There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Biden to announce first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention

President Joe Biden will announce the creation of the first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention on Friday, fulfilling a key demand of gun safety activists as legislation remains stalled in Congress, according to two people with direct knowledge of the White House’s plans.

Stefanie Feldman, a longtime Biden aide who previously worked on the Domestic Policy Council, will play a leading role, the people said.

Greg Jackson, executive director of the Community Justice Action Fund, and Rob Wilcox, the senior director for federal government affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety, are expected to hold key roles in the office alongside Feldman, who has worked on gun policy for more than a decade and still oversees the policy portfolio at the White House. The creation of the office was first reported by The Washington Post.

chiliedogg ,

The only reason the GOP is as powerful as it is is because the Dems are so fucking terrible at playing the damn game. Pick your battles. Good idea or not - Biden is trying real hard to lose this election.

The biggest single-issue voting blocks in the county are pro-lifers and pro-gun people. Even if most people want stronger gun control and better abortion access, they don’t base the entirety of their votes on those positions. It’s not like Dems or moderates who are anti-gun would vote for Trump or Biden were pro-gun.

The only time being pro gun-control is advantageous is in a primary, which Biden doesn’t have to worry about. In the general election it’s entirely detrimental to a campaign.

RememberTheApollo_ ,

It’s a nice thought.

fullstopslash ,
@fullstopslash@lemmy.ml avatar

To go along with all the prayers.

Fedizen ,

An office of prayers is strictly forbidden by the first amendment.

Kirkkh ,

I don’t know if any of this will help (which the whole point of exploring these types of things), but it is really surprising we didn’t already have an office for this.

randon31415 ,

Next time a Republican takes office they will set this department’s budget to 1 dollar, just like the consumer protection bureau. It will get to the point that parts of the government will only work when dems are in charge.

Pixelle ,
@Pixelle@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • BearOfaTime ,

    “Banana Republican” while Dementia Joe didn’t even leave his basement to run.

    Hazdaz ,

    That’s “Starve the Beast” politics.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

    Everyone should know what this is and how and why it is done.

    In short, Republicans want to starve a department of funding to a level below which they can not properly function. Then they can claim that agency isn’t doing it’s job, so we might as well cut it altogether. They are trying to set up these departments and programs to fail and can come in and claim they are saving taxpayers money. What they are really doing is making it easier for corporations and the ultra rich to pollute or side-step their tax obligations. Kind of hard to claim someone is a tax cheat if there isn’t an IRS to audit them. Same with the EPA, Amtrak, USPS, DoEducation, and a host of other departments.

    Once again, we can thank Reagan for this mess.

    astral_avocado ,

    I was really curious to learn more about CFPB’s financing, I found an article about Trump slashing their budget by a quarter but I haven’t been able to find anything about their funding year by year.

    It’s turbo fucked if they haven’t refunded them because they’ve returned billions to consumers by prosecuting fraudulent organizations like Wells Fargo!!

    Armen12 ,

    Why would Republicans axe more money for cops? This has always been what they wanted

    PoliticalAgitator ,

    They’ve got to earn their $16 million a year from the gun lobby by doing even less than they did back before Sandy Hook, when it was only $8 million a year.

    Isn’t it just grand to look back on the last 365 days of gun violence and see what figures people put on it? Tens of thousands of lives. Hundreds of them children.

    The pro-gun crowd will bury them just to avoid inconvenience. They don’t want to wait for their guns, pass a background check, demonstrate they know how to responsibly handle them or store them securely.

    Sure, they’ll jerk themselves raw as they publicly congratulate themselves for doing any of those, but the moment someone wants to turn “suggestions” into “laws”, they’re all too happy to be represented by overweight men stuffed into plate carriers.

    For the politicians and manufacturers though, it’s strictly business.

    Republicans get $16 million a year and a bloc of voters who will tolerate all manner of horrific acts, as long as they happen to other people.

    In return, they insist that we mustn’t change a thing until every man, woman and child in America has been completely cured of mental illness, to a level far beyond current medical science, so perfectly that nobody ever relapses and all in the few days it takes to load up on semi-automatic firearms.

    Not only can you buy their souls, they’re not even that expensive.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Can we pay for this by eliminating the absurd Department of Homeland Security?

    havokdj ,

    Great idea, but I do not have faith that this will be well executed.

    If the democrats had the same drive as their republican counterparts, this would be a better country.

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Hopefully he can stay awake and read the teleprompter, and do exactly as he’s told.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Weird, I read an article on Breitbart today saying he’s the most dangerous man in America, ever.

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Shit if the conservative freaks actually understood the reality of the situation.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    What is the reality of the situation, Shadywack?

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Biden’s no danger, the 1%'ers he works for is, just like every other puppet that gets elected selected.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    I see where the wack part of your name comes from.

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    I guess I’m wack for disliking both Trump and Biden. I must not exist in this universe.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Your words, not mine.

    I was commenting more on your theory but I won’t tell you how to think.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Who was your primary choice?

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Bernie Sanders, and the superdelegates can fuck right off along with the party rules that make it such a cunty system.

    Lemminary ,

    Honest question: has he ever fallen asleep at the job? Because it seems that Trump came up with the moniker to slander him and everybody started pretending that he had

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Everytime I see footage of him lately, he doesn’t know where he is, where he’s suppose to be, and he’s obviously asking what he’s suppose to do.

    Lemminary ,

    Can you link to all this footage?

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    I sure can, the question is can you accept that the last two Presidents are dipshit puppets?

    Lemminary ,

    Receipts first, please

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Here’s a good one, youtu.be/aL-wyLLzuYA?si=Sv1lcbcuc8GsFNzX

    bumbling, clueless, and barely knows where he even is, and besides he just fucking looooooooooooooves China, I’m surprised we don’t see the shape of Xi Jin Ping’s dick embossed in one of his cheeks he sucked that dick so hard.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Oh look, yet another smarmy radicalized asshole selling FJB gear. I’ll bet he totally held TFG to the same standard and calls him out for literally praising Xi for being a dictator, right?

    You idiots always shoot yourselves in the face. Most of us would agree that Biden is too old (and we didnt want him anyway) but your weak and pathetic hit jobs just make you look like you have penis envy

    Lemminary ,

    Wait, what? What is this about? I’m asking about all this “recent footage” of the guy sleeping on the job and all I get is some biased YouTuber really stretching the truth and blatantly misrepresenting pieces of footage for what could have many interpretations about him. I could gather footage of most world leaders alive who have fumbled, tripped, or randomly paused mid-speech, edit it and make them look really dumb. But all I’m seeing is that what you’re accusing Biden of is simply not true and that it comes from Trump. The topic is the moniker “sleepy Joe” in case we forgot what we’re talking about.

    Listen, I’m not here to take the man’s side–he’s not even my president. But you guys really seem like you get off on making things up about him for the sake of it. Let’s be grown ups and speak about things that have actually happened instead of falling for the lying orange man’s circlejerk. Why is Biden “sleepy”? My question was dead-simple.

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Are any of the points brought up in that video invalid? He’s sleepy, senile, and useless as a leader. Seems like you’re real defensive, but I don’t know why. Whoever secures the nominations on either party doesn’t give a shit about you or what you think, and goes on to do what they’re told. Obama was the rare outlier that actually did good things while being articulate and skilled at addressing a crowd. He may have had his puppet strings too, but he was at least respectible. Biden’s a pathetic joke, and I don’t see any good coming out of the next election cycle.

    Lemminary ,

    I think you’ve missed the entire point and willingly ignored what I’m trying to get at, which is making false statements about the people you don’t like. And yes, there are plenty in those videos, because they could have various interpretations.

    And just like I’m supposedly very defensive for trying to ground this in truth, you’re very aggressive about keeping up the lies. Get it through your head that this isn’t exactly about politics.

    So I guess we can all agree that the sleepy Joe thing is not real and it’s yet another conservative lie, as always.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    I will guaranteee that you have seen no such thing, and you are parroting Alex Jones verbatim. I know. I listen to Knowledge Fight which plays his broadcasts. You have quoted Alex Jones word-for-word here.

    Now, provide proof of your claim or accept that you have been exposed.

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    Which mountain of videos on Youtube would you like first? The ones from CNN or all the right wing nutjobs channels like “Don’t walk, run”?

    Here’s a good CNN video where Anderson Cooper is salty that Republicans are calling it out, but are we seriously pretending that it’s normal for Presidents to parrot whatever shit gets handed to them?

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKOusB4FVjU

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    You do know that Biden has always had a stutter, right? And where weree you fuckwads when the last guy ramboed incoherently but nonstop and adamantly?

    Shadywack ,
    @Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

    If only anything we said or did mattered, and we could’ve had a quality candidate actually win nominations for either party. I know where I was, and that was actively campaigning for Sanders only to watch the superdelegates fuck us all over despite him leading in popular votes.

    We watched it happen on the Republican side too back in 2008 with Ron Paul. So I don’t think it really matters where any “normal people” are when we get fuckheads like Trump and absent minded grandpa’s like Biden. It seems like we already knew, and picked the right candidates, and just get fucked over anyway. 'Merica

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Fair point

    Lemminary ,

    Holy shit, you’re right 😂

    SheeEttin ,

    From the WaPo article:

    The new office will report up through Stefanie Feldman, the White House staff secretary and a longtime Biden policy aide who has worked on the firearms issue for years, the people said. Feldman previously worked on the Domestic Policy Council and still oversees the gun policy portfolio at the White House.

    So it’s going to be a purely policy role within the White House? Well that’s disappointing. I was hoping it was going to be somewhere in HHS, or at least DoJ.

    ryathal ,

    That would likely require explicit funding. Yes this is just to make a headline. He could actually direct the ATF to follow up on straw purchases, improve data sync with NICS and other federal databases if he wanted to do something meaningful.

    GiddyGap ,

    3, 2, 1…here come the gun nuts…

    quindraco ,

    As expected every time guns are brought up in a political context, the comments are already full of people talking past each other while ignoring the real issues.

    It is exactly as difficult to get rid of guns in this country as it would be to get rid of the electoral college, and the electoral college has done thing like lead directly to the covid pandemic being far worse than it had to be because Trump fired the guy we had in position to warn everyone if China leaked a pandemic.

    Instead of discussing that, all you’re going to find in a thread like this is back and forth about getting rid of guns (nearly impossible) or decrying the department as redundant (the DHS is proof this is also meaningless) or the like.

    johnthedoe ,

    It definitely feels like a lost cause banning guns. It’s part of the culture. When we banned guns in Australia after one single mass shooting, I don’t believe Australia had nearly as much of a gun loving culture. It was still seen as a tool in the country side for hunting and such. I don’t know the answer to changing culture. It’ll take generations possibly. Smoking was seen like an everyday thing in the 60s. Now it’s disgusting. Perception can change eventually.

    IchNichtenLichten ,
    @IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

    If something is not realistically achievable in the short term, that means we shouldn’t be able to talk about it?

    I disagree. If we limit discourse only to the immediately achievable we stop talking about how things should be, and how best to get there. Sometimes change happens overnight, sometimes it takes decades. It’s worth talking about.

    GiddyGap ,

    Most people are not asking to “get rid of guns.” Most people are asking for restrictions that keep people safe, not least our school children, and a ban on military-style weapons like AR-15s. That’s not unreasonable nor impossible.

    FluorideMind ,

    Every gun shoots lead all the same. It doesn’t matter what “style” it is.

    GiddyGap ,

    Some weapons, including AR-15s, are specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Makes a big difference.

    ChonkyOwlbear ,

    So it shouldn’t matter if people are only allowed to own black powder muskets then, right?

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    This is patently false. They may use the same mechanics (striking gunpowder caps) but they do not shoot the same

    be_excellent_to_each_other ,
    @be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social avatar

    Every gun shoots lead all the same. It doesn’t matter what “style” it is.

    Then banning some of them should pose no problem for gun enthusiasts.

    randon31415 ,

    I though we were switching over to environmentally friendly tungsten?

    PopcornTin ,

    The difficult problem is the ones who decide to do bad things with guns, don’t exactly have much respect for the law. Pass whatever restrictions you want, if someone wants to shoot anyone badly enough, they will find a way.

    GiddyGap ,

    Sure, they may find a way, but if it’s harder to find that way, there’s a chance they’ll either change their minds or use a tool that’s less lethal and will kill fewer.

    The US has a unique problem in the Western world, and what sticks out is access to weapons.

    Pips ,

    But that’s not really a good reason to not have regulations. “People are going to steal your shit if they want to badly enough” does not mean theft shouldn’t be a crime.

    lightnsfw ,

    IMO a more robust mental and other healthcare system and social services would go a lot farther in preventing these kinds of things. Identifying and fixing/containing the people that are so deranged that they would kill others would stop most killings and the kinds of things that lead up to it. Most of the gun crime is a symptom of a much larger problem of people with little to no support lashing out.

    GiddyGap ,

    You think Americans are just that much more mentally ill than people in every other developed country on earth? Of course not. The one thing that stands out in the US is easy access to weapons.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    ¿Porque no los dos?

    lightnsfw ,

    Yes I do but that’s beside the point. The vast majority of gun owners never do anything criminal with them. It’s people with mental health problems who snap or criminals who’re using them to perpetrate other crimes (many of whom would probably not be criminals if they had proper social support.

    Countries with strict gun control haven’t solved the root of the problem. People can still be dangerous without guns and if we can’t trust someone to own a gun we really shouldn’t trust them to have free reign to interact with society without supervision either.

    endhits ,

    You claim that no one is asking to get rid of guns, and then call for a ban on an entire class of firearms (and a vague one, “military-style weapons”, which is intentionally vague and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of firearms).

    Make a decision please.

    GiddyGap ,

    The 2nd Amendment was not written with AR-15s or any other military-style weapons in mind. A full ban on those weapons is reasonable and possible.

    astral_avocado ,

    Define military style

    GiddyGap ,

    Semi-automatic and automatic.

    astral_avocado ,

    Automatic is defacto illegal unless you go through a very lengthy process whereby you register yourself and your weapon and pay money directly to the ATF. Only very few individuals own automatics for this reason.

    Literally every modern handgun and rifle is semi automatic, save for skeet shooting break-action shotguns and some revolvers.

    GiddyGap ,

    Literally every modern handgun and rifle is semi automatic, save for skeet shooting break-action shotguns and some revolvers.

    So? My point still stands. It’s designed to kill as fast as possible. It should be banned.

    I will always take the side of our school children and a safe society over guns. More guns do not create safety, they exacerbate violence. Most other developed countries do not have this kind of violence, and they do not have the easy access to weapons designed to kill as many as possible as fast as possible.

    astral_avocado ,

    So? My point still stands. It’s designed to kill as fast as possible. It should be banned.

    So you’re calling for virtually all guns to be banned then except for shotguns and revolvers?

    GiddyGap ,

    I’m calling for any weapon that’s designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible to be banned.

    astral_avocado ,

    And that’s 99% of weapons, because what’s what guns do, they all kill things with a single trigger pull. You’re asking for a de facto ban and that’s absolutely a losing position.

    And that’s not even to mention that your position effectively means “I only believe the police and the military should have guns”. Because that’s what would happen.

    GiddyGap ,

    Personally, I wouldn’t mind a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but knowing that’s a ways out, I’m just going to call for a ban on weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. And, no, that’s absolutely not 99 percent of all weapons.

    Narauko ,

    To quote Benjamin Franklin here, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Anyone is free to relocate to those other developed countries you mentioned if they do not want the burden of their own personal liberties and rights, but stripping those rights from everyone else in the USA doesn’t fly well here.

    GiddyGap ,

    Anyone is free to relocate to those other developed countries you mentioned

    Not true. You obviously know nothing about immigration to other countries.

    Narauko ,

    Last I checked the USA wasn’t on any country’s immigration blacklist. You still need to have some kind of useful skill for a work visa, and there are unique costs to international moves, but it’s far from illegal to move away from the US. Additional costs if you want to renounce your US citizenship instead of holding dual citizenship wherever you move to, but that’s a personal decision there unless you move to a place that requires renouncing citizenship as part of gaining it like the US does. Unless you were conflating free as is freedom for free as in no cost, but that would be silly given the context where this entire discussion thread is about freedom.

    GiddyGap ,

    Lol. This is just not how it works. There are an excessive amount of obstacles for a US citizen who wants to move to another developed country. Most Americans who want to leave are completely stuck here.

    endhits ,

    With that logic, the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to the internet, phones, television, photos, or video.

    Your understanding of the second amendment (and firearms in general) is flawed, and any attempt to disarm the working class shall be frustrated. It will not happen. A ban on rifles is not reasonable, it is class warfare.

    GiddyGap ,

    It’s not flawed. Your understanding is flawed. You live in fear. Don’t live in fear.

    endhits ,

    I don’t live in fear. I hope to never have to use my tools, no matter what they are. But just how I need my socket set when my car breaks down, I have my firearms if I need to defend myself or my loved ones.

    GiddyGap ,

    You must be living in fear of something since you feel the need to be armed all the time. What are you afraid of?

    endhits ,

    Do I live in fear of sealed boxes if I carry a pocket knife?

    GiddyGap ,

    I wonder if a pocket knife could kill 60 people and wound more than 400 from a hotel room in Las Vegas…

    BearOfaTime ,

    It’s also an attack on disabled and women.

    BearOfaTime ,

    Hahahaha.

    Yet more ignorance.

    You could own canons when it was written, and fully automatic weapons already existed.

    It was written with exactly the change in tech in mind, and if you had bothered to educate yourself (by reading things like Federalist Papers or the Adams-Jefferson letters) you’d know this. But you’d rather operate from ideology and hubris.

    GiddyGap ,

    This is such a clown argument. Canons cannot be used to kill 60 people and wound more than 400 from a hotel room in Las Vegas. Get real!

    BearOfaTime ,

    Hahahahaah. Thanks for the chuckle!

    GiddyGap ,

    What are you, 12? As usual, you gun nuts have no real arguments.

    BearOfaTime ,

    Ah, yes, sophistry. Nice.

    astral_avocado ,

    AR-15s are functionally the same as the majority of rifles, they’re semi automatic. Calling AR-15s military style immediately shows you know almost nothing about guns.

    We’d have a better return on our investment banning handguns which are used in more deadly non-police shootings by a whole fucking lot.

    GiddyGap ,

    Yeah, I’d call AR-15s military style. It’s ok if you don’t. No matter what you call them, it’s idiotic that random people run around with them.

    astral_avocado ,

    Can you define what about them makes you consider them military style?

    And what are you thinking of when you say “random people running around with them”, because legally anyone who purchases them is required to pass an FBI background check to make sure they’re not a felon, among other things.

    GiddyGap ,

    I consider semi-automatic and automatic firearms to be military style.

    By “random” I just mean anyone who can pass a background check. The easy access to weapons is what stands out in American society when it comes to gun violence.

    astral_avocado ,

    I consider semi-automatic and automatic firearms to be military style.

    So just to be clear, that’s 99% of guns, and automatic is essentially already out of the equation since nobody makes or sells those anymore because of ATF regulations. Virtually all modern guns are semi automatic.

    You do know AR-15s that consumers can buy are already not automatic right?

    GiddyGap ,

    You can try to twist my words as much as you want. Nothing new there. All I’m doing is calling for a ban on any weapon that’s designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible.

    BearOfaTime ,

    “Twisting your words” (which didnt hapoen) then you go and use sophist goalpost moving.

    Nice.

    Lemminary ,

    Wait, who’s talking about banning guns? Nobody in the thread has mentioned it and I did try to read all the comments. I even did a quick ctrl+f for keywords just to make sure and found nothing.

    astral_avocado ,

    Look up

    Lemminary ,

    Where exactly? If that comment isn’t older than my comment or comes as a result of the person I was replying to planting the seed I’m probably gonna block you

    astral_avocado ,

    Lol alright bro, please do it.

    Lemminary ,

    So where exactly?

    FluorideMind ,

    You sure you read the comments? Lmao.

    Lemminary ,

    Link to a comment, go ahead

    Iwasondigg ,

    Whoo boy, that’s gonna set off the crazies. And finally Rick Scott will know which Federal agency he wants to eliminate when asked the question. I don’t see this as particularly effective or constructive going into an election year. But what do I know?

    PsychedSy ,

    If they focus on policy that isn’t gun control it will help. If they only exist to push gun control you’re prolly right. Either way, gun stores will prolly win when the nutters go buy more rifles.

    RaoulDook ,

    Yep going harder on gun control stuff is going to do nothing but lose votes for Democrats. Because if you’re already anti-gun then you’re voting [D] anyway right? Personally I’m never voting for any politician who proposes to limit any freedoms. I’m pro-freedom only. I don’t really have much to vote for these days.

    Amends1782 ,

    Bssed

    tallwookie ,

    heres the thing though - criminals arent known for caring about laws or federal offices, and they’re the ones who perpetrate gun violence. law abiding citizens who desire to arm/protect themselves will be negatively impacted. additional layers of bureaucracy is just throwing money at the problem, and that doesnt work. it never has.

    shalafi , (edited )

    If the Dems would drop their anti-gun fight, they would win every election in a landslide and we wouldn’t have the ridiculous government we have now.

    EDIT: Lemmy and guns in a nutshell right here.

    imgur.com/a/pR7CuLA

    Lightborne ,

    If Americans would stop fetishizing guns to the point of sacrificing children to the altar of their bang-bang toys, we could actually have a respectable society.

    bobman ,

    Nah. I’ve thought about this.

    If they couldn’t use guns, they’d use cars. If they can’t use cars, they’d focus on torture. i.e. instead of trying to kill as many people as possible, just try to make whoever you catch suffer as much as possible before pulling the plug.

    These are all band-aids to avoid addressing the real problem: those who feel they have nothing to live for so they take their anger out on society.

    The solution to the problem is reducing the disparity in wealth. It won’t eliminate all of them, but it will severely reduce them. This is why nobody is talking about it. The ruling class has been successful, again, in getting us to squabble over bullshit to avoid addressing the real issue, which is always the money.

    Lightborne ,

    I’ve thought about this.

    This ought to be good.

    If they couldn’t use guns, they’d use cars

    LOL

    ChaoticEntropy ,
    @ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

    A swing and a miss.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Bastille Day says what?

    ChaoticEntropy ,
    @ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

    Quoi?

    bobman ,

    They already do use cars.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack

    en.wikipedia.org/…/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_atta…

    Sorry information you don’t like isn’t worth considering. Probably because you’re biased.

    Do you think these people would’ve preferred to use a gun? Probably.

    The only rational take here is “but that would still certainly result in fewer deaths overall” that the other guy said. Which is true, but it still won’t alleviate attacks like these for the reasons I mentioned.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Another of the weakest arguments ever which never works and just shows impotent semantic pedantry

    bobman ,

    Not really. You’re just upset someone is saying banning guns won’t eliminate the problem of mass murderers.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    First of all, NOBODY IS BANNING YOUR FUCKING GUNS, GODDAMMIT!!! FIFTY FUCKING YEARS OF THIS BULLSHIT AND YOU HAVE BEEN DEAD WRONG EVERY GODDAMN TIME!!

    Second, THE FACTS ARE that restricting gun sales limits mass murders. FACT. INDESPUTABLE. You lose.

    bobman ,

    Lol, calm down.

    You’re just arguing with emotion now instead of logic or reason.

    Glad people like you don’t have much control over the world, lol.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Only righties and gun nuts argue with emotions. They have an absolute disdain and seething hatred for facts, reason, and education. Like, you, for instance…just randomly screaming hyperbole about gun grabbers out of plain old fear and impotence.

    bobman ,

    Only righties and gun nuts argue with emotions.

    Wrong, but thanks for showing us your bias.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    I thought I recognized your type…

    youtu.be/yts2F44RqFw?si=PPpqydigrDegEU3v

    bobman ,

    Sorry, didn’t watch.

    Usually when people start statements off like yours, they’re full of shit.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Or not. Your loss

    bobman ,

    Nah. I still have my time, lol.

    SeaJ ,

    If they couldn’t use guns, they’d use cars. If they can’t use cars, they’d focus on torture. i.e. instead of trying to kill as many people as possible, just try to make whoever you catch suffer as much as possible before pulling the plug.

    Cars are quite a bit slower and a hell of a lot more obvious than a gun. They might switch to that (they have not in other countries) but that would still certainly result in fewer deaths overall. Not sure why they would possibly switch to torture. That one does not seem to have any basis in reality.

    You are correct that wealth disparity is one of the big parts of the puzzle. The other big party of the puzzle is how easy it is to get a gun due to how many there are floating around. Things like straw purchases being rampant means that it is pretty easy to obtain an illegal gun. Gun registration would help a bit with that as well as something like requiring a current gun permit to purchase new guns.

    bobman ,

    They might switch to that (they have not in other countries)

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack

    Not sure why they would possibly switch to torture.

    Because if they can’t kill a lot of people but still want to cause as much harm as possible, torturing is the next best option. That’s how terrorism works. If you’re innocent to the world you live in, this might not make sense.

    SeaJ ,

    Let me know when any other country has as many car attacks per capita as there are shootings per capita in the US. I’ll wait. Cherry picking one incident means jack shit.

    Most shootings are not to inflict the most damage. There is no more torture in countries with stricter gun laws than there is here in the US. If you have some evidence that there is, feel free to share it but until then all you have is ridiculous scare mongering horse shit.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Things like straw purchases being rampant

    Straw purchases are already illegal and punishible by a considerable prison sentence already, can’t make it double illegal. Registration won’t help, nor will purchase permits (which historically, as in last year, NC had those and got rid of them when the sherrifs, who got to choose who owned handguns in their counties, decided black people couldn’t own them. 60% of Pistol Purchase Permit denials were to black people) as they can both be circumvented by simply reporting the gun stolen when you sell it (and also PPPs are racist as fuck, even if that isn’t the intent that is how they were actively being used in NC, and that was the intent because it was a Jim Crowe era law. The potential for abuse is too great.)

    SeaJ ,

    I realize that straw purchases are already illegal. The issue is that it is difficult to figure out who is doing straw purchases. The way to do that would be registration which absolutely would help. It’s a bit hard to find out who is doing the straw purchases without much of a trail.

    And you do realize you can do permitting without it being racist, right? Sit through a safety class and do a test if you are looking to purchase a new one in a different year. You only get racism when the process is not objective.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    The way to do that would be registration which absolutely would help

    “Help” maybe a little, but it’s trivial to bypass by reporting the gun as stolen or making it yourself, which is easier to do than you’d assuredly like to think (you can learn how in about a week, and that’s slow, and then they take like a few hours to make once you know how.) It won’t help as much as addressing the root causes.

    And you do realize you can do permitting without it being racist, right?

    Yes, but have you been to America recently? Good luck.

    Sit through a safety class and do a test if you are looking to purchase a new one in a different year

    Why? Gun safety doesn’t change year upon year, Cooper’s four rules have been the same since like 1970 and every private range in the country makes you watch videos teaching it before you get or renew your membership. Even subscribing to your theory, you’d only need to do it once for your first purchase. Year over year mental health checks would be another story, but they’d be useless tied to purchases and on top of that, they’re abelist.

    SeaJ ,

    Having to report the gun as stolen would mean someone is having to report multiple gun thefts a year. That raises a serious red flag and means the person is at the very least not properly storing their weapons. And it may be easy to CNC your own lower but that is still much more difficult than walking into a gun store and picking up a gun.

    It won’t help as much as addressing the root causes.

    We can agree there. But there is a difference in scale. Addressing the other gun violence root causes (aside from ease of access) of income inequality and mental health are major tasks that are fiscally and politically expensive. Registration is extremely low cost in comparison.

    Why? Gun safety doesn’t change year upon year

    The more something is hammered into people, the more they will actually remember. Just because you learned a couple rules a decade ago does not mean you remember them. A large portion of people who own guns do not even know the four basic rules. I know several people who could not name them and one of them even has a concealed carry permit and did test on those once a decade ago.

    every private range in the country makes you watch videos teaching it before you get or renew your membership.

    That is simply not correct. A overwhelming majority of gun owners are also not members of private ranges. I can only think of a few people that I know that own guns and are members of a range.

    Even subscribing to your theory, you’d only need to do it once for your first purchase.

    The first purchase that year.

    Year over year mental health checks would be another story, but they’d be useless tied to purchases and on top of that, they’re abelist.

    Mental health checks are too subjective. There are already fuck head Republicans trying to use that excuse to block the trans community from being able to purchase firearms. As for being ableist…yeah. That is kind of the point. If you are not able to differentiate between reality and your delusions, you are not really able to safely operate guns.

    We could always go back to how it was when the country was founded where you registered your firearm and had to have it inspected to make sure that it was in working order. I’m sure the Constitutional originalists would be fine with that. /s

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Not necessarily, if you buy them slowly and then have a “break in” where they all “get stolen” about every 5 years, then you have a wealth of guns to sell on the black market, and your not stolen ones you buy legally to supply the next “robbery,” rinse and repeat.

    CNC is probably the easiest but most expensive, there’s also the Luty SMG and a myriad of 3d printed lowers that actually work at least for a few thousand rounds which is certainly enough for a school shooting. Luty is probably the hardest, but all the parts are at Home Depot and the books aren’t that hard to follow, and Ender 5s are like $300 now and 3d printing is just a hair harder than CNC.

    Registration of new sales you mean? Because getting the 600,000,000+ already unregistered ones registered is basically an impossible task, nobody will comply. At that point I’d say that tbh addressing inequality and such would actually be easier.

    Well then your CCW class is meaningless and more of them will be just the same, not to offend but your friends sound like they’re kinda just dumb.

    Where do they shoot if not the range? Do you live out in the sticks where you can just shoot anywhere? All the gun owners I know are members of a range, I live in a city though.

    shalafi ,

    School shooting started because of exactly one reason: Columbine. If those monsters had got their pipe bomb working, that would be the weapon of choice.

    There were plenty of weapons in circulation before Columbine, and school shooting were not a thing. I’m 52, I remember.

    bobman ,

    Bombs are not people’s weapons of choice because they require some knowledge to build and pose a substantial risk to the amateur builder.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I was a… shall we say precocious, child. I made a lot of bombs in my back yard lol, started when I was like 11. Illegal as fuck but really fun, only made small firecracker type stuff but all I needed to do to scale that up was math and use metal instead of cardboard, I had already learned you needed a bit of air in the tube for the mix to ignite, etc. And all of this was before the Boston Marathon bombing showed us the power of a pressure cooker from Kohls, some nails from Home Depot, and a few chemicals I won’t list here but that can be easily found online/purchased in stores. Not gonna give out recipes on lemmy though lol, just saying, it isn’t as hard as you think, and as long as you aren’t Jack Parsons you’ll be ok.

    (Warning: do not attempt at home, I am not responsible for your mistakes or actions, nor the government’s in arresting you for this illegal shit. And it goes without saying but if you do look any of this shit up, don’t use it to harm stuff, even “for the greater good,” just have fun with small booms, they’re fun enough on their own! Science!)

    bobman ,

    it isn’t as hard as you think, and as long as you aren’t Jack Parsons you’ll be ok.

    I mean, there’s stories coming out all the time of people blowing themselves up when making their own bombs. It’s a risk most people wouldn’t want to take if there are other options.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Well, don’t work with unstable chemicals in your front yard and you won’t go all Jack Parsons, stick with stable. Do I seem like some kind of mega-genius to you?! If I can do it anyone can.

    bobman ,

    Even people who are more experienced than you can have issues.

    You sound really cocky, so maybe it’s good you stopped messing with explosives, lol.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Or maybe I actually do know more about it than you, people also make explosives every day with no issue, likely you can drive to a neighboring state (unless your state is the neighboring one) and buy some of those small scale explosives for holiday use, or pounds of smokeless powder for reloading, or black powder for the same. Those are what are referred to as “stable” in most cases (aside from the pressure sensative), they won’t explode until you tell them to, typically by ignition (so don’t smoke or make it by candle light, problem solved.) Stuff like armstrongs mix or nitroglycerine however is pretty unstable and that’s where the danger lies, so don’t make that and you’ll be ok unless you’re the idiot who smokes while making explosives.

    Oh and I haven’t made em in a long time, I’m old enough to buy em now.

    bobman ,

    I never said you knew less than me, lol.

    I said people with more experience than you. That doesn’t mean me. Lol.

    Anyways. I pity the fool who reads your comment then tries to dabble in explosives. I guess they will get what’s coming to them.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Yeah, that’s why I am not giving out recipes. Thry should.read a few books.

    shalafi ,

    CDC counts gun and vehicular deaths at about the same, year in and out. Thing is, I can avoid suicide (43% or so), bad people and places. I cannot avoid random people killing me on a stroll or a drive.

    Where’s your passion for dealing with death on the road? Because guns don’t scare me a bit. Driving does.

    HeartyBeast ,
    @HeartyBeast@kbin.social avatar

    "It's worth the dead children to get elected" isn't the best of campaign slogans

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    It works for republicans

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    It’s funny when righties try to use minority self-defense as a counterpoint. It was always conservatives who banned guns for blacks. Reagan was famous for it

    Carnelian ,

    Pedophiles don’t care about the law either it seems, so would you say we should just get rid of all laws pertaining to that?

    sudo22 ,
    @sudo22@lemmy.world avatar

    Its already illegal to murder, so adding additional crimes to gun possetion is essentially a proxy for making murder double illegal. If a criminal doesn’t care about murder laws, possession laws aren’t going to bother them.

    Your metaphor would be more like saying: pedophilia is already illegal, make giving candy to children who aren’t yours with intent to abduct illegal too. Essentially make pedophilia double illegal (in this instance).

    Carnelian ,

    Its already illegal to murder

    Why? Murderers don’t care about the law

    sudo22 ,
    @sudo22@lemmy.world avatar

    So we can charge them and put them away from society. Making a crime more illegaler and increasing the punishment for it doesn’t reduce crime rates.

    Carnelian ,

    So we can charge them and put them away from society.

    What do you mean? I thought criminals could simply ignore all laws, are you saying it’s possible for laws to have some effect after all?

    sudo22 ,
    @sudo22@lemmy.world avatar

    They can ignore them and still murder yes. It happens in the 10s of thousands per year in the US alone. Once you’re caught the law lets society punish these individuals, but the law didn’t pervent the murder. Ergo making it double illegal won’t help.

    Carnelian ,

    Okay okay.

    So. Instead of inserting layers of metaphors and renaming a gun ban to “making murder double illegal”, what if we just called it what it is, “making gun ownership illegal”

    You are taking it for granted that it will always definitely be okay to own a gun as long as you don’t commit a crime with it. What we are discussing currently is whether ownership should be a crime in and of itself. On the most fundamental level, do you think a law directly targeting gun ownership could possibly have any effect?

    And before this turns into a whole thing, it may come as a shock for you to learn that I do not personally support such a ban. The article you listed says in quite plain language that higher wages and better opportunity is what decrease crime, after all. The only thing I take issue with right now is the ludicrous assertion that the law has no effect on “criminals” because they will simply break the law.

    I can guarantee you a gun ban would reduce the number of guns, and the strategy of trying to gaslight people into believing it wouldn’t is fundamentally ineffective. If you support ownership then you should want to nip these arguments in the bud as well, as they’re only going to backfire

    sudo22 ,
    @sudo22@lemmy.world avatar

    Oh no I was never thinking of a gun ban as the metaphor, my apologies if that’s what came across. I was more so thinking along the lines of what politicians are doing to law abiding gun owners in NM recently (prior to the court restraint). That’s more so what I was calling making murder double illegal and being a useless decree.

    Carnelian ,

    Oh, lol yeah I was talking about tallwookie’s “criminals are not known for caring about the law” slant.

    New Mexico situation is wild. Unilaterally banning guns in response to a shooting is not a good move, especially when your Sheriff is publicly vowing not to enforce it

    HeartyBeast ,
    @HeartyBeast@kbin.social avatar

    heres the thing though - criminals arent known for caring about laws or federal offices

    Here's the thing though - putting basic steps in place to make it more difficult for criminals to get a gun isn;t a bad idea.

    RaoulDook ,

    That’s why we already have federal background checks required for all retail purchases of guns. Requiring those for private sales is basically impossible to enforce since anyone can sell anything they want in private as long as they don’t create a record of it.

    Silverseren ,

    That's just blatantly false. Actual scientific study on gun violence has found that gun restrictions, such as the assault weapons ban, had meaningful reductions in gun crime in the years following its implementation.

    Most guns used in crimes are obtained legally.

    Lemminary ,

    Exactly. Didn’t that one kid in that one shooting walk into the shop and ask for tons of ammo and nobody asked questions before cashing him out? I forget which shooting that was, but I could almost bet that applies to more than one school shooter at this point.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Weskest argument ever, and has never worked since the beginning of time, and yet it shows up every single time

    Reddit_Is_Trash ,

    Please show me examples of criminals following the law… I’ll wait

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Do you seriously not know how fucking stupud that absolutely asinine concept is? Not following THE FUCKING LAW is what makes them criminals, you goddamn potato

    Reddit_Is_Trash ,

    Ok, now you’re starting to get the point. If I criminal wanted to rob a store or invade someone’s home, what’s stopping them from using a gun? They certainly won’t stop using one because it just happens to be illegal.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Okay so you’re not getting the point. Why do all of the multiple millions of other people not burglarize a home or rob a store with a gun?

    Moobythegoldensock ,

    “After months of research, we have written a 1000 page report proving the solution is fewer guns.”

    Republicans: “MORE GUNS! ARM EVERYONE!”

    Blamemeta ,

    Well yeah. When you start with the tool, the solution is always the tool.

    You’ll notice that its not about murder or saving lives. Its gun violence.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Why does America have some of the highest rates of gun violence in any of the developed countries, Blamemeta?

    Blamemeta ,

    I don’t know SMCF, why specifically ‘gun’? Is the tool more important than the act?

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Are you able to answer the question I asked or not?

    Blamemeta ,

    Its a leading question.

    Try “violence” instead of “gun violence”

    Unless its not about lives and just about disarming.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    I asked about gun violence on a thread about Biden creating a federal office of gun violence.

    I’ll assume you are unable to answer the question, Blamemeta.

    Blamemeta ,

    The gun violence is because of violence.

    Biden and the DNC are making another attempt to disarm us.

    This is not rocket science.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Who banned bump stocks?

    Who said “Take the guns first, go through due process second”?

    Who said “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time”?

    Blamemeta ,

    And Im not voting for him. Whats your point?

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    I’m just pointing out the last president and last political party that made a run for people’s guns.

    Blamemeta ,

    He wasnt exactly a party regular, by any stretch of the imagination. And he got kicked out after only one term.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Who’s leading the contest for Republican nominee right now?

    Blamemeta ,

    Does it matter? He’ll be barred before the election. And its not even 2024 yet, they havent started properly campaigning

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Why aren’t you upset that he has tried and will try again to take your guns?

    Blamemeta ,

    I am, but we’re talking about Biden here.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Well we started off talking about gun violence but you don’t think talking about guns while discussing gun violence is fair to the guns.

    Then you switched to Biden and the DNC taking your guns even though that hasn’t happened and Trump was the last president to come after gun rights. But you don’t want to talk about that either.

    I’m surprised you haven’t made up something outlandish like Biden wanting to cut off your penis and turn you into a cat girl or something because why have a real conversation when you can just get outraged about the culture war of the day.

    Blamemeta ,

    Mate, they’ve been passing gun control since their inception. Are you just ignorant of US Gun Control history?

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    Are you American?

    If so how many guns do you own?

    Blamemeta ,

    I am, and none of your damn business.

    SatansMaggotyCumFart ,

    No problem if you don’t want to participate in this conversation, gun sales have not gone down at all.

    Do you have any facts you want to share with the class because you just shared your emotions.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Why is it only a US problem then?

    Blamemeta ,

    Because it’s not? What gave you that idea? Look at Mexico, for an easy example.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    How is Mexico an example?

    RotaryKeyboard ,

    Oh, man. Can you imagine the misery of being appointed to this post? Literally half of the government would hate and despise you and would look for ways to undercut you just to have an extra talking point while they stand in the hall talking to Fox News. And to top it off, what could you actually do to affect change? I sympathize with the poor workers of this office.

    Moob ,

    So…department of education?

    SheeEttin ,

    Or the EPA, or the CDC, or the IRS, or…

    Pips ,

    You’d be surprised by how much oil companies hate the DOT.

    KSPAtlas ,
    @KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz avatar

    What next, the FAA and FCC?

    dezmd ,
    @dezmd@lemmy.world avatar

    Half?

    How few people do you think work for the government?

    bobman ,

    It’s just a job.

    Colorcodedresistor ,

    deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • bobman ,

    I don’t think you understand.

    People saying Nazis were just doing they’re job are doing that to alleviate them of any responsibility of their work.

    I’m saying it’s just a job to highlight how these people probably don’t care about what they’re doing so long as they’re getting paid. As in, who cares if a bunch of strangers hate you so long as you’re getting paid. That’s actually par for the course for a lot of work.

    Pips ,

    Wanting to prevent civilian gun violence makes you a Nazi?

    Colorcodedresistor ,

    deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Pips ,

    Your response to someone noting that working for this office has inherent risks due to gun nuts existing and someone responding with “it’s just a job” is to compare gun regulations to the Holocaust. You just followed up a sentence where you said this isn’t about guns with two questions about guns. I think you either don’t understand what the Nazis did or you’re arguing in bad faith. My guess is both.

    Also, I don’t have to have a solution to gun violence to point out you’re making a stupid and dangerous argument. Calling people who work on gun safety Nazis in response to someone noting that gun nuts make their job dangerous proves the point.

    tinkeringidiot ,

    Also knowing that you’re guaranteed to be “downsized” on the first day of the next party change in the White House.

    ChonkyOwlbear ,

    And imagine how much security you’ll have to hire to keep yourself from getting shot.

    BombOmOm ,
    @BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

    What are they going to do that the ATF and FBI don’t already do?

    dan1101 ,

    Maybe not encourage guns to be sold to cartels, unlike the ATF Fast and Furious program. It was supposed to track firearms going south, but just lost them.

    SeaJ ,

    Operation Wide Receiver under GWB did the same thing and had the exact same issues. The thought behind the programs is not bad. Implementation was fucking terrible though.

    I do love how Republicans flipped shit about Fast and Furious but none of them had any qualms with GWB’s operation.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Maybe if GWB had worn a tan suit

    pimento64 ,

    Shoot your cat and goldfish instead of just your spouse and your dog

    SeaJ ,

    You’re thinking of the police.

    Lev_Astov ,
    @Lev_Astov@lemmy.world avatar

    No, that’s what this is in addition to.

    gregorum ,

    Prevention of gun violence isn’t exactly the remit of either of those agencies. The ATF focuses on the tracking of and illegal sales of guns while the FBI focuses on crimes committed with them (and other crimes, of course). Neither of those are about prevention of gun violence.

    A separate agency that can focus more on the social issues that are behind gun violence could act in many ways that neither of the other two agencies could while not having to worry about drawing focus or manpower, from how those two agencies operate.

    BombOmOm ,
    @BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

    They could provide free firearm training courses and encourage young people to take them. Which would help with accidents.

    A separate agency that can focus more on the social issues that are behind gun violence

    I doubt they are going to give this agency the necessary tools to lower poverty and the wealth gap, lower the rate of single parents, increase healthcare affordability, increase housing production, and destroy the culture of degrading those who try to better themselves. These are the issues that cause people to be unhappy enough with life they chose to murder. Happy individuals with productive lives don’t generally decide murder is the correct course of action.

    gregorum ,

    It hardly seems sensible for a government agency designed to prevent gun violence to then go and train people to use them.

    All gun use is inherently violent.

    BombOmOm ,
    @BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

    If your goal is to lower deaths from cars, would it “hardly seem sensible for a government agency to train people to use them”? Training lowers accident rates.

    gregorum ,

    We’re not talking about cars here, however. We’re talking about guns. All gun use is violent, so the logical way to reduce gun violence is to not use them at all. The same isn’t true for cars.

    Thanks for the false equivalency, though.

    Pips ,

    There’s probably a few other things that can be done but that’s generally correct. Frankly, the solution to gun violence is to remove all guns. Make the situation impossible. That won’t happen and neither will appropriate legal restrictions to ownership with the country the way it is, so training and other preventive measures are the next best thing.

    Dark_Arc ,
    @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

    This comment is on par with those that seek to reduce abortions by banning them. In both cases, you have absolute positions “no guns”, “no abortions” that ignore the fact that people have decided they need these things and are going to get them. Similarly, those positions ignore real, practical steps, that help address the underlying issues.

    The smarter thing for reducing abortions would be free contraceptives.

    The smarter thing for reducing gun violence (when it’s accidental) is absolutely what the other person here said, train people how to use them properly and safely.

    gregorum ,

    Another false equivalence about an unrelated subject.

    Dark_Arc ,
    @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

    No, it’s not a false equivalence at all. It speaks to the failure of absolutism to get ANYTHING done.

    gregorum ,

    If you can’t see how comparing abortions to guns is obviously a false equivalence, then you’re clearly not interested in having a rational conversation.

    Dark_Arc , (edited )
    @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

    If you think it was about abortion or guns, you’re missing the point.

    Edit: I’m a bit perturbed in general, you’re just yelling “false equivalence.” If you really want to claim “false equivalence” you first need to understand what’s actually being compared. It sure as hell isn’t abortion and gun rights. What’s being compared is how absolutisms trade incremental progress and compromise for all or nothing gambles that are the fundamental foundation of everything that’s wrong with American politics at the moment. You won’t take a x% reduction in gun related injuries and deaths by teaching people that already have them how to use them safely to prevent accidental injury because “all gun use is inherently violent” and … (edit again, I’m removing the words I put in your mouth).

    gregorum ,

    Well, if it isn’t about abortion or gun violence, then it’s a strawman, instead of a false equivalence, or possibly both. But the point about you not being interested in having a rational conversation stands.

    SeaJ ,

    Accidental firings are an issue but are honestly not a huge source of deaths overall. The main issues are illegally sourced guns from theft or straw purchases. Those can be mitigated by safe storage laws, gun registration, and current permits for gun purchases.

    RaoulDook ,

    safe storage laws, gun registration, and current permits for gun purchases.

    And we’re not gonna do that either. I shall decline to participate in any of those.

    Fedizen ,

    Except you get abortions at the recommendation of a medical professional, who is recommending guns and for what?

    Dark_Arc ,
    @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

    Hunters for hunting… yes they do still exist. Speed/target shooters… because they find the sport fun. Police officers… because you’re being stalked(?)

    The point isn’t to justify guns more, less, or equal to abortions; they’re not the same thing. What they are is things that different people come to different ways, that have desirable and undesirable characteristics.

    The point is we can increase the desirable and decrease the undesirable with small (from a cultural view) changes or we can get nowhere with rage inducing “all or nothing” takes.

    Fedizen ,

    I think you’re missing the point: the analogy of medical to commodity doesn’t work at all because medical decisions have built in gatekeepers

    I would be all for a law where in order to buy a new gun you had to sit down with somebody who asked you why you wanted to have a gun and even just like handed you a pamplet with statistical gun ownership risks. That’s literally a wing of gun control legislation: background checks, licensing, mental health screening, etc would be the analog of the doctor, referal, etc in the comparison, but it doesn’t exist.

    But post 1980s NRA interepretation of the 2nd amendment in the US is as a right to purchase them as a commodity. Abortion is a wholly different thing where a medical professional guides somebody through a process with risks that must be stated and evaluated.

    Comparing a commodity model to a medical process just undermines whatever point you think you’re trying to make.

    Dark_Arc ,
    @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

    Comparing a commodity model to a medical process just undermines whatever point you think you’re trying to make.

    This is irrelevant. If it makes the point incomprehensible to you, fair enough… But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a point you’re not getting.

    Jaysyn ,
    @Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

    All gun use is inherently violent.

    Laughs in Olympic Match Shooting & Pentathalon.

    gregorum ,

    Clearly you’re not interested in having a rational conversation.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Clearly you dont have a feral hog problem.

    You know who ruins efforts to curb gun violence?..people who dont know shit about guns

    gregorum ,

    Lmao, right, because you’re extremely niche use case should dictate how the rest of the world should adapt around you. how incredibly selfish.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Except it’s not extremely niche. It’s an actual problem that was exacerbated by…

    Wait for it …

    CAPITALISM

    It’ll be fun to see you guess how

    gregorum ,

    Lmao

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    No guesses?

    gregorum ,

    Oh, you were serious?

    LMAO

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    Okay, so since you don’t know: Feral hogs are smart animals. Traps don’t usually work more than once because they figure the traps out. Then the next effort to control them was hunting and shooting them from helicoptors. Well holy shit that is a LOT of fun, so an industry of helicoptor pig hunting was born. CAPITALISM!! But oh no, if you kill all the pigs then you stop making money selling pig hunting adventures…so somebody has to breed pigs and release them into the wild. You have two pigs…CAPITALISM! Soon there are more pigs than there are hunters, and then you have a pigdemic! …caused by CAPITALISM!!

    gregorum ,

    How easily you rationalize the slaughter of intelligent animals for your own amusement just so you can invent an excuse to own more guns. And that has nothing to do with capitalism, it’s just a matter of your own selfish entitlement.

    You’re a fucking monster.

    IHaveTwoCows ,

    You stupid fucking asshole, it’s not ME doing that!

    Fuck you in the neck with a red hot poker, you illterate shithead

    gregorum ,

    No, you’re just defending it, which makes you just as bad. You gun fetishists are insane.

    spamfajitas ,

    People said the same thing about DHS when it was spawned forth into being. Maybe not a great comparison, but I feel like this one has a little more purpose to it other than job creation.

    PsychedSy ,

    Now you’re just scaring me.

    ChonkyOwlbear ,

    Actually collect data on police shootings?

    AshMan85 ,

    about time

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines