At least he didn't do a backflip and shoot into a crowd of people, right?
I think if the pro gun crowd wants to get people on their side they need to be harder on gun carriers who are irresponsible. Leaving a loaded gun anywhere should be anathema.
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
309 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22674 readers
3552 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
a LOT of gun owners hate these types of dipshits. Leaving a gun out like that should be a fine or felony.
Not enough apparently
Right? I have family that are pro-gun, and I'm almost certain they would be royally pissed about someone being this irresponsible with their weapon.
But nobody ever hears them complaining. Why?
At the fucking minimum they should lose their right to own guns.
Holy shit, this is terrifying. For the entire run time of an episode of Rick and Morty, there was a space where there was a loaded, unattended gun in the state capitol that literally anyone in the building might've happened to find, pick up, and do whatever they want with it.
How can this not be an immediate wake-up call that stricter gun control legislation is necessary? This is Colorado, not Texas, I really hope most of the voters here, even ones that lean conservative, aren't so far gone that they can't see how crazy of a situation this is. Maybe that's naive but I really hope it's not.
In Texas this happens so often we get training on what to do if we find an unsupervised gun in a bathroom at the state owned hospital where I work. We're also not legally allowed to prevent people from carrying weapons in the whole hospital because guns > patients.
Dystopian...
I leave my deadly weapons in public bathrooms all the time and no one writes articles about me.
That's just nasty 😉
“I take firearm safety very seriously” exactly as expected of any politician. Liar.
I know that movie! But I think that happened in an Italian restaurant.
If he brings his gun in the bathroom does he ever sanitize it? 🤔
He kisses it and loves it and wishes he could marry it. Is that enough?
When you daily-carry, the weapon becomes just like a key-ring, phone, or wallet. Why do you think so many people bring their gun to the airport? Because they fucking forgot they had the thing.
Expecting someone to be ever-vigilant and ever-responsible is not the product of critical thinking.
I’ve carried a firearm for both the military and personally. And even with ADHD do you want to know how many times I left it unattended on accident? Zero times. If you treat a gun like your keys or wallet then you shouldn’t be carrying it.
If you treat a gun like your keys or wallet then you shouldn’t be carrying it.
I don’t leave my keys or wallet unattended. Is that something people do?
Haha I certainly don’t, but I’m less concerned about a small child or a careless adult killing someone with my keys. So I don’t treat them the same way I treat a tool whose sole purpose is violence.
whose sole purpose is violence.
Let's get real. Its whole purpose is death, nothing lesser nothing else. Sure, you maybe able to stop immediate danger and call it a day with good aim and perfect situation awareness but no gun owner has one to tickle and softly kiss people.
constantly
Typical "responsible gun owner" hot take, folks.
Why do you think so many people bring their gun to the airport?
Is it... Because they're fucking morons?
Same can be said for driving a car. No one can be ever vigilant. Sometimes you run over some kids. It happens. /s
This is some serious selfawarewolves content. Sooo close to understanding the idea.
You should always be aware of where your firearm is. I own firearms, but they're located at my dad's house locked and in his safe. If he needs to move them out of the house for any reason, he texts me about it. Carrying a firearm is a major responsibility and you must always be vigilant to where your firearm is and where it's pointed. There are no excuses.
Expecting someone to always be responsible with a firearm is absolute bare minimum. If you can't do that, you shouldn't have one.
Expecting someone to be ever-vigilant and ever-responsible is not the product of critical thinking.
It’s a fucking gun!
But I can't be expected to know where it is at all times! What if I get exceedingly drunk? Or have a massive bowel movement? Or am incredibly fucking stupid? Really this is your fault for trusting me with it.
Did you forget the /s ?
Expecting someone to be ever-vigilant and ever-responsible is not the product of critical thinking.
reply
I love this take because it is absolutely correct. No one can be ever-responsible and ever-vigilant at all times 24/7.
Yet we sell these weapons to counter a theoretical attack that can happen at any time.
At that point, why is the answer to a lack of critical thinking and responsibility, except more absence of critical thinking and responsibility?
I've never left my phone, keys, or wallet in a public bathroom either, and those can't kill anyone (unless you use the phone to read your comment, which causes death by proximity to stupid).
When you daily-carry, the weapon becomes just like a key-ring, phone, or wallet. ... Expecting someone to be ever-vigilant and ever-responsible is not the product of critical thinking.
If you can't handle your daily-carry responsibly, you shouldn't have a daily-carry at all. That's the long and short of it.
I'm pretty positive there is a security screening of everyone that enters that building and if you get a weapon past them, you are still breaking the law. I don't believe you can legally carry a gun in that building, if you aren't law enforcement. I may be totally wrong, but I'm confused as to how they didnt get charged with anything.
Was it extra dangerous because it was a Glock pistol and not Sig Sauer? Would it have been less an issue if it was .380 Auto or .45 ACP instead of 9mm?
"Nothing to See Here, Just a GOP Politician...
- leaving their silver Toyota Corolla with gas in the tank parked illegally
- wearing a tailored business suit and carrying a leather briefcase while shoplifting
- drinking a cold Budweiser beer in an aluminum can in a school parking lot
Was it extra dangerous because it was a Glock pistol and not Sig Sauer? Would it have been less an issue if it was .380 Auto or .45 ACP instead of 9mm?
Lemmy when every minor detail isn't contained within the headline:
The StAtE oF MoDeRn JoUrNaLiSm Is AbYsMaL!!!1!
Lemmy when the headline contains relevant detail:
WhY ArE ThEsE JoUrNaLiStS bEiNg So SpEcIfIc?!?1?
I just don't feel like the make and caliber of the pistol was more pertinent than the name of the politician to highlight in the headline.
If that's what you meant you would have said that. But you didn't. You're clearly upset that vanity fair had the nerve to mention the specific gun. Otherwise you wouldn't have praddled off three other examples to highlight your point. Nice attempt at saving face though.
Not worried about saving face, my reply was more a rebuttal to yours re: "Lemmy when every minor detail isn't included" etc. I would think the perpetrator's name would be more important than the caliber and manufacturer of the firearm; e.g. "GOP Politician Don Wilson Leaves a Loaded Pistol in the Bathroom" imparts more key information than the one used - and even the fact is was loaded isn't surprising since it being left in the bathroom implies it is used for self-defense and would likely be loaded. There is the possibility that it was some prop used for demonstration that was accidentally left there which would (hopefully) be unloaded so it's not a strictly extraneous detail to include so that alone I don't take issue with.
My issue is just specifying it was Glock and 9mm in the headline was simply because of the public's familiarity with the words but not what they mean necessarily [the most popular handgun in the most popular caliber] and was intended to make the scenario sound even more scary. I used the three examples to point out that they would likely report the other scenarios as simply 'left vehicle parked illegally', omit the clothing and briefcase composition regarding the shoplifting, and not specify the brand of beer or its unsurprising temperature and form factor in the parking lot drinking.
Sure, get specific in the body to accurately describe the facts, but the headline isn't meaningfully changed by omitting those points so I don't think they were needed.
Yes, as I originally said, everyone on Lemmy thinks they know how to do journalist's jobs better than they do and it's beyond old at this point. I'm just going to go ahead and block you now as your lengthy off-topic complaints about journalistic practices have added nothing relevant to the discussion of the actual story.
I'm glad we were able to discuss this productively and that our comments were voted on based on their quality and not level of agreement.
Surely if we all continue to make brash emotional responses to the concerns around firearm safety instead of effective ones we'll get this menace solved any day now.
Journalism isn't some altruistic job, what gets clicks is what matters. A politician leaving a loaded glock 9mm gets clicks, Don wilson leaving a pistol in a bathroom means nothing to me so I won't care and won't click. As long as the content in the article is good I just don't think it's important what the headline is