• CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    Please make sure this fuckhead is never allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life. And give him a few years in a secluded spot to think about what he did wrong.

    Sincerely,

    Responsible Gun Owners

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      7 months ago

      You know what this guy was before he tried to kill someone for the first time?

      A responsible gun owner.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        “Responsible” as in “doesn’t know the laws regarding firearms ownership in his area so he just tried to shoot someone he was never legally allowed to even if he was breaking into his car?”

        Trust me on this one, anyone who owns guns but doesn’t know how to use them safely, efficiently, and legally, isn’t “responsible,” as those are prerequisites for “responsibility.”

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The point is there is no way to distinguish the two until they try to kill someone or kill someone. (And seemingly every effort to make it possible to distinguish the two ahead of time - well, you know how those go.)

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Right, you can’t know what’s in the can until you open it. Unfortunately there isn’t really a way to distinguish it ahead of time in many cases.

            Sure, there are cases like Parkland, in which Broward Co had received over 40 calls about Cruz in the years before the shooting and each time decided not to charge him with a felony or hold him on an adjucated IVC, both of which could have been done but weren’t. Same for that recent kid who’s parents got charged, he had been begging for help, there are times which we could’ve done something even with our current laws and the system failed. In those cases there was a clear indication of the “can’s contents” so to speak. There is clear evidence to speak that they are a danger, and we can already do something about that, even if sometimes we fail to do so (and I blame in part, in the above cases, Broward Co Sherrifs and the kid’s parents respectively for their failure to act on the information they had).

            But that isn’t what they’re advocating for. They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system, which considers (at least ostensibly) people innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

            I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.

            • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system

              And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police. That’s tangential, but I couldn’t not mention it in response to this comment.

              I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.

              You know what would shut me the hell up on gun control? These simple measures, which would be treated by the right like I’m calling for a total ban on guns.

              • To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun operator.
              • To be licensed as a gun operator, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.
              • To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.
              • Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them “red” flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern. Edit - such “flags” could in some cases be resolvable.
              • To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I’m thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)

              Caveats:

              • If you are licensed, you get concealed and open carry privileges in every location where this doesn’t violate applicable local/state laws.
              • If your license lapses, it’s a felony to leave your home with your guns.
                • Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.
                • And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don’t really matter at that point, right?

              Would my plan solve every problem? No. Would it be a better solution to school shootings and other related issues than “let’s arm teachers and everyone else Wyatt Earp style?” Yes, yes it would. And, like any such measure, it could be further refined over time.

              Edit - I made a distinction between owner and operator, I think this makes it better. shrug

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police.

                And yet we continuously decry this as “bad.” It’s wrong when they do it yet you encourage it more. Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?

                To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun owner.

                2a prevents this, it would have to be overturned to pass. Licensure is seen as turning a right into a privilege by the courts. Personally I don’t like it because of how easily it could be abused to deny “the dangerous blacks” or “those suicidal trans” from gun ownership by an “instructor” so inclined.

                To be licensed as a gun owner, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.

                See above. Though I did want to mention accidents are on the low end of our actual problem in terms of numbers. I think gun safety is important too but this does nothing to stop murderers and the like.

                To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.

                The license thing being blocked by the 2a still throws a wrench in your plan, but these are the guys who can decide “I won’t approve guns for blacks” that I was referring to. Currently, these people are sheriffs doing it with carry permits, because that’s the extent of their power, but it is being done as black people are iirc 60-70% of permit denials in some areas. Furthermore some guy deciding I’m “weird” is no basis for denying me rights. Even if it isn’t due to skin color, I’m certainly not christian, what if I happen to wear my Anti-Christ Demoncore (great band) shirt and the instructor decides that’s a “red flag” simply because he doesn’t understand Vegan Satanists from California aren’t actually all that bad just because they use scary imagry? Hell, “those columbine kids loved metallica, any metalhead shouldn’t own a gun” is a thing I’ve actually heard before. Having the basis for denial of rights being anything other than “is criminal” opens denial of rights up far too wide.

                Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them “red” flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern.

                Sheriffs currently can do this to some degree with those permits, it’s just that those “red flags” are often “is black.”

                To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I’m thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)

                Frankly safety doesn’t change much over time, the guns themselves haven’t even changed all that much in the last 100yr.

                If unlicensed, it’s a felony to leave your home with your guns.

                But they can have them unlicensed at home even though they can’t legally own them at all without a license? A) How would they get it home from the store? B) From the home to the range?

                Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.

                So if you carry it illegally out and don’t get attacked and don’t shoot anyone but get searched by an overzealous likely racist cop you’re fucked, but if you do get attacked and kill a guy it’s cool that you were carrying illegally? Why not just not harass the guy for not getting attacked?

                And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don’t really matter at that point, right?

                Well sure lol.

                • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?

                  LOL you are either being intentionally obtuse, or otherwise reaching so far, I don’t really see the point in trying to tease any further nuance out of this discussion.

                  I do find it genuinely amusing that my sideswipe at police was interpreted as a pro-police statement - but clearly we’re having two different conversations.

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You’re the one who says we should do a thing, I say that thing is bad, you say “well cops do the thing,” how can I take that other than tacit admission you think the cops doing the thing you think is good, is good?

                    I’m sure in reality you simply have a rationalization for why you think it both is bad but also should be done more, but I had to have a little fun.

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Youre hearing about him after he tried to kill someone for the first time. I said before. Now, think to before this happened, how do you tell this guy isnt a responsible gun owner?

              • SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Didnt see myself needing it to be honest…I thought I was clear in that what I meant was it is normal to some, not all. Ill try to be clearer in future.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Did he know the laws before, simply getting amnesia the day he broke them thus “becoming” an irresponsible gun owner, or did he never know the laws, and was always an irresponsible gun owner?

            Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not. Can you tell what is inside of an unlabeled soup can before you open it? No, but that doesn’t make it not chicken noodle, you just have to open it before you know that it’s chicken noodle. Just because he hadn’t opened his can and shown his irresponsible contents doesn’t mean they weren’t in there to begin with, the closed can doesn’t contain tomato soup until you open it and it magically becomes chicken noodle now that it is open.

            • blazera@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not.

              I know youre used to the US where tons of gun homicides happen everyday, but its not normal for the rest of the developed world. If you want guns to be a safe thing, you have to be able to tell before these people go murdering. Hindsight is 20/20. There are people today that are going to kill someone for the first time, people that to the outside world look like responsible gun owners.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Unfortunately, like unlabeled cans, people are able to hide their contents. Unlike the cans, people can even actively attempt to resist “opening” them to find out their contents, making it all that more of an impossible task.

                • blazera@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  right, do you see the problem here? To the outside world, a responsible gun owner, and an irresponsible one that hasnt killed yet look the same. how do you keep guns away from irresponsible gun owners before they kill someone? You have to treat every gun owner as irresponsible, because we cant tell before it happens. And it needs to stop happening.

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Ah yes, guilty until proven innocent, the backbone of the American justice system, and a good way to treat one’s fellow human.

      • Paddzr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        If all it takes is 40 questions and some for show handling test? The system is fucked and not strict as others would make you believe.

        Car license is 10x harder here and that’s still loose.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Eh, he clearly was not, but I’m not here to get into a debate about guns or gun control. We definitely need way less of the former and way more of the latter but everybody has different ideas on that and I’ve had that online argument dozens of times.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      The difference between a responsible gun owner and a fucking lunatic with a firearm is one mistake.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      He’s been charged with a felony, the only thing that could “save” him there is pleading down or acquittal. We do have some laws, y’know.