Anon breaks up
-
"She's probably right." "Dude was probably violent." "Easier to give up your guns than fight this in court" "Just give up your guns!"
Lmao wowww lemmy. Nobody here likes due process?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Dunno, someone having guns to shoot normal people is a big red flag to me.
-
You don't need to be in line of sight, your family needs to be. Are you still going to risk it if you know that the government will throw your family into a concentration camp in response?
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they've already proven that they don't.
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they've already proven that they don't.
Even more reason to not roll over and let them win.
-
This is so American. Just give up the damn guns!
That is a very controversial take for Americans, and not just from a gun-toter's perspective. The US has a long history of gun violence, yes, but the US also has a long history of state corruption which only ended by guns driving that corruption back.
In 1946, Veterans in the town of Athens used their firearms to fight against a corrupt police department helping the standing state rig the elections.
In 1921 The Battle of Blair Mountain occurred, where West Virginia miners who'd been stuck in the exploitive company town employment model, battled along the ridges of Blair Mountain against Police. In the company towns you could be fired from your job and evicted from your home without trial - since the mining company owned the houses and only let employees use them - and being in a Union was a fireable offense. This was the largest labor uprising in US history, mine workers fighting deputy sheriffs and strike breakers, with the police actually using biplanes to drop bombs overtop the heads of the miners. This was apart of the Coal Wars of the US, and apart of the broader Labor Wars in the US, which eventually led to the pro-labor regulations we now have in place within the US (which are now being dismantled despite a massive rise in peaceful protests).
In 1968, the Holy Week Uprising occurred in response to Rev. Martin Luther King Junior's assassination, and fueled by the massive inequality that the black community still faced.
All of these were cases of a overhead government, whether state, town, or federal, failing to provide for it citizens, and those citizens helping change that governments' behaviour through violent armed uprising. It is a regular occurrence in American history for us to have corrupt officials who start setting inhumane policies, and it's also been a regular occurrence for that corruption to need violent intervention in order for changes for the better to occur.
-
If you look at the numbers in your own post these laws are used very rarely, and in every state a fraction of petitions applied for are granted.
There needs to be actual evidence greater than "ex girlfriend said so" for a court to grant the request.
Ironically by the numbers Florida seems to be the state most likely to use the law. Granting a total of 2,355 in 2020. California on the other hand has issued only 984. These are the 3rd and 1st most populous states respectively.
Given how many people go through breakups each year and how many people are insanely petty, seems like it's not just based on a disgruntled ex's word.
Florida seems to be the state most likely to use the law.
I wonder if the stat is skewed by the fact that Florida has the largest population of Florida Men.
-
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It's origin lies in emotion, not reason. It's filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
Pro life and pro gun control are both anti-killing positions about preserving human life.
-
Dunno, someone having guns to shoot normal people is a big red flag to me.
"Ah yes, someone is trying to break into my house, let's go down to the shop and buy a gun"
-
Hmm whom to believe, MLK or some random lemming?
wrote last edited by [email protected]It seems MLK was exhausted by how ineffective peaceful protest throughout his campaigning, and communicated his doubts of whether peaceful means would actually work in his letter from Birmingham Jail. He stuck with peaceful means till he was assassinated, which is commendable.
After King's death, the violent Holy Week Uprising occurred in response. At the end of that week, the Civil Rights Act had been passed. It sure seems like the Holy Week Uprising got some of what it wanted much faster than King's years of peaceful protest. What King absolutely brought about, though, was a strong alignment for members of the Civil rights movement, which made the Uprising possible in the first place.
The civil rights movement was full of varied factions both violent and nonviolent, all contributing to it's eventual partial success. We should not act as though MLK was the sole martyr of it all, though he played an important role. I'd argue that the US government props him up as a savior to try preventing anyone from thinking about violent means of resistance as a viable option. Same with Gandhi, same with Nelson Mandela.
-
I mean you can buy a gun for 200 USD at Walmart. Lawyers cost 200 USD per hour.
Do you really believe that "all my guns, bullets and reloading material" is cheaper than a lawyer for a hearing like this? In my mind that phrase represents thousands of dollars worth of gun stuff, and a lawyer who can represent you in a TRO hearing might be about $500-1500 ($200/hour, maybe 2-8 hours of work for that first hearing).
-
"Ah yes, someone is trying to break into my house, let's go down to the shop and buy a gun"
wrote last edited by [email protected]If you think before posting, ask yourself: is it normal to break into people's homes?
And even then, here we don't worry about criminals with guns that much. The USA is idiotic in that regard, with its pervasive gun culture, resulting in weekly mass shootings.
-
Pro life and pro gun control are both anti-killing positions about preserving human life.
Not true, "pro-life" is actually "anti-woman's life". Those people would rather have an adult person die from an ectopic pregnancy than have a clump of cancer removed.
-
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It's origin lies in emotion, not reason. It's filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
Gun suicides are a huge problem, so there is a legitimate need for interventions in the appropriate circumstances. Suicidal ideation is also usually an impulsive or fleeting idea, so removing the means of suicide only temporarily can be a solution to that temporary problem.
The Swiss saw suicide rates drop with reduced access to firearms in shrinking their military, and the Israeli military has seen weekend suicide rates drop by simply having troops check in their weapons into armories over weekends, without a corresponding change in weekday suicides.
Anti-suicide nets on bridges work very well, too, because simply making a suicide more inconvenient, or require a bit more planning, is often enough to just make it so that the suicide attempt never happens.
So yeah. I'm generally against restrictions on firearm ownership or access for people who can be responsible with them, but I'm 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence. And, like, convicted criminals, too.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
Despite being blatantly unconstitutional (deprives a citizen of rights based on an accusation without trial) red flag laws exist in 21 states.
In this particular thread, 4chan is a better source of information than Lemmy.
The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it's narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it's not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn't done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
-
It's very amusing to read such things from outside the American hellscape. Well, "amusing."
Let's say eventually there comes a government overreach that a popular armed uprising puts down. Every day until that day, children die. Accidental death from firearms is one of the leading causes of death of children in your country. (Do you feel that pricking sensation in your neck and face or are you immune to shame?) If the rebellion doesn't come soon enough (or at all) then you are underwater in terms of dead children. So, how long is that runway? How long do you get to keep killing children until you have to admit, fuck, this is costing us more than it's worth?
HAVE YOU EVEN DONE THE MATH, or are you just working from feelings?
It's a good argument, but it's entirely flawed because American policy is that the children have no worth until they pay taxes.
-
You're spot on. I lean HARD left myself and still I'm actively advocating all my friends go out and purchase a firearm while they can. Not for some far fetched rebellion against tyranny, but simply to protect themselves from getting hate-crimed by the scum who will inevitably feel they've been given permission to do so by this regime. Furthermore if they do start deporting citizens for undesirable political behavior, I know I'd rather be six feet under than in CECOT or South Sudan.
Exactly. I'm fully capable of both owning a gun and advocating for gun control at the same time... People act like you're a traitor to the cause.
-
well even if this is the whole truth it would be a testament to his character that his girlfriend would cheat on him and then lie to the police just so he gets in trouble
C'mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but "if people treat him badly, he must deserve it" is hardly fair.
-
Do you really believe that "all my guns, bullets and reloading material" is cheaper than a lawyer for a hearing like this? In my mind that phrase represents thousands of dollars worth of gun stuff, and a lawyer who can represent you in a TRO hearing might be about $500-1500 ($200/hour, maybe 2-8 hours of work for that first hearing).
I mean they already own the guns. They can’t even sell them to hire a lawyer because they were taken.
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you.
️ -
It seems MLK was exhausted by how ineffective peaceful protest throughout his campaigning, and communicated his doubts of whether peaceful means would actually work in his letter from Birmingham Jail. He stuck with peaceful means till he was assassinated, which is commendable.
After King's death, the violent Holy Week Uprising occurred in response. At the end of that week, the Civil Rights Act had been passed. It sure seems like the Holy Week Uprising got some of what it wanted much faster than King's years of peaceful protest. What King absolutely brought about, though, was a strong alignment for members of the Civil rights movement, which made the Uprising possible in the first place.
The civil rights movement was full of varied factions both violent and nonviolent, all contributing to it's eventual partial success. We should not act as though MLK was the sole martyr of it all, though he played an important role. I'd argue that the US government props him up as a savior to try preventing anyone from thinking about violent means of resistance as a viable option. Same with Gandhi, same with Nelson Mandela.
the US government props him up as a savior to try preventing anyone from thinking about violent means of resistance as a viable option. Same with Gandhi,
Go ahead and tell me more about my country.
-
Gun suicides are a huge problem, so there is a legitimate need for interventions in the appropriate circumstances. Suicidal ideation is also usually an impulsive or fleeting idea, so removing the means of suicide only temporarily can be a solution to that temporary problem.
The Swiss saw suicide rates drop with reduced access to firearms in shrinking their military, and the Israeli military has seen weekend suicide rates drop by simply having troops check in their weapons into armories over weekends, without a corresponding change in weekday suicides.
Anti-suicide nets on bridges work very well, too, because simply making a suicide more inconvenient, or require a bit more planning, is often enough to just make it so that the suicide attempt never happens.
So yeah. I'm generally against restrictions on firearm ownership or access for people who can be responsible with them, but I'm 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence. And, like, convicted criminals, too.
but I'm 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this. When the police recieve a report, they end up seizing the guns without any due process, and the owners has to sue to get them back.
-
Uh, there is reason in not wanting people to be shot by a culture of fear.
Look up overall crime statistics for both countries that restrict firearm access and those who don't. You'll find that overall violent crime ends up being proportional to the countries' midi coefficient (a measurement of economic inequality). Firearm availability mainly changes the proportion of violent crimes involving firearms vs overall violent crime.
Like I said, most of the statistics you see are cherry-picked to give an overly simplistic view of crime to distract from the fact that economic inequality is a huge correlating factor
-
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It's origin lies in emotion, not reason. It's filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The problem is that the system is open to abuse. Anyone who wants to get back at someone can make up allegations and have their guns taken away with no due process.
But on the other hand if you make this process too difficult you can allow someone who is actually dangerous to keep their guns.
