▲ 316 ▼ Targeting the Teacher (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by ReaperWithASniper@lemmy.world to c/4chan@lemmy.world 123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Cheems@lemmy.world 83 points 2 years ago (3 children) Which is something gun control typically aims at permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's something current federal law does and has done for decades. A person who is involuntarily committed to undergo inpatient treatment at a mental health facility by a court of law is classified as a "prohibited person" and cannot own or have access to firearms. Source link: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition The catch is that a person cannot be deprived of any right without due process - typically a literal day in court. Therefore an individual with mental health problems that have not caused enough trouble to land them in front of a judge can't be declared a prohibited person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago I believe you missed my use of the word "typically". permalink fedilink source parent [–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry bud, best I can do is ban suppressors and shotgun pistol grips. At least they won't be able to shoot you ergonomically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] threeduck@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago Ouch my ligaments. No more murderin' for meeee permalink fedilink source parent [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nope, get fucked. You don't get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you're capable of imagining legislation being misused. Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms. A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and "being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort" is not a "basic human right". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago People are being murdered because the gun laws are hopelessly inadequate yet you staunchly oppose changes to them on the grounds that hypothetical people could hypothetically use them to take guns away from a hypothetical innocent person that was no danger. Seems pretty clear to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's something current federal law does and has done for decades. A person who is involuntarily committed to undergo inpatient treatment at a mental health facility by a court of law is classified as a "prohibited person" and cannot own or have access to firearms. Source link: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition The catch is that a person cannot be deprived of any right without due process - typically a literal day in court. Therefore an individual with mental health problems that have not caused enough trouble to land them in front of a judge can't be declared a prohibited person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago I believe you missed my use of the word "typically". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago I believe you missed my use of the word "typically". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago I believe you missed my use of the word "typically". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry bud, best I can do is ban suppressors and shotgun pistol grips. At least they won't be able to shoot you ergonomically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] threeduck@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago Ouch my ligaments. No more murderin' for meeee permalink fedilink source parent
[–] threeduck@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago Ouch my ligaments. No more murderin' for meeee permalink fedilink source parent
[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nope, get fucked. You don't get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you're capable of imagining legislation being misused. Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms. A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and "being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort" is not a "basic human right". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago People are being murdered because the gun laws are hopelessly inadequate yet you staunchly oppose changes to them on the grounds that hypothetical people could hypothetically use them to take guns away from a hypothetical innocent person that was no danger. Seems pretty clear to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nope, get fucked. You don't get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you're capable of imagining legislation being misused. Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms. A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and "being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort" is not a "basic human right". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago People are being murdered because the gun laws are hopelessly inadequate yet you staunchly oppose changes to them on the grounds that hypothetical people could hypothetically use them to take guns away from a hypothetical innocent person that was no danger. Seems pretty clear to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago People are being murdered because the gun laws are hopelessly inadequate yet you staunchly oppose changes to them on the grounds that hypothetical people could hypothetically use them to take guns away from a hypothetical innocent person that was no danger. Seems pretty clear to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago People are being murdered because the gun laws are hopelessly inadequate yet you staunchly oppose changes to them on the grounds that hypothetical people could hypothetically use them to take guns away from a hypothetical innocent person that was no danger. Seems pretty clear to me. permalink fedilink source parent