• 0 Posts
  • 81 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle





  • Dude, don’t. This took 2 seconds to find. There’s more that I’m aware of just from memory too. Also, the white guys thing.

    Individual counter examples do not negate trend lines and you know it. I’ll try to come back later when I’m on my computer and link a few government reports that clearly demonstrate the mass shooter phenomenon as we know it properly started in the 90s. I don’t have the documents on my phone and I don’t remember the titles so I can’t Google them.

    I don’t consider fixing systemic issues in society to be a cop-out. I genuinely want to do all of those changes and more. There’s plenty of people who would consider suggesting gun law reform a cop-out, since it’s equally as unlikely to pass. Biden just suggested we bring back the assault weapons ban for the 70th time in his presidency (that’s the actual number), so you can judge how well that’s going.


  • Oh, no, it’s not that I don’t believe you. Just sounds like there’s different opinions within the military on the usefulness of burst fire.

    The M1a Springfield uses a totally different manual of arms than the M4/M16, especially when you fix the magazine.

    If we’re trying to square the 2nd amendment with reducing mass shootings (a very small but spectacular number of gun deaths) everything you listed would improve the situation slightly and there’s little reason why we shouldn’t have them. I’d throw in a storage requirement requiring guns and ammo be kept behind a lock. But mass shootings are much more of a social phenomenon than anything else. We’ve had access to capable guns for a very long time and mass shootings only became a thing in the 90s. That is, it’s not inherit to humanity, it’s cultural. (This should be further evidenced by the fact that they’re all done by white guys.)

    Now, that sounds like a cop-out, but it’s not. It’s saying that we know we can have a society with guns and without mass shootings because we used to have exactly that. Well, what did we have then that we don’t have now? Lower inequality, higher union representation, more accessible housing, less media saturation, higher minimum wage, fewer monopolies, etc. I would suggest reading Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get an idea of the kind of person and situation that produces mass shootings. There’s a racial component to it that won’t (and shouldn’t) change, but so much about our economic and social situation can change to get rid of mass shootings. Heck, even just Medicare for All would have a big impact, since it would make counseling free and accessible. Plus, all these social changes would have an even bigger impact in the other major areas of gun deaths, murders and suicides.


  • Aight, I’ve been told different from other folks who have deployed.

    Anyway, this conversation is way off the rails. The point being that, if you consider the original intent of the 2nd amendment to be the only thing protecting a citizen’s access to firearms, it would be much more correct to say the standard issue rifle would be the most protected firearm than any other.






  • Liz@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlthe evolution
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s not actually about winning against the military. The civics justification for having guns is to make harassment campaigns more accessible when necessary. (Any sustained resistance resistance campaign would have to have outside supply lines.) No modern rebel group has taken on an established military on equal footing. The goal is to make oppressing the population extremely annoying, not to actually be in control yourself. In order to actually run a government you need a different set of skills than to run a resistance campaign, but a resistance campaign might become necessary until we can restore the government to a just one.

    There’s other justifications for individual ownership of firearms, but that’s the one most similar to what you’re thinking of.






  • Liz@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlDebate this!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 months ago

    Technically no, but it’ll never happen.

    The way the parties nominate candidates for president is an absolute mess, but the nominations aren’t official until the parties hold a closed convention with delegates who vote for candidates to be the nominee. Back in the day these delegates used to actually be the people who decided who got nominated. These days they’re more like a ceremonial role, with a lot of them (I think) being required to vote in line with the way people voted in their state’s primary.

    Anyway, I’d have to look it up to be 100% sure, but I’m pretty sure enough delegates have some kind of autonomy that it’s possible they could nominate someone other than Biden. Who they would end up agreeing on…? Heck if I know.