• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kind of pointless to pick a single particular time and argue that something would or would not have stopped it without any actual data.

    Agreed, but I’m not the one citing it as an example of why the state needed an open carry ban. Fact of the matter is it was a driveby shooting, not a case of someone open carrying shooting.

    If guns were less prevalent and harder to get would it cause there to be less gun fatalities?

    Sure, but that can’t happen because of the 2nd amendment. It’s a non-starter.

    If you are harder on people committing gun crimes would there be less gun fatalities?

    Not really, no. Mass shootings end in either suicide, life in prison, or the death penalty. Hasn’t stopped them.

    If it were illegal to carry large amounts of amnition around with you, would there be less gun fatalities?

    Nope, because there’s no danger in carrying ammo.

    If it were illegal to carry around lots of weapons without being in a well-regulated militia, hence where police or other people would see you and go in that person’s probably up to no good, would that cause there to be less gun fidelities?

    That’s not what the founders meant by “well regulated militia”.

    https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

    “Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription.15”

    If some kid rolls up and does a school shooting do we hold their families responsible?

    In the case of the Crumbleys? Yes.
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-michigan-high-school-shooter-ethan-crumbley-trial/story?id=98072544

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We don’t care the least about what the founders meant. Both parties consistently reinterpret the words to mean whatever Will keep them in power.

      The things I wrote aren’t yes or no things they’re measures. They need to be investigated, studied, they need to be tried they need to see what effect the actually have. There’s a significant amount of pushback from gun rights advocates to not study those type of things for fear that some of them might actually work. And if you ask them why they say well they might not study it correctly they might just come up with whatever result they actually want to happen.

      It’s pretty common for people who are anti-gun law to simply say this won’t work, that won’t work, it’s a pretty low barrier to entry argument. I don’t have any data but I don’t like the outcome so I’m just going to say it won’t work and that’s the whole argument

      I would give my personal guarantee that implementing those would have an effect, the question is would any of them have enough of an effect to make it worth it. Hell, we’ve had police on site during shootings and they haven’t done a damn thing about what was going on. You don’t need any more indication than someone walking through a school shooting kids to know that they don’t need to be in there and need to be stopped.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They can’t be implemented because the Supreme Court has already made multiple key rulings o the topic since 2008 and have a few more in their case load for this year and next. It’s not going to get better, it will only get worse from here on out.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That used to be the case. But since they recently overturned Row v Wade, nothing is off the table anymore.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed nothing is off the table, but the court has only turned more conservative, not less. So turnimg it back around may take another 50 years or more.