315
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
315 points (99.1% liked)
News
23301 readers
3481 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
view the rest of the comments
So what are you gonna do? Send the cops to kill them? Because that's how it plays out.
And then there's the apocryphal boating accident. Prove I still have the guns.
If you jump straight to shooting when cops show up to take your toys, it's a pretty good bet you never should have had them in the first place.
If you "lost" it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it's really gone.
It blows my mind that some people think this course of action would be ok, and that it wouldn't be abused by the authorities.
God forbid we get guns off the streets or out of the hands of criminals.
I'd be much happier if they were doing it for guns instead of marijuana like they have for the last several decades.
What makes you think it would be abused any more than warrants are right now?
Because time after time we've seen that when given new powers, new tools, or new technologies, the police abuse them.
They would absolutely use this power to terrorize their opponents by ransacking their homes, whether they owned a gun or not. I'm not sure that it matters because more than half of this country seems to be ok with living in a fascist dictatorship as long as the dictator happens to be on their 'side' for the moment.
Search warrants aren't a new power, tool, or technology.
~~We cool with police and government just barging into our homes and taking our property that we purchased legally with our own money now?~~
EDIT: FWIW, I misunderstood the title. I thought it was banned guns, not people banned from having guns (due to felonies, etc.). This is a bit different.
What are you going to do? Shoot at cops executing a lawful search warrant?
That has happened many many times and a few times in the past few years the homeowner has even gotten away with it.
Maybe a few, but they’re all cowards unless they’re in a group. Vast majority would surrender then afterwards proceed to cry in court.
Edit: just like 1/6 cowards
License, insurance and registration (just like cars) for every gun. Massive fines with accruing interest lifetime liability for “lost” guns.
What about stolen guns?
If you carve out an exception then everyone will just say they were stolen.
And if you don't carve out an exception, you are now punishing people for a crime they didn't commit.
Then you report it stolen as soon as you see that it's gone
If it's used to commit a crime before you report it, there should be huge penalties. And if you're just falsifying police statements, that's already a crime.
Just change "guns" to "cars" to see how ridiculous this position is. And cars are far more lethal per capita than guns are.
So you know, I'm in favor of much stronger gun control in this country, licenses, registration, insurance, training requirements, recurring training requirements, all that. But your line of thinking in regards to criminalization is counterproductive and not rooted in the reality of how society works.
That would be a much stronger argument if cars were specifically designed to kill things efficiently.
There are also licensing and insurance requirements for cars that don't exist for guns.
I think you're dodging the point. I already said I was in favor of stronger licensing, insurance, and training requirements in a failed attempt to avoid that rebuttal. If somebody steals something from me in the middle of the night while I'm asleep, something I was legally allowed to have, and they use it to commit a crime before I notice it's gone, I should not be punished unless I was negligent in where I left it.
I also don't understand the design argument. Cars are used to kill people efficiently all the time. Doesn't matter if they were designed for it, they do it. If you want to go down that route, I would say the guns I own were designed to put holes in paper from a distance, because that's all they've ever been used for. My guns, like my car, have a zero percent fatality rate. There are a lot of people in the world who can't say that about cars they've owned. See how silly the argument gets?
Great, you've identified that there are going to be edge cases in what I said in a non-binding web forum. My point was that if your guns are stolen and you don't notice or report it until the police show up weeks or months later you don't fall under the "responsible gun owner" label that everyone loves to throw around.
Don't play dumb dude, we all know what guns are designed for regardless of your own personal use. You can just as easily put holes in paper from a distance with BB or airsoft guns that are significantly less lethal.
You're right, guns are designed to kill. I don't own a gun to put holes in paper, I own it in case I'm ever attacked and I need it to defend myself. I was simply arguing that the design is irrelevant, and you disagree. Fair enough. But there are a lot of crazy motherfuckers out there. I live a 30 minute drive from three of the most infamous mass shootings ever perpetrated in the U.S., one of which was people being gunned down while shopping for groceries. So that's why I carry one, not because I'm afraid (I'm not, the chances of that happening to me specifically are close to zero) but because it is happening, and if it does happen I want to give myself some small chance of saving myself and my loved ones. It's still a tool of last resort because I know the most likely outcome of me shooting a criminal is me being killed by the police immediately afterward. I still want the chance to defend myself. But you won't see me rushing into a situation to save strangers, because people have done that in my state and.... been immediately killed by the police.
The real problem with making progress is that people who say they want more regulation usually don't really want that, they want all guns removed from everywhere, period. And anyone who owns one is, by default, part of the problem. Gun control activists typically use the same strategies that anti-abortion activists use, to creep towards their eventual goal. I strongly suspect you fall into that camp. And I personally would love to live in that world, where guns don't exist, but it's a fairy tale. You're welcome to hold those opinions but no meaningful change will come out of it. For a citation on that, I present to you: All of human history since the invention of the firearm.
I prefer to see solutions or regulations that work towards personal responsibility (recurring training requirements, with testing, at a bare fucking minimum), and other programs that remove the impetus behind most of these attacks, which is untreated mental illness. And that's because there is no black and white fix to this problem. Excessive punishment, prison, or further empowering the police doesn't accomplish it, any more than making homelessness illegal gets rid of the problem of homelessness. If that sort of thing worked, we wouldn't have people sitting on death row. I believe that a much more effective place to spend money addressing this is on social programs that could help people from feeling like lashing out is their only remaining option.
Guns are designed to kill deer, ducks, and other animals that I want to kill. That they can kill humans is not intentional.
That argument isn't much different from the argument that cars are for getting around and that they can kill is not intentional. If you care about death, then by every metric you need to ban cars first.
Humans are animals and some people seem to like killing them. By all means, let's mandate licensing and insurance to own guns. No one seems to have a problem with those being requirements for cars.
Billions of dollars have been and are being spent to make cars less likely to kill people. But they have actual uses outside destroying things, unlike guns.
As a liberal gun owner who carries a concealed handgun, I say bullshit. You can't say that as a blanket statement. Handguns are meant to kill people, first and foremost. Military rifles are designed to kill people, period, because the military is not in the business of hunting. The vast majority of guns ever created were created to allow for easier killing of human beings. To argue anything else is disingenuous. I facetiously argued against that point in another post in this thread, but only to illustrate that the design is irrelevant to the usage. Nobody buys a handgun to kill deer or ducks.
Funny how it’s not an issue in Australia or virtually any other countries.
I'd love to see something like the response in Australia happen in the U.S., but it's clear that there are enough people in the U.S. who are okay with kids being shot to death in schools, and adults being shot to death in theaters and grocery stores, that it isn't going to happen. So we have to use alternative tactics to make meaningful progress.
Just the minority of this country is fine with it, doesn’t make everyone. Where would we be if the civil war was not fought?
I know it's a minority. But it's enough (which is what I said), because they have been effective at stalling real progress on the issue. Not sure I understand how this relates to the civil war, unless you are just saying gun control is "the right thing to do" regardless of the will of the ammosexuals. Which I agree with.
They’re not the stalling gun control. It’s the 1% and corrupt partisan judges, as I said. It’s funny, the 1% drove us to Civil War over slavery the first time using ignorant rednecks, they didn’t learn their lesson, now they think because they’ve got guns no one else does. It’s a joke. The cops don’t want to actually put themselves in jeopardy to enforce laws. This will come to a conclusion one way or another. You’ve obviously swallowed their propaganda so I’m done with you
I look forward to you solving this problem then.
I did, which you keep conveniently avoiding. This entire thread you’ve avoided discussing the very simple very effective method of removing money from politics to solve this problem. 95% of the country want some form of gun control but the corrupt judges and 1% would rather stoke a culture war. Anything short of a ban, like every other civilized country, is a bad joke.
I see much more conviction from progressive citizens than conservatives who are terrified of going to the grocery store without an AR. I grew up with conservatives. They are cowards. The 1% with their constant propaganda instills that fear. People weren’t like this 30 years ago. It’s manufactured. You’re arguing their case. In the only country where this happens regularly.
I'm not arguing their case, I'm arguing my case. I'm completely against their position of unfettered access to weapons without restriction.
Otherwise I agree with everything else you said.
If the gun was properly stored and secured it would not have been stolen. You must not be paying attention to justice in America. Many people are punished present day for crimes they didn’t commit.
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/burglary-victim-speaks-out-thieves-steal-50-guns-hauling-3000-pound-safe/
Took 15 seconds to find an example. This was just one, I have read about similar situations in my state alone over the last couple years.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't store weapons safely. But your premise is false. That's why I'm against this 'punishing the owner' line of thought when they are the victim of the crime.
The terrible state of the U.S. justice system is a whole other argument.
The whole license, insurance and registration is meeting in the middle. They should be outright banned. Anything beyond that is illogical and irrelevant. The narrative has been moved so far to the right, it’s not even discussed.
Edit: added a point
And since that's not going to happen, nothing else happens to make things better than the status quo. You're letting lack of a realistic, unilateral, perfect solution get in the way of making things better incrementally. Which is itself illogical.
If the Supreme Court wasn’t captured by partisan hacks controlled by Billionaires these regulations would already be in place, which makes your point moot
Well you keep using scenarios that aren't congruent with reality. Lamenting "If only it was like this..." doesn't accomplish anything. Yeah, things are not the way they should be. Let's work to move it in that direction instead of waiting for some pie-in-the-sky magic pixie dust that will make all the guns instantly disappear.
If we as a country were really going to ban guns, it would have been done when the Democrats completely controlled the government under Obama. The truth is Democrats have no taste for that either, so they weakly push bills that ban 'dangerous looking' guns to pander to their base without effecting real change. Realists like myself would like to see incremental progress instead of pushing for and waiting for the thing to happen that's never going to happen.
It’s easy to see the pie in the sky pixie dust is simply remove money from politics. When society is crumbling we will see the end of modern society
According to you we should do nothing and ‘hope’ for change. Incremental too. Ok yea that’ll happen.
Well if you think that then you haven't actually comprehended anything I've written, so I guess this conversation has become pointless.