this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
200 points (89.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26866 readers
2827 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChefTyler1980@lemmy.world 152 points 11 months ago (8 children)

I can only speak for my friends who fit your criteria: they’re single issue voters (like many Americans) and they’re afraid the Dems are coming for their guns.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 87 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The dilemma being that anyone who acts this way probably shouldn't own guns.

Placing gun ownership over all other personal freedoms is an unhealthy obsession.

People who think they need weapons in case are not so different than those who think the rapture will occur in their lifetime.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

It's also a delusion for the most part. None of the scenarios they carve out in their minds about why guns are essential tools has much basis in any rational threat profile. Otherwise these nutters would be walking around with helmets on all the time.

[–] runswithjedi@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I've often wondered how or why that would ever happen (existing guns being forcibly removed). Are there any examples of countries that voted in gun control laws that required all existing guns be turned in or go to jail, face fines, etc.? If so, how did they enforce the law?

[–] GospelofJohnny@lemmy.ml 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’m not an expert by any means, but I want to say that something similar happened in Australia. Basically, they gave everyone the deal of, say, $500 per gun if turned in voluntarily, or seizure and no money if found. Then they simply restricted ammo sales and eventually the problem fixed itself. (Source: my ass)

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (3 children)

You're pretty much right. The big difference is that gun ownership in Australia was never widespread. America literally CANNOT afford to do a buyback.

I've broken down the numbers here and on Reddit before and I always get downvoted to hell and back so I cant be fucked. But if every last American just gave their guns back, at an average buyback price of $1000 per gun you're looking at 332 Billion dollars. Thats before you add the other costs like collection, destruction and disposal.

Not even coming close to mentioning the costs involved in handling the "Cold dead hands" crowd, the preppers, the militias and the illegal unregistered firearms.

Aaaaand the destruction of a vast multi billion dollar a year peripheral industry of shooting ranges, gun stores, accessory manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers.

In short, while America needs to do SOMETHING the "Just ban guns" crowd are infuriating in their naivety.

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The federal government spent something like 6 Trillion Dollars last year, meaning the cost would be about 6% of our national budget. Knocking off 1/3rd for the people who would refuse to participate, 4%. If the process happened over 5 years, you're talking about <1% increase to our annual budget. And practically speaking, 15 years might be a more reasonable time frame simply given the enormous scale of the thing.

Sure, $332b is an absolute fuck-ton of money. But it's not an inconceivable amount of money. That's not to say we should do it, simply that the argument we can't afford it doesn't really check out.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Like I said, Ive broken down the numbers much more comprehensively before and it always results in arguments that I cant be fucked getting involved in on social media, last time I did it it was effectively a research paper. Its napkin math but you're right, the U.S COULD afford it hypothetically, but it would take a literally unbelievable culture shift in the way 100% of the country sees guns to make it possible.

To get what I think I estimated out to 1.5 trillion over 5 years out of a federal government that cant agree on budgets to pay federal workers for a policy that effectively 50% of the population will be highly opposed to and many will actively and violently resist...

[–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not with that attitude ;-)

You can if you want to, but I bet the problem is more "cultural", so a shift in people is needed. Like make it illegal to make publicity about it for under 21 yo. And show the grim aftermath in stores selling guns. Then no publicity at all and so on. Tax guvs and bullets, educate people.

We did it with cigarettes, and it worked out really well IMO. Today cigarettes are not "cool" anymore and usage has been falling sharp.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Oh the problem is DEFINITELY cultural. My beef isnt with the idea of gun control its with people saying "Just ban them" like theres anything simple about it.

A buyback of 393 million firearms if everyone lined up and handed them in in an orderly and peaceful fashion likely costing at minimum half a trillion dollars is just a starting point. Thats assuming 100% of the population, lawmakers, lobbyists and the entire firearms industry just goes "Awwwwww... Okaaaaay" like a 5yo who has just been told its time to stop playing and come in for dinner.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] toastus@feddit.de 6 points 11 months ago (6 children)

In short, while America needs to do SOMETHING the "Just ban guns" crowd are infuriating in their naivety.

As someone that is firmly against the free access to guns I cannot agree that it is naivety.

You guys got a serious problem with gun violence, your children are dying in, quite frankly, absurd numbers.
And you keep on letting it happen for decades now.

I am not someone that says just banning the ownership of guns outright from one second to another is the best solution there is. Off course it's not.

But dude, even that strawman solution that pretty much noone actually proposes would be better than your status quo.

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"Just ban guns" is the slogan for demonstrations. Any politician who is elected for doing that will obviously need to have a better plan. Usually such plans don't fit on a poster.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Im not American, I'm Australian. I have problems with anyone that wants to run around screaming for solutions that are impossible to implement. It might come from a good place but its just virtue signalling. That goes for people on both sides of any argument, the only thing it does is detracts from any meaningful dialogue on actual solutions.

The gun problem in the U.S is way more cultural than financial, but even if you take all the culture and set it aside like it isnt the core of the issue even the basic numbers of doing a buyback and compensating every person and industry now out of work becomes an insane number very quickly.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Narte@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 months ago

Isn't that more or less what happened in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre?

On the other end of the spectrum, Allende basically sealed his fate by disarming his own supporters.

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Civilian disarmamends happened in various countries, i.e. Australia in 1996/97, UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, Japan post WW2, South Africa in 2000, Colombia in 2000 and 2016, New Zealand after Christchurch.

Strategies and success vary, but it's not unheard of.

[–] kofe@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You can still own guns in Australia, at least. It just requires applying for permits. I don't get why people would be opposed to that

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

Introducing regulations usually doesn’t mean complete and utter ban.

[–] KroninJ@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

From the mouth of my dad "you'll be in a list and they'll know you have guns. I shouldn't have to register for a right that's in the constitution"

There's a ton wrong with that statement, but he's willfully blind to any of it. He hung up on me when I pointed out all the issues that statement had XD

[–] rhacer@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I believe Australia is one such example.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And look at how many mass shootings they're having now.

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, there was a gunman yesterday. He was apprehended, thankfully.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 2 points 11 months ago

Pfft rookie numbers. Here in the US we had 2 mass shootings today (11/23/23). https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

[–] Alto@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

Australia also had a peak gun ownership ratio of 6.52%. America's is closer to 125%. Literal order of magnitude of difference there

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fades@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

single issue voters are fucking willfully braindead. Selfish short-sighted fuckers doing the opposite of their civic duty

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (5 children)

They are unfortunately correct. I can’t count how many failed attempts I’ve made to try to convince many of my liberal peers that trying to kill the 2nd Amendment or functionally prevent people from buying guns is doing more harm to our collective efforts than good by alienating independents who are otherwise liberal-leaning, but staunchly support 2A. Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem. Conservatives aren’t much better, unfortunately, and they’re three times as stubborn, so here we are.

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.

Could you elaborate that a bit?

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

Sure. For starters, they keep going on and on about mass shootings and how we need to cut access to guns to stop all the mass shootings.

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not. The rise in mass shootings is unfortunately an aspect of modern American culture and copycat-ism.

Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).

I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.

[–] LadyLikesSpiders@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I am what the Americans consider VERY far left (A centrist by European standards), and I, for the most part, agree with the idea that the issue is not one of access to firearms necessarily, but of a cultural problem

But what's the cultural problem? Could it be the gun fetishization we have (perpetuated by conservatives)? Perhaps its roots go in further back, to our founding as a nation built on a violent rebellion. Maybe it's even further back then that, developed from a puritan heritage

I agree it's a cultural issue, but where we're gonna disagree is that the culture that promotes this degree of gun violence is one that loves guns so much it absolutely refuses to try and take any steps to fix the issue. The people who love guns the most, who want that shit on all their media, is conservatives

Besides that, I'd call America a uniquely desperate place. We are taught to believe this country is great and incredible and can do no wrong, but for all its affluence, everything is expensive as shit, we are always just a missed paycheck away from homelessness, medical issues, psychological problems. The cultural issue here is that America doesn't care about its people; It cares about its companies. Most conservatives would probably side with the working man over the business suit, but it is the Republican party that overwhelmingly supports the rights of big businesses over the actual working people. I've seen the country described as a 3rd world country wearing a Gucci belt. The cultural problem is in this dissonance of swearing we're in a good spot when we're actually not

Furthermore, you don't actually know what leftists want in regards to gun control, since you've likely heard a lot of it from right-leaning sources. The idea that we want some "abolish all guns" thing is a strawman. I believe that people should be able to own guns. I believe that other countries have gun ownership, and like their guns, and don't have the issues we have. We vary quite a bit from people who want stricter stuff, to people who want lighter stuff. People who say ex-cons shouldn't have guns, to people saying you can't take away rights from criminals because it incentivizes political jailing (If you don't want your opposition to own guns, arrest them). I personally believe that gun ownership should be relatively lax in terms of what you can get, but that they should have very stringent requirements

Really, the complicated web of cultural issues would require a whole book in order to cover, so I'd just leave it at that. A complicated tapestry of religious, historical, and sociological factors that contribute to our peculiar brand of gun violence, and this course must change. "Copycatism" doesn't just exist in a vacuum. We cannot stay the course--we cannot conserve the course. We must alter American culture fundamentally, and that is exactly what conservativism inherently and necessarily opposes

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I agree it's a cultural issue, but where we're gonna disagree is that the culture that promotes this degree of gun violence is one that loves guns so much it absolutely refuses to try and take any steps to fix the issue.

I wholly disagree. What Europeans don't seem to understand about gun violence is that the largest predictor is the gini coefficient of an area, which is a measure of income inequality. The US has the highest gini coefficient of any developed/western country, and because of that correlation you see the largest rates of violent crime.

If you want to want to reduce the rates of violent crime down to match that of Canada your best bet would be to enact legistation to reduce the gini coefficient to a comparable level to Canada. Achieving that by reducing gun ownership in the US would require removing more guns than actually exist in the country.

Furthermore, you don't actually know what leftists want in regards to gun control, since you've likely heard a lot of it from right-leaning sources

No. Just... no. First off, this discussion started off about Democrats, not leftists. And they are definitely not the same.

Second, go look up quotes from Democratic political candidates like Beto O'Rourke. There's a rather prominent one where he promised to take away people's ARs - exactly what you're claiming doesn't happen.

Third, go look up some of the legislation that has been pushed into Congress over the years. Particularly House Bill 127 in 2021.

I am what the Americans consider VERY far left (A centrist by European standards)

I'm really tired of this claim, because it's not true and it gets more superfluous the more it gets repeated. The US has a decent share of extreme left-wing individuals, even by Europe's standards. I know several avowed socialists and communists and the only reason I don't know more is because I don't want to wade further into that mess. Not only that, conservative parties in Europe have been growing in popularity, especially in Italy and Spain.

[–] LadyLikesSpiders@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So first off, no, Americas extreme left is not all that extreme. The tankies we have here are few and far between, meanwhile people with nazi iconography are openly protesting in front of Disney World. We don't have any significant population of soviet-style communism here, and all of our communists are about labor rights and reducing that wealth inequality. I knew one guy who was actually sad about Castro's death, and everyone in our lefty-as-fuck circles called him stupid for it. No one here is advocating for the forcible seizure of everyone's property to be redistributed. You have no idea what actual extreme far left is. Americas left just wants socialized health care and a decent living wage, and to maybe have rights even when they're trans. We can talk about the Democrats all you want, but now we're talking about conservatives, who for the most part still don't want to do anything about police violence, and the prison-and-military industrial complex that lets them benefit from being the world police. They're not left, or even centrist, and the Democratic party doesn't accurately represent what American leftists want, they're just a compromise--limp-wristed do-nothings playing tug-of-war with Republicans, and letting the rope slip further and further, loosing because they refuse to fight dirty against an opponent that fights dirty

So you wanna reduce the Gini Coefficient? Stop voting Republican. Democrats will suck the dick and lick the boots of corporations too, but not nearly as much, and they're weak-willed enough to cave when we call them out on it in time if they don't have Republicans to keep shifting the overton window. It is Republican policies since at least Ronald Reagan that have consistently benefited corporations. Republicans are the source of income inequality

Just, I don't understand how you can throw your lot in with neonazis, and the KKK, and think you're voting for the right people. The 20 or so Tankies we have in this country voted for Biden, sure, but they weren't happy about it. Donald Trump got a fucking cult

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

So guns changed over the past 100 years, but the laws did not adjust. Sounds like a bad idea. How can a new technology a cause for a new problem? Did that ever happen???/s

Semi-automatic rifles were not overly widespread before the 1990, and when they became, in 1994 there was a time-limited ban for semi-automatic firearms, which then expired in 2004. And what are the major concerns for mass shootings in recent years? It is semi-automatic firearms.

If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Why do you think they want to ban all guns? But when you've a gun proponents such as in the US you gotta get real about what you can achieve. So it is not hypocrisy to focus on assault weaponry.

That hobby thing can be said about many forbidden things, for example smoking cannabis.

[–] FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

But they are, would your laws be stricter the appearance of these mass shootings would drop significantly since they perpetrators would have to go through a much mor rigorous screening process before being allowed near a firearm. The copycats and emulators are able to repeat these crimes ALSO because they have easy access to firearms, don't act like this wouldn't be a root cause for the mass shooting problem

Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime

Those who commit small-scale gun crime use the same laws in place for mass-shooters and everybody else to access firearms used in their crimes

Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).

The Australian experience after the mass shooting in Port Arthur at the end of the 90ies tell a different story and it shows that guns buyback/confiscation can and will reduce crime committed by guns

I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.

Tell that to the republicans, who see any intervention on the existing gun laws as an attack to the second amendment. More background checks? No thanks. Red flag laws? No thanks. Limiting firearms possession to those convicted of violent crimes? No thanks.

Who is the party operating according to feeling and who is the one operating according to common sense and logic? Let me give you a hint, it's not the blue one who is using scare tactics to keep everything as it is

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone

I honestly think a lot of the left's stance on gun control stems from culture wars. Otherwise you wouldn't see people reacting so much to pointless things like foregrips, suppressors, or painting guns black.

laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access

Tbf this is already a thing. If you've been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital (morning brain is preventing me from having the right term, sorry) that will show up on a federal background check.

Also, interestingly this and red flag laws can have a negative consequence: it can lead to individuals trying to hide their symptoms and not seek treatment to avoid having their rights taken away, which merely exasperates the problem.

I'm not opposed to having restrictions on gun ownership based on mental health, but there needs to be some way for affected individuals to gain their rights back after seeking treatment (similar to felons regaining their voting rights after a few years), in combination to making said treatment significantly easier to access (preferrably bia universal healthcare).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You’re entitled to your opinion, but “mass shootings aren’t the worst gun violence in the US” is just a shitty argument especially when the US is the only country that it regularly happens. I’d rather there be no gun violence anywhere, but I definitely care more about kids getting slaughtered than I do criminals shooting at each other. I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.

I’ll also add something that’s changed is the radicalization of the likes of the NRA and right-wing groups starting in the 80s. When my father joined the NRA it was an organization that pushed for safety and training of firearms. Now they a practically a political arm of the Republican Party who just fear-monger and drive people to hoard guns and ammo, which I’m sure make the manufacturers happy. A large number of mass shooters have listened to these radicalized propaganda machines.

If we want to have a conversation about preventing the radicalization in the first place, I’m for it. Hold those people responsible instead of all fun owners is a topic to discuss.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

If the claim here is that these people would vote straight Blue if the Democratic Party came out tomorrow supporting guns I don’t buy it at all. They’ll move the goalposts. Half the rhetoric they believe about Democrats taking their guns is entirely fabricated to begin with, a large chunk of the rest amounts to paperwork.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 4 points 11 months ago

And yet, things like universal background checks and red flag laws poll at something like 80 percent support nationally. Most people are perfectly OK with changing the status quo on gun ownership. The problem is that there is a very determined and highly vocal minority that immediately leaps to "they're coming for our guns!" any time any kind of widely-supoorted common sense gun control measures are even mentioned. The result is that we can't even have a conversation about what said measures should look like so everyone continues to cling to their absolutist positions in ignorance and fear. This is by design and we are suckers for allowing ourselves to be played like this. It's pure manipulation on the part of political opportunists.

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Mental health is the issue. Just like anyone who would drive a car through a school yard mowing down kids, that person has mental issues. The vehicles driver should be licensed and the owner should be registered. I am a gun toting liberal in a state with essential zero gun laws. I believe in the second ammendment, but not absolute. You should be able to have a gun, but you should be licensed (psyc eval, background check, gun safety classes requirement) and your guns should be registered. If a gun you own ever kills someone, you are responsible. Your gun is your responsibility to keep locked up and if it's stolen you should have reported it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

My personal stance is is a combination of an observation that an armed population is harder to oppress, and that gun control tends to have a disproportionate impact on minorities and oppressed groups.

Since LGBT and minorities are the most likely groups to be attacked by political opposition, we shouldn't be trying to hamstring their ability to defend themselves.

Plus, a contributing factor to why the alt-right and fascists have gained so much ground in the past decade is because of the perception that only the political right has guns, and therefore they think that they'll win in a fight

[–] HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

You sure are making a lot of brain twists to keep school shooters shooting school kids!

[–] littlecolt@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That and monetary issues. The "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" out there who want to keep R in power so when they finally get rich, they won't have to pay taxes.

[–] HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

These are called dumb fucks in my book

[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

A single issue for their single brain cell.

[–] legios@aussie.zone 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In Australia I know a lot of people who vote purely based on how their parents voted. That includes people voting against their own interests and refuse to do any research that might change their minds...

[–] Johnmannesca@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

We have that in the US too, there's just a less than subtle rebellion phase that lasts roughly 2.5 presidential election cycles before regressing.