315
submitted 6 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dmention7@lemm.ee 30 points 6 months ago

It's honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.

I know, I know, Lemmy isn't a singular person. But it's rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action--apparently it's okay just because they are gun owners?

I absolutely believe we'd be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you're advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.

[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

Agreed, I am a very liberal person and I see other liberals far too often falling into the 'benevolent dictator' trap.

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 months ago

That's because they are authoritarian.

[-] cacheson@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

Strong gun control requires a police state, and it's advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.

Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It's a lot easier to break strikes and enforce "work discipline" when the working class is disarmed.

[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

Strong gun control requires a police state

False. Unless you are saying every other country in the world with strong gun control laws is a police state. Which is also false.

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

And some aren't even strawmen...they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven't solved the problem...just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they're all terrified for their lives.

Personally, I've yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.

I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were "defending" was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn't want to pay for access like everyone else.

[-] cacheson@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.

The Battle of Athens is probably the most uniquely clear-cut example of what you're asking for, unless we count the American Revolutionary War itself.

Other successful examples mostly involve activists using non-violent protest to push for change, while using firearms to protect themselves from violent reactionaries that would otherwise murder them. Notably, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. For a modern example, there's various "John Brown Gun Clubs" and other community defense organizations providing security at LGBTQ events against fascist groups that seek to terrorize event-goers.

It's also worth noting that resistance is often worthwhile even if it doesn't result in unqualified victory. For example, the Black Panthers' armed cop-watching activities saved a lot of Black folks from brutal beatings at the hands of the police, even if the organization was eventually crushed by the federal government.

I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.

It sounds like you might be in a bit of a filter-bubble. I don't mean any offense by this, it's a normal thing that tends to happen to people. If the news sources you read and the people you talk to don't mention these things because it doesn't mesh with their worldview, how would you hear about them?

[-] Kallioapina@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

This is pretty much uniquely American phenomena, even historically speaking. You might be in a filter / culture bubble and cannot see the outside perspective of it. You are a violent culture.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they're all terrified for their lives.

Police brutality isn't a product of fear. They treat armed crowds with more respect than groups they assume to be unarmed.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Some of us are just sick of reading about mass shootings every couple days.

[-] misanthropy@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

What the anti gun crowd doesn't get is, saying you have a mental health issue blocks you from getting em, so people are going to bottle shit up because one moment of weakness might cost you your right for a lifetime. It actively discourages people from getting help.

[-] Ozone6363@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's almost as if they don't have a fucking solution at all.

Despite pointing to "evErY oThER cOUnTrY doEsNt hAvE a PrObleM" they haven't thought about gun control implementation for 3 seconds.

It's literally as bad as the conservative saying "do nothing" or "more guns solve the problem". It's equally as stupid as that, but the liberal crowd acts like they're fuckin geniuses whilst giving their suggestions.

[-] baru@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Australia fixed their gun problem. You're pretending it cannot be solved despite loads of countries have a pretty good grasp of it.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

It’s not rare to see the anti gun crowd advocating police violence.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 6 months ago

While it's to true that we too often talk about groups of people like they're individuals, it's also true that very few people actually bother to have underlying principles for their opinions, much less stick to those principles when they get in the way of a short-term goal.

[-] Soggy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

If you don't stick to them then they aren't principles, they're opinions.

this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
315 points (99.1% liked)

News

23311 readers
3451 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