• tatterdemalion@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    9 months ago

    Selling life-saving drugs at large multiples of the cost to manufacture + distribute. The most obvious example being insulin.

    Switching political party in the same term that you were elected to office.

    CEOs making 100x the median worker at the same company.

    Assault rifles and other automatic or military-grade weapons. They have no practical purpose in the hands of a citizen. Pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles should be sufficient for hunting and self defense.

    Generic finance bro bullshit. Frivolous use of bank credit for speculative investment. Predatory lending. Credit default swaps. It’s just a spectrum of Ponzi Schemes. Let’s reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.

    Non-disclosure of expensive gifts to Supreme Court judges. Looking at you, Clarence.

    Military recruiting at high schools.

    Junk mail. You literally have to pay a company to stop sending it.

    • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      Automatic weapons for the most part are already illegal, assault rifle isn’t a term that actually means anything and neither does military grade. In fact only 3% of gun deaths in the states are from rifles. The real issue is the illegal gun market and the endless supply of hi-points and other pistols.

      You’ve been lied to.

      • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        An “assault rifle” is specifically a selective-fire rifle with detachable magazines and intermediate cartridges. AR-15s, AK-47s, and M16s meet this definition. You are likely thinking of “assault weapon,” a term which is not well-defined.

        And while it’s true that most mass shootings and gun deaths in general are perpetrated by handguns, assault rifles are responsible for the deadliest mass shootings.

        Because it is so challenging to pass gun control legislation in the US, the least we can hope to do is forbid ownership of the deadliest types of guns.

        I agree that this is not sufficient though. We need to have more stringent requirements for acquiring any firearm. 28 states don’t even require background checks for private sale of guns. Our laws fall way too short on gun trafficking.

        The illegal gun market is just a symptom of the very legal gun market. The head of the ATF even said, “virtually every crime gun in the US starts off as a legal firearm.”

        We need background checks, and I don’t think private unlicensed gun sales should be legal either.

        • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Okay except most rifles, including AK47’s AR15’s and M16’s are semi automatic only so they aren’t selective fire. And if we ignore that requirement and go with the the other two requirements it means that .22lr hunting rifles with a box mag count as “assault rifles”

          Pistols are still the deadliest type of guns no matter what metric you use.

          The head of the ATF is also responsible for operation fast and furious. Not to mention that is a nothing statement when you think about it. Of course they start off as legal firearms. Gun traffickers are “legally” buying these weapons overseas end mass from firearm companies and warlords or they’re being stolen from legal gun owners.

          • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Pistols are still the deadliest type of guns no matter what metric you use.

            That’s a silly statement. Why do you think soldiers prefer to use assault rifles in combat? I said “deadliest” meaning the most capable of killing, not the most statistically likely gun to kill someone.

            • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              “Most capable of killing” doesn’t mean anything though. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. What gun its fired out of doesn’t really matter when its against soft targets. 9mm 5.56 and 7.62 are all the same lethality.

              Edit: Also comparing the use case of gangers and even school shooters with soldiers is foolish. The main benefits of a rifle (in war) are range, stability and higher cyclic rate. Virtually all rifles are semi automatic so cyclic rate doesn’t matter. And at the range pretty much all school shootings take place in, pistol vs rifle doesn’t matter. Stability is also largely irrelevant based on distance and the fact that unarmed civilians dont shoot back.

              All this to say, 91% of school shootings are perpetrated with pistols. So this hyperfixation on “assault rifles” is silly. I say again, you’ve been lied to.

              • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Ok I don’t really agree with all of your lines of reasoning but I’m curious what you think the solution to our gun problem is. We at least agree that we have a problem, right?

            • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Honestly true. I just think he’s a moron so I discount much of what he says.

              Also I looked up the statement about most guns being legal. Based on data from his own agency its 54%. While that is technically the majority, thats a coin flip. “Virtually all” in my books is 70% or higher.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s what you hear about. You don’t hear about the other 40,000 gun deaths (almost half suicides) anymore than you hear about the 40,000 vehicular deaths.

          Kis shoots up a school and kills 5? All over the media for a solid week. Asshole ripping down the interstate takes out a family of 5? Meh. Quick local news blurb.

          OP’s point is that rifles, legal or not, aren’t what’s doing all the killing. It’s the pistols. Nobody will talk about it because there’s no way in hell for a pistol ban to pass. But words like “assault” and “military” get traction.

          Remember Virginia Tech? Worst mass murder at the time? Kid did most of his killing with a .22 pistol.

        • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          They were. They were horrific tragedies. They are also the outlier of outliers. And any legislation targeting them is either a) going to have zero effect on crime, b) only going to harm law abiding citizens or C) both

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            isn’t it specifically going to rein in the outlier of outliers that school shootings are? I think people would be really happy with that, even if the average crime rate doesn’t go down

            • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              I doubt it If they cant get an ar they’ll just go get a black market pistol for $100. And besides, the way to curb school shootings isn’t through firearm restrictions. It’s through actual proper mental health programs and funding. Something that the US government refuses to fund because it’ll actually fix the problem instead of just being a feel good gesture.

              • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                The only shootings where mental illness plays a major factor are suicides. When it comes to gun violence, only 4-5% of perpetrators have a severe mental illness. When it comes to school mass shootings specifically [ source ]:

                • 67% are white
                • 100% are male (95% according to a different source)
                • “Severe mental illness (e.g., psychosis) was absent in the majority of perpetrators; when present, psychotic symptoms are more associated with mass murders in academic settings involving means other than firearms”

                And with regard to school shootings generally:

                • 77% of the time, someone knew about their plans for the shooting ahead of time
                • more than half of K-12 shooters have a history of psychological problems, but the bigger issue is that nearly three quarters of the time, they had been being bullied or harassed in school
                • depending on the source, nearly half or more than half got the gun from home or a relative, often by stealing an unsecured or under-secured firearm
                • 91% of shootings were with a handgun

                If we could reduce bullying and do a better job at making students feel like they have value and matter, that would go a lot further toward reducing school shootings than anything involving mental illness (aside from, perhaps, efforts to reduce the stigma associated with it).

                Substance abuse - drugs, particularly those that are illegal, and alcohol - as well as poverty and inequality is much more strongly linked to gun violence.

                I’m not saying that we shouldn’t continue improving our available mental health resources (the majority of deaths from guns are by suicide, after all), but we shouldn’t use mental illness as a scapegoat.

    • kali@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      What the fuck? You have to pay to stop getting junk mail? We in Australia just put a little sign on our letterbox saying ‘no junk mail’ and we stop getting it. That’s insane. Same thing with the insulin comment and some of the stuff other people said like forced arbitration. America is crazy.

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        You think thats bad, we have active shooter drills and safe rooms because nothing is done about our gun nut problem.

      • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yup I paid the fee to stop getting marketing junk mail. Then when I started an LLC, they started sending all of that mail again addressed to the LLC. You can’t fucking win.

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Free paper is free paper. You can also mess with them by signing them up for each other and/or sending them stones (if there’s a return envelope; they’ll be charged for it).

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Lol @ just filling return envelopes with worthless dead weight

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      belonging to one particular political party or another doesn’t necessarily dictate which way a politician votes.