• moody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Comparing it to cars just makes it even more obvious. You need a license to drive one. If your eyesight is too bad, they won’t let you drivr. Your doctor can advise against you driving for many reasons and your license gets revoked.

    • 9thSun@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly in this last one I think the proper authorities really dropped the ball. As soon as this guy went into a mental facility he should have been flagged for having guns and steps should have been taken to restrict his access to them. You’re using a very broad brush to paint all gun owners one way when it’s absolutely not the case. Some people take self defense extremely seriously. Look out at human history. Look out at the natural world. Killing is a serious constant in life. If you want to see what people are capable of when one group of people have guns and another doesn’t, look at Israel v Gaza. Look at slavery. Small groups of people can control large groups of people solely for having guns. So coming back to self defense, the gun is the greatest equalizer, unfortunately. I believe in having smart, efficient, and effective gun laws, but at the end of the day I only put 100% faith in myself for protecting myself.

      I think everyone I’ve talked to who carries a gun hopes to never have to use it in a life or death situation. I love guns and hate people who use them to kill.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The passive voice in the second sentence is very telling. Who should have flagged him? Who should have taken steps to restrict his access to guns? Who had access to that information in order to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and take action? Our society and government doesn’t have a proactive mechanism to so. It is explicitly not the duty of the police. Our system is reactive; some private citizen could have petitioned a court of law, but who has the time, money, and interest to do it?

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It sounds like the whole community knew, given the reports that everybody in town knew to avoid the guy. It’s just our society and legal system makes it everybody’s responsibility to deal with it, and near-impossible to actually do anything useful, which in practice means it’s nobody’s responsibility. Kind of like climate change, or car crashes.

        • 9thSun@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, there are states that will deny someone a firearms license if they have been to a mental facility within a certain period of time. Even after that amount of time is up, you have to take a psych eval before being able to reapply for the license. So, the way I see it, what I’m saying isn’t too far off from being implemented.

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, it’s not impossible, nor necessarily all that difficult. States just need to make it somebody’s job, and set up a system that funnels them the information about troubled people, and gives them the resources and authority to act on it.