TL;DR; it’s likely a result of guns

  • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s ridiculously easy to make a silencer

    Then why are you upset they’re banned? Just go and make one. I hear it’s ridiculously easy.

    Fortunately, nobody outside of the pro-gun community is stupid enough to repeal a law just because its easy to break. Do you think “making a suppressor” is easier or harder than driving while intoxicated? What about smothering a baby? Should we get rid of those laws too?

    Despite this, there have not yet been any uses of silencers in mass murders.

    Doesn’t matter. The pro-gun community gets to make laws based on imaginary boogymen so it’s only fair that gun control advocates can too.

    If you want to campaign for strictly evidence based gun laws, go right ahead, I’ll support you. You’re going to hate the results though.

    You can make a lightning link by bending a wire coat hanger that will make an AR-15 into a machine gun; the information is pretty freely available, and yet it’s not been used by mass-murderers yet.

    Yep, because mass murderers use whatever is most convient and thanks to people like you, that’s almost always a legally purchased, semi-automatic firearm.

    To be quite frank, the tools have not changed all that much since the late 1970s, but we didn’t see very many mass-murder prior to Coumbine.

    Then jump in your time machine and fuck off back to the 70s. The rest of us are stuck here in 2024 where mass murders are commonplace.

    No, that’s actually happened. It happened in New York City; the city made it nearly impossible to get a license to even own a firearm, and made it an annual fee of several hundred dollars for each firearm that you owned.

    Oh shit, you mean the problem was identified and solved without the pro-gun community shooting people?

    My license to own a firearm in Illinois was revoked because I was voluntarily held for observation at a hospital immediately after my–physically, mentally, and emotionally abusive–wife left me.

    Good. You were a suicide risk and removing firearms is literally the first thing you do as suicide prevention. It’s a super weird thing to get indignant about.

    If you have been convicted of any domestic violence crime, misdemeanor or felony, you are already legally, federally barred from owning a firearm

    Except for when they’re not. This also isn’t a policy that the pro-gun community supported, even though it still gave them ample time to execute their partners before they were convicted.

    I’m opposed to revoking rights of any kind without a criminal proceeding.

    How noble of you to sacrifice other people’s lives so that no gun owner is temporarily inconvenienced.

    Change the social conditions. Fix the problems that are leading to mass shootings in the first place.

    Off you go then. Better hurry, because there’s no way America will give you another 20 years of insisting you alone have the solution to a problem you still haven’t solved.

    We’ve done this dance before remember? All you’re doing is admitting that under the conditions we have right now, the gun laws you’re defending are not fit for purpose.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Just go and make one.

      Oh, you’re upset that pot is illegal? Just, like, grow your own, dude.

      The examples you cite are behaviours, things that cause direct harm to other people. The existence or ownership of a <> does not cause direct harm.

      You’re going to hate the results though.

      Not as such, no. Because we already know that the cause of violence isn’t the tool itself. The car does not cause the crash. (In most cases. In cases where a firearm does cause a death without the action of the owner, it’s a faulty design.) We know, for instance, that economic distress is a major root cause for a lot of violence, and that eliminating wealth inequality would likely result in enormous reductions in violence across the board.

      Then jump in your time machine and fuck off back to the 70s.

      Hear that ::whooshing:: noise? That’s the point, going right over your head, and apparently out of your reach. If the tools haven’t changed in 50 years, if the availability of the tools hasn’t changed in 50 years, then why has the nature of the violence? What’s changed in the culture that mass shootings have the appearance of being common?

      Oh shit, you mean the problem was identified and solved without the pro-gun community shooting people

      It didn’t solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s–which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply–and they’d had their gun ban for decades. Same with Chicago prior to Heller. All it did was prevent people that wanted to own firearms legally from doing so.

      Good. You were a suicide risk

      …And? I support individual bodily autonomy. That encompasses both abortion and suicide. Moreover, it meant that I had to give up two rifles that my grandfather had left to me, which were–and are–the only thing I have left from him.

      It’s so weird that people will say, “my body, my choice” when it’s abortion or marijuana, but not when it’s someone choosing to end their own life. Like, naw, fuck off, we’re not going to actually give you any help, but we’re going to make sure you can’t kill yourself.

      Except for when they’re not

      “…[T]hat the federal law prohibiting individuals from ‘possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order’ is unconstitutional.” Literally the first sentence, my dude. The guy in this case had not been convicted of a domestic violence offense. Which, if you review what I wrote, conforms to what I said. This particular guy had other reasons that he shouldn’t have been able to legally possess a firearm, so it’s all kind of moot anyways.

      How noble of you to sacrifice other people’s lives so that no gun owner is temporarily inconvenienced.

      How noble of you to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. Didn’t Ben Franklin have something to say about that…?

      Better hurry, because there’s no way America will give you another 20 years of insisting you alone have the solution to a problem you still haven’t solved.

      Yeah, neither Republicans nor Dems really want to address it, so, yeah, I guess there won’t be another 20 years, will there? Republicans oppose gun legislation, but insist that anything that addresses material conditions is communism, Dems insist that the guns need to be banned without doing anything to directly address the material conditions even in states and localities where they have supermajorities in all the branches of gov’t. (Think I’m not arguing in good faith? Look at Kathy Hochul’s veto record, particularly her response to why she opposed ending non-compete agreements, which is essentially a gift to large corporations.)

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh, you’re upset that pot is illegal? Just, like, grow your own, dude.

        I did.

        The examples you cite are behaviours, things that cause direct harm to other people. The existence or ownership of a <> does not cause direct harm.

        Yep, that’s the usual self-centered pro-gun bullshit. It doesn’t cause direct harm to you, so it’s fine. All the women it demonstrably endangers don’t count.

        The car does not cause the crash

        No shit. Thats why we ensure the people know how to competently and responsibly drive them as part of licensing, charging anyone who endangers others.

        Guns though? Sell them to any dumb fuck.

        We know, for instance, that economic distress is a major root cause for a lot of violence, and that eliminating wealth inequality would likely result in enormous reductions in violence across the board.

        Yep, I agree. But that isn’t the world we live in today, which is why I don’t give a fuck about how good your gun laws were in 1800 or how good they’ll be in 2100. They’re dogshit today.

        It didn’t solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s–which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply–and they’d had their gun ban for decades.

        It didn’t solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s–which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply–and they’d had their gun ban for decades.

        Cool story, doesn’t matter. Widespread gun ownership has had zero chilling effect on crime and has instead just armed more criminals.

        There is no magic gun fairy arming gangs, just your gun laws that are no better at identifying threats than your “responsible gun owners” executing children for ringing their doorbells or getting in the wrong car.

        …And? I support individual bodily autonomy. That encompasses both abortion and suicide. Moreover, it meant that I had to give up two rifles that my grandfather had left to me, which were–and are–the only thing I have left from him.

        I was being polite. You were also a murder-suicide risk and a mass shooting risk. You’re also not a hero for enabling other people to blow their brains out.

        When your grandfather left you those guns, did he say “I hope you kill yourself with these one day”?

        It’s so weird that people will say, “my body, my choice” when it’s abortion or marijuana, but not when it’s someone choosing to end their own life. Like, naw, fuck off, we’re not going to actually give you any help, but we’re going to make sure you can’t kill yourself

        Go fuck yourself. I have volunteered at multiple suicide prevention organisations and your opinions about suicide are those of a self absorbed cunt. Every minute you can keep a suicidal person alive dramatically increases their chances of getting the help they need and you’d rob them of that, even after you got that help.

        This particular guy had other reasons that he shouldn’t have been able to legally possess a firearm, so it’s all kind of moot anyways.

        Cool, I grabbed the wrong article by mistake and you openly supported a domestic abuser keeping his guns, even knowing he used them to murder his partner.

        How noble of you to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. Didn’t Ben Franklin have something to say about that…?

        Who has the false sense of security? You’re in measurably more danger than me right now, let alone people in other wealthy countries with gun control.

        which is essentially a gift to large corporations

        So no different that the gun laws then.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          It doesn’t cause direct harm to you, so it’s fine.

          A firearm by itself does not cause direct harm to anyone. A N Y O N E. It is the illegal use of a firearm that causes harm, in much the same way that illegal use of a hammer can cause harm.

          No shit. Thats why we ensure the people know how to competently and responsibly drive them as part of licensing,

          You’re focusing on one aspect of one thing, but the principal applies to a lot of things rather than just cars. For instance, a baseball bat doesn’t cause harm simply by existing. A hammer doesn’t cause harm just because it exists. You can kill people with a nailgun, but the nailgun doesn’t kill people without affirmative action being taken by the user.

          Widespread gun ownership has had zero chilling effect on crime.

          I never said that it did. I did say that widespread gun ownership doesn’t–by itself, or as a primary cause–create crime. Look at violent crime rates right now; they’re trending down across the board. There was a spike during/after the pandemic, but it’s dropped sharply again. And yet, before and during the pandemic, there were massive surges in gun sales. In fact, there are still intermittent shortages of ammunition (although gun sales have cooled off sharply, likely due to inflation pressures; I’m basing this off the few people I talk to that are in the gun manufacturing business). So you have a problem to contend with; if guns are causing crime, by simply existing, then why is it that crime rates are continuing to fall despite record numbers of guns being on the streets?

          I was being polite. You were also a murder-suicide risk and a mass shooting risk.

          Oh, very interesting that you can diagnose over the internet. Where did you get your PhD in psychology or sociology, or which medical school did you go to, and where did you do your residency in psychiatry?

          You’re also not a hero for enabling other people to blow their brains out.

          I just watched my mother-in-law commit suicide while in hospice by intentionally dehydrating herself. Even in a very frail condition, at 92 years old, it took her a week to die, and every time she woke up and found herself still alive was a new tragedy for her. She would have cried the last time she woke up if she had been able to form tears any more. She wanted to die because she was sick of the endless medical treatments, and because she knew that her mind was rapidly fading on her. So, with all sincerity, go fuck yourself for your moralistic stance on suicide. An anti-suicide stance forces people to suffer without offering any options. Anti-suicide hotlines are the same bullshit; you keep someone alive, with no care for whether or not their quality of life improves. You’re glorifying life at all costs, because of your feelings about other people staying alive, rather than thinking about how they feel, and how they want to be.

          I’m done with you.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            A firearm by itself does not cause direct harm to anyone. A N Y O N E. It is the illegal use of a firearm that causes harm, in much the same way that illegal use of a hammer can cause harm.

            Yes, every single person in the world is aware of that. Not a single one thinks there are guns just going out and doing mass shootings and murders by themselves. Do you even understand your own talking point?

            But put them in the hands of a dangerous psychopath and there’s few objects more dangerous – certainly not legal ones with such a low barrier to entry. Hammers and baseball bats don’t even come close.

            And boy, do you ever love putting them in the hands of dangerous psychopaths. Around 80% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Why is this acceptable to you? Why will you do nothing to lower that number, even slightly?

            I did say that widespread gun ownership doesn’t–by itself, or as a primary cause–create crime

            Doesn’t matter, still bullshit. Compare the crime rates of wealthy countries the world over and they’re all much the same. You know what stands out? America has a layer of gun violence on top. Just as many robberies, only sometimes the cashier gets shot and killed. Just as many assaults, but the only country with more than 1 mass shooting a year.

            Because guns, in the hands of fuckstains, absolutely do create crime. They give dangerous, impulsive and damaged people the opportunity to kill another person just as easily a they can unlock their phone.

            And try as you might to twist it into some idiotic “guns don’t kill people” strawman, only in the deepest depths of idiocy do you find people who genuinely think gun-control is about banning a harmless, inanimate object, rather than keeping that object out of the hands of scum.

            Why do you support selling guns to violent people? Why do you support reckless gun owners arming criminals by leaving their guns unsecured? Are you even able to pretend you don’t after 20 years of opposing every reform that tries?

            So you have a problem to contend with; if guns are causing crime, by simply existing

            Nope, I don’t. Crime rates are falling because of social reforms and access to services. You know, the things the pro-gun community have finally decided are the answer (since it wasn’t Marilyn Manson, Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Hiphop, gay people or the 5000 other times they were complete fucking liars).

            But even with that falling crime rate, oh look, this months mass murder, a problem no other country has. While we’ve been actually improving things, what has the pro-gun community done? Maximized the damage criminals can do by making semi-automatic weapons cheap, accessible and easy to steal.

            Is that weak shit genuinely all you’ve got to offer your country? “Look, if you ignore all the schoolchildren being shot in the face, our crime rate is falling at much the same rate as the rest of the world”.

            Oh, very interesting that you can diagnose over the internet. Where did you get your PhD in psychology or sociology, or which medical school did you go to, and where did you do your residency in psychiatry?

            Why? It’s not like you’re not already ignoring hundreds of people with those exact qualifications. It’s no great mystery why so many domestic abusers and mass murderers put a bullet through their skull before the cops arrive.

            I just watched my mother-in-law commit suicide while in hospice by intentionally dehydrating herself

            Sounds like bullshit to me. Medical staff aren’t exactly unfamiliar with patients who are terminal and ready to go and I’m skeptical they’d sit around and watch someone torture themselves to death without ever reaching for the saline.

            Why didn’t you give her one of your cool guns so they could have scraped her brains off the floor? Sounds to me like yet another case of a gun owner claiming that guns are the solution, then not using them to solve anything.

            An anti-suicide stance forces people to suffer without offering any options.

            Have you forgotten that there are ways to kill yourself without a gun? I’m pretty certain you’ve literally said “they’d just use another method” to me before.

            Anyway, that jab was pillow soft because I’ve been an advocate of right to die legislation for literally decades. You can do it without arming school shooters or forcing your family to clean up fragments of your skull.

            Anti-suicide hotlines are the same bullshit; you keep someone alive, with no care for whether or not their quality of life improves.

            The world over, only 1 in 10 people who attempt suicide will go on to die by suicide. If they use a gun, their chances of survival are functionally zero and they won’t even be cold before you sweep them under the rug claiming “suicide doesn’t count”.

            I’m done with you

            No you’re not. Every time you post your pro-gun bullshit, I’m going to be right there making sure everybody can see how slimy and self serving you are as you use tortured old ladies and suicide victims to attack someone who would have helped them, because they won’t use a gun to do it.