1099
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
1099 points (99.4% liked)
News
35724 readers
2793 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So when you all gonna use all those guns you buy to defend yourself
The people opposed to ICE aren't the ones that buy the guns.
I don't think that's correct. Plenty of us on the left have firearms, we just don't make it our entire personality.
This is old, but it does support my original sentiment. No, not all gun owners are conservatives, but the vast majority are.
I'd very much like to see a similar study done more currently, but I can't turn one up from my halfhearted looking around.
That only measures people that record it. You don't need any paperwork, other than a written receipt that you keep, submitted to the government in a lot of states if you buy from a person and not a store.
It's a survey, by definition it only counts people that record the information in question. That's the fundemental premise to the entire field of statistics.
(fwiw, nobody is allowed to do any science on even the submitted records, because this country is broken. Hence why finding current info is difficult)
That has been changing. We’re not buying them as fast but we’re buying them.
Do you have a source for that? I've been digging around some looking for information but other than the national exit polls (which removed the question more than a decade ago I guess?) I can't find any credible studies on it. It would be reassuring (well, kind of...) were you right, but anecdotal evidence and all that
I don’t have a source, just personal experience. We’ve started a shooting club for fun. When we started it in 2019 it was 5 of us like minded folks. We now have many members, club purchased land with ranges, and 3 of the members opened their own gun store.
I mean, that sounds awesome! Wish there was something like it in my area. It's an inherent sampling bias to reference a liberal gun club for gun ownership rates among liberals, but that's really cool you guys are getting so much community engagement!
That’s a shame
You are wholefully incorrect. There is a lot of people on both sides that own guns. America has more guns then it has people. Sooooo no.
America also has more cows than it has people, and lego is the largest tire manufacturer in the world. While true that some liberals also own guns, for example I am a liberal and I own a gun, I'm not sure how it's relevant beyond that (admittedly) situationally self-evident truth. Gun culture is centered around, and the vast majority of firearms are owned by, conservatives.
Ok dude some bright examples there you got.
💩🤡
Ayyyy welcome to Lemmy!
In case that dude/person’s opinions suck we’re generally a lil nicer than reddit which is great for all of us
To be fair, it did bring me laughter on an otherwise very depressing day. So I'm grateful to them for that at least.
Wait, did those examples seem irrelevant to you?
What a cop out. Every citizen has the same access. For years you have had very good reason to arm and train yourselves. Your country is where it is because you all refuse to fight for it. Rather blame everything you can.
sad California noises
While California does have a lot more regulation around guns, I don’t think it’s necessary prohibitive. As much as the right claims it is.
We’ve got a written test, takes all of 20 minutes, not difficult if you have common sense and all the questions are online.
Then you have to demonstrate to the salesman that you can safely operate the firearm (load and unload). I’d hope someone purchasing a firearm would be capable of this.
Finally there’s the 10 day cooldown period. So you can’t walk out same day with the gun. I do think this one is kinda annoying. It totally makes sense for your first gun, but why do I have to wait every time?
The rest just comes down to model and configuration availability. Restricted to the handgun roster, but there’s still a decent amount available. Restricted to 10 round magazines, I don’t like this one either. And generally restricted to featureless shotguns and rifles.
But if you wanted to, you could go today and start the purchase of a featureless AR15-style rifle with a detachable 10 round magazine. And you’d pick it up 10 days from now. So I don't think it’s extremely prohibitive.
That's the state level laws, but many local jurisdictions are much more restrictive.
I’m not aware of any significant local laws in CA. Other than the SF law outlawing sales.
Which one are you referring to?
The SF law (that's where I live), various "may issue" concealed carry permit policies, extra taxes, local ordinances banning renters from having firearms in the home or in their car, it's just a litany of small encroachments that add up to great difficulty.
As far as CCW policy, it’s my understand that cities are very aligned with the state DOJ. I’ve looked at a few policies in the past across cities, and they’re basically cookie-cutter.
As far as issuing, yea, it’s up to your local sherif.
I wasn’t aware of local-specific excise taxes for firearms. The state does have that 11% one though.
Very curious about that renter ban, haven’t heard of that one.
Not trying to be argumentative, just enjoy the nuances of CA gun laws lol
And I agree, on your sentiment. I don’t have any issues with firearm regulation, I just want it applied with common sense. The state of CA’s gun laws feel like they’re a shitty compromise. The guns right’s group fight against the “ban all guns” group, and what’s left is this. Both sides are uncompromising and take little wins here and there. But the environment it creates is weird, and doesn’t flow well. And definitely doesn’t do any favors for law abiding owners.
The official renter ban is a bit of a loophole - a lot of Bay Area counties are taking over old federal properties (Navy and Coast Guard bases, former superfund sites, etc) and turning them into housing. Federal laws prevented having firearms in these places (for obvious reasons, can't bring a gun to a navy base lol). During the "transition" period where the housing is partially built but not completed, there's typically a joint ownership with the gun rules carried over from when it was purely federal property. The municipality could get these rules removed, but they really don't want to. It's a benefit to them.
But more typically, you'll see every large landlord in the area ban firearms as a part of the lease agreement, with the tacit encouragement of local governments. So it's not law, but you still can't really have one.
Edit: plus the ban on all these places: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-02/judges-let-new-california-law-barring-guns-in-many-places-take-effect-challenge-ongoing
It's illegal to have any firearm (even with a concealed carry license) in almost any public setting.
Interesting, hadn’t heard about the situation in SF. That’s unfortunate.
And yes… good old SB2. CA had a relatively lax CCW policy, until we became a “shall issue” state. Now there’s all this policy reform.
If the final part of SB2 kicks in, it’ll be pointless to have a CCW. The last part changes private property that’s open to the public from a default permitted carry, to a default not permitted.
So any business that wants to allow lawful CCW would need to clearly place a sign to opt-in. Which isn’t happening in this state lol.
Fortunately that last part is still being “stayed”. But so was the entire bill at one point. So I’m not holding my breath.
I totally acknowledge that we need gun control, but not restrictions. And going after CCW holders? Literally the owners with the highest level of training? Most compliant with the law? Bananas.
But anyway, I see where you’re originally coming from. It is kinda death by a thousand cuts. Slowly eroding away at gun rights. In the worst way… Criminals could care less about what’s legal, hence criminal.
Mmmhm.