top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It seems that they never intended to enforce this to current gun owners because they knew they wouldn’t comply. It is more of a measure that they will enforce going forward on future generations of gun owners.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    At the very least, they should be slam dunks for crime enhancements. If they commit a crime, and the illegal firearm is found in their possession, that should tack on some hefty penalties.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    It's honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.

    I know, I know, Lemmy isn't a singular person. But it's rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action--apparently it's okay just because they are gun owners?

    I absolutely believe we'd be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you're advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Strong gun control requires a police state, and it's advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.

    Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It's a lot easier to break strikes and enforce "work discipline" when the working class is disarmed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And some aren't even strawmen...they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven't solved the problem...just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they're all terrified for their lives.

    Personally, I've yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.

    I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were "defending" was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn't want to pay for access like everyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.

    The Battle of Athens is probably the most uniquely clear-cut example of what you're asking for, unless we count the American Revolutionary War itself.

    Other successful examples mostly involve activists using non-violent protest to push for change, while using firearms to protect themselves from violent reactionaries that would otherwise murder them. Notably, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. For a modern example, there's various "John Brown Gun Clubs" and other community defense organizations providing security at LGBTQ events against fascist groups that seek to terrorize event-goers.

    It's also worth noting that resistance is often worthwhile even if it doesn't result in unqualified victory. For example, the Black Panthers' armed cop-watching activities saved a lot of Black folks from brutal beatings at the hands of the police, even if the organization was eventually crushed by the federal government.

    I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.

    It sounds like you might be in a bit of a filter-bubble. I don't mean any offense by this, it's a normal thing that tends to happen to people. If the news sources you read and the people you talk to don't mention these things because it doesn't mesh with their worldview, how would you hear about them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they're all terrified for their lives.

    Police brutality isn't a product of fear. They treat armed crowds with more respect than groups they assume to be unarmed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    While it's to true that we too often talk about groups of people like they're individuals, it's also true that very few people actually bother to have underlying principles for their opinions, much less stick to those principles when they get in the way of a short-term goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    So what are you gonna do? Send the cops to kill them? Because that's how it plays out.

    And then there's the apocryphal boating accident. Prove I still have the guns.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    If you jump straight to shooting when cops show up to take your toys, it's a pretty good bet you never should have had them in the first place.

    If you "lost" it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it's really gone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    We cool with police and government just barging into our homes and taking our property that we purchased legally with our own money now?

    EDIT: FWIW, I misunderstood the title. I thought it was banned guns, not people banned from having guns (due to felonies, etc.). This is a bit different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    License, insurance and registration (just like cars) for every gun. Massive fines with accruing interest lifetime liability for “lost” guns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    What about stolen guns?

    If you carve out an exception then everyone will just say they were stolen.

    And if you don't carve out an exception, you are now punishing people for a crime they didn't commit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Then you report it stolen as soon as you see that it's gone

    If it's used to commit a crime before you report it, there should be huge penalties. And if you're just falsifying police statements, that's already a crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Just change "guns" to "cars" to see how ridiculous this position is. And cars are far more lethal per capita than guns are.

    So you know, I'm in favor of much stronger gun control in this country, licenses, registration, insurance, training requirements, recurring training requirements, all that. But your line of thinking in regards to criminalization is counterproductive and not rooted in the reality of how society works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    That would be a much stronger argument if cars were specifically designed to kill things efficiently.

    There are also licensing and insurance requirements for cars that don't exist for guns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I think you're dodging the point. I already said I was in favor of stronger licensing, insurance, and training requirements in a failed attempt to avoid that rebuttal. If somebody steals something from me in the middle of the night while I'm asleep, something I was legally allowed to have, and they use it to commit a crime before I notice it's gone, I should not be punished unless I was negligent in where I left it.

    I also don't understand the design argument. Cars are used to kill people efficiently all the time. Doesn't matter if they were designed for it, they do it. If you want to go down that route, I would say the guns I own were designed to put holes in paper from a distance, because that's all they've ever been used for. My guns, like my car, have a zero percent fatality rate. There are a lot of people in the world who can't say that about cars they've owned. See how silly the argument gets?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Great, you've identified that there are going to be edge cases in what I said in a non-binding web forum. My point was that if your guns are stolen and you don't notice or report it until the police show up weeks or months later you don't fall under the "responsible gun owner" label that everyone loves to throw around.

    Don't play dumb dude, we all know what guns are designed for regardless of your own personal use. You can just as easily put holes in paper from a distance with BB or airsoft guns that are significantly less lethal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • You're right, guns are designed to kill. I don't own a gun to put holes in paper, I own it in case I'm ever attacked and I need it to defend myself. I was simply arguing that the design is irrelevant, and you disagree. Fair enough. But there are a lot of crazy motherfuckers out there. I live a 30 minute drive from three of the most infamous mass shootings ever perpetrated in the U.S., one of which was people being gunned down while shopping for groceries. So that's why I carry one, not because I'm afraid (I'm not, the chances of that happening to me specifically are close to zero) but because it is happening, and if it does happen I want to give myself some small chance of saving myself and my loved ones. It's still a tool of last resort because I know the most likely outcome of me shooting a criminal is me being killed by the police immediately afterward. I still want the chance to defend myself. But you won't see me rushing into a situation to save strangers, because people have done that in my state and.... been immediately killed by the police.

    The real problem with making progress is that people who say they want more regulation usually don't really want that, they want all guns removed from everywhere, period. And anyone who owns one is, by default, part of the problem. Gun control activists typically use the same strategies that anti-abortion activists use, to creep towards their eventual goal. I strongly suspect you fall into that camp. And I personally would love to live in that world, where guns don't exist, but it's a fairy tale. You're welcome to hold those opinions but no meaningful change will come out of it. For a citation on that, I present to you: All of human history since the invention of the firearm.

    I prefer to see solutions or regulations that work towards personal responsibility (recurring training requirements, with testing, at a bare fucking minimum), and other programs that remove the impetus behind most of these attacks, which is untreated mental illness. And that's because there is no black and white fix to this problem. Excessive punishment, prison, or further empowering the police doesn't accomplish it, any more than making homelessness illegal gets rid of the problem of homelessness. If that sort of thing worked, we wouldn't have people sitting on death row. I believe that a much more effective place to spend money addressing this is on social programs that could help people from feeling like lashing out is their only remaining option.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    Protip: don't ever get diagnosed with a mental illness.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    If they know who they are, they are complicit in the violation by letting them continue

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›