this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1103 points (95.2% liked)

Memes

45658 readers
2120 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Here we go again...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exceptions for active military can work because they are subject to the far more strict ucmj. Cops are a real problem though, they kill 1000 or so people every year with minimal consequence.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

1200 last year, that we know of. Cops self report their crimes. There is no law that requires them to report if they have committed a murder.

https://policeviolencereport.org/

[–] BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not so fun fact cops were invented to prevent people like us from stealing crates in the harbor 200 years ago. They used to be just upper class people who patrolled the port. They didn't always exist, so it's just as possible for them to cease to exist. A society without goons in blue is possible. Cops protect the owners of the country. edit: Why can't we commoners set up our own force to protect us the regular people?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Before police though, we had feuds and the city would just randomly hang whomever the townspeople pinned the crimes on.

We also didn't have a professional firefighting force back in the day. Times change.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The ucmj being strict is worth little against someone taking up his guns and going rampage.

Why does anyone from the Police or Military need to own firearms privately? The only reason i could think of is training, but that is a responsibility of the employer, to give enough training to the cops and soldiers.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Private ownership of guns is allowed, asking why anyone needs it is non sequitur.

You need to decide if you are ok with living in a free society or not. In a free society people are going to be able to do bad stuff sometimes.

[–] Varixable@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago

This argument would make more sense if this free society wasn't the same society that would jail me for years for wanting to occasionally do some cocaine. As it stands, this is not a free society and this argument isn't one.

[–] RoadArchie@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What makes you a more free person? Much smaller risk of death and suicide or owning guns? Lol

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Being able to choose either of those myself is unarguably the freest. The real question is the conflicting rights. If the right to own guns is conflicting with the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness then we need to find a resolution. Legally speaking when two rights collide like this the they typically try and preserve as much of both rights as possible. Thats not what every gun control advocate wants though. Everyone has a different version of how it should shake out.

[–] Wirrvogel@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's where the gun culture comes in. America has none, they just have guns and no protective, strict culture of do's and don'ts around them. Not everything has to be restricted by law if a society decides that there are still rules. We have a social rule that when we sneeze or cough we put something in front of our mouth. It is not a law, but it is a healthy social rule that is helpful; everyone accepts that they are not free to sneeze in other people's faces. You need either gun laws or gun culture, Switzerland chose more culture, Germany more law, both work. America chose ... more guns and the "freedom" to shoot them in other people's faces. That's stupid and dangerous.

[–] ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you should clarify what exactly you mean by 'free', cause as an outsider it just seems like you have the freedom to get indiscriminatly mowed down by high powered rifles owned by mentally ill spree shooters.

you should clarify what exactly you mean by ‘free’, cause as an outsider it just seems like you have the freedom to get indiscriminatly mowed down by high powered rifles owned by mentally ill spree shooters.

As an insider it seems like this too.

But to the guy you replied to it's most likely the freedom to have a gun which you never do those bad things with, while also plugging your ears regarding the reality that the same laws protecting your ability to have a gun and not do those bad things are enabling that endless stream of indiscriminate deaths by the folks who do those bad things.

And although I don't know him personally, he probably also deflects to mental health being the cause while continuing to vote for the party that both is responsible for our lack of mental health infrastructure and also refuses to consider restrictions on gun ownership.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Some don't. I have two friends, one a police officer and one in the military, neither own a gun.