It doesn’t matter, there should be no gun control. Government can fuck off
We already have some gun control. I’m not opposed to gun control that is logical such as background checks. We should make sure you are legally able to buy a gun before selling you one. I’m not opposed to waiting periods. While they are a pain, I find them reasonable. I find the restrictions on fully automatic weapons slightly fair. You should be able to buy a modem one using the same procedure.
We already have some gun control.
Which I want to have entirely repealed.
To each his own, I suppose. I don’t think people who are a threat to society should own firearms. I have no issues with felons losing their right to own firearms, especially violent firearms. People who are seriously mentally ill should not own firearms. There are some people that should not have firearms.
The whole “what could have stopped X” question is a loaded one. But regardless, the answer is gun control, and U.S. law should learn from modern German law:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/germany-gun-control-laws-a4366996.html
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/london-evening-standard/
It’s crazy how even this right wing sources seems to understand that gun control is necessary and a requirement for low gun death rates, given that they admit right at the begging of the article that they have amongst the lowest death rates out there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Total:
Germany: 1.04/capita
United States: 12.21/capita
Homicide only:
Germany: 0.06/capita
United States: 4.46/capita
If more guns & lax gun laws made us safe, we would should expect to see the opposite. Yet we don’t, because anybody with half a brain understands that a tool whose purpose is to kill as easily as possible will make killing easier when it is around untrained people/people with insufficient reason to own it/people who store them poorly.
That’s a 75x smaller gun homicide rate. We aren’t going to get that small of a rate without gun control.
Inb4 somebody calls me a troll despite putting effort into this: fuck off
Mate, here’s a great example of you intentionally pissing everyone off. Look at how much effort you put into the comment, you got sources and everything. But you’re still managed to piss everyone off, while maintaining a thin facade of civility. We can see past it at this point, you aren’t here to discuss or anything, just to troll.
A try-hard troll is still a troll.
I’m still going to let peepin make the final decision, but I fully recommend a ban.
And this spineless refusal to solve the problem is why this community never improves.
Except for that last line, I can’t in good conscience ban Pizzaman. As long as he brings the arguments, it’s not something I’ll do. After all, dissent is allowed in the comments.
And Winter and I just had a discussion about gun laws that stemmed from Pizzaman’s post. So, there’s no reason why people can’t agree or disagree on the substance and entirely ignore a thin façade of civility if that’s what you really think it is.
As long as he brings the arguments, it’s not something I’ll do
The problem is that his arguments are made from faulty, intentionally dishonest foundations. It doesn’t matter how many random propaganda sites he links, the whole thing is still a heap of garbage and lies.
So what?
Do you think the solution to mis-/dis-information is censorship or otherwise attempting to marginalize what you believe are “garbage and lies”? What makes his arguments invalid? Which of his statements are false and lies? How do you know? And why are you definitely right and why is he definitely wrong?
There’s this really interesting humans do. We become convinced of some viewpoint, whether through reason or, more likely, uncritical acceptance of some framework. It’s the right viewpoint. We assume others must also share our viewpoint. The truth is obvious to us. So disagreement is often treated as lies. The one who disagrees knows the truth, but chooses to say otherwise. They’re nefarious, despicable, and disrespectful for their duplicity in the face of an obvious truth.
But here’s the thing: people genuinely hold beliefs different than you. What you see as “faulty, intentionally dishonest foundations” can only be true if you are of the mind of Pizzamane and can definitively say he believes in something else entirely. You must have the mind of Pizzamane. Unless you’re really a psychic, you cannot do that. He may actually believe the foundations of his beliefs and you’ve been wrong this whole time. You can’t know that’s true either.
So what to do?
As hard as it might be, you have no choice but to except Pizzamane and other liberals and leftists at face value. You can consider our beliefs as garbage all you want. But leftists have every right to participate in this community, just as you do. And, I assure you, we often consider your beliefs garbage. When we disagree, then we should argue about the arguments, the statements and conclusions.
In short, he, or anyone else for that matter, will not be banned by me as long as they bring arguments. (…and don’t tell people to fuck off…😠)
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person wereof the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.—John Stuart Mill
Do you think the solution to mis-/dis-information is censorship or otherwise attempting to marginalize what you believe are “garbage and lies”?
Yes. When people continuously are shown to be bad actors uninterested in the actual facts, yes, it’s good for the health of a community built around discussion to remove such a person since all letting them stay does is place an extra burden on everyone else to continuously correct the lies such that they don’t propagate to unknowing people.
When people continuously are shown to be bad actors uninterested in the actual facts, yes, it’s good for the health of a community built around discussion to remove such a person
Funny how this standard applies to me, but not the conservatives around here who are throwing insults around (one of whom is a mod).
I believe there is a term for it, a double standard.
I’d like for this community to have high quality discussions. But it never will so long as the rules aren’t enforced on conservatives and leftists alike.
Funny how this standard applies to me, but not the conservatives around here who are throwing insults around (one of whom is a mod).
Calling an anti-intellectual troll on their bad behavior is not equivalent to being an anti-intellectual troll. I’d also like high quality discussions, but unfortunately you’re still here
Thats fair, and thats exactly why I let you make the decision.
Mate, here’s a great example of you intentionally pissing everyone off.
… by simply existing evidently.
But you’re still managed to piss everyone off, while maintaining a thin facade of civility.
If bringing up straight facts is enough to piss people off, then you guys are the problem, not me or the facts.
you aren’t here to discuss or anything
Then why the fuck would I be putting in the tiniest bit of effort? Trolls don’t put effort in.
You made a false assumption, and went all in on sources that depend on that assumption.
-
What are you even talking about?
-
Are you going to address what I said?
You know what, no, I’m not. I’m going to turn off my computer, and go drink a couple more beers and do literally anything but get on lemmy tonight.
-
We have gun control. That is why the question the article asks is what law could have changed stopped it.
We are not without gun laws here. We have a lot of laws in this
We have gun control.
Some states have a small amount. The rest basically have none. And even the states that do have gun control pail in comparison to Geramn gun control as Peepin pointed out.
And you’re ignoring the fact that any given gun law is only as strong as the weakest gun law nationwide. Anybody can go traveling to another state where the gun laws are lax and get a gun.
The gun control in this country is laughably weak as a result. Couple that with having the most guns per capita of any country out there, it’s a recipe for having a shooting basically every god damned day.
The rest basically have none
The rest basically have non
As I broke down, the requirements to own a gun in Germany and in America are very similar at the federal level. The weapons used in the shooting in Kansas CIty could have been purchased in Germany.
As I broke down, the requirements to own a gun in Germany and in America are very similar at the federal level.
That is objectively false.
Country Good reason required? Personal protection Long guns Handguns Semi automatic Fully automatic Open carry Concealed carry Mag cap limits Free of registration Max penalty (years) United States No Yes Permitless in most states – 4 states: Shall-issue permit – 17 states: Background check for all sales Permitless in most states Permitless in most states - 8 states: Shall-issue permit - 23 states: Background check for all sales Permitless in most states Restrictions in some states Pre-1986 only Permitless: 32 states - Shall issue: 12 states - May issue: 1 state - Anomalous: 1 state – Illegal: 4 states Permitless or shall-issue in all states Varies internally [Varies internally](Federal: 10 years, State: Varies) Germany Yes – sport shooting, hunting, collecting Proof of threat to life required – rarely granted Yes – shall issue Yes – shall issue Yes – shall issue No Proof of threat to life required – Near no issue in practice Proof of threat to life required – Near no issue in practice 20 (SACFP) No 10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
And that’s before you get into all the other restrictions that germany has on a national level. To pick out a few:
-
Gun license required for pretty much everything that isn’t a musket
-
A license requires you to be over 18, be trustworthy, capable of owning a gun, have expert knowledge, and have a necessity for a gun
-
Ban on convicted felons, those with addictions or metal disorders from owning guns
-
Any weapon defined as a weapon of war is banned
Gun control in the U.S. is nowhere near the level of gun control in Germany. A requirement for a license to own a gun in the U.S. would get shut down by the 2nd amendment so fucking hard not even the NSA would know the attempt was made.
Did you read the article I posted? Gun licensing is the equivalent of our process to purchase a firearm. And your article is wrong. Fully automatic systems are regulated in the United States at the federal level. Why you shouldn’t rely on Wikipedia for a topic you don’t understand. You see differences that really are not there. Necessity is easy to get past, you hunt, sport shoot, etc
Still, how would any of these changed the Kansas City shooting? You keep trying to dodge the question of the article.
Fully automatic systems are regulated in the United States at the federal level.
I understand how federalism works, evidently that skill escapes you.
You can legally own a fully automatic gun in the U.S., unlike Germany. Even your cherypicked point is wrong.
Still, how would any of these changed the Kansas City shooting?
I’ve already answered this, and the answer went sailing over your head.
Then clarify as I don’t see how how any of this would have stopped the shooting.
Your chart was wrong and I called it out. Are you intentionally posting false information since you knew it was wrong ?
You realize gun control really started during Nazi germany to keep the Jews from defend themselves. After the war it was the allies who stripped away most the gun rights to keep the population from attacking the allies.
-
“He was shot with a legal gun ma’am, there’s nothing we can do.”
The gun wasn’t legal.
Our laws WEREN’T GOOD ENOUGH you say?
Pizzaman’s point is that American gun control is not equivalent to German gun control, though. His argument is in the details.
From the article he linked:
German gun laws restricts the acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon.
They also ban fully automatic guns and severely restrict the acquisition of other types of weapons.
Compulsory liability insurance is required for anyone who is licensed to carry firearms.
In other words, yeah, we have gun control laws, but as long as the Supreme Court continues to (foolishly) recognize an individual right to firearms with no relation to a militia, an interpretation that’s only a little over a decade old, then yeah, no version of American gun control laws are ever going to be effective.
They also ban fully automatic guns and severely restrict the acquisition of other types of weapons.
Fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted here. Can you think of one ever being used in a crime? I can’t.
Compulsory liability insurance is required for anyone who is licensed to carry firearms.
Do you think that would change anything? Do you think the criminals would say, Oh Crap! I can’t afford the liability insurance. Do you think that would have stopped the Kansas City shooting?
German gun laws restricts the acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon.
That wouldn’t have stopped the Kansas City shooting either. They didn’t legally own the firearms.
Fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted here. Can you think of one ever being used in a crime? I can’t.
If anything, you’ve pointed out that gun control works.
There have been a few instances, but as far as I know, they were not legal weapons. The LA Bank shooting is an example. That is the only one I can think of.
You almost understood.
You make a strong case for the abolishment of all guns.
That wouldn’t have stopped the Kansas City shooting either. They didn’t legally own the firearms.
It matters how they acquired the firearm. Do we know how that came to be?
I’ve only seen articles identify them as stolen
Stolen from who though?
Stolen from police officers? Because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would not have stopped the Kansas City shooting. Police officers have a need for a weapon.
Stolen from John Smith, some random dude with no need to have a gun? Then, because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would have stopped the Kansas City shooting. The gun(s) wouldn’t have been available to steal in the first place.
https://germanyexpat.de/gun-laws-in-germany/
I do not see a credible need other than for a concealed weapon. Otherwise, it appears fairly open to buying a firearm. The requirements are similar to ours, Age, criminal record, mental health, no drug abuse, background check with only the addition of proof of competency.
The convey to Texas was 100% not a “well trained militia.” The fact we let roaming groups of gangsters parole our southern border uncontested is unforgivable.
What “expanded” or “universal” background check applies to stolen handguns? Maybe, maybe, you could find something that would have prevented Miller, who is 18, from possessing a gun, but it was Mays, with his stolen firearm, who began shooting first. So, where are we now?
Well I’m not really a gun control guy in the normal sense but this seems like a deliberately obtuse question. By obtuse I mean stupid. If there were less guns laying around everwhichywhere then there’d be less guns for the stealing. That doesn’t seem so hard to grasp, but apparently some are mystified.
It seems the argument here is that crime and violence cannot be legislated out of existence. This is like saying (and I’m not sure if this is a strawman,): All desease can’t be cured, therefore doctors are useless!" What I mean to say is that it’s a stupid all-or-nothing argument. There’s no possibility of reducing death and violence, there’s no room for compromise. But that’s American politics these days, don’t compromise on nothing, never.
I am probably in the minority, but I don’t think the issue should be framed as either/ or.
Not sure where you came to that conclusion. After a shooting the left always screams we need more laws.
As such, the question is what law would have stopped this? It’s logical step from we need more to which laws are you suggesting.
Not sure where you came to that conclusion. After a shooting the left always screams we need more laws.
I come to that conclusion because after a shooting the right always insists there’s nothing wrong here, everything is as it should be.
That isn’t what the author states. The author is asking what laws would have stopped this? Since the left always wants more laws, what law would have helped ?
I think it’s inaccurate to say the left always wants more laws.
I wonder. Can we imagine any kind of legislation that does not conflict with the second amendment but reduces tragic senseless loss of life in America?
Well Joe Biden helped pass a law in the 90’s that seemed to work…. But the left is against more cops, funding the police and strong punishment. We know the assault rifle ban was a bust. Studies have shown in did nothing.
All joking aside. Have you read freakanomics? They say the decline was roe vs wade. It’s one reason I support abortion rights.
Let’s ask a similar question: what measures to oppose illegitimate voting would have stopped Trump from being elected in 2016?
Wait a second though, wouldn’t denying the right to vote to a wide swatch of people be unconstitutional? Sure, if you want to prevent certain terrible people from being elected and the only tool you’re trying to use is regulating voting, then you’re going to have to prevent people with certain ideological views from voting. But wouldn’t that go against the core principles of the US constitution…?
So what would have worked, if you don’t want to touch voting rights, or eliminate civil rights regarding speech and press?
That’s a bit harder, isn’t it?
So, let’s try this again: if you want to prevent gun violence, what would work that doesn’t infringe on constitutionally guaranteed civil rights?
(And a note here: I did not and will not vote for Trump, any MAGA supporter, any christian nationalist, or any politician that supports gov’t censorship of any kind for any reason. I’m deeply disappointed that, whatever other social and economic disagreements I have with traditional conservatives, we can’t even agree that civil rights should be absolute.)
My first impulse was to answer “education,” but people are willful. So probably not even that.
Interestingly, education does a pretty good job of reducing violence.
Yes, but what about the willfulness part? How to account for the outpouring of opposition to education for things like evolution, critical race theory, sex education, 1619 project, etc.?
Up in Canada, people were manipulated into blocking the streets in protest of SOGI 123, which isn’t even a curriculum, just resources to help create safer school environments. The recent event in Oklahoma resulting in a 16 year old’s death shows such resources are necessary, but someone is funding efforts to put a stop to them.
So yeah, education does a pretty good job of reducing violence, but what’s the solution when education itself is under attack?
1619 has serious errors in it. Teaching people lies isn’t education.
Education is teaching people facts and how to think.
People need to be willing to support their schools
Well that’s what you have been told, and here you are repeating it. As with evolution, sex education and the other examples, someone benefits from the mischaracterization and opposition to information being presented. They come up with ridiculous sounding bullshit and rely on others to repeat that bullshit. I can’t speak directly to the 1619 project, I don’t know much about it. I only know that some of the people in my social circles that got all worked up about it are people I consider dumber than ditch water.
We are talking about education as a means of reducing or preventing gun violence - the topic you started. It’s my contention that as soon as you introduce an educational program aimed at reducing gun violence, someone is going to come along and say something like: “these dang freedom-hating libruls claim law-abiding responsible hunters are a bunch of violent psycho murders! They’re only tryin to put food on the table for their families. We must stop these communists fixin to take away our guns!”
It’s not what I’ve been told. It’s full of misinformation.
Woosh. You missed the whole point of his statement. It isn’t education on gun violence. It’s education in general. Education reduces violence.
You want to teach god knows what when the studies are about education.
Was that the whole point? Ha, woosh indeed.
All the government needs to do is make murder illegal and then nobody will plan to hurt anyone and people will be nice to each other.
Mark my words, once homicide is made illegal, nobody would dare violate what the law says they are not allowed to do.
I think you are on to something or how about make illegal guns a crime?
