460
But we're FREE. And when open carry is forced on California, people will have so much freedom, they'll die from freedom and go to the Lord.
And then they'll come to me with tears in their eyes and say, "Sir, we're just too free. We can't take it anymore."
It's very troubling that so many men in America know only one way to express emotions: anger. This kid sounds mostly just heart-broken and lonely, and yet he manages to use healthy emotions, albeit negative, to fuel an increasingly destructive rage.
Expressing sadness and loneliness as anger is bound to make both worse. It's as if American society had given this kid only one way out of his predicament, and that way out is in fact going to cost lives.
In unrelated news, US citizens with unflattering memes of any White House official continue to be detained for national security reasons.
No Way to Prevent This
Tell me a story about the US without telling me it's about the US. What a sad story.
The teen’s father then informed police that he had 12 registered firearms in the home and assured detectives that he would secure them, the documents show.
No one in the world needs twelve firearms.
No you see they need it to protect themselves from an evil governement that supports people, violates the constitution and harbors criminals, whilst threatening most of their allies and teaming up with genocidal regimes.
They will put these arms to their intended use any minute now...
AAaany minute now.
Come on Lemmy, you can't have it both ways. How are we going to stage a massive revolution and die horribly in the process if we don't have a shit ton of guns?
Fewer guns leaves more room in the safe (& budget) for ammunition.
I mean, at most you’d only need like three per person. Long gun, sidearm, and maybe a backup long gun.
I guess you could make the argument that this parent was simply trying to arm an entire family of four. It’s not a good argument. But we’ve already established that these aren’t good parents.
90's shooters taught me that the ideal amount of weapons to carry is 9, with a 10th one ideally becoming available at the end of your adventure
load more comments
(1 replies)
he assured them, but dint actually do it. if someone has and wants 12 firearms, they are unlikely to fully secure them at all. they probably have it stashed all in one place or multiple places for easy acces. thats how these ammosexuals think.
they probably have it stashed all in one place or multiple places
This does read as if you're mad no matter what they do.
Somehow i read that quote as if Trump spoke it
I am.
I mean, if you hunt deer, pheasant, small game, target shoot, and have a handgun or two for home defense, that's already 6ish guns right there. If you have any heirlooms or collector items that are firearms, that's a few more. I don't have 12 guns, but I don't have a hard time picturing why someone might, especially an entire family who hunts and does outdoorsy things. Then again I live in the western US and outdoor recreation is huge here.
Though if you don't have any sense of responsibility, you shouldn't have any guns either. If anyone disagrees with that, I don't know if logic can reach them!
I don't mean to sound insensitive to your culture, but there are other activities that can be done outdoors, can you tell your country please?
Truthfully since most predators have been eliminated many species need population control.
Either the average person hunts or fish and wildlife has to go out there and perform culls.
"Hunters have been destroying the environment for centuries, and now the environment is fucked up, so the solution is more hunting!"
Really a copy paste of the "against mass shootings, we need to give more weapons to people so they can shoot the shooters", an argument that is absurd to everyone outside of the US, and to anyone in the US who has a brain.
Yeah I spent the better part of my adulthood working to preserve lands with the park service.
Over population happens it's an issue. Some parks like Yellowstone have been able to reintroduce wolves. It was great. Other parks actually host hunts. However sometimes when populations get out of control people have to go and cull species. Culling is most wasteful imo, and expensive for public lands
I'm sorry these are the facts. Ecology doesn't really care how you feel about it.
Also recrational hunting didn't cause predators to go extinct. That was a direct action of the government paying bounties to kill North America's natural predators. Wolves would have still been killed by farmers, but the hunting was driven by the government then.
Personally I prefer reintroduction of predators. The issue is it gets political fast and every farmer within 500 miles of a planned reintroduction calls congress and lobbyists get involved. When that option is gone, managed hunting becomes the most effective in terms of practically and cost to manage populations.
Please stop comparing scientifically backed land management to conservative dog whistles
Yeah, just like people try to prevent forest fires because they feel like it's an environmental problem, and then researchers are suggesting that preventing forest fires completely actually causes them to be worse and more frequent.
Maybe at some point the idea that when an environmental problem arises, you need to completely take control over it, is not such a good idea. And as you said, reintroducing predators that have been exterminated by hunters (whether it was from a government incentive or not doesn't really change who did it) is probably the best solution that we have available, but it's not done because fuckers keep on thinking that mass killing is an alternative solution. If people stopped loving hunters so much, the idea of "culling" or mass murdering a species would not be seen as a possibility, and everyone would shut up about reintroducing predators.
Justifying hunting is never, in no shape or form, helping anything. It just makes things worse for everyone (except the hunters, that are enjoying their lives of murder-hobos)
Wow talk about false equivalency.
Environments are designed for forest fires. They need fire to function. Which is why there are intensive control burn programs.
The issue is before we began trying to let our forests burn properly people spent decades not burning the forests and trying to stop every fire immediately. This led to way too much fuel being available and combined with climate and you get fires that are outside of what they should be naturally. Hopefully we can continue to correct to the point where we can let fires burn naturally. Sometimes people struggle to understand that we've been shaping the environment for decades and it's going to take decades of work to fix. Just walking away would not have the intended result.
Anyway back to the need to cull or manage hunts, you clearly have no idea the ecological issues overpopulation causes. When populations get out of control you can have an environment that becomes completely overgrazed. This is a disaster for the plant communities, and causes ripple effects throughout the whole ecosystem. Leading to the extinction of threatened plant and animal species and a loss of biodiversity.
Naturally it would not get to that point. We should reintroduce predators. Until then it is absolutely necessary to cull some species. I'd much rather people go and kill a couple hundred deer every few years (most parks do not do yearly hunts) than to lose vulnerable species.
And like I said it's not the hunters preventing predator reintroduction it's primarily ranchers with a helping hand from NIMBYs. Truthfully I've never heard a case of hunters saying anything at all about reintroduction.
We know. There's also paintball, and dynamite fishing!
/s
Even though I'm very glad that I live in a country where guns are heavily restricted, I can't deny that shooting is kinda fun.
We don't have walkable cities, and in rural areas infrastructure may be so underwhelming that shooting stuff might be the best you can hope for excitement.
(Fortunately it's usually in a non harmful way like target shooting or plinking).
You mean bow hunting like a caveman?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I do lots of outdoor recreation, mountain biking, swimming, hiking, basketball...
Or did you mean gun-based recreation is huge there?
load more comments
(12 replies)
Need?
Who cares about need.
When it comes right down to it, nobody needs more than one of most things.
But in reality, there is a limit to how much "you" (as in someone that is trying to limit someone else's access to something) should be allowed to limit said thing without both due process and significant cause. When something is a fundamental right (and anyone with multiple firearms is definitely of the mind that firearms are a natural extension of fundamental rights, so long as they exist at all), you, me, the government simply shouldn't be able to declare that anyone has to show need to exercise that right.
To the contrary, suppression of rights has to be done only under extreme and unusual circumstances.
Now, from your comment, I doubt you consider the right to defense as extending to firearms. That's fine, I'm not debating that by this comment (and won't, it bores the fuck out of me because nobody ever has anything new to bring to the debate). I'm just saying that if something is a right, placing your idea of need on it simply isn't acceptable.
A dozen, a hundred, a thousand, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that the right exists. And, in the US it is a specifically enumerated right. There's wiggle room on when rights can be curtailed, suppressed. We do it all the time. But it can't be done lightly, and shouldn't be based on some arbitrary, ill defined standard of need.
That being said, the role of a handgun vs a shotgun vs a rifle at least points to three use cases that can't be met by the others. Since different calibers of ammunition have discrete properties, it can also be said that significantly different rounds would fulfill different roles (you shoot a squirrel with a .50 cal, you ain't scraping up enough to roast). Just based on that concept, it would be easy to point to at least six different firearms being "needed" to fulfill roles.
If you have multiple people using the firearms, you can need different ones for each person.
So twelve? It really isn't that many. I've seen hunters that will regularly use at least twelve different rifles in a year, sometimes more, depending on how often they can find time to hunt. Ignoring any debate about hunting being something you or I support, it is a use case that is common enough to merit the term need when it comes to the tools used to do it.
Now me? I don't need that many. Not a hunter, don't compete in shooting sports, don't even target shoot as a regular hobby. But you sure as hell don't get to decide what I do and don't need. Nor does anyone else without the application of due process and just cause.
In the case of U.S. gun regulation at least, I don't think a piece of paper from over two hundred years ago declaring firearm ownership as an inherent right supersedes the extreme level of gun violence that has long been occurring and largely ignored.
Limited and highly regulated gun ownership for hunting or collecting is one thing, but there wouldn't be a need for people to amass arsenals of weapons for 'self-defense' if guns weren't so prevalent in the first place. Other first world countries do not have the gun problem the U.S. has.
This is why I said I wouldn't debate the issue. Nothing new can be said about it. There's no fresh ideas to bring up, and it all eventually comes down to it being a fundamental right or not. I've never seen anyone convinced to switch their opinion based on a debate. I strongly suspect I never will because nobody that's willing to debate it in the first place lacks a strong opinion.
Edit: I will say that there's a difference in terminology here. A fundamental right is one that all people have, whether or not it is enumerated. An enumerated right may or may not be fundamental as well.
That may or may not be word usages formalized for discussion of rights, but it's the terminology I use to point to why debate is never going to amount to anything. Once something is considered a fundamental right, laws cease to matter because even if those laws abrogate or suppress a right, it remains a right that is being suppressed. And, again, doing so should always require the highest possible standards to occur, and should only be done on an individual basis, not writ large
In the case of U.S. gun regulation at least, I don’t think a piece of paper from over two hundred years ago declaring firearm ownership as an inherent right supersedes the extreme level of gun violence that has long been occurring and largely ignored.
Trump or someone like him was inevitable. Even the "good guys" want the boot so fucking bad.
Individual gun ownership cannot hold a candle to the gross extent to which American police departments are armed and militarized. The notion of a 'well-armed militia' safeguarding individual rights from a tyrannical government hasn't been relevant for most of the country's history.
Your right to swing a fist has always ended where my nose begins. In this case, the swung fist is a cache of weapons left where a mentally unstable person can gain access to and misuse them. It's certainly valid to own weapons, but that ownership is a liability that requires investments in safety.
You accurately describe the difference between need and want at the beginning of your comment, then ignore it at the end.
Sounds like you're afraid of your own shadow
Whew. Careful with all that straw, don't drop any matches
It's possible you need the first 11 to kill the 200 people coming for you.
But, what if there are 201???!!!!
checkmate, cynic.
I can see it adding up a lot faster than you might think.
Hypothetically, let's say you have 2 or 3 people in your family who are avid hunters, lots of people go hunting with their spouses and/or children. And each of you have, let's say, a deer rifle, a shotgun for turkey and waterfowl, and a .22 for small game. So off the bat that's about 6-9 guns.
And maybe you started your kid off with a .410 or a 20 gauge shotgun and a smaller .22 rifle for them to learn the fundamentals when they were younger, and when they got older you got a 12ga and a more appropriately-sized rifle for them to use, so there's another couple guns.
And maybe some of you have different guns for different purposes, maybe you prefer a semi auto shotgun for waterfowl and a pump for upland hunting for whatever reason, or if you live in the suburbs you might be limited to shotgun slugs and straight walled rifle cartridges in the areas you can hunt closer to home so maybe you have a gun that meets those requirements and then another rifle for when you can go hunting in the mountains.
So you can pretty reasonably have a dozen or so guns in your household from just having a couple people who like to go hunting before you even start talking about carry or home defense guns, dedicated range/target shooting guns, or collecting them, etc.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
460 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
21599 readers
840 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS