• @wieson@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    264 months ago

    Addition:

    Stop the 24 hour news cycle and please please please stop naming criminals by name and showing their faces. Delete the “claim to fame” angle that comes with horrible crimes.

    For community involvement, what comes to mind for me is: walkable neighbourhoods, libraries even in small towns and local sports clubs.

    But there must be a minimum of gun laws: Buying, owning, operating only under license, storage at home in a safe and ammunition in a separate safe. That’s really the bare minimum.

    • @brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      94 months ago

      Regarding the news cycle. Yes! Stop the 24 hour, constant fear being fed to the populace.

      You are remarkably safe in your own home. Get rid of the fear mongering!

      Stop making national news of local issues. The constant national attention to some random horrible things that doesn’t affect 99.99% of the viewership doesn’t need to be highlighted.

      I’m not against gun laws, but I’m going to disagree with your minimums. Anything regarding storage is essentially unenforceable until after a tragedy has occurred. It can’t be used to preempt a shooting but only to punish the owners afterwards. Those sort of things need to be community driven. The gun community should be talking about storage more and shaming those that don’t follow it.

      It also implies that everyone’s situation at home allows them 1) to purchase two safes and 2) to have room for two safes and 3) limits their ownership of either guns or ammo to the size of that safe. It also doesn’t make much sense to have two safes if the person doing the shooting is the one that is buying the ammo and guns in the first place. It also places undue burdens on those that do not have children and do not have children that come into their home.

      As much as it is laughed at in California, but when you buy a gun you either need to bring a lock or buy a lock with it. They are the cheapest things, but it’s at least a minimum safety that isn’t onerous. Even if no one uses them once they get the gun home.

      As for operating under a license, what would that do beyond the existing restrictions for procuring firearms? Do they expire and what would happen then?

      We need comprehensive laws grounded in addressing specific issues, not something to create an idealistic and narrow view of what gun ownership is or should be.

      I think we should have federal programs on gun information and educational programs. We can teach people and build a culture on gun safety and storage. Maybe programs to subsidize the purchasing of safes and reimburse or reward owners that make safe choices.

      • @wieson@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        64 months ago

        Anything regarding storage is essentially unenforceable until after a tragedy has occurred.

        One could require a receipt or proof of purchase for a safe or a lock when buying a gun.

        It also implies that everyone’s situation at home allows them 1) to purchase two safes and 2) to have room for two safes and 3) limits their ownership of either guns or ammo to the size of that safe.

        That’s intentional.

        It also doesn’t make much sense to have two safes if the person doing the shooting is the one that is buying the ammo and guns in the first place.

        We need comprehensive laws grounded in addressing specific issues

        I was specifically addressing teenagers access to their parents guns, specifically to prevent school shootings.

        As for operating under a license, what would that do beyond the existing restrictions for procuring firearms? Do they expire and what would happen then?

        Like a car license. You may not be checked all the time, but every once in a while and it’s a crime to not have it if you’re driving.

        • @brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          One could require a receipt or proof of purchase for a safe or a lock when buying a gun.

          That’s why in CA they make you buy a lock. But I don’t really know anyone that uses the one they had to buy.

          That’s intentional.

          This means only rich or well to do people can own guns?

          I was specifically addressing teenagers access to their parents guns, specifically to prevent school shootings.

          I’m okay with storage laws in homes that are primary residences to minors. But I don’t believe that any storage law on its own prevents it. There is no way to ensure it’s being following once the gun is taken home. It’s why I am much more in favor of trying to influence gun culture to make improper storage stigmatizing.

          Like a car license. You may not be checked all the time, but every once in a while and it’s a crime to not have it if you’re driving.

          Those with concealed carry licenses do get checked as they are to tell an officer when they are carrying. I wouldn’t be against these laws being federal. As for just ownership, do you just check everyone if they have a license or only when the police see the gun? Or when they go shooting on public BLM land?

          The analogy for driving breaks down because you can buy a car without a license. You just can’t drive it on public roads. Though you can on private roads without a license.

      • AWildMimicAppears
        link
        fedilink
        64 months ago

        Other countries have random gun inspections for licenced gun holders, to make sure they are stored safely. like you said, a cultural shift is needed; that would be part of it.

      • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        Why are you against holding people accountable for their mistakes legally? Are you really arguing this needs such a soft touch as kind words suggesting people take gun safety seriously?

        Is this some sort of system of thought where you craft rules set around yourself as the “ideal gun owner”?

        Go ahead and try and re-explain this: “It can’t be used to preempt a shooting but only to punish the owners afterwards.” How is punishing bad behavior a bad thing again? When someone is killed by an improperly stored gun, oftentimes family members, we should make sure we are extra nice to the person who made the oopsie?

        Oopsie! Sorry nephew, you just were meant to meet god sooner than most, right? Better keep treating guns like a broom or a mop we leave lieing in the corner.

        • @brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          34 months ago

          Because I don’t believe in using the justice system for punitive retribution and instead for reformative use.

          That punishing people for this will do nothing but sate some perceived need for vengeance.

          And, as for me, maybe because I’m empathetic I can only imagine how terrible they feel afterwards and I’d literally be suicidal if one of my firearms were used in a mass shooting or negligent discharge that killed someone. Doubly so if it were my child.

          I don’t consider myself the “ideal gun owner.” I’m trying to have a discourse on, if we are bent on using legislation to address this issue, how we can do so in a manner that’s going to have traction in the gun community, have impactful, measurable changes that improve safety, and lastly actually get followed by gun owners.

          I personally, don’t think punishing someone after the fact is going to prevent tragedies like this shooting. So instead of having some raging justice boner to fuck these parents we try and address what led to it.

          • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            14 months ago

            Countries that focus on rehabilitation still have prisons, your fantasy land where we rehabilitate without any form of punishment is ridiculous.

            Sure youd feel suicidal, and yet theres stories of family’s that refuse to take guns out of the home even after an accidental shooting or a suicide. So your empathy is taking you in the wrong direction I’m afraid.

            Since parents are just now being held accountable, I’m absolutely sure it will have an effect whether laws are passed or not. Holding enablers responsible will prevent people enabling people who shouldn’t have guns.

            Reform isnt hard. Ban all semiautomatic weapons outright. Licenses to own the rest. Buy back any gun that is now illegal for 5x original purchase price. Put them all in a giant pile and melt them down. Move on with our lives as crazy people struggle to mass murder with muskets or attempt to buy something on the black market for thousands of dollars.

      • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        The news problem is a generational thing. Younger generations overwhelmingly avoid those types of media, and when they do watch it often find the arguments hollow and sensational. Better media literacy likely.

        As long as people are alive that watch it, and as long as news is considered entertainment instead of truth, it will keep happening. Best bet is to just turn it off.

        • @brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Yea. I also think that other forms of “news” that the younger generation use is wholly unregulated. That there is no recourse for “influencers” that fabricate news on those platforms.

          • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            14 months ago

            Yeah thats a whole other trap on its own, using social media sources that have no legal journalistic requirements to be truthful or make corrections.

            For me I try to go to communities that allow a diverse range of perspectives, and then use mainly international media that have solid reputations.

    • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      They should just make all guns voice activated and fire only one round at a time. And the shooter has to yell “Avada Kedavra”.