this post was submitted on 03 May 2024

889 points (98.8% liked)

News

23367 readers

2881 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

889

Teen pizza delivery driver shot at multiple times after parking in the wrong driveway (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

381 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Interview with the victim.

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/it-is-attempted-murder-in-my-opinion-young-pizza-delivery-driver-shot-at-7-times-after-driveway-mix-up

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The point is there is no way to distinguish the two until they try to kill someone or kill someone. (And seemingly every effort to make it possible to distinguish the two ahead of time - well, you know how those go.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Right, you can't know what's in the can until you open it. Unfortunately there isn't really a way to distinguish it ahead of time in many cases.

Sure, there are cases like Parkland, in which Broward Co had received over 40 calls about Cruz in the years before the shooting and each time decided not to charge him with a felony or hold him on an adjucated IVC, both of which could have been done but weren't. Same for that recent kid who's parents got charged, he had been begging for help, there are times which we could've done something even with our current laws and the system failed. In those cases there was a clear indication of the "can's contents" so to speak. There is clear evidence to speak that they are a danger, and we can already do something about that, even if sometimes we fail to do so (and I blame in part, in the above cases, Broward Co Sherrifs and the kid's parents respectively for their failure to act on the information they had).

But that isn't what they're advocating for. They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because "some people are." That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system, which considers (at least ostensibly) people innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system

And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police. That's tangential, but I couldn't not mention it in response to this comment.

I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.

You know what would shut me the hell up on gun control? These simple measures, which would be treated by the right like I'm calling for a total ban on guns.

To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun operator.
To be licensed as a gun operator, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.
To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.
Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them "red" flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern. Edit - such "flags" could in some cases be resolvable.
To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I'm thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)

Caveats:

If you are licensed, you get concealed and open carry privileges in every location where this doesn't violate applicable local/state laws.
If your license lapses, it's a felony to leave your home with your guns.
- Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.
- And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don't really matter at that point, right?

Would my plan solve every problem? No. Would it be a better solution to school shootings and other related issues than "let's arm teachers and everyone else Wyatt Earp style?" Yes, yes it would. And, like any such measure, it could be further refined over time.

Edit - I made a distinction between owner and operator, I think this makes it better. shrug

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police.

And yet we continuously decry this as "bad." It's wrong when they do it yet you encourage it more. Guess you're one of those "thin blue line" guys who thinks it's good if you want to do it too, eh?

To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun owner.

2a prevents this, it would have to be overturned to pass. Licensure is seen as turning a right into a privilege by the courts. Personally I don't like it because of how easily it could be abused to deny "the dangerous blacks" or "those suicidal trans" from gun ownership by an "instructor" so inclined.

To be licensed as a gun owner, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.

See above. Though I did want to mention accidents are on the low end of our actual problem in terms of numbers. I think gun safety is important too but this does nothing to stop murderers and the like.

To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.

The license thing being blocked by the 2a still throws a wrench in your plan, but these are the guys who can decide "I won't approve guns for blacks" that I was referring to. Currently, these people are sheriffs doing it with carry permits, because that's the extent of their power, but it is being done as black people are iirc 60-70% of permit denials in some areas. Furthermore some guy deciding I'm "weird" is no basis for denying me rights. Even if it isn't due to skin color, I'm certainly not christian, what if I happen to wear my Anti-Christ Demoncore (great band) shirt and the instructor decides that's a "red flag" simply because he doesn't understand Vegan Satanists from California aren't actually all that bad just because they use scary imagry? Hell, "those columbine kids loved metallica, any metalhead shouldn't own a gun" is a thing I've actually heard before. Having the basis for denial of rights being anything other than "is criminal" opens denial of rights up far too wide.

Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them "red" flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern.

Sheriffs currently can do this to some degree with those permits, it's just that those "red flags" are often "is black."

To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I'm thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)

Frankly safety doesn't change much over time, the guns themselves haven't even changed all that much in the last 100yr.

If unlicensed, it's a felony to leave your home with your guns.

But they can have them unlicensed at home even though they can't legally own them at all without a license? A) How would they get it home from the store? B) From the home to the range?

Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.

So if you carry it illegally out and don't get attacked and don't shoot anyone but get searched by an overzealous likely racist cop you're fucked, but if you do get attacked and kill a guy it's cool that you were carrying illegally? Why not just not harass the guy for not getting attacked?

And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don't really matter at that point, right?

Well sure lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?

LOL you are either being intentionally obtuse, or otherwise reaching so far, I don't really see the point in trying to tease any further nuance out of this discussion.

I do find it genuinely amusing that my sideswipe at police was interpreted as a pro-police statement - but clearly we're having two different conversations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

You're the one who says we should do a thing, I say that thing is bad, you say "well cops do the thing," how can I take that other than tacit admission you think the cops doing the thing you think is good, is good?

I'm sure in reality you simply have a rationalization for why you think it both is bad but also should be done more, but I had to have a little fun.