World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
So basically... Fix every other nearly impossible to fix problem first before even deciding to do anything about the actual guns, if anything at all?
And to be clear, by impossible to fix, I mean politically, not that these problems are actually unsolvable.
So you're plan is to try and tackle something that's written into the constitution.... that's your goal? Say it's nearly impossible to do everything else on that list which isn't written into our constitution...but guns... they're easier to fix...fucking hell you all are really naive.
You mean like slavery?
Are you equating slavery to owning firearms? You white privileged ivory tower types are hilarious.
Nope. I'm equating slavery to tackling something in the constitution and changing it. You know, the thing you just implied was not something that could be done. I'm sure you know that and are obfuscating.
Yea everyone basically agreed slavery was bad...we fought a fucking civil war over it...the majority of the USA is pro-gun. You will never radify the constitution to remove or nullify the 2nd. It's not going to ever happen.
If everyone agreed, why did we fight a civil war over it?
Are you suggesting we fight another civil war so you can repeal the 2nd amendment? You do realize who wins that one right?
You didn't answer my question. If everyone agreed, why was there a war over it?
I did answer it...you just didn't like the answer.
No you didn't. Either everyone agreed or a war was fought over it. It can't be both. You don't fight a war over something everyone agrees on.
So feel free to explain that contradiction. I doubt you will.
Because most of the ignorant south at the time didn't know shit about it being fought against slavery. Me and 100million + other firearm owners haven't killed anyone or used our firearms in anger..which harms 0 people... slavery harms a fuck load of people and you equating it to the 2nd is hilariously naive. Congress can't even get single payer healthcare past..yet you think we can ratify the constitution?
"Most" didn't? So some did? Then I guess not everyone agreed. So what you said was not true.
At this point you're just being a troll.
Yes, I'm a troll because you said a war was fought over something everyone agreed on. Logical.
More people agreed that it needed to be than didn't...and again. That will not happen with the 2nd, because more people in the USA agree with it than don't. You're in the tiny minority that wants it repealed. If you don't like it, move to another country.
Most? So it was a war against a tiny minority of people? That is your contention?
Also, "if you don't like it, leave" is something bigots say. Are you sure you want to be using their language?
Yes it was a war fought with a tiny minority running the damn thing. The majority of the soldiers on the southern side were penniless and were lied to. You know damn well what I'm saying but you're in such a "gotcha" mode that you think the 2nd has any chance of being repealed.
And really? We're going to go with trying to lump me into that shit? Lol
The white privilege just oozes off you.
Please provide evidence that only a small minority of Southerners approved of slavery.
Also, please provide evidence that I am white.
Where did I say that? I said that minority didn't own slaves.
Again, answer my question, do you think that you have enough support to repeal the 2nd amendment?
Dude you're so white and the ivory tower you sit in requires welding goggles to look at it... wanting to ban guns and put in gun control measures is a mainly white thing...and it only pops up when there is a mass shooting... you're white.
Ah, so your evidence that I'm white is that you think what I say is something only white people say?
Sounds pretty racist.
I don't think I'm going to indulge a racist by answering their questions.
By the way...
This is a lie. I do not want to ban guns. I have absolutely no problem with most people who own guns or wish to buy them in the future.
You are a liar who makes racist statements.
Shame on you.
Yeah ok buddy, keep up that white privilege...this entire thread is because you think their is enough support to repeal the 2nd...gun control is racist. I'm not the one wanting to disarm minorities. You are.
No, this entire thread is because you said "So you’re plan is to try and tackle something that’s written into the constitution… that’s your goal?" and I pointed out that slavery was an example of tackling something that's written into the Constitution. Then you said that everyone agreed that slavery was wrong and that a war was fought against it in the same post, which, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is a contradiction.
I never said anything about having enough support to repeal the second amendment. That is a lie.
This is another lie. I have no interest in disarming minorities. In fact, any new gun regulations I would support would only apply to new gun sales.
That is three lies now.
Please stop lying. You have absolutely no reason to lie.
I didn't specify a plan one way or another. I just think it's crazy that the talking points you presented seem pretty clearly designed to just kick this issue down the road, cause at least that way you still get to have your guns.
And believe me, solving all those things you mentioned would be great. But why not also try and do something about the major gun issues at the same time too?
Those "talking points" would solve our firearm violence. We don't have a gun problem, we have a societal one. Random mass shootings are a new phenomenon...gang violence and drug violence are not. Solving these things with the list I posted, would curb our violence epidemic 100xs more than just another emotional gun law from people who don't understand guns.
We do have a societal problem. We also very much have a gun problem.
And proposing all these other things you know won't get accomplished is a way to shift all the responsibility away from the gun issue itself.
And you aren't being emotional about even the thought of some more gun control or anything to even tackle that issue head on? Come on.
It might be because I'm not delusional about why we have the violence in the first place. I'm proposing things that actually would make a difference, another AWB or mag cap/mag ban/etc is emotional policies that will not put a single dent in our gun violence... I'm not the one kicking the can down the road, you are.
I personally didn't propose any of those policies. I genuinely don't know what would work best. I just think you are being really transparent in treating the guns themselves as having nothing to do with the issue of gun violence.
I think everything you were saying would be great to accomplish. It's just really disingenuous to propose them knowing there is a slim chance any of them will happen while completely ignoring the actual guns, just because you want to keep your guns.
The statistics and other countries show that violence is mainly driven by poverty and ignorance. Work on those two main things, and you slow the violence.
And most other countries also have much stricter gun control laws too.
We could work on those things and the gun problem too.
So again, you are being very transparent by completely disregarding the guns as if they somehow aren't part of the gun violence problem.
Either way. I think this is where I drop out of this. We are going in circles and while I agree we should work on the things you mention, we clearly just disagree about the actual guns themselves. And of course neither of us are actually in a direct position to make changes to any of those things, I assume. So you have a good one.