theyoyomaster @ theyoyomaster @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

317

Joined

2 yr. ago

Says the person who wants to disarm the most vulnerable. Saying any study or statistic that doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative is literally the opposite of the scientific method and reality. Facts don’t care if you like them or not and you wanting vulnerable people to be vulnerable doesn’t give you the moral high ground.

Defensive uses of firearms far outweigh offensive ones in the US. Rejecting self defense as valid actively hurts women, minorities and the disabled. There was actually a magic time when there were no firearms in the world. It was called the Dark Ages and the largest and strongest few committed nonstop atrocities against those that were weaker. We are living in the most peaceful time in history with more guns than ever.

That's the thing, you have a solution in search of a problem here. Banning guns or making them available only for "a million dollar[s] with bullets costing 1000 bucks a pop." doesn't prevent these, it just removes the right to self defense and makes a population helpless.

You brought up Columbine (in the worst way possible) so I'm going to focus here on attention seeking random mass shooters with the goal of getting coverage on cable news and not the more frequent gang style violence that gets counted as "mass shootings" to inflate statistics because they are very different problems with very different causes/solutions. Cable shootings per capita do not correlate with gun availability and the US isn't even in the top 5 among its peers statistically; this is a constantly ignored, inconvenient fact for gun grabbers so it always just gets shouted down and ignored. I'm fully expecting you to scoff and insinuate I'm crazy for even thinking this but the real world facts don't change just because you get angry at me for pointing them out so go ahead and get it out of your system and when you're done you can go back to ignoring it along with all the other facts that don't meet your preconceived notions. Based on European countries with a higher rate of cable news shooters, like France, saying that if you banned guns they wouldn't happen is absurd. You specifically brought up Vegas, the highest body count shooting in US history (but not the worst massacre) but despite having a dedicated and rich shooter that used terrifyingly effective tactics, it still had a lower death toll than a gun-free attack in France and the worst school massacre in the US also featured zero people shot. The bottom line is saying that without guns these things wouldn't happen is straight up false, even taking into account the difference between "no legal guns" and "no guns." So not only are you flat out wrong when you say "This shit only happens when weapons are available freely and CHEAPLY" but your perfect scenario still leaves the same people (and more) dead without guns.

Bad people will do bad things if they decide to. Assigning the evil actions of men to an inanimate object is the easy thing to do mentally if you don't want to face this fact but it just doesn't solve anything. Addressing the underlying causes and triggers is the only meaningful way to stop these but all effort is instead spent on deliberately triggering them and in an attempt to ban guns. The bottom line is that they are deranged individuals who do it for the attention; forensic phycologists are in virtually unanimous agreement that publicly naming them and glorifying them on a 24/7 news cycle is specifically triggering them and yet that is exactly what we do every time. It has also been established that this news coverage triggers additional copy-cat events which is why they often happen in clusters, yet the media gives them exactly what they want every time and refuses to change. The end result of all of this? People like you specifically calling them by their first names in internet comments 20 years later, which happens to be just what they wanted in the first place.

When it comes to suicide the media has a specific way of reporting to prevent triggering copy-cats. You never see an article of "John Doe hanged himself in his closet Tuesday after a night of heavy drinking" because that is known to make other people do the same. Instead you see "John Doe was found dead in his apartment Tuesday night, no foul play is suspected." This of course goes out the window when it's a celebrity and celebrity suicides almost always trigger a small wave of additional suicides right after but this is seen as an acceptable loss in exchange for the ratings. Mass shootings on the other hand result in media coverage that is specifically what the experts say not to do every single time (unless the shooter's identity isn't politically convenient to the media owners) and as such, they trigger more. Responsible media reporting standards are the #1 thing that can be done to make a meaningful impact on these events. It would take a generation to actually take effect but that's not unheard of; Japan's success in slashing their suicide rate over the last two decades is an example that deep rooted cultural issues can be solved with systematic and deliberate effort. This unfortunately would require mainstream media to care more about innocent lives than their political narratives though so I won't hold my breath. It also can't prevent every single act of terrorism which unfortunately are on the rise in Europe, but it likely would have at least some effect on the lone wolves who are currently contemplating their own shot at "glory."

Now beyond not actively rewarding the monsters that are inclined to commit these atrocities there's another common aspect of the stereotypical cable news shooter and that is coming from a broken home with a rough childhood. It doesn't really take a PhD in psych to realize that fucking up someone as a kid can make a fucked up adult. This is also the area of focus that applies to gang style and non random shootings with multiple victims as well. Gun availability, poverty and race; none of them correlate with crime as strongly as single parent/broken households. A healthy upbringing in a functional house is the #1 way to prevent someone from getting to the point of wanting to murder other people for any reason. As such, proper sexual education that actually teaches high schoolers how to not have unplanned pregnancies instead of useless abstinence only religious garbage is needed immediately. Groups in the US like Planned Parenthood need to be properly funded and available, especially to those in most need. This would also have the benefit of vastly reducing the need for abortions so even the most religious nut jobs should like this. Women's rights and bodily autonomy are absolutely necessary to break the cycle of poverty and crime. A meaningful reduction in unwanted and unplanned pregnancies is the single change with the greatest effect that can be done to prevent future crimes before they even start. Additionally, focusing on result based and functional social safety nets rather than feel good grandstanding that wastes absurd amounts of tax dollars can help keep the next generations healthy and able to avoid the lives of crime that they are currently being born into.

Cable news shooters are a manifestation of the worst aspects of modern society. Facing these issues head on is difficult and uncomfortable but the one thing that is sure to perpetuate them is to take the "easy" way out and try and assign 100% of the blame to a scapegoat scary piece of black metal. In the meantime, I'll keep my means of protecting my family and country and focus on not giving the assholes that commit monstrous acts exactly what they want.

Signs not having the force of law doesn't make gun owners a protected class, it just puts an explicitly enumerated right on par with every other day to day activity. If you wear a fanny pack into a convenience store with a "no bags" sign you don't go straight to jail and if you walk into a McDonalds without a shirt or shoes they have to ask you to leave before it's the actual crime of trespassing. Guns are literally the only scenario where in some states ignoring a single sign on publicly open private property is an actual crime.

The only thing novel about the reasoning in Heller was it was the first time revisionists tried to argue to SCOTUS that the 2A meant anything but an individual right. Prior to Heller it was very clearly understood to be individual and as the first time it was actually proposed it was specifically shut down. Even Miller, which is often seen as a gun control "win," references it as an individual right. Now neither Miller nor his lawyer actually showed up for arguments so SCOTUS was limited to only ruling based on the government's side alone but even with the cards massively stacked the ruling was "sawed off shotguns aren't useful to the militia so Miller's 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't extend to them." It was very clearly held that he had an individual right, just not to the type of arm he was charged with having. I also drive past short barrel shotguns regularly since they are used all over the Air Force base where I work, but it's a shame that there is no "use" for them in the military meaning they "aren't covered..." Gun control started with attempts to disarm Native Americans and flourished in the 20th century to disarm African Americans and other minorities. It has always been routed in racism and one of the most obvious examples is found in the terrible Dred Scott decision. It was brought up that if African Americans received rights and privileges under the Constitution it would include the right to own firearms. It was very specifically known and understood that this was not a collective right at this time and this absolute fact was used as a reasoning to deprive minorities of any rights whatsoever.

Obviously no right is unlimited, but that single sentence from Heller isn't a "do anything you want" gun control freebie. You can't ban someone's speech because they might say something you don't like. You can't ban a religion for not being an officially recognized one, look at the CFSM and Scientology. There is absolutely a limit to what constitutes a "bearable arm" so the standard nuke hyperbole is obvious to anyone arguing in good faith. Bearing arms is also not carte blanche to actively brandish and threaten/harm people. It's illegal to murder someone with a gun and that is obviously not an infringement. Saying that I can't have the same gun the military protects itself from danger with because there is no use of it in the military isn't one of these "limits" that was referred to, nor is saying that when vulnerable in public where the government or a 3rd party aren't actively responsible for my safety I need to disarm to allow criminals the path of least resistance.

And you are exactly why the right was enumerated in the Constitution. Our rights don’t stop at your power grab. Thankfully they very explicitly wrote it in unambiguous language, despite what your blind hatred for personal rights wants to believe. You may want your victims unarmed but some of us cherish the right to be able to protect ourselves.

Says the person trying to strip people of rights because you want to consolidate power for your side. Thankfully the Constitution specifically protects us all from you.

They've also been right and usually aren't wrong over and over again spanning back several generations, especially when the intent of the founding fathers was quite clear to any but those wishing to strip rights from people.

So literally binding supreme court precedent dating back over a century is a bizarre fantasy but a repeatedly debunked fallacy that happens to suit your fancy is just perfect. Got it. Repeating what you want to be true over and over against all reason and evidence doesn't make it true.

It's something I personally typed out right before you responded, not just "copypasta." It also does make an argument explaining that no court precedent has ever existed limiting the 2A to a collective militia and has been specifically expressed as an individual right in SCOTUS rulings going back well into the mid 19th century. I also explained the ridiculous fallacy of implying that right in-between saying the government can't restrict your speech, religion or right to privacy they decided that it was super important to specify the government itself had the right to an armed militia. The militia is and has always been the people, so naturally, the people need the right to keep and bear arms. It's almost like that is why it is exactly what the 2A says and why during it's creation they even discussed and re-worded it to make sure it was stronger and couldn't be misconstrued as allowing the government to restrict individuals. But yes, just keep repeating the same argument that has never survived a single court case and has been disproven at every step of the way going back to when the Bill of Rights was written, if you repeat it enough in your echo chamber you might convince some 12 year old that hasn't actually read any facts yet.

"The people." Also the US Air Force but that's a whole different matter. I literally just addressed this in a different post so I'll just copy and paste.

The "but it says well regulated militia" argument has never been in good faith or intended to be intellectual. It's just a blatant fallacy that gets repeated over and over in echo chambers hoping to sway uneducated bystanders. It has never held water or been supported by any court case/precedent (to include Miller which was literally argued one-sided without opposition). It is absurd at face value that literally the 2nd right in the list of things the framers wanted to protect the citizens from their government is the government giving itself permission to have arms. It is never meant to make sense or be intellectual, it's literally just circle-jerking to pretend that it gives them moral superiority for hating a right that they don't like.

The "but it says well regulated militia" argument has never been in good faith or intended to be intellectual. It's just a blatant fallacy that gets repeated over and over in echo chambers hoping to sway uneducated bystanders. It has never held water or been supported by any court case/precedent (to include Miller which was literally argued one-sided without opposition). It is absurd at face value that literally the 2nd right in the list of things the framers wanted to protect the citizens from their government is the government giving itself permission to have arms. It is never meant to make sense or be intellectual, it's literally just circle-jerking to pretend that it gives them moral superiority for hating a right that they don't like.

This is a specifically enshrined Constitutional right. That's literally the purpose of the Bill of Rights and states don't get to ignore them.

Texas really isn't the gun friendly mecca people think it is, when it comes to gun rights it's solidly "meh." I don't know of any states where banks are statutory sensitive locations other than CA and I think the current NY and CT bills. As far as Texas goes it is up to the bank and must be properly signed to have the force of law behind the sign. Many locations do not give the force of law to a posted sign unless it's at a location with a specific prohibition already in the law.

https://i.redd.it/kfzw1o6k4b7b1.jpg

It's allowed in the vast majority of the country.

This is why we can’t have nice things…

I was living in the Seattle area when they implemented theirs and that is when I looked into the taxes and found out about Philly including diet soda. I can't find a source now with quick googling but the reason I came across back then was that statistically white middle class consumers drink more diet soda so zero calorie drinks were included in the "sugary" tax to promote equity... while completely destroying the health push that was the very reason for the tax.

Meanwhile diet or not I just wish I could get Mezzo Mix at my local store.

Now THIS is a shitpost!!

Depends on location. In parts of the US like Philadelphia and DC diet sodas absolutely are included in the tax. Meanwhile in Seattle Starbucks beverages were specifically excluded as not being “sugary” because they include milk which makes them “healthy” thanks to a lot of lobbying. I don’t know of any European taxes that function the same way but it has certainly tainted the concept since, like everything, shitty lawmaking ruined the entire point in actual execution.

Very different modes of failure. Metal fatigue ripping apart fault lines in structural metal is very different from an emergency exit door popping out.