▲ 83 ▼ Shop owner shot, killed over rainbow flag outside clothing store near Lake Arrowhead (www.sbsun.com) submitted 3 years ago by admin@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 44 points 3 years ago (1 child) Great example why guns are just bad. To many impulsive and abusive people with them. More guns, more death. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Overzeetop@beehaw.org 35 points 3 years ago (4 children) Oh, now, don't be rash. Guns don't people, people kill people, or so I'm told. We should just remove guns from the "bad" people. Based on my observations, disallowing (checks notes) males from owning or operating guns would seem to be a near universal solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 16 points 3 years ago* I think we all know that more guns mean more gun deaths. The stats are pretty clear as a whole. It is a pretty small group of people that actually own guns to make them safer. Majority it is to feel safer while making them and everyone around them less safe. That is my big issue with guns. Not gun ownership itself... just nutty ownership. permalink fedilink source parent [–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Or go to the Bojack horseman route and encourage women to buy guns. You’ll see legislation passed in a flash lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 15 points 3 years ago (1 child) Disenfranchised minorities. I mean the Panthers literally started California gun control. Though I think more gun control is no doubt better for society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Criminals already don't follow the law; that's why they're considered criminals. Why would those who need weapons care about or follow gun control laws? How's that working out for the war on drugs in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago Assuming x percentage of legally acquired guns can be diverted to illicit means. Less overall Availability of guns means less overall availability of guns in the illicit market. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Seems to work OK in every other civilized country. Maybe the US is exceptional, but not in the way Americans like to think. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reric88@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago There are other self-defense options as well. Lethal firearms could be entirely replaced by non-lethal. If you actually need it for defense, you can still defend yourself with it, but you're going to have a hard time using it for murder now. You could argue that this would increase the amount of defender deaths because they couldn't neutralize the threat 100%, but it would drastically lower lethal firearm related crimes. Gotta weigh the options. I'm all for self defense at a distance, I don't want to have to risk a scuffle. If someone invades my home in the night, I don't want to have to fight them. I want them stopped asap with as little force as possible for the safety of everyone, including the invader. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 7 points 3 years ago* 50% of the population, commits 90% of the homicides. Huh. 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Overzeetop@beehaw.org 35 points 3 years ago (4 children) Oh, now, don't be rash. Guns don't people, people kill people, or so I'm told. We should just remove guns from the "bad" people. Based on my observations, disallowing (checks notes) males from owning or operating guns would seem to be a near universal solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 16 points 3 years ago* I think we all know that more guns mean more gun deaths. The stats are pretty clear as a whole. It is a pretty small group of people that actually own guns to make them safer. Majority it is to feel safer while making them and everyone around them less safe. That is my big issue with guns. Not gun ownership itself... just nutty ownership. permalink fedilink source parent [–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Or go to the Bojack horseman route and encourage women to buy guns. You’ll see legislation passed in a flash lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 15 points 3 years ago (1 child) Disenfranchised minorities. I mean the Panthers literally started California gun control. Though I think more gun control is no doubt better for society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Criminals already don't follow the law; that's why they're considered criminals. Why would those who need weapons care about or follow gun control laws? How's that working out for the war on drugs in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago Assuming x percentage of legally acquired guns can be diverted to illicit means. Less overall Availability of guns means less overall availability of guns in the illicit market. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Seems to work OK in every other civilized country. Maybe the US is exceptional, but not in the way Americans like to think. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reric88@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago There are other self-defense options as well. Lethal firearms could be entirely replaced by non-lethal. If you actually need it for defense, you can still defend yourself with it, but you're going to have a hard time using it for murder now. You could argue that this would increase the amount of defender deaths because they couldn't neutralize the threat 100%, but it would drastically lower lethal firearm related crimes. Gotta weigh the options. I'm all for self defense at a distance, I don't want to have to risk a scuffle. If someone invades my home in the night, I don't want to have to fight them. I want them stopped asap with as little force as possible for the safety of everyone, including the invader. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 7 points 3 years ago* 50% of the population, commits 90% of the homicides. Huh. 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 16 points 3 years ago* I think we all know that more guns mean more gun deaths. The stats are pretty clear as a whole. It is a pretty small group of people that actually own guns to make them safer. Majority it is to feel safer while making them and everyone around them less safe. That is my big issue with guns. Not gun ownership itself... just nutty ownership. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 14 points 3 years ago (1 child) Or go to the Bojack horseman route and encourage women to buy guns. You’ll see legislation passed in a flash lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 15 points 3 years ago (1 child) Disenfranchised minorities. I mean the Panthers literally started California gun control. Though I think more gun control is no doubt better for society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Criminals already don't follow the law; that's why they're considered criminals. Why would those who need weapons care about or follow gun control laws? How's that working out for the war on drugs in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago Assuming x percentage of legally acquired guns can be diverted to illicit means. Less overall Availability of guns means less overall availability of guns in the illicit market. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Seems to work OK in every other civilized country. Maybe the US is exceptional, but not in the way Americans like to think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 15 points 3 years ago (1 child) Disenfranchised minorities. I mean the Panthers literally started California gun control. Though I think more gun control is no doubt better for society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Criminals already don't follow the law; that's why they're considered criminals. Why would those who need weapons care about or follow gun control laws? How's that working out for the war on drugs in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago Assuming x percentage of legally acquired guns can be diverted to illicit means. Less overall Availability of guns means less overall availability of guns in the illicit market. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Seems to work OK in every other civilized country. Maybe the US is exceptional, but not in the way Americans like to think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Criminals already don't follow the law; that's why they're considered criminals. Why would those who need weapons care about or follow gun control laws? How's that working out for the war on drugs in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago Assuming x percentage of legally acquired guns can be diverted to illicit means. Less overall Availability of guns means less overall availability of guns in the illicit market. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/ permalink fedilink source parent [–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Seems to work OK in every other civilized country. Maybe the US is exceptional, but not in the way Americans like to think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago Assuming x percentage of legally acquired guns can be diverted to illicit means. Less overall Availability of guns means less overall availability of guns in the illicit market. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Seems to work OK in every other civilized country. Maybe the US is exceptional, but not in the way Americans like to think. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reric88@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago There are other self-defense options as well. Lethal firearms could be entirely replaced by non-lethal. If you actually need it for defense, you can still defend yourself with it, but you're going to have a hard time using it for murder now. You could argue that this would increase the amount of defender deaths because they couldn't neutralize the threat 100%, but it would drastically lower lethal firearm related crimes. Gotta weigh the options. I'm all for self defense at a distance, I don't want to have to risk a scuffle. If someone invades my home in the night, I don't want to have to fight them. I want them stopped asap with as little force as possible for the safety of everyone, including the invader. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 7 points 3 years ago* 50% of the population, commits 90% of the homicides. Huh. 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 11 points 3 years ago If it really was over a FLAG and what it stands for, that's some insecure attitude. permalink fedilink source
all 11 comments