647
4-Year-Old Fatally Shot By Woman Who Was Teaching Her 'Firearm Safety,' Authorities Say
(www.huffpost.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
647 points (96.3% liked)
News
23665 readers
4364 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Without taking a stance myself - I doubt anyone disagrees with the principle, but rather on the implementation. How do we know who's responsible enough; can we write a law that accounts for:
• A 50-year-old woman who committed robbery in a moment of desperation as a 16-year-old and has since shown remorse, attended therapy, and held a stable job,
• A 40-year-old businessman who's never been convicted of anything, seemed okay when he saw a therapist once last year, but privately he gets into vicious screaming matches with his wife and has really inappropriate temper tantrums when he's drunk, and
• A 21-year-old college graduate who seems smart and stable enough, but their social media page is full of harsh criticisms of the government, projections of what would happen if various officials were theoretically assassinated, and more than a few references to "hoping for another civil war"?
While balancing that with the idea that the government isn't supposed to protect something as a "right" while also preemptively taking that right away from people they think might be dangerous, if they can't point to highly credible evidence. (Otherwise, it becomes possible to arrest people for 'thought crimes.')
Idk the solution personally. Seems impossible to balance unless gun access legally becomes a privilege to qualify for, rather than a right to be restricted from. But that would put the power into states' hands, and then states would have the power to decide that no one can have guns except the police.
While balancing that with the idea that the government isn't supposed to protect something as a "right" while also preemptively taking that right away from people they think *might* be dangerous, if they can't point to highly credible evidence. (Otherwise, it becomes possible to arrest people for 'thought crimes.')Amendments mean that it's possible to amend the Constitution.
Solution: Amend the Constitution and don't make it a right to own weapons
Ta-fucking-da!
'No Way to Prevent This', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens'
Solutions already exists in all other countries in the world. It is an incredibly myopic attitude to think you have to somehow invent a completely new concept in order to have gun regulations in your country.
In the context of the States, I don't see how any new legislative intervention can deal with the 400 million existing guns in the nation. No country in the history of humanity has had to deal with that. My question is, can it even be dealt with?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's misplaced cynicism. But, seems to me, the vast existing supply of firearms leads to a permanent condition where, a person who wants to do something bad with a gun, will find access one way or another. I genuinely have no idea how that situation gets fixed. "Do what Japan does" - which I've heard sincerely spoken aloud - is naive and would not be effective there.
I don't live in the States, so it's not my place to navigate the moral issues or make judgements. I just don't understand how new gun control measures patterned on other countries in very different situations of supply could be effective, and properly target shitbags like the murderer in the OP article, in advance of a killing.
Tl;dr - "we can't solve everything, and the partial solutions inconvenience me so we must do nothing"
You just like guns, you can admit it, it's not a crime, I think they're cool too.
But a good portion of gun owners absolutely should not have them.
You're so terrified someone will report you for something and you'll lose your guns, maybe thats a sign you need to look at.
You are reading too much into their comment. It's OK to ask how you would implement it.
I've never owned a gun and still agree with them. There are certainly people who shouldn't have guns but the vast majority haven't yet had an incident to get them taken away by any hypothetical law.
You can't prevent every gun death. It's certainly worth preventing the ones we can, but this particular story has no indications that these ladies had previously given cause for taking them away. They were at least seen by the state as responsible enough to foster children.
So to come to this particular story to advocate taking guns away from folks under circumstances that wouldn't have changed the outcome feels more like grandstanding than conversation.