• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    82
    ·
    1 year ago

    450+ million guns, you’re not stopping gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime, by banning guns from lawful citizens. Dudes like this are already barred. Why don’t you ask, why out system let him out.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Says man from only country where this happens regularly.

      Plenty of other countries haven’t banned guns from lawful citizens and dont have this problem.

      • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, man from perfect country. How would you personally solve this problem of gun violence? Would you form a posse and roundup all of the crazed lunatics out there who would dare to try and protect their families with a firearm? Would you raid the houses of anyone who may or may not have owned a gun in the past and search under the floorboards?

        Seriously I want to know. How would you help all of these mentally ill people who seem to think that guns are toys, or just deeply want to harm other people?

        • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t need me to tell you that. You wouldn’t believe me anyway. There are plenty of professionals who have studied and acquired factual data of how other “perfect countries” do it and the differences. From the differences the solutions become very clear.

          It’s about restricting access, not banning. There’s no one size fits all solution because nothing is perfect so you pick your poison. Find a country where this doesn’t happen every day (so any developed country), look a the way they do things and pick the one you prefer to support - they all have upsides and downsides. What you have isn’t working though.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            Every country that has basically an effective ban, also has safety nets for the people, doesn’t have a gang problem like we do, and focuses on education and not locking everyone up. They also never had 450+ million firearms in civilian hands. So please share with the class how you think you could pull it off without having all those safety nets in place.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m fine with adding in the safety nets, they’ll do 100xs more than any regulation you put in place will do. I’m not ok giving over a monopoly on force to people like the current Republicans. Why any of you think that’s a good idea is just insane.

                • iegod@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Wtf are you going to do here, go out shooting them or some bullshit? You really think you have any chance against the feds regardless of what side you swing for? That sounds pretty crazy to me. So let’s get real and understand your guns are for recreation not safety against tyranny.

                  • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Friendly reminder that this guy mayoi is a troll. He’s baiting you. Or trying to. His bait has been pretty uninspired lately

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq all want a word with your complete lack of how wars are fought now.

                    Also your neighbor is a gun owner, so when they bomb his house your shit is getting pushed in as well.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How does regulating guns so this sort of thing doesn’t happen again give Republicans a monopoly on force?

                  You think the only way to even out the odds is to keep guns in the hands of dangerously mentally ill people? Really?

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Because the only way for shit like this to not happen in your world of gun regulation, requires a total ban.

                    And a total ban gives whoever is in charge of the government a monopoly on force.

                    People like you will call Republicans nazis and fascist…then want to remove any force multiplier from civs and then pray they don’t get elected. You’re naive at best and ignorant at worse.

            • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s an exaggeration. The US has a better safety net than a lot of countries with much less gun death and violence. Education could better for a rich country, but is not bad. I am all for locking fewer people up, but that’s not the reason there’s gun violence.

              This is always the argument against improving anything in the US. “We’re too special!” It’s just not true. Background checks, wait times, permit requirements, concealed carry restrictions, domestic violence restrictions, etc. These have all been empirically shown to reduce gun deaths in the US.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Maybe put those safety nets in place? Offer buy-backs on firearms, or a grace period to turn in unregistered firearms with no questions? Crack down on fraudulent “theft” and loss reports? Modernize the firearms database? Create incentives for law enforcement to execute red-flag laws? Require a higher level of training and responsibility to own a firearm?

              Literally doing the bare minimum and just effectively enforcing the laws on the books would make a huge improvement, but we can’t even do that because republicans like to whip up the base with the idea that their right to own an AR-15 is going to stop the liburl gubment from takin awah mah rites!

    • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This has been proven to be untrue by other countries who have done the same in the past.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it hasn’t, no one in the history of the world has had this many firearms in civilian hands. Even when Australia took the firearms, only 60% turned in their 1mil total firearms in civ hands.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Australia never had a firearm problem to begin with. This is pants on head stupid take. If you have 100 deaths from firearms a year and removing access to the already small amount in civ hands and gun deaths drop to 50… everyone now says firearms removed from people dropped by 50% when it was already so low it was a rounding error to begin with.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, we just had the largest massacre of private citizens by a single shooter in recorded history, (still hasn’t been beaten despite how often Americans try, they must really hate us being better than them at something involving guns), and numerous others before it, and none after it. But tell me again how you know nothing about Australia, it’s history, or gun control.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Uhh…no you didn’t, but ok.

                You also did not have high violence involving firearms prior to port author. They also were already trending down prior to the 97 ban and forced confiscation.

                https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi269

                Suicides, just like the USA, make up the majority of your firearm deaths. You’re homicides via firearms are a joke per year, our gangs alone do that in a month in a single city.

                But yes, I’m the one who knows nothing about Australia and it’s gun history…lol sounds like you need to study your own history before nosing into ours.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I might buy this argument if other countries also had the same problem. But the fact is that stricter gun laws do work, and the U.S. is very unique in having this issue thanks to our insistence on the 2nd ammendment being infallible.

    • dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s stupid. If it were illegal to carry guns around, far fewer crooks would carry guns. They’d be harder to get and they’d have to balance the risk of being caught with a gun.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol what??? It’s already illegal for criminals to carry. That’s why they do it, they’re criminals. We now have more states with CC than ever before, and we actually have lower crime now than we did back in the 70/80s when CC wasn’t allowed.

    • Bonehead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can also ask why there are so many guns freely floating around that someone like this was capable of obtaining one despite being barred.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe if someone is so dangerous that they are barred from owning a gun they belong in a cage…

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      How about we just get rid of “private sale” exceptions to background checks in states like Tennessee to slow the tide of guns flowing into the black market?

      • 8bitguy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Tennessee, one has to buy liquor from the government, but can buy a gun (including semi-auto rifles) from a random person in a parking lot. No questions asked.

        • ElleChaise@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I know a person who actually obtained a handgun this way. In a parking lot of a bar on Florida, from a seller who was in his lunch break as an electrician… I’ll let those details sink in for anyone safety oriented.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            O noooo, a bar parking lot…the humanity…did this someone you know go on to become a serial killer? Or do you still know them and they’re a normal person.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most firearms are semi-auto… what’s your point? You clearly don’t know much about firearms with a statement like that.

          You can do this in pretty much every state as well. Private sales are legal basically in the entire USA.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m so tired of this brain dead take. The amount of guns on the street and gang violence is directly related to how easy it is to aquire them.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime

      Source?

      The most recent stats I could find for gang-related deaths (gun or not) was 2012, when there were 2,363 reported out of a national total of 12,765 homicides.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        No I absolutely do know what I’m talking about, but the lot of you all don’t have a clue. You sit in your white privilege ivory towers and think only the police should have a monopoly on force…and at the same time wanting to defund them as well. You make no sense.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Marx has the answer. Change material conditions, so there is less crime, thus less need for prisons. But no one wants to read.