this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
521 points (97.1% liked)

News

23367 readers
4128 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.

This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We've already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it's a multi-faceted, systemic approach.

So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.

[–] roze_sha@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago

Summarised by Chat GPT:

The article is an interview with two professors, Jillian Peterson and James Densley, who have conducted a comprehensive study on mass shooters in the US. They have created a database of every mass shooter since 1966 and interviewed some of them, as well as their families and friends. They have also talked to people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

The main findings of their research are:

  • Mass shooters share four common traits: childhood trauma, social isolation, suicidal thoughts and access to firearms.
  • Mass shooters often have a crisis point that triggers their violent behavior, such as a breakup, a job loss or a humiliation.
  • Mass shooters are not born evil or mentally ill, but rather they are shaped by their life experiences and circumstances.
  • Mass shooters can be prevented if they are identified and treated early, before they reach the point of no return.

The article also discusses the challenges and implications of their research, such as:

  • The need for more funding and political will to address the root causes of mass shootings, such as mental health, social support and gun control.
  • The importance of changing the narrative and language around mass shooters, such as avoiding terms like "monster" or "lone wolf" that dehumanize them and obscure their motives.
  • The role of the media and the public in reducing the glorification and copycat effect of mass shootings, such as not naming the shooter or showing their manifesto.
  • The potential for using their database and methodology to study other forms of violence, such as domestic terrorism or hate crimes.
[–] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah, yes. Both sides.

And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Mass shooters are the reason cited for most gun laws though. Detachable magazines, full-auto, short-barreled weapons, etc.

The issue is one party hates social programs but loves guns, and the other party hates guns specifically because the other one loves them.

I don't understand the Democrats" hatred of firearms. All their attempts to go after them are ineffective at preventing gun violence.

Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.

This is a point that cannot be stressed enough.

As of 2022, Iowa had a ballot initiative for codifying a strict scrutiny clause on restrictions on the right to bear arms in our state constitution. We have a ~3-way split of Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. The measure passed with ~66% support.

On an entirely unrelated note, our Republican governor won her election with ~58% the vote against a Democrat pushing - admittedly mild - restrictions on firearms.

Blue team isn't going to lose blue team die-hard votes by dropping these points. They are, however, demonstrably alienating Independents who reject such restrictions.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Democrats don't hate firearms. They're ambivalent or even slightly favorable to firearms. They hate men, especially white men.

Gather up some actual American leftists, interrupt their busy day of adding stripes to the rainbow flag, and ask them the following questions and note their answers:

  • What do you think of Andrew Tate?

  • Why do you think so many young white men are drawn to Andrew Tate?

  • What messaging do you have for young white men?

  • Why should young white men be on board with your cause?

  • What does your cause have to offer young white men?

The answers I would expect from them/have heard from them:

  • He's a degenerate scumbag who should be in prison.

  • Because all white men are just as evil as he is.

  • Go die in a war.

  • They shouldn't; the left isn't for them.

  • Nothing; white men already have everything and deserve nothing.

To the left, white men are boogeymen. "Historical oppressors." Present-day Republicans. The patriarchy. And they apply this hatred to ALL white males including the unborn. "I'd have an abortion if I found out the fetus was male."

The actual problems that cause mass shooters are childhood trauma, isolation, lack of social safety nets. The right hates social safety nets because the yacht owning class has told them to for so long. The left loves social safety nets...except for white men.

Addressing the needs of white men, giving them actual help and care, devoting resources to them to allow them to lead healthy productive lives, overcome and escape trauma...unthinkable in either party. So the right says "that's what you get for sending your kids to school instead of church" and the left says "What about making the magazine release harder to push?"

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I'm a single, white, male firearm owner. I don't feel hated by the left at all.

Recognizing that white men have been privileged and addressing the institutional issues that have given white men an unfair leg up for centuries isn't an assault on white men.

[–] mrnotoriousman@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yikes dude get off Rumble and turn off Tucker Carlson. I'm a white man on the left ambivalent to guns but want more restrictions. And your whole post is all fantasy to feed a victim complex, it's seriously embarrassing.

Are you a Tate fan since you brought him up multiple times? Dude is a piece of filth scumbag.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

Ah, yes. Both sides.

Let's not pretend Blue team is absent of any responsibility or blame here - doing so does them a disservice in withholding the necessary pressures to change and do better, enabling the exact mediocrity and incompetence currently on display.

It may shock you to realize that one can correctly lay fault at the hands of a party while understanding that party is overall less problematic than its opponent.

And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

It was, in point of fact, the thing I was responding to.

I'm not sure if you'd actually read that source let alone much else on the subject - do you believe there is zero overlap between the general pressures toward violence (firearm or otherwise) and the observed pathway to becoming a mass shooter?