cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3320637

YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.

  • @SitD@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    361 year ago

    🤔 so if gun violence is a problem… and they’ve already banned violence… what if one would ban the other thing - oh wait no it’s definitely the goofy gamer machinimas 🤭 stop giggling y’all, this is serious. you don’t wanna turn into criminals

      • @Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        I guess a good start would be document gun holders digitally and not on a pile of paper where nobody finds anything and has water damage. Another approach would be not having guns sold in the supermarket. Furthermore, you could ban ads for guns and make it very hard to buy heavy stuff used only in war zone. And lastly restrict who and how weapons are allowed to be transported on man. Of course, one has to have a valid reason to have a weapon on them. Going shopping with a gun out of fear is mot a reason.

        First we have to stop bringing new weapons to people, than we can think about collecting

        I’m Swiss, we have nearly as many private weapons per household as Americans have, but we have way less shootings, all the things above apply here and I think it kinda works.

          • @Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Well that is one thing I’m not 100% sure, but NRA 100% does political pro gun ads on TV (and most likely precisely targeted in social media) I just assumed there are normal gun ads since, well, it’s America.

            https://youtu.be/ks2_wY7f-MM?si=SWzCvmHLKdys7jFt

            Just skipped through that and it seems most tv networks refuse gun ads, but it seems not illegal by law to show gun ads on tv.

          • @Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            It seems like New York goes in the right direction then, nice to see! I bet one sees the difference in the statistics for gun violence compared to other states of America. Umm, is NY a state or a city or both? 😂 not so sure right now

              • @Petter1@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                If you order by “Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2019)”

                Do the states with less murders per 100,000 than New York have more strict gun rules? (In case you happen to know that)

                  • @Petter1@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Everytownresearch.org looks like a really great resource! 😃thank you very much for that. So as it looks like, gun laws aren’t the only thing that influence gun violence. But if you ignore the statistical outliers then you see the correlation.

    • @elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      171 year ago

      They banned violence. Clearly banning things is effective. It worked when they banned drugs. And 100 years ago when they banned alcohol. And there’s definitely no sex workers because prostitution is banned.

      • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yet somehow, the bans on hand grenades, landmines and giant bags of anfo have worked. It’s almost like it’s easier to control the production of weapons and dangerous goods than plants and sex.

        Gun control works the world over.

          • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year ago

            I am using the pro-gun community definition of the word “banned” that means “not actually banned, just regulated”.

            You can also buy hand grenades with the appropriate permits and background checks. You know, just like guns in almost every other country where the pro-gun community insists they’re “banned”.

              • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Why don’t you walk us through the process of legally acquiring a brand new, new full-auto rifle in America?

                You can’t? Oh shit, guns must be banned in America.

                The reality is that before you started your little pro-gun death cult, America routinely made risk vs reward judgements on firearms, no different than the UK did when they decided the murder weapon of choice for criminals and men who can’t control their emotions doesn’t have a place in modern society.

                Anyway, talk next time there’s horrific violence that makes international headlines. Do you think it’s going to be from America or the UK?

        • @elscallr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I don’t think I mentioned guns at all. If you assume banning guns would be equally ineffective I can’t say I disagree, but that’s a conclusion you came to.

      • @Dietwindex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        Noone is saying ban guns. People are saying we should have more thorough background checks, mandatory training, and close gun show loop holes. No, banning things doesn’t completely solve the issue. But putting obstacles in the way generally stop most crimes. Of course there will still be people who go above and beyond to commit a crime, but with the number of shootings drastically lowered you can start to address the rest more easily.

        • @irotsoma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          People want to regulate guns, not ban them. If a supply is reduced and people lock up the guns they do have rather than leaving them to be easily stolen, they’re less likely to be used in violence. That means when people are violent, they’re more likely to use a knife or other weapon that’s more convenient to access. When a knife is used, it’s highly unlikely that bystanders will also be killed. Also, it’s less likely that the victim themselves will die. And if you think you don’t care about the life of another person involved in violence, think selfishly about the cost that you’re paying in hospital costs and medical insurance to treat gun woulds of the people who die and can’t pay their bill which cost way, way more to treat than knife wounds. Not to mention that if you care at all about the lives of cops, you’ll realize that cops are usually the bystanders that get killed by the guns being used in violent acts.

          The only guns that people want to ban are offensive weapons of war. The only thing they can do with that is commit terrorism.

          • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            People want to regulate guns, not ban them.

            That’s some bullshit. The end goal is complete disarming of the public. Stop fooling yourself.

            If a supply is reduced and people lock up the guns they do have rather than leaving them to be easily stolen, they’re less likely to be used in violence

            Straw purchases are how the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained, not from theft.

            That means when people are violent, they’re more likely to use a knife or other weapon that’s more convenient to access. When a knife is used, it’s highly unlikely that bystanders will also be killed.

            Yes tell that to all the people who are killed by knives. Which is 3xs higher than all rifles combined. Which you clearly want to ban…that black plastic rifle you think is a weapon of war, kills around 50-100 people a year. Hands and feet kill 2xs all rifles combined and about 15xs more than the AR-15 yearly.

            Also, it’s less likely that the victim themselves will die.

            This is just nonsense…see above.

            And if you think you don’t care about the life of another person involved in violence, think selfishly about the cost that you’re paying in hospital costs and medical insurance to treat gun woulds of the people who die and can’t pay their bill which cost way, way more to treat than knife wounds. Not to mention that if you care at all about the lives of cops, you’ll realize that cops are usually the bystanders that get killed by the guns being used in violent acts.

            First, I’m all for single payer healthcare, secondly, cops kill on average around 1k Americans a year…yea… I’m not worried about the boots…

            The only guns that people want to ban are offensive weapons of war. The only thing they can do with that is commit terrorism.

            Lol handguns are used in 95% of all gun violence…and it’s like 99% of all suicides. That black scary rifle is a rounding error on firearm deaths…and it’s not a weapon of war, it’s a semi-auto rifle dressed up in plastic…the military wouldn’t be caught dead with one of them.

            • @irotsoma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You totally missed every point I made and replied with, no they’re not rather than offering any evidence. Show me that the majority are pushing to ban all guns 100%. Straw purchases are already illegal but unenforced, can’t do much when cops refuse to do their job. I didn’t say people don’t die from knives, but a stab isn’t going to kill a random person on the street accidentally like a stray bullet. And there’s a huge difference between a knife wound and a bullet wound that makes it much easier to treat. And the knife doesn’t break apart, shredding nearby organs, rarely breaks larger bones, or in the case of supersonic rounds from the mentioned weapons of war, cause compression shockwaves that pulverize organs. If you haven’t spent time in combat or an ER or around gunshot wounds, you have no idea. I’ve seen organ soup after a close range stomach wound from a high powered rifle. And I don’t care that handguns are the most common. They’re also the most commonly used for defense. It’s the high powered ruffles that liquify your organs when used in drive-by shootings that have no reason to be in the hands of civilians in the first place.

              If you’re going to argue for a cause, then at least know what the people on the other side are saying. Quit making up straw men and arguing slippery slope nonsense.