1388
submitted 1 year ago by TheJims@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] duviobaz@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

They want you dead. It's time to return this sentiment.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

Normalizing political violence will inevitably, and possibly literally, blow up in your face.

[-] duviobaz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it's supposed to be wrong?

[-] jimbo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?

[-] duviobaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

So what are you recommending? It sounds like you're recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It's also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren't involves in hate in the first place.

[-] duviobaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn't get my pity

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

What do you define as "one of those terrorists"? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Prethoryn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.

Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world's problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.

[-] acutfjg@feddit.nl 39 points 1 year ago

No action will also reinforce their agenda

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 year ago

No it wouldn't, you are helping their agenda by discouraging the left from taking up arms.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

You're not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn't the US.

The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that's ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I'm talking about.

The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There's enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No they wouldn't. Our military doesn't even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn't even get to play with their big toys.

Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Drgon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Lately I've been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's basically how it's been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we'll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it'll be downhill from there.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.

Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn't even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.

For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.

This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Okay, fair, my bad. You're right.

Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?

In yesterday's society it was to protect the wealth and position of the Upper and Middle classes. In today's society it's because it seems like an obvious response to things like Mass Shootings and Gun Crime. The hidden in plain sight truth though is that modern day Gun Control proposals are doing the same thing as yesterday's Gun Control proposals because if you have enough money they will not apply to you.

Pass a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban? No problem for the wealthy, they'll just drop $20,000 on a pre-ban machine gun that can be legally transferred to them. Pass a Federal "Red Flag" law? They don't care as they know it'll never be enforced against them; their connections, money, and lawyers will see to it. Federal UBC? Again, no worries as their connections, money, and lawyers all make sure they won't be impacted. Remove the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of firearms? No worries, the bodyguards surrounding them and their families will still be armed, just like they are everywhere else in the world.

What makes it even more stupid is that no direct causal link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of "Gun Crime", however you define that, has ever been shown. In fact the data shows something very different than the reality most people believe in.

The household ownership rate has been bouncing around the low to mid 40s since 1972.. The population of the US grew from 240M in 1972 to 322M in 2014 too, so that 40% household ownership rate includes an addition 80 Million people.

The number of NICS (Federal Background Checks) in the United States quadrupled from 10 Million per year to 40 Million per year between 1998 and 2020.

Meanwhile Intentional Homicide fell from it's high of 9.82 in 1991 to 4.4 in 2014, a decrease of 50%. Gun Crime specifically peaked in 1993 and then declined by 49% over the next 20 years.

In short US Citizens bought a SHIT ton of guns starting in the 90s and tens of millions of new owners were added as our population grew...all while both Violent and Gun Crime continued to drop. We have a problem for sure, but it ain't the number of guns in circulation.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

I always thought the drop on violent crime was because of the ban on leaded gasoline.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

It's a good theory and one that I bought into as well but the statistics should have stayed down if that was the cause. Since they didn't there must have been another factor.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I think they jumped back up because of the lockdowns

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately Violent and Firearm Crime statistics started climbing again in 2015. The pandemic may have played a role but it cannot be the cause.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

🤔 So what happened in the mid to late '10's to cause it? Maybe it was the rise of Trump.

[-] gayhitler420@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Already happened a few times. Gca 68 was after Kennedy and 86 was after reagan.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.

They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago

I dunno. I've thought, for quite some time, that we'll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I'm increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I'm horrified by violence and probably wouldn't have the courage to do so.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).

Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.

At minimum, teach your children why we don't do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] girlfriend@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sumofchemicals@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.

That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be "right" it's still a strategic error. It's much harder to build than destroy and any "successful" deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.

Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
1388 points (97.3% liked)

News

23644 readers
2078 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