If one party promises to solve an issue to their voters, they can actually benefit from not doing enough about it so they can campaign with it again. If one party promises to not stop mass shootings, and the other benefits from promising to do something about them and then not doing enough, nothing much will happen. I really think this issue is a symptom of the two party system
Just dropping in to ask if anyone has that image. I need it to win several arguments I’m currently having on the internet.
Thank you. I will not forget this. I would fight for you.
Republicans know multiple causes and contributions that lead to mass shootings, but none of them will support doing anything to address those causes because muh socialism.
While we should have better access to mental (and physical) health care, that’s probably not going to fix the too frequent “Someone knocked on my door so i shot them” murders that happen too often.
It also won’t solve the “and then the police shot him” murders.
There are a lot of things wrong with the US and its dominant culture. I’d say most of the blame and the blood is on conservatives. Which makes a kind of sense - if you have a shitty system and you are fighting to keep it as is, you’re probably a shitty person with shitty takes making the world worse.
If someone just thanos snapped away the conservatives, or at least the authoritarian subset of them, many problems would vanish overnight.
Healthcare is unobtainable for most, housing is now a pipe dream for most, prosperity falling apart, working until you die. “We need to incarcerate all the drug addicts and kill the crazy people”.
If only the mass shooters would just target the rich instead of the general public, but I agree with you. A Thanos snap on a good chunk of the conservatives would fix a ton of shit.
That thanos snap better take care of a all the very corrupt politicians and unchecked capitalists as well pretty please.
Healthcare is unobtainable for most,
What do you mean?
housing is now a pipe dream for most,
What do you mean?
I guess it’s not technically unobtainable, it just puts you into financial ruin to utilize healthcare. I call that unobtainable if you’re trying to be financially responsible.
When I look at housing and I see that it has to consume %50 or more of people’s annual budget, that means young people need to earn around 115-150k/yr in order to become homeowners, and that’s only after banks have shifted the goal posts. Young professionals are also much more likely to be saddled with 30-65k of student debt.
When you combine that with the inflation spike that happened last year, and the rising rents, there’s many people earning only $25/hr but rent is $2k/month.
Just fucking good times. The next spike will probably be the suicide rates.
Mental health is a scapegoat for discrediting people via appeal to authority fallacy.
We all know if that happened the democrats would fuck it up. They’d stop everything they were working on and set up conservation efforts for conservatives. They’d have musicians raise awareness of the unprecedented threat the conservatives are under and tell everyone where they can donate to those left griftless. The real shitty thing is that without the Republicans around to fuck it up it’ll probably actually work.
Oh I long for the day we can tour a historical conservative town reenactment.
“Over here, notice the giant American flag, and even more prominent Trump 2024 flag. On the other side, a comically large truck requiring a ladder to enter, believe it or not, these were often chosen for low fuel efficiency and modified for extra pollution. Up ahead we see a teenager who has just been kicked out of their parent’s house for being gay, a house containing a meth lab, six churches, and a neighbor wielding an AR-15 ‘just in case’.”
It is not only the authoritarian conservatives that want gun rights
The “funny” thing about the police shooting people for having guns is that it essentially means Americans don’t actually have the right to own/carry guns. They only have the right to buy them.
Even if you don’t have a gun it’s a problem, if you are are stopped by police for a random check^1. You are asked for your license and registration papers. You move your hand 1 cm to get it, cop suddenly realizes you could theoretically have a gun, then decides to shoot you first because self defense.
The possibility that literally everyone can have a firearm makes living there so much more dangerous compared to not having the option of shooting back whenever it would be needed for actual self defense.
^1 probability for random police checks has an inverse proportionality to the whiteness of one’s skin color.
Police cannot shoot you (legally) for carrying, now whether they follow the law is a different matter
They just claim they feared for their life and now they’re declared not guilty. There is no specific law saying they can just shoot you for having a gun, but there’s plenty of other laws, precedents etc. making it absolutely legal for them to shoot you for having a gun.
Of course, this is why body cams are one of the greatest innovations in policing.
The Real Issues™
Yeah, mass shootings are a real problem and should be higher on the list of priorities.
But I still consider the issue of people transitioning (mostly men to women) after puberty to have an advantage over their female competitors. You don’t need a large population with that advantage to put them all on the podium. Effectively, that destroys a women category in a sport because for most sports the distinction is meant to protect and promote women.
It’s not advisable to allow trans people in those categories because removing them later from that would be inhumane. They should have their own category, similar to how people with disabilities have (and no, I don’t claim that this is a disability). Changing categories to terms other than “women” and “men” based on weight is also an option, but by definition, that’s essentially the same as removing/destroying women’s sports, not an alternative to it. At least the word “woman” is not used to describe a trans woman who has practiced with a male physique for 20 years and won with women who didn’t transitioned.
People who claim that trans women don’t have an advantage are delusional. I doubt that Republicans think that deeply, and it’s mostly driven by hatred, but that doesn’t mean the issue doesn’t exist.
You’re literally falling for the republican wedge issue
You can have opinions on two completely separate, entirely unrelated issues at the same time. And it’s not an either/or topic of conversation. We can have both.
But yes, the conservative mainstream attack on Trans is definitely intended to distract from all of their monumental failings.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t warrant some discussion, though. Just not the amount it’s getting.
You can, but you have mistaken opinion from distraction.
What you’re saying doesn’t constitute a strong argument. My position is that we should notinclude trans people in those categories because, later on, we cannot remove them (which would be much worse). You, on the other hand, seem to opt for ignoring that and, through ignorance, place people with views similar to mine in the position of oppressors trying to remove those people from that category. That’s malevolent.
My position is that we should notinclude trans people
place people with views similar to mine in the position of oppressors trying to remove those people from that category. That’s malevolent.
Do you even listen to yourself?
I advocate for the creation of separate categories for those people.
Bigots love segregation.
“Those people” Sounds familiar. What were you saying about malevolence and being the oppressors, again?
I’m not a native speaker, and it seems like you hear what you want to hear. My responses were polite, but please continue with your whistle-blowing, it’s evident that argumentation is not your strong suit.
Separate…but equal?
People without legs participate in runs in the Paralympics, and some of their prosthetics are quite bouncy. I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point they beat runners with legs using those prosthetics.
I would prefer for them not to compete with “regular” runners because the balance between having legs and bounciness of the prosthetics shouldn’t be the deciding factor when determining the winner.
Letting people with prosthetics compete with each other and not with people with legs is fair for both groups.
You’re either a fed or a bot, I don’t care to find out for either. Trans people make up 1% of the United States and within that 1% barely any trans people play sports. The news has hyper actively focus on the ones that do.
If you want to make an entire section of sports for less than 1% of the United States pick your self up by your bootstraps and go nuts. Other wise, who cares.
Trans people make up 1% of the United States and within that 1% barely any trans people play sports.
As I mentioned, you don’t need to have 10% of people with an unfair advantage in sports; you just need a few on the podium. You completely ignored that because it’s easier for you to fight with an imagined bot than an actual argument.
If those athletes’ performance would align with others, that wouldn’t be an issue. What I’m raising as an issue is that they could build muscle differently, and even bone density can be different for men and women. It’s impossible to eradicate all those characteristics. That’s what trans people are trying to do and they have made progress, but some things stay, especially for those who began transitioning late after puberty.
Counterpoint, this is dumb as fuck
Wow, such a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument.
yeah, gonna second that counter point. this is not worth the government’s time… it’s sports, it doesn’t actually matter. let the leagues or whatever figure this out for themselves.
Absolutely nothing you said is new or novel though, that was their point. It’s the same line the right has been using for the last… 10 years or so? Idk, whenever they decided they were mad about it. You’re repeating talking points whether you know it or not.
What a great non-argument you made. Republican said it and it hasn’t changed so it must be wrong.
Right, hasn’t changed for Republicans, or him, or you apparently. Everyone else has heard the argument and doesn’t actually care. It’s sports, it’s not that important.
Do you want the federal government making rules for baseball? The argument is so incredibly stupid it makes it seem like a bad faith argument. It’s not the integrity of the sport they’re concerned with at all.
Hope I helped clear that up for you T-Bone, let me know if you need further clarification.
not falling, ‘literally’. figuratively, yes.
One valid and recognized definition of literally is “figuratively”. Words and usage changes overtime in a society.
Recognised but never valid.
I’m not a prescriptivist in general, but I draw the line when it doesn’t make any sense AND makes it harder for people to understand each other/meaningfully communicate what they actually mean to say.
You haven’t drawn any lines, God, you’re typing words.
I meant figurative lines, not literal ones.
There should be no issue if the trans woman underwent hormone therapy to having cis female levels of testosterone. No one is going to seriously push for trans women to play sports when they have all the biological advantages to beat women. But once they allow their physical form to transition, I’d argue they’re on the same level as the cis female population, if not at a disadvantage since cis women might produce more testosterone. Testing could be done to ensure validity.
We also don’t care if men have significant genetic advantages. I don’t think it’s as big of an issue as people are making it seem.
I’d argue they’re on the same level as the cis female population.
I would oppose that statement. You can balance hormones, but there are differences in how men grow taller, gain muscles while using different hormones, and fat distribution is different for different genders, with fat located in different places. These things don’t disappear after transitioning completely. The trans community would love that because it would improve their lives and they wouldn’t be misgendered as often, but it’s not how it works for people after puberty.
I’m sorry, but considering that I actually took hormones once when I questioned my gender and then realized I’m cis and stopped, I can’t agree. I literally tried it because I believed ideas like what you are saying and I liked the idea of keeping most of my strength. But that’s not the case.Not having testosterone makes you so incredibly weak. HRT basically forces your muscles to atrophy overnight if it works. Your ability to apply strong force with your hand just disappears. All the shit you grew in male puberty doesn’t matter because the medication will just change it. Anything leftover from masculinization will be cosmetic. Maybe they won’t be as weak of a woman as they would have been if they were born female, but they will still enter a range of strength that is typical for women, and often weaker than many. And all of this reverts if they stop. It did for me. And I was 23 so I’m pretty sure I was after puberty. I simply cannot believe the idea that trans women are always stronger than cis women after my experience. I get that most people just don’t have any actual experience with these things, but the misinformation is horrifically bad. I strongly feel like a lot of straight women in sports/people in general are just transphobic and would look for any reason to disclude them from sports and are willing to die on the hill they made because it’s not about being correct or fair to them. It never feels it’s really about how fair things are in reality.
the issue of people transitioning (mostly men to women) after puberty to have an advantage over their female competitors.
Who cares?
It’s high school sports. They should be out having fun, not obsessing over which of them will make it into the fucking Olympics.
Did you make chat gpt write this?
I’m not a native English speaker.
One sentence: shooting are bad
Three paragraphs: but trans people competing in sports is a huge issue that isn’t addressed properly in today’s confused society full of the dangers of trans people competing in sports, destroying a whole category of sports because the trans people competing in sports are competing in sports
I really think the issue of trans people in sports should be up to the governing body of the sporting organization. It’s not really something the federal government should be concerned about.
Concern troll detected
Why not let the governing bodies for the sports themselves make that distinction and then allow the schools to follow suit? To assume someone would transition purely for a sporting advantage of some kind is asinine.
The reasons a person transitions don’t really matter if they do it later in life and can benefit from it.
You’re clueless.
Transitioning is incredibly traumatic for the body (and mentally) you are not as strong after the fact as you were before.
This argument has existed before Trans. I rememberan Olympic sprinter opened this debate. She had more masc hormones than average. She didn’t take masc hormones, she didn’t drake performance enhancing drugs, she wasn’t Trans. She was just born with more than the average male hormones than the average woman and there was a debate on if that gave her an unfair advantage.
Every time you people shift the goalposts, you shift them even more when it’s finally met. If a naturally born woman gets the same argument, when will this argument end? When women can’t compete in sports at all? Back in the kitchen taking care of house and family?
This argument has existed before Trans. I rememberan Olympic sprinter opened this debate. She had more masc hormones than average. She didn’t take masc hormones, she didn’t drake performance enhancing drugs, she wasn’t Trans. She was just born with more than the average male hormones than the average woman and there was a debate on if that gave her an unfair advantage.
Yes, it’s a valid counterargument to what I’ve written. Defining a woman is hard.
Every time you people shift the goalposts, you shift them even more when it’s finally met. If a naturally born woman gets the same argument, when will this argument end? When women can’t compete in sports at all? Back in the kitchen taking care of house and family?
But I see that being reasonable didn’t work for you in the long run.
Its hard to be reasonable when you won’t and keep taking our rights away, you people are always shifting the goal posts to meet your own personal ends of what a woman should be.
When women can’t compete in sports at all?
Crazy how conservatives finally found an excuse to watch the WNBA.
See: The first sentence of my statement.
You are so obsessed you won’t deign to admit it’s irrelevant to lawmaking while the deaths of thousands every year doesn’t even register in this conversation to you.
Shut the fuck up
ROFL!
You’re aware that trans people generally have been allowed to compete, with restrictions, already, right?
You don’t need a large population with that advantage to put them all on the podium.
So why hasn’t that happened? Trans people have been allowed to compete already, but all these terrible scenarios we keep getting warned about just haven’t come to pass.
And we know that because there are like 5 cases of trans women competing and winning things that get brought up repeatedly by TERFs for years. If trans women “dominating” women’s sports was so frequent an occurrence, conservatives wouldn’t be foaming at the mouth about a trans woman placing 6159th in a marathon.
It’s not advisable to allow trans people in those categories because removing them later from that would be inhumane.
That ship has long sailed.
This is literally just a wedge issue. A nothing burger that they have convinced you is important. Its only purpose is division.
removed by mod
Do republicans not like bombing Muslims?
It’s a bipartisan sentiment
Ah. A moron. Hello there, moron.
Unflinching support of Israel’s ongoing genocide is sadly one of the few things R and D parties seem to agree on.
those poor poor muslim cinamon rolls, never hurt nobody
I mean, gun control is 100% americas biggest problem and ppl shouldn’t get guns without proper training
But trans in sport is indeed a valid issue to address and do something against.
The point is that they need to shift their priorities. Not that they will because it’s all bought and paid for, so to distract people from the real issues, we gotta do something about trans people in sports.
People preventably dying on the daily vs muh TV game person has a penis.
Again, it’s 100% america’s biggest issue and I’m not agreeing with republicans.
Yet, I just noted that it’s also a thing that needs to be discussed. In a much less urgent way, but still it’s an issue.
I can’t decide whether to laugh or roll my eyes so I’ll do both
10/10 comment
But again, not agreeing with republicans saying it’s more urgent than mass shootings, but it’s still an issue to be discussed and addressed, in a much less urgent way.
A huge issue existing doesn’t mean all the rest of the world’s problems are now irrelevant.
And yet one of those is not a problem. It has been made into a problem by people who don’t want other certain people existing, which is different.
So yeah, I’ll roll my eyes again. I hope I don’t strain them.
I mean, I and many others would argue it is a problem in competitive sports. You can’t really have a biological man and a biological woman compete in a physical field together…
There are many factors that you’re not considering, like when trans men beat cis women at the sport consistently because of a hormonal disparity. Being trans is not necessarily skin-deep and in many cases trans people do present a physiological difference.
biological woman
I think you mean cis woman. I promise it’s not a slur. lol
What do these two issues have to do with each other? I support gun control as well as fair sex-based separation in sports.
Stop that. Stop trying to have a reasonable stance in the middle.
Really though, I was under the impression that this was the somewhat reasonable stance that even progressive politicians have? I know that there’s scaremongering that DeMoCrAtS want big muscular men taking over women’s sports, tackling and hurting your daughters but I thought the actual stance was more along the lines of allowing the LGBTQ+ community to play sports while still allowing sports to be fair?
It definitely doesn’t seem like some super easy issue with a clear line in the sand that everyone will be ok with. And some of the scaremongering is certainly bigots being afraid of their children even interacting with someone that is LGBTQ+…
So, I’m legitimately curious, what are the actual stances of those on Lemmy?
Edit: keep down voting me while absolutely none of you are willing to engage and help educate me. I’m legitimately reaching out, asking, and trying to understand and all people can do is hit a down arrow. Fuck me for being an ally trying to trying to further my knowledge eh?
According to the downvotes, you’re not allowed to hold both of those opinions at the same time.
The issues are not opposing stances, no.
However the point of the post is that while children are being gunned down Republicans will go silent on solutions. However those same Republicans will gladly call on many other non-life threatening issues as a dog whistle or as a distraction tactic. They will ban every book, fire every openly gay person, ridicule every trans child - all because they are afraid of change. But they won’t even humor discussions on how to stop a child from catching a bullet.
Just because a political party does many bad things doesn’t automatically mean that everything they support is automatically wrong. Or do you also oppose animal rights because Hitler’s party supported them?
They’re related thanks to party politics. The party that talks about trans people in sports also rails against gun control.
Also, no one automatically knows what you mean when you say fair. Because of the nature of the debate, you don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt where people assume that when you say “fair” you only mean “trans women who have experienced male puberty need to undergo hormone therapy before being allowed to compete in women’s sports.” And even the people who politically advocate for that invariably wind up also supporting a ban on puberty blockers, or trans men in men’s sports, or never allowing trans women to compete no matter how thoroughly physically transitioned they are, or whatever other nonsense.
Bans are just not something that needs to be legislated. Sports organizations can self police in that regard. If anything, we need legislation to ensure trans people CAN compete in the gender category they identify as, with the sole exception of trans women who haven’t yet been able to medically transition.
Take chess, for example. FIDE just passed an insane set of rules around when trans women can compete in women’s tournaments, and how trans men have to give up any titles they earned while they were still presenting as female, but the gender divisions in chess are completely unrelated to inherent ability. The lack of women in chess is a cultural issue, like in STEM fields, not related to physical ability at all, and the women’s division ostensibly exists as an attempt to draw women to the game. What FIDE is doing is purely anti-trans, and there should be legislation keeping them from implementing that. I’ve no idea how that would work internationally, but the point is trans people need protection, not bans.
They’re related thanks to party politics. The party that talks about trans people in sports also rails against gun control.
And? Are you not allowed to support certain policies of one party and certain policies of another party? Especially if you live in a different country, so you’re not voting for either of them anyway?
In most sports, there is no such thing as “men’s” sports. You are allowed to participate no matter what you were born as and what you identify as. So why not just go there and leave women’s sports, which are explicitly created to make it possible to compete well without having been born with a male body, alone?
That said, I agree with you regaiding chess (which should not be considered a sport at all). There is no inherent advantage of having a male body in chess other than the general tendency of men to have a higher variance in most abilities.
Are you not allowed to support certain policies of one party and certain policies of another party? Especially if you live in a different country, so you’re not voting for either of them anyway?
I never even implied that. You came to a meme about American politics and asked how the two topics were related. Sorry not every meme is custom-made for you.
In most sports, there is no such thing as “men’s” sports.
… are you serious? All the most popular sports, running, swimming, weightlifting, football (American and the rest of the world), basketball, hockey, cycling… I decided to check out the Olympic’s website for some other examples and almost all of them have hard gender divisions. A few don’t but the vast majority are divided. Chess has an “open” and a “women’s” division as you describe, but again, it’s because the gap exists thanks only to a dearth of women playing the game in the first place. This is not the case in most sports. Trans women who have undergone sufficient hormone therapy do not have an advantage, and should be allowed to participate.
why not just go there and leave women’s sports, which are explicitly created to make it possible to compete well without having been born with a male body, alone?
People rarely just choose what they’re passionate about like that. This is an incredibly flimsy excuse to exclude people from competing in what they actually enjoy doing.
I never even implied that. You came to a meme about American politics and asked how the two topics were related.
The meme implies that the set of people opposing gun control is identical to the set of people opposed to trans women participating in women’s sports.
Trans women who have undergone sufficient hormone therapy do not have an advantage
How do you explain why Lia Thomas went from being mediocre at men’s swimming to getting the by far first place in women’s swimming?
exclude people from competing in what they actually enjoy doing
As far as I can tell, nobody is preventing trans women from participating in men’s sports. Though I can’t seem to find any sources, everyone talks about women’s sports. Do you happen to know ofeany?
clearly two years just wasn’t sufficient. that’s a person who trained all the way through a male puberty. but what a surprise, by “fair” you really did mean just preventing participation at all, im truly shocked
Do I have to repeat for the third time that transgender women are not prevented from participating in sports?
We gotta do something about trans people playing sports =/= we want children to show us their junk
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Something something projection.
Republicans don’t deserve the lives they live.
Nobody deserves anything. Deserving is the shittest concept. I deserve to die because life is shit, but nobody will help.
but nobody will help
Haven’t you been reading this thread? The police will help
🤣
I’m pretty sure I deserve at least a million bucks but you do you
A million bucks?! You know what you could do with that money? Two chicks, man.
You know what I’d do with a million bucks? Nothing. I’d relax, I would sit on my ass all day, I would do nothing.
Well you don’t need a million bucks to do nuthin’. Hell, look at my cousin, he’s dead broke, don’t do shit.
We’re actually averaging almost 2 per day this year so far.
Its strange you only hear about the big ones every month then.
The public indiscriminate kind, gang violence kind, or the 3 kids shot a gun once goofing off in their school parking lot kind?
public indiscriminate kind
What does that even mean? Indiscriminately killing people in public? Like a mass shooting? Lol
gang violence kind
“Person opens fire into church killing 5 and injuring 12”
“that’s a mass shooter”
“the gunman was wearing red and those killed wore blue”
“that’s gang violence”
Do you see how stupid that take is?
3 kids shot a gun once goofing off in their school parking lot kind
Oh my bad I thought you were being genuine, this is obviously bait, please carry on
Some lists of “mass shootings” include only the public indiscriminate kind, which is what basically everyone thinks of when they hear the phrase “mass shooting,” but some do include actual gang violence (turf war) or other violence based around other crime (drug deal gone bad). Your red shirt blue shirt scenario is cute, but that would still probably be the public indiscriminate kind. The two phenomena are very different.
There was an article from a big US news source a few years ago about how there had been over a hundred school shootings in the US that year. Can’t remember which source. The list of events included many that happened near a school or on school property but only incidentally. There was at least one where kids shot a gun in a school parking lot when no one else was around. Of course that’s still a problem, but again that’s a very different phenomenon than a “school shooting” where someone tries to murder 20 students. That’s why I brought that up.
In Germany we have on average more privately owned guns than most US states. Still… we had just TWO mass shooting in 20 years.
Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08GbT5ZEs08
In short: You have to qualify to own a gun. Assholes don’t get guns. And by fullfilling the laws to own a gun you actually earn respect in your community.
I am member of a German gun club where the local population, the regional police and a couple of NATO soldiers train. It took me nearly one year before I even was allowed to touch a loaded gun, all through my 14th year I was basically just taught how to clean and repair my rifle, how to handle it, how to NOT use it, only then how to use it. And after ten months I was finally given a single bullet.
I am now 30. Nowadays my family owns and shares a Sig Sauer 200, locked inside the gun club. Everyone except my Mum shots around 25 bullets per month, once a year the whole gun club repeats basic training which includes mental health checks.
And after basic training we have special events. For example six years ago a local NATO garrison was massively downsized and so they offered us to use up their overaged surplus ammunition. I got to shot pretty much anything from 9mm to 7,62mm for basically free - we collected money for the victims of a local house fire so I put €50 into the collection.
Did I ever shot a gun outside the gun club?
Actually: Yes. When I was in the US I joined my Uncle on duck hunt. He was like “ok, hold the big rifle while I show you how to shot a duck using 12gd bird shot.” - he misses, I aim and shot the duck mid-air with a .308. I didn’t know ducks could explode, but yes, they can. I paid with a badly aching shoulder, I wasn’t used to those powerful cadridges any more. He looked angry at me and grumbled the plan was to eat the duck not turn them into fine mist. The other three ducks he left for me to shot and wondered where I had learned to operate a gun like that.
When I told him a US lieutenant taught me to operate exaclty the same rifle in my gun club he was like “WTF?”. I might mention the lieutenant immediatelly settled down in my town after his duty was over because he liked Bavaria so much and wanted his kids to grow up in a less crazy nation.
What is the penalty if you are caught with a gun you are not qualified to have?
Edit: “Not Qualified” is not the right wording. Because Qualification only plays a secondary role. It is all about the licence.
In Germany carrying a gun without the right licence would be illegal possesion of a firearm.
But wait, even if you have a licence you can get fined for illegal transport and handling of a firearm.
Carrying a conceiled small sidearm without a special permit is big trouble. Transporting a firearm without a locked enclosure and not seperated from the ammunition is also a serious offence. At home you need a locked container. All in all it got so complicated that my Dad stopped storing guns at home. He sold one and put the other into the gun club. The club is really helpful, we can lend legal transport containers and for guns which we are not allowed to move in public they offer transport services for a small fee, usually that means a police officer moves the gun in his free time using legal transport containers in exchange for a beer.
Classic case: Someone dies and you find a loaded pistol in his inheritance. You bring it to the police. You did three offences: Carrying a conceiled firearm in public, carrying a firearm without proper container, carrying a loaded firearm. The legal way would have been: Calling the police to retrieve the firearm. To be honest, the state attourney usually closes those cases rather quick as “minor incident without criminal intent” but you still get a serious talk.
There are some exceptions for old historic muzzleloaders which are often fired at historic events without bullets. We don’t have those so I don’t know barely anything about those rules.
Prison sentence up to 5 years.
Over an object.
Literally the war on drugs all over again.
What are your views on ‘objects’ such as personal hand grenades or professionally made improvised fertiliser explosives?
I find it absolutely disgusting that I’m not allowed to turn MY innocent 4 wheel brumm brummm object in to a fun party popper object of devastation!!! It’s political correctness gone mad it is !!!
(Do I need the /s?)Ok lolbertarian🙄
Now go and whine about age of consent or something
Yeah except how once you use the gun, the fucking gun is still there and can’t be flushed down the toilet.
That greatly depends on the gun. And the toilet, honestly. Have you seen those golf ball ones? Those could take a .380 or a double deuce, I bet.
Thanks for the interesting read. Really goes to show how mad we are in the US for handing out guns like candy
I appreciate your perspective on this. What you describe is about more than just ‘assholes don’t get guns’, although that is a crucial aspect. The way your family owns just ‘a’ gun, trained for a long while before shooting, respect for following gun laws. This is the opposite of the usual experience around guns in the US. We as a culture in the US are careless and wanton with guns in general from what I’ve seen.
I was shown how to use a gun when I was 6 years old, my parents were responsible though so it was only an air pistol, but heavy duty, not airsoft. We had a shotgun, 9mm pistol and a .22 rifle in the house never locked up, didn’t even have a safe to lock them if my dad wanted to, and the shotgun was often stored loaded. When people here get together to shoot, it’s not odd to hand a loaded gun to someone that has never been to a range or even seen one fired before. Plenty of people are much safer than this, but I would guess my experience is the more common from what I’ve seen.
From what I can tell, most gun safety training in the US is a single sentence: Always treat it like it’s loaded, and keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
There have been at least 2 mass shootings in Germany since March a simple Google search reveals. 🤔
Shouldn’t “mass shootings” include “mass”?
I mean a shooting with 0 dead surely doesn’t count as such and three people from a youth gang isn’t exactly a typical mass shooting either.
Well, it’s mass shootings not mass killings. However, that’s not really important in this discussion when you can point to the
in March and this
.
If you’d actually received as much safety training as you claim, you never would have taken a shot at an elevated target with a center-fire rifle.
The target wasn’t elevated. We were elevated. I tried to explain that the duck was just taking speed to take off but honestly I don’t know the right English word for that maneuver. And as I hinted, I had fired the exact same rifle two years earlier at our gun club several times. Also, I paid with an aching shoulder for my recklessness.
Absolute bullshit, nobody is shooting a duck mid-air with a rifle. Your story is fake and lame.
“I am now 30” thats where I tapped out. You lasted way longer than I did.
I’d be surprised if it could even happen legally, there’s no reason to have a rifle with you to duck hunt. If DNR caught you you’d get a ticket for poaching ( you have a permit for ducks but you are out with gear to hunt deer ) and they’d keep the guns. Yes, even on private land.
It’s not that hard of a shot…ducks typically move in a straight line. It’s a dumb shot to take for sure, but it’s not an impossible one. If OP really has the training he says he has, I’d buy it.
Reichsbürger Waffenlager und so? Gibt ja trotzdem genug schwarze Schafe.
You shot a 308 round into the air? Isn’t that unsafe? If you missed the bullet could go anywhere.
Even if he hit, the bullet is still going anywhere. Who even takes a rifle?
Biden: “I like ice cream”
Trump: “I did everything right, and they indicted MEeeeee”
We need better options.
The perfect phone call
It only happens every day if you include gang shootings. But that goes against your narrative.
Nobody tell this guy what per capita means. He might blown his own mind.
How the hell does what I said have anything to do with per capita? The OP is an image claiming a mass shooting every single day of the week?. That has no correlation with per capita statistics.
Normally, I’m of the opinion that there’s no such thing as a dumb question. But you’re really pushing the line with this.
-
that would be a time-based correlation
-
it’s not even true
-
Our collective iq goes up if he does
Maybe…
Cite your sources.
Are you honestly telling me you believe that there’s a mass shooting every day? I don’t think there’s been enough mass shootings as people think of them to fill out the month in the last 50 years.
No, I’m honestly telling you that I don’t believe your assertion that it’s all gangs. Seriously, cite your sources.
Source: A fox News opinion piece written by a guy driving through a city one time and heard a loud sound in the distance that could have been a gun shot.
Don’t forget there has also been some solid reporting by suburban facebook moms.
How many can he linked to crime or gang activity?
aaaaand that’s how disposeable everyone is to these guys, yaaaaaaaay!
Criminals chose that life.
Gang shootings often kill bystanders as much as ‘criminals’. Do you really think a 15 year old gang member in a rough place where shootings are common had a lot of choice? A lot of ‘gang shootings’ are by kids.
More legal gun owners means less gang members eventually. I’m all for them finding out after fucking around.
I just want less people shot and killed in general but alright then
Please, a) give me a source for that, and b) tell me why that changes the point.
You seriously think mass shootings happen every single day of the week? Why the hell would I need a source contradict such a and insane statement? The problem these days is that a “mass shooting” is not some unprovoked crime by a nut job shooting up a school. It’s two or more people. That also includes gangland shootings between gangs. Current gun laws already completely restrict them from owning guns as criminals so I see no point in even discussing that.
You see no point in discussing that when there’s steps that can be taken to control the flow of guns to criminals? And you see no reason to discuss every other mass shooting?
If the steps involve removing fundamental rights from me and other US citizens than there is no conversation to be had. The answer is no.
if they remove your fundamental rights, you know, just shoot 'em up
In case you didn’t know, that was one of the original intents of the second amendment. The ability to fight against a government that has become tyrannical.
Ah right, so explain how a group of even 50 well trained individuals, (no military careers among them, because that’s the point) is going to stop the US Military in the mountains of Appalachia? Between satellite feeds, drones, missile, artillery batteries, and armored vehicles like the MRAP, what exactly is an armed insurrection going to do? I would remind you that, over 100 years ago the us military was already good enough to win a war where nearly half the US went to war with itself, as a second military, and lost. They were, more or less, equally armed as their opponents in terms of weapons (each individual engagement was decided by skill and numbers, not by what weapons they used) and the south were blockaded into surrender. With the reunification, and 100+ years since it has only gotten stronger, to say nothing of the entrance of the Atomic and Digital Ages.
If the us government wants to stomp on the US people by force, it’s had the capability for over 70 years now. Since that time a re-examination should have happened to either reaffirm the laws and ammendments set forth, or altered them. You can’t reasonably say “then the military should not have X” because that puts the country at a disadvantage on a world stage.
These ammendments were written when it took 30 seconds or more to reload a black powder cartridge. These ammendments were written when you couldn’t send an object into orbit and hang there to watch other humans. It was written when slavery was codified and the norm. Since this document was written we have passed a dozen ammendments to it. Theres not “no way to change the second ammendment” there’s only people willing to allow it to be changed. Nowadays we don’t have issues with feeding colonies, or how to reach a gold rush in them-there moun’ns. We live in a time where more people live in new york city than the founding fathers wrote the document to rule over as a country.
The second ammendment, among the others, is outdated for a different time. It was written to prevent something that, quite frankly, isn’t an issue these days. At the time yeah it was all the rage to have yourself an Independance War because the governing country was oppressive. As was made apparent during the Civil War, and is true now - the average citizens uprising to overthrow the government for any reason won’t happen without military support anyway. And that means military hardware. You only get military hardware from defectors or thieves, neither of which are going to fight a us army base like it’s GTA to get ahold of it.
lolololol you guys vs F32s
What does well regulated militia mean?
What does “the right of the people” mean? Because the militia (every able bodied man in the nation) should be kept well armed, we ensured the right of the people (everyone) to keep and bear arms.
Rights are made up. If we say you don’t have “the right” to own particular weapons in particular cases, then you don’t.
You seriously don’t think there’s too much gun crime in the US? You seriously think that every person involved in every gang shooting has a prior record?
Sure, I’ll concede that there isn’t a mass shooting every single day of every week every year. Congrats you win. But if you think there’s nothing wrong with our current gun laws when we have the highest rates of gun crime, and if you think that even the occasional mass shooting involving little kids is just “the cost of keeping our rights” then frankly I see no further point in engaging with you. And don’t for a second think that means you’ve won, it means you’ve already lost to the propaganda machine and have accepted loss of life as the cost of doing business. I’m not well trained enough to deprogram you.
What the fuck gun laws do you make to keep CRIMINALS who are not allowed to own or purchase guns from doing so? Any new gun law will have no affect on the criminals. Only those trying to defend themselves legally.
A significant number of guns used in crimes are stolen from legal gun-owners. With legal guns less prevalent, the people you refer to would have less access to them as well. You could require better care in storage of guns, so that they can’t be stolen as easily. You could increase funding for combating illegal gun trafficking. I’m not saying these are good solutions to the issue, but there are a lot of things one could do through the law to help keep guns away from criminals.
They also can’t be stolen if they’re carried around by the owner and used to kill the person threatening people’s lives. Not enough finding out these days. Too many gang members expecting to just get a slap on the wrist. If they start dropping like flies we would hopefully see less gang members fucking around.
There is so much data from decades of crime research that shows that is not how crime prevention works.
Not all gun crime is committed by previously convicted CRIMINALS. Do you think a high schooler getting ahold of dad’s gun and shooting up their school has been previously convicted?? Mental health issues for sure but an existing CRIMINAL record is doubtful.
And the whole good guys with gun stuff is absolute bullshit. Fat lot of good it does when the “good guys” wait outside while a shooting takes place because they’re too scared for their own lives to put their “good guy” guns to good use. So I guess your feelings must basically be fuck the victims then? Would you like to blame the victims while you’re at it? They picked a bad day to show up to class, should’ve stayed home right?
Get your head out of your ass and your ass out of the sand. This definitely isn’t some clear cut easy issue, but if you ask me the answer to world record levels of gun crime isn’t to sit back and do nothing because it might take a gun away from some theoretical, law abiding good guy.
And mind you, I am a law abiding gun owner. I’ve done sport shooting and a little hunting since I was old enough to take hunters safety. And guess what. I didn’t have to do a damn thing for my gun. No application, no permit, no mental health evaluation, no background check… I literally don’t have a driver’s license because that is more difficult to obtain than a fucking gun! If that’s not fubar to you then IMHO you’re hopeless. Sorry to be that way but idk how you even get so deep up inside the NRA’s asshole and I’m definitely not diving in to get you.
I believe in the second amendment and I know there are responsible gun owners out there. That does not automatically mean that people should die just so that I and others like me don’t have to go through some fucking paperwork to obtain something designed to kill.
One of the articles about the Maine shooter the other day claimed there had been 500 and something so far in 2023. That’s almost 2x per day.
That’s beyond stupid. You actually believe that? When you think mass shootings do you think sla nut job going into a school to kill people, or a drive by? Because that high figure is absolutely conflating the two.
Delete your account and fuck off back to reddit.
It sounds like all you want is an echo chamber. Plenty of those on Reddit. I haven’t been there in 8 years.
Ah well, just a lot of whining libs then ey?
Wow, it’s like the third recent green text where anon is talking about real world stuff in a grown-up way.
So anon turned out all right in the end?!
no
