this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
316 points (97.6% liked)

World News

38977 readers
3492 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There's nothing inherently wrong with gun ownership. However, there is a shit ton wrong on how we handle distribution and tracking of them. We have more prerequisites for operating a vehicle than we do a firearm, and in a country where we have a SIGNIFICANT number of mass shootings, we are doing SIGNIFICANTLY little to fix the issue.

Gun ownership is totally fine. I bought a handgun and a shotgun on the same day (after someone tried to break in and attack my wife - they didn't realize that I had just come home from a trip) and was blown away that I could just walk right out the door with them within a few minutes. A rifle for hunting is also not an issue.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fun fact: handguns are used in mass shootings more often than AR15s. In fact, all rifles, of which AR15s is merely the most popular type, are responsible for ~500/60,000 gun deaths/yr in the US. Probably because, as you may guess, handguns are a lot more concealable than rifles.

Also, be fair about the buying process, you still went through the National Instant Criminal background check system. Sure instant checks don't take long anymore due to Al Gore inventing the internet in the 90s, but they do still happen and adding arbitrary length does nothing to stop crimes. In fact even if they did, they don't stop nor are they designed to stop the types of planned attack we're talking about (mass casualty events), they are to stop "crimes of passion" (guy killing his wife), and there's some contention that they effectively do that as it isn't like the couple necessarily receives the proper counseling, so he just picks it up and does it next time he's in a wife killin' mood, or if he can't wait goes all Chris Benoit or that "Stairs" jerkoff.

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

Sounds like a good reason to highly regulate handguns to me.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

They are regulated.

[–] SnuggleSnail@ani.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I cannot relate to that. I am 37 years old and I think I have never witnessed violent crime, except in television or on playgrounds (children are assholes to each other!)

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it was terrifying. Like the guy knew she was there, we had just put the dog outside, so they were obviously watching the house. They tried to kick in the front door, and I ran to the front door have naked and half asleep. The terror slammed full force into me when I realized someone was at our door (could see through glass), and I had no weapon to deal with them. They ran as soon as they saw me. I had just gotten home late the night before, so they obviously knew that I wasn't home, and the knew that my wife was.

It still wigs me out to this day.

[–] SnuggleSnail@ani.social -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How long does the police need to arrive at your home? For me in case of an active break in it would probably be around 120 to 180 seconds. So this usually only happens when nobody is home, it’s too dangerous otherwise.

Someone stole my e-bike from the back yard. And I have heard of break ins in cellars. But that kind of crime that you describe is very very rare.

Does that mean that gun ownership is a side effect of a security system that has flaws in itself?

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

National average response time to emergencies is 11min, 23 to non emergencies. In the cities it'll be "less" (maybe, and not much), but in the country it could be hours.

[–] SnuggleSnail@ani.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That’s long. 😱 For non emergencies I have waited long times. Like 40 minutes or even hours. But when I called the fire department once it came like 30 seconds after I had hung up. And it was just a smoking trash can, nothing really dangerous.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago

Fire dept is a bit quicker I think but they only protect you from fires of course, also, analogous to firearms, fire extinguishers are good to have on hand if a fire breaks out. Also, fortunately the fire often doesn't actively prevent you calling the fire dept, though often due to the nature of being victimized violently you won't be able to even call the police until after the event unless you're lucky, you often have to focus on fighting or running in the moment.

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

People are not always logical. Even if the cops could get there within 2 minutes, that's still 2 minutes that you have to deal with someone that is intent on doing harm to you. I wouldn't want to risk that.

The police also have no legal obligation to protect you. Meaning if there is a situation that they consider "dangerous" they might not even enter the house to protect you. Like....I'm not hedging all of my bets on a cop to protect me. Because there's still a chance that I lose.

I understand your point that there's not really any point to having weapons when we have a "protector", but we've already seen that those "protectors" have no obligation to actually protect you if they feel endangered. Guns are tools. A rifle is a tool to provide food for yourself. A handgun/shotgun is a tool that you use to protect yourself. We just shouldn't hand those tools out to literally everyone that wants one.

[–] SnuggleSnail@ani.social 2 points 11 months ago

Here, they are less afraid because almost no household is armed. It is a dangerous situation to enter a home, but they always come in pairs and might do so with guns drawn.

But we are talking about very extreme cases. German police shot 14 people in 2017, 11 in 2018, and 15 in 2019. So about the same amount of people that die from lightning strikes. The vast majority of policemen do not discharge their gun in their whole line of duty.

If you compare likelihood of violent crime the bigger danger comes from people inside your house, rather than burglary. Therefore, weapons in houses would make life more dangerous here, since you are less likely to escape your step mother armed with a gun, than your step mother armed with a kitchen knife.

[–] SnuggleSnail@ani.social 1 points 11 months ago

PS: I don’t know your step mother. Maybe she is a world class samurai swordswoman. I apologise if my analogy insulted her.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Yeah but my dude, before any of this happens, you're way morelikely to just lose your shit yourself and murder yourself or one of your family or more.

Live by the sword die by the sword I guess.