Yeah, like you said, probably a bad idea. I have something that I deeply believe in about current world events that seems completely obvious to me and yet I usually never say online because of people's unhinged reactions. I'm not sure that there is anything to be gained by discussing it because people tend to immediately froth at the mouth about the topic.
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
9 points (80.0% liked)
Political Discussion and Commentary
81 readers
525 users here now
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
Especially on this site. It's honestly rather frustrating.
This question is impossible to answer because you can make a logical argument against anything
Anything is too broad of a set to be opposable in general. /s
Banning guns will never work in the United States. The only way to solve mass shootings is a case by case root cause analysis of each shooting and what allowed it to happen.
Plug those holes, and you don't have to ban a single gun.
Example: The recent shooting in Birmingham.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/22/us/birmingham-alabama-shooting-five-points-south/index.html
"Police believe the shooters were carrying out a hit on one person and the other victims were caught in the crossfire.
“Someone was willing to pay money to have that person killed,” Thurmond said."
...
"The shooters are “believed” to have used machine gun conversion devices, according to the Sunday news release. The devices can be used to override the trigger mechanism on a gun, so it functions as a machine gun."
Old school gangland violence, using conversions that are already illegal.
Gangs being gangs, all of the shooters are likely already known to law enforcement. Increase budgets for anti-gang units, crack down on enforcement. Prevent these shootings before they happen.
The proper way of doing this is by looking at any other country that doesn't have this problem...
Other countries don't have a 2nd amendment.
So we remove that. Problem solved
Sure, so you start by getting 290 votes in the House. Those are the folks who needed 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader was.
Then you need 67 votes in the Senate, the folks who can't get 60 to break a filibuster.
Then you need ratification from 38 states... In 2020, they split 50/50 for Biden vs. Trump, here's the map:
Find 13 red states willing to give up their guns. Oh, wait, did I say 13? Yeah, 6 Biden states have Republican statehouses, so now you're looking at needing as many as 19 Trump states to give up their guns.
Guns are a lot like a drug addiction. They feel good at first for fighting off the British, but eventually everyone gets one and starts shooting each other. Trying to take them away is like trying to get a needle from a heroin addict.
Politically it's impossible because of the control money has in our elections. And even if they made all guns illegal overnight, you just sent 400 million firearms directly to the black market... bad things would happen.
Even if you made guns illegal overnight, there's no feasible way to remove and destroy 400 million guns.
People love to say "Australia did it!" Australia only removed 650,000 guns, 20% of all privately owned guns.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
In order to have the same impact, the US would have to run the equivalent of the Australian program 123 times.
The Constitution didn't start out having the second Amendment. That's why it's an amendment. Because the Constitution was meant to be a living document that could be updated and changed with the times. The last time we amended the constitution was in the 90's. We can do it. But bipartisan agreement is necessary and so in the near future it's unlikely. But it was unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade when they started that nonsense and they managed it eventually. People who want to amend that amendment just have to recognize that it may not happen in their lifetime but they should still fight for it.
The first 10 Amemdments, called "The Bill of Rights", were put in place to ensure the Constitution would get ratifified, without them the Constitution would have been written, but never ratified.
The 2nd Amendment in particular has a surprising (or unsurprising, depending on your perspective) racial component.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670
"It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from a enslaved uprising. And it was the way that James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias. And those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts.
DAVIES: Right. So the fear was that a Union which was dominated by northern states would simply not see those militias for the same purposes the South did. They would take them for - you know, draft them for other purposes, like from a foreign invasion, and leave the job of guarding against the slave revolt unfilled. So in the end, what happens is the South agrees to join the Union. In - but part of it was that they had an assurance that their own militias would be seen as independent, used for their own purposes, i.e., suppressing slave revolts, right?
ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. In that, the Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings."
I actually agree with some of your point.
Banning guns doesn't seem to be a winning policy politically anyway. It would be the most direct resolution but those sort of ideas almost never work in theory because of peoples fear.
I think we should go even deeper into why gangs exist to begin with and it's simply economically advantageous to do crime versus the alternative exploitive minimum wage job. And that we need to address income inequality completely before any major gun policy changes can happen.
Although gangs aren't the only shooters (probably actually a minority for many mass shootings). What would you propose for people who are just crazy? Mental health funding, but really that comes back around to it being nearly impossible to prevent all mental health issues with 8 billion people. It seems a lot easier just to get rid of the guns.
I know I circled back there... I guess there really is no good solution, lol
"What would you propose for people who are just crazy? Mental health funding, but really that comes back around to it being nearly impossible to prevent all mental health issues with 8 billion people. It seems a lot easier just to get rid of the guns."
So for starters, we need to expand what goes into a background check. Right now, it only counts if you're indicted, convicted, or otherwise declared incompetent by a judge.
So the Parkland shooter?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolas_Cruz
"Psychiatrists recommended an involuntary admission of Cruz to a residential treatment facility, starting in 2013.[23] The Florida Department of Children and Families investigated him in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. At this time, a school resource officer suggested[24] he undergo an involuntary psychiatric examination under the provisions of the Baker Act. Two guidance counselors agreed, but a mental institution did not.[25] State investigators reported he had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and had a history of attempting suicide. However Psychologist Frederick M. Kravitz later testified that Cruz was never diagnosed with autism.[26] In their assessment, they concluded he was "at low risk of harming himself or others".[27] He had previously received mental health treatment, but had not received treatment in the year leading up to the shooting.[8]"
None of that applied to his background check because none of it went before a judge. His background check was clean and he bought a gun.
Maybe, just maybe, there needs to be a "non-adjudicated" section to a background check? Then leave it up to the gun dealer if they want to sell or not.
"OK, sure, he has a clean record, but 2 guidance counselors and 1 school resource officer thought he needed an involuntary psychiatric hold... sure, you can sell him a gun if you want to..."
As of right now, felony crimes bar you from owning a gun, indicted, convicted or sentenced (no gun for Trump!)
But check out the guy who shot up Michigan State:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting
"McRae was arrested in June 2019 for carrying a weapon without a concealed pistol license.[44] Initially charged with a felony, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful possession of a loaded firearm as part of a plea agreement in November 2019.[45] He was originally sentenced to twelve months' probation, which was later extended to 18 months, and in May 2021, he was discharged from probation.[41] Because McRae was not convicted of a felony, his ban on possessing weapons ended with the end of his probation.[46]"
He did his time, he did his probation, his background was clean, and he bought a gun...
So maybe, here's a wild idea... maybe we don't allow plea deals on gun charges? Alternately, since we already block felons from owning guns, maybe make it so ANY gun crime is a disqualifier?
This is why I say we need a case by case analysis. Where did we fall down? How did this happen? Patch enough of them and the problem resolves.
this is probably a really bad idea, but I feel like quality discussion only happens when minority opinions change those of the majority for the better of all.
Veganism.
Yup, veganism has many studies supporting its health benefits.
Health benefits may exist for veganism, but they are not the main argument for veganism. Veganism would still exist if there were (solvable/manageable) health drawbacks.
Veganism is more a philosophy, less a diet.
Veganism is the liberation of the animals. I would argue that the philosophy is what makes you healthier in the mind and the heart.
There is no "bulletproofness" in assumptions. We don't exactly know how our conscience affects our health and health is a weak argument for veganism, because individual health is disagreeable or subjective and in this case mostly just about human animals.