360
Children unintentionally shot and killed at least 157 people last year, Everytown says (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/news@lemmy.world
101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

At least 157 people were killed and 270 were injured last year in unintentional shootings by children, according to Everytown, an advocacy group for firearm safety.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Because guns scary bad.

And I mean that seriously.

People in urban areas--which is most of the country's population--almost exclusively experience firearms as being part of a criminal act. Most people that live in cities don't know people that hunt, or compete in marksmanship, but they hear about murders and shootings in their city all the time. Why do you need training in firearms in schools when the only use--the only use they have consistent exposure to--is criminal?

You can look at electoral maps and see this; most of the geographical area is red/Republican/conservative (typically pro-2A), while most of the population centers where people actually live are blue/Democratic/more liberal. If you went back 50 or 100 years, you'd see more people living in rural areas, which ended up meaning that there were more people that were exposed to hunting, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is completely correct.

    What's funny is, banning guns is only going to take them away from responsible gun owners.

    Gangbangers in cities are still going to have their guns. But now someone on a farm who needs it for their protection isn't going to be allowed to have one? That's a load of bullshit and why gun control legislation exists solely to distract useful idiots from the real problems they face.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm a firm believer in addressing and correcting the underlying causes of violence rather than removing the tools. For instance, Chicago had a violence intervention program a few years back, and it was having a noticeable impact on rates of violence. It was targeting at-risk kids, and helping them get their shit together. And so, predictably, the city cut the funding for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    pro 2a is revisionist.

    Historically the 2nd amendment was never a personal amendment like the 1st but a states rights amendment like the 10th amendment. Eg the feds cannot disarm lawful state militias.

    This kind of oversimplification leaves out how corporate gun manufacturers have embarked on a decades long venture to reinterpret the 2nd amendment to basically be "you have a god given right to sell guns" and the republican policy here is simply the current pro-corporate policy. If corporations shift on this republican politicians will as well (and they have, people forget Ronald Reagan introduced gun control)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Incorrect. It was understood not only as a right, but a requirement. The people were expected to be in the militia, and they were expected to furnish their own arms. (Or course, the founders had very different ideas about who "people" were; the rules didn't apply to women and black/indigenous people.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    slaves, immigrants, women were all barred from gun ownership legally within the life span of the founders and courts upheld these rulings. Guns rights were NEVER a personal right

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Again: you're simply wrong. Slaves, immigrants, and women were barred from all rights within the lifespan of the founders. If you extend your argument, you can say that the freedom of the press wasn't a right either, since slaves, women, and immigrants didn't have the right to read or publish what they wanted.

    The problem with this view is that the body of the constitution already gives government the power to raise and arm and army, and to enact taxes to pay for it. There's no need for an amendment to say that the gov't has the right to be armed when that right was already stated. It's redundant. You could, perhaps, argue that it's a right that was being reserved for the states, but it doesn't say that the states have the right to militias, it says the people. Moreover, the remaining nine amendments that form the bill of rights all concern individual rights, or individual and state rights (e.g. 10A). It would be very strange to see an amendment that not only says "people" but means "states", and is the only amendment in the bill of rights that applies only to states.

    Take, for instance, the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was originally going to be a ban on handguns, short-barreled rifles (because they were effectively handguns, and would circumvent the ban), and machine guns. It was turned into a tax because lawmakers were pretty sure that a ban couldn't pass court review--while a tax could, since it was an enumerated power--which very strongly implies that it was recognized, even in the 1930s, as an individual right, rather than a right that existed for the gov't.

    I could probably come up with a list of references if you were interested in reading more. I would not suggest anything by Michael Bellesiles, because his historical "research" was found to be deeply flawed bordering on outright fraudulent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Militia service was for a long time a privelege (restricted to men of certain age) and the right to bear arms was always intended to be a give and take: you could own arms but you would be legally required to show up in an emergency to help and you would be trained to do so. That was always the intention.

    People would call it communism or something today but for whatever reason the arms stuck around and the militia as a community resource disappeared. Realistically the idea of personal arms without any obligation to society is a completely new fiction and that is one defined by corporate intervention.

    At its core the 2nd amendment was always an exchange: You get guns but if you fail to fulfill your obligations as a gun owner you lose this privelege: This is why to this day felons can be legally barred from gun ownership. Other amendments - due process etc aren't lost when you commit a crime.

    However today I can't tell you how many gun owners complain like whiny children over the most basic obligations like licensure, training, etc. What those obligations are were up to the states but largely the second amendment was an exchange "everyone who can fulfill this basic obligation can have guns"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Militia service wasn't a privilege; it was a requirement. If you were within a certain age group, your were legally obligated to show up and drill. But people that were not in the militia--due to age, or other limiting factors--still owned and used military arms at the time. Even trying to make a real distinction between military arms and non-military arms is largely an exercise in futility, given that all arms in common use started as military arms.

    the militia as a community resource disappeared

    In point of fact, state and local governments are trying to ban militias. Sure, that would make the threepers illegal, but it would also likely ban things like the John Brown Gun Club and Socialist Rifle association, which are much more actively community-focused than the far-right militia groups.

    Other amendments - due process etc aren’t lost when you commit a crime

    Yes, and that's a problem, isn't it? The prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure require the gov't to make an argument to a court that they need to be able to search; they need probably cause to deprive you of that right in even a limited way. It seems reasonable to expect that felons--once they have served the term of their sentence--should have the same rights as other people, and that the gov't should be required to make a case as to why they should be able to continue to deprive a person of those rights. Someone that's stolen from their employer is probably a far lower risk for committing a violent act than someone that was convicted of battery.

    gun owners complain like whiny children over the most basic obligations like licensure, training, etc.

    Make them free to the user, covered by income taxes in much the same way that the infrastructure for voter registration is (...which, BTW, only exists because anti-immigrant political agitators stoked fears of non-citizens voting; it very much mirrors the elections fear-mongering nonsense that Trump is pushing right now). Ensure that everyone has reasonable access, which means you can't run them only during business hours M-F. But you also can't have a failing condition, other than simply not showing up, because otherwise I guarantee you that it will turn into literacy tests for voting. That is, if a state, county, or city is allowed to set a standard that must be met in order to exercise a right, then I promise you that some places will ensure that the standard is so high that neither Jerry Miculek nor Ben Stoeger could pass it, because they will want to effectively ban firearm ownership.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent