this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32283 readers
823 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Guardian needs to speak for itself - I had a great fourth!

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

The only 'mass shooting' was the Philly one. Intellectually stunted and politically blinded morons are trying to change the definition by lumping in gang bangers doing drive bys and shooting up house parties. If you Individually dig through the gunviolencearchive.org sources, the overwhelming majority of them have an African American teenager with a handgun set out to settle a personal vendetta; yet somehow that scenario is - by gunviolence.orgs own statistical criteria - categorized the same exact way as a deranged psychopath with an AR-15 randomly shooting up a mall (which even once is way too fucking common, but not as statistically prominent as the site is trying to mislead the public to believe).

It's not a gun problem, it's a cultural one.

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

Why can't it be both? Especially when guns are so interwoven into the culture.

So it's not a mass shooting if the person is black and the crime is personal? What led you to come with that criteria? I tend to think "A mass shooting is a violent crime in which an attacker kills or injures multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm." is a pretty fair definition. You know "mass" as in several individuals involved and "shooting" as in a firearm was involved. Keep it up with the mental gymnastics though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

People love to point the fingers at the tool used to do evil things. Instead of addressing why the evil thing is happening.

Banning and restricting guns is a band aid solution that harms the general populace more than it benefits.

Bad actors that want to inflict harm are not concerned with using something legal to get the job done. There will always be inventive whackos out there that will find ways to hurt people. Guns or no guns.

The Swiss have almost the same firearm to people ratio as America ( at least compared to the rest of the world ) and under have far fewer of the same issues. I think this is largely because of cultural differences and availability for healthcare.

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

People keep giving the swiss as an example but it's not the same context. Mainly because in Switzerland all men go through mandatory military service and that builds some discipline when handling a gun. Also they still have to get ( strict ) permits for those weapons, even with the accompanying training.

It is my impression ( and I apologize for the generalizations ) that in the US they're essentially handing out assault rifles to any rando with some cash on him.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

A swiss permit is as strict as a USA background check.

I'm not even kidding.

You get a permit by not having a relevant criminal record and being of age.

USA background check is to see if you have a relevant criminal record and if you are old enough.

Saaaaaame shit in the end.

USA gun laws vary by state. Even those with the strictest of gun laws still have lots of gun violence.

Disarming your population isn't the answer.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Every time I ask this question:

What lae do you propose, that didn't already exist, wouldn't violate the Bill of Rights, and wouldn't cause a civil war?

Most of the time I either get answers that include laws that exist that the government doesn't enforce, or a "fuck the constitution, let's have a civil war!"

For example the army is supposed to report people discharged distribution to the NCIS. They don't.

The ATF is supposed to follow up when a banned individual tries to buy a gun. They don't.

The ATF is supposed to check on people when gun dealers report them for attempted straw purchases. They don't.

Know someone who had illegal weapons? Call the police and see what they do. Here's a hint: nothing

So, does anyone have one?

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

Most crime, including mass shootings, are an outgrowth of material conditions in a given society. You can’t resolve those material conditions with reactive policies like you’ve outlined below, you have to act proactively. You want less white disaffected individuals shooting people, then work to bring those people into the fold. Ban right wing media that pushes entirely false narratives. Give everyone an irreducible minimum that gives them space to exist without constant coercion from society to self-enslave. Drop 70+% off the military budget and put ALL of it into social programs. Welfare, public housing, community centers, public works programs, etc. There’s infinite ways to resolve this, not a single one of them involves reactive policy.

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

Ah lots of statements not backed in fact here. Mr Monkey is an accelerationist. Bye now.

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

"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"

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

Holy fucking shit what a ridiculous country.

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

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

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

Just absolutely mind boggling how frequently this happens and literally nothing is being done about it. What a sick country.

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

And somehow some people are going to use this as reasoning that they need more guns to defend themselves.

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

They ARE doing something about it.

Financing the whole thing!

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

"They ARE doing something about it. Financing the whole thing!".

No they are not. You seem also out of control, buddy.

It's all a mix of the second ammendment, their interpretation & execution of that law, a dominant military and guns lobby system (Billionaire$); people loving their guns, no access to good (mental) health care, which allthogether is holding their country hostage, imho.

So yeah, its all out of control. And nothing has changed, except that it's getting worse.

add.(mental) healthcare

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

Part 1:

No they are not

Part 2:

It’s all a mix of the second ammendment, their interpretation & execution of that law, a dominant military and guns lobby system (Billionaire$); people loving their guns, no access to good (mental) health care, which allthogether is holding their country hostage, imho.

LOL

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

He is not that wrong, after all switzerland too have guns and they control it with ease. They even celebrate a gun festival. where children practice shooting.

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

New York has more people than Switzerland.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Great idea. Let's make the USA a small homogeneous group and see what happens.

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

Great idea. Let's make the USA a small homogeneous group and see what happens.

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

"Fifteen people were killed and 94 injured across 13 states as well as Washington DC".

These massshootings are so out of control..

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

Always have been

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

It seems like common sense to make guns have the same requirements as cars. You need to pass a short course and get a license. I don't understand what is unclear about the 2nd amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Right there, in the text: "Well regulated".

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

Well regulated, as in well maintained. Additionally, it is a conditional clause providing the context for its existence. Taking this legal approach has never worked in court. The Constitution was written to be changed for a reason but we are afraid to or it is opposed.

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

This is why we chose to stay home on holidays. I feel bad that my kids are missing out, but I would rather have them miss some fireworks than risk becoming a statistic.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

The president again parrots "assault rifle" and magazine capacity bans, which only pushes actual reform further out of reach. We lack a centralized database of ownership, private sale registration but we are able to keep a computer database of prescription medications so a kid doesn't get his Adderall a day early. We register cars regardless of type of sale and require a license to drive but firearms are freely sold by private sale with no requirements to register or license the user. We suspend driving privileges for nonpayment of debts, but you are expected to be honest about being a fugitive when filling out ffl forms. If we don't treat firearms at least as seriously as cars, why does the magazine capacity matter? Why do people who can't define the term assault rifle calling for reforms based on nuanced features of firearms.

This cycle just repeats. Someone tries to ban magazine size or something they know nothing about and any chance of meaningful reform is over. I would gladly submit to more stringent background checks, registration, and proof of competency. But when the conversation starts out with banning scary black rifles or magazines over 10 rounds I know nothing will change. These suggestions are worthless and make gun owners unwilling to engage.

Imagine we wanted to cut down on traffic crashes so the suggestion is made by someone who does drive to limit fuel tank size or ban "sports cars". Of course no one can define sports car, and gas tanks don't make people drive recklessly, but the person proposing the law doesn't know anything about cars. Car enthusiasts would roll their eyes and consider the attempt a joke. But instead we have speed limits, vehicle registration, driver license requirements, and safety standards that actually make cars safer. You can own a Porsche, but if you break the law your registration will be used to find you and your driver's license in jeopardy.

Americans aren't going to give up guns. But there is hope that current technology could better regulate ownership and usage. Unfortunately idiotic hollow statements about magazine size and the assault rifle boogy man make those who could facilitate change look foolish.

load more comments
view more: next ›