• Cheesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The definition of mass shooting shouldn’t detract from the fact that 500+ shootings 4+ injured is too many

      • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        500+ shootings

        Your figure is off by two orders of magnitude, it’s ~48k gun deaths, including suicides (for 2022).

        So about 5k more than your car accident figure.

        And it’s odd to me you’re arguing the license angle; are you advocating for a licensing system like there are for cars, like written and applied tests a citizen must pass before gun ownership?

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, we can’t require licensing. The Supreme Court already ruled that the core tenet of the 2nd Amendment is self defense and that can’t be burdened.

          What I PERSONALLY would like to see is a full root cause analysis on every shooting and plugging the holes that allowed it to happen.

          For example:

          In the Maine shooting, he bought the guns he used 10 days before being reported for abberant behavior and being involuntary committed for 2 weeks.

          Background checks wouldn’t work because he bought the guns before there were any reported problems.

          Being involuntarily committed should have resulted in a seizure of all weapons. It did not. Why not? In most cases because seizures require a court ruling and if the commitment wasn’t court mandated, that doesn’t happen.

          Bonus - if the commitment isn’t court mandated, that also won’t turn up on a background check, a common problem with other mass shooters.

          That needs to change, and it doesn’t involve the 2nd amendment or a change in gun laws, it just has to expand what already happens in court adjudicated cases to non adjudicated cases.

          Alternately, you push ALL mental health commitments through court to ensure guns are withdrawn and the commitment shows up on background checks.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And we all know the Supreme Court never reverses a decision. That’s why abortion is still legal nationwide.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court requires neither to reverse a decision. What with other decisions that weren’t Roe taking a lot less than 50 years and what with their not caring about popular opinion.

                Is this the first time you’ve heard of them?

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Reversing Roe took 50 years because it took that long to get enough conservative judges appointed. It could not have happened sooner.

                  In my lifetime, Democratic presidents have only been able to appoint 5 justices to the court compared to 15 for Republican presidents.

                  If we want to change the gun rulings, that needs to be reversed, which should only take, oh, another 50 years or so.

                  https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

                  Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
                  Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
                  Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
                  Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
                  Stevens, John Paul - Ford
                  O’Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
                  Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
                  Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
                  Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
                  Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
                  Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
                  Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
                  Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
                  Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
                  Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
                  Kagan, Elena - Obama
                  Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
                  Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
                  Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump
                  Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I see, because the past decides what happens in the future when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices. I had no idea.

              • User_4272894@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Took 13 years to undo prohibition, which unlike abortion and gun rights, was based on a clear and direct constitutional amendment with no arguments about “framers intent” or changes to technology/interpretations of rights over time.

                This entire “50 years of cultural shift and overcoming supreme Court decisions” is straight bullshit.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We don’t have the same environment now that we did then. We can’t currently get an amendment to do ANYTHING at this point. Everything is too divided.

                  290 votes in the House, that couldn’t get 217 to decide their own leadership.

                  67 votes in the Senate, that can’t get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.

                  38 state ratifications where 25 states can’t admit Joe Biden won the last election.

                  It’s untenable, even on topics lots of people can agree on, like, say, term limits for Supreme Court Justices, or barring convicted felons from public office.

                  And those should be the uncontroversial topics…