President Joe Biden celebrated the the efforts of law enforcement in the search for Robert Card.
  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    6817·
    11 months ago

    Ffs! This fucking dinosaur can’t even talk about common sense gun control after a tragedy it could have prevented without PRAISING COPS??

    THIS is the guy the LEAST right wing of the two parties thinks is the best option?! God fucking dammit! 🤦

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        243·
        11 months ago

        Absolutely! Probably 70%+ of the overall population realise that ACAB, but maybe 5% of Congress and the White House, if even that!

        Proportionate representation my ass!

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          715·
          11 months ago

          Absolutely! Probably 70%+ of the overall population realise that ACAB, but maybe 5% of Congress and the White House, if even that!

          You’re sadly mistaken. Almost 80% of the population, when polled, desires police funding to stay the same or be increased.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            222·
            11 months ago

            Nope. Those are push polls deliberately designed to skew the results.

            Example: a prominent pollster released results claiming that most black people want more cops in their neighbourhoods.

            It was subsequently revealed that the way that the question was asked heavily implied that the only options were to do absolutely nothing about crime or increase the number of cops.

            By that time, the false narrative had taken root and been quoted as absolute fact by powerful and influential people, so the revelation received much less attention than the original misleading message, which you’re now contributing to.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                153·
                11 months ago

                They sometimes are, yeah. Even the poll the article you’re linking to falsely assumes no alternative.

                When people are asked whether they want funding for cops to be diverted to other ways of preventing and reacting to crime, the consensus is in the affirmative.

                Just because the establishment trusts and uses Pew a lot doesn’t mean that it’s not guilty of dishonest spin.

                • PugJesus@kbin.social
                  46·
                  11 months ago

                  When asked whether they want funding for cops to be diverted to other ways of preventing and reacting to crime, the overwhelming consensus is in the affirmative.

                  One supposes you have evidence for this?

    • Bye@lemmy.world
      2442·
      11 months ago

      Leaving the US to escape mass shootings is like leaving the ocean to avoid shark attacks

      • Kecessa
        82·
        11 months ago

        #1 gun violence

        #1 healthcare spending per capita

        #1 murder rate for rich countries

        …

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          11 months ago

          Interesting you mention “rich countries.” Oddly enough, 2% of US counties account for 51% of the murder rate. Those 2% of counties happen to be some of the poorest areas in the entire country. Turns out wealth inequality is actually a pretty high contributing factor to a lot of things, not only “one of which is violent crime regardless of weapon type,” but even “that and wealth inequality contributes to other things that also contribute to violent crime.” Matroska style.

          Sure, every once in a while someone Chris Benoits their family, (or since he didn’t use guns should I say they Benjamin Glenn Hoffmann some people), but the vast majority of murders are not family annhialators or mass shooters, the vast majority are all related to socioeconomic issues and litterally dudes like O-Block, or PIRU, or GD, or SUR13, etc.

      • ickplant@lemmy.world
        72·
        11 months ago

        #1 in what, exactly, other than gdp? By the way, China has the second biggest gdp, so it’s really not a good measure of how a country ranks in terms of freedom or happiness of its people.

        I’ll patiently wait for an answer that I am sure you will provide.

      • DarkenLM@kbin.social
        43·
        11 months ago

        Give me one shooter accident like this one that happened within the EU in the last decades, then.

        • OctopusKurwa @lemm.ee
          82·
          11 months ago

          I once had a guy on twitter tell me that that every country in Europe has daily mass stabbings that are just as dangerous.

          These people will trip over themselves to justify keeping their guns so they can play soldier on the weekend. Dead kids be damned.

          • DarkenLM@kbin.social
            41·
            11 months ago

            Fair enough. But still, if we compare the amount of accidents, USA is way higher than any county in the EU. And most importantly, when something like this happens, there are at least attempts to apply stricter regulations or other means necessary to prevent it from happening again, while the USA doesn’t do shit.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    256·
    11 months ago

    Even if they passed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which expired in 2004), the current Supreme Court would not allow it. They’ve made that clear in ruling after ruling since 2008.

    Rulings in question:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    “(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

    and further:

    “(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

    Because that was decided against Washington D.C. and not an actual state, there was a 2nd ruling making it clear that this applies to states as well:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

    ““the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]”

    2016 had my favorite ruling in all this because it wouldn’t INITIALLY seem to deal with guns. A woman bought a taser to protect herself from an abusive ex. MA ruled the 2nd amendment didn’t apply because tasers didn’t exist when the 2nd amendment was written.

    Enter the Supreme Court:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

     “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]

    The most recent is the New York ruling where you needed special permission from the state to get a concealed carry permit, which was often denied, even if you were a law abiding gun owner.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

    “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”[28]

    Where this ruling is especially different is that it sets the grounds for striking down other, in place, gun laws all over the country:

    "When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “‘unqualified command.’”