213
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

I initially clicked the link to see if the suspect used a "bump" stock, or AR-15, only to slowly realize, Florence KY is right outside of Covington, just south of Cincinnati, and I have a bunch of family there.

Gun rights and regulations, the arguments and drama and bullshit, all pale in comparison to the loss of a loved one.

Guns don't only do one thing. Sure, they kill people. But they also destroy families. They make kids grow up without fathers, make parents bury their children.

I hope my loved ones are safe. I wish I didn't have to worry about my family and I being shot for nothing everyday.

[-] Devdogg@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

Good lord, who the fuck downvotes this sort of stuff??!?

[-] tiefling 2 points 4 months ago
[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Any gun nut feel like arguing for insanity that are US gun laws?

All you need to do is ignore science and reality and every other country outsider of the US and be convinced that undiagnosed schizophrenics being able to buy a shedload of semi-automatic weapons is necessary for democracy.

All I need to do is remind you that there's not a single piece of study that supports any of the arguments of the gun nutters.

(Also, just because it seems to matter to these nuts, I started shooting at 12 and have handled everything from old officer's pistols to shotguns to modern assault rifles, machine guns, grenades, mines, and even AA guns. Shooting is fun, yeah, but having fun isn't more important than making sure children don't have to live under the constant threat of their fellow pupils pulling out a semi-auto with a bump-stock.)

Edit after three days: yeah, not a Single scientific study of any sort from the gun nuts, but the usual "teenagers aren't kids and we don't actually have any issues and I'm not reading some study, muh rights, just a gang problem" etc etc etc etc

[-] BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

The shooter was a convicted felon. What law do you suppose would've prevented this?

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago

One that would have prevented him from getting his hands on a firearm.

If he's a felon, he shouldn't have been able to possess a gun. Did someone sell him a gun? Did someone let him borrow their gun? Did he steal it from someone who didn't store it securely in a gun safe?

Write the laws so that the person responsible for the felon having a gun can be convicted of murder for the people killed with that gun. Make the liability for owning and selling guns so strict that you would have to be an idiot not to take every precaution to protect yourself from fault.

Because this won't stop unless something changes, and we can't just sit on our hands and pretend it was nobody's fault every time it happens. If we're going to make laws forbidding felons from owning guns, we better start treating anyone who enables felon to have a gun as accomplices in any crimes committed with the gun, without exception. No protections for guns stores or private sellers, just actual enforcement of laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.

[-] BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

And here lies the problem. There are a ton of gun laws on the books already, but the enforcement of them is the problem. Adding more laws isn't going to change that.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

I love it when people are like "the current set of laws is difficult to enforce, but adjusting the language of the law to make it more enforceable is NOT the answer", and then they just shrug it off like there's no solution.

Better laws do solve the issue. As I said, this man got his gun from somebody, and that somebody isn't suspect numero uno right now, so we need laws to change that.

If the law isn't serving us, the law ought to be changed.

Unless you have an alternative plan to offer, you're really just saying "do nothing", which you are welcome to do, but personally I would like to see less violence in the world.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Dude, the problem is that cops do not enforce gun laws against their fellow fascists. If you want better enforcement, the path is to fire ALL the cops, prosecute them, change the requirements for how they get hired, empower oversight boards, demilitarize their armories, and completely replace every single one.

Because until you reform the police, they don't care how many laws you pass.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Maybe one that removes all guns entirely. Other than that, not much.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

Yes I to can make up bullshit...

You're being emotional, and that's how shit laws get created. Your logic follows the same crap that anti-abortion groups use, it's all based on emotions.

And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns.

More kids die from drowning than from being killed at school by a massive order of magnitude. Why aren't we closing pools and hot tubs? Or you don't want to because them dying isn't really the issue to you. It's what was used to have them die isn't it?

https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/infographics/facts-childhood-drowning

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns

Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.

You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

I'm not the one crying, the 2nd isn't going anywhere, and neither are my firearms. More and more people on the left are arming themselves, and the gun control types are becoming a smaller and smaller group. The support you think you have is basically on echo chambers like reddit and here.

Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

First, I'm all for social programs, ending the war on drugs, mental health, single payer healthcare and increasing our funding to education.

Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

Tell that to mexico or Brazil, you also forget that all the places you love to claim have lower gun violence are places with social support for their citizens.

But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

Not even in the same ballpark.

You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.

Lol yea... I'm the angry one here.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

Doesn't seem to be loading for me

Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

The problem here is, you don't seem to care that kids die, just how they die. Most murders happen with handguns. In fact, murders with ar15s are so rare they're just included into all rifle deaths, because they're statistically pointless.

There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

That's not how the second amendment works, it's not there to reduce our violence. It's there to stop a tyrannical gov....one of which seems to be coming more and more everyday. Do you just ignore the shit that's coming out of trump and his ilks mouth?

But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.

Statistics are what I look at. Which is why you thinking another bumpstock or AWB would do anything is hilarious.

You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?

Yes I'm the nut.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 months ago

Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

Look up the definition of children used here. Also look at suicide and homicides as part of that larger number. There's a lot of context that points to the fact that the root cause (obviously) isn't the tool, but the system the tools exist in.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

People like them reek of the sheltered-liberal-20-year-old mindset of "the system is almost perfect, is we just make a couple of tweaks here and there it'll be fine." As if firearm restrictions alone will address socioeconomic ossification, the lack of meaningful state protection of vulnerable populations, deep resentment of minorities in homogenous, conservative areas, etc. Whining about how dumb people who hate guns less than they do are lets them get away with not doing the difficult work of addressing deep-rooted structural injustices. Fucking weak.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Works literally everywhere where reasonable gun regulation has been implemented on a national level.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You follow narrative, we follow science.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 months ago

Science isn't on your side. Science is pretty quiet on ethics and human rights.

We pay a cost for all of our rights. None of them are free or without a body count, even if only in opportunity cost.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Show any science backing up anything saying gun control wouldn't help with the violence issue. Or is your argument now "I'm willing to allow children to be massacred on a weekly basis in practice with the excuse to allowing it to continue will perhaps serve a purpose for some fictional scenario I've been fantasising about"?

Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations? Neato. I'm sure we could find other 'science backed solutions' if we don't consider rights in the analysis.

There are things we can do to address genuine root causes of different types of firearm-related violence. Banning guns, leaving all those young people in horrible situations because you refuse to analyze the situation and patting yourself on the back sounds about right, though.

Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

It's possible to disagree with someone without being a dick. Try it some time.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations?

Do you honestly think everyone having access to a firearm is a fundamental human right?

Because… it very much isn’t.

For more about those, you can read on

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights

And here, in a listed format, and you’ll very much notice the absence of being armed.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/

Let’s take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.

Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).

Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there’d be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?

Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.

[-] VicVinegar@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

What a stupid comparison. Guns have one purpose - destruction. You can talk about all the things you can do with guns, but their intended purpose and design is to destroy. The better they destroy shit, the more valuable they are. They're nothing without that. Pools and hot tubs are not that, and provide value to families and communities in other ways. Also, it's water. Literally water. And many areas have building codes surrounding pools and their safety. Mainly fences and safety covers. Homeowners insurance is also more expensive when you own a pool. Does that stop every child from drowning? No. Do we know how many times a child was saved because a pool was legally required to have a fence or safety cover? Also no. Also, there is no one running around with pools or hot tubs in their pockets drowning children en masse.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

What a stupid comparison. Guns have one purpose - destruction. You can talk about all the things you can do with guns, but their intended purpose and design is to destroy. The better they destroy shit, the more valuable they are. They're nothing without that.

Yep, no argument there, but that wasn't my point.

Pools and hot tubs are not that, and provide value to families and communities in other ways. Also, it's water. Literally water. And many areas have building codes surrounding pools and their safety. Mainly fences and safety covers. Homeowners insurance is also more expensive when you own a pool.

You do know how many laws there are on the books for firearms right? It's over 20k laws in state and federal gov.

Does that stop every child from drowning? No. Do we know how many times a child was saved because a pool was legally required to have a fence or safety cover? Also no.

What's the point of this? You don't know how many kids on average are stopped by a safer either.

Also, there is no one running around with pools or hot tubs in their pockets drowning children en masse.

Again, so it doesn't matter that 950 kids a year on average drown, because that's just the deaths you're willing to take to have access to a body of water right?

[-] VicVinegar@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

None of that was to say it doesn't matter, it's to say it's a stupid comparison. We can work on drownings and work on gun deaths at the same time. They're two completely different problems. If I said too many people died in car accidents, you wouldn't say "well what about cigarettes!? Don't care about lung cancer then huh?" Yes. They both problems. Such different problems it's stupid to compare them. Pool safety also isn't a divisive political issue that's winds up in the news because people would mostly agree on common sense pool safety. There's no group of fenceless pool enthusiasts protesting for their right to own a pool that a child could easily drown in. We would consider those people idiots.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

He's literally using whataboutism.

It's a garbage rhetoric "tactic" and you should not engage in it with him.

Going "b-b-but bathtubs" isn't him showing any science on gun regulation, it's pathetic whataboutism, all people like him are capable of.

And even with cars, a mode of transport that can be fatal if there's accident (but the main use of which is transportation), there already is reasonable regulation, because ONE NEEDS A LICENCE TO DRIVE, and there are criteria you need to meet to be allowed a licence.

edit gddamn autocorrect

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

It's crazy that in America apparently you need to be a gun expert to know if you like to get shot on the streets or have your children get shot in a school. Ah ah aaaah, he said clip instead of magazine, he don't even know so his argument is invalid. You get murdered by a bullet from a magazine, not a clip. Gun nuts win again.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

It's crazy that you should know a topic and be informed on it to discuss it? Really? You're literally talking like the anti-abortion/anti-contraception dicks who wave their bibles around. So yes, it's good to be informed on a topic.

What a silly thought.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

Guns now top cause of death in children under 19, surgeon general says

If that doesn't suggest to you we have a problem that needs to be solved, the problem is you, not whatever you want to nitpick to avoid changing the gun situation in the US this time.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

No it is not, a 19/18 year old is A) not a child, and B) those numbers are from COVID as I have explained already. People couldn't drive, so that lowered the deaths which historically have been the number one thing, and suicides went up.

Once numbers for 2023/post COVID are released it'll be back to cars being the number one cause.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So nitpicking it is. (also it's odd that the Surgeon General is making a statement in 2024 that doesn't use any data newer than 2020 - so odd, that I doubt your claim is correct.)

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 months ago
[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

And until the day comes when exactly that has no chance of ever happening again, minorities should keep strapped.

[-] helopigs@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

If you really want to understand their perspective, consider an analogous argument involving some other fundamental human right, ideally one that you strongly support.

An easy one is free speech. Many countries without this right believe it is dangerous and stupid, using a litany of rational assertions and examples to justify themselves.

Consider all of the harm caused by people spreading lies and propaganda. The right to free speech ensures the most evil ideas and people can utilize our most powerful social constructs to attack the very foundations that a stable society depends on. etc...

Every right can be abused, and likewise an argument can be formulated against them based on their potential for abuse. Those that support some right typically believe the benefits outweigh the costs.

Hope this helps.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Do you honestly think everyone having access to a firearm is a "fundamental human right"?

Because... it very much isn't.

For more about those, you can read on

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights

And here, in a listed format, and you'll very much notice the absence of being armed.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/

Let's take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.

Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).

Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there'd be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?

Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.

[-] helopigs@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I'm not trying to argue with you.

It seemed that you were trying to make sense of the gun nut mindset. Gun nuts do indeed think firearm ownership is a fundamental human right, so considering it as such is necessary to understand their perspective.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

No no, I'm not trying understand anything here. I'm displaying how delusional gun nuts are, for example by thinking unlimited access to firearms is a "human right"? I mean I know the education in the US is bad, but that's just... next level bad.

[-] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

I was at the UCSB shooting in 2014. I remember the surreal sound of gunshots. They sounded like nothing I would expect. So many lives and families were destroyed that day. The years later, a bar in my community was shot up, destroying even more lives.

I'm sad how often these occurrences are and that we've gone blind to them.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 4 months ago

We don't have a gun problem, I promise.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

3am...gang or drug violence...not a mass shooting.

A mass shooting, as the public understands, is one that is a random act of violence in a public place.

Not a drug den at 3am.

[-] vxx@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

mass shooting, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of a firearm.” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.” For the purposes of this article, both sets of criteria will be applied to the term mass shooting, with the distinction that the shooter or shooters are not included in any fatality statistics.


Police responded to a call just before 3am on Saturday morning for an active shooting situation at a home in Florence, Kentucky.

You're right it seems. They should've said "mass killing"

Still weird that we talk about semantics though.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Semantics matter greatly. The general public hears mass shooting and thinks, random act of violence. They don't hear "3am crack house was shot up by rival gang".

[-] root@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

So fucking sad

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
213 points (100.0% liked)

News

23284 readers
4216 users here now

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS