this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
966 points (93.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26933 readers
3922 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 139 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"No way to prevent this," says only nation where this regularly happens.

[–] corus_kt@lemmy.world 48 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Only Onion headline I can quote off the top of my head. Never gets old (unfortunately).

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] norimee@lemmy.world 77 points 5 months ago (20 children)

"BuT gUns doNt kilL PeoPle, PeoPle kilL PeoPle"

Then regulate fucking people's access to guns! It's not that hard.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 48 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Fund mental health institutions and make it easier to involuntarily commit people before they buy weapons and go on rampages?

Case after case, you see more red flags than a May Day Parade, but none of it legally actionable or reportable on a background check.

Examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting

"Ramos' social media acquaintances said he openly abused and killed animals such as cats and would livestream the abuse on Yubo.[132] Other social media acquaintances said that he would also livestream himself on Yubo threatening to kidnap and rape girls who used the app, as well as threatening to commit a school shooting.[131] Ramos' account was reported to Yubo, but no action was taken.[131][133]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_high_school_shooting

"The Florida Department of Children and Families investigated him in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. At this time, a school resource officer suggested[92] he undergo an involuntary psychiatric examination under the provisions of the Baker Act. Two guidance counselors agreed, but a mental institution did not.[93] State investigators reported he had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, psychologist Frederick M. Kravitz later testified that Cruz was never diagnosed with autism.[94] In their assessment, they concluded he was "at low risk of harming himself or others".[95] He had previously received mental health treatment, but had not received treatment in the year leading up to the shooting.[96]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

"In a 2013 interview, Peter Lanza (Adam's father) said he suspected his son might have also had undiagnosed schizophrenia in addition to his other conditions. Lanza said that family members might have missed signs of the onset of schizophrenia and psychotic behavior during his son's adolescence because they mistakenly attributed his odd behavior and increasing isolation to Asperger syndrome.[155][162][169][170][171] Because of concerns that published accounts of Lanza's autism could result in a backlash against others with the condition, autism advocates campaigned to clarify that autism is a brain-related developmental disorder rather than a mental illness.[172] The violence Lanza demonstrated in the shooting is generally not seen in the autistic population[173] and none of the psychiatrists he saw detected troubling signs of violence in his disposition.[155]

Lanza appears to have had no contact with mental health providers after 2006. The report from the Office of the Child Advocate stated: "In the course of Lanza's entire life, minimal mental health evaluation and treatment (in relation to his apparent need) was obtained. Of the couple of providers that saw him, only one—the Yale Child Study Center—seemed to appreciate the gravity of (his) presentation, his need for extensive mental health and special education supports, and the critical need for medication to ease his obsessive-compulsive symptoms."[165]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting

"In June 2021, Gendron had been investigated for threatening other students at his high school by the police in Broome County.[20][60][66] A teacher had asked him about his plans after the school year, to which Gendron responded, "I want to murder and commit suicide."[67] He was referred to a hospital for mental health evaluation and counseling but was released after being held for a day and a half.[20][66][68]

Gendron told police that he was merely joking; however, Gendron later wrote online that this was actually a well-executed bluff.[65][69] He was not charged in connection with the incident since, according to investigators, he had not made a specific enough threat to warrant further action.[66][69] The New York State Police did not seek an order from a state court to remove guns from Gendron's possession.[69][70] The mental health evaluation was not an involuntary commitment, which would have prohibited him from buying guns under federal law.[69]"

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 35 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Sure; maybe it's also a mental health problem, but it's definitely 100% a gun problem.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Then I ask this: School shootings simply never happened when I was a kid in the 70's and 80's. We had far less regulation*. Any asshole could buy a gun, get it delivered to their doorstep, and they were cheap. Yes, even AR-15s.

This shit all started with Columbine. Want to suicide and go out the most horrific way possible? Shoot up a school!

So no, it's not the guns. Nothing has really changed on that front. So what happened?

* One exception: Conceal carry laws were nothing like today, far more restrictive. I'm leaving that out because criminals and mass murderers hardly give a shit about carrying illegally. Would that stop you if you were intent on murder? Also, at the same time, the laws around transporting guns generally became more restrictive.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

I feel 9/11 and faux news had something to do with fetishizing guns. Fear mongering kills.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, it's a social problem. Recognize that mass shooters are almost exclusively white males. The book Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel does a great job of profiling the person who does this sort of thing and why. There's a lot that goes into it. Economics, masculinity, school culture, etc.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Weren't the 70s and 80s the peak of violent crime in the US? Including armed violent crime?

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Violent crime has pretty consistently dropped for the past century in the US with a small blip in the 90s often attributed to the prevalence of leaded gasoline and the higher propensity for violence that people exposed to it often had.

School shootings still weren't a big/common thing back then tho so I fail to see your point.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago (14 children)

In general yes but this discussion is a out mass shootings.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Why doesn’t Canada see a similar per capita rate of shootings despite having more guns per capita than the US?

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Maybe because their gun laws are a lot more strict? Kind of proves the point that gun regulation works doesn't it?

[–] Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

My home country (Iceland) has the highest gun ownership in Europe. It's not much compared to the US, but it's interesting that we have almost no gun violence. The reason is that we have very strict gun control with thorough background checks, mandatory training and psych evaluations. In addition to that, we have a functioning healthcare system and low income inequality. All these things need to be adressed before the US sees a decrease in gun violence.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

Probably because most of those Canadians actually have a fucking good reason to be armed, IE for hunting, defending against dangerous wildlife, competitive shooting

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

make it easier to involuntarily commit people

Yeah, that won't ever be abused by malicious actors.

It really is easier to just regulate firearms (not take them away, mind you, just actually regulate and enforce said regulations), but politicians are too worried about pissing off the "but muh freedums" crowd.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

A lot of Americans do actually support some gun control measures. A lot of Americans also don't actually know how insanely hard and effectively the NRA has organized and opposed any remotely reasonable gun control measure. They basically ensure that any hearing on the subject is flooded by their members to oppose it. They just go and many sane Americans don't.

I'm not American, but I actually support sane firearm ownership. I look at the lunacy over there and I am almost shocked. I really do think, from hearing about this as much as I do, that many Americans support sane measures. But the NRA is a huge problem. It prevents people from even being educated on this issue.

[–] rockstarmode@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm going to get all kinds of negative votes for speaking up here. I'm not attempting to defend the various positions I outline below, just to explain why the gun folks see the current situation as the least bad alternative. If gun people in the US actually had their way the laws would be MUCH more permissive than they already are.

Again, I'm not attempting to defend the various positions, only to lend some context (and in the case of domestic abuse, to correct) the talking points above.

If the second amendment is explicitly designed to allow normal citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then allowing that same government to compile a registry of gun ownership makes no sense. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation, see Australia and New Zealand for recent examples.

(Note; It's highly suspect that non-military ownership of small arms could effectively fight the US military. Years of attrition in Afghanistan might be the counterpoint here.)

The CDC was examining gun violence statistics in the past, but then ventured outside of the realm of science and into political speech. Most gun people are ok with making science based recommendations determined by facts. But they're worried that a government entity funded for the purpose of science but controlled by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats will push policy based on politics.

(Note: Any gun policy has some base in science, the question is whether the policy controls the science, or whether science leads the way. Counterpoint: national COVID policy was marginally effective at great cost, both in lives lost and economically)

There are measures to keep "known" domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing firearms. If "known" means "convicted" or under indictment, then those folks are legally prohibited from firearm ownership or possession. This was recently confirmed by a notoriously pro-gun Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, by an overwhelming 8-1 majority. Even a restraining order for domestic violence is enough to prohibit purchase or possession.

(Note: enforcement of gun confiscation from prohibited persons is spotty at best, but it's arguable that this is a problem with policing as the laws are already on the books. The counterpoint here would be the ability in many states to conduct private party transfers without the involvement of a licenced firearms dealer or the requisite background check)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 37 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If gunning down little kids with lunchboxes isn’t enough to make you dial the guns town a notch, then nothing will.

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sandy Hook survivors are in high school now and some are getting into activism.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Columbine happened when I was a kid and nothing of any substance has been done since.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 26 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Yes, it's horrible the gun situation in the US.

But knowing how to stop someone bleeding to death can be useful in other dystopian situations as well. Like industrial accidents from bad management and OSHA/child-labor violations. Or non-gun injuries from abusive adults.

Or just stupid stuff that kids and/or adults do to maim themselves, like avocado knife injuries.

Don't knock the first aid training.

Do go after the guns.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I honestly can't believe they haven't tried to give shooting courses to kindergartners.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 months ago (13 children)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Pakistan did this thing where they banned rifles (and basically anything not a handgun) without extensive permits for all new gun sales. Then they offered to buy all the guns, which a ton of people traded in for some cash, which greatly reduced the amount of firearms owned by the public.

It would work great here except there's a 0% chance the government would want to use money to solve a problem.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

Hey, that's not true. If the problem is that billionaires' bank accounts aren't full enough, the government will absolutely run truckloads of freshly-minted bills as fast as they can.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The only way to stop a bad kindergartner with a gun, is with a good kindergartner with a gun.

[–] Toes@ani.social 9 points 5 months ago

Now in fun colours!

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Republicans, universal gun care and state mandated child control, but only after you've suffered 9 months against your will to bring them into this world if you even survive the experience.

[–] ObstreperousCanadian@lemmy.ca 14 points 5 months ago

America loves their school shootings. If they didn't, they would've done something about it by now.

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Pro-2A, for all who want to bear arms:

Rock, Flag, and Eagle!:

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] onion@feddit.de 9 points 5 months ago

"Australia Had a Mass-Shooting Problem. Here’s How it Stopped" by Wendover Productions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aGGOK4kAM

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not Americans; the overwhelming majority of all citizens of all political affiliations want gun control. Like 80 to 90%. The politicians who are in the pocket of the gun lobby are the reason. They absolutely refuse to get anything fucking done and we hate it.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I doubt it's that little given that even lemmy has a fair few gun nuts

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gerowen@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (16 children)

They are regulated, but there's a lot of breakdowns in the system. People passing background checks who shouldn't, prior offenders passing background checks because local cops didn't report them to the feds, etc. The DC Navy Yard shooter years back literally had fired a weapon into his neighbor's apartment before and still passed a background check to buy the weapons he committed the shooting with. I also think if you're a parent and you leave your weapon accessible by your children, and they go shoot up their school, you should be held at least partially liable. As somebody who is former military, the civilian population gets away with a hell of a lot with regards to firearms. No federally mandated training standards, concealed carry licenses are haphazard and go state by state, and not all states recognize other states' permits, no federally mandated storage requirements, etc. When I was in the military, if I wanted to go target practice on base with my personal weapons I had to register them with the provost marshal on base, keep the weapons and ammo separate in locked boxes out of my reach while driving to the range, etc. And if one weapon went missing the entire base was locked down; gates closed and nobody in or out until it was located. Civilians get by with way too much.

I think a lot of our problem is loose or missing standards at the federal level, which leaves each individual state to kind of make things up as they go along and not communicate properly with feds when things go wrong.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why I send my kids off with a Browning M2. We ain’t playing

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

children are better suited for crew served weapons where teamwork and nimble hands mean faster belt reloads.

load more comments
view more: next ›