• ProcurementCat@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not sure what this instances views on “advocating violence” are, so I’m trying to explain it as non-violently as I still can:

    Americans want gun control. That’s not up for discussion. It’s an absurd majority.

    However, as long as it is “only” school children and ordinary civilians dying, Republicans will not change their stance on gun control in the slightest. The people who are responsible to fix this are the only group that is not at any risk of getting shot. They are so absurdly protected that they will never be on the receiving end of a barrel, and therefore, do not care.

    And to make matters worse, the Republicans dictating the supreme court, who will block anything that could possible address this problem, not only cannot be voted out, no, they literally have to die before they can be replaced.

    The only people who could fix the gun murder issue are the ones not dying because of guns.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dont think you are advocating for violence, but there was a shooting at a Congressional baseball game and it didnt push the Republicanw towards passing legislation to control guns at all. It is extremely disturbing how little of a fuck they give.

      • ProcurementCat@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I remember that. Yeah…same with the insurrection: they can only care for about an hour, then it back to business.

        That’s kinda the comment that always gets me banned: as long as Republican politicians do not actually die themselves frequently, they will not change.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they went with, “See, it’s the democrats who are violent.”

          It’s a cruel world, friends.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hell and that’s a Fox “News” poll, so that would likely have their own flavor of bias trying to make it as much in their own favor as possible.

      I don’t see this as advocating for violence, more as pointing out how a specific group of people only care about things that personally affect them so they currently don’t care about the issue.

      Hell the NRA cared about gun control when the Black Panthers started advocating for buying guns back in the day. Why? Because they saw it as a personal threat to their well-being.

      • ProcurementCat@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hell and that’s a Fox “News” poll

        That’s why I instantly saved it to my phone. This picture has such a high value in “discussions” with gun freaks.

        I’m working for a NATO countries’ military, am a frequent poster and avid follower of NonCredibleDefense, own weapons myself, know a lot about their inner workings and history, but even I am not even remotely as crazy as those people.

        Then again, I do own several weapons but advocate that my government pass laws to take them away. Guess I’m kind of a paradoxical outlier in this matter.

        • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I own several guns as well and I’m greatly in favor of better gun control laws. I’m a bit odd as well in that regard lol

          • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I used to be an avid gun owner till my father used one of his guns to take his life, he carried one his whole life to protect our family, and it ended up causing more harm than any mugger or home invader ever could imagine. If you ever have suicidal ideations please leave your firearms with a trusted comrade till you get help. I had ideations almost my whole adult life and thought i could resist them till the day I died, which was technically true, but not in the sense I thought. I pawned my guns, shortly after his death, and haven’t had those ideations since. The vast majority of gun deaths are self inflicted and get swept under the rug by families and the news.

            • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree whole heartedly that if you have suicidal thoughts you shouldn’t own firearms. It’s a recipe for disaster if you do. And if you have those thoughts you should seek help. There’s people in your life who will miss you dearly when you’re gone, even if you don’t think so.

              And I’m sorry for your loss, I know how hard it is when someone you care about commits suicide. I’ve known 4 people who have. Though none of them used firearms to do so I’ll never forget them.

              Personally I’ll never own pistols as I’ve had too many bad experiences with pistols. The why is a bit of a doozy.

              Trigger warning Child Abuse, Breaking and Entering, and Attempted Murder.

              On a number of occasions my dad held a pistol to my head screaming at me to tell him where his drugs that he had already done were. He did this a lot to my siblings and I before he finally got clean. I still refuse to speak with him as there’s just too much pain there. My siblings tell me he’s a lot different now, that he’s back to the way he was when they were young, but I’ve only ever known him as the abusive drug addict that he was.

              Him and some of my other relatives are why I own firearms really as a number of them have said that they “can’t wait to get the order to hunt people like me in the streets.” And one went to prison for kicking my door in to try. That was when that relative found out I was a gun owner. They didn’t get shot, we just patiently waited for the police to arrive while they sat in my entry way.

      • Truck_kun@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That their local representative was anti-gun control before this shooting affected his own local area, only proves your point more. That he changed his opinion is a good thing, but too little too late.

        Very impressed that he publicly came out to accept responsibility for the Maine shooting with his previous opposition to gun control though, and is now advocating for it.

        Unfortunately, it may take several shootings in all the representatives’ and senators’ home towns that are in opposition to actually flip them (even then, it wouldn’t change many of their minds, unless it actually personally affected them), and the country shouldn’t have to suffer that. It likely will literally take a constitutional amendment to prevent the supreme court from overturning any legislation enacted (or at least stripping it down to become fluff legislation with little meaning, or effect).

      • VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Mental health is a squishier standard. Let’s say I had depression and decided to talk to someone about it, get the help I needed to become mentally healthy again. Should that necessarily be penalized if I want to go buy a gun to go out to the range or hunting with my buddies? Should seeking help disqualify someone entirely? Does that prevent people from getting help they think they might need, stigmatizing an already stigmatized practice?

        Meanwhile, if Dave down the hill has a record, he’s already shown he was willing to do an illegal thing, whether or not the record is fair. If he already has reports against him for domestic disturbances, that’s pretty cut and dry violent behavior that ought not be allowed to intensify.

        I’m not saying mental checks aren’t a good idea or aren’t worth it. I’m saying that they’re a harder sell because a) they take more nuance to formulate well and b) the propaganda machine will have an easier time telling people how those checks are overreach.