, but if there is no realistic way to get it passed then effectively there is no way to get it done.
The "we've tried nothing and were all out of isdeas" approach...
I mean, I think California just tried something. New York, D.C., New Jersey, Illinois/Chicago, and some other places too.
Yes, because the US is so fucking dumb.
But you can’t change the constitution!!!
I think guns and abortion are great distractions because both sides will never stop fighting for them.
Meanwhile, we're all getting fucked as the disparity in wealth continues to grow.
People can care about more than one issue.
If the republicans dropped abortion 100% or the democrats dropped guns 100% either could win nationally in a landslide.
So you're saying if Democrats just ignore mass shooting problems after god knows how many dead schoolchildren, it's worth it for the win?
No one said ignore mass shootings.
Just gun control in areas it's unpopular.
There are other methods of attacking the problem than gun control. They won't be as effective, but they will be more tolerated by the average American voter.
Take the Florida governorship. DeSantis won out by the skin of his teeth the first go around.
The reason Andrew Gilliam lost was he kept going on about bringing an assault weapons ban to Florida. Such a ban would have never made it though the legislature, so it was an empty promise on top of an unpopular one.
So he shot himself in the foot for no gain and we have been stuck with pudding fingers ever since
Democrats need to understand to pick their battles and read the room.
What exactly do you think Democrats want when it comes to guns? I hope you're not buying the "they're coming to take our guns" rhetoric from Republicans. Because I've been told that my entire life and I'm 46, so I'm thinking that isn't part of their plan.
From my example it's clear the average Florida voter doesn't want an assault weapons ban, that's for sure.
That's not clear at all. In fact, it's blatantly false.
https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2022/10/04/more-floridians-support-ban-on-assault-weapons
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/majority-florida-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban/
It might be better to check and see if you're correct before making such pronouncements.
No, but if they stopped actively encouraging them to generate political capital and focused on things that would actually prevent them rather than scapegoating legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership it would not turn away a massive amount of otherwise swing voters.
You mean like universal healthcare? Because I'm pretty sure they are focused on that. They also just want to do the absolutely horrible anti-American anti-freedom measure of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people so there might be a handful fewer dead children.
But I suppose keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people is just scapegoating. After all, when has a psycho ever done anything dangerous?
So then why does every single proposal overwhelmingly affect law abiding citizens while only serving to give criminals even softer targets?
Also, are you talking about cable news style mass shootings like everyone thinks when they hear the term (Aurora, Pulse etc) or daily gang violence to inflate statistics? They are wildly different issues so actual meaningful solutions aren't one size fits all (but with a surprising overlap).
Please demonstrate that every single proposal does that.
Sorry, are you saying that because mass shootings are not daily then they aren't a problem?
Name a current proposal and I'll explain the issues with it.
No, they are a problem but not one that can be solved with any of the current proposals. For cable news shooters the real issue is a societal one, the only legislative solution that could actually make a difference is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights so until people start caring more about stopping them than using them to promote a political view they are going to be a fact of life.
You did not demonstrate your claim as I requested. It's not my job to name proposals to back up your claim. If you can't back it up yourself, that's not my problem.
Any of the current proposals? Not a single one from any person on any position on guns? So we just have to live with school kids getting slaughtered repeatedly unlike every other country on the planet?
Guns are a red herring in this. None of the current proposals with any sort of support from the democrats will make any sort of a difference here. The issue isn't the guns but they focus on them and deliberately encourage them to create emotional responses to try and ban them. Semi auto bans, magazine capacities, UBCs; none of them do a damn thing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings. They are literally just power grabs. There is tons that can be done to prevent and mitigate them but the alt left wants them to happen so they can ban guns so they will continue happening.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
I have no reason to acknowledge any of those claims as valid. Just declaring them doesn't make them true.
Prove it? They are all law in various states and countries with zero to negative correlation. Gun control and crime, to include mass shooting does not have any statistical correlation that is actually mathematically valid which is why grabber groups stray so far from the scientific method for their "studies" and rely so heavily on emotion.
They deliberately encourage them. This is a known and proven fact.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117259
You aren't arguing, you're just claiming you're right and pretending that because of that you don't need to justify shit. I can go in depth on any of these. The onus is on you to actually suggest a difference rather than falsely assuming your position is already secured.
Magazine bans for example overwhelmingly hinder defensive uses over offensive ones. Anyone that played the original Call of Duty Modern Warfare was taught this in the tutorial when they yelled "SWITCH TO YOUR PISTOL, IT'S FASTER THAN RELOADING." An empty magazine is simply a "failure to fire drill" and is treated as such. You retreat to cover and clear the weapon. It is only an issue if you are cornered and alone. For an attacker, the easiest way to mitigate it is to bring multiple weapons, which high body count shooters do. When you are the attacker you get to select the time and place of the attack as well as set the pace of each encounter. When I go to a movie theater to watch a movie, I have a single pistol on me because carrying multiple guns isn't practically feasible day to day. If I was told that on a specific day at a specific time and specific place I would be a in a shootout, you can bet your ass I would have multiple guns and screw concealment; this is exactly what cable news shooters do. At Virginia Tech he fired 170 rounds from 17 magazines. Many of them held more than 10 rounds but he never needed to reload under duress because he chose his own pace from room to room with opportune reloads in between. The only person that is functionally limited by a magazine capacity restriction is the person that did not choose to be in a shootout at that point in time and does not have control over the location and pacing of the fight.
I can do this for virtually every single proposal you have. I can also give counter proposals that can actually address some of the concerns like with UBCs but nothing I say is new. It has all been proposed before but rejected by the Democrats for not going too far enough. They don't want to solve the problem or stop shootings; they want to ban guns. Gun control has and will always be about control.
Um... that's literally what you're doing. You are not backing up your declarations.
I just did with a link to a peer reviewed study and a detailed explanation of a common gun control proposal. Try again.
Which claim do you think that proves? Because I asked you to prove multiple claims and, as far as I can tell, that was not one of them.
That the liberal media is deliberately causing them to promote their anti gun views. CNN has way more blood on their hands than the NRA ever has.
Name a single proposal you think will prevent or mitigate shootings. I’ll wait.
That, again, does not prove any of the things I asked you to prove. I'm not going to name any proposals, because it's not my job to prove your claims are wrong. It's your job to prove your claims are correct. That's how the burden of proof works.
Now, these are the claims I would like proof for, please:
1 - "None of the current proposals with any sort of support from the democrats will make any sort of a difference here."
Please prove that none of the current proposals with any sort of support from the Democrats will make any sort of difference. Not one proposal, not ten proposals. You said none. Please back this up.
2 - "The issue isn’t the guns but they focus on them and deliberately encourage them to create emotional responses to try and ban them."
Please prove that they are deliberately encouraging them to create emotional response to try and ban them. You have not even begun to do so.
3 - "Semi auto bans, magazine capacities, UBCs; none of them do a damn thing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings."
This should be very easy to prove, yet you did not even attempt it.
4 - "There is tons that can be done to prevent and mitigate them but the alt left wants them to happen so they can ban guns so they will continue happening."
Please prove that the "alt left" wants to ban guns so that mass shootings will continue happening. You have not proven this.
I have very little faith you will prove a single one of these claims because you sure have not so far.
On the other hand, you could very easily say, "I can't prove those, they're just my opinions." I doubt you will, but please do prove me wrong on that one because it would be refreshing on the internet for someone to actually admit they can't back up their claims.
But will they discuss more than one issue at a time? It's still completely valid to point out how asinine and unnecessary some conversations are. Eating up room is a valid deflection strategy, after all.
I don't think it is productive to talk about gun regulation and abortion in the same conversation.
I'm not saying you should mix convos... I'm saying stop dragging out the stupid ones. The other poster is fully correct when they say some conversations are beyond meaningless and are absolutely used to distract people from bigger issues.
It's only a stupid argument if you don't care about children being shot up in schools. Me, I care about that.
Nice gaslighting. Where did I ever say I disagree that it's a problem? Are you seriously going to get so upset that you're going to miss the utterly obvious point of, "don't take the topic change bait"? It's literally the main way people deploy what-about-ism...
I'm pretty sure the attempt at changing the topic was the person who wrote:
Since that is not the topic of conversation in this thread. Hence my replying to them.