393
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 26 Oct 2023
393 points (96.9% liked)
News
23293 readers
5038 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
He was in an asylum and reported hearing voices. He’s a trained army vet and a gun instructor. And they let him keep his guns.
Fuck every single Republican.
It's okay. The other voice inside his head is a good guy with a gun.
Hah. Fucking gold.
Also worth mentioning he threatened to shoot up the local National Guard base prior to this shooting.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
...
Let's also remember that one of the first things Republicans did in 2017 was remove a check on people with mental health issues from purchasing firearms. Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses (NBC News 27Feb2017)
I don't think this guy would been in either category, but yes.
I think he ought to have been arrested when he threatened to shoot the National Guard facility.
Insane. This was 200% preventable
More and more Democrats are also gun lovers so fuck all gun people, get rid of all the guns and you get rid of the issue.
Actually if you're involuntarily committed you already lose your right to firearms (iirc there are steps to regain your rights, but they were not taken here). Red flag laws aren't just bad from a "gun" standpoint, they're bad because "innocent until proven guilty" gets thrown out the window and it becomes "guilty until you can prove you're not crazy," and proving the negative is always a more difficult position. It perverts our whole justice system, and while I have issues with other things doing the same thing (racism for example), adding more is imo not a good idea. I'd rather see them actually enforce the laws we already have which while more stringent than "my roomate seems unstable," also would have prevented this. I mean the guy was commited (making him a prohibited purchaser) and displayed violent ideation to a degree that warrants keeping him for a little while, so they let him out, don't take his current guns, and afaik fail to input his commital to NICs, that's three things that already could and should have been done in this specific case red flag laws withstanding.
Gun restrictions aren't enough though, the problem is people in general having access to guns.
If only we could restrict that somehow
Thing is when people talk about restrictions they mean "These people shouldn't have guns, but these people should be allowed to have them." What I'm saying is they should be banned altogether.
Yeah that is a pipe dream, in a country with more guns than people that is bordered on two sides by 2 foreign governments. It just seems unrealistic to say "Just ban all guns" that seems like a massive oversimplification of the problem. We don't have some magical button that just deletes all guns in the borders of the US. Restrictions seem to be a realistic option but one would hope the left gets a bit of a better understanding of firearms since at the moment they mostly make laws about things they have very little understanding of and typically ban things based on how they appear rather than how they operate.
US guns make their way to Canada and Mexico, not the other way around, because it's so hard to get them in these countries.
Because its the easiest route at the moment yes but you don't think gun smuggling would be a profitable venture? Seriously part of the reason why the opiate epidemic is so bad is China selling off the supplies for it to the cartels in Mexico, this also isn't to offload the responsibility of this mess on Perdue Pharma. They got the ball rolling and are 100% responsible for starting this mess but you have to be blind not to see how an enemy foreign nation is exploiting the issue and only making it worse to further destabilize a geopolitical rival. Same exact thing applies to Russia and their Interference in the election, they didn't make or start the problem, just took advantage of a fire that has been burning for a while and poured more gasoline into it.
Also again you don't really answer the question of how do you get rid of all those guns. There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US. They aren't going to magically disappear the minute you ban them. You can't just do a full ban, hell I would say half this country wouldn't allow it. So restrictions are the only realistic option.
Ban, obligatory buyback, criminal charges for those who don't comply. Just watch as the majority falls in line.
Oh that ain't happening. Sorry but you have to get around the 2nd amendment firstly (That ain't going anywhere unless we rip up the constitution). You would require most law enforcement to be for it while ACAB typically cops are pro guns... I just don't see it happening in a nation where guns are a fundamental part of this country's history and ownership has been written into the fabric that bind this nation together. Restrictions are the only realistic option here. They work as we don't see an abundance of full auto firearms but a full ban would cause quite a bit of unrest.
Edit: did a double post but deleted it since wasn't sure if the indentation was working correctly and trying to keep the conversation in a single threadline.
Amendments are... Well... Amendments, they can be amended. It's not happening in the current political climate, doesn't mean it would be impossible.
Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which "natural rights" you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren't going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?
You think it's a good idea for a nation to have its constitution set in stone so the way of life hundreds of years ago sets the way forever? What if the first ten included that women can't own property or vote? Would that be ok because they're bill of rights? Would that also be a bad precedent? Is it so hard to accept that maybe they couldn't envision the issues that could eventually come with their decisions back in the 1780s? Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?
Except you are going with a hypothetical but I'll take the bait, seeing as it also goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence, although they did betray that spirit because they ignored the plight of the slaves, I think the removal of the clause of that women can’t own property or vote would be just but again the 2nd amendment has a huge part in our founding myth so its basically going to be impossible to remove. Also do you not think people in the Rural areas are safe from the wilderness? How the fuck are they going to ward off coyotes, foxes, razorbacks, bears, etc. You were suggesting a blanket ban of all firearms.
" Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?"
Also seeing as they literally just won a revolutionary war and failed to make an initial government to form a new one but the nation at that time was based on state militias. I think they would have still included that.
Let's not pretend that the shootings happening now have anything to do with a militia.
I live in a rural area, close to 30 years outside the city, both in the middle of the woods and in the middle of a field, never had to own a firearm. Heck, my uncle used to live in a northern village and didn't own one, there's trained services to take care of wildlife.
Were you a farmer or a rancher? Where your livelyhood is connected to the net worth of animals/food in your possession, you know something that a wild animal may want to take/kill? If the answer is no, then sure a gun isn't a requirement but its still a handy thing to have.
That's not how restrictions work.
I don't really buy that. I think it's right-wing astroturfers trying to muddy the waters while gun lobbyists seek to tap into another market.
To be fair, Democrats generally want reasonable restrictions on guns, such as ones that would have prevented this person from owning them and more liberal ones would have supported mental health programs to help this person not reach this point, Republicans want neither.
I’m in favor of mental health checks on an annual basis. Crazy people shouldn’t have access to guns. And you can bipartisan this all you want, the VAST majority of irresponsible gun owners are REPUBLICANS (or whatever center->right bullshit title they choose. LiBeRrRtaRrRiANz