• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    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.

    • Lemminary
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      I can’t decide whether to laugh or roll my eyes so I’ll do both

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        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.

        • Lemminary
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            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…

            • Lemminary
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1042 years ago

      It’s just a thousand monkeys at typewriters in there.

      Occasionally you get a work of Shakespeare in all the gibberish.

    • oce 🐆
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Green texts that reach the outside are usually pretty astute, political comment, alternative humor or sharp social commentary. See [email protected]

      • balderdash
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        Exactly, no one is sharing the deranged off the wall shit on here because anything that doesn’t fit the dominant narrative on Lemmy is pretty quickly downvoted.

        That said, I did upvote this post lol

  • Tangled Slinky
    link
    fedilink
    132 years ago

    Just dropping in to ask if anyone has that image. I need it to win several arguments I’m currently having on the internet.

  • Duchess of Waves
    link
    fedilink
    English
    94
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • PNW clouds
      link
      fedilink
      172 years ago

      What is the penalty if you are caught with a gun you are not qualified to have?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            122 years ago

            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?)

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
            link
            fedilink
            42 years ago

            Yeah except how once you use the gun, the fucking gun is still there and can’t be flushed down the toilet.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              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.

      • Duchess of Waves
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      Thanks for the interesting read. Really goes to show how mad we are in the US for handing out guns like candy

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      You shot a 308 round into the air? Isn’t that unsafe? If you missed the bullet could go anywhere.

    • Chev
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Reichsbürger Waffenlager und so? Gibt ja trotzdem genug schwarze Schafe.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      There have been at least 2 mass shootings in Germany since March a simple Google search reveals. 🤔

      • Duchess of Waves
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          Well, it’s mass shootings not mass killings. However, that’s not really important in this discussion when you can point to the Hamburg mass shooting in March and this other one from July with 3 fatalities.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      172 years ago

      Absolute bullshit, nobody is shooting a duck mid-air with a rifle. Your story is fake and lame.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      242 years ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      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.

      • Duchess of Waves
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago

        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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    432 years ago

    We’re not going to stop them. They are an emergent phenomenon of American society. So many things would have to change that this country would be unrecognizable. Which might be awesome… but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

    • DrQuickbeam
      link
      fedilink
      182 years ago

      Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway all had a culture of gun ownership, went through a mass shooting, put severe restrictions on gun ownership, and had dramatic drops in gun violence. All those other countries have similar mental illness rates and other things people blame mass shootings on.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        82 years ago

        Yeah man. I’m not saying that guns aren’t the main issue. We have more guns than people here. It isn’t gonna change though-- especially not right now. Gun purchasing seems to be accelerating if anything. Yes, if you or I could snap our fingers and have all guns disappear, that would do it. Actually getting from where we are now to where those other countries are does not seem like a very clear or likely path. I simply cannot imagine the US as we know it becoming that other place.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          When Australia banned semi-auto firearms and handguns for general ownership, I was hearing about hiding guns from gun owners around me

          If they did, they’ve kept it quiet, and probably left them buried

          But really almost all the banned guns were sold to the government during the buy back, and due to the amnesty many previously illegal weapons were also turned in

          It went really well as the worst people for owning guns also really wanted the cash for turning them in, and if they hide them, they’re hiding them against an imagined future crash, and cannot really bring them out normally

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        The issue is that attempting gun restrictions will cause an extremely violent backlash. The reality is that the United States is going to face ever more violence before enough people suffer enough to change.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Canada is not a great example though. Liberals put in bills for gun ownership restrictions and Conservatives remove it when they get into power.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Those restrictions didn’t do anything because they targeted the groups of guns and owners who aren’t actually being used in crime or shooting people.

          There are sane things you can do that actually help, like requiring safety courses and having regular background checks. Canada already does this and the Conservatives didn’t touch this.

          Then there are things which arguably do not increase safety but do increase burdens on gun owners and society, like forcing people to register bolt-action hunting rifles (used very rarely in crime), or secure an ATT (Authorization To Transport) every time you want to move a gun literally anywhere, including to hunt or shoot at the range. These are the things the Conservatives changed to make less overbearing because no one could prove they actually help and they were costing a great deal of money. Fun fact: restricted guns are still registered in Canada, and that includes nearly all legal handguns.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I do wonder why mass shootings weren’t nearly as common before 1980s/1990s, when the United States had even less gun control than we do now. There is more to it than just access to guns for sure. Don’t get me wrong, I still think stricter gun control would most definitely help, but I wonder what other factors are causing the number of mass shootings to go up.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        The rise of conservative media, probably. You’ve had decades of fox news and talk radio doing their thing, and now we have stochastic terrorism.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          Couple that with the concentrated conservative efforts to reduce the quality of education in America - less educated people are more susceptible to those conservative media tactics. They can’t keep control over all of the craziness they peddle, look at the House of Representatives - they lost the plot and now we are stuck dealing with the shit show they cultivated.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 years ago

        Rising economic inequality is my guess. It’s very easy to lash out in anger and violence when everything about society tells you that you are a loser.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      472 years ago

      You can ABSOLUTELY make a good point about mass shootings being the result of mental health disorders or domestic violence, and we should ABSOLUTELY be doing what we can as a society to fix those problems… but we can’t ignore the 100% common denominator in literally every mass shooting… which is guns.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          192 years ago

          And a lot of it has guns too.

          The biggest outlier with guns in America is the politicization and them.

          Look at Scandinavia, where gun ownership is incredibly high and many firearm laws less-strict than in the US: It’s a region of the world that has most of its shit figured out, and having guns there isn’t a big deal because the rate of violence is so low.

          Here in the US, we’ve got a broken social system, essentially zero mental health care for those who really need it, easy access to firearms, and hyper-politicization around firearms that pushes mentally-unstable people towards gun ownership.

          When the unstable conspiracy-theory nutjobs hear liberals saying that gun ownership is bad they’re predictably start stocking up on guns and ammo - specifically the black guns the political left keeps trying to ban. And then they snap.

          That’s how the guns that make up about 1% of overall firearm deaths started being used much more frequently in mass shootings.

          We do need an honest national conversation about guns and their availability, but neither side of the political aisle is willing to really, truly be honest in their policies towards firearms. So we aren’t able to have that conversation and what we end up with is the worst of all outcomes.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            That’s literally like saying we should ban cars purely because they cause car accidents… It affects way more people than it needs to and is ultimately very messy and costly. If they found a better way of teaching car safety or making it so people who are too much of an idiot to drive can’t drive, that would make more sense, even if it takes time and effort. Edit: oops replied to the wrong message.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              62 years ago

              I mean while we’re at it we should dramatically reduce the necessity and prevalence of cars. Car culture sucks socially, economically, and ecologically.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                22 years ago

                And yet still there isn’t really a good alternative… Public transportation is slow and annoying, trains are near impossible for America to create now and still also have the issue of there only being certain times you can use it.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  42 years ago

                  It took decades to get into this car hell and it’s going to take decades to get out. There would need to be some short term pain for long term gain. Unfortunately that is like humanity’s top weakness.

                  I live in NYC and use public transit every day. It’s not perfect but I’d take it over a car-first model any day.

            • Duchess of Waves
              link
              fedilink
              English
              72 years ago

              That is another thing worth comparing: A driving licence in the US costs between $20 and $500. Practically no training required. In Germany it costs €2000-€4000 with a lot of theoretical and practical lessons. And that is the reason why you are allowed to drive at 250kmh at the Autobahn.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            82 years ago

            This isn’t a both sides thing.

            Democrats support better gun regulation and better social services. Republicans fight against better gun regulation and fight against better social services. Just because Republican’s need to rally their base by gleefully twisting any reasonable regulation into “they’re taking our guns” doesn’t mean the liberal side is being dishonest.

            You can’t blame liberal policies for being dishonest when pretty much that they have pushed for is completely reasonable. Only one party is being dishonest here.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              Democratic gun policies don’t target the guns used most-often in mass shootings or homicides.

              They often target cosmetic features, or write laws that actively interfere with development of safety features.

              A prime example of the latter was a 2002 New Jersey law that would have outlawed the sale of any firearm without smart safety features once ANY gun with smart features became available.

              That basically made all manufacturers immediately stop all progress on developing the technology, because releasing it would essentially crater their entire catalog of products. Therefore there’s been zero commercially-viable smart guns released to the market for over 20 years.

              More recently, the ATF re-interpreted a decision regarding the definition of a stock 10 years after a new category of arm braces hit the market. The stabilizing braces were specifically submitted to the ATF for review before ever being made available to the public, and cleared by the Obama-era ATF.

              Now they’ve changed their position arbitrarily, and now an estimated 20 million gun owners who purchased a firearm legally are committing a felony by owning it, and the vast majority of them don’t even know about it.

              There’s constant talk on the political left about the “gun show loophole.”

              There’s no such thing. There’s zero firearm sales rules that don’t apply at a gun show. Hell - on the background check form (ATF 4473) there’s even a box to check for when the background check is being performed at a gun show instead of the dealer’s normal location.

              But any licensed firearms dealer still has to go through the normal process at the gun show. Private sellers don’t, but private sellers never have to go through the process (biggest issue that needs to be addressed in my opinion), so the gun show has nothing to do with it.

              You also hear about gun laws on one state not mattering because of the less-strict laws in a neighboring state.

              Contrary to popular belief, all long-gun sales have to follow the laws and procedures of birth the state where the purchase takes place AND the state where the purchaser lives. When I was a gun salesman in Texas and a California resident tried to buy a gun from me, I had to follow all of California’a processes as well as Texas’s, and I could only sell a long gun that was legal in California.

              Why do I use “long guns” as a qualifier? Because the transfer of any handgun to an out of state resident is a federal crime. That applies to dealers as well as private individuals whether the handgun is sold or gifted. My sister lives out of state and if I die none of my pistols can be left to her without committing a felony.

              My point is this: most people on the political left don’t know shit about guns, existing gun laws, or what would truly be effective. And when they TRY to write dumbass laws their ignorance poisons the well and makes gun owners who might otherwise support good ideas like improved background checks, cracking down on straw purchasers, making NICS available to private citizens, and more get super defensive.

              It’s like when a 90yo who has never owned a computer tries to regulate the Internet without knowing the first thing about technology. They fuck it up and just make matters worse.

              Yes, Republicans are monsters who don’t give 2 shits about murder victims. Despite the fact that firearms are a huge hobby of mine I vote Dem every election.

              But the Democrats trying to write gun laws are usually no different than the Republicans who say that snow storms are proof that global warming is a hoax.

              Honest debate needs honesty from both sides, and the first part of intellectual honesty is being able to admit when you don’t understand something.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 years ago

                Repeatedly trying to pin blame on Democrats for a lack of change in gun regulation only further exposes your actual goal here, and that isn’t to have an honest conversation. Going as far as claiming they know nothing about guns or gun laws, comparing them to climate change deniers, is a pretty bold stance to take on something you clearly don’t understand. No matter how much you need to spread this disingenuous stance, it isn’t a both sides issue. If it was, Republicans would entertain the debate - they do not. If Republicans were interested at all they would propose their own valuable legislation - instead they call for thoughts and prayers for the dead children they refuse to protect and say it is too soon to even discuss how to solve this. It is not both sides. Even if Democrats were as dumb as you hope to sell here, they are actually at the table trying. Republicans are too busy choosing money over protecting children. Not both sides at all.

                And intellectual honesty requires more than admitting when you don’t understand - it means leaving your lies and agenda at the door, neither of which you appear capable of doing.

                Oh and nice job dropping your previous social services point on this one, losing battle for your agenda. How very honest of you.

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            62 years ago

            crickets

            Nobody will argue against you because you are right. It’s just not sexy

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          Rampant profiteering off of the backs of laborers for the sake of the few. You think those laborers have the ability to maintain a happy and balanced home life after being exploited by capitalists?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Workers are exploited in nearly all forms of economic structure. How does profiteering lead to mass shootings?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              If you can’t connect rampant class related abuse to mental health issues, and then to violence, you have no fucking idea about anything regarding the human condition. In fact your breath is starting to smell of boot leather.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                Brother you’re literally not arguing why capitalism is the cause of this still. All you have is personal attacks and loose correlations. Class abuse is not exclusive to capitalism. Mental health issues are not exclusive to capitalism.

                Weak af.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          132 years ago

          Because unchecked capitalism means paying people as little as possible to maximize profits, which means people are underpaid which causes undue stress at home which leads to bad shit happening.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Are you implying that people aren’t stressed outside of a capitalistic society? Just because capitalism leads some to high levels of stress doesn’t mean nothing else does.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            72 years ago

            People are like “ooh it’s so complicated everything is complex, you can’t sum up issues in one or two sentences.” But I can’t really argue with this, like shouldn’t this be obvious to everyone? People are stressed, we can’t afford to live, it seems like our world is going to die in a few decades, all directly tied to our socioeconomic paradigm of capitalism. Of course people are going to start freaking out.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          222 years ago

          easy and cheap ways to buy guns

          create a system with no hope to move up in life when you’re poor

          have a news media that creates paranoia, to sell ads

          Yea it’s sooooo weird “How the FUCK is captialism the cause of mass shootings lol”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Those things aren’t exclusive to or indicative of a capitalistic society. The latter two reasons you describe also exist in authoritarian socialist and communist countries, yet those don’t lead to mass shootings.

            In fact, there are capitalist countries that have easy access to guns that don’t experience mass shootings on the scale of the US. Look at Canada, for example, who rank 7th in gun ownership per capita but have experienced four total mass shootings compared to 101 in the USA. (sauce: https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/ and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)

            I don’t think capitalism is the best system, especially not on its own, but none of the responses I’ve gotten have argued why capitalism is the cause of mass shootings. There are way too many cultural and historical factors involved to say that it’s exclusively the fault of the economic structure of the US.

            You guys can all downvote as much as you want but it seems no one actually has anything more to say than “capitalism bad” so they harvest some internet points.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              The nra is allowed to “lobby” the government to tell them all how great guns are. How do you retards not see that’s a problem with capitalism lol.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                Is a government caving in to the interests of the rich exclusive to capitalism?

                I think you’d probably have a more sound argument if you spent less time calling people retards and instead actually argued your point. Unless you really don’t know why you hate capitalism other than that it’s the spooky boogeyman for lemmy users.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  Is a government caving in to the interests of the rich exclusive to capitalism?

                  I don’t know, I haven’t tried the other sorts of economic organization! Let’s find out, yeah?

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            You guys use the term capitalism like if it was the boogeyman. Its just not relevant here, all of those things can happen without capitalism. Dont shoehorn a topic you barely understand

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              6
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              People that critique capitalism tend to do it a lot because it drives a substantial portion of human activity right now. Capitalism is probably the primary driver of all violence in the US so it seems relevant. Under a socialist system, there could be lower levels of isolation and inequality, no incentive for gun companies to increase profits so they wouldn’t market their guns to every person in America, etc. The defense industry is massive and tied directly to the issue of mass shooters. And when you say ‘fix the household,’ what does that mean other than dismantle capitalism?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Tons of lobbying money goes into making sure those laws never happen, shootings cause a rise in firearm sales. Rinse, repeat. Any talk of well regulated militia bullshit is just lip service to the useful idiots who keep them rich.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      132 years ago

      I think this is a good problem to solve, however in tandem with other problems enabling access to weapons and subsequent deaths of many innocent people.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      So establishing a watchman force that arrests cops specifically since cops account for the plurality of DV incidents

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    On the bright side, at thanks to trans people, people finally give a shit about women’s sports. For incredibly bigoted and superficial reasons but hey the wnbc will take it.

    • HopeOfTheGunblade
      link
      fedilink
      112 years ago

      They care for exactly long enough to write bans then they go back to mocking women’s sports. There’s no actual improvement.

  • xigoi
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    What do these two issues have to do with each other? I support gun control as well as fair sex-based separation in sports.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      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.

      • xigoi
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      142 years ago

      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.

      • xigoi
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          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.

          • xigoi
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            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?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              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

              • xigoi
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                Do I have to repeat for the third time that transgender women are not prevented from participating in sports?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      According to the downvotes, you’re not allowed to hold both of those opinions at the same time.

  • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️
    link
    fedilink
    152 years ago

    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.

  • Clot
    link
    fedilink
    162 years ago

    The gun laws in US are joke, why even allow people to have guns? what is police for?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      having guns is fun. hunting is fun. it’s also nice to know I can protect my property should someone try to perform a home invasion. guns are fun as fuck

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        inb4 “why would you shoot someone who just wants your TV?”

        Someone who just wants to steal my TV isn’t breaking in while both cars are parked out-front.

    • kingthrillgore
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Guns are fun but so is having a society where I don’t have to live in fear of dying. There should be some rules on who can carry a gun.

      • Clot
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        are you dumb? thats not what I even meant, if you have ideal justice system and law enforcements, people doesnt need gun for their security, it happens even in so called 3rd world countries.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          Where were the police when the police robbed me for everything I ever worked for and kept me in jail until I lied for them to let me out? Oh right. Wish I had a gun so they would be dead.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        102 years ago

        And the ambulance is even further away dealing with the last wannabe clint Eastwood that acted on that dumb as fuck sentiment.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      There is no legal obligation for the police to protect you. Should the police fail to arrive or protect you when needed, you can’t even sue for neglect. I will never support any kind of infringement on my gun rights, because there’s actual cops in my city (Cleveland) who rob their citizens.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      182 years ago

      Well according to the Supreme Court, police have no duty to protect nor serve the public. Literally, they can watch you get murdered, watch the murderer get away, and still be 100% fine.

      Police protect the govt. Period. Nothing else.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Police is for robbing people and slapping labels on them to artificially reduce their market value. They’re not gonna do anything about mass shootings because they won’t be there when they happen and don’t really care so long as their own friends and family are fed. They’re also not going to support disarming the population because they will lose that fight by numbers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Be careful treading that line. For gun loving muricans, they love their 2nd amendment more than their actual constitution.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    22 years ago

    We gotta do something about trans people playing sports =/= we want children to show us their junk