News
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.
view the rest of the comments
If a person with a gun decides they're going to start shooting, are they going to shoot the other person with a gun first, or last?
A law like this doesn't stop criminals so much as it let's them not worry about being shot at. It doesn't stop a criminal from having a gun. It stops everyone else from having a gun.
Explain to me how it makes a park safer to not allow concealed weapons in it. I'll listen to your reasoning. No big wall of text with 50 reasons that would take ages to go over. Just explain to me how a law that stops a law abiding citizen from having a concealed weapon in a park will make it safer.
LOL, "I'm willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I'm willing to read."
For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole 'then only outlaws will have guns' is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can't purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole 'black market' gun stores thing is just a false argument.
The idea that a 'good guy with a gun' will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the 'good guy with a gun' who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.
Guns are inherently unsafe. We're never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.
All the arguments for 'private gun ownership makes us safer' fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.
I wouldn't argue against all of what you said, but that isn't this law. It's not fewer guns, or gun purchase restrictions, or legally owned guns or any of that. This is just a law that bans concealed carry at a few added places. Police can't search a person without cause. These aren't security restricted places places where you get checked for weapons before entering. There's literally no hindrance to go into a park with a concealed firearm aside from "its against the law". How will this stop the criminal sort from having or using a gun? Do you think a person robbing someone at gunpoint will be like "woah, I can't rob them with this in the park. That's extra illegal now"? Or that the criminal sort will stop going to a park with a gun, even though they wouldn't be able to get caught with it if they leave it concealed and don't do anything that would cause a cop to be allowed to detain and search them? The law passed doesn't really do much to make these places safer.
And here's the other argument we hear all the time. "This bill doesn't fix everything, so it's pointless and should be dropped."
Drinking in a car is illegal, but how would an officer be able to tell if there are passengers drinking behind tinted windows? If the driver has booze in his or her or their yeti, how would a cop know? Since the cop can't know, drinking in cars should be legal, even for the driver.
That's basically what you're arguing.
Sometimes a bill is stripped down in order to pass with conservatives or moderates. Sometimes a bill is a trial balloon for what you really want to pass. Sometimes a bill addresses a specific issue, and that it doesn't fix some other issue is just moot.
And sometimes you have to walk before you run.
Shooting a weapon is always a risk. Not allowing weapons takes that risk away.
A concealed gun isn't going to do shit when the mugger is already holding you at gunpoint.
I've never understood why you'd want a gun. The risks of guns being everywhere just seems a lot more obvious than the rare situations where they'd actually be useful.
Guns are far more likely to be used for bad than good, that's why you want as little as possible guns around...
That's simply untrue. On several different occasions I've avoided getting mugged/carjacked/robbed because I saw someone who looked like they were coming my way with intent and their hand in their pocket or just starting to draw it out, so I pulled out my own and in each case they turned around and walked away, presumably to find an easier target. Same with the multiple times armed junkies broke into my house - they see my gun, and they run rather than proceeding to do whatever the fuck they were going to do. I am a cripple, so I'm not gonna be able to fight - it's this or nothing. Not just me, but my wife and son as well.
Yes, guns are bad. Yes, less guns is good! Total agreement. Unfortunately, life is not so black and white. In the US we have SO MANY GUNS, and so many available illegally, and cheaply, that any of these gun laws are only stopping law abiding citizens like myself from having a tool to defend ourselves with, as a criminal is going to be carrying wether it's legal or not for him to as it's readily available.
Australia and the UK, shit even Canada, are so different in this respect (guns per capita and availability and cheapness of black market guns specifically) that you really can't compare policy - what works there isn't necessarily going to work here.
So what's the answer, you say? Lots of things!
We have a lot of gun laws on the books in regards to background checks/greymarket/gunshow sales/etc that are simply not enforced, or not enforced well. Enforce them! Make the checks more strict, stop letting folks with mental issues buy guns, etc.
Want a gun? You should have to take a mandatory safety course for that specific type of gun (shotgun, revolver, semi auto pistol, etc - just like classes on your drivers license). You should have to pass a test and renew it regularly, similar to CCW permits on most states. Let's make it so that if you ARE a law abiding citizen carrying a gun, you know how to safely use the kind of gun you carry, can shoot reasonably accurately with it, have been taught your local self defense laws, have been taught trigger discipline, and have been taught how to check your fucking backdrop before you pull the trigger so you don't put other innocents at risk when defending yourself.
Do something to limit the number of new guns brought into the system. The ones we got are here, can't really do much about that without people losing their collective shit. But we ought to be able to slow down the numbers of new ones made available to the public, via extra taxes, limits on how many guns a person can purchase in a time period, I don't know really, this is a hard one, but I think it's the way we need to do it so we don't just fuck over the average citizen - gradually.
The law doesn't actually do anything to remove guns from criminals. These areas aren't secure to get into. There's no controlled entrances or frisking or metal detectors. There's nothing that prevents a criminal from having a concealed weapon there. So you think someone that would pull out and use a gun not in self defense is going to worry about our be deterred by having an extra charge of having the gun at the zoo?
This is, once again, just a supposition. Is there any evidence anywhere of a mass shooter gong for an armed person first during a mass shooting?
Ignoring the logic that even an insane person going on a shooting spree would want to shoot the armed people first, exactly how many mass shooting events do you think there are in comparison to smaller event shootings?
I have the answer for you. While there may be a mass shooting 20 to 50 times a year, ruling out suicides and accidents there are about 210 people shot per day.
Aside from you wanting evidence of a completely obvious thing a mass shooter would do, you're trying to compare something that happens in less than a single percent of all other shootings.
Furthermore, there are almost 12,000 robberies in the US each year using knives, over 200 by choking victims, and over 4,000 per year using blunt weapons like baseball bats. Now you can interpret or swing all those statistics whatever way you'd like, but it would stand to reason that having a visible gun on you would go two ways- either the person doesn't attack you due to fear of the weapon, or they would beat/stab you without warning or threatening the victim so they couldn't have a chance to pull their gun out. Having a concealed weapon would give you an option to take the attacker off guard if the situation arose.
I didn't bring up mass shooters. I just talked about guns as a deterrent. Other people brought up mass shooters.
What does that have to do with anything?
Okay, great. Then I'm sure you can back up this reasoning with data on how often this happens vs. how many times attackers are fended off in other ways.
Why is there not data on this? Aren't all of you who are just saying "it's logic" or "it stands to reason" curious as to why there is absolutely nothing anyone has presented so far that can back up what you say?
Google tells me concealed carry started in Georgia in 1976. And all of you expect me to believe that in 45 years we do not have any studies that show whether or not concealed carry is effective as a crime deterrent? I'm not even saying no such study exists. I'm saying that if it does exist, none of you even know and most of you don't care either.
Because, again, we are talking about a law here. Laws, and repeals of laws, should be based on evidence, not guesses, not 'it stands to reason,' not 'it's logical to think,' not 'we hope.' Evidence. And if California proposed a law requiring every gun owner to, for example, submit their weapon for regular safety inspection, I would sure hope you would demand some evidence to support such a law.
This is what bothers me so much about gun discussions overall, both people who are into guns and people who are against guns- so much resistance to evidence. So much reliance on what you think is reasonable or rational or logical.
If you want guns to be illegal, fine. Show me evidence and data from other countries to support your argument.
If you want concealed carry to be legal in California, fine. Show me evidence and data from other states that shows that it is effective and safe.
Why is this so unreasonable?
Lol. You LITERALLY refer to mass shooters in your question to me. It was the only thing you had brought up.
I said it in response to:
What did you mean if you weren't talking about mass shooters?
He's right... What he said doesn't automatically constitute a reference to mass shootings. When I read it, I didn't think of it in that regard.
That said, he's pulling the straw man out for you, or moving the goal posts, or whatever its called... He's not answering your questions and instead turning the argument against you by focusing on something you said wrong. He's arguing in bad faith.
After the beginning of his reply started off with saying he wasn't the one who brought up mass shootings, I didn't bother reading the rest of his post. I wasn't going to give a guy who can't believe his own words he wrote my time of reading the rest of his post. Before that post though, I don't think I moved a goal post anywhere. In fact, all I wanted was a simple response to the question I had asked about how it makes it safer at a park, which I believe no one answered.
Ok so you're both arguing in bad faith then, got it.
Before that post? No, you didn't, but I wasn't referring to that post, was I?
And you're right, no one answered it. Everyone in this thread needs to understand that the person they're talking to isn't going to do the work to change their own minds. You want to change someone's mind? Put in the work, show references. Show studies. Show articles. We can all argue on logic and suppositions until the cows come home, but when has that ever worked for you to change someone's mind on such a divisive subject?
I can Google a million articles about people getting shot with their own gun. Can you also do the same and show me something where the law abiding, gun carrying, citizen saved the day at a park? I bet you can. Prove it.
There will always be violence. Guns don't change that. The only thing they do is make the death toll go up faster. You want to reduce the number of deaths by gun? Reduce the number of guns. And I say that as a law abiding gun owner.
You articles are irrelevant because...pay attention now..... THIS LAW DOESNT GET RID OF A SINGLE GUN. Also, look at you as well, completely unable to provide an answer to my simple question, so you have to go off on a mini tirade of other junk to bury that fact away.
You're an idiot.
Edit to add: and the reason is because you are failing to see the correlation between what I wrote, why restricting guns is a good idea, and how it applies to the law in the OP. Like I said, you're arguing in bad faith and, at this point, INTENTIONALLY not engaging in the subject and are choosing to twist things around. I don't know why I expected you to be any different than any of the other gun nuts out there. Scream a little louder next time, it might change my mind.
Me scream a little louder? You're the one still commenting in an old post that you had already lost sway of opinion in and calling people idiots. Lol
You're correct on that point. But you still didn't answer his question. Don't argue in bad faith like all the others do. He's trying to have a constructive discussion with you. You want to change his mind? Then engage with him. Otherwise acting like you just did shows that you have no intention of engaging with the actual topic and are instead trying to put him on the defensive because you know you lost this argument.
The guy never answered the one question I asked about to begin with. Look up there. I wrote it out very plainly and specifically and got no response about how this law will make a park more safe. All of his responses you're speaking of about the open discussion has not been a discussion of the one question I very specifically asked for. He's just been trying to shift the discussion over to something else. Amusingly because he has no sound argument on it.