PJ @pj@qoto.org

@freemo

Yes, they don't explicitly state in the constitution who is and who isn't allowed to have guns, but I think it is pretty clear what would have happened if one of their slaves went for a gun.

You can't run a society without qualifying clauses.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

So this guy with an automatic weapon shooting beer cans recorded himself committing a crime? Smart.

https://twitter.com/KidRock/status/1643090302410936323?s=20

@lmrocha @mike805

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

Bingo! You've got it!

Nobody wants to ban guns and nobody is coming for your guns. We just want to be sure that they don't end up as easily in the hands of a person that may start shooting indiscriminately in a school or other public place.

Even the founding fathers had some "well-regulated" criteria for who can and who cannot have a gun (white men with wigs yes, founding mothers and people with slightly dark complexion no).

The criteria arguably changed from then but the principle stands.

@rrb @freemo @DutyBard

From everything (not much) that I was able to find on the topic, this one seems like a pretty decent, leveled accounting of the matter:

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

@freemo

Any idea where to find out more or maybe an analysis about such occurrences?

Does the NRA maybe keep record and track such instances? If I was in their position and making the argument that "more guns in the hands of good people is stopping bad people with and without guns" I would have a database of such instances and constantly trumpet them to the public but I don't recall having seen anything like that.

@DutyBard @rrb

@freemo

You for sure have a lot of examples or even statistics that shows how many good people with guns avoided being killed or raped by people without guns.

@DutyBard @rrb

@rrb @freemo

Agree. As I've said all governments are oppressive by definition, because they have to #regulate things that inevitably infringe on an individual's #freedom (e.g. the "freedom" to shoot at whomever they want).
All I'm saying is that guns are not the only and, I would argue, not the most effective tool to get rid of oppressive undemocratic governments.

@freemo @rrb

This is a "strawman" argument. You can't base your current safety policies on the remote possibility that the government may one day become oppressive.

All governments are more or less oppressive but the good thing is that they don't survive for too long and inevitably collapse when they become too oppressive.

@freemo @rrb

Yes, and it would help a lot if the country from where they are smuggled wouldn't sell them like cupcakes.

One has to register appliances these days, but guns? God forbid.

@freemo @rrb

It is not just the police. Their role is to react to incidents and investigate afterward. I'm talking about #prevention. Gun ownership regulation is a part of it but not all.

The killer in this instance had a history of domestic abuse and obvious mental issues but nobody bothered to check his guns, two of which were smuggled from the US.

@freemo @rrb

This is not in the Wild West anymore. I thought the government as an instrument of a civilized society was responsible for the protection of its citizens, especially the weak.

You say these people would be alive today if only they had guns. I believe some of them may have owned one, and one of the people killed, a police officer Const. Heidi Stevenson had used her and died anyway:

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/a-look-at-the-22-nova-scotians-killed-in-canada-s-worst-mass-shooting-1.6335839

@freemo @rrb I don’t understand how's having a gun to protect oneself from a sick (or just evil) person is a better solution than making sure those people can't get a gun in the first place.
Using more guns to protect against bad people with guns is only good for gun manufacturers.
And nobody is asking the outright *banning* of guns, just to make sure peoplw that want them have the capacity to use them safely.

@freemo @rrb
That's the thing you think having a gun is a *right* while I believe it is a *privilege*, you have to first assure the community you will not do them harm if they give you that privilege.

@freemo @rrb

That's all I'm asking: effective collective "mechanisms that ensure safety" enforced by the community, elected government, or whatever, that work for the vast majority of their constituents.

Giving everyone guns and saying that this is for their protection just doesn't work for most people, despite what Jefferson was thinking when he said that having a gun will more likely prevent someone from attacking them.

@freemo @rrb

Yes. Let the bad drivers expunge themselves naturally, either by dying after hitting a tree or being killed when they hit someone having a gun.😀

If you take this stance then requiring proof of competence or professional credentials from let's say, engineers, medical personnel, and similar jobs where one can do lots of harm if they don't know what they are doing is also an attack on their freedom.

Everyone should be allowed to build and sell highrises and airplanes using whatever or no standards, as they like. That's their freedom. If people die when one of those fails, who cares, they should have known better and protected themselves.

Alternatively, their families (with guns) can get such bad actors permanently out of business so only the "good ones" will remain.

Actually, this may work😀

@rrb @freemo

Many, especially younger, people get a sense of self from things such as guns, cars, and boats, but that's not the point.

A "well-regulated militia" doesn't mean everyone can simply buy an assault rifle at the nearby grocery store. You can't do this in Switzerland or Israel where I believe everyone that is supposed to, have a gun, but, afaik, there are no mass shootings like in the US.

Something is wrong with a society where you can't drive a car without a permit or even a medical exam if you are of a certain age, but you can own a gun without any restrictions.

@freemo

Interesting theory about why guns are so loved in the US:

>White Southerners started cultivating the tradition of the home arsenal immediately after the Civil War because of insecurities and racial fears. During the rest of the 19th century, those anxieties metamorphosized into a fetishization of the firearm to the point that, in the present day, gun owners view their weapons as adding meaning and a sense of purpose to their lives.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-gun-became-integral-to-the-self-identity-of-millions-of-americans/

@freemo
I do not agree with this statement:

>"We should probably put more effort into addressing the "lightening problem" than we should be about addressing school shootings."

The question is: "What can we do about it as a society?"

You can see the storm coming and you can choose not to go outside or you may try to find shelter and protect yourself in some other way, but a child who ***has*** to be in school supposedly safe under adult supervision doesn't have such a privilege.

How can we consider ourselves a civilized society if we don't have the means to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of individuals that should not have them?

You need a license to drive a car and you can't buy cigarettes and alcohol under a certain age but you can carry a gun or even an army-style assault rifle no questions asked.

@freemo

I'm a little bit confused here.
Are you saying that school (or other mass) shootings are as "natural" as lightning?