this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
660 points (94.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3477 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
[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, effective gun control measures need to target the buying process for firearms more generally, instead of fixating on specific models.

[–] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Gun buying is not really the issue, it's people getting unauthorized access to firearms from people who did go through the process of buying them legitimately. Stealing a gun from a family member who leaves them in the glove box of their truck, or in an unlocked case under the bed is much easier than trying to do a straw purchase.

Or, just target the thing that is used in over 60% of gun crimes, and focus on handguns rather than sporting rifles. They're way easier to steal and conceal, easier to accidentally drop/leave somewhere where unauthorized people (i.e. kids) can access them, and from the perspective of the very pro-2A side, are far less useful against tyrannical state actors.

[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I would agree that the proximal issue is how easy it is to illegally obtain guns, but I think the solution to that is just reduce the availability of guns for those who don't need them, are on the fence about buying, won't take the responsibility seriously, etc. I think the problem is how overly normalized gun ownership is, and how unseriously it's taken. The solution just has to be more barriers to entry to ensure the people getting them are (on average) more serious about safety and responsibility. I also agree about the handguns thing.

[–] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

I wholeheartedly agree, to a point. I don't think it's good to stipulate a "need", and I have no problem with gun ownership being normalized, but you hit the nail on the head with the lack of seriousness. As darkly hilarious as it is, the fact that I've visited someone's home where they literally just had a loaded handgun in a fruit bowl on the kitchen table was frankly disgusting to me, and certainly highlights how many people will buy a firearm but just really don't understand the responsibility, and it gives a lot of responsible gun owners a really bad image.

I make it a huge point to take people shooting, show them how to handle firearms responsibly, and try to get some education out there so they can not only handle themselves, but potentially call out irresponsible firearms behavior they may see and teach others.