Ultimately, guns are not very complicated machines. I’m making a semi-automatic rifle in my home office right now out of stuff you can get at a hardware store & some 3D printed parts, and I’m amazed at how simple it all is.
A lot of proposed gun control feels like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Even states with hefty assault weapon bans like California and Maryland still have plenty of legal loopholes allowing people to own semi-automatic guns, and gun manufacturers are finding more all the time. I honestly think that anything short of straight up banning the sale of gunpowder will have a temporary at best effect on gun violence, and do less than nothing at worst.
The fact of the matter is that gun control bills at the federal level will cost a lot of political capital. A federal challenge to the 2nd amendment will rally conservatives in the same way that the recent overturning of Roe caused a surge for liberals. This is to say nothing about enforcement: it’s a common position among gun owners that they would simply refuse to comply with a gun confiscation / surrender, and I believe a significant chunk of them would follow through with that. See the recent ATF rules about pistol braces for an example of mass non-compliance.
So, we can fight the uphill battle of gun control for perhaps marginal returns, or we can try to address the things that drive people to violence in the first place. And I’m not just saying “muh mental health” either; we need to address housing costs, healthcare costs, education costs, wages stagnating behind inflation, broken-windows policing, the war on drugs, the mainstreaming of far-right propoganda, the decay of public schooling, white supremacy, queerphobia, misogyny, climate change & doomerism, corporate personhood, and a fuckload of other things making people angry and desparate and hopeless enough to kill people & themselves.
I firmly believe that addressing the material conditions that create killers will prevent more murders than any gun control bill, especially in the USA.
we need to address housing costs, healthcare costs, education costs, wages stagnating behind inflation, broken-windows policing, the war on drugs, the mainstreaming of far-right propoganda, the decay of public schooling, white supremacy, queerphobia, misogyny, climate change & doomerism, corporate personhood, and a fuckload of other things
This is basically what they’ve done in most European countries. Plus, they have very strict gun laws and no gun culture. All of that equals close to no gun violence.
Yeah but the violence we do see in europe is typically widely spread knife crime and chemical attacks on people. The most complicated and unique terrorist attacks I have ever seen happen on European soil.
'Course, the last time a dude threatened to stab me by pulling a knife on me, I threatened to shoot him by pulling out a gun on him in return, and he decided the best outcome for all would be to walk away.
He was right, I didn’t get stabbed, he didn’t get shot, and I was able to walk into the hell that was “pandemic Walmart” unscathed, as a direct result of me being armed.
That’s just not how it works, because knifes are not specifically designed to kill people. Guns are. Some guns are even designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Some knives are for sure designed to kill people. You cutting potatoes with a karambit or balisong? Then there’s arrows, or as I like to call them (as of this moment) shooty knives.
Furthermore, guns are technically designed “to fire a projectile” as knives are technically designed “to cut or pierce.” The issue comes up with what is being fired or cut upon, which could be legal or murder in either case.
Furtherfurthermore, yes, guns do happen to be good at killing people, and sometimes that does need to happen as unfortunate as that is. We call that “self defense.” Just so happens guns are the best tool for that job. Could I use a coin to screw in a flathead? Sure, but a screwdriver was designed to screw screws and as such is the tool I would prefer to use if I have to screw a screw.
The lengths to which people will go to defend their tools of death. School massacres? Who cares! Bowling alleys? Who cares! Shopping malls? Not my problem! Nail salons? Nah!
I see this sentiment a lot, and I mean, realistically, would you? Getting splashed with acid mostly equates to a flesh wound, maybe with side effects like blindness, or muscular numbness. There’s necessary skin grafting and things of that nature, sure. But that kind of attack, generally, strikes me as having much less lethal potential compared to, say, a shooting or a stabbing. If you get a hole poked in your heart, you’re basically guaranteed dead within a minute, and if you get a hole poked in many of your major organs, arteries, veins, you could bleed out within the next couple minutes.
Compare that to an acid attack, which, granted, is extremely unpleasant as it burns away at your nerve endings, but would seem much less likely to be lethal, and has a much more straightforward path to recovery, in lots of cases.
The likelihood of dying making horrible injuries more bearable. Do I want to live a long life horribly disfigured with constant pain due to nerve damage, or just get shot and have it be done and over with?
As for stabbing, if they hit a vital area that would make it less unfortunate, but just the idea of getting stabbed is deeply unpleasant, whereas the emotional reaction to getting shot is “well, I should’ve moved out of the US”
I’m confused, I’m from Europe but live in Australia. I read about a mass shooting in the states pretty much every week. Often children as schools seem to be a prime target.
Can’t remember last time I heard of an acid attack in Europe. Got some source for this being a regular thing and an actual problem even remotely comparable to guns in the US?
I honestly think that anything short of straight up banning the sale of gunpowder will have > a temporary at best effect on gun violence, and do less than nothing at worst.
Also, while air rifles aren’t really as effective today as chemically-powered guns, they were used by militaries in the past, and if you increase the pellet size, they can put out quite a bit of energy.
Frankly even if the bans did work, people wouldn’t want them. The US does not care about gun violence because the people in power are pandering most to people unaffected by it since they’re who vote in the primaries. The US cannot and will not address its gun violence in the near future and it will not address the fundamental needs of its people if conservative leaders continue to get elected.
Basically, the US is probably screwed and is due for increased violence one way or another. Especially since we’re all allowed to own a deadly weapon and yet a good portion of us aren’t even literate.
Gunpowder is the easiest part. The casing will be the hardest as you need pretty tight tolerances, but anyone who cares could have 50 trash cans full of cases in a week for a lifetime of reloading.
And if you don’t have cases for reloading, you can always use a case less design, then it’s just a matter of sourcing the projectile.
Of course there is always black powder, ball and cap, etc.
Guns are harder easier to manufacture than cartridges. Honestly, when civil war finally does break out it will be ammunition, not guns, that the government restricts access to because that’s way easier to control and way harder to manufacture. Reloading still needs brass and primers, and those are hard to make for anything outside of a shotgun.
Edit: said exactly the opposite of what I intended to say.
I have heard it before that the hardest part is getting access to reliable chemical primers. But I think if you were looking at all available options on an equal footing, you’d probably be more likely to go with some sort of electronic ignition system, or something of that nature.
This is to say nothing about enforcement: it’s a common position among gun owners that they would simply refuse to comply with a gun confiscation / surrender, and I believe a significant chunk of them would follow through with that. See the recent ATF rules about pistol braces for an example of mass non-compliance.
Then they need to be arrested. Noone should be trusted with guns and other dangerous weapons or machines if they deliberately break the laws surrounding the ownership of them. We don’t let people drive after they lost their licencse.
The estimates for the number of pistol braces out there ranged from 3 million on the low end, to 40 million on the high end. During the grace period to register braced firearms as SBRs without having to pay the tax stamp, the ATF received 255,162 applications to do so.
Even if we take the low number & account for folks destroying or converting their firearms, we can reasonably estimate a rate of non-compliance in the hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. There is a very real possibility that arresting all those people would literally double the already ludicrous US prison population overnight. In a country that already has a worryingly militarized police force, I cannot imagine the mass arrest of millions of armed people will reduce gun violence.
I understood “not surrendering” as Police shows up and demands to be handed over the braced gun, to be met with a closed door or at gunpoint.
If people need to be told to hand it over, but comply then, i guess it can be handled with a fine. I still stand by this being a clear indication of being unfit for gun ownership though.
Any officer enforcing this would be killed and most cops would just outright refuse to enforce it anyway. There’s a logistical problem of how this would even be done.
I lived in a town with maybe five cops for it and the three surrounding towns. Cops would to on several hour patrols, so if you called 911 at the wrong time it could take an hour for the police to actually show up. They knew about meth cooks in the area and they left them alone because the cops knew they would wind up dead and no one would ever find them.
Now, the whole population of the area was a few thousand people and most of them were armed. Now, if they couldn’t deal with the meth cooks that no one liked, how exactly would they deal with the big chunk of the population that includes small business owners, members of the city council, and maybe the mayor?
This sounds like a case for a crackdown by the federal police then. And even more of a reason to take illegal weapons from people, who are willing to murder police officers with it.
What you describe is practically half an insurrection already. And this sounds like the kind of area, from where exactly that could happen with enough methed up MAGAhats. So instead of the 2A helping people to protect themselves from a hostile and unlawful government it will help hostile and unlawful people to establish an undemocratic regime and abolish the constitutional order.
Lol, yeah, the FBI that’s been cracking down on the left for 100 years while ignoring the Klan? That’s who you’re taking about? They would rather join the insurrection. Who do you think these cops are?
I still stand by this being a clear indication of being unfit for gun ownership though.
I appreciate that you’ve been a good faith interlocutor so far, but I wanna push back on this just a little more.
The current rules governing SBRs in the United States were established in the 1930s in anticipation of an outright ban on handguns. The thought was that “sawed-off” or short-barreled rifles would be a way for people to circumvent the ban. And, because the law enforcement thinking at the time was distinctly classist, the mechanism for keeping these guns out of the hands of criminals was not an outright ban but a ludicrously high tax, in the neighborhood of $4500 in today’s money.
But that ban on pistols never materialized. So now, we’re left with a nearly 100 year old vestigial law that doesn’t really serve much of a purpose: short-barreled rifles aren’t any more deadly than full-length rifles (they tend to fire the same bullet louder and slower), and they aren’t any more concealable than handguns. There really isn’t an obvious public good that is served by these laws, and their enforcement gives away that the ATF understands that on some level: basically no one is ever charged for just having an unregistered SBR, it’s almost always a rider-on to a different crime or an excuse for a cop to fuck you up if they don’t like you.
Enter pistol braces. Ostensibly, they are a device that assists shooters that have lost the use of one of their hands to stabilize an AR pistol with the forearm of their one good hand (and to be clear, they serve that purpose well). However, some people notice that they happen to be shaped in a way that provides a lot of the function that a stock would, and begin using them on AR pistols as a way of getting the ergonomics and aesthetics of an SBR without paying the additional tax and waiting months for approval.
And for a really long time, the ATF was okay with this. Pistol braces were specifically allowed. That was, until a few years ago, the ATF decided to… Change their mind? “Re-interpret” existing rules was I think what officially happened. No new laws were passed, no democratic process took place, and no clear and present danger was being addressed. They just kinda decided “Hey these are illegal now, you have X days to comply”.
Does aquiescing to that “interpretation change” have anything to do with being a responsible gun owner? To my mind, whether someone complies with that or not says more about their obideience to authority / fear of consequences than it does their responsibility or danger to society. There is no inherent moral good to following the law, and history is filled with responsible people who flout pointless or harmful laws.
short-barreled rifles aren’t any more deadly than full-length rifles (they tend to fire the same bullet louder and slower), and they aren’t any more concealable than handguns.
You know, I would push back on this a little bit. It’s not really a necessity that they’re more lethal than rifles, and more concealable than handguns, they can still do plenty of damage while occupying the middle category.
Handgun cartridges usually travel at below the necessary 2100 fps required to create permanent hydrostatic wound cavities, which means they need more shots on target to do a similar amount of damage. Unlike sawed off shotguns (which I think are registered as destructive devices? idk), which tend to be unwieldy to fire, especially at range, an SBR can be fitted with a suppressor, and has the potential to fire hotter and lighter loads capable of defeating level 3+ body armor, unlike a handgun. Probably not at the same time as a suppressor would be used, but, dealer’s choice, I guess. All of this is in a package that can potentially be carried, somewhat easily, in a large to mid-sized coat along with spare magazines. Unlike a normal rifle, which might require something like a larger trench coat, or poncho, or what have you. SBRs are also going to be much more usable at range compared to your conventional handgun, it’s sort of along the lines of an advanced PDW in that respect, with maybe a slightly larger form factor.
So, if we’re kind of, thinking about the possible attack vectors that this could be used for, I think it’s understandable why federal law enforcement might be a little bit more concerned about this, compared to long rifles, handguns, or shotguns, which occupy more distinct niches that are perhaps a little bit easier to safeguard against with conventional tactics. No comment on the pistol brace thing, that was kinda stupid, but the SBR ban doesn’t make absolutely no sense, as long as you’re evaluating it from a very particular perspective.
To that point, the people like to cite Australia’s gun “buyback” program as a success…they only got about 20% of the guns. Now, you and I both know American compliance would be lower than that, but let’s use that number for a second and apply it anyway. With 600,000,000 guns in this country, we’d get 120,000,000 guns taken leaving 480,000,000 guns. Whooooo.
Furthermore, while gun owners have dropped, guns per person has increased, and there’s a burgeoning black market run by organized crime created by this ban. There also have been mass shootings since port arthur, and more mass killings without guns than that, too. Sure, they have “less than the US,” but the success of that program is vastly overstated.
In the early 1900’s Roosevelt sent federal officers to try to assess and deal with a form of slavery called “peonage” that was pervasive in the South. These officers were shot at and ultimately chased out. Roosevelt gave up on enforcing the law.
The US government has failed multiple times to enforce laws that law enforcement agreed with. Overwhelmingly, law enforcement does not agree with outright firearm bans. Why do you believe that firearm owners could be arrested for refusing to give up firearms? Like, from a logistical perspective, how would that work exactly?
Why every time someone is trying to explain to americans that what you have is not normal, is fixable, and it has been fixed somewhere else there’s always some bullshit excuse like once in the 1900 hundreds their one thing happened once so there is no possible solution.
I totally expect someone to come up with but but but US is different, because of the above: bullshit excuses. And because I post that story a lot when gun restrictions are discussed. Yes the US is different, start thinking about a similar solution, you sent a fucking man on the moon in the 1960, you can do this too.
Fixing US gun violence is trivial from a policy perspective. You tax bullets at an extremely high rate while also creating a social welfare system like Europe. This restricts the ability to execute violence while also addressing some of the biggest causes. But it’s impossible to implement that because right wing terrorism is the point.
Right wing terrorism isn’t a problem with America. It is America. It’s how the system is supposed to work. It is the point.
Right wing terrorism keeps people traumatized. It ensures that anyone proposing a social safety net would be murdered. It is the extrajudicial extension of the oligarchy that controls America. What the government can’t do, right wing death squads do instead.
If you stop mass shootings, you will destroy America. It isn’t being stopped because it is intentional. It isn’t being stopped because both parties, and, more importantly, the oligarchs who control them, benefit from it.
If you think you can stop gun violence in the US, you fundamentally do not understand what the US is. The KKK has been deeply involved at all layers of government across the US for generations. Today Aryan Brotherhood infiltrates police departments across the nation. The violence is the reality of America, the thing you think is America is just a facade.
America is colonial white supremacy maintained through terror, where guns are the primary tool of that terror. America is not normal, it’s a two party dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. America is the problem, it cannot fix the problem anymore than Nazi Germany could have fixed their antisemitism problem.
Here you go. Another person that tells me it cannot be fixed, just it is for a new and different reason/excuse this time. I’ll add you to the list, I also have a new excuse now!
Ok, so you, who have absolutely no context on the situation, keep being told that you’re wrong by people who have context on the situation, and your responses is to record all the ways you’re told you’re wrong so you can gloat about how you keep getting told you’re wrong by the ignorant people who actually have lived their entire lives in the place you know nothing about? Cool.
It’s kind of like you’re listening to the 5 blind people describe an elephant over the phone and you’re like, “I have a cat, therefore you also have a cat. You need cat litter and everything you’re saying is dumb.”
America for Europeans is either Hollywood, major cities, or Europe with rednecks. You fundamentally do not understand the context. You keep comparing to Europe and Austrian, but those models don’t work. Europe enclosed the commons generations earlier. It’s not possible for Europeans to comprehend America.
I’ve driven for 6 hours straight with the radio on scan and not even found a signal in more than one part of the US. There are vast areas of nothing with no law and no possibility of control. The vast majority of the US is unpopulated. The closest analog would be Australia or Canada.
Except that Austria and Canada never had an economy that relied on chattel slavery enforced by “organized milita.” That’s what the “well regulated milita” is in the second amendment, it’s slavers. Slavery and genocide are essential to the US in a way they aren’t in any developed country. If you want to compare the US to something, you need to look at Brazil.
The US is more like a developing nation or a dictatorship than a democracy the way you think about it.
Americans have all heard the same things over and over again. Your arguments are old and bring nothing new. So what is it exactly you’re trying to do here? What is the point if first hand information will change your articles of faith? Are you just trying to feel superior? Because coming in to a place, knowing nothing about it, and telling people they’re doing everything wrong is a pretty old school European thing to do and it really isn’t convincing anyone.
Ok, so you, who have absolutely no context on the situation, keep being told that you’re wrong by people who have context on the situation, and your responses is to record all the ways you’re told you’re wrong so you can gloat about how you keep getting told you’re wrong by the ignorant people who actually have lived their entire lives in the place you know nothing about? Cool.
Pretty much. And it’s bullshit excuses conflicting with each others, so yeah pretty fun. You guys have no idea what you are talking about, keep making up different convoluted reasons.
All while ignoring the obvious one gets ignored. It’s the fucking guns, the sooner you get onto it, the sooner you sort out this mess.
Or keep thinking that it just can’t be solved and spent time on lemmy philosophising why it can’t. Fine with me either way I’m pretty safe.
Look I’m sorry it’s just that I argue about gun control in the US a lot and you wouldn’t believe the bullshit I have to read.
Checkout my comments. Since we started, I had to deal, in another thread, that guns in the US cannot be banned or farmers would be robbed. And another person is trying to argue that if there weren’t guns, you’d be riddled with acid attacks like Europe, apparently, is.
In fairness you make some good points about issues in the States. It’s just that you mix up things a bit too much and you make it all a bit conspiracy. Keep it simple, work on limiting access to the thing that is used for shooting, and you might see a reduction in, well, shootings.
Other countries have done it. I know you think it’s not the same, but it’s not like you are working on a better solution anyway, might be worth a try?
I honestly think that anything short of straight up banning the sale of gunpowder will have a temporary at best effect on gun violence, and do less than nothing at worst.
I don’t even think that would really help all that much. You would maybe increase the relative complexity required to build a gun, but I think you’d still get plenty of people who are able to utilize improvised home explosives in their homemade firearms designs. Of another variety, you’d also probably see a rapid influx and growth of the airgun market, which is already pretty far along in it’s ability to substitute and even outclass normal firearms, in some respects (mostly in cost, and consistent shot over shot accuracy, rather than in “combat efficacy”, depending on what you mean by that). I’m also sure you’d see designs that adapt more mundane forms of explosives. Propane strikes me as a particularly good candidate, but you could also probably just use normal gasoline as a propellant, hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, butane, you could probably even use wood gas.
I think there are too many machine shops in america to realistically stop america’s position globally as a firearms manufacturer, in a vacuum. As you say, you’d need to more combat the external factors going into it, rather than trying to kind of, try to make sweeping bans around it. Especially as those sweeping bans can be more selectively applied to particular communities, to increase their criminalization, as we’ve seen time after time.
The caveat I would place around that, is that handguns are a pretty terrible suicide vector, I think it’s something like half of all gun deaths are suicides. Of suicides generally, about a third will never try again, and it’s a spur of the moment decision, and about a third will repetitively try over and over, with the remainder falling somewhere in the middle of multiple attempts. So preventing guns from falling into those, at least third, of hands, could be a good form of regulation. Though, that point is somewhat unrelated to the conversation at hand, here, I just think it’s a pretty good point I don’t hear people bring up a lot.
What gets me about these AI bros is that they could use photoshop to fix the minor flaws like Trumps hand having the wrong color under it (apparently white hand on black skin fucks up the algorithm) but they never do.
They are such talentless hacks that even the most trivial work a real photographer do is insurmountable to them.
they could use photoshop to fix the minor flaws like Trumps hand having the wrong color under it
They could, but that would require them to understand how to use Photoshop rather than just typing in “Trump Black Campaign Popular” into a LLM and weeding out a few images that don’t look entirely surreal.
They are such talentless hacks that even the most trivial work a real photographer do is insurmountable to them.
The scary shit about AI imagining is that, eventually, folks are going to get wise and start smoothing these out (by applying actual labor to the images rather than just letting the computer do all the work).
And then you really will have folks posting “Politician In Front Of A Large Crowd of Unlikely Supporters” images that aren’t easily debunked or dismissed.
You’ll also have a ton of FUD, such that real images that have been touched up by Photoshop are going to routinely be dismissed as AI generated. So someone’s inevitably going to come through with the “Joe Biden wasn’t really at Event X” leading into “Joe Biden has been dead for 10 days and the White House won’t admit it” conspiracies. And that’s going to get very ugly relatively quickly.
Have you actually been to a doctor recently? They won’t hand you opiates anymore but you can still get plenty of medications just by asking about them.
Which is a good test for the new pharmacare system, because it’s cheap anyways. Hopefully it progresses to actual full drug coverage and we can kick these worthless private insurers back to hell where they came from.
It is logical, I know for a fact that’s how a lot of executives think when there’s a backlash, they maybe go back part way or all the way on it (usually the former) people are still (rightly) upset then eventually they get jaded to the point of not giving a fuck about the backlash and making even worse decisions.
They will find ways to blame anyone or anything else.
They can say whatever they want, but everyone knows where the buck stops at, who’s ultimately responsible for the decisions. Especially so the stockholders.
In theory sure, but in the real world it’s much more messy and convoluted.
Just to state what I thought was obvious, I don’t agree with or think this is how things should be done, but it makes sense if you understand the corporate ghoul mindset.
Just to state what I thought was obvious, I don’t agree with or think this is how things should be done, but it makes sense if you understand the corporate ghoul mindset.
Well, I was just discussing the ‘backlash’ portion of your comment, and not your overall belief of the subject.
In theory sure, but in the real world it’s much more messy and convoluted.
Lmao, you understand that shareholders are an extremely large and diverse group of different interests? Not to mention Execs generally hold large quantities of the stock themselves
I literally work in the financial industry, specifically Brokerage side.
That’s without even getting into how much is owned by groups like Blackrock
Those executives should be fired. Or at this point they should just set prices regardless of market, even though no one will buy at that price point. Same ridiculous logic.
So you have a certain level of annual profit. You suggest something incredibly offensive that you believe will increase profits by say 10% with the idea you can roll it back if its a net negative. The response is so negative that you re-assess and believe you will actually LOSE 10%. You roll it back but people are still pissed so you end up losing 2% to decrease in goodwill.
Anyone whose take away is that they should just roll on and lose 10% would be a fucking idiot. The proper take away ought to be staff ideas like this with a disinterested third party before announcing to the world so you don’t lose good will in the first place.
I haven’t eaten at Wendy’s since they discontinued their “Pick 2” salad-and-side deal. I’ve been boycotting since before surge pricing was even announced!
Those guys are amateurs. Try being the Uk government—compulsorily purchase private land for new rail line, hand lucrative contracts to your mates to clear mature oaks (which they get to keep, worth £5k each), accidentally clear more than is needed, then cancel the rail line.
Well, I used a bit of poetic licence but there’s a case near me in the midlands in which the land owner has been forced to go to the high court (at his own expense) to get any chance of compensation. The tactics being used by hs2 and the Secretary of State are to frighten people into non-action. That is the leg of hs2 that is still (currently) going ahead.
But I’d eat my manky dog-walking hat if it’s the only example in the country.
I doubt I’ve ever seen a farce as big as the east leg of HS2.
It’s linking London and Leeds. No, it’s linking London and a tram stop 10 miles outside Nottingham. No, it’s linking London to the ruins of the last coal power station in Britain, and a bus stop to East Midlands Airport for some reason, even though London has like 4 fucking airports anyway and they all go to the same shithole cheap Euro dumps that EMA flies to. Ah you know what fuck it, you’re not getting HS2 at all.
One of the worst bits is a lot of the delays and budget problems came because of eco protectors like Swampy blocking construction. So frustrating such an important project to get heavy goods off the roads are attacked by people who should support it - now it could be decades before the British public will trust another major rail infrastructure project.
I’m not blaming swampy for all the problems but if you actually look at the events that unfolded it was a significant part of the issues, people have been very clear about the importance of it and all the documents were there for anyone to view - I’m just saying that the fact eco protesters targeted it is a serious failing of the eco protesters and once again attention hungry idiots doing harm to the thing they pretend to care about.
Why should anyone take us seriously when we try and argue for eco things if we’re attacking the very things we need?
“Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote.
It seems clear at this point they no longer care about the law or precedent or tradition, they just want to punish and subjugate people they don't like.
I boggles the mind, this image of god nonsense. If we are made in gods image then gods image also includes Meth addicts and sexual offenders? God must be one crazy bugger.
You sure? In the whole bible Satan kills 10 people in total, because God tells him to, and even Satan is having second thoughts about doing Job so dirty, meanwhile God makes his arrows drunk with blood.
Oh I know, my favorite old testament law: If you neighbour strives against you and is raining blows down upon you; if your wife grabs him by the genitals to delivery you from your assailant you must cut off her hand. Show no mercy. < is that the image of god you like?
For a moment, I thought you were saying that the Bible verse about cutting off your wife’s hand because she pulled your attacker off of you by his nuts was sarcasm.
Now I’m picturing God standing there after the woman’s hand got cut off,
“Crap, bro, don’t you recognize SARCASM?”. Shit. I thought you’d know I didn’t want you to cut her hand off. That’s crazy! Dude, you were getting your ass kicked. I mean, it’s a little suspicious that of all the ways she could grab him she went for the balls, but you can’t deny it was effective."
Setting aside the fact neither exist… in popular mythology, god is generally responsible for far more atrocities such as genocide, plagues, etc. Satan or the devil on the other hand is largely a scapegoat created by god to blame for the evil he creates in the world.
How’s protecting those kids by putting them in danger going?
Oh - a kid you wanted to kill us dead - all part of the plan.
These lawmakers are knowingly lying for personal gain, and to kill those they don’t like - including kids. They’re fucking demons, and their supporters are either as bad, or mentally deficient.
The key is to add an additional implied phrase to the end. Kind of like fortune cookies.
In this case, radical right speech has an implied “, for the right people.” After all they are not trying to govern equally, but instead prefer a rigidly defined caste system.
reverence for the sanctity of life, for the right people.
I think it’s a lot less about the attractiveness and more about the fact that they have a well earned reputation of misogyny so they’re needing to use women to sell anti woman policies, and as a bonus moms are great for using “family values” and “protecting the children” to take away rights.
Everyone wised up to an old man opposing abortion, now they’re using a 30 something mother of 20.
it’s not just that they have a “reputation”… they are misogynists.
which is why you got people like the Howler Monkey Twins; with zero competency or apparent understanding of what they’re actually doing but plenty of plastic surgery.
“normal to pause and wonder if people are what they say they are.”
I do the same thing when someone tells me they are Christian, it’s easier to simply step back and see what their actions really say about who they are.
“OH YEAH?! Prove that you were naturally born a Christian! I’m not gonna listen to some trans-religious hypocrite! Also, show me your genitals. Only genitals know the truth of gender and religion.”
As a Christian myself, I agree. It’s been sickening to me to see the behavior exhibited by people who call themselves Christians, especially in recent years. I don’t blame anyone for having unfavorable opinions about Christians. It’s no wonder, when so many “Christians” who say they follow Jesus look nothing like him. Instead of love, compassion, and integrity they display hate, cruelty, and hypocrisy. It’s like half the church just lost its mind. Christians had such an opportunity during COVID to put on display what being Christ-like is all about, and while some Christians did, as a whole we completely fumbled that opportunity.
All I can say is that I’m sorry for what everyone is seeing from those people. On behalf of all Christians, I’m so sorry. Just know that we’re not all like that. Not that any of us is perfect, but some of us recognize the complete and utter lunacy of it. And please know that what they’re doing IS NOT what following Jesus is all about. The people with whom Jesus was harshest were the religious people who thought they were being righteous…I think the same would be true now.
As a non denominational Christian that is sickened by the abuse by power hungry “Christians” I’m out here with you :). I get a raised eyebrow now and then since my boyfriend is a Jewish socialist, but honest to God he displays more characteristics of what we’re supposed to strive for in loving and caring for others than the majority of self proclaimed Christians I meet.
The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it. You can’t expect people to follow, “do what I say, not what I do.”
It’s cruel, it’s a reflection of our morals. The death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. The death penalty is hypocrisy. The death penalty is for an unserious society.
But the death penalty is just a symptom of a greater chronic illness we suffer from. We’ll just continue to kill ourselves until we find a cure for the disease.
Edit: I see many do not like my wording for state sanctioned murder. If you are reading this and don’t understand, imagine if listening to George Bush (can’t remember which) tell the tv America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. He’s drawing a moral line in the sand with terrorism. That’s my point. We need to figure out where our moral line in the sand is with the death penalty, because right now it’s all over the place. Do I think outlawing the death penalty will solve our societal woes? No, I do not. The people will demand it until it is reinstated. For me I ask what is the purpose of the death penalty? Does it serve a greater good for a society? Obviously it does not. Americans are murdered all the time, so it serves no purpose.
I’m pretty sure this guys’s guilt was beyond dispute. States have so many appeals and checks on capital punishment that it is much, much cheaper to default to life in prison. The economic argument isn’t noble but should be included in the debate.
That’s a good argument for increasing the threshold of guilt for capital crimes. But of those legitimately and obviously guilty, do they owe a debt equal to their own life for murdering someone else?
It would be restoration by proxy. I once had a friend who stole money. He did not know the person and could never find him again. To make restoration he gave an equal amount plus reasonable interest to a charity, anonymously. The charity was a proxy for the man from whom he stole.
So, was the restoration something he lost, or something he returned to someone else? Would it have been restoration if he just burned the money instead of giving the money to someone?
Which opinion? That the state doesn’t care about whether a victim of a murderer is innocent or also a criminal? You can look up just about any criminal case and see that criminals are just as often victims of crime as any ‘innocent’ person. Literally, a compatriot dying while committing a crime with you will get you charged with Felony Murder.
Woah there, kiddo. It appears you haven’t learned how crime and punishment works. You see, there are varying degrees of crimes, and thus- varying degrees of punishment.
This is why shoplifters aren’t executed.
Hopefully this simple reference will keep you from embarrassing yourself in the future.
This place is so stupid sometimes they’d fight for the rights of their own families murderer’s. No point in trying to put facts in front of people like that. They’ve made their decision.
I can assure you, you’re reading into it wrong. Reread it again- and imagine it coming from someone that doesn’t give a shit whether or not it happens- but that they meant what they said about not being surprised- because I guarantee that it’s been reported.
Now I’m going to add some smiley emojis to emphasize the point as that’s apparently how people understand things now.
So, if I say I don’t give a shit about something, and some random troll says I do- they’re right about it simply because I offered an explanation?
I think psychotherapy found its next shooting star! I mean… wow… You get to tell people what they’re thinking regardless of what they’re actually thinking! You should write a book:
Mind Reading For Idiots: How To Convince Yourself You Won An Argument Using Playground Rules’
Look, I get what you’re trying to do, so I’ll pretend there’s a small about of genuineness to what you’re saying- and respond accordingly:
Actual REAL outrage is very easy to tell. You can’t tell me that you haven’t seen people up in arms over their “gEnOciDe jOe” nonsense. And not even just that, but even the smallest of things will set them off.
Seriously, I got yelled at and pointlessly downvoted for stating that I didn’t like anime- In a post that questioned popular things others enjoy that you don’t like.
Go to any news article, or political community and look at how many people bypass the all the voices of reason to carry on with their nonsense. Or go to any opinion based post and look at how many arguments erupt into name calling and mid removed posts because people can’t handle others disagreeing with them.
You can keep trying to equate what I’m doing as being similar though. I’ve explained my point beyond what I feel you’re owed, and at this point, I’m done discussing this with you.
You can’t tell me that you haven’t seen people up in arms over their “gEnOciDe jOe” nonsense.
I have, but just because ridiculous people exist doesn’t mean it’s not absurd to accuse all of Lemmy of being ridiculous.
Seriously, I got yelled at and pointlessly downvoted for stating that I didn’t like anime- In a post that questioned popular things others enjoy that you don’t like.
Like, for example, if some ridiculous person went into a post about an arson that killed dozens of people, and used that as an excuse to say they don’t like anime, then later pretended their post was entirely on topic and the people down voting them for making light of a terrible situation are wrong… That person is at best an idiot, but I wouldn’t equate it to “Lemmy is crass, juvenile, and can’t read the room.” That’s true of the individual, not all of Lemmy.
Good education is so underrated, yet so difficult to actually get, especially with these silly book bans and stuff which only serve to narrow students’ perspectives
I want to preface this by saying I am against the death penalty.
The argument
The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it.
really falls apart when you consider all the other things the state is allowed to do that would be otherwise illegal. The simplest comparison is imprisonment but there are dozens of others.
Exactly, the government has a monopoly on a lot of things, among them violence and as an extent of that monopoly also incarceration.
I can see how some people have a hard time grasping that. I mean most of us would like to have no violence at all, so allowing some that power can seem strange. But how about traffic laws?
You can’t get in your car and go 200km/h down the road, which I sometimes would like to, but I hope we all can see how everyone doing 200, where 80 is more appropriate, would be a problem. So we’re ok with police/fire/rescue being the only ones allowed to break the speed limits and running red lights, right? It’s the same thing.
We’ve got specially trained people, who have been given strict guidelines for doing stuff ordinary citizens can’t do, because the society need something done that can’t be done without these powers … and who have oversight (hopefully), so these powers aren’t abused.
I will also preface this by saying I am 100% against the death penalty. The fact that we could put an innocent person to death for what I see as zero gain makes it very hard to convince me otherwise.
However:
The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it.
Murder is by definition the illegal killing of someone. Unless I’m mistaken, every state has some law on the book that allows you to kill someone, at least in the case of self defense or the defense of another when it’s reasonable to believe there is imminent danger to one’s life. And the defense of the DP is that it’s “defending” society against these criminals. It’s BS, but your point is also incorrect.
Only situation I’d accept a death sentence is if a person indisputably poses a credible threat to other peoples lives, even while imprisoned.
Essentially, anybody previously convicted of murder who then proceeds to (beyond any doubt) attempt murder again. At that point it’s not about punishment, it’s about protecting human life.
Wasn’t it recently that we hit the mark where more native Hawaiians were living outside of Hawaii than were on the islands? It’s sad how the way their economy and obviously real estate is set up makes it difficult to live on the islands.
Portland sounds both awesome and awful at the same time. Like there was a rebellion during the BLM protests where they took over some city blocks, which is cool. But things were bad enough that they caused a rebellion during the BLM protests where they took over some city blocks, which isn’t very cool.
I’m in Wyoming. There’s only ten of us here. The goth search was mine. The rest didn’t bother with PornHub after I explained that “bear sex” wasn’t going to give them the result they were expecting.
Idaho’s “dildo ride” absolutely tracks. I have been wearing a Bad Dragon cap for weeks (it’s an amazing hat) and it was a ~50 year old woman on the Idaho side of the mountain who recognized the logo.
Damn, that IS a killer hat. Almost tempted to get one myself. But having no other actual affiliation with BD, it would make things super, super awkward once someone actually recognizes the logo.
Is the car sex in Arizona because it’s taboo to touch anything on the inside of a car in the summer? Like instead of the thrill of maybe getting caught that exhibitionists get, it’s the danger of accidentally burning yourself on the metal clasp of a seat belt?
I live in CO and a guy once (well, several times for months) told me I should be a dominatrix, not realizing my disdain was mostly exclusive to him, not men in general, but now I’m thinking I missed out on a lucrative career option. Well dang.
@agent_flounder@frickineh I knew someone who made real good money running a dungeon. It was legal because there was no sex involved. Just guys willing to fork over money so they could be abused.
I’m not actually sure, but I’ll be 40 this year and I’m tired. I think I’d just end up being like, “yeah you were super bad, disobeying me and shit, your punishment is to fold the 4 loads of laundry I haven’t dealt with this week.” Also, there are a lot of things that can be dangerous in the hands of an amateur, and while I’m not opposed to hurting someone who wants it, I wouldn’t feel comfortable until I’d done a lot of training and practice, and ehhhh. I’d rather do other things these days.
You know what, New Mexico, not gonna tease you, you’ve got a high native population and it probably does suck rarely seeing folks that look like you in porn. Same for you Hawaii.
Actually I feel like in a less sympathetic way Indiana gets the same treatment.
Actually looking at their other stats are shocking. Like I’m actually really surprised with how much lesbian content blows other searches out of the water women are significantly more likely to search it than men. Same for trans porn.
Also props to milfs for being the number 2 search term. Mom bods really are having their day
To give you an idea of just how fucking stupid this superintendent is – hair discrimination is illegal by TEXAS law. Fucking Texan Republicans looked at this and said “okay this is way too far”.
Having previously lived in Houston for a few years, let me tell you, Texas Republicans aren’t terribly bright. Being worse than them takes effort.
What’s the point of a law if it’s not only not enforced, but literally ignored by, y’know law enforcement!? Fuck you, Texas. Boycott everything they produce!
Because when you pass the law, you have completed political theater and that’s what gets reported in the news. The point of the law is to be able to say, “See, Republicans aren’t so bad after all.” Nobody is following up on it later until a story like this come around.
I knew software companies were offloading QA testing onto their paying users, but who would have guessed that passengers would start playing that role too?
These are the quotes this article is based on according to another news outlet, and it is unsure if the translation (especially the wording for the proclaimed statement in the title) is up for debate since there are multiple translations.
(“from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation on the Israeli news channel i24NEWS.
According to other translations, Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River,”)
"Every area that we evacuate we receive terrible terror against us. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] which we did it.”
“And therefore I clarify that in any other arrangement, in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea.”
"This truth I say to our American friends,” Netanyahu said Thursday. “And I also stopped the attempt to impose on us a reality that will jeopardize us. A prime minister in Israel has to be able to say no, even to the best of friends. To say no when you need to and to say yes when you can.”
Does anybody know what “proposal” the USA made that he’s referencing?
It’s all behind-closed-door conversations, but one can only assume some form of self-governance in Gaza given the US continues to push for a two-state solution despite supporting the Israelis as they, you know, wipe out one of those states.
What Bibi is saying, here, is that even that small modicum of Palestinian agency will be eliminated and Gaza will formally become the open air prison it’s unofficially been for decades.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.