Tldr: going after guns, not violence. Remember its the tool not the action
Tldr: going after guns, not violence. Remember its the tool not the action
The release says the exact opposite of what you imply in the tldr. If anything, this release outlines an attempted compromise.
We need to keep guns out of the hands of idiots. My neighbors should have been “red flagged” years ago. They have a long history of domestic violence and other drug and alcohol related charges. It probably would have prevented the husband from blowing his wife’s brains out two days ago. In front of a kid, no less.
Red flag laws aren’t about people who currently have convictions. If your neighbors were previously convicted then they probably can’t legally have guns in the first place.
Red flag laws are about taking guns away from someone before they have a conviction/even do anything.
deleted by creator
I don’t want any more of this faux “compromise” bullshit handed out by gun grabbers. Our rights have been compromised enough with not a single damn thing to show in return. It isn’t a compromise when they just do half of what they want and kick the other half down the road as a loophole they need to close.
So yes, you support red flag laws. No due process, nothing like that, right? Surely that would never back-fire, right? Nope, no ability for it to be abused.
I swear, you leftists just don’t understand that whoever leads today might not be the leader tomorrow.
FWIW, I basically have a full armory in my basement. Just some context for you, bud.
Also, you are generalizing my political beliefs as “you lefties” or “leftist”. That really makes you look stupid. Comparing my beliefs to your perception of an entire group is a great summary of your mindset.
Multiple convictions of domestic violence, public intoxication and child abuse should have been a red flag. That kid in my real life example should have been separated from that house years ago as well. Don’t try and twist my words for your narrative.
You, as in you, seem to not understand that my rights end where yours begin. Also, there are more big words in the constitution and bill of rights other than “shall not be infringed”. (You seemed like you wanted to say that, but that is speculation.)
When you said the fear mongering point of “how far will they take it”, you fail to realize that there are right and left groups that are fighting for the right to bear arms. I’ll be right there fighting for a persons rights if laws were illegally used.
If that’s truly the case, the judge should’ve sent him to jail, and disarmed him. We shouldn’t pass more laws because we aren’t properly enforcing the ones on the books.
I’m curious to know what you would propose to address the ever increasing gun violence happening in the US. The solution can’t be ‘nothing’ because ‘nothing’ is not working.
Before you reply, understand that I am not the original poster which you replied to and my values, unexpressed as they are, are different from theirs.
I would propose that it’s entirely pointless to focus on gun violence specifically because it’s defined not by what makes it a problem (the violence) but rather by the arbitrary tool involved (guns). You could reduce gun violence to zero, and nothing would be better if the overall violence stayed the same. Which literally all available evidence demonstrates that it would, as you’re not the first person to want authoritarian gun grabbing in place.
I would disagree that it’s pointless to focus on gun violence. While I do agree that in most circumstance focusing on the tool to create a solution is misguided, I do not agree that focusing on guns in this case is arbitrary. Nearly all other tools have multiple purposes to which they are designed where violence is not an intended use.
Guns on the other hand are created to do only one thing; kill. You can use them in other ways, but their purposes is singular; to end the life of another living thing. Even as a tool of self-defense or as the Second Amendment intended, the intent is the death or threat of death of the opposition.
While I do believe that removing guns would massively decrease violence, as proven by literally every other country that has done so, I am also not opposed to personal gun ownership. I just think it should be well regulated. I do think focusing gun violence is worthwhile, while also agreeing that it won’t completely address the issue of general violence in the country (there’s no silver bullet here, pun intended).
But we shouldn’t stop there and fly a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner. As you implied, there is a deeper rooted issue that’s responsible for the rise in violence; it’s American prosperity. We have 24/7 news feeds blasting hatred-addicting messages to distract from corpos and billionaires are sucking up every last cent from the American public. Prices across the board are going up while everyone’s pay is staying the same or going down. The prosperity is dying. People are justifiably angry. Anger leads to violence. Violent people who feel they have no path back to prosperity pick up guns.
While I disagree with the first half of your comment* your final paragraph really hits the nail on the head. The concentration of power by a select few due to policies designed to favor large businesses and the death of the middle class if not remedied will only lead to strife. When people are impoverished they become desperate, and when they are desperate they’re willing to take more drastic means of resolution.
*IMO it’s a suicide net style of solutions, one that attempted to solve an issue without resolving the underlying motivation. Actions occurs when motivation is met with means. Intentional acts do not occur without motivation even when supplied with the means. In this scenario the means are firearms (though in other cases they could be anything from clubs to words) and the motivation in most cases is tied to this polarization and disparity.
So then surely you should be able to provide hard data that shows reducing gun violence has a specific and measurable impact on violence as a whole, no?
Well first, I would focus on violence, not gun violence.
And we are in one of the most peaceful times in all of history. It started going up in 2020, which coincides with covid.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate
My personal thought is that there’s other factors involved, namely the effects of covid, and the effects of the response to covid. A stressed person is much more likely to be violent than an unstressed person.
Of course without a proper study, its impossible to be certain.
That is misleading. While the violent crime rate basically flatlined between 2000-2017, it started going up shortly after the Trump presidency began in 2018-2019, prior to 2020 when it really started to skyrocket.
Also, trends are going to be different between states so looking at the US as a whole is not very good data to look at. Crime goes up in places and crime goes down in others. Understanding the details of where the changes are most drastic is absolutely important.
Actual TLDR: -Fund programs to encourage states to adopt red flag & safe storage laws. -Crack down on firearms theft within the common carriers. -Encourage less leeway for FFL errors. -Funding for ballistic analysis studies & a victims of crime fund. -Try to renew undetectable firearms act.
You do realize that red flag laws bypass due process, right?
Re read my comments on this thread and tell me where I said otherwise.
Do they?
Op being combative aside. The suspension of any rights or takings of any item after a court hearing the subject isn’t informed of or entitled to attend absolutely is problematic. And has 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th amendment implications.
after a court hearing the subject isn’t informed of or entitled to attend absolutely is problematic.
Which doesn’t inherently apply to red flag laws, as they vary significantly from state to state. We ought to have them, with informed/entitled participants.
Yes.
So a shitty federal push for shitty gun control?
the tool not the action
Why can’t I own a nuke?
You can. Just get the permits from the Dept of Energy, and pay the 200 dollar tax stamp for a destructive device.
Its so expensive, it effectively acts like a ban.
get permits
Huh so theres some strict rules and regulations to obtain a weapon eh 🤔
Tldr: going after guns, not violence. Remember its the tool not the action
Complaining is easy. Do you have an actual solution in mind that addresses the root cause?
In the end, all conservative complaints about gun control make a joke of the “protect the kids” arguments you guys use. You care more about guns and their unrestricted access than the lives of children.
That jackass didn’t actually read the release. He summarized the exact opposite of the intent.
That account is a constant source of spewing bullshit, btw.
Oh absolutely. But even if they were correct on the “going after guns not violence” part, it’s still a terrible take.
Guns are just a tool? Cool, then they should be regulated just the same way other dangerous tools are, through required safety training/licensing, and prevention of ownership for people who are likely to misuse it.
Says it all
You care about karma?
just demonstrating you’re a troll
No, I’m just to the right of most lemmy users, which is a very low bar. All karma says is that people disagree with me, nothing more. You know that, so why act differently?
Removed by mod
As if hitler didn’t disarm the jews. Remind me, which one of us likes gun control?
My solution is that there isn’t a problem with gun violence, there’s a problem with violence.
Violence which is caused by systemic racism.
Violence which is caused by systemic racism.
Claiming that all shootings are the result of systemic racism is a huge claim. Do you have evidence to support that?
And how do you intend that we solve said systemic racism?
Do you have evidence to support that?
Can we not be super pedantic? A lot of violence is fueled by systemic racism, happy?
And how do you intend that we solve said systemic racism?
Thats the million dollar question, isn’t it?
Can we not be super pedantic? A lot of violence is fueled by systemic racism, happy?
You’ve made a huge, sweeping claim with zero support or explanation of the causal link. Asking for evidence is reasonable.
Thats the million dollar question, isn’t it?
So you criticize those trying to do something about the problem, those trying to protect children from getting shot, all without even offering a single alternative? How is that reasonable?
Lmao, laughing at armed Americans from the safety of my European -guns-free-state.
Keep on killing yourselves, United States of America. Keep being united by the hate and fear you feel for everything around you and the world will surely be better in the future /s
deleted by creator
Remind me, how many European toddlers shot another toddler this year?
deleted by creator
An equally statistically irrelevant amount
They probably can’t hear you over the sound of children not getting shot in their schools.
It will turn into another blunder just like Ministry of Truth that Bidens woke handlers proposed.
That is just an interesting thing to say. I would like to hear about the experience you had that reinforced your conclusion. Have other people that you know of been influenced by these handlers?
