President says ‘epidemic of gun violence is tearing our communities apart’ after mass shootings in Philadelphia, Fort Worth, Baltimore and Chicago

  • lunar_parking@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    What came first, the chicken or the egg? Meaningless semantics; both are at play when it comes to someone that is suicidal. But I can assure you, suicide rates would be positively (downward trend) impacted by any sort of gun ban. I am speaking as person who has been suicidal. If I had had access to guns at certain points in my past, I likely wouldn’t be here today.

    • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      K, not everyone has those kinds of problems and a ban would prevent everyone from owning a gun. That would be a bit like banning booze or cars because some people are drunk drivers.

      Banning guns won’t get anyone any treatment which seems vastly more important than prevent one kind of means some people may or may not seek out on their own.

      • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        why are you framing the conversation as if folks are deciding between better mental healthcare or getting rid of guns, when the conversation is about getting rid of guns or not getting rid of guns

        are you misrepresenting what the conversation is actually about for a specific reason?

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you think there’s any real conversation around “getting rid of guns” you are simply engaging in fantasy.

          There will be no “getting rid of guns” in any of our lifetimes in the USA. Our rights to bear arms are practically set in stone with multiple SC precedents confirming the individual right that the Constitution gives us, and recent additional precedents show the sitting court interprets the legality of limiting those rights as an extremely narrow thing.

          Even if all the above were not the case, the simple logistics of the matter are that we have 400 million guns in private hands, mostly unregistered, distributed across the USA. People will simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them.

          • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            its true, never in the history of any nation has illegalising something made that thing less common

            your disagreeing with the practicality of getting rid of guns does not, in fact, change the current conversation from being about how the usa should obviously get rid of guns, regardless of how difficult you lot will continue to make it ‘in any of our lifetime’

            • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s kind of a generic reply that doesn’t address the point that making them illegal is most likely impossible.

              • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                a generic reply that barely addresses any point was pretty appropriate for a generic statement that barely qualifies as having one to address, i felt like

                it turns out ‘the simple logistics of the matter’ are that guns do not appear in the hands of criminals magically, rather the USA imports and manufactures ridiculous amounts of new killing machines for them entirely legally, making sure that getting your hands on one illegally remains as easy as absolutely possible

                it turns out schoolkids and teenagers do not in fact get their military weaponry from their extensive mob/maffia/cartel ties, they take daddys entirely legally purchased firearm because having a country where millions of people can legally own guns means having a country where millions of kids can just grab one

                it turns out people will not ‘simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them’, because first, some people actually do care about following the law, and second, enforcement of bans on things does actually tend to lower the prevalence of those things

                we know this because weve seen that happen, repeatedly, including in the USA, most every time anything was illegalised in recent history

                we also know this because if a gun is confiscated from someone, it is physically impossible for that person to shoot someone else with that gun, because they do not have it

                the literal only reason ‘criminals can still get guns’ is because theres so fucking many legal ones

                • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Here’s some info to educate yourself on the logistics I was speaking of - noncompliance with gun bans in New York, where even the county sheriffs refuse to enforce their “assault weapon” bans.

                  https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

                  If those bans go so poorly in NY state, how well do you think they would work in states with more conservative populations?

                  Additionally, there are states with “gun ban bans” coded into law already, making compliance with federal gun bans illegal. Obviously the Supremacy Clause would nullify those laws, but they tell you how the state will be unlikely to comply on a practical level. Shit ain’t gonna happen, no matter how much you fantasize it happening.

                  • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    i am shocked that the US police, let alone the new york police, known for their immense professional, legal and moral integrity, are refusing to enforce the laws already in place

                    i am also shocked that your totally not generic reply that definitely addresses the point that the USA should obviously get rid of guns is just going ‘yeah well they arent right now!!’

                    Additionally, there are states with “gun ban bans” coded into law already, making compliance with federal gun bans illegal. Obviously the Supremacy Clause would nullify those laws, but they tell you how the state will be unlikely to comply on a practical level. Shit ain’t gonna happen, no matter how much you fantasize it happening.

                    see

                    your disagreeing with the practicality of getting rid of guns does not, in fact, change the current conversation from being about how the usa should obviously get rid of guns, regardless of how difficult you lot will continue to make it ‘in any of our lifetime’

                    by the way, did you figure out an excuse for why you framed the conversation as being about picking between fewer guns and better mental healthcare yet?*

                    *did not realise you were not in fact the same guy i originally replied to