316
It seems that they never intended to enforce this to current gun owners because they knew they wouldn’t comply. It is more of a measure that they will enforce going forward on future generations of gun owners.
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
316 points (100.0% liked)
News
29215 readers
3302 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
At the very least, they should be slam dunks for crime enhancements. If they commit a crime, and the illegal firearm is found in their possession, that should tack on some hefty penalties.
It's honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.
I know, I know, Lemmy isn't a singular person. But it's rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action--apparently it's okay just because they are gun owners?
I absolutely believe we'd be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you're advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.
Agreed, I am a very liberal person and I see other liberals far too often falling into the 'benevolent dictator' trap.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Strong gun control requires a police state, and it's advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.
Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It's a lot easier to break strikes and enforce "work discipline" when the working class is disarmed.
Strong gun control requires a police state
False. Unless you are saying every other country in the world with strong gun control laws is a police state. Which is also false.
And some aren't even strawmen...they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven't solved the problem...just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they're all terrified for their lives.
Personally, I've yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were "defending" was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn't want to pay for access like everyone else.
Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
The Battle of Athens is probably the most uniquely clear-cut example of what you're asking for, unless we count the American Revolutionary War itself.
Other successful examples mostly involve activists using non-violent protest to push for change, while using firearms to protect themselves from violent reactionaries that would otherwise murder them. Notably, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. For a modern example, there's various "John Brown Gun Clubs" and other community defense organizations providing security at LGBTQ events against fascist groups that seek to terrorize event-goers.
It's also worth noting that resistance is often worthwhile even if it doesn't result in unqualified victory. For example, the Black Panthers' armed cop-watching activities saved a lot of Black folks from brutal beatings at the hands of the police, even if the organization was eventually crushed by the federal government.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.
It sounds like you might be in a bit of a filter-bubble. I don't mean any offense by this, it's a normal thing that tends to happen to people. If the news sources you read and the people you talk to don't mention these things because it doesn't mesh with their worldview, how would you hear about them?
load more comments
(1 replies)
just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they're all terrified for their lives.
Police brutality isn't a product of fear. They treat armed crowds with more respect than groups they assume to be unarmed.
Some of us are just sick of reading about mass shootings every couple days.
What the anti gun crowd doesn't get is, saying you have a mental health issue blocks you from getting em, so people are going to bottle shit up because one moment of weakness might cost you your right for a lifetime. It actively discourages people from getting help.
It's almost as if they don't have a fucking solution at all.
Despite pointing to "evErY oThER cOUnTrY doEsNt hAvE a PrObleM" they haven't thought about gun control implementation for 3 seconds.
It's literally as bad as the conservative saying "do nothing" or "more guns solve the problem". It's equally as stupid as that, but the liberal crowd acts like they're fuckin geniuses whilst giving their suggestions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
While it's to true that we too often talk about groups of people like they're individuals, it's also true that very few people actually bother to have underlying principles for their opinions, much less stick to those principles when they get in the way of a short-term goal.
If you don't stick to them then they aren't principles, they're opinions.
So what are you gonna do? Send the cops to kill them? Because that's how it plays out.
And then there's the apocryphal boating accident. Prove I still have the guns.
If you jump straight to shooting when cops show up to take your toys, it's a pretty good bet you never should have had them in the first place.
If you "lost" it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it's really gone.
If you “lost” it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it’s really gone.
It blows my mind that some people think this course of action would be ok, and that it wouldn't be abused by the authorities.
God forbid we get guns off the streets or out of the hands of criminals.
I'd be much happier if they were doing it for guns instead of marijuana like they have for the last several decades.
What makes you think it would be abused any more than warrants are right now?
What makes you think it would be abused any more than warrants are right now?
Because time after time we've seen that when given new powers, new tools, or new technologies, the police abuse them.
They would absolutely use this power to terrorize their opponents by ransacking their homes, whether they owned a gun or not. I'm not sure that it matters because more than half of this country seems to be ok with living in a fascist dictatorship as long as the dictator happens to be on their 'side' for the moment.
Search warrants aren't a new power, tool, or technology.
~~We cool with police and government just barging into our homes and taking our property that we purchased legally with our own money now?~~
EDIT: FWIW, I misunderstood the title. I thought it was banned guns, not people banned from having guns (due to felonies, etc.). This is a bit different.
What are you going to do? Shoot at cops executing a lawful search warrant?
That has happened many many times and a few times in the past few years the homeowner has even gotten away with it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
License, insurance and registration (just like cars) for every gun. Massive fines with accruing interest lifetime liability for “lost” guns.
What about stolen guns?
If you carve out an exception then everyone will just say they were stolen.
And if you don't carve out an exception, you are now punishing people for a crime they didn't commit.
Then you report it stolen as soon as you see that it's gone
If it's used to commit a crime before you report it, there should be huge penalties. And if you're just falsifying police statements, that's already a crime.
Just change "guns" to "cars" to see how ridiculous this position is. And cars are far more lethal per capita than guns are.
So you know, I'm in favor of much stronger gun control in this country, licenses, registration, insurance, training requirements, recurring training requirements, all that. But your line of thinking in regards to criminalization is counterproductive and not rooted in the reality of how society works.
That would be a much stronger argument if cars were specifically designed to kill things efficiently.
There are also licensing and insurance requirements for cars that don't exist for guns.
I think you're dodging the point. I already said I was in favor of stronger licensing, insurance, and training requirements in a failed attempt to avoid that rebuttal. If somebody steals something from me in the middle of the night while I'm asleep, something I was legally allowed to have, and they use it to commit a crime before I notice it's gone, I should not be punished unless I was negligent in where I left it.
I also don't understand the design argument. Cars are used to kill people efficiently all the time. Doesn't matter if they were designed for it, they do it. If you want to go down that route, I would say the guns I own were designed to put holes in paper from a distance, because that's all they've ever been used for. My guns, like my car, have a zero percent fatality rate. There are a lot of people in the world who can't say that about cars they've owned. See how silly the argument gets?
Great, you've identified that there are going to be edge cases in what I said in a non-binding web forum. My point was that if your guns are stolen and you don't notice or report it until the police show up weeks or months later you don't fall under the "responsible gun owner" label that everyone loves to throw around.
Don't play dumb dude, we all know what guns are designed for regardless of your own personal use. You can just as easily put holes in paper from a distance with BB or airsoft guns that are significantly less lethal.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Guns are designed to kill deer, ducks, and other animals that I want to kill. That they can kill humans is not intentional.
That argument isn't much different from the argument that cars are for getting around and that they can kill is not intentional. If you care about death, then by every metric you need to ban cars first.
Humans are animals and some people seem to like killing them. By all means, let's mandate licensing and insurance to own guns. No one seems to have a problem with those being requirements for cars.
Billions of dollars have been and are being spent to make cars less likely to kill people. But they have actual uses outside destroying things, unlike guns.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Protip: don't ever get diagnosed with a mental illness.
If they know who they are, they are complicit in the violation by letting them continue
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun then they're too dangerous to be loose in society anyway. They can always find some other means to hurt people.
Soooo we should make it really convenient for them?
No, they should be locked up somewhere until they receive sufficient treatment to straighten them out.
they should be locked up somewhere
Well there's some medieval thinking right there.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›