Yeah, they’ll revisit it. *looking through the pages of law “Yeah, looks good. Let’s do lunch.”
“But wherever we eat, we’ll need to avoid that side of town where there’s a mass shooter right now.”
“Wait, on the East side of town with the mass shooter shooting up the school or on the West side of town where the shooter is shooting at a place of worship? You need to be specific.”
The solution of gun issue is more guns
No wonder the solution of poverty is also more poverty
That’s as American as it gets
Yes, and the solution to drugs is to ban them…wait no …uhh the solution to alcoholics is to ban alcohol…shit.
Seriously, our society needs to be fixed. There are 450+ million firearms in civ hands, if we had a gun problem you’d know about it.
You forgot abortion bans.
I keep saying, America doesn’t have a gun problem, America has a culture problem. And our culture is very, very ill.
Love this passage from Discworld about a new idiot taking over the “cops” in that world. (And if someone accuses the author, Terry Pratchett, of conservative thinking, imma choke on my beer). 😆
Swing, though, started in the wrong place. He didn’t look around, and watch and learn, and then say, ‘This is how people are, how do we deal with it?’ No, he sat and thought: This is how the people ought to be, how do we change them?’ And that was a good enough thought for a priest but not for a copper, because Swing’s patient, pedantic way of operating had turned policing on its head.
There had been that Weapons Law, for a start. Weapons were involved in so many crimes that, Swing reasoned, reducing the number of weapons had to reduce the crime rate.
Vimes wondered if he’d sat up in bed in the middle of the night and hugged himself when he’d dreamed that one up. Confiscate all weapons, and crime would go down. It made sense. It would have worked, too, if only there had been enough coppers - say, three per citizen.
Amazingly, quite a few weapons were handed in. The flaw, though, was one that had somehow managed to escape Swing, and it was this: criminals don’t obey the law. It’s more or less a requirement for the job. They had no particular interest in making the streets safer for anyone except themselves. And they couldn’t believe what was happening. It was like Hogswatch every day.
Some citizens took the not unreasonable view that something had gone a bit askew if only naughty people were carrying arms. And they got arrested in large numbers. The average copper, when he’s been kicked in the nadgers once too often and has reason to believe that his bosses don’t much care, has an understandable tendency to prefer to arrest those people who won’t instantly try to stab him, especially if they act a bit snotty and wear more expensive clothes than he personally can afford. The rate of arrests shot right up, and Swing had been very pleased about that.
I’m not going to call him conservative but he is a fantasist that weaves common talking points into his work for comic effect, I’m not going to base my opinions on jokes made in ya fiction.
There are a lot of examples of weapons restrictions in countries round the world including the one I live in, here having a gun will get you significant prison time so if criminals do have one they keep it very well hidden and certainly aren’t going to start popping off shots or waving it around in a mugging, burglary, fight or other situation.
Do you know how many times I’ve been warned not to hang out in front of a club because the bouncer had an argument with a guy who threatened to come back and shoot the place up? Twice, want to guess which country I was in both times? I’ll give you a clue it was the only country I’ve ever seen someone pull a gun when yelling out their car window in a road rage, only country I’ve ever had to use a different launderette because the regular one had been shot up, only country where I’ve been in a bar and two people started arguing and everyone started leaving…
You’re normalised to it so you don’t understand how much it negatively affects your life, a good example is that you’re scared of not having a gun - that makes no sense here or any of the places I’ve visited where guns are sensibly restricted.
Many countries have guns and I tell you the big secret: it is not about the numbers, it is about reducing a certain types and the number of people waving them around
No one needs an “assault” rifle to “defend” themselves on a daily basis. A hunting rifle is for useful in hunting area, no one needs one in the car when they are sending their kids to school. If that is the case, you are at war and you should just migrate
Having semi/automatic weapons around is just going to arm that person at a bad day to do lot of damage. And fuel a civilian arm race which only benefits the weapon companies
No one has automatic weapons. And no one has assault weapons. Semi autos make up around 95% of all firearms in the USA. Most gun homicides are done with handguns. And all rifles combined make up around 3% homicides a year, that includes your “assault weapons” which average about 50-100 deaths a year with them.
The USA has 450+ million in civ hands. It’s absolutely about the numbers.
the whole world knows buddy
I think they know that ☝️
This Supreme Court?
Talk about a waste of time. Haven’t they got other rights to take away, bribes to take, and corporate asses to kiss? Gotta get back to work.
Always read these headlines like “damn did another like…big one happen?.. No?.. Oh only like 5 this week? Shit didn’t realize it was so low this month.”
Fuck this timeline
What the media calls a mass shooting is rarely what we’re picturing in our heads.
When the media uses that term, I think nearly all of us expect an event as defined on the left side of the chart. And I doubt anyone is going to come in here and call those sources conservative think tanks.
Even if we take the most generous number and divide that by population (920/330,000,000), your odds of being killed in a mass shooting are infinitesimal (.000278). I have no worries at all.
What do ya figure the odds are on becoming extinct driving to the grocery store? Now that is what scares me.
Weird, and yet in other countries no one gets shot to death at all.
Odd, other nations dont seem to have a running weekly gun wielding toddler for 2 years and counting. Strange, thats not a normal thing elsewhere.
Huh. Wonder why no one else has to talk about how statistically, a shooting every day is actually not a big deal? I dont get why no one else has these conversations.
That “infographic” and statistic is such transparent cope man…
Which part is untrue?
The criteria for the mass shooting tracker, the largest number on that chart, is perfectly reasonable. You do understand why shootings are bad beyond the direct deaths of those from being shot at and the location their corpses have to be removed from, do you not?
You’re really going to look the other way because when somebody opened fire on multiple people (at least 3), some of those people survived? Or the shooter went to another location in between? Oh but its okay because it might not happen to you directly. Might not even be your parent or your child or your friend or even your town, but somebody else’s. So no worries.
At worst, you are implying it’s the location’s fault or the victims’ fault for being out in the open; if everyone just had more security then the shooter would’ve just taken their pot shots at people around town. Well, shoot, if that makes it okay then let’s just put a TSA line in front of every grocery store, elementary school, restaurant, etc. Bulletproof windows too. Heck, put em on your cars. Bulletproof vests for everyone!! If you didn’t die, it didn’t happen. Yes, that’ll solve everything! Just don’t go walking around outside or at parks, those are just defacto shooting ranges now; it doesn’t count as a mass shooting anyways if you just shoot at one or two people and move on.
…it’s all the same, man. It shouldn’t be happening. Its the same exact perpetrator on the same exact decision to kill. You prevent that person from making that decision then you prevent all of the death and injuries and terror and trauma that it causes.
Not to mention, as the other commenter did, it’s from 2021. We break new records on each of those numbers, each and every year. Hell, you’ll have to fact check me on this but think we broke it in a month this year.
Even if it wasn’t incredibly biased, the infographic’s info isn’t even updated for those particular sources. They’ve literally all gone up since this dumb meme infographic was made in February.
So according to your infographic, there was a minimum of 6 mass shootings, in which 43 people died, in 2021…so I guess 6 mass shootings per year is okay with you? What’s your limit? About how many mass shootings would you say you are okay with per year?
Or is it all about the odds? As long as your odds are low enough, you don’t care? So at what point do you think we should take action?
What about shark attacks? There were 81 shark attacks, where 9 people died, in 2021. According to your logic, it’s not worth trying to mitigate those attacks at all, right? I mean, the odds are so low, right? Why bother?
Oh god PLEASE Hunter Biden be the saviour we need. Let the republicans change the constitution and put a dent in the 2nd amendment just to pin something on him. It’d be beautiful. A Biden causing some real change.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It was only a year ago that the Supreme Court issued a landmark Second Amendment opinion that expanded gun rights nationwide and established that firearms rules must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”
Now, on Tuesday, the justices are hearing oral arguments in the wake of the yet another mass shooting, in a case asking it to consider the scope of its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, this time in the context of domestic violence.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration defends the law, arguing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is “not unlimited” and it does not prohibit Congress from disarming Rahimi and other individuals subject to domestic-violence protective orders.
In addition, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, when she served on a lower court, dissented when her colleagues rejected a Second Amendment challenge from a man with a felony who was prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law.
One of those cases involves a law which prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The 5th Circuit struck it down earlier this year, relying heavily on both Bruen and its Rahimi rulings.
Hunter Biden’s legal team has signaled that they plan to use the appeals court’s decision as part of their defense, with his attorney Abbe Lowell previously telling CNN that “the constitutionality of these charges are very much in doubt.”
The original article contains 1,404 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
