all I really know is that sunshine is unwholesome. This time of year especially. Every damn year.
Sunshine seeps into people’s brains. Nothing wholesome every seeps. it causes their wits to dribble out their ears, and then they’re standing around being all like “oh this is loverly”… until blam. They get ran over by a car being driven by another sun-addled dolt.
Esotericism is absolute cancer. A lot of those people don't even understand that eclipses are very localized events. They're moronically stupid. Even more so if they're people of color, because this whole subculture is full of Neonazis.
Wait, do you mean that non-whites go crazy because they’re neonazis themselves? I’m a bit confused, as I know very little about this subculture but it sounds counterintuitive.
Alt Right = far right. No need to support this rebranding either.
And sorry but it is literally riddled with it. Ever wondered why those aliens from the Pleiades are white with blue eyes and blonde hair? Or why their little communities / villages don't accept people of color? Or why their conventions & books are full of Nazi symbolism? The "Greys" & lizard people are also often behind the whole Pizzagate / child eating Qanon bullshit. And don't even get me started on the antisemitism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism
I unfortunately have way too much personal experiences with this whole topic to not call it by the name.
Bro Hitler liked dogs, painted, and ate vegetables, are Dogs, Veggies, and The Arts white supremacist too?
Ever wonder why The Scream was so afraid? This was his response to learning about the passage of civil rights! And 101 Dalmatians? It’s actually about how Cruella DeVille was trying to stand up to the Far Right! /s
Jokes aside: Look I get that Nazi groups have latched onto New Age ideas, but pretending New Age is inherently fascist in and of itself is a tired talking point that I’m just tired of entertaining. New Age is bullshit, but we should attack it for its empty platitudes, rejection of evidence-based medicine in favor of what boils down to “Ignore the problem hard enough and it will go away”, and how it enables sufferers of mental illness to give into their delusions instead of seeking help…
When we say it’s secretly a Nazi thing, we just sound completely insane and like we’re the ones peddling conspiracy nonsense.
Look I get that Nazi groups have latched onto New Age ideas
They didn't just "latch onto it" my guy.
but we should attack it for its empty platitudes, rejection of evidence-based medicine in favor of what boils down to "Ignore the problem hard enough and it will go away", and how it enables sufferers of mental illness to give into their delusions instead of seeking help...
And its Nazism. I don't see why you struggle so hard to make an exception for this one thing. I mean I do see why, I just think it makes you part of the problem.
When we say it's secretly a Nazi thing, we just sound completely insane and like we're the ones peddling conspiracy nonsense.
It's not really a secret. Here's another one that's spreading and there's many such groups all over the world, founding private communes to indoctrinate kids and new members to spread their ideology. If you don't understand how big of an issue this is then I really don't know what else to tell you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringing_Cedars'_Anastasianism
And on top of that, they’re predictable hundreds of years in advance. We’ve known exactly when and where this eclipse was going to happen since before her grandparents were born. But somehow it’s a bad omen.
We know the position of the planets know to the second. Still not a single astrologer predicted COVID except in the usual vague “There might be a challenge ahead” kind of predictions.
Which is basically a multimillionaire in today’s standards. Unless you mean two junkers and a house in the hood. I’m not opposed to the latter but it’s hardly anyone’s first choice.
You’re being very hyperbolic. We have a house and two cars. I have around $200 in my bank account. Admittedly, it helps that we do not live in the most desirable part of the country, but we also live paycheck-to-paycheck and have not even ever been hundred thousandaires.
You can’t be poor and achieve it, but you don’t have to be rich either.
I didn’t mean to suggest that. Housing prices and car prices are ridiculously and unnecessarily high. I’m just saying that the American dream has morphed into something that at least a large proportion of the population can even now achieve into something that almost no one can achieve.
Yet it remains one of the happiest countries in the world. I’m not saying we don’t have our problems, because we clearly do, but the idea that the country is a “shit hole” is just baseless nonsense.
1: Shithole is in response to your country’s remarks about other countries
2: You are bragging about being lower than the DEFAULT for countries similar wealth and political stability as the US. Its like someone with an alcohol addiction, but who doesnt have to work for a living bragging that they feel more fulfilled in life than someone who is struggling to put food on the table for their children
Ok fine, 1: you are one of the richest countries on earth and yet your citizens have to go into lifelong debt to pay for what would be routine and free surgeries anywhere else in comparatively wealthy countries
2: The US houses 4.2% of the world population, but 20% of the world’s prison population
3: You Country experienced a horrific school shooting in 1999, and instead of doing anything about it, like most of the rest of the world did when their own countries experienced similar tragedies, it sat on its ass an did NOTHING in the 24 years that followed and the Tragedy became a yearly, then quarterly, then monthly, now it seems almost DAILY occuranxe
4: Your last president openly staged a coup 4 years ago now and has yet to see himself behind bars.
Mind enlightening me on how this doesnt equate to a shithole?
And I countered your happiest point in that you only beat out poorer countries because of your wealth and political stability, a political stability that is eroding at a terrifying speed I might add, partly do to the fact that your country likes to fellate itself that its better than the poors, while ignoring how it compares to countries of similar status. No one but you cares that your citizens are happier than North Koreans
Top 23 isnt what I would call “Happiest country in the world” Especially not for the worlds most powerful nation. So yeah, shit hole applies
Edit: For perspective, theres 190± countries depending on whos counting, The most powerful Country on this planet doesnt even enter the top 10% of countries with the happiest citizens. At 190, the states is in the top 12%
Happier than nearly 90% of the countries in the world isn’t amount the happiest? Where do you draw the line then? Seems like your definition is ridiculously narrow.
Once again, the ACTUAL MOST Powerful Nation in the world is basically at the bottom of the list when compared to countries of similar wealth and political stability. US only looks good when you compare it to countries with significant poverty or political problems. So yes, if you’re trying to escape life under a cartel, the states is a better option, if you live in Europe, the Commonwealth, or any of the Nordic Countries, hell no would you move to the States
I’m hoping my next car (might be a while, my Prius is only 8 years old and I will continue to drive it until it becomes necessary to replace it) will be an EV or a PHEV, but it will not come from Elon’s company.
I had the same hope, then got rear ended and my 12 year old Lancer got written off. My plan had always been to keep it as long as possible, maintain it, and drive it into the ground, but I hadn’t banked on someone else doing that for me.
Have a PHEV now, charging infrastructure where I live is pretty asstastic, and I do just enough longer range driving to make a full EV annoying under those circumstances.
Thankfully, I don’t need a huge range, so that isn’t a big deal to me. I’m in the U.S., in Indiana, in coal country, so yeah, electricity is not clean, but I’m also not under any illusions that me driving an EV or PHEV will help save the planet, either. The savings in gas is a bigger issue to me and I would be happy if I never had to go to a gas station in the middle of winter again.
Savings in gas, oil, transmission maintenance, brake pads adds up nicely. However be prepared to lose some of those savings in higher taxes because you aren’t contributing to the roads via gas tax (which is stupid because by and large the ones tearing up the roads are truckers). And of course battery replacement is expensive but I think that’s less of a problem than most people expect.
Caveat: I own a Volt, not a full EV, but I’ve been watching for quite a while.
I don’t know that it would even out with taxes, I think I’d still come out ahead, but I’m not sure I admit. Never having to go to a gas station again as long as I live unless I wanted coffee or something would be worth it alone. I absolutely loathe pumping gas. Everything about it. Especially the smell.
I’m not concerned about the battery issue. My Prius is from 2016 and the battery is still in great condition.
I’m stuck at hybrid, as I work from home and live in an apartment complex that has only one level 1 charger for some 300 units near the front office where the property manager parks her stupid Tesla.
I’d go full electric if I had a place to reliably charge it.
I think the biggest hurdle for PHEV and EV adoption is going to be people like you living in apartments. Landlords have no incentive to spend money on chargers. It should be subsidized.
Absolutely. And the real kicker is apartments tend to be the exact demographic that could use a midrange electric vehicle to commute daily with the most.
my Prius is only 8 years old and I will continue to drive it until it becomes necessary to replace it
That might be a while. My parents had one of the first hundred Priuses imported into the US in 2001, and it barely needed maintenance and hit 200,000 miles before my niece totaled it in an minor accident. When they bought it she still needed a car seat.
That’s fine with me and great to hear! I have no interest in regularly getting a car upgrade. Every car I have ever owned, I have driven until it was either too expensive to keep driving it or it got totaled in a crash (never something that was my fault, thankfully).
I mean I would love an EV or a PHEV, but not enough to do anything about it unless I have to. If I’m lucky, by the time I need a new car, they’ll actually be self-driving and I won’t have to worry about that either.
I feel this. I own a OG body style model S. I still have unlimited supercharging. The battery is starting to show its age and i’m sort of starting to look around. The Rivian R3X is my current front runner.
The RX3 looks fantastic and is the car that got be actually thinking about a full EV, and not a hybrid. If it comes in at 45k or so I think it could be a killer car.
Buddy of mine was in market for model S price range. Only because of this moron’s fascist shenanigans, my friend ended up getting BMW iX. Much better vehicle sans the fascism.
Anyone who thinks this is remotely possible or a good idea has no idea what healthcare providers actually do on a day to day basis- especially in inpatient settings like hospitals
Narrator : A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.
Woman on Plane : Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator : You wouldn’t believe.
Woman on Plane : Which car company do you work for?
My spouse is an ER doctor here in the US. The answer is no. They don’t buy hospitals to take care of patients. They buy them to make a huge profit that the absolute state of the US healthcare system lets them get away with (private medicine and insurance, not the nurses and doctors working within it, to be clear).
The fuckery those assholes invent that adversely effect patient care for the sake of increasing profit margins is wild and infuriating to watch.
I agree that nurses are invaluable and irreplaceable and that no AI is going to be able to replicate what a human’s judgement can do. But honestly it’ll be the same as what our hospital’s “nursing line” offers us right now. You call and they ask scripted questions and give you scripted responses which usually ends up with them recommending that you go in. I get that it’s for liability but after 2 calls for our newborn we stopped calling and just started making our own judgement. But for actual inpatient settings? Absolutely no way. There’s no replacement for actual healthcare providers.
Not completely but I’m still worried. For example, a lot of inpatient places now have telemedicine capability, where a camera turns on in patient rooms and someone remotely can talk to people, observe what’s going on, put in orders, etc. Some places are using this to reduce the amount of actual on-site people, leading to worse nurse to patient ratios, or (imo) unsafe coverage models for patients who need hands-on care or monitoring. They added on a tele role like this onto my job description over a year ago, and I objected on moral grounds.
If this tech gets off the ground, I can easily imagine the telemedicine human beings being replaced by AI.
The word “especially” in my comment implies that I was not just speaking about inpatient settings, and which would include these outpatient communication roles. I bring up inpatient because they’d like to replace us there as well.
So learn some reading comprehension instead of being a dick.
I’m all for a classless society, but we need a structure for governing. I’d say a global structure. But I don’t think humans are capable of that kind of thing. Greed and prejudice are too powerful.
What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?
Answer my question first. Until then, I’ll ask another: which Capitalist nations can be considered successful, happy, with all basic necessities covered? Not even the Nordic Countries do that, and they still brutally exploit the global south.
What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?
Do you think it’s because they are Capitalist, or do you think it’s because they’re developed, and started industrializing earlier, with plentiful access to global trade?
It absolutely matters. If you’re tying development to quality of life, which I agree with, you also have to make the absolute claim that Socialist states can’t develop, which I disagree with. Capitalism is only a few hundred years old anyways, and already is failing, ie disparity is continuing to accelerate to unsustainable levels.
First of all, what is a “Communist state?” There’s no such thing, so if you clarify what you are referring to, that would help.
Secondly, clarify what you mean by “failed,” because either you don’t know much about leftist states or you’re using a different meaning of the word “failed.”
Finally, what do you mean “the idea sounds good on paper?” If it sounds good on paper, ie it works in theory, what about reality is an unknown factor? If humans can’t grasp it (whatever that means), then it doesn’t work in theory!
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. It cannot be adopted by a state. You’re referring to Socialist states.
You clearly do have problems with Socialism, or at least some forms. Democratic Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, organized similar to a liberal democracy. That’s fine, but the goal of Democratic Socialism is still Communism, eventually.
You were not in fact referring to Communism, which is why I asked that question in the first place.
The USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was headed by a Communist Party, ie a party trying to build towards Communism, but through Socialism. The end-goal of Socialism is to eventually do away with the state, class, and money, as all 3 are used to oppress people, creating Communism. Same with Cuba.
Sweden is not Socialist, it’s a Social Democracy. The mode of production is Capitalism, with expanded social safety nets. Some industries are nationalized, but Capital is largely in the hands of Capitalists, not shared among Workers. Actual Democratic Socialism would be like if Sweden’s Unions took ownership of all Industry, but maintained government structures.
I hope that clears things up! What you call Communism, is in fact a specific form of Marxist-Leninist Socialism, most likely.
What do you mean by successful? By most metrics, implementations have led to higher life expectancies, literacy rates, and more, when compared to preceding systems. In forms like Worker co-operatives, these systems are more stable than Capitalist businesses with higher satisfaction, and in cases like the EZLN where its more Libertarian Socialist, they have successfully created a community for themselves.
That’s why I tried to ask why you think Socialist states can’t develop, because quality of life follows development, not Capitalism.
Well, like I said, that’s the perception I’ve had from observing nations such as Cuba, Russia and, more recently, Venezuela.
I’ll concede that some programs under socialism/communism benefit a lot of people. But at what cost? Failing infrastructure, brain drain, indoctrination…
What country under communism has experienced such improvement in quality of life?
Cuba has higher literacy rates and life expectancy than the US, the USSR doubled life expectancy compared to Tsarist Russia and went from Feudalism style farming to space in less than a century. Let there be no misconception, none of these states were ideal, and all had a good deal of issues, but what you’re describing just didn’t exist. All of them improved upon previous conditions.
Venezuela is majority privatized, it’s a Capitalist state anyways.
Ok. Thanks. And what sources did you use to assert that? I’m not being pedantic or contrarian. It’s just that if I type “did communism improve people’s lives in the USSR and Cuba?” I don’t know if I can trust the answers (whether yes or no.)
Thanks, man. I’m a pursuer of the truth, even if it challenges my own deep-rooted beliefs, so this is helpful.
One more question: what is it with those nations being overtly oppressive of its people? Would it be a coincidence and have nothing to do with communism? Or is it that authoritarian regimes somehow like the idea to promote communism so they get the people’s support?
A mix of reasons, a little of A, a little of B, a little of C. Generally, with the Soviet Democratic structure, the upper level Soviets weren’t as accountable to the masses as the ones below, leading to corruption in the Politburo. At the local level, things were fairly democratic, but the higher up you go the less the citizens can influence you directly.
So, just so we’re clear, Communism doesn’t work, because it hasn’t been successful.
But Capitalism does work, even though it hasn’t been successful.
We do have Socialist nations and they are doing better than everyone else, with the highest happiness rates, and most of the necessities covered. But to answer your question, we have no successful countries at all. The closest we have are Socialist nations.
Hayek’s classic The Road to Serfdom covered it pretty comprehensively: The structural issue with communism is that it is a command economy, and central planning cannot work because the planners always have imperfect information. That may result simply from the impracticality of nation-scale information gathering, or deliberate misinformation from ambitious bureaucrats trying to distinguish themselves by juicing their numbers. In computer terms, capitalism is a massively-distributed system in which the economy is directed by the interactions of all economic agents at the network edge, rather than centralized in one, huge server.
So, as far as greed and corruption go, just like in the computer analogy, I think it’s far easier for individual agents engage in it given an ideal free-market capitalist system(*), but the consequences tend to be localized and contained. In a communist system, it’s very difficult for any arbitrary individual in society to engage in corruption and greed, but for the well-connected party insiders do it, the consequences can be dire, and intractable.
(*) I say ideal capitalist system, because the fatal flaw of capitalism is a mathematical one: The math shows that even with a starting condition of equal opportunity and conditions for all people, a few people end up with most of the wealth (and therefore power) just by pure, random chance.
Hayek was debunked even by Capitalists, that’s why the Austrian school is largely abandoned even among liberals. His ECP has several issues, of which I’ll elaborate on a few.
Hayek assumes a lack of incentives within Socialism/Communism. Even learning the basics of Socialism and Communism can debunk this, but Hayek makes it core to his arguments.
Hayek ties all sources of “rational economic decision making” to price signals, ie profit vs loss. This is similarly incorrect, you can have a demanded service without profit. Some examples include single payer Healthcare, high speed rail, and other free at point of service programs.
Hayek pretends command economies are functionally entirely different from market economies, which is also false. Amazon is entirely internally planned, and often relies on computer automation for planning. A Socialist system would have worker ownership of a larger Amazon.
Largely, you run into issues with corruption when people aren’t accountable. The issue is, in Capitalism, Capitalists are far less accountable than people in a Socialist system might be, as there’s a level of democratic control inherently within Socialism that is lacking in Capitalism.
I see you tankies don’t know what it is at all. My family has lived through that shit, so you can kindly go fuck yourself. Bad capitalism is 1000xs better than anything communism can spit out.
Weren’t you the guy that even after a 10+ long comment chain still fundamentally didn’t know what Communism was, and then ran away when I threw an actual quote from Critique of the Gotha Programme?
Naa I got bored of arguing with a dumbass tankie. You still think communism is going to magically make people want to work harder than others without rewards and you also still think those in power won’t abuse an it.
Lol uhh ok, sure so no one is in power, and there is a reward system for people who work harder…sounds like capitalism a bit…but do go on and tell the class how communism has never been tried, and there is no structure and everyone is equally provided for no matter what they do.
I’ve already explained to you over and over again, it’s really quite exhausting.
Communism is a post-socialist society, where there is no state.
Working harder or longer for more is not Capitalism. Capitalism is about having individual Capital Owners who pay wage laborers to create commodities. If the community shares said Capital, it can’t be considered Capitalism, even if some people are paid more or less.
People have attempted to build Communism, but never got beyond Socialism so far.
There is a structure, just not a state.
It’s a post-socialist society, ie productivity is high enough that everyone can be provided for adequately. We’re actually already there, we just don’t distribute properly.
Lol no for your scenario you absolutely do. Do you think all the food and physical labor magically exists? Do you think people aren’t going to want what someone else has if they have more “rewards”? Communism doesn’t work, because we’re are not ants… we’re humans and humans are creatures that for the mass portion of the population will step on others to get what they want.
No we are not, sure in small numbers when small villages and tribes existed because they had to for survival. That shit isn’t going to magically kick in when it’s time for everyone to go harvest food. You have a very naive understanding of humans.
You don’t have to be a Communist, just stop acting like you know what you’re talking about when you make incorrect authoritative claims like “Communism assumes everyone works for the same outcome” and “Communism assumes people don’t want more.”
It’s incredibly easy to not have opinions about subjects you don’t understand, I encourage you to try!
Or just basic equality … more specifically WEALTH EQUALITY
to remove the power of the wealthy to get even more wealthy by exploiting everyone faster
And to give more power to those with little or no money and give them a chance to gain a bit of wealth.
Honestly if we just created a civilization where we spread the money around a little more equally, we’d have less psychopaths controlling the world and more people wanting to cooperate in making things better.
It wouldn’t create a utopia because we’re too complicated to be happy with one another but it would make our situation more tolerable and manageable.
The fuck is safety capitalism? Is it just some bullshit word for people who don’t want to say socialism? Fuck, if that’s what it takes for people to accept socialism then they can call it whatever the fuck they want.
I mean that’s going to be the same for every country and every solution.
I’m not saying the work is done or that Nordic countries are anywhere near perfect or anything. Just that considering how others are doing, social democracy at least in the Nordic countries has done really well imo.
Very little? None of them have been big colonial countries (Denmark was the biggest and they were a pretty small player) and Finland was itself a colonized country. Not sure if Iceland counts as a colonized country since I don’t think there lived anyone there beforehand.
“Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I’ve worked ridden in a lot of offices busses and I tell you people do that all the time.”
Irresponsible parents are a fact of life. Please stop deflecting from the problem that has a very simple solution to the one that isn’t going away ever. Keep the fucking guns away from children…
13 yesr olds usually aren’t held criminally responsible for their actions because they don’t understand the value of life or consequences of their actions etc. so maybe they should’nt be given guns to take on the bus or wherever. But Im Australian. Never seen a gun or heard a shooting.
This same person told me in another thread that the reason guns should be legal in the U.S. is protection against bears and mountain lions- which almost never attack anyone. Like less than 100 times in the last 50 years combined. They can’t even come up with a good argument for adults to have guns.
I do know of people who hunt with handguns, but it is definitely rarer. I honestly don’t have any issues with hunting if you eat what you hunt. If you just do it to massacre an animal and just leave it where you killed it, fuck you, but I have no issue with responsible hunting practices.
That said, it’s my understanding that bow hunting is the fastest, and thus most painless way of killing an animal.
That is completely False.
I have shells that will cause a 3 to 4 inch cavitation hole when they hit something causing a large amount of damage and blood loss that will kill with any hit in the chest area.
With a bow, even if you hit the heart it will still take time, especially if you miss and then it is bleeding, suffering, and you have to track it.
At top skill in both I would say it is a tie in that both have the potential to kill instantly, a bow is more likely to harm than kill at lower skill levels though.
Pistol shooting practice is typically done at no more than 25 yards, while hunting rifles can more comfortably do a longer range. Sure, you can hit with a pistol at similar ranges (especially with a larger caliber as you propose) but rifles are better for controlling the recoil and typically more accurate. If the goal is to actually hit, and in particular kill painlessly, a rifle is the better tool.
Tbf I carry a rifle any time I go in the woods damn near.
I love nature but am terrified of bears and I want a big firecracker, if it comes down to trying to use it on a bear that wants to fight I am probably already fucked and I know that.
If it makes you feel more secure, I won’t judge you, but you should know that-
Statistics suggest there have been over 180 fatal bear attacks in North America since 1784. While the majority of these fatal attacks have been carried out by wild bears, some are the result of bears held in captivity.
Statistics like this are bunk. If I’m camping in the forest my chances of having a bad encounter with a bear are astronomically higher than drowning in a bathtub. Context is everything when it comes to your specific risk profile.
Used to have to shoot cottonmouths and copperheads all the time when I lived out in the country. We were too far from a hospital to chance it with poisonous snakes. Glad we moved
Which is a valid argument because people out in the country can get bitten by snakes and be too far from a hospital. The only time he mentioned poisonous snakes was when he said people need guns to protect themselves from rattlesnakes in Dallas.
Snake/rat shot is designed for this task. Basically small shotgun pellets in a handgun cartridge. I’d think it a rather small target to aim a regular bullet at.
Honestly it doesn’t really matter. The second amendment does exist, so some arms in the hands of the populace will be allowed unless we amend our constitution.
That said, we can draw lines based around what kinds of weapons. And something like a bolt action rifle or pump shotgun can be excellent for hunting, but very difficult to conceal or commit any kind of mass shooting with.
It’s semi-autos that are specifically capable of high rates of fire and quick reloads, and that become dangerous. We can regulate some of those arms the same way we regulate access to tanks, jets, nukes and chemical/biological arms.
As a longtime SAR guy --I’m in my 50s-- I always tell people to carry a gun in the backcountry if that’s what makes them feel safe, but just know that you’re far far far more likely to get in trouble from things like weather, terrain, rivers, meltwater, falling, exposure, hypothermia and just the elements in general than you are from any animal. The risk profiles aren’t even remotely close. This is true even in places like Alaska where almost everyone is armed. As far as I’m concerned, a gun is dead weight. Lose it and concentrate instead on carrying the ten essentials and knowing how to use them
Alright, you seem to have identified the problem now what do you think the solution is? Gun violence seems to be the worst in the areas with the most guns, is that just a human issue?
Not who you replied to, but I personally feel it’s more than just guns.
It’s the culture around guns, the worship of guns, the lack of better conflict resolution skills, the rise of extremist echo chambers, and harmful rhetoric online.
Even the “come and try to take them” and “fuck around and find out” attitude implicitly says that guns are going to solve whatever conflict people have and that it’s a valid solution equal with other options. The rhetoric doesn’t tell people that it’s the option of last resort for conflicts.
We need to change our culture, our respect for guns, and ultimately give people better tools for solving conflicts. The solution isn’t necessarily more laws, they can certainly be a part of it, but we aren’t going to legislate this problem away.
If you are a gun owner, promote better safety with firearms. Call out those who treat them irresponsibly. If you are around those that act like they are the solution to all problems, give them shit for it. Make them realize it’s not a proportional response to kill someone for a minor disagreement or property theft. Call people out who brandish their firearm - it’s not a de-escalation.
Realize that not everyone is a threat and trying to harm you or your family. The people who are going to harm or kidnap you are so incredibly rare that you are unlikely to ever encounter them. And the situation where you don’t have any other options but to kill them is even rarer. Most situations you can find a way to just leave. I’m not saying that there aren’t dangerous people out there, but the vast majority are generally nice people that just want to live their own lives.
If you aren’t a gun owner, take a safety class and learn a little about them. You don’t have to like them or own one, but try to understand that there are many who do enjoy them. The majority of gun owners aren’t the ones causing issues.
As a society, put more time and money into healthcare and particularly mental healthcare. Work to raise people out of poverty and remove the socioeconomic pressures that lead many towards crime. We need to spend more time with each other, see things from each other’s point of view, and break down barriers between each other. We need to be more empathetic. We need to learn to accept losing in disagreements. Make it okay to be wrong.
Some of these arent truly concrete steps, but more of an ideal we need to work towards. But ultimately, it’s our culture that needs to change. Our culture treats them as a solution to problems and that’s why we see them used for even the dumbest of issues like a blocked aisle on a bus.
That’s… A take for sure. By all means, take your kid hunting and target practicing that young, instill good practices in them, but there’s a big gulf between that and a teenager ever being in the situation in the article.
I’m not saying it’s all of your culture. I’m sorry if it came across that way.
But it certainly is a shockingly large and loud part of it, and the lawmakers clearly have zero intention on stopping it, because not enough people want more restrictions.
About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.
Our disproportionate political representation is a huge part of the issue, and our media representation is very good at burying it. So you’re not wrong, but it’s certainly fair to say there’s more to it.
I’m not saying that people who want law changes aren’t the majority, I’m just saying it’s not enough to actually change the laws (even if there is a small majority for it).
Things generally don’t just happen whenever the public gets to 50% + 1 person support. Support generally has to be higher before things get pushed through.
I had my own gun and access to guns as a 13 year old. Hunting, target practice, etc. It’s not an insane age to have firearms.
That said, I was raised to respect the fuck out of the danger inherent in a gun, and I used mine to kill deer for food, not kill people I had a mild disagreement with.
Edit: Well fuck me for being born into a different environment ig. Mass downvoting someone for offering a different perspective is healthy for an online community /s
Gotta love being down voted because “America bad” mixed with “guns bad”
Lemmy sure is a weird mixture of people wanting to arm themselves (or allow others to arm) against an increasingly fascist state while some want all guns to be gone forever and think voting and talking is the only way to enact change. These types are also usually the ones who complain about peaceful protestors being mildly inconvenient to others, and shrug their shoulders when the people they watched beat another person nearly to death get a slap on the wrists because “that’s justice for you, whaddaya gonna do”
And it really depends on which group gets to the comments first as to how the votes and conversations go.
A properly run society with good living conditions, social programs, medical/psychological care absolutely can have guns, and there are several examples in europe alone.
I’m a leftist that’s cool with guns and was raised around them, and technically, not legally, owned my first gun at 11.
A 13 year old still should not have access to guns anywhere in public without adult supervision. I get hunting, I get protecting the farm, etc. None of those involve taking a gun on public transport though.
And yeah, America bad. If this was even remotely a significant issue anywhere else, we could say otherwise, but it’s not.
I hunted, shot targets, and protected the farm from predators and varmints safely for years because I was taught religiously and throughly since I was a small child what the responsibilty of wielding a firearm is. Firearms are tools designed to end lives, and they are very, very good at it. There are no take-backs, no do-overs. Each time you touch a firearm, a life could end, and you NEED to be absolutely 100% certain it’s the life you mean to take.
It’s a great crushing weight that many adults, much less 13 year olds, should not be trusted with, but some 13 year olds can bear that responsibility well, as I did. There were never any accidents, because there could not be accidents.
One thing that I constantly have to remind myself is that people I’m debating with live a vastly different life experience. So many people who are so antigun clearly live in an urban or suburban environment and cannot fathom living somewhere rural enough that defending livestock from predators or hunting for food is a fact of life.
And some that are so pro-gun live in rural areas and don’t get the issues that dense populations where guns are cause issues.
Personally, I don’t think guns are the main problem. It’s the culture around guns, the worship of guns, the lack of better conflict resolution skills, the rise of extremist echo chambers, and harmful rhetoric online.
Even the “come and try to take them” and “fuck around and find out” attitude implicitly says that guns are going to solve whatever conflict people have and that it’s a valid solution equal with other options. The rhetoric doesn’t tell people that it’s the option of last resort for conflicts.
Kids much younger than 13 know right from wrong, and are capable of understanding the harm they can cause. I don’t want to live in a society that thinks the problem here is “13” rather than “psychopath”.
Societal expectations for teens are far too low. We infantilize tweens and teens. We set our expectations so low that even when they outright murder someone, we blame everyone else.
If he’s murdering people at age 13, he learned how to be a scumbag criminal before he could talk.
The problem here is untrained, unrestricted and unsupervised access to guns. You’re right that we don’t want psychos owning guns in general, not just 13 year olds. Look up the steps to getting a gun in Canada, you just need to take a safety course and pass some background checks. That’s to add assurance that gun owners know what they’re doing, and aren’t psychos. In this case the kid had unrestricted access to a gun without supervision, because his parents were either untrained to understand proper storage, or irresponsible. Training is a big part of keeping guns out of the hands of people who have not been verified to be responsible to own a gun unsupervised, like this kid.
The problem here is a 13-year-old actually, seriously, wanted to kill someone. Not just got angry or frustrated. It wasn’t unintentional, negligent, or accidental. He deliberately and knowingly decided to kill.
Take away the guns, and the bigger problem remains.
No, we absolutely should not be stereotyping every 13-year-old because this irredeemable piece of shit happened to be that age when he decided to kill.
The biggest part of gun laws is checking for responsible ownership. You are allowed to get hunting guns in most of the countries that the right says “ban guns”. They just have common sense checks, like do you have training at a shooting range, do you understand gun safety, do you have a gun safe, are you not a psychopath prone to fits of violence? Your upbringing wouldn’t be any different because your parents were responsible and would have passed all those checks.
This is about not giving a gun to every dumbass yahoo that stumbles into a store. The household this kid grew up in obviously wasn’t responsible because this kid has unsupervised access to a gun.
Well fuck me for being born into a different environment ig. Mass downvoting
Are you sure that is the reason? Maybe it could be that posting that 13 is a good age for gun ownership in a thread about a 13 year old who used it wildly inappropriately? You are entitled to think what you want, I just personally find it a little distasteful everytime there is a gun death to make justifications about the system that allowed it to happen. I imagine others agree.
Eh, I feel like most people wouldn’t disagree with the statement “it’s insane to allow 13 year olds to own guns”, and the argument of “well I owned guns at 13 and I turned out fine” isn’t a strong one.
I got beat regularly, and my stepfather at the time used to do stuff like make me wait in the basement for 30 mins, then he’d slowly walk down the stairs with his belt unbuckled so we could hear the jingling in each step, then he’d tell us some scriptures and say this hurt him more than us.
Then if you cried right away it was faking, but if you held on too long it was you being rebellious and stubborn, so my brother and I learned to start faking our cries after the 6th or 7th hit.
I told that to friends as an adult as what I thought was a kinda funny story, and they properly realized I was abused in a somewhat sadistic way and pointed it out to me.
They weren’t calling me out for having a different environment, they were correcting my incorrect belief that it was normal or acceptable.
People are doing the same for you. You made it out safely, but giving unstable teens access to guns is definitely a risk that probably shouldn’t be taken. Survivor bias isn’t an excuse to say it’s fine.
Hahaha we sound very similar. I’ve definitely told stories like that to my close friends thinking they’re funny and they’re horrified.
The sight or sound of someone, especially a man, taking off their belt still triggers the ol’ CPTSD decades later lmao.
Anyway, that was a great example. I grew up in a similar place with similar gun culture as them, and had to figure out for myself what you mentioned in your comment. I definitely think a bit of that is at play here.
It’s not just parenting. There are crap parents worldwide, yet this only regularly happens in one place.
E: downvote all you want. Remove my comment if you want. You know it to be true. This is a US thing. Stop worshiping your guns.
And if you are to have them, keep them in a safe, inaccessible to children, when not in use. The fact that this is a controversial statement to Americans is insane.
You can’t just handwave away gun problems as “oh it’s the parent’s fault, nothing can be done”
Yes it does. People under 18 getting hold of firearms and behaving like idiots with them is something that gets reported on frequently in the US and pretty much the US alone.
But sure, name all these other places where this happens on a regular basis.
E: lmao. Straigh up lies in the retort. Asia and Africa don’t have gun problems. Even the most violent place in Africa has a gun violence rate of barely over half of the US’s. Fair enough on central America.
That’s absolutely not true. Data shows the only countries with higher gun deaths per capita than the US are all central and parts of South America. E.g., India’s per capita gun death rate is 0.56 vs 4.12 in the US.
You literally made that up. It’s the US and a few unstable countries in South America.
South Africa, one of the highest homicide rate countries in the world, with a murder rate 6.5x higher than the US, has half the gun homicide rate of the US.
India has has 1 gun homicide per 100k. The US has 11 per 100k.
But yeah. Keep telling us how everywhere outside of Europe and Australia is like this. It’s BS.
Really only South America (actually mostly central America and Brazil) and South Africa, Mali and Somalia fit into that stereotype. The rest of Africa and all of Asia (except Thailand, which is still significantly lower than the US) have very low rates of gun violence.
Lmao how America-brained do you have to be to say that thinking 13 year olds having guns is a bad thing is “pearl clutching”
No. 13 year olds should not have guns.
And I’m from Asia you nitwit. I speak a couple of Asian languages, as well as a couple of European ones, such as the one I’m speaking now.
Asia does not have a gun problem. Africa does not have a gun problem. You made that up and tbh it just sounds like racist dog whistle - “those uncivilised darkies and slit-eyes are violent savages! Their children have machine guns! No I don’t have any proof, don’t ask!”
South America yeah, particularly Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia. And so does the US. Forgive me for having higher expectations of the highest GDP country in the world than I do of fucking Venezuela.
Children should not have tools designed expressly for quick and easy murder. If you think otherwise, cool. Have a good think about it next time you’re on the bus and a child shoots you when you do something to mildly inconvenience him.
Gotta give you credit, it was very clever of you to link to an article without any real stats, but which makes it sound really rife.
It was a good try, but no.
United States: 11 gun deaths per 100k.
South Africa: 6 gun deaths per 100k.
South Africa is the most violent place in Africa by far, and isn’t representative of Africa at all, and still has a gun homicide rate that’s roughly half of the US.
Never said it wasn’t rife. I said you cherrypicking possibly the most violent country out of all Africa and Asia, but making sure to pick an article where it didn’t actually tell you the gun homicide rate (because it’s much lower than the US’s), was a laughable move.
It is rife. It’s just over half the US’s gun homicide rate, which is huge.
What part of this aren’t you getting? Is there something you’d like explained to you? Would it help if I tried to use fewer, shorter words?
I mean, you’re giving us the standard American Exceptionalist rigamarole. If conservative doesn’t describe you, maybe reflect on the kinds of things that you’re saying that would convince people otherwise.
We’re counting state violence now? Are you sure you want to include that statistic in defense of America? Our military has a 7-figure body count so far for the 21st century…
if you arent personally going into people’s houses and taking their weapons away from them, then preventing them from buying more weapons, then you cant expect anything to actually change.
It’s not guns, it never was done. It’s lack of good education, farming it out like it’s just some subscription thing. People aren’t learning practical information in schools. We don’t teach kids how to think, or how to deal with anger in their mind. And they get up and they grow up to be these idiot full grown adults who don’t know how to think past them not liking a person because of skin color, they go with their first wins because they’re idiots, they get a hold of guns because only idiots need guns. And then they do something stupid. Thinking it’s just guns is fucking stupid. Guns don’t hurt people people do blah blah blah, it’s true people suck now. They’re dumb they don’t read and they should shoot themselves in the head next time
People from other countries aren’t just intrinsically superior to Americans. We haven’t all trained our kids to be paragons of virtue. It’s that any American can trivially get a gun.
It is legal to hunt at 12 years old in some states.
Edit: I bought enough trigger locks for all my long guns and pistols for under $100. There is no excuse not to have them installed and I live alone. My guns are also in a locker as well as trigger locked. My ammo is in a different room in a safe box screwed to the closet floor from inside the locked box. All this was well under $200 including the gun locker.
I doubt THAT’S why the kid had a gun. It was easier to buy one in my high school than to get one as an adult (even with a good income) where I grew up in NYC.
I don’t think there’s an age limit for hunting in my country, either. I did have a couple of shotguns for the purpose.
To get a license for them I had to pass an exam identifying all game, even by silhouette. And I had to pop in for a quick interview at the police station before applying for a weapon’s license.
I feel like those hoops would filter out 95% of those looking to get weapons fpr illicit purposes. In the case of a handgun, you’d need to show a long-lasting interest in either range shooting or hunting game that hide in dens.
“What difference does it make if one elected official is worth $100,000 and the other is worth $10 million?” he asked. “That’s totally irrelevant.”
Because I trust someone worth $100k or less to have my interests at heart far more than someone worth $10M. Do these people really not get that?
People are sick and tired of being ruled by the wealthy. The truth is, city government pay is often so bad, it’s only the wealthy with large passive income that will go for it.
It also shows who’s accepting other money. If you’re worth $10m but entered office with a lot less, the office doesn’t pay enough for you to have earned all of that. You must have accepted bribes “donations” to get there.
City officials typically don’t take bribes, they’ll buy land after learning about a project, or select a company for a job that uses supplies from your company. One of the famous politicians in my area bought a bunch of land when a highway project was announced and made millions.
Exactly this. Finance transparency should be a requirement for public officials. I honestly don’t care if my politician has a NW of 10 million. I do care if that’s tied to industries they are supposed to be regulating. I also care if they started out with nothing and became millionaires after joining politics.
That said, billionaires should be barred from ever interacting with politics. Congratulations, you won capitalism, now leave the rest of us alone.
It wasn’t the founders, it was the Gun Control Act of 1968 that blocked anyone under the age of 18 from owning a long gun and anyone under the age of 21 from owning a pistol.
Guess what, if those kids were breaking into cars in London, there’s 0 chance they would’ve acquired guns that way (not to mention, it’s irresponsible to store a gun in a car to begin with).
“The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
So:
“A well armed and equipped public, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Your comment has been reported, but as you had links and appeared to be arguing in good-faith, I decided to leave it. With that said, I completely disagree with your words.
Review Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Militia was what we now call “National Guard”. Speaking from experience, as a former guardsman as well as vet in 2 other branches. Back when I went to basic, this was well discussed as a given. I’m surprised people think otherwise to this day.
Unfortunately, it’s the Supreme Court who defines such things and, as cited in D.C. vs. Miller above, they very clearly set the definition as noted.
Since that ruling, they have further clarified it in McDonald vs. City of Chicago (necessary because Heller involved Washington D.C., which isn’t a state).
Generally when I point out these inconvenient facts the response is “well, who cares what the Supreme Court says! Get the court to reverse it!”
Which, sure, can be done, we saw that with Roe vs. Wade, all it took was 50 years and the appointment of one conservative judge after another.
In theory we could flip the court, Thomas and Alito are the two oldest members of the court and highly conservative, so electing a Democratic President in '24 and again in '28 would virtually assure flipping the court.
Then the problem becomes keeping it, because the next three oldest are Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.
Yes, I’m pointing out that the Supreme Court now has defined what the founders meant then. :) They are the arbiters of what the founders meant after all.
There’s a TON of history they go through in Heller, and McDonald and the recent ruling from New York, Bruen.
They aren’t arbiters of what the founders meant. They’re arbiters of how we currently interpret the constitution. Originalism is only one possible way to interpret it.
Oh come on, regardless of where you stand on the issue, you can’t think of any change in law could contain that would prevent someone from getting a gun?
Seems likely they stole the guns from cars, so maybe make it illegal to keep your gun in your car?
Hmm, so the source of the guns were the cars that were broken into. Hmm, yes. So what law can you imagine that would have even prevented the option for those gun owners to keep guns in their cars? C’mon, you’ve got this. Hint: How did the car owners get the guns?
Nothing that could be blocked because of the 2nd amendment. You can’t prevent people from legally owning guns.
Now, if you want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, we have a process for that…
First you get 290 votes in the House, then you get 67 votes in the Senate, then you get ratification from 38 states, so all 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.
The constitution was written by a bunch of geriatric slave owners who barely washed once a week. Every single one of the signatures on that paper comes from someone that would be considered mentally deficient in this day and age.
You shouldn’t be proud of it standing in the way of sane legislation, nor the fact that gross gerrymandering keeps it that way.
Regardless of how you FEEL about the 2nd amendment, it is the law of the land and it’s not going anywhere until we can get 290 votes in the House… you know, the legal body that took 15 tries to get the simple majority of 218 to decide who their own leader was.
But hey, we got 311 to bounce out George Santos, so it IS possible to get that level of agreement, it just won’t happen on guns.
Realistically, the actual wording of 2nd amendment is actually rather specific. But that leads to a whole different ugly ass problem - what to do about the corrupt SC?
Yup, that’s a problem and it’s only getting MORE conservative, not less.
Adding term limits would require an Amendment which can’t be done for the same reason changing the 2nd can’t be done, the vote hurdle is too high.
Packing the court isn’t the answer, because the next president of the opposing party would just re-pack it the other way.
So the only thing that can be done is make sure Biden wins in '24, and the Dems win in '28 and hope that by '32 Thomas and Alito have aged out. Thomas will be 84 in '32 and Alito will be 82.
If they’re still hanging on, then it’s a matter of voting D until they’re gone.
Because if Trump or another R is in office when they leave, you can forget changing the composition of the court in our lifetime.
“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”
So, two years before the Bill of Rights. If Jefferson had his way, the 2nd Amendment (and everything else) would have expired in 1810 and would have had to be renewed then and another 11 times since then.
Very true. Sorry you got downvoted for getting to your real point, but I’m in agreement, that when those that wrote the constitution came up with it, and subsequently additions were added the bill of rights, and what was those who fought for the next amendments, it was the most progressive thing at the time. But as our world has changed, so should our values and therefore our constitution, and every modification and addition. Empires come and go when they think they are infallible, the US is no different, and we should be willing to throw out what some consider “holy texts” when it makes sense to build a better nation.
So if we throw out the Constitution, these red states will be the ones to write a new one.
The 2nd Amendment will look positively progressive compared with what they’ll come up with, along with likely disenfranchising women, minorities, and any other group they dislike.
The only saving grace is that while 34 states can call for a convention, it takes 38 states to ratify a new convention.
Trump only ever won 25 states, so they would need 13 Biden states to ratify a new convention and that doesn’t seem likely.
Which brings us back to the 2nd Amendment not going anywhere…
Yikes. Well I should signify that I want a more progressive constitution that helps women, minorities, and the disenfranchised, not a fascism base to build upon. But yeah, I see what you mean it’s either “throw out the government now in favor of fascism” or “keep the current constitution, but deal with the 2nd ammendment”
maybe make it illegal to keep your gun in your car?
Unfortunately this is not possible. There are many businesses and such that have signs to the effect of “no guns in here.” In some states those signs hold no legal weight, but in some they do. In states where they do hold legal weight, your choice becomes
Just never carry because the grocery store I’ll be in for 15 minutes out of my day has a sign they think will keep mass murderers out (spoiler warning: mass murderers target those signs. Not that it’s more likely you’ll get shot there necessarily, just that their signs only matter to people who aren’t about to murder 25 people, as the murderer has other crimes to worry about vs me, where I just want some damn nuggies so prison actually matters to me.)
Carry in the store illegally. Honestly more people are doing this than you think, but as I said in some states this can become an issue for you.
Leave it in the car while I’m in the grocery store. Legal, not exactly safe, but since I am literally legally forced to be unsafe: “not my fault.” If you want to charge people with leaving a gun in a locked car and then the gun gets stolen, you have to at least meet halfway and let people with a permit carry at all times and not force them to leave it in the car. You may say "just go to a competing business. Well the way my state law is set up you can’t carry in ANY bank regardless of permission, any government building, and a few more places. And I’m fine with either, make them leave it and no charge or let them carry it and charge if they don’t, but I’m not fine with “you have to leave that in the car even though you’d rather leave it in the holster, and if it gets stolen we’ll put you in prison for life.”
Yes it is, you just don’t like the idea of being inconvenienced by public safety laws.
mass murderers target those [gun-free] signs
[citation needed]
Carry in the store illegally. Honestly more people are doing this than you think
This is an excellent reason to strengthen gun laws and make some examples out of the people who decide to violate the law.
If it gets stolen we’ll put you in prison for life.
Show me where this has ever happened (life in prison for having a gun stolen from you)
It never fails that the pro-gun argument is always just loaded with dishonest hyperbole. Guess that’s expected from a cause that has zero public benefit. Part of your argument is to just casually admit that people are illegally carrying guns all the time, and you say it like it’s some sort of argument in favor of guns…
Yes it is, you just don’t like the idea of being inconvenienced by public safety laws.
“Inconvenienced” here means “no banking, and no buying food, cooked or otherwise.” So it’s a little more than a simple inconvenience. Which again is one thing, and that’s fine, I can leave it in the car when I go in to those places, BUT if a possibility of prison time exists for me following the law and leaving it in the car, yes, that becomes a problem. Frankly I’d have to reevaluate following the law, as if I leave it, it gets stolen, and used in a murder, and as such I’m charged in concert with the murderer, it now becomes less risky to just break the law and carry in the store. This law would make many others reevaluate similarly and do the same, killing the effectiveness of the signage in the first place.
[citation needed]
Well, let’s start with all school shootings.
And here’s an article from the Anti-Self Defense movement’s favorite news outlet, biased towards them, that says I’m right. www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/us/…/index.html
When gang and drug related shootings where 4 or more people are shot including the shooter, which everytown considers mass shootings (and they’re technically right but of course most of us are thinking of Sandy Hook or Vegas and it feels weird to me that everytown likes to blur those lines, but I digress), it does open up a bit, but that’s because drug dealers and gang members (crips, bloods, piru, gangstas desciples, ms13, sur13, folk, etc) don’t hang out in gun free zones most often (sometimes parks, so sometimes they do but typically it’s “the block” and US streets and apartment complexes are not gun free zones.)
So it really depends on if you want to include drug dealers and gang members. It’s already illegal to have a gun on you while selling or murdering someone for their drugs though (and how to fix that is an end to prohibition not more prohibition. They’re drug dealers obviously they have connections to get illegal shit). It’s not necessarily illegal to be in a gang though I don’t think, I’m not sure we can criminalize that here but I could be wrong, but usually most people in gangs have felonies that preclude them from legal firearms ownership if they’re of age to, usually resulting from said gang activity.
This is an excellent reason to strengthen gun laws and make some examples out of the people who decide to violate the law.
You just doing occular patdowns of your fellow Aldi patrons on the regular, or…? How tf you plan to catch em without security at every door ever patting down every customer ever? If you’re in the US you likely have at least one conversation with someone concealed carrying a week and you’ll never even know it.
Show me where this has ever happened (life in prison for having a gun stolen from you)
In the hypothetical “we should charge people with having their gun stolen if it is used in a murder” I’m saying we should actually totally “not do.” That’s where. We don’t currently, people say “we should…” I say “we should not…” this is called a conversation, welcome to it.
It never fails that the pro-gun argument is always just loaded with dishonest hyperbole.
That’s what we’re calling “you can’t read” now?
Edit: OH maybe you can read but you’re not familiar with how US laws work, just thought of that. Did you read the story the other day going around lemmy that talked about a guy who is charged with murder for a car crash but he was miles away in handcuffs when the crash occurred? What had happened was guy A and guy B were car hopping – checking door handles and stealing from unlocked cars – the police roll up and light them, guy A puts his hands up, guy B runs in their car, gets chased by the police, blows a red light (or stop sign but that is inconsequential to the outcome) and kills guy C. Guy A and guy B are both charged with the murder of guy C because they were acting in concert according to the court system. This is definitely a systemic issue that affects minorities, particularly black people, disproportionately, but I have no doubts that this same system would be applied to charging someone for being stolen from, if what was stolen is used in a murder. Currently we don’t usually charge victims of theft anyway, so it isn’t a current issue as far as having your gun stolen is concerned (but don’t hang out with sketchy people because if you thought y’all were just about to smoke a blunt but dude robs the minimart, you’re robbing the minimart too without even knowing), but I don’t think we should make it an issue.
What if I told you it’s much easier to use and illegal gun when they are readily available?
Seemed to mean that you tie availability of legal guns with availability of illegal guns, which is not wrong, but in a working system it is insignificant.
The solution is to examine how these guns got out of the legal system and into the illegal system.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere so you can take that pipedream off the table barring 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate, and ratification from 38 states.
So what CAN we do?
Well…
#1) Hold gun owners accountable for storing a gun in something like a car that can be easily be broken into or stolen.
#2) When kids are arrested for something like burglary, you search their homes for weapons.
So to start with: universal registration and ID/licensing for gun ownership, and strict liability on registered owners for crimes committed by their guns.
“the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
This is a new twist from the Supremes. Gun laws must prove that they are in keeping with “historical tradition”. So, banning felons from owning guns is allowed, there’s an historical tradition for that.
So if there’s no historical basis, it won’t pass muster at the Supremes.
First you get 290 votes in the House, the body that needed 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader was.
THEN you need 67 votes in the Senate, the body that can’t muster 60 votes to over-ride filibuster after filibuster.
If by some miracle, you get those votes, then you need ratification by 38 states, from a country that broke 25 states for Biden and 25 states for Trump in the last election.
Here’s the map, find 13 red states that will vote to give up their guns. Keep in mind, of the 25 Biden states, only 19 of them have Democratic statehouses, so you’ll likely lose six of them as well and for every blue state you lose, you need 1 more red state.
So, yes, given the current state of American politics, the Amendment will never change. Same as if, say, you wanted an Amendment protecting abortion, or establishing the size and term limits of the Supreme Court.
Meh, the modern interpretation came from corrupt justices legislating from the bench, building completely ahistoric interpretations to suit modern sensibilities. This whole absolute 2A thing is entirely modern with no sincere history backing it up. The solution is court reform which is needed for a host of other reasons anyway.
But also, just to point out, YOU are arguing against YOUR OWN solutions. Which is absolute proof of how intractable the situation is right now. And the situation has become intractable because of people like you.
EXACTLY RIGHT! That’s why need to outlaw Abortion, have speed limits, make fraud illegal, make murder and illegal and keep all other laws in place! Because laws DON’T WORK!
There are things that CAN be done, you just have to start with rejecting the idea of “hurrr durrr take all the guns” because that can’t be done due to the 2nd amendment.
In THIS case, we know the two kids already had priors for car burglaries.
So #1) You find out who legally owned those guns, then you charge them with improper storage and/or failure to report a stolen weapon.
#2) When kids are arrested for a crime like burglary, you search their homes to make sure weapons weren’t anything that were burgled.
The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia and bearing arms. It’s gives the right to possess guns by militia members.
The Second Amendment also states its purpose expressly: to protect the security of the state. If the “let everyone have whatever guns” approach is a threat to state security, then obviously that approach isn’t protected by the Second Amendment.
Your version of the Second Amendment is a right-wing lie, not borne out by law books, history books, or dictionaries.
Not on that guy’s side, but he didn’t strictly say that we shouldn’t have those laws.
He said that if you’re siteing a case where we did have those laws and a bad thing happened as an example for why we need laws like that in place to stop the bad thing from happening, it falls a little flat.
Not that the idea of having laws like that is bad, but citing individual cases is flawed, as no amount of regulatory structure will ever prevent 100% of cases.
To frame it a different way, I could argue that there’s literally no country on earth with strong enough gun laws, because there’s no country with zero gun deaths. I could argue that we need random searches of people homes to try and find guns, or imprisoning people who talk about guns, because the current laws clearly aren’t good enough because people are still getting shot. Doesn’t matter if it was only 1 incident in the past 30yrs. Still happened, so we need stricter laws.
That’s obviously an absurd level of hyperbole, and I want to reiterate that I’m all for regulation on firearms. Just wanted to point out that the core argument here is unideal.
Trying to regulate the weapons used in our hellscape dystopia is just a method of maintaining the hellscape and avoiding any real change to society at large.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, well-regulated militias shall have the right to keep and bear arms. Also, in a twist completely unrelated to that other sentence, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I’m talking rifles, muskets, flintlocks, hell, even futuristic weapons nobody’s invented yet. Not part of a militia? Doesn’t matter. Completely unregulated? That’s right. Also, by ‘people’ we mean everyone: kids, witches, the addled, it’s a free for all!
Of course, most people only know the final trimmed-down edited version of that amendment. The original was much better, IMO.
Nah, i’ve seen that doco. He had to go back and kill himself because he got caught up in a mafia scandal and ended up getting jailed, as well as other actions that ended with the earth falling to nuclear war. He was shot at but because of complications the shot didn’t kill him, so he had to go back and finish the job for the betterment of humanity.
Literally the guy running the impeachment inquiry. Similar checks were revealed to have been written by and to Comer after he said that the checks proved Joe Biden did illegal things.
But for some reason Comer thinks his checks are fine but Biden’s are criminal.
The inquiry is because his son had a job, and they are generally suspicious because of that. And he said hi to his son on the phone once. There’s literally no accusation, they’re trying to find something to accuse him of.
This story is absolutely terrible but it’s, sadly, important to keep them visible so “moderates” know exactly what will happen if republicans take control on a national level. This is the future for all women if they were to take the WH and both chambers of Congress. They already have the Supreme Court for at least 15-20 years even if a Republican is never elected President again.
Far worse than that, Republicans are vying for and have run practice sessions for a “Convention of the States”, where basically states (which are predominantly Republican controlled, in spite of population distributions) can come together and decide which Federal laws they want to adhere to.
Basically, the situation you’re fear mongering over is far closer than even you make out it to be.
A convention of the states is infinitely worse. It is basically a rewriting of the Constitution. Koch has been funding this. In this political climate imagine what happens when we let fascist billionaires create us a new govt. Holy fucking shit.
This is why state elections are so crucially important. We normal non-assholes need to not just vote but be involved in local and state elections. Donating time, money, even running for offices.
States can shield us from a lot of the bad shit happening at a national level if we elect halfway decent people.
A small part of me wants to see them try it. There is a legal means of doing this that has never been tested. There is something amusing about letting someone who has done nothing except being critical handed power that they have no ability to use.
Imagine all those DeSantos types actually given the task of sorting out the constitution. They don’t know how to write an amendment, they wouldn’t be able to agree on wording, they would have no clue how the courts would apply the wording, they aren’t even sure if it would stick because again no one has tried it. It would be who knows how many tens of millions of dollars in lawyer fees and conference hall rentals and travel expenses and committees all to pass something that would break on the first challenge.
But that’s not the way legislation works. The law is written, then it is voted in my representatives, then it is challenged by parties that fall foul of it. Waiting until the very last stage is the least likely method to be successful.
Just call it a confederacy already and get rid of the mixed signals. Half of them still act like they won the damn war anyway, with all their loser worship.
The public has the memory of a goldfish. We’re less than 3 years out from the single worst administration in the history of this country, and we’re seriously considering putting him back in office.
I personally don’t think that’s cause they forgot, I think that’s cause Americans are way more fascist than most left leaning folks are willing to admit to themselves. The idea the left pushes is that most people are good, but just apathetic and don’t vote. I think many Americans are horrible fascist assholes. We can’t depend on the silent majority, because they suck too.
Evil never sleeps while good just wants to exist in peace.
Good people don’t try as hard to enforce their will because they’re not selfish assholes. Nor can they understand that bad people will literally do everything they can to get their way.
I don’t think that most of us are outright fascist, but I do think most of us are not just apathetic, but also willfully ignorant. For one reason or another–lack of education, viewing politics as “boring,” no energy to pay attention beyond headlines, a lack of media literacy–most Americans simply cannot see the impact an administration has on society beyond their immediate experience. For these people, Trump was a guy who said stupid shit, lowered their taxes (ignoring the sleight of hand where the ‘tax cut’ was almost entirely due to changes in tax withholding so the extra money on their paycheck was counterbalanced by a lower tax return), and held a rally when he lost. They’re not explicitly fascist–if the tanks start rolling down their town’s Main Street, they’ll wail and moan about “I never wanted this, how could this have happened”–but to them, things like “economics” or “human rights” or “democracy” or “equality” are boring toys that nerds play with. They’re the type of person that complains about crumbling roads and potholes and bad traffic, then turns around and complains about construction projects to fix the very things they were complaining about.
So I don’t necessarily fully agree that America is more fascist than we like to admit, but I think it’s largely a distinction without a difference–most Americans are perfectly happy to stand by and let fascism take the reigns, to do nothing and complain about anybody who does try to fight against it, right up until it’s too late and THEY’RE the ones up against the wall.
Fair point, but I think it’s not quite as benign apathy as you imply. I think rather a lot of people are racist, or sexist, or believe that ‘sluts that got knocked up deserve to be punished with a baby’. I think the uncomfortable truth that the left hasn’t figured out, is that the nasty stuff trump said was at the very least not offensive to far too many Americans.
We are far, far closer to a society where those white folks in the background calmly watching a lynching of a black guy than we like to believe. They’re not the ones with the rope and they may not have ever done anything explicit themselves, but they’re all fine watching it and spending time with the people who did it too.
Most of American society seems to be that classic, fake white Christian charity group that seems so helpful putting out a meal for the homeless at the holidays while simultaneously hating everyone they can get away with, abusing their family at home, and generally being terrible people that have an outwardly normal appearance.
People who are willfully ignorant and still choose to vote are responsible for the fascists they vote for. I’m tired of pretending they’re innocent because they “don’t know” what they’re voting for.
So you are arguing to not vote and let the fascist win quicker because you are obsessed with political purity & can’t be bothered to talk to your neighbors?
That’s the trick of the right wing propoganda machine. These people don’t think k they’re ignorant, they honestly believe they’re enlightened and ordained as superior. They think they’re the chosen people.
Best of luck finding people to vote for disfranchisement. I personally think its awful what we have already let alone to do so for political wrong think.
The GOP already packed the court by acting in bad faith with Obama. There’s no reason we shouldn’t just appoint more judges. 9 has not always been the size of the court, and the size is not restricted by the Constitution.
Back in my day a weird yell was enough to kill your run.
Just a yeeaaoowww and you’re done. Now, if you’re Trump and you are literally strangling someone to the point that they make that sound, you’re presidential material because “that person getting choked was probably a democrat pedophile communist so he deserves it.”
Trump has said and done enough things to kill his run, too… But Republicans and conservatives wanted him to win, so the media machine was on his side, instead of against him.
It’s because republicans demand “Fairness”, and define it as “You can’t say something bad about us without saying something bad about Democrats, even if you have to make a false equivalence.”
And you better be able to spell potatoe! (And after Mr. Quayle’s call to Pence to shore him up on preserving our democracy, I’m sad I ever laughed at him.)
“Abortion is a matter of conscience and so it’s not just something you change based on political gain. But this is something each individual candidate has to try to figure out for themselves and every part of the country is a little bit different,” Cornyn said.
Translation: Abortion was never a matter of conscience for the GOP. It has always been about political gain.
Abortion to me isn’t a matter of conscious or morality to me at all. It’s about looking at the facts and making a logical decision based on the current available information.
People who are against abortion rights are in my opinion imbeciles who don’t know how to interpret factual information and believe they have the imperative to make life or death medical decisions for other people.
I don’t give a fuck what your religion says about the morality of other people. People who try to make decisions for other people based on their religion can go sodomize themselves with their religious texts.
The only person’s actions your religious belief gets to dictate is your own.
I agree absolutely, healthcare choices are a very personal matter and should never be restricted or abolished. People don't have abortions because they want to murder kids; they have them because of personal healthcare issues and complications that often arise. Even nature itself causes spontaneous abortion, quite often in fact. So for any group of men to delude themselves that they are morally superior for taking abortion off the table is not just ludicrous but in fact as immoral and unnatural as anything people can ever do.
Yea right, the only moral failing involved is the one where people try to use their random sky daddy beliefs to dictate other people’s personal choices and actions.
As a Christian, I think like this: who am I tot tell you what values you should have? I have my (Christian) values, you can have yours. Anyone who goes against that is against freedom of religion.
Absolutely man, I was raised Christian as well, although that’s one of the broadest categories of religion, could mean just about anything lol… technically I believe voodoo is Christian, and so are the Urantia folks and also the Mormons and Catholics…
I'm ass-deep in mormon country, and it truly is as much about magical thinking as voodoo or any other cult is. That people cant' see how the catholic, mormon, and every other church is a big business that feeds off people's gullibility is astonishing.
This shouldn’t even be a fringe Christian belief. At least one of Paul’s letters at the end of the New Testament explicitly spells out, “don’t police other people’s behavior”, in reference to non-christian practices not being a matter for christians to worry about. It follows pretty directly from “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
If you had said biological males had no right to make abortion decisions, I’d be with you… but saying I can’t even have an opinion on the topic because the way I was born is somewhere between laughably moronic and maliciously sexist. I’m not even saying I should have a say in the decision my partner has if she happens to get pregnant, but I can and will have an opinion. You might consider it an uninformed opinion since I don’t have a life of experience as a woman, but it’s still an opinion. Hell, just being a living human being means having the right to think for yourself, which is the essence of having an opinion. You are saying I don’t have the right to think for myself because I was born a male.
I would disagree with this statement and call it out for being sexist, to the point of being antagonistic and hateful towards men.
Anyone can have an opinion about anything they like.
I can believe in the great spaghetti monster and wear a noodle strainer on my head at the dmv, and raises my fists in glory chanting, pastafari!
There is a difference between believing in something and using that belief to dictate what decisions other people can and can not make between them and their doctor.
I can sympathize with that attitude though. Sometimes in order to get anything you want you have to compromise your morals. I morally align more with the greens on most issues, but I vote democrat holding my tongue where needed because some is better than none.
They believe it’s immoral to allow people to have abortions, but it’s now clear they’re not going to succeed at stopping it, so instead they’re going to focus on the other people they believe it’s immoral not to hurt.
Abortion is a medical matter and none of the government’s fucking business. Their only arguments are religion based and therefore have no business in government consideration, but these fascists have forgotten their place as ‘public servants’ and have decided to just roll on like their little insurrection had worked. It’s really hard to not say anything to get put on a watch list.
Far right white supremacist killings of Jews is far more prevalent in the US than Muslim killings of Jews. My first suspects would be among the extreme right.
Talking out of my ass here, but I’ve heard that stabbing is a more personal crime. You need to get closer so it’s more likely to be someone that feels deeply threatened or personally hurt.
That might be why we see these antisemitic attacks being stabbings, because the extremists feel deeply terrified and hurt.
I’m not justifying the crime - it’s evil and they need to be locked up. But we need to understand where this extremism is coming from if we want to stop it.
You are right in that stabbings feel much more personal psychologically, but I would imagine a murderer would pick the most sure weapon if it was entirely premeditated. It seems as though the guy had no intention of hiding the killing.
I’m sure many of these extremists were either charged with a felony before or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Both mean that they are federally banned from guns for life. I think many of these murders are out of strong rage rather than calculated killings, but they’d still probably prefer to use a gun if they had easy access.
Out of morbid curiosity… are the skinheads white supremacists rooting for the Israelis or Hamas? Usually they don’t like brown people, but they also don’t like Jewish people.
It still stands as an example of a successful ethnostate. It’s also a destination where they can claim that Jews can be expelled to and that it should be “fine”.
And no one listens to white supremacists because we understand life is not black and white like that, and by their reputation alone, white supremacists will never ever get what they want.
I realize this isn’t your point but I feel the need to point out that skinheads are not nazis - it is unfortunately a very well working project of cultural appropriation by the racists.
In the scene racist skinheads are mostly referred to as boneheads, a term which I think makes much more sense.
Well one “pile of shit” is racist, the other “pile of shit” is poor and works in manufacturing where they don’t want their hair ripped into a machine, and also likes punk music. Imo, to call the second ones piles of shit for simply being poor workers with haircuts that reflect work safety and like semi-heavy music (what skinheads actually came from that you’re sarcastically pretending to understand) makes you a classist (remember, know your shit, you aren’t racist but seems you’re classist) pile of shit. Also groups like SHARP exist.
Know your shit indeed, especially before being so confidently incorrect.
You’re naive if you have never seen a non racist skinhead. Most of the skinheads at punk and metal shows in my area are SHARPS(Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice) and are also black or hispanic. They drove out the local racist skinheads from punk and metal shows by ruthlessly attacking anyone who showed up wearing Nazi bullshit. They are fine people, the kind of people you want as a neighbor.
Not only that, but the first skinheads were just working class Ska music fans of all races. The shaved head image was stolen from them by racist skinheads in the 80s.
In general, they have different things they perceive and admire about the two. Please know, I’ll be using some of their words. In Hamas, they see people battling “Degeneracy” and “Jewish Influence.” There is an admiration for Israel, as an theocratic apartheid ethnostate. Seriously, at protests, Ive seen them carry Israeli flags before. Mostly, though its a party. “The subhumans” are fighting, one will be destroyed and one will look bad in the eyes of the international community.
Many Israelis are brown people, about 20 % are Palestinian and there are also Muslims in Israel. Hating or not hating Israel isn’t a litmus test for Nazis.
I guess the most Nazi standpoint on Israel-Palestine conflict is to rub one’s hands.
Definitely the muslims. Believe it or not the far right doesn’t hate muslims, just don’t want to be around them. They think American involvement in the muslim world was a result of American military being used for Jewish interests. But they consider Israel to be the leading force in global destabilization. So 100% they are rooting for Palestine.
Ordinarily I’d agree with you, but Occam’s razor doesn’t. Metro Detroit is home to the largest Arabic community in the country. I believe Jewish/Arab relations are pretty sound there, but given the current circumstances…
The whole far right media ecosystem is fucked. There was also the young Palestinian boy stabbed to death by a white right-wing nutjob for being Muslim recently because of the media’s portrayal of this conflict.
place your bets place your bets will it be a nazi, a klansman, a jihadist, death by cop (never discount the possibility) or just some other random murderer? AAAAAMERRRRRICA THE LAND OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
Right? Stabbings are a strictly American phenomenon, as is racially or religiously motivated violence and just violence in general. Don’t see any of those happening anywhere else in the entire world, people in other countries have pillowfights at most. America wake up, everywhere else is a utopia while you slide into a dystopia.
I see you’ve never played expanded rock paper scissors. Grenade beats gun beats knife, so Sweden still beats America but at least America (and CZ) beats the rest of europe.
I know we’re speculating here but imo given what’s going on between Palestine and Israel I would be inclined to believe the latter rather than the former.
I’m sure there are no political motives that influenced that.
Also that was 3 years ago. In the current climate I’m not sure I would be so sure. You have muslims ripping down posters of dead israelis all over the united states.
And the current geopolitical climate could give the far right cover for committing antisemitic crimes. Particularity for crimes less serious (and therefore less well investigated) than murder, they can commit hate crimes and blame it on the Arabs.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.