this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
263 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

[above image] : Abortion rights advocates protested the Supreme Court's attack on women’s rights when it ended Roe. The Court is expected to intensify its attacks on democracy in the new term. Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Either way, regular people being armed with guns don't realistically stand a chance in an armed rebellion against the most bloated military and police force in the history of humanity and having a gun makes you MORE likely to be the victim of government tyranny in the form of police murdering you (especially if you're black), so the point is moot.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

But that's not what they're talking about when they say the population need to stay armed.

No one will be targeting police. They'll be targeting politicians and rich businessmen and women.

Of course you're gonna lose against the army. Against bart okavanaugh? Not so much...

[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OK, well, maybe. if they're so harmless in the face of a standing army then why not let them have their guns?

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because their guns are extremely harmful to themselves and their fellow people. Gun violence is the number one cause of death in children and it's way up there for adults too.

[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've looked at those stats and I'm not really convinced.

Half of gun deaths are suicides. In those cases, a desire to die is the cause of death. Something is deeply wrong in our society if children want to kill themselves in epidemic numbers, and we need to figure out what that is and fix it.

Out of the rest, it's almost entirely violence from organized crime. That violence doesn't go away if you ban guns, at best other weapons get used, at worst criminals just don't obey the gun laws. When two rival groups are fighting over a crack dealing monopoly in a neighborhood, if you blame the result of that on the tools used you're ignoring another real problem. Why is America so addicted to drugs. Just like with suicide, I think we need to figure out what's driving that.

Something in our society is very very wrong, our society is sick and the symptoms are teen suicide (and veteran suicide and suicide as a result of divorce...) and widespread drug addiction. Guns show up in those dynamics simply because there are a lot of guns in America.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've looked at those stats and I'm not really convinced.

Big surprise there 🙄

Half of gun deaths are suicides. In those cases, a desire to die is the cause of death

A gun is one of if not THE quickest and easiest ways to do it and, in the case of more difficult and lengthier methods, people can and surprisingly often WILL change their minds before it's too late. No such opportunity with a bullet to the brain and thus an abundance of guns DOES contribute significantly to the number of suicides.

Something is deeply wrong in our society if children want to kill themselves in epidemic numbers, and we need to figure out what that is and fix it.

True, but that doesn't mean that making it easier for them to act on that despair isn't a bad idea.

Out of the rest, it's almost entirely violence from organized crime

I'm gonna need a source on that.

That violence doesn't go away if you ban guns, at best other weapons get used, at worst criminals just don't obey the gun laws

Other weapons are less effective for easily killing, so their use in stead would significantly reduce the number of deaths.

As for criminals not obeying gun laws, the overabundance of (at first) legally produced and sold for personal use guns makes it much easier for them to illegally aquire and use guns than it is in countries with stricter regulations.

When two rival groups are fighting over a crack dealing monopoly in a neighborhood, if you blame the result of that on the tools used you're ignoring another real problem

The tools used makes it easier to kill and thus makes them more likely to kill. To ignore that means excess deaths.

Why is America so addicted to drugs

Drug abuse is mostly about genetic predisposition towards addiction, using the drugs to self-medicate or ignore other problems, or frequently both.

The main problems connected to drug abuse and drug dealing are societal issues such as poverty, lack of opportunity and an oppressive society not giving some people any other options.

Guns show up in those dynamics simply because there are a lot of guns in America.

So close! There being a lot of guns exacerbates those "dynamics" dramatically, so the logical approach is to deal with the root causes AND the aggravating factors such as guns.

In summary, more guns equal more deaths and thus common sense regulations are needed to save lives.

You're going to need a source on the claim that most violent crime is in the furtherance of other profitable crime? You ever heard a phrase such as "if weed were legal then people wouldn't kill each other selling weed"? I thought this was settled science. Is it so outlandish an idea that most people who kill do it because it is profitable for them to do so that you want me to google it for you?

Alright, so let me ask you, what does "common sense" gun control look like?