this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
-34 points (13.0% liked)

Conservative

435 readers
65 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-34
So, what gun control would have stopped the Kansas City shooting? (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (37 children)

The whole "what could have stopped X" question is a loaded one. But regardless, the answer is gun control, and U.S. law should learn from modern German law:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/germany-gun-control-laws-a4366996.html

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/london-evening-standard/

It's crazy how even this right wing sources seems to understand that gun control is necessary and a requirement for low gun death rates, given that they admit right at the begging of the article that they have amongst the lowest death rates out there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Total:

Germany: 1.04/capita

United States: 12.21/capita

Homicide only:

Germany: 0.06/capita

United States: 4.46/capita

If more guns & lax gun laws made us safe, we would should expect to see the opposite. Yet we don't, because anybody with half a brain understands that a tool whose purpose is to kill as easily as possible will make killing easier when it is around untrained people/people with insufficient reason to own it/people who store them poorly.

That's a 75x smaller gun homicide rate. We aren't going to get that small of a rate without gun control.

Inb4 somebody calls me a troll despite putting effort into this: fuck off

load more comments (37 replies)
[–] Bongo_Stryker 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What “expanded” or “universal” background check applies to stolen handguns? Maybe, maybe, you could find something that would have prevented Miller, who is 18, from possessing a gun, but it was Mays, with his stolen firearm, who began shooting first. So, where are we now?

Well I'm not really a gun control guy in the normal sense but this seems like a deliberately obtuse question. By obtuse I mean stupid. If there were less guns laying around everwhichywhere then there'd be less guns for the stealing. That doesn't seem so hard to grasp, but apparently some are mystified.

It seems the argument here is that crime and violence cannot be legislated out of existence. This is like saying (and I'm not sure if this is a strawman,): All desease can't be cured, therefore doctors are useless!" What I mean to say is that it's a stupid all-or-nothing argument. There's no possibility of reducing death and violence, there's no room for compromise. But that's American politics these days, don't compromise on nothing, never.

I am probably in the minority, but I don't think the issue should be framed as either/ or.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not sure where you came to that conclusion. After a shooting the left always screams we need more laws.

As such, the question is what law would have stopped this? It’s logical step from we need more to which laws are you suggesting.

[–] Bongo_Stryker 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not sure where you came to that conclusion. After a shooting the left always screams we need more laws.

I come to that conclusion because after a shooting the right always insists there's nothing wrong here, everything is as it should be.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That isn’t what the author states. The author is asking what laws would have stopped this? Since the left always wants more laws, what law would have helped ?

[–] Bongo_Stryker 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think it's inaccurate to say the left always wants more laws.

I wonder. Can we imagine any kind of legislation that does not conflict with the second amendment but reduces tragic senseless loss of life in America?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago

Well Joe Biden helped pass a law in the 90’s that seemed to work…. But the left is against more cops, funding the police and strong punishment. We know the assault rifle ban was a bust. Studies have shown in did nothing.

All joking aside. Have you read freakanomics? They say the decline was roe vs wade. It’s one reason I support abortion rights.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Let's ask a similar question: what measures to oppose illegitimate voting would have stopped Trump from being elected in 2016?

Wait a second though, wouldn't denying the right to vote to a wide swatch of people be unconstitutional? Sure, if you want to prevent certain terrible people from being elected and the only tool you're trying to use is regulating voting, then you're going to have to prevent people with certain ideological views from voting. But wouldn't that go against the core principles of the US constitution...?

So what would have worked, if you don't want to touch voting rights, or eliminate civil rights regarding speech and press?

That's a bit harder, isn't it?

So, let's try this again: if you want to prevent gun violence, what would work that doesn't infringe on constitutionally guaranteed civil rights?

(And a note here: I did not and will not vote for Trump, any MAGA supporter, any christian nationalist, or any politician that supports gov't censorship of any kind for any reason. I'm deeply disappointed that, whatever other social and economic disagreements I have with traditional conservatives, we can't even agree that civil rights should be absolute.)

[–] Bongo_Stryker 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My first impulse was to answer "education," but people are willful. So probably not even that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Interestingly, education does a pretty good job of reducing violence.

[–] Bongo_Stryker -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but what about the willfulness part? How to account for the outpouring of opposition to education for things like evolution, critical race theory, sex education, 1619 project, etc.?

Up in Canada, people were manipulated into blocking the streets in protest of SOGI 123, which isn't even a curriculum, just resources to help create safer school environments. The recent event in Oklahoma resulting in a 16 year old's death shows such resources are necessary, but someone is funding efforts to put a stop to them.

So yeah, education does a pretty good job of reducing violence, but what's the solution when education itself is under attack?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

1619 has serious errors in it. Teaching people lies isn’t education.

Education is teaching people facts and how to think.

People need to be willing to support their schools

[–] Bongo_Stryker 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well that's what you have been told, and here you are repeating it. As with evolution, sex education and the other examples, someone benefits from the mischaracterization and opposition to information being presented. They come up with ridiculous sounding bullshit and rely on others to repeat that bullshit. I can't speak directly to the 1619 project, I don't know much about it. I only know that some of the people in my social circles that got all worked up about it are people I consider dumber than ditch water.

We are talking about education as a means of reducing or preventing gun violence - the topic you started. It's my contention that as soon as you introduce an educational program aimed at reducing gun violence, someone is going to come along and say something like: "these dang freedom-hating libruls claim law-abiding responsible hunters are a bunch of violent psycho murders! They're only tryin to put food on the table for their families. We must stop these communists fixin to take away our guns!"

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s not what I’ve been told. It’s full of misinformation.

Woosh. You missed the whole point of his statement. It isn’t education on gun violence. It’s education in general. Education reduces violence.

You want to teach god knows what when the studies are about education.

[–] Bongo_Stryker 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Was that the whole point? Ha, woosh indeed.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Bongo_Stryker 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ok great. So the conclusion is that practically nothing can be done to reduce gun violence in America beyond what we are already doing. We are already edumacating the populace as fast as we can and while there has been progress, results are slowish and variable. No law could have ever stopped the Kansas city shooting and one must accept that the price you pay for all this freedom and liberty is the chance that you could get shot at any moment. Unless of course, you are wealthy. God Bless America.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

Are we really educating the population? Test scores are dropping. We are spending time teaching children there are 57 genders and that everything is racist. We have a 1619 project trying to teach children misinformation.

We need to go back to education and teach what is important. Right now, we are wasting valuable time teaching BS when we should be teaching what matters. kids lost a lot of time with COVID. We need to focus on getting them back on track, otherwise we will have a lost generation

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter, there should be no gun control. Government can fuck off

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We already have some gun control. I’m not opposed to gun control that is logical such as background checks. We should make sure you are legally able to buy a gun before selling you one. I’m not opposed to waiting periods. While they are a pain, I find them reasonable. I find the restrictions on fully automatic weapons slightly fair. You should be able to buy a modem one using the same procedure.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We already have some gun control.

Which I want to have entirely repealed.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

To each his own, I suppose. I don't think people who are a threat to society should own firearms. I have no issues with felons losing their right to own firearms, especially violent firearms. People who are seriously mentally ill should not own firearms. There are some people that should not have firearms.

load more comments
view more: next ›