75
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
75 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44183 readers
1144 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm generally in favor of the fewest possible restrictions; I'd rather change the cultural attitude and situations that lead to violence in the first place than restrict the tools that people use. Cramming tons of poor people with no hope for a better future into a very small area, for instance; that's a pretty solid predictor of bad outcomes.
First, I think that any costs associated with laws on gun ownership should be covered by income and wealth taxes. (I also think that state and national parks should be funded the same way; I oppose fee-based gov't services. It's it's a public good that the gov't should be performing, then it should be fully funded.)
I would absolutely favor mandatory training for people that wanted to own firearms, but I'd also make sure that training was on-demand, easily accessed, and paid for by income taxes and not fees. (So, like, Cook County, IL couldn't have only one class every month that meets 30 miles east of O'Hare at 3:30am on Tuesday morning, with a maximum of five spots open, all to make sure that very, very few people can legally own firearms.) I do generally think that people should know under what circumstances they can legally use lethal force, and I'd support free--as above--classes for anyone that wanted a carry permit. Carry permits should be free to people that have attended the classes. I support free universal background checks on all firearm transfers. I'd have to consult with how to make background checks on private transfers work, because I wouldn't want Joe Schmoe holding onto a 4473 that I filled out--too much personal information--but I also don't want the gov't having a database of all private transfers that would become a de facto registry.
I'm generally in favor of removing the rights from someone once they have been convicted of a violent offense, but not usually otherwise. (I think that 'violent offense' would need to be carefully defined so that states couldn't e.g. redefine speeding as a violent offense.) I think red flag laws might be a good idea--people planning acts of mass murder usually 'leak' information in the days or weeks prior--but the way they're currently implemented is not good at all, and it can take months to get your rights back.
If we're going to have guns, then I support mandatory training. If you can't pass a safety test, you shouldn't have a gun.
I think there's an ideological gap that's maybe insurmountable on this issue. I don't want other people around me to be lethally armed. Have you met people? What's the line? "People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.". I don't want the guy who's parking spot got taken from him to pull out his gun. I don't want someone to shoot the kid who rang their doorbell unexpectedly. A guy I used to work with would say "An armed society is a polite society" and I'm like, no. If you're pulling out guns to settle traffic disputes, you have a failed society. I don't want to live in a world where people think it's okay to pull out a lethal weapon over minor problems. I don't want to always have my speech chilled because at any moment the other guy can just shoot me dead, so I better make nice. That's the world I imagine where everyone's carrying a gun.
I also live in a city. Most of the time there's stuff you don't want to destroy behind anything you might be shooting at. Maybe it's different out in the sticks where you have wide opens spaces. I don't want to have to think about stray bullets because some macho idiot got mad that someone took his seat on the bus. I don't want to live in fear that the guy sitting next to me on the train is going to switch from fondling his gun to firing his gun.
And I know people can do violence without guns. Fists and knives and trucks and bombs exist. But those are less efficient, useful for other things, or difficult to get. A fist fight over a bus seat probably everyone walks away from. A gun fight, probably not. And yes, knives exist, but they don't seem to have the mystique that makes people stupid, and are less likely to kill a bunch of people real fast.
Probably the best compromise would be to have gun laws be at the state or city level. Nebraska is very different than new york city. I don't know how you'd handle people traveling though.
Watching from outside, imho the American gun control issues are hampering cooperation in more important areas.
I know you consider it a very emotional issue but compared to tax reform, lgbtq rights, racism, employee rights, homelessness etc, it's not worth getting stuck on.
Saying this as someone who lived in countries with both high (although not US level) and low gun ownership.
Yeah I'm not a single issue voter on guns. If the guy in this thread was a serious candidate they'd have a good shot (no pun intended) at my vote, depending on the alternatives and other details.
That I would oppose. Once you start creating standards for the exercise of rights, it becomes very, very easy to set the standards high enough that it's functionally impossible to pass. We've already seen that kind of nonsense with literacy tests for voting in the south after reconstruction. I support making people sit through training, but I would oppose requiring passing a test.
I understand where you're coming from, because I know a lot of dumb people that are armed, and I've met more than a few people that I wouldn't personally trust with a gun. I had a college roommate that shot himself in his hand because he was fucking around with his handgun without, y'know unloading it. On the other hand, I've also lived in a city, and I lived in really shitty parts of that city (specifically, I lived in Chicago; I lived in Little Village half a block south of Douglas Park, Humboldt Park before gentrification started, and Austin). I've had experiences with the CPD that made me very, very aware that they were not going to be there to help me if anything happened. I had someone spend ten minutes trying to kick my front door in, and cops just... Didn't show up. My now ex-wife called and said there there was a "domestic" ongoing (e.g., she was saying I was trying to kill her), and cops didn't even show up for over 45 minutes. Where I currently live, cops are at least ten minutes away, and that's if they are willing to drive 80mph on mountain roads. Fundamentally, cops can't protect you, and if you aren't white and don't "respect their authority", they probably won't try.
...But I think that most of those things can be addressed culturally and economically rather than through additional legislation restricting rights. Violence is, more often than not, an issue related to--but not directly caused by--poverty and opportunity.
You're probably the most reasonable pro gun person I've talked to in a while.
Do you think the right to own a gun is more real than the right to drive a car? Because we require a driver's test (and insurance and other stuff) for a car, and if you took cars away a lot of people would be fucked. Way more than if you took guns away. (Which is also a bunch of separate issues. We should be less car centered)
I don't really accept that the right to have a gun is a fundamental right. I know it's in the Constitution. That provides legal backing for it but not like moral or ethical backing, to me.
You're right that poverty other issues cause a lot of problems. And our policing system is utter garbage. That's why if you were a serious candidate, I'd consider voting for you even with the disagreements on this.
Yes. One is part of our constitution, and is recognized as fundamental to having freedom at all. The other is convenient and necessary for modern life in the US, but the need could be eliminated through appropriate public policy.
I argue that the moral and ethical right comes from the right to defend your own life (and the lives of others) and freedom, with violence if necessary. If you accept that you have that right, then accepting that people have the right to use the most effective tool for that is a reasonable conclusion. Some countries do not recognize that the individual has the right to defend themselves; those countries tend to also prevent citizens from owning pepper spray and tasers, since those can both be lethal.
You could make an argument that travel is a fundamental right, and if you accept that the most effective tool comes with the right then access to a car becomes a right.
I don't know if I accept that having a right also means you have the right to the most effective tools to execute it. You have the right to speech but airwaves are restricted. Many places have laws limiting noise made in the early morning.
Some of that probably comes from recognizing that you may have the right to talk about how great Widgets are, I have the right to sleep at night.
You might have the right to defend yourself, but I want the right to not live in mortal fear because that guy carries a fully automatic gun on the bus I need to take.
Damned if I didn't agree with most of your points. Common sense is a hell of a thing, yet so rare.