This is where Finland and Sweden excel. Because they have mandatory military service, everyone with a gun has been trained in all aspects of it's use/care. Finland is one of the top 10 countries with the most firearms per civilian, and yet their rate of firearm deaths is minuscule in comparison to the U.S..

At this rate though, I don't see how any meaningful gun regulation can be passed. The nra stopped universal background checks from being passed after Sandy Hook. I lost faith in republicans since then. They're bad faith actors, that when faced with the prisoners dilemma, choose suicide.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

For the lazy US has 3.5x more guns than Finland and 35x more firearm homicides (which, not to nitpick, is not necessarily the same as a firearm death). If us has a 10x reduction in firearm homicides to be more in line with their gun ownership they would go from being ranked 23rd (as of 2019) to 42nd or so, going below countries like Canada (although Canada's gun crime is strongly linked with the us), ~~new Zealand~~ * and Sweden.

I'll also point out though that Finland has stricter gun laws than the states, relavent to this post they have a minimum age of 20 to buy firearms. They need licenses and a justification to carry them around, and there are fairly strict storage rules.

* I realized that 2019 was the Christchurch mass shooting, which brought the rate from 0.2 in 2018 to 1.2 in 2019, so probably not very representative of NZ gun crime.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

This is where Finland and Sweden excel. Because they have mandatory military service, everyone with a gun has been trained in all aspects of it's use/care.

Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 empower Congress to require such training every member of the militia, and they have indicated that the militia is comprised of every able bodied male citizen, aged 17 to 45. (10 USC 246)

Congress can require training on safe handling. They can require training on the laws governing use of force in self defense and defense of others. They don't need to mandate additional military or militia service to achieve this.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

except for the bonkers idea that the 2a's first 13 words for some reason don't count.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and today's non-regulated militia endangering the security of the free state are pretty fucking contrasting situations.

fuck all the gun nuts who love their fetish more than their country.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

What is the militia?

That isn't a flippant question. I'd like a serious answer.

I'd like to know both the constitutional definition of "militia", as used in Article I Section 8 and 2nd Amendment, as well as the legislative definition, as codified in 10 USC 246.

The answers I have learned are that the militia is "the whole body of the people" (constitutional meaning) and "every able bodied male citizen, aged 17 to 45". (Legislative, paraphrased)

When you algebraically substitute either of those answers back into the 2nd amendment, you arrive at the only reasonable perspective: The whole body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"But what about the well regulated part? Isn't the militia unregulated?"

The militia is regulated under the powers granted to Congress under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16. Congress does have some regulations governing the militia. They have enacted legislation defining what part of the militia they intend to call forth, and how they intend to do that. They have enacted legislation obligating every male to register with selective service. They can enact many, many more regulations on the whole of the militia. If you feel YOU are not adequately regulated, I suggest you notify your congressional representatives, as they are the only ones currently empowered to adjust regulation of the militia.

You'll have my support; I specifically called for such regulation in my last post.

TL;DR: You don't get to complain about a lack of regulation when I'm specifically asking for more regulation.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

TL;DR: You don’t get to complain about a lack of regulation when I’m specifically asking for more regulation.

bump stocks do not represent a well regulated militia.

leaving weapons in the hands of people who have red flags is not representative of a well regulated militia.

no uniformity in your 'militia', regarding equipment training and supply does not represent a well regulated militia.

Congress does have some regulations governing the militia. They have enacted legislation defining what part of the militia they intend to call forth, and how they intend to do that.

By that logic - there has been no call-up of militia. Therefore anyone attempting to use this defense needs to justify their activities.

I'm not anti-firearm, I'm anti-idiots-having-firearms. I'm prior service army - weapons are tools and without training and regulations tools of any sort can represent a danger to the public. I despise the attitude that justifies bump stocks, especially after they were used in the largest, most deadly mass shooting - Route 91 Harvest music festival, Las Vegas, October 2, 2017: 60 killed, more than 850 injured. It's not a tool - innocent use would compare it to a toy, malicious use would call it a fire volume multiplier for those that can't pass a tax stamp and get an actual full auto platform - and it's disgusting that it's even up for discussion.

it's absolutely bonkers that we even need to argue these points.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

By that logic - there has been no call-up of militia.

You don't get called up to the militia. You get called forth from the militia. In joining the Army, you were, indeed, called forth from the militia and you answered that call. Your right to keep and bear arms was not contingent on there having been a call, nor on you answering a call. The right was guaranteed to you, because you have the individual and collective responsibility to secure the state.

no uniformity in your 'militia', regarding equipment training and supply does not represent a well regulated militia.

Don't tell me. Tell Congress that you want to be subjected to additional regulation in your role as a militiaman. They seem to think that they have enough regulation on the militia already. You tell me what else you think you should be required to do. Not to secure your right to keep and bear arms: they are expressly prohibited from infringing in gun ownership. They can't stop you from owning a gun, but they can compel you to participate in militia training, as you are a member of the militia.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

it's all complete bullshit and you know it. there never has been a militia, it's been a gaggle of fuckwits.

you people and your fantasy life make me sick. want to protect your country? enlist.

jfc goddamn gravy seal garbage

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I did enlist, 24 years ago. The proper epithet for me is "Chairborne Ranger", not "Gravy Seal".

I do agree with you: what the constitution refers to as the militia is not the various "gaggles of fuckwits" that regularly claim the title. Those nitwits calling themselves "militia" and dressing up in military surplus are some weird motherfuckers, but they are only "militia" in the same sense that that the local PTA, or an adult, recreational soccer league, or a knitting circle are "militia". It is their status as members of the citizenry that makes them militia, not their participation in some sort of outdoor paramilitary adventure club.

As you have never learned what "militia" actually means, it is unsurprising that you have never learned the difference between "militia" and "military".

The militia is charged with providing the security of a free state. The militia may be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. The military can only perform that last function.

Under the Posse Comitatus act, the military is expressly prohibited from enforcement of law and suppression of insurrection. Those activities may only be performed by the militia. The various people being paid to perform those activities have been "called forth" for that purpose, but one need not be formally "called forth" to act.

A woman walking across a parking lot, clutching the little can of pepper spray on her keychain, is not a "gaggle of fuckwits".

Her presence deterring would-be criminals from attacking herself or anyone else in the area is an action envisioned by the Second Amendment. She is a militiaman. She is providing the security of a free state.

If the only weapon she chooses to carry is aerosolized taco sauce, she is also in dire need of better training. Congress has been negligent in its duty to effectively train her, or the rest of the general public who comprise the militia.

When we teach her how to use a gun, when to use a gun, when not to use a gun, we also provide that same lesson to the "gaggles of fuckwits" you are referring to, reducing how "fuckwit" they are. We also show her would-be attackers that she is a much harder target, not worth the risk.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

who are you that is so wise in the ways of the muppet militia?

You really are convinced this is a thing.... your description of the 'woman clutching a can' as a militia makes the militia types I see all the funnier.

It's all bullshit, neither she nor they are a militia in any logical sense, but I guess semantics are important to someone. Not me, your talents are wasted here.

pfft...

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It's all bullshit, neither she nor they are a militia in any logical sense

I will be happy to consider your argument if and when you provide a definition of militia. As you have not provided any such definition, your argument above is meaningless.

You really are convinced this is a thing....

I have ample justification for that conviction. You can disagree, of course, but you have provided no logical basis for that disagreement. Again, you will need to provide and support a contrary definition of "militia" as it is used in Article I and 2A in order to rationally make your claims.

Based on your suggestion to enlist if I wanted to secure the nation, I suspect that your definition of "militia" will be more consistent with how the founding fathers used the terms "armies" and "Navy" than how they used "militia".

I do think we can agree that the modern usage of "militia" to mean a "privately organized paramilitary group" is not at all what is meant by the second amendment. Those ass clowns are closer to "insurrectionists" than "militia".

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

you've offered a lot of text but zero citations that support your argument, but are surprised I'm dubious?

you live around a lot of gullible or stupid people apparently. not everyone is going to accept your assertions.

you've got a lot of word salad and little that justifies arming the populace.

militia or otherwise. it's all gun fetishism and I'm not into it.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

you've offered a lot of text but zero citations that support your argument

Are you being intellectually lazy, or are you arguing in bad faith?

10 USC 246.

I have cited it multiple times now. While I prefer to use the broader, constitutional meaning, the legislated definition, codified as 10 USC 246 is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

citations THAT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT BELLEND

10 USC 246.

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

you're asserting that any asshole with a gun is category 2. I assert that flies in the face with the 2a - a well organized militia is INHERENTLY NOT: the unorganized militia

Keep trying to justify the idiots. This is about as fun as cancer.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I assert that flies in the face with the 2a - a well ~~organized~~ regulated militia is INHERENTLY NOT: the unorganized militia

My argument is not in conflict with your assertion. I don't need to rebut it. Quite the contrary, your assertion supports my position.

The only constitutionally valid conclusion we can draw from your assertion is that the unorganized class of the militia is not adequately regulated.

Since I am calling for additional regulation in the form of mandated training, I can accept your assertion. I can have you expand on your point, and ask what additional regulations you believe are necessary and appropriate to impose upon the whole of the people, the unorganized militia.

You cannot prohibit or prevent the unorganized militia from keeping or bearing arms. Congress does not have that power. But, you do have the power to regulate the unorganized militia. What additional regulations do you want to impose upon yourself and all of us?

I want mandated training on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

While I believe in common sense gun control I think that one thing people might miss when comparing America to Finland or Sweden is just how brutal America can be.

America is an interesting country, if you can stay on the gainful employment ladder you can have a lot of creature comforts and for a few people they get to go up the ladder and have a really nice life.

That ladder though is dangling over the mouth of a volcano and there are more ways to fall off then anyone wants to admit. There’s also a ton of people just barely hanging on.

Easy access to guns is a problem, but the fact that so many Americans are so crushed by the system we live under that violence and deadly violence are things people routinely turn to is also a massive problem. For a lot of working poor the system can feel a lot like running on a perpetual treadmill stuck at full speed. We retooled our economy towards service and knowledge jobs, a lot of people in that service industry make just enough money to scrape by.

There is not a single state in the nation where minimum wage affords a 2 bedroom apartment

So you have a large number of people that spend the vast majority of their time working difficult jobs rife with customer abuse. They earn just enough money to afford a place to stay and food (and a cellphone so people can sneer at them and say, oh you have a cellphone so you can’t be struggling). Mix that with a big pile of guns and violence is bound to happen.

We can take away the guns but I suspect Americans have the ingenuity to find other ways to do violence against each other.