220
Up to ten people including children shot at public splash pad in Michigan
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
220 points (98.2% liked)
News
23301 readers
1148 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And not a "good guy" gun owner in sight.
It's almost like deregulating firearms isn't stopping mass shootings.
Okay hear me out, the reason for such tragedies is logical. Kids have no guns to fight back! It's just like if you had a guy pointing a gun at you. If you had a gun of your own, you could distract them with a handful of dust and then shoot back. Same for the kids. If they had guns they could defend themselves.
Next we'll discuss the vulnerability of animals such as whales and hummingbirds as it relates to their lack of usable fingers for trigger pulling.
The school boards got rid of PE classes so that schoolchildren could focus on trigger finger crunches specifically.
Essential skills, and all that.
So the kids need a gun AND dust?
That person seems to be underestimating how difficult it is to keep a pocketful of dust safe at the splash pad!
Well dust is cheaper than pocket sand so....
Sand is 7 bucks for 50 pounds. Dust will poof its way out of your pocket over time. Sand will stay put forever. Don't skimp on your safety, buy the pocket sand.
The data shows that a vigilante will be a hero only in one of 7,000 cases of gun violence. I don't see data showing how often the instigator of gun violence has a carry permit.
But this tells us two things:
the rate of Good Guy Gun bros is super small
there are so many cases of mass shootings in America that 1:7000 can be calculated
Is America holding back on accessible healthcare because it would then need to address the prevalence of guns in America, or have they heard of mandatory multi-million-dollar 3rd party life insurance for gun owners? There's even a company named liberty that may insure them.
Also missing from those stats are the stats on how often someone tries to be a hero and either makes a dangerous situation worse or misreads the situation entirely and makes a peaceful situation violent.
The well regulated militia part was pretty important and the judge(s) that ruled it wasn't should have been impeached for overextending his power.
No. It's a money thing
This shit didn't happen when I was a kid, and we had far fewer regulations. LOL, you could mail order a gun from Sears and carry it in the rear-window gun rack.
But I'm sure a man would unload on a park is exactly the sort who would obey regulations.
Are you referring to the time that one parent could work in a factory and afford a house + living expenses for a family of four?
Those glory days before the civil rights movement?
When urban population density was too low to justify suburbs?
Before police had qualified immunity for every shooting?
Of course in different times with different laws and circumstances, with different weapons and less availability, and lower urban densities, things were different.
That's completely irrelevant to the impact of gun regulations on the number of shootings; that is, the proven statistical correlation between gun regulations and fewer mass shootings.
Your supposition that any man willing to commit a mass shooting would be able to get a gun is similarly fanciful and immaterial
I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevant to gun violence, but it's very relevant to violence in general.
What's the "it" you're referring to here?
The things you listed as being different and completely irrelevant.
Got it. I think you misunderstood my comment.
All the things I listed were the factors I found relevant to gun violence.
The irrelevance I was referencing to was the anecdotal assumption of a single commenter that because he didn't personally see as much gun violence when he was child, gun regulations don't curb gun violence.
Their argument is "there were no seat belts when I grew up, and we had fewer car accident fatalities", implying that seat belts don't protect people
That's a completely irrelevant statement to my point that "seat belts prevent car accident fatalities"; Besides being anecdotal, the statement is unqualified by the lower number of automobiles, the lower number of drivers, lower speed limits, and any number of relevant controlling factors.
It's nice for that one person that he didn't see a lot of gun violence as a child, but completely irrelevant to the separate topic of the regulatory effectiveness.
JFC. Take your pick: