• ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Actually if you’re involuntarily committed you already lose your right to firearms (iirc there are steps to regain your rights, but they were not taken here). Red flag laws aren’t just bad from a “gun” standpoint, they’re bad because “innocent until proven guilty” gets thrown out the window and it becomes “guilty until you can prove you’re not crazy,” and proving the negative is always a more difficult position. It perverts our whole justice system, and while I have issues with other things doing the same thing (racism for example), adding more is imo not a good idea. I’d rather see them actually enforce the laws we already have which while more stringent than “my roomate seems unstable,” also would have prevented this. I mean the guy was commited (making him a prohibited purchaser) and displayed violent ideation to a degree that warrants keeping him for a little while, so they let him out, don’t take his current guns, and afaik fail to input his commital to NICs, that’s three things that already could and should have been done in this specific case red flag laws withstanding.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Gun restrictions aren’t enough though, the problem is people in general having access to guns.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thing is when people talk about restrictions they mean “These people shouldn’t have guns, but these people should be allowed to have them.” What I’m saying is they should be banned altogether.

          • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah that is a pipe dream, in a country with more guns than people that is bordered on two sides by 2 foreign governments. It just seems unrealistic to say “Just ban all guns” that seems like a massive oversimplification of the problem. We don’t have some magical button that just deletes all guns in the borders of the US. Restrictions seem to be a realistic option but one would hope the left gets a bit of a better understanding of firearms since at the moment they mostly make laws about things they have very little understanding of and typically ban things based on how they appear rather than how they operate.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              US guns make their way to Canada and Mexico, not the other way around, because it’s so hard to get them in these countries.

              • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because its the easiest route at the moment yes but you don’t think Gun smuggling would be a profitable venture? Seriously part of the reason why the opiate epidemic is so bad is China selling off the supplies for it to the cartels in Mexico, this also isn’t to offload the responsibility of this mess on Perdue Pharma. They got the ball rolling and are 100% responsible for starting this mess but you have to be blind not to see how an enemy foreign nation is exploiting the issue and only making it worse to further destabilize a geopolitical rival. Same exact thing applies to Russia and their Interference in the election, they didn’t make or start the problem, just took advantage of a fire that has been burning for a while and poured more gasoline into it.

                Also again you don’t really answer the question of how do you get rid of all those guns. There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US. They aren’t going to magically disappear the minute you ban them. You can’t just do a full ban, hell I would say half this country wouldn’t allow it. So restrictions are the only realistic option.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ban, obligatory buyback, criminal charges for those who don’t comply. Just watch as the majority falls in line.

                  • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Oh that ain’t happening. Sorry but you have to get around the 2nd amendment firstly (That ain’t going anywhere unless we rip up the constitution). You would require most law enforcement to be for it while ACAB typically cops are pro guns… I just don’t see it happening in a nation where guns are a fundamental part of this country’s history and ownership has been written into the fabric that bind this nation together. Restrictions are the only realistic option here. They work as we don’t see an abundance of full auto firearms but a full ban would cause quite a bit of unrest.

                    Edit: did a double post but deleted it since wasn’t sure if the indentation was working correctly and trying to keep the conversation in a single threadline.