this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
234 points (92.7% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3562 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

270 million fewer firearms sounds great. Australia's 60% turn in rate wasn't 100% and it worked, and having fewer firearms in circulation means fewer firearm deaths and fewer firearms available to criminals and a continual reduction over time as new firearms aren't added to the system.

Gun nuts just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. Sometimes it's that all those guns aren't a problem, sometimes it's that it's too big a problem. You're just tedious.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Australia had around 1mil firearms in civ hands, they also didn't have anywhere near the level of violence we do. Those 270mil firearms will come from mainly people who collect them. It won't magically make the other 180mil safer. Most criminals get their firearms from straw purchases, not theft.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Australia had around 1mil firearms in civ hands, they also didn’t have anywhere near the level of violence we do.

It's almost like they impact each other.

Those 270mil firearms will come from mainly people who collect them.

Great. Find a new goddamned hobby that doesn't end up distributing guns into communities through theft and careless transfers. Not to mention when one of those "collectors" just decides it's time to start killing people like the Las Vegas shooter.

Most criminals get their firearms from straw purchases, not theft.

Buyback should be paired with greatly restricted purchasing. Fewer and harder purchases with more tracking means fewer straw purchases and over time fewer guns. Machine guns are hard and expensive to get in part because you're not allowed to make or sell new ones.

Or, if you contend it's really just straw purchases that are the problem (and want to ignore the legally purchased guns used in crimes all the time), then lets lock that down. Register every gun, require background checks for every sale, and hold the last known owner liable if it's used in a crime and wasn't reported stolen.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're end goal is to ban guns completely?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, people can still have hunting weapons as regulated by local ordinance and enjoy their right to bear arms in well-regulated militias.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That's not what the 2nd was for at all.

[–] Armen12@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, now Australia is having their human rights stripped away at an alarming rate. What a victory for liberty!

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Owning guns is "Human Rights". You guys are so fucking weird.

[–] freeindv@monyet.cc -3 points 1 year ago

270 million fewer firearms sounds great

No, that sounds terrible