451
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
451 points (97.5% liked)
News
23634 readers
3013 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Limit access to guns?
Hey hey hey that's enough. Guns are not the problem at all. We need guns to protect us from bad men.
/s
For sure. I bet the guy who was shot in his sleep would have been fine if keep a gun in his hand while sleeping - to scare away intruders. Maybe another gun under the pillow for extra safety. Nothing can stop gun violence except more guns.
(still /s ... Some people in the USA are really weird about guns, and I don't want to fall afoul of Poe's law.)
Akshuly, guns really aren't. At least most of the time. Canada has a high per capita (privately owned) gun ratio, yet next to no gun violence. Switzerland has a relatively high per capita gun ratio and lots of military guns (especially assault rifles and pistols) in peoples' homes due to their reservist system, yet, again, next to no gun violence. Could it be, that the real problem is criminality caused by poverty and dysfunctional social systems? Also, historically, the strictest gun laws were introduced by totalitarian regimes, most of the time. In an ideal world we wouldn't need guns at all, beyond sportive purposes. Would you say we live in an ideal world? I always wonder why especially liberal/left-leaning people (not implying/saying you are one) are so opposed to private gun ownership. Especially as a socialist/humanist I want to see as many military weapons as possible in private hands. If the AfD (NSDAP v2) comes to power in Germany I would love to have a vote made from high velocity pointy metal instead of useless paper to avert a 4th Reich or die trying.
I don't know man, I find it hard to believe that a child can just stumble upon a gun if they weren't that common and the discourse around it wasn't so brain-dead.
Such cases are pretty rare though. I'd argue two things:
There are problematic kids, teens and adults. We need to protect the guns from them by locking the guns up and not letting them be anywhere near problematic people by basically making them really, really hard to obtain. People need to be thoroughly investigated to ensure they don't end up giving guns the bad name. That way problematic people won't touch our precious guns.
I completely agree with that. But maybe, just maybe, we can try to help them with the problems instead of only restricting their access to guns. Again, fix the causes, not the symptoms. Fix poverty, establish proper welfare, provide affordable (universal) health care. It's really not rocket science. The debate for stricter gun control is a distraction from the actual problems/causes.
Why not both?
Edit: surely fixing poverty and uplifting mental health in this high anxiety pandemic is a much harder problem than, checks notes, gun control.
It's not not done because it is difficult. It's not done because it is not profitable for those in power.
What a tortured take. A loaded gun in a fucking glovebox absolutely IS a problem.
Yes. I never said anything to the contrary.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13
Feels like you're talking about your own comment.
Yeah ... blame the small child instead of the institution that allows millions of guns to be owned by almost anyone who wants one.
That's a really stupid take on what I said.
You flat out said it.
Poor wording? Has a problem might have been better. Still correct though, and context is a thing.
Poor wording.
Riiiight.
Deliberately being obtuse or is it just happenstance?
In Switzerland's case, most of these "military guns" are not kept with ammo, so it's not like Timmy can go on a shooting spree with a glorified pipe section. There's also an actual license system for buying and owning weapons and ammo.
Well, there's a pretty good example of why virtually unrestricted gun ownership is a bad idea in the USA. Are poverty, healthcare the bigger issues? Of course. That doesn't mean you should compound them by making it easy for people to act with deadly force at the tip of their finger on impulse. Have a proper license system, make gun safes mandatory, don't give licenses without good reasons (self defense isn't one in 99.99% of cases), control ammunition sale.
Well, Timmy can't take the military issue ammunition home, but there are next to no restrictions for him to buy ammunition. All he needs is a passport (doesn't even need to be Swiss) and a clean criminal record that is no older than 3 months.
Only if you mistake symptoms for causes. The US is a great example though, because no other western nation has such an extreme wealth distribution, poverty, and dysfunctional welfare. And no other western nation has violence problems to that degree.
Do we define Brazil as western generally or no
I'm no swiss law expert, but that's not what wikipedia says regarding buying ammunition. And even what you describe is already more than what is needed in the USA isn't it?
Add-on:
I'm no expert on US gun law, but what I do know, is that blanket statements on US gun law are almost always wrong. Gun legislation varies highly between states. There are places where it is rather lax, and then there are places where it is really strict. It's been a while (read decades) since I read about it more in depth. From the top of my head: a third to a half of the states has gun legislation comparable to that of Germany (comparable in "strictness", not wording). New York and one or two other places have even (much) stricter legislation than Germany.
No idea, if that comparison to Germany helps you, but it is the best reference I have.
Yeah I'm aware legislation can vary a lot between states, I suppose I'm more talking about what one might call a minimum federal standard? To take an example, legal drinking age is technically free to be set by states, but the federal government will stop paying for highways if it's below 21, or something along these lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland
I seem to have misread the license part as an additional requirement rather than an optional one with the criminal record, thanks for the correction
If those two nations are considered high, what would you consider the US which has 3x the amount of guns per capita than Canada does? Do we just label US gun ownership fucking absurd so gun nuts stop bringing up that ridiculous point?
The US has way more than 3x as many guns per capita than Canada. The official estimate are also almost certainly low by an absurd amount.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180508072254/http://weaponsman.com/?p=33875
The number I found was within that range (the low number) so the per capita numbers would be 3-5x. The main point is the same though that we have an absurd amount of guns.
That range was also based on 2016 number before NICS check and sales records were smashed over and over again. The numbers being presented now are at the bottom of the likely range from nearly a decade ago after millions and millions of guns have been sold over the past years. I would be very surprised if there were actually fewer than 750m in the us.
Has Canada one third the per capita gun violence of the US? Spoiler: it doesn't. People bring up that point because it clearly shows that gun ownership does not correlate with "gun crime". Guns do not cause crime. Guns are a means to an end. Do you want to treat symptoms? Then go ahead and regulate shit out of guns. Or, do you want to treat causes? Then prevent poverty, establish proper welfare and universal health care.
If you feel the need to label everyone who brings up that point a gun nut, I will have to call you a smooth brain for not understanding the difference between symptoms and causes. But, maybe we can do without the insults?
Nobody is claiming it is a 1:1 correlation. While guns themselves do not commit crime, they make it significantly easier to commit. Lowering the opportunity cost to commit crime is going to lead to a higher amount of crime plain and simple. Most gun violence is committed by gangs. If fewer of them had access to guns, it would be much harder for them to commit violent crimes since drive by stabbings are not as much of a thing and would not increase as a substitute for guns. We can look at the UK which has similar levels of wealth inequality to the US and has similar rates of knife related violent crime but significantly lower gun violence.
Should we treat poverty? Absolutely. But that has a hell of a lot more variables in it and is a much bigger task. We can also walk and chew gum at the same time and work on both of them. I'm not even one to ask for significant gun restrictions outside of those in Canada or Switzerland. But if you are looking to decrease gun violence, the most sure fire way is going to be to significantly decrease the number of guns.
The issue that we must face in the USA is that is not remotely possible. They are here to stay regardless of what anyone wants. They number in the hundreds of millions and can perpetually exist in silent, dark places that no one knows about. They don't announce their presence with beacons or signals, and could be hidden anywhere.
The way I face that issue is to not worry about it. I take comfort in knowing that violent crime is very rare, and my society is very safe overall, and I carry on doing whatever I want without fear of any of that.
This, yeah. The reason that gun laws vary so wildly on a state by state basis is because plenty of cities have implemented pretty strict gun laws at the behest of their citizens, but without overarching federal legislation which is pretty fuckin hard to get passed, nothing ever happens and you can just take in guns by the vanload from a state or two away.
You'd also probably see some level of civil disobedience or refusal to enforce whatever amount of gun regulation, by the police, by storefronts, by gun-owning citizens, whatever. I expect that would probably go up as you increased regulation. I dunno about federally requiring licensing in that context. The usual response to this is a delusional kind of "WELL THEN JUST ARREST THEM OR FIRE THEM ALL" kind of thing, but, I mean, if even a third of people decide not to conform, or actively oppose, your legislation, that's a pretty big problem that requires more careful consideration.
Anything so you don't have to give up your murder machines and act like a normal functioning person
STFU.
Solid argument.
At this point, any argument against gun control is in bad faith, full stop.
From my point of view, any argument for gun control is a distraction from the real problems: Poverty and dysfunctional social systems.
Edit: Also, it's pretty rich to allege bad faith, when you reply with nothing but STFU to a reasonable comment.
STFU.
Solid argument.
If that man had a gun connected to a booby trap to protect him while he was sleeping, he wouldn't be dead at the moment!