[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Not sure what this instances views on "advocating violence" are, so I'm trying to explain it as non-violently as I still can:

Americans want gun control. That's not up for discussion. It's an absurd majority.

However, as long as it is "only" school children and ordinary civilians dying, Republicans will not change their stance on gun control in the slightest. The people who are responsible to fix this are the only group that is not at any risk of getting shot. They are so absurdly protected that they will never be on the receiving end of a barrel, and therefore, do not care.

And to make matters worse, the Republicans dictating the supreme court, who will block anything that could possible address this problem, not only cannot be voted out, no, they literally have to die before they can be replaced.

The only people who could fix the gun murder issue are the ones not dying because of guns.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I dont think you are advocating for violence, but there was a shooting at a Congressional baseball game and it didnt push the Republicanw towards passing legislation to control guns at all. It is extremely disturbing how little of a fuck they give.

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago

Yeah I remember that. Yeah...same with the insurrection: they can only care for about an hour, then it back to business.

That's kinda the comment that always gets me banned: as long as Republican politicians do not actually die themselves frequently, they will not change.

[–] 6daemonbag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

The one who was shot? Steve Scalise, the other Louisiana Speaker candidate. He didn't change his stance at all

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hell and that's a Fox "News" poll, so that would likely have their own flavor of bias trying to make it as much in their own favor as possible.

I don't see this as advocating for violence, more as pointing out how a specific group of people only care about things that personally affect them so they currently don't care about the issue.

Hell the NRA cared about gun control when the Black Panthers started advocating for buying guns back in the day. Why? Because they saw it as a personal threat to their well-being.

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hell and that's a Fox "News" poll

That's why I instantly saved it to my phone. This picture has such a high value in "discussions" with gun freaks.

I'm working for a NATO countries' military, am a frequent poster and avid follower of NonCredibleDefense, own weapons myself, know a lot about their inner workings and history, but even I am not even remotely as crazy as those people.

Then again, I do own several weapons but advocate that my government pass laws to take them away. Guess I'm kind of a paradoxical outlier in this matter.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I own several guns as well and I'm greatly in favor of better gun control laws. I'm a bit odd as well in that regard lol

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I used to be an avid gun owner till my father used one of his guns to take his life, he carried one his whole life to protect our family, and it ended up causing more harm than any mugger or home invader ever could imagine. If you ever have suicidal ideations please leave your firearms with a trusted comrade till you get help. I had ideations almost my whole adult life and thought i could resist them till the day I died, which was technically true, but not in the sense I thought. I pawned my guns, shortly after his death, and haven't had those ideations since. The vast majority of gun deaths are self inflicted and get swept under the rug by families and the news.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I agree whole heartedly that if you have suicidal thoughts you shouldn't own firearms. It's a recipe for disaster if you do. And if you have those thoughts you should seek help. There's people in your life who will miss you dearly when you're gone, even if you don't think so.

And I'm sorry for your loss, I know how hard it is when someone you care about commits suicide. I've known 4 people who have. Though none of them used firearms to do so I'll never forget them.

Personally I'll never own pistols as I've had too many bad experiences with pistols. The why is a bit of a doozy.

Trigger warning Child Abuse, Breaking and Entering, and Attempted Murder.

On a number of occasions my dad held a pistol to my head screaming at me to tell him where his drugs that he had already done were. He did this a lot to my siblings and I before he finally got clean. I still refuse to speak with him as there's just too much pain there. My siblings tell me he's a lot different now, that he's back to the way he was when they were young, but I've only ever known him as the abusive drug addict that he was.

Him and some of my other relatives are why I own firearms really as a number of them have said that they "can't wait to get the order to hunt people like me in the streets." And one went to prison for kicking my door in to try. That was when that relative found out I was a gun owner. They didn't get shot, we just patiently waited for the police to arrive while they sat in my entry way.

[–] Truck_kun 4 points 1 year ago

That their local representative was anti-gun control before this shooting affected his own local area, only proves your point more. That he changed his opinion is a good thing, but too little too late.

Very impressed that he publicly came out to accept responsibility for the Maine shooting with his previous opposition to gun control though, and is now advocating for it.

Unfortunately, it may take several shootings in all the representatives' and senators' home towns that are in opposition to actually flip them (even then, it wouldn't change many of their minds, unless it actually personally affected them), and the country shouldn't have to suffer that. It likely will literally take a constitutional amendment to prevent the supreme court from overturning any legislation enacted (or at least stripping it down to become fluff legislation with little meaning, or effect).

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Who or what are "flag people"?

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

'Flag people who are danger to self' is an action.

They want those who are likely to commit suicide with a gun to be marked in the system for gun control.

Edit: Or they have ideas about this store The Flag People

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

Maybe it's a typo and they meant "crab people"?

[–] bunnyfc@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago

I know people who are left leaning democrats and they're for gun control. But gun control doesn't solve the problem entirely.

The problem is the entire culture around guns and toxic 'me and my gun and my truck' self sufficiency culture in the US and the lack of a social net.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was the man not in the national guard? Seems he was exactly a part of a well regulated militia. That doesn't just automatically stop gun crime.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the point. It isn't well-regulated.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The National Guard is not well regulated? Im gonna wager your definition of well regulated is a body in which nothing bad ever happens, which is not what well regulated means, that's called perfection.

If the national guard isnt considered well regulated then nothing is, and clearly the writers of the bill didnt intend for 'well regulated' to be an impossible standard. So if well regulated is going to mean something it didnt mean from the authors then that phrase no longer has bearing on the right, and shockingly enough the US Judicial system agrees with and upheld that.

This was a shooting by a member of a well regulated milita. That phrase or organization structure is not a magic spell that stops crime. The authors would have written 'crime free' instead of well regulated if that's what they meant.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If a memeber of said Militia can spend 2 weeks in a psychiatric ward for hearing voices in his head telling him to shoot up the said Militia he is a part of and still keep the means to carry out the will of said voices it isn't well-regulated, sorry not sorry. The term Well-Regulated doesnt automatically mean it is going to be regulated.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Between active and reservists there are well over one million national guard memebers. The crimes of one of them hardly imply that the regulation is not good. Mistakes are possible, and considering he was let out of the psych hospital is it impossible to think the mistake even could have come from the profit driven org who makes the absolute thinniest proft margins from mental health care? What about the police, did they not also drop the ball, they could have seen this coming, this person was known publicly for his gun lust and extremism. Or is all the blame only on the one orginazation that makes your opinions the most correct looking?

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Mistakes are possible

Yeah, mistakes like american gun laws. In related news, this year, a soldier from Germany's National Guard did not go on a killing spree. Nor did a soldier of the French National Guard.

IT IS THE GODDAMN FUCKING GUNS

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A French cop went on a mass shooting in 2017. In 2020 an ex soldier in france went on a shooting. Sure it wasn't this year but acting like this doesn't happen elsewhere is wild. In fact the chances that the shooter is in a well regulated legal organization are higher elsewhere since the other people dont even have guns like that. So I assume Frances gun laws are a problem for you too since they cant stop their Law Enforcement from doing this?

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is plenty of blame to go around, the problem is systemic. Putting the blame on one institution makes it a scapegoat, we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.

While the US definitely needs publicly funded (mental) health care, it will not address the gun issue. It doesn't matter if a country has public health care or not, what matters for gun related deaths is either a) number of (civil) guns or b) (civil) war.

Do not give into gun nuts in this regard. Do not agree that the US needs both. The US needs exactly and only one thing when it comes to gun deaths: Fewer guns.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nah fam, we need both. Fewer guns, even destorying every AR15 in America wouldn't solve the #1 cause of gun deaths in America, which is suicide.

[–] thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Removing guns (or at least access to them) can actually reduce the rate of suicide. Guns are quick and easy to use to commit suicide, whereas many other methods take time to set up and don't work as often. When someone is feeling suicidal, often having that little bit of extra time can let the feeling decrease enough to prevent an attempt.

Of course, removing access to guns doesn't fix why people feel suicidal in the first place. That is a whole nother can of worms. But I expect everyone agrees that reducing the number of suicides is good.

RAND: How Gun Policies Affect Suicide

The consensus among public health experts is that there is strong evidence that reducing firearm suicides in contexts where more-lethal means of attempting suicide are unavailable will result in reductions in the total suicide rate (see, for example, Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, 2012; World Health Organization, 2014; for review, see Azrael and Miller, 2016).

Save.org: Restricting access to lethal means:

Research has shown time and again that restricting access to lethal means or “means restriction” can saves lives. By restricting access to firearms and other highly lethal methods the decline in suicide rates by that method and overall suicide rates begin to decline. Restricting access to lethal means does not always lead to fewer deaths, but is one suicide prevention measure that merits further research and more individual-level intervention training to make lethal means less readily available.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Japan would like a word (but they're too busy killing themselves without guns.)

Guns may be more effective but I'd argue OTC meds are "easier" considering you don't get NICs checked for tylenol. And frankly many suicidal people (not all ofc) already have a problem with a particular drug that causes 96,000+ accidental deaths/yr, shooting of another nature, which kills 36,000 more people than guns/yr including suicide, that could also be used quite easily and peacefully as opposed to doing your best impression of Dead from Meyhem.

Simply banning guns wouldn't help, we still need to address the root causes. And once we address the root causes gun control will be a whole lot less necessary anyway. At the very least, we should start with the things that will be actually helpful and then move to the pointless bans which worked so well for those drugs 96,000 people OD on each year.

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, definitely. But never admit that when talking to gun nuts.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Here's the thing though:

can spend 2 weeks in a psychiatric ward for hearing voices in his head telling him to shoot up the said Militia

They can't, it is already a federal law that people who are IVC'd (this guy) are prohibited purchasers and they are supposed to take the guns and input that into NICs, but someone didn't do their fucking job. Has nothing to do with the weekend warrior ~~militia~~ branch of the US military either, that applies to everyone, federally, as it is a federal law.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

If the national guard isnt considered well regulated then nothing is

Ignoring the fact that this is obviously a false dichotomy........ Have you ever served in the guard or active duty military? The guard especially from certain states, is usually known for being an unorganized shit show. Active duty has its obvious issues, but they also have a lot more control over their personnel, including who they keep and promote.

In the guard, as long as you show up for roll call and pass your test you're pretty much promoted until you want to leave. Which is why the last few military pr blunders were committed by officers or NCO in the reserves.

I doubt you would find many people who served in the reserves that would claim they were well organized or well regulated.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 12 points 1 year ago

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It is the result of an unarmed society. The only weapon deployed against this guy was a butcher knife, and predictably it didn’t work.

[–] SchoolPsychologist@lemmings.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technically, he was part of a militia.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim#:~:text=(a)%20The%20militia%20of%20the,the%20United%20States%20who%20are

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Never said he wasn't.

Memes

Rules:

IT IS THE GODDAMN FUCKING GUNS