this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
339 points (93.4% liked)

News

29202 readers
3663 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] plantmoretrees@lemm.ee 6 points 58 minutes ago

Gun control would make so much more sense if we treated guns like vehicles.

Want to drive a car?

New driver?

Pass a test, and get a provisianal license to operate safely with experienced users in your company.

Test to prove proficiency, ensure you don’t have any restrictive health issues that could impact your safe operation of the unit, validate your insurance coverage and you get a standard operators permit.

Need to use the big equipment?

Take some additional safety courses, beef up your insurance and prove you can handle it - with regular check ins and enhanced supervision and you get a commercial license.

Want to do something different, like the gun equivalent of a motorcycle? Another test and license endorsement to use.

Main theory - you can have anything you want but agree to prove and maintain proficiency and be mentally and physically able to operate it. Regular check ins to ensure your abilities do not wain and annual registration.

This is not crazy. If it works for cars, semi trucks, motorcycles etc - it should work for deadly weapons.

And remember, we have handicapped drivers, we have people on probationary permits etc, breathalyzer start switches, etc …..there are lots of places for reasonable accommodations to the infringed and those with limited or restricted capacity.

But to just turn the keys of a semi truck with a double trailer over to 16 year old with near sighted vision?

They’d say you are crazy.

But anyone of legal age can walk in, grab an AR-15 and disappear into the woodwork for the rest of their lives with capacity for mass assault and no one does anything about it.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Well the Republicans are public stating they plan on erasing everyone who isn't white so yeah stay strapped

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 47 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I completely disagree with banning rifles and pistols. However, I am all for intensive background checks, psychological tests, firearm classes and tests, mandatory storage safety with inspections and licensing classifications depending on what you want to buy. The Europeans do this correctly and the US allows lunatics to own firearms.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

mandatory storage safety with inspections

Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people's homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 points 36 minutes ago

As part of getting an FFL, you effectively waive that right; the ATFE can drop by the address on the license, unscheduled, for inspection, and if you don't let them in, your FFL we be immediately rescinded, and nearly any judge will approve a search warrant for that location over the phone in minutes.

We could do the same for individual owners, just like dealers, and there would be supporting precedent. (But, it would certainly be subject to judicial (including SCOTUS) review.)

[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Those will be used against letting leftist get guns.

[–] Brandonazz@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago

"If you've smoked weed in the last 5 years or have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I'm afraid I can't sell this to you."

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 7 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

Hawaii state Senator Joy Buenaventura, who is typically a supporter of gun control measures, said the bill would criminalize existing owners of assault rifles, per Hawaii News Now.

She said: "Now, by their mere possession, because we decide to pass this bill, we decide to label them as criminals and that to me, it's unethical and should not be tolerated by this body."

However, Senate Judiciary chair Karl Rhoads disagreed with this take on the bill saying it allowed for "grandfathering."

Sooo... which is it?

But yeah. Obviously America should do this.

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Grandfathering requires firearm registration. They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80's. Now the kids and grandkids of people who previously legally owned firearms have to make a decision. Some of these firearms would be worth 6 figures or more if they were registered, and some have significant historical value, but instead it's a serious felony to own them and they had no say in how it ended up in this state.

Illinois also very recently did a semi auto registration, and a lot of folks did not comply, because they believed that is just the first step to confiscation. Now these people's family are going to have the same problem in a few years.

Just because there is a grandfather clause, doesn't mean it's going to automatically make everyone law abiding. And one person's decision is going to impact their family for generations.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s.

There was no ban in the 80s. For full auto firearms to be legally owned, they had to have been registered since the establishment of the 1934 NFA.

What happened in the 80s was the closing of the registry to prevent new full auto guns from being added, but existing guns to have been legally owned would have already been registered.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

YUP. Seems like an important contradiction where a good journalist could then go to the bill text and determine which one of them is lying.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 6 points 15 hours ago

Says it "allows" for grandfathering, so I bet they pick & choose who's a criminal and who gets a pass.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Smart move.

[–] EstonianGuy@lemm.ee 40 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Well yeah, they might need those guns to topple fascists…

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Do you think Americans have it in them to actually do that?. I think when tyranny comes knocking at their door, many Americans will comply and many will even want to join them, maybe some isolated pockets go full Waco, TX on them but the goverment has spent trillions of American tax money on building weapons of war that they've used on foreign civilian populations for decades, all they have to do is point it inwards and then it doesn't matter how many Glocks you've got does it.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

In that case, let's ban them

  • Republicans most likely
[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 178 points 1 day ago (4 children)

They’ll need it for the civil war

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 72 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Or...this is just another cynical ploy to appeal to the right, since they seem incapable of moving left on any subject.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's because it's not the issue, nor should time be wasted on that right now. We can argue policy later. We need to unite and get the traitor out of office

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 95 points 1 day ago (11 children)

This is one thing I hate about democrats. They barely swing a few undecided voters and throw it all away by bringing up an item that many undecided voters take as a single-issue subject.

Gun issues are a losing topic.

Focus efforts on anything else (healthcare, housing, etc) and gun violence will drop.

[–] MSids@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

Totally agree. Gun issues need to be off the table entirely until sanity has returned to government. Dems need to focus on making normal government operations and improving living standards as exciting as the threat of taking over Canada.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Ronnie Reagan and George Bush Sr are notorious gun control freaks and they are GOP. Yes, improving labor rules and public services would relieve the stress on the Americans reducing violence. No wonder the USA experiences so many "going postal" murders.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 59 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I hate seeing articles like this because it tees you, the commenter, up for assuming that the entire DNC decided to drop their gun control policy.

This is just for Hawaii. Hawaii voted against this.

Newsweek is such a dogshit source to be talking about in forums and threads because they write everything assuming that Democrats are a perfectly unified group, all with identical motivations, reasoning, and agendas. We know they're not, but NW can show you a ding in a shoulder plate, and tell you the entire suit of armor is equally vulnerable.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Funny how providing people with the things they need stops violence.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 57 points 1 day ago (13 children)

So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like "assault-style" weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an "assault-style" weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define "assault-style" weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here's a bit more on the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there's already several bans on "assault-style" weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won't do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (20 children)

What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.

[–] diverging@lemm.ee 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

The bill provides the exact definition they use for assault rifle which appears to be more strict than federal law. So, no, it is not pointless.

https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB401/id/3226101

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›