this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
215 points (89.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27027 readers
705 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChefTyler1980@lemmy.world 165 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I can only speak for my friends who fit your criteria: they’re single issue voters (like many Americans) and they’re afraid the Dems are coming for their guns.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 96 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The dilemma being that anyone who acts this way probably shouldn't own guns.

Placing gun ownership over all other personal freedoms is an unhealthy obsession.

People who think they need weapons in case are not so different than those who think the rapture will occur in their lifetime.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

People think they need guns just in case only because so many other people have guns and because our gun violence is out of control.

It's an arms race leading only to more gun deaths.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It's also a delusion for the most part. None of the scenarios they carve out in their minds about why guns are essential tools has much basis in any rational threat profile. Otherwise these nutters would be walking around with helmets on all the time.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

single issue voters are fucking willfully braindead. Selfish short-sighted fuckers doing the opposite of their civic duty

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They are unfortunately correct. I can’t count how many failed attempts I’ve made to try to convince many of my liberal peers that trying to kill the 2nd Amendment or functionally prevent people from buying guns is doing more harm to our collective efforts than good by alienating independents who are otherwise liberal-leaning, but staunchly support 2A. Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem. Conservatives aren’t much better, unfortunately, and they’re three times as stubborn, so here we are.

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.

Could you elaborate that a bit?

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Sure. For starters, they keep going on and on about mass shootings and how we need to cut access to guns to stop all the mass shootings.

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not. The rise in mass shootings is unfortunately an aspect of modern American culture and copycat-ism.

Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).

I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.

[–] LadyLikesSpiders@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I am what the Americans consider VERY far left (A centrist by European standards), and I, for the most part, agree with the idea that the issue is not one of access to firearms necessarily, but of a cultural problem

But what's the cultural problem? Could it be the gun fetishization we have (perpetuated by conservatives)? Perhaps its roots go in further back, to our founding as a nation built on a violent rebellion. Maybe it's even further back then that, developed from a puritan heritage

I agree it's a cultural issue, but where we're gonna disagree is that the culture that promotes this degree of gun violence is one that loves guns so much it absolutely refuses to try and take any steps to fix the issue. The people who love guns the most, who want that shit on all their media, is conservatives

Besides that, I'd call America a uniquely desperate place. We are taught to believe this country is great and incredible and can do no wrong, but for all its affluence, everything is expensive as shit, we are always just a missed paycheck away from homelessness, medical issues, psychological problems. The cultural issue here is that America doesn't care about its people; It cares about its companies. Most conservatives would probably side with the working man over the business suit, but it is the Republican party that overwhelmingly supports the rights of big businesses over the actual working people. I've seen the country described as a 3rd world country wearing a Gucci belt. The cultural problem is in this dissonance of swearing we're in a good spot when we're actually not

Furthermore, you don't actually know what leftists want in regards to gun control, since you've likely heard a lot of it from right-leaning sources. The idea that we want some "abolish all guns" thing is a strawman. I believe that people should be able to own guns. I believe that other countries have gun ownership, and like their guns, and don't have the issues we have. We vary quite a bit from people who want stricter stuff, to people who want lighter stuff. People who say ex-cons shouldn't have guns, to people saying you can't take away rights from criminals because it incentivizes political jailing (If you don't want your opposition to own guns, arrest them). I personally believe that gun ownership should be relatively lax in terms of what you can get, but that they should have very stringent requirements

Really, the complicated web of cultural issues would require a whole book in order to cover, so I'd just leave it at that. A complicated tapestry of religious, historical, and sociological factors that contribute to our peculiar brand of gun violence, and this course must change. "Copycatism" doesn't just exist in a vacuum. We cannot stay the course--we cannot conserve the course. We must alter American culture fundamentally, and that is exactly what conservativism inherently and necessarily opposes

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

So guns changed over the past 100 years, but the laws did not adjust. Sounds like a bad idea. How can a new technology a cause for a new problem? Did that ever happen???/s

Semi-automatic rifles were not overly widespread before the 1990, and when they became, in 1994 there was a time-limited ban for semi-automatic firearms, which then expired in 2004. And what are the major concerns for mass shootings in recent years? It is semi-automatic firearms.

If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Why do you think they want to ban all guns? But when you've a gun proponents such as in the US you gotta get real about what you can achieve. So it is not hypocrisy to focus on assault weaponry.

That hobby thing can be said about many forbidden things, for example smoking cannabis.

[–] FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

But they are, would your laws be stricter the appearance of these mass shootings would drop significantly since they perpetrators would have to go through a much mor rigorous screening process before being allowed near a firearm. The copycats and emulators are able to repeat these crimes ALSO because they have easy access to firearms, don't act like this wouldn't be a root cause for the mass shooting problem

Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime

Those who commit small-scale gun crime use the same laws in place for mass-shooters and everybody else to access firearms used in their crimes

Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).

The Australian experience after the mass shooting in Port Arthur at the end of the 90ies tell a different story and it shows that guns buyback/confiscation can and will reduce crime committed by guns

I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.

Tell that to the republicans, who see any intervention on the existing gun laws as an attack to the second amendment. More background checks? No thanks. Red flag laws? No thanks. Limiting firearms possession to those convicted of violent crimes? No thanks.

Who is the party operating according to feeling and who is the one operating according to common sense and logic? Let me give you a hint, it's not the blue one who is using scare tactics to keep everything as it is

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone

I honestly think a lot of the left's stance on gun control stems from culture wars. Otherwise you wouldn't see people reacting so much to pointless things like foregrips, suppressors, or painting guns black.

laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access

Tbf this is already a thing. If you've been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital (morning brain is preventing me from having the right term, sorry) that will show up on a federal background check.

Also, interestingly this and red flag laws can have a negative consequence: it can lead to individuals trying to hide their symptoms and not seek treatment to avoid having their rights taken away, which merely exasperates the problem.

I'm not opposed to having restrictions on gun ownership based on mental health, but there needs to be some way for affected individuals to gain their rights back after seeking treatment (similar to felons regaining their voting rights after a few years), in combination to making said treatment significantly easier to access (preferrably bia universal healthcare).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’re entitled to your opinion, but “mass shootings aren’t the worst gun violence in the US” is just a shitty argument especially when the US is the only country that it regularly happens. I’d rather there be no gun violence anywhere, but I definitely care more about kids getting slaughtered than I do criminals shooting at each other. I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.

I’ll also add something that’s changed is the radicalization of the likes of the NRA and right-wing groups starting in the 80s. When my father joined the NRA it was an organization that pushed for safety and training of firearms. Now they a practically a political arm of the Republican Party who just fear-monger and drive people to hoard guns and ammo, which I’m sure make the manufacturers happy. A large number of mass shooters have listened to these radicalized propaganda machines.

If we want to have a conversation about preventing the radicalization in the first place, I’m for it. Hold those people responsible instead of all fun owners is a topic to discuss.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago

And yet, things like universal background checks and red flag laws poll at something like 80 percent support nationally. Most people are perfectly OK with changing the status quo on gun ownership. The problem is that there is a very determined and highly vocal minority that immediately leaps to "they're coming for our guns!" any time any kind of widely-supoorted common sense gun control measures are even mentioned. The result is that we can't even have a conversation about what said measures should look like so everyone continues to cling to their absolutist positions in ignorance and fear. This is by design and we are suckers for allowing ourselves to be played like this. It's pure manipulation on the part of political opportunists.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

If the claim here is that these people would vote straight Blue if the Democratic Party came out tomorrow supporting guns I don’t buy it at all. They’ll move the goalposts. Half the rhetoric they believe about Democrats taking their guns is entirely fabricated to begin with, a large chunk of the rest amounts to paperwork.

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Mental health is the issue. Just like anyone who would drive a car through a school yard mowing down kids, that person has mental issues. The vehicles driver should be licensed and the owner should be registered. I am a gun toting liberal in a state with essential zero gun laws. I believe in the second ammendment, but not absolute. You should be able to have a gun, but you should be licensed (psyc eval, background check, gun safety classes requirement) and your guns should be registered. If a gun you own ever kills someone, you are responsible. Your gun is your responsibility to keep locked up and if it's stolen you should have reported it.

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Just like anyone who would drive a car through a school yard mowing down kids, that person has mental issues.

No, mental health issues are specific and do not encompass simply “being fucked up.” You can be plenty fucked up and not be mentally ill, and most of the people who get violent in the way you’re describing are simply extremists, not people suffering from a psychological disorder.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My personal stance is is a combination of an observation that an armed population is harder to oppress, and that gun control tends to have a disproportionate impact on minorities and oppressed groups.

Since LGBT and minorities are the most likely groups to be attacked by political opposition, we shouldn't be trying to hamstring their ability to defend themselves.

Plus, a contributing factor to why the alt-right and fascists have gained so much ground in the past decade is because of the perception that only the political right has guns, and therefore they think that they'll win in a fight

[–] HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

You sure are making a lot of brain twists to keep school shooters shooting school kids!

[–] littlecolt@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That and monetary issues. The "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" out there who want to keep R in power so when they finally get rich, they won't have to pay taxes.

[–] HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

These are called dumb fucks in my book

[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] legios@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In Australia I know a lot of people who vote purely based on how their parents voted. That includes people voting against their own interests and refuse to do any research that might change their minds...

[–] Johnmannesca@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

We have that in the US too, there's just a less than subtle rebellion phase that lasts roughly 2.5 presidential election cycles before regressing.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

A single issue for their single brain cell.