Because they think dead schoolkids are a necessary sacrifice for their gun collecting hobby?

Because most are.

Now I know the new trendy thing is for gun lobbyists and right-wing operatives online to stoke the division by pitching guns to the left. I know the intent is to profit from a wider market while simultaneously muddying the waters of who is the most violent ideological group.

… And some ground is being made with this vector, but it’s still nowhere close to comparable.

This is a key insight. There have been plenty of despots and dictators that ruled countries for decades while committing uncountable atrocities who had full command of their faculties.

It’s not excuse, it’s a statement.

Unfortunately there’s a long history of ignoring supreme court rulings.

deleted by creator

As disturbing as that comment is, the inverse sheds light on one of the biggest issues with attempts to regulate guns to reduce gun violence:

Legal attempts to restrict violence through restrictions of legal freedoms will not and have not democratized safety from violence, mostly because the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by people who are already in the habit and practice of disregarding laws.

The point they are making is that guns, besides being a force amplifier, are also easily accessible. The more steps involved, the less likely you are engaged in said acts. It’s why Americans will drive 1 mile to get a six pack, even though walking to the shop yields the same result. The easiest path is the most likely.

More regulation without infringement is what we want. I don’t care if you have a gun. I care that they’re super easy to get, I also care that you can easily get a big gun that can kill a lot of people just as easily as a handgun.

Where are all these mass bombings and vehicular murders in other Countries then? You average multiple mass shootings per week in the US, while the events in other countries typically happen less than once a year.

Ok, bombs then

Why is that an either or?

I imagine it feels that way when tons of people disagree with you. But that’s also part of posting in public discourse, if people don’t like what you’re saying they will surely let you know.

deleted by creator

I mean… if you play video games for hours and hours, your brain will likely learn to play videogames better? Sure. I hardly see a correlation to mass murder here.

If you believe that action repetition is to blame for rewiring people’s brains to be more efficient at mass murder, why not blame the military, or hell, why not just start picketing outside your local airsoft or paintball places?

edit: he’ll into hell. I blame autocorrect.

Badabing. It’s okay. You heard a word somewhere and misunderstood how to use it. It happens.

Because clicking a mouse to go pew pew at fictional characters is drastically different than pointing and shooting a gun at a human being.

Even the most realistic military shooters, you don’t just get a red tint over your eyes if you get shot, you can’t wait it out or use a medkit to immediately be fully recovered, and people don’t respawn the next match after they are killed. They don’t show how gruesome and nerve-wracking real violence it is. They can’t show the lasting consequences of that. People who play video games might not even know how heavy a real gun is.

And then there are things like Fortnite and Overwatch, which are just silly cartoons. No comparison.

Are there any actual scientific studies that back up that summation? Because video games have been under intense scrutiny for decades and every time it’s brought up the consensus seems to be that there’s no direct link

Video games are not the causal reason for mass shootings. Do other countries have gun violence like America does? No. But they play video games just at much as we do.

It’s not video games that are the problem, it’s the easy access to lightly regulated guns.

deleted by creator

Yes, but then I couldn’t harvest all your sweet data.

Kidding! It’s a static site on my personal server that doesn’t load anything but the content itself. It’s mostly just a PITA to reformat it all mobile.

Huh really? Do you have JS turned off or anything? Here’s the full link: https://theluddite.org/#!post/section-230

They probably will take that argument but that doesn’t instantly dissolve them of legal culpability.

Sure? I mean I think so. 🤔

I don’t know but I’m 3 for 3 on these.

Bet that Supreme Court would uphold ATF interpretation on bump stock ban. That appeals courts would find a violation of 1A where Trump and other political figures blocked constituents on social media. And I bet that Remington was going to be found liable in the Sandy Hook lawsuit on a theory not wholly dissimilar from the one we’re talking about here. I’m pretty good at novel theories of liability.

Let’s make them illegal, like drugs, because that works great.

So what’s the black market for hand grenades and land mines like?

Practically non-existent because it turns out controlling weapon manufacturing is much easier than controlling drug manufacturing and you can properly scrutinise people’s access to them without a death cult getting outraged.

It’s almost like an in-between option for both drugs and guns needs to be considered.

Really? The pro-gun community doesn’t seem to think so. Without fail, they demand the right for people to legally own firearms despite a long history of red flags, in direct opposition to people’s right to life and liberty.

70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners, with most of the remaining being people who took a family members legally owned (and legally poorly secured) firearm.

Pro-gun groups spend millions ensuring this doesn’t change. Where is their punishment? They have record profits and convenient access to a hobby at the clear expense of people’s right to life.

And I know the bleated response; an immediate othering with “but those are law-abiding gun owners, you can’t punish them”.

But it’s bullshit. Most mass shooters fit the definition of “law abiding gun owner” right up to the minute they start firing into crowds. If a group is responsible for nearly three quarters of domestic terrorists and is unwilling or unable to lower that figure, society has a duty to put a stop to it.

It’s also disingenuous to claim responsibility for an act starts and ends with the murderer. We’re not blind, we can see the people who continue to enable gun violence.

Where do illegal firearms come from? Legal gun owners who leave handguns in their gloveboxes. Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim? Republican politicians who take millions from the gun-lobby. Who supports Republicans and the gun-lobby for exactly that reason? The pro-gun community.

And surprise surprise, it’s the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.

Oh pretending you were always talking about US when BOTH of your previous links are from the UK? Come on bro…

And you’re citing a law and not considering how it’s applied for the last couple centuries or even years. In very broad terms, you can’t just claim they said something inflamatory and that person did something. For the most part they need to be rather specific for that law to apply.

“Someone should do something about that mosque” isn’t the same as saying “Someone should blow up that specific mosque”. And almost every time this comes up the radicalization knows how to avoid going over the line. But if I posted a message that said “someone should blow up that mosque” It would be myself that would get in trouble, not lemmy, or Youtube or where ever I posted it.

The problem is “Solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” That’s usually far more specific than you seem to think. It’s part of the way organized crime was able to survive so long, until RICO cases were made, and those cases basically bypass this by saying there’s a (Criminal) “enterprise”.

The other problem you have is complaining about the “Algorithm” but not understanding that itself would likely be a defense in that it’s designed to promote retention, not radicalization, but that would even assume it’ll get to court, which in this case it’ll almost certainly not. The fact they’re not going after a specific person probably means they’re targeting a vague “radicalization” which hey, you have a good point in your first link. The radicalization would be illegal under UK law. But if he did in the US, he likely would not be in jail.

But then again we don’t jail people for teaching dogs to do the nazi salute, so yeah, strange. We have different laws here that I still don’t think you understand.

And that still would be legal.

Mcdonalds has existed for decades with that model. The only lawsuits against them are usually settled, and about shit where they knowingly lied like about Transfats. You can’t blame Mcdonalds for your unhealthy eating, you can’t blame one supermarket because it doesn’t sell what you think is healthy. So sure, your version is perfectly fine too… and yet is still legal.

Ever been to a candy store? A chocolate shop? Even Cheescake Factory is really unhealthy in general and still is a major chain? At some point personal responsibility is what it comes down to.

And how did that case end?

Hint: Not well You can try to sue anyone for anything. There’s just no guarentee it’ll work, and it didn’t there.

There are cases that do work, such as about transfats but that is about specifically misleading someone, not supplying something unhealthy. Also that was settled, not fully through the courts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Section ‘C’.