News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
My pragmatic side is absolutely disgusted with this - why would you gift a gun to your kid while living in an urban area? It makes no practical sense other than fueling this weird American obsession with guns.
I understand giving your teen kid a hunting rifle if you live in a rural area and go hunting sometimes, but not an AR in a city - it's just asking for trouble.
After police talked to you about the kid having made online threats to do a school shooting.
He knew. And he gave him a gun anyways. I hope he gets convicted and sued into the ground.
My fourteen year has a few guns. 20 gauge single shot break barrel, .410 single shot break barrel, bolt action .22 rifle and a single action .22 revolver. (Single action revolvers are the really old school kind where you have to cock the hammer each time it shoots. It's a damn big revolver as well, good luck concealing it.) They are used for varmint control and hunting. The revolver is great for rat shot and he has taken quite a few gophers with it. He understands what guns do and how they cause death.
We hunt, fish, camp, kayak, live on a tiny farm.
I don't own an AR, don't have use for one at this time. Giving a kid an AR and uncontrolled access to it in an urban environment is nucking futz. My son has access to his guns because I trust him to safely and respectfully use them. He also has been trained in their proper use since he was 7 or 8.
And what would you do if the police showed up to politely talk about your kid making school shooting threats online?
The relevant bit from the article, that they buried-
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. There's a healthy way for kids to have and use guns, but it certainly isn't this.
America has so warped its perception of guns that they're now some sort of male enhancement device and tied into people's identity.
This is probably a somewhat idealized view of the past, but I would think most Americans of the past viewed guns primarily as tool instead of as a supplementary cock.
Those people have no business owning a gun. I fully support some sort of gun control. Even more than that, public healthcare including mental healthcare would go a long way towards reducing shootings like this.
If the cops showed up to talk to me about my kid making threats, I would very politely listen to them without saying much or incriminating any of us. I'd check in with his teachers, get their side. Then I'd almost certainly lock up every gun, most of the knives and get him to a shrink. If we could afford it, we'd be looking into inpatient therapy.
A big chunk of this country, for all intents and purposes, has gone permanently insane. They're a danger to themselves and others. Doesn't seem to be any fixing it anytime soon.
It pisses me off. I often feel like suburban wannabe tuff guys are trying to ape masculinity and they end up cosplaying as me. Do they feel like real big boys now?
I know exactly what you mean and I figured that would be your answer. I just wanted it out there so people could see just how far out of normal this gun culture is. I carried a lot of guns in the military and while they were fun, having to use them outside of training was very not fun. I've also seen first-hand why having a gun in the house increases risk of death, specifically for veterans like me. I hate this idea of guns as a fashion accessory or as you say, extra manliness cosplay. If we're going to have them they need to be highly regulated tools. Not freely available toys.
There's that whole healthcare, including mental healthcare, thing again. "Here kid, take this gun and go kill people for 'Murica, like protect our freedoms or whatever. What, you want healthcare now that you're back home and fucked up? Fuck you, go to the VA and take a number." That shit is fucked and I've hung with several fucked up veterans. Poor bastards didn't sign up for that shit.
I hope I never ever have to shoot at a person.
Gun culture shouldn't even be a thing like it is. At most, it should be like car culture or something.
I enjoy my guns but I also love a lot of my other tools. I've got a 1944 or earlier Atlas lathe I restored, a '98 Ford Ranger that I keep running tight. I'm currently working on a '69 Wheel Horse mini tractor. I've got a caliper from 1856. I've got an assortment of knives that I use for various things, most of them in carbon steel.
Gun culture should be a subset of tool culture, not this insane identity political religion shit that we have now.
I can only agree so hard.
Americans in the past viewed guns as a tool? How ignorant are you? You mean the World Wars or the civil wars or the genocide of the natives? Which one we talkin about?
That's a dick way to ask that question. How ignorant are you? Man killing guns were absolutely and still are viewed as tools, especially by the military.
I've got plenty of problems with the way I was raised, especially religion and politics. However, my parents and grandparents viewed guns as tools. Most people around me as a kid viewed them as tools. Concealed carry was almost unheard of and, for the most part, paranoid gun nuts were viewed with some distaste.
I was raised in rural Alabama, fwiw. I think the big change in attitude started happening with Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Columbine. There has absolutely been a cultural shift around guns and their fetishization.
As far as genocide and all the horrible things that have been done, duh. The focus was on the killing, not the tools used to do the job. You don't see people fetishizing Zyclon b, small pox, or famine to this degree.
You're just looking for something to get offended about.
But whatever, guess I'm just ignorant.
I support these use cases, but I still disagree with open access. He shows his untrained friend, and now you're liable for their death. He becomes clinically depressed and now he has a method for suicide. It's just not worth the risk.
Why? He's not as big into hunting like me, but will kill varmints when necessary and has done so when I'm not home so his mother didn't have to.
I used to go hunting alone when I was his age.
He's mentally stable, well adjusted. He views guns as tools, as do I. He also has a rolling toolbox with $1k of tools in it. He put in so much work this summer that a full toolbox was part of how I rewarded him.
Now, if there was depression, threats, suicidal tendencies, etc.: totally different situation.
Guns aren't a masculinity fetish for us, they're just another tool. Guns and other power tools are fun to play with as long as you understand the safety and proper use of them.
I'm in the market for a chainsaw, I'll be getting chaps to go with it. He'll also be trained in the use of the chainsaw and have open access to it.
I've also been teaching him how to drive and he can't get a permit until he's 16.
He uses dangerous tools regularly. More and more, he does so without my direct supervision.
A chainsaw's primary use is to cut through wood. A car's primary use is to travel from point A to B. A gun's primary use is to kill. Again, I very much support the training and use cases, but that's why I'm against open access without an issued permit.
He also has open access to rat poison.
I'm guessing you're not from the US? Permits aren't issued for such a thing. As far as I know, permits are only issued for concealed carry outside of one's property. There are hunting licenses, but that that doesn't really factor in to gun access.
Given the smaller calibers and slow fire rates of the guns he has access to, the purpose of his guns is not man killing. They're for varmints and such.
I keep going back to the tool definition of guns. In the US, most people seem to no longer view guns as tools. They are scary or empowering magic objects that cause great fear or act as a male enhancement device depending on political views.
IDK, this society is sick this shooting is a symptom. People's knee jerk reactions to guns on both sides is a symptom. Kids get caught in the middle in the meat grinder.
I grew up in rural WV. We were given a Ruger 10/22 for our 10th birthday. Now it was in my father’s locked gun cabinet and I couldn’t just go get it when I wanted but it was mine. We’d take it plinking in the woods on the weekend sometimes. Well when he wasn’t shit faced drunk but I digress …
This situation you describe is something I don't see a major problem with. It being yours but under your parents control and secured away unless he's present with you sounds like a responsible approach that seems uncommon these days.
I dont have any children, but I still think it's the right and responsible thing to lock up my firearms.
Well I grew up not shooting up a school so it seems to have worked. It also helps I don’t have any mental health problems. Well unless you ask my wife.
But seriously guns are just tools. Granted tools meant to kill things but still just tools. My father also taught me to respect regular tools. You can seriously hurt someone with a circular saw it’s just much harder to do from a distance.
I don’t think you should let a toddler play with a hammer. You wait until they are old enough and strong enough and wise enough to weild it properly. Then you teach them how to use it for its purpose. And if it looks like they are going to have a psychotic break and murder people with it you take away the damn hammer and make sure they can’t just go get another hammer 🙄… it’s not really that hard.
I think a trebuchet would be the answer to that.
One of these days I’m gonna build one in my back yard.
Are you planning on laying siege to your neighbours?
Well not ALL of them 😎
You cant go on a shooting spree with a fucking hammer. Damn conversations with guns and Americans is ignorant af
It’s an analogy. And on a crowded subway I sorta could.
Why would you gift a gun to a kid even for hunting?
There's really no reason in any scenario
You'd "give" the gun to the kid in the sense that it's "their" gun to take hunting (and maintain, clean, etc), but it stays locked up in your safe, to which the kid has no access. But, in that case it would be a hunting rifle meant for beginners, maybe chambered in .22 or something like that. Usually, it's something that gets passed down from parents/grandparents if hunting runs in the family. Definitely not the "school-shooter-9000" that these people got for their kid.
Some people see gun usage as a sporting activity. Go out and hit some targets, see how fast, or precise you can be, it's also fun to just blast things. I could easily see a family that shoots together gifting their child an AR pattern rifle after they got used to shooting mom's or dad's firearm. It gives them their own platform to customize and practice on, akin to a musical instrument.
That being said, I think it should take a lot more trust, awareness, and scrutiny from the parents, which was clearly missing in this case. This is more like giving the keys for your Dodge Pickup to your teen when they are absolutely hammered.
Comparing a gun to a musical instrument is peak American lmao
Tchaikovsky used a cannon as a musical instrument.
If that's how you want to read in to it, sure. It less about a gun being as safe, or as socially acceptable, and more about the psychological satisfaction granted from striving to perfect your usage of a tool. I could make the same comparisons to carpentry, archery, cooking, go-karting, golfing...etc.
In the context of child development though? Nah lol. This is a very unserious argument.
Cool. I didn't say anything about child development. Nice looking scarecrow you got there.
You directly compared owning, customizing, and shooting a gun to the way a child would develop the ability to play a musical instrument. On this article about a 14 year old child being gifted a gun.
Where?
It's literally your comment.
Hmmm. Maybe I need better glasses, but I sure as hell doesn't look like I said anything about child development there.
i still don't understand this rhetoric, it's a gun, it's just a thing. It's not a fucking gay person in the 1950s they aren't going to give you aids like it's the 80s.
i mean sure guns are a little weird but like, so is collecting swords?
You also have a right to collect Nazi memorabilia if you want, doesn't mean I'm not going to call you weird.
Do you think there might be anything different between collecting swords and collecting guns? Do you think most people who live in urban environments have a need for a semi-auto military style, magazine-fed rifle? What about multiple of them? What about machine guns?
everything is weird at the end of the day if you think about it hard enough.
i mean, you don't need either of them. You don't need anything really, this entire platform lemmy is useless if you think about it reductively enough.
i don't see anything inherently wrong with people owning guns, if people are allowed to own cars, knives, power tools, chemicals, gasoline, etc. I could keep going.
I mean i own a little finger puppet racoon that sits on my desk near my computer, his name is badge. That's pretty fucking weird.
as for machine guns, those are highly impractical, and very expensive. So i doubt those are ever going to be a significant problem.
Not in Canada. It's actually possible to hunt using rifles that aren't modled on weapons of war.
I mean, a 10/22 ruger isn't a huge gun and can be a Woodstock or modeled as an AR15 but it is the same gun with the same power, same magazine size, same trigger, fire distance, velocity, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that a rifle is a rifle. An AR15 does not shoot faster or more than a different gun.
The gun nuts always argue that they should be able to have the scary guns because they are no more deadly than the hunting guns. If they're functionally the same buy the hunting gun unless you're buying it for how it looks. If you're buying it for how it looks you shouldn't have guns.
People are allowed to customize the look of the guns. I haven't ever heard of any gun or people being shamed for buying guns because of how they like them to look.
In another perspective, making cars faster, boosting, lifting/lowering, and modifying them make them deadlier, too. They do affect the performance though whereas the look of a gun does not.
I think the most they can do is modify the magazine count, trigger pressure, and maybe bump fire? But bump fire reduces accuracy.
I'm a gun owner but not really into spending money on how they look. Most of my collection is hand-me-downs or family heirlooms. Won't knock someone for getting what they find aesthetically pleasing.
I've owned guns for almost 40 years. I fully support the restrictions on gun ownership in Canada. If you're buying a gun for how it looks, for how it makes you feel, or for how you think it makes other people feel you shouldn't own guns. Guns aren't jewelry. They aren't a fashion statement. They're a tool. The argument that they are functionally the same falls flat on its face when you challenge them to use the functionally equivalent walnut stocked field gun because they aren't buying it for how it works, they're buying it for how it looks.
Naked with a pocket knife or no balls.