this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
223 points (93.7% liked)
Technology
59323 readers
5331 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It seems kinda nuts. But if everyone sued everyone every time there was a mass shooting, things might actually start happening to minimize their frequency.
Or judges will just start throwing out the cases.
Probably that.
the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a lawsuit
It’s the people vs the shooter. And let’s be honest, eventually the people of the USA is at least as guilty of this and all the other crimes like this as the actual shooter.
Yah. I can agree with that. If the shooter had their own licensed gun, the survivors could (should) sue the state government for giving the guy a gun licence.
That's a reaction to an act rather than a solution to a problem.
Whats the solution to stop the shootings even from licensed gun owners?
Improved education, prison reform that actually works, making jobs pay more money so people are strapped for cash all the time, making healthcare and education affordable, increased climate action so people can build towards a future they're excited about...
Gun control was a hellavalot more relaxed 50 years ago yet mass shootings were basically unheard of. So why is this just now a problem?
The federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 prohibited the AR-15, which is pretty much the weapon of choice for spree killers. The law expired in 2004.
We also have a growing resurgence of fascist ideology, which is favored by losers who also have access to guns.
Look to other countries. Japan has a very sensible system, for example:
You must complete a licensing course to be able to own a rifle for hunting or target shooting. You must keep this license renewed.
You must arrange a police inspection of your storage annually, which requires the rifle and ammunition be in two separate lockers.
Handguns and semi-automatics are strictly prohibited. So much as possessing one carries a prison sentence. Obviously attempting to use one to kill people would be life imprisonment (or capital punishment, since they unfortunately still practice that).
We need similar laws, and strict penalties for arms manufacturers, smugglers and people who deal in them under the table. The first step is patching the hole in the boat before you start trying to pump the water out.
The only public shooting in recent memory was the assassination of a former Prime Minister with a "gun" made from a pipe, battery and fire crackers.
No idea. I'm just a random Steve on the internet who thinks if people routinely sued the state for mass shootings, the state would have some financial incentive to do something.
There are people who study this stuff. I'm sure they have ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt11-5-1/ALDE_00013679/
Sovereign immunity is a real thing and it's hard to overcome. They may be able to sue a municipal government (county/parrish/city) but going after the State or the Federal govt means a lot of very efficiently walled off legal precedent to overcome. Even using bad faith arguments that can sometimes skirt around monetary damage for sovereign, it can still end up evaporating in the face of the the state/fed having to voluntarily be willing to be sued, not even looking at the cherry on top of the current established court views of the 2nd Amendment.
I guess the point is, there's no way, short of some weird amalgamation of liberal progressives and conservatives combining into a party that seems real election success over the course of a full decade, that most States and the US federal government would go all in on allowing themselves to be sued willingly. We're more likely to get an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed.