907
'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
907 points (92.0% liked)
News
24042 readers
5030 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I'm on the same page as everyone here; America's gun laws need to change, are you not allowed to be afraid of the very well known thing your hobby does? Like, being afraid of being shot doesn't make you a hypocrite for liking guns.
I don't think anyone is honestly shaming this person for being afraid.
They are shaming him for refusing to do anything about a situation that he eventually wound up in himself, and suggesting that if he's not going to do something legislatively then he damn well better do something in person, else he has failed in his duty to care for his citizenry. Which is like saying the pot is black, honestly, since politicians don't care about the citizenry.
The GOP had a stance of good guys with guns will defend people with said guns. So voting to have the guns present and not having one and running instead of defending the people either shows he was a coward by their stance, or not one of the good guys.
Yeah man, that looks like a different set of words to describe what I said.
I'll take you at your word that that is what you meant to convey, however their set or words is more succinct than yours.
*convey
Sorry
The first mistake people made was believing the GOP had their back.
The first mistake is assuming the GOP cares about people not related to them, or people who don't benefit them in any way.
Yeah but leaders have to lead and this is what happens when you allow your voters to be terrorized constantly at the expense of your own privilege. He's lucky he hasn't been tarred and feathered yet.
The issue is that the most common argument against gun control is “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” So now this lawmaker has proven that he doesn’t practice what he preaches. If he truly believed a good guy with a gun was the only thing that could stop the shooter, then why not put his money where his mouth is? Surely he’d be hailed as a paragon for gun rights when he took the shooter down…
But clearly he’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying; He only says it because the gun lobby gives him tons of money to do so.
Gun or no gun, he's not a good guy and couldn't have stopped the bad guy...
You think this was legal under current law?
Yeah you can be enamored by nature and its fauna, while still having a healthy fear of being attacked by animals.
I love trains but being tied to tracks while a train approaches isn't what I think of as "fun".
That said proper, responsible gun ownership like any hobby involves accounting for dangers, and also advocating for measures for people to be able to enjoy their passion safely.
Is "liking" the problem?
Is it?
Is it though?
Well, no.
But neither is "owning."
The problem is "illegally misusing."
The problem is obsessive fetishism that ensures illegal uses have no problem finding ownership.
That's not even my argument: it's their argument. 'Criminals can always get a gun!' Yeah hey y'think that's got anything to do with how many fuckin' guns there are? Like maybe we should do something about that number?
Illegal users will always have no problem finding ownership, there are 600,000,000 out there already with no registry to know who/where and nobody wanting to give them up, pandora's box has been opened, yes. Furthermore even if we ended private sale and mandated safe storage, all black market dealers have to do is manufacture (which is already increasing in popularity but not price, so "yes it can happen" and "no they won't then be prohibitively expensive or poorly manufactured," we already see those being proven now), or just say the illegally privately sold arms were stolen from the safe, "forced to open it at gunpoint because all yours were inside it" and such. Actual murderers regularly carry "hot" firearms now, that they knowingly bought as stolen firearms, this practice would continue uninhibited.
Y'all don't really listen, huh.
"The number's too big!" We can lower that number. "... Nuh-uh." We can stop making that number bigger. "No that's worse somehow."
Like you cannot imagine anything being different from right now, so just repeating the problem means it cannot be solved.
And your actions can't make it worse.
As if the exact number of murders going on right now is the same as if we handed every single human alive an untraceable firearm and wished them luck. It'd be the same! Exactly the same! Because so long as a criminal can get a gun, they're all identically well-served by a flawless free market, exclusively for people you've branded "criminals." Not like your gun-nut friends ever have trouble getting anything legitimately, even though it's sold at fucking Wal-Mart.
Isn't it just awful how the school shooters and gangbangers all have full-auto Uzis like in 80s action films, since laws about that did absolutely fucking nothing to make those objects harder to get?
This is where you share your grand plan on how.
Btw, full auto has been illegal since 1986 and the fact that as you say "school shooters have it" proves my point.
You're proving mine. It's depressing. I'm not even sure explaining sarcasm would help, if you missed sarcasm that fucking blatant. I put 'because laws never make things harder to get, huh?' right at the end, but you're not really listening. I should not be surprised.
So I'll be condescendingly literal.
Some people want full-auto guns, but can't get them, because they've been illegal for ages. We successfully made those guns nearly impossible to get. You know this, but you refuse to connect it to any discussion of other kinds of guns, because your script is stuck on the status quo. You do not believe the number can be made lower, for general firearms... even though we've made the number lower, for specific firearms.
And you know better than I do how we made that number lower.
No plan huh? How'd I guess.
Oh yes they can, I could easily fold a coat hanger into, or 3d print, a DIAS, or I could legally buy an auto sear and then illegally drill a third pin hole in the right spot on my lower. Would take 30min the long way with the drill press. Problem though: since I'm not already killing people, I actually care about getting sent to prison for it. Murderers however, ten years in federal prison is the least of their concerns while they literally murder people which could get them 25yr to life, which is why illegal aliexpress glock switches have been making increased appearances at crime scenes.
LOL, you mean "legally," right? Because like guns it is trivially easy to manufacture an auto switch/dias illegally, you just can't buy one...legally, aliexpress sells them though, so it is possible to buy them, easily. An actual auto sear itself though is legal to buy or own, but installation without a permit is not.
It's so easy that nobody does it. You mock people when you imagine they're saying it's widespread. You don't get to mock the same people to insist it should be widespread. Do you have object permanence?
I apologize for trusting you to understand an intuition pump. What I mean, when I say you know better than I do how we changed the number of available guns, is: we restricted those guns. Laws work, actually. You keep asking "how? how? how?" like you cannot imagine-- hang on, in light of this conversation, maybe you can't.
Some countries restrict new gun sales. Y'know. Like we did with full-auto guns? And now not even mass shooters use full-auto guns? Scoff as hard as you like about how any pickle-brained moron can manufacture the fiddly widget that makes the bang switch go bang bang bang. It matters as much as telling people any fool can make a zip gun. Only occasional maniacs will bother. Any particular asshole will be a threat to Shinzo Abe instead of to four hundred concert-goers in Vegas.
Some countries strongly encourage getting rid of guns. Buyback programs don't have to be mandatory, they can literally just buy back what's out there. A lot of folks need a couple hundred bucks more than they need a legal firearm they're not using day-to-day. Fewer guns just lying around means fewer guns to slide into the apparently-quite-convenient black market. Prices go up, delays go up, and we gradually cinch off the asinine objection that 'there's too many guns.'
Some countries just take a bunch of guns. That sentence presumably provokes a response somewhere between "I knew it!" and wordless screaming horror, but it'd work even if half of y'all did your Charlton Heston routine. Millions of people could keep their secret guns... and there would be fewer guns.
Do you understand the concept of fewer guns? Does it even parse?
It is easy to make, the hard part is the TEN YEARS IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY. I hate to all caps, but it was being missed and you were being rude about you having missed that.
What laws specifically do you think we should implement. It really isn't as difficult of a question as you make it out to be.
I'm not asking "how we reduced full auto," because not only are there more SOTs now than there were in the years following the ban, illegal use/ownership is also now becoming more widespread. This is mostly due to how easy it is now to spread information, however "I'm not asking how we reduced.." because it is increasing, albeit currently lower than '86, then again all violent crime has been on a downswing since 1993. The "laws worked" because the internet was much less prevalent and .stl wasn't yet a filetype, give it some time.
I'll just "right-back-atcha" here.
Gangbangers are THE people using illegal aliexpress glock switches that are showing up at crime scenes. Who did you think was using them, family annihilators? I like how you tightened it to mass shooters too, and btw they have used them before as well, admittedly more rarely than semi, but if we're being sticklers..
Yes, even you could do it.
Shame that occasional maniacs are the people killing people as well.
Furthermore more non-maniacs would do it if it didn't get you a 10 WHOLE ASS YEAR FEDERAL PRISON SENTENCE FOR MANUFACTURING OR POSSESSING A MACHINE GUN MANUFACTURED POST 1986 WITHOUT AN SOT, which MURDERERS WHO ARE KILLING PEOPLE WHICH CAN GET THEM A WHOLE ASS SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS TO LIFE IN PRISON aren't concerned about. If it is unclear, 25>10.
They do here. They have an extremely low success rate, they usually offer less than what the gun is worth by far (like $200 for a $1200+ gun). Typically what happens is you get a few dead-grandpa guns left in an attic, and then some joker 3d prints a bunch of liberators (or in one case a bunch of DIASs because they counted for more, actually, lol) and sells those for a huge profit they use to fund other gun purchases. American gun owners are simply not interested in buybacks. The black market meanwhile (assuming we ban all guns) now has a foothold with illegal manufacture which will happen, someone also needs a couple hundered extra bucks and doesn't mind using his now-illegal skills to arm his GD or Folk friends (hell with the ghost guns increasing it's likely this already happens, I doubt every one of those people printed their own, but there's no real way to catch them beyond making a controlled buy). Prices may go up, but typically illegally sold guns right now are "hot" and actually cheaper than in store. I could get you a glock 19 for $500 at a store, or $150 from a guy I know who also sells heroin if you want any of that while I'm there. Problem is though if you get the $150 one and a cop runs the serial, you'll also be doing time in prison. Again, for you and me, prison is a deterrent. For a murderer? That extra couple years for a stolen gun charge is nothing when you're already risking 25 to life. Most people involved in violent crime also being involved in drugs and gangs, the price increase is negligable even if it does happen, drug dealers usually have a lot of cash.
And the only people who could use them would be criminals (who would all keep their guns) because self defense with an illegal item is illegal. That sounds like a plan, for sure. Not a good plan by any stretch of the imagination, but a plan nonetheless.
'It's illegal!' We're already talking about murderers. 'Some do use them!' Not really, you already smugly asserted it's rare. 'Well it's going up!' Hey, great reason to reduce firearms where a widget makes it worse.
Which could be done with any of several examples I already explained. Do you speak English? Or are you just looking for keywords to yell about?
The thing is you seem to think making something illegal has any effect when they can be and are being easily made and bought illegally. Furthermore you seem to think the 600,000,000 guns in 50% of the population's hands with no registry and a culture of reluctance to give them up will simply disappear. It's naive at best.
You clearly speak "stupid asshole" maybe you should try english.
I love btw how I make point after point and you retort with "nuh uh doody head." Really supporting your argument there.
Do you know what "fewer" means?
In this context? It means "people are less able to use them for self defense but criminals, who do not care about said laws, can still use them for crime."
The cat is out of the bag man. Sure we can prevent further legal sales, but there's already too many and too much knowledge to stop what you're trying to stop with that. Much more effective to go after the root causes of said violence rather than focus on some magical "less guns with no explanation how" solution.
Furthermore, black women are the fastest growing group of gun owners, followed by all women, followed by the gays (I love how ominous that sounds lol "the gays! Dun dun duunnnn!"). Digressions aside, preventing new legal sales only serves to cement the fact that conservatives have all the legal ones. Idk why, but "make sure the rich and conservatives have more guns than the fastest growing groups" sounds like it may not be the best idea to me.
But of course, "nuh uh doody head." Yes sure.
No, insult-spamming hypocrite, it means the big numbers you keep throwing around to say 'there's too many guns for laws to work!' gradually stop being an excuse. Like, if there were only one hundred million guns in this country, the black market would be less able to provide firearms to murderous assholes.
But you have to keep pretending I mean instantly solving all problems, or you can't stick to your script.
Same as pretending "here's a few ways this could happen" means "no explanation how."
And childish name-calling as pitifully bare projection. You're not even listening to yourself.
No u, you wanna devolve it we can devolve it. I'm flexible. You wanna have a real, respectable conversation we can do that but you can't be mad when I insult you back.
SO WHAT IS YOUR EXACT PLAN? Still waiting. Oh you have none? Surprise looks like I'm right.
Noooo uuuuuuu.
You're still waiting because you're not listening. I named three possibilities. For some reason, you think three is less than one. You responded to one of them... and it still didn't change your script. You're still expectantly waggling that hoop when I'm on the other side of it.
You have not proven yourself capable of the respectable conversation you imagine you can offer. The world's most blatant sarcasm sailed clean over your head. Appealing to your gun-guy knowledge was treated as a flub. Evidently it's not an ESL thing, or issues communicating with the neurotypical, because here you are posturing and name-calling as hard as you can manage. You really are just bad at this.
Meanwhile, there's basically every other country in the world that does things differently, and your insistence that "fewer guns" is an impossible self-contradiction doesn't seem to bother them. Like, even if it's only dastardly moustache-twirling criminals with guns, there's fewer of them, and they shoot fewer people.
Alright so then I clearly missed it then, what are your three ways? Surely the next reply will include them.
Ya mama.
OH ableism. Cute. That's a good look that reflects positively on your "three" unsaid pieces of comprehensive legislature.
bruh I'm not even reading this shit anymore. Just fuck off while you're behind if you don't want to be an insufferable prick.
The opposite, but at this point I can't be surprised. I was concerned you might not be neurotypical... but I'm pretty sure you just suck at this.
Goodbye, troll.
Bye ableist.
Going to the range and being afraid of criminal shooters isn't hypocritical.
Being afraid of criminal shooters and fighting against gun control reforms makes you a hypocrite and a bad person.
And there's nothing wrong innately with being a hypocrite. But you're a pretty shit person if your empathy and considerations can only extend as far as things that have threatened you personally.
No, but open carry and being afraid of criminal shooters is though.
.... What?
Guna don't scare me but people using guns recklessly or maliciously do.
Being afraid of being shot does make you a hypocrite if you are against gun restrictions and regulations.
Your world view is getting people killed, you SHOULD be scared.