this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
292 points (94.0% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2479 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's the trick... the Nashville shooter had no criminal record and bought the guns 100% legally. There is no gun restriction that would block someone who passes the background check from buying a gun.

BUT:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting

"Hale was under care for an emotional disorder and had legally purchased seven firearms, including three recovered from the shooting scene, between October 2020 and June 2022.[1]"

If someone is under psychological care, should that be allowed to pop up on a background check? Maybe not as an instant disqualification the way a court ordered commitment or conviction would, but as an advisory note? Leave it to the discretion of the firearms seller? "By the way, this person is undergoing psych care, you could be held liable if they use this firearm in a crime." That kind of thing?

Because right now, the only stuff that shows up on the background check are things that were ruled on by a judge, and sometimes not even all of those.

For example:

The guy who shot up Michigan State University:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting

"McRae was arrested in June 2019 for carrying a weapon without a concealed pistol license.[38] Initially charged with a felony, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful possession of a loaded firearm as part of a plea agreement in November 2019.[39] He was originally sentenced to twelve months' probation, which was later extended to 18 months, and in May 2021, he was discharged from probation.[35] Because McRae was not convicted of a felony, his ban on possessing weapons ended with the end of his probation.[40]"

Arrested for a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, was allowed to buy guns again.

Had he been convicted of the felony, he would have been blocked from owning a gun. The misdemeanor was not a barrier and did not appear on the background check.

Maybe it should have? Maybe ANY gun charges, felony OR misdemeanor should bar you from gun ownership?

[–] tarjeezy@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you stigmatize psychological care by making it a black mark that shows up on your record, people will just avoid getting the help they need and society will be worse off for it.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely true.

So if we can't ban guns because of the 2nd amendment, and we can't report on psych care because that would drive people away from care, then what's the answer? 🤔 I don't see a way out of it unless you make mental health care and reporting mandatory.

[–] 2nsfw2furious@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The way out of it is improving all of the other parts of American life. Improve healthcare so we don't have so many desperately unhealthy poor people. Tax the rich and regulate white collar noncrimes (and enforce the crimes) so we don't have as many desperately poor people. Improve the availability of housing, reform the police, fund public schools and pay teachers a decent wage, idfk what to do with the media but that sucks too. Get rid of first past the post voting so people feel like they can actually enact change through their representatives.

Virtually every aspect of non-wealthy American life is currently "in a crisis" as reported by the media. Further reducing the rights that individuals have is not the answer to there being a surplus of people past their breaking point.

Looking at gun violence as a gun problem instead of a violence problem is shortsighted, when people have less access to guns than ever.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's actually a less likely scenario than fixing the 2nd Amendment. :)

[–] 2nsfw2furious@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago

Well, we already ignore most of the others in the name of "safety" so what's one more.