this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
949 points (92.3% liked)
Memes
45607 readers
1199 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's the point. It isn't well-regulated.
The National Guard is not well regulated? Im gonna wager your definition of well regulated is a body in which nothing bad ever happens, which is not what well regulated means, that's called perfection.
If the national guard isnt considered well regulated then nothing is, and clearly the writers of the bill didnt intend for 'well regulated' to be an impossible standard. So if well regulated is going to mean something it didnt mean from the authors then that phrase no longer has bearing on the right, and shockingly enough the US Judicial system agrees with and upheld that.
This was a shooting by a member of a well regulated milita. That phrase or organization structure is not a magic spell that stops crime. The authors would have written 'crime free' instead of well regulated if that's what they meant.
If a memeber of said Militia can spend 2 weeks in a psychiatric ward for hearing voices in his head telling him to shoot up the said Militia he is a part of and still keep the means to carry out the will of said voices it isn't well-regulated, sorry not sorry. The term Well-Regulated doesnt automatically mean it is going to be regulated.
Here's the thing though:
They can't, it is already a federal law that people who are IVC'd (this guy) are prohibited purchasers and they are supposed to take the guns and input that into NICs, but someone didn't do their fucking job. Has nothing to do with the weekend warrior ~~militia~~ branch of the US military either, that applies to everyone, federally, as it is a federal law.
Between active and reservists there are well over one million national guard memebers. The crimes of one of them hardly imply that the regulation is not good. Mistakes are possible, and considering he was let out of the psych hospital is it impossible to think the mistake even could have come from the profit driven org who makes the absolute thinniest proft margins from mental health care? What about the police, did they not also drop the ball, they could have seen this coming, this person was known publicly for his gun lust and extremism. Or is all the blame only on the one orginazation that makes your opinions the most correct looking?
A French cop went on a mass shooting in 2017. In 2020 an ex soldier in france went on a shooting. Sure it wasn't this year but acting like this doesn't happen elsewhere is wild. In fact the chances that the shooter is in a well regulated legal organization are higher elsewhere since the other people dont even have guns like that. So I assume Frances gun laws are a problem for you too since they cant stop their Law Enforcement from doing this?
'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
The comment you replied to it literally proof that this incident would still and does still happen in France. This whole time I've specifically been speaking about those that would be considered to be in a well regulated militia because that phrase is meaningless, as shown. French gun laws wouldn't stop this, the only country argument is moot here, because we're literally not the only country whos LEOs and military go on rampages.
Note bolded text. No shit this happens in other countries - the death stats for them aren't 0. But it's a rare anomaly there rather than just another Tuesday like here.
Whens the last time a US military service member went on a shooting spree, adjust per capita, then compare. Yall are doing everything to try and derail my original point about militias.
There is plenty of blame to go around, the problem is systemic. Putting the blame on one institution makes it a scapegoat, we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.
Nah fam, we need both. Fewer guns, even destorying every AR15 in America wouldn't solve the #1 cause of gun deaths in America, which is suicide.
Removing guns (or at least access to them) can actually reduce the rate of suicide. Guns are quick and easy to use to commit suicide, whereas many other methods take time to set up and don't work as often. When someone is feeling suicidal, often having that little bit of extra time can let the feeling decrease enough to prevent an attempt.
Of course, removing access to guns doesn't fix why people feel suicidal in the first place. That is a whole nother can of worms. But I expect everyone agrees that reducing the number of suicides is good.
RAND: How Gun Policies Affect Suicide
Save.org: Restricting access to lethal means:
Japan would like a word (but they're too busy killing themselves without guns.)
Guns may be more effective but I'd argue OTC meds are "easier" considering you don't get NICs checked for tylenol. And frankly many suicidal people (not all ofc) already have a problem with a particular drug that causes 96,000+ accidental deaths/yr, shooting of another nature, which kills 36,000 more people than guns/yr including suicide, that could also be used quite easily and peacefully as opposed to doing your best impression of Dead from Meyhem.
Simply banning guns wouldn't help, we still need to address the root causes. And once we address the root causes gun control will be a whole lot less necessary anyway. At the very least, we should start with the things that will be actually helpful and then move to the pointless bans which worked so well for those drugs 96,000 people OD on each year.
You sound like the people who advocated for the war on drugs...
I would piss my pants laughing in an alternate universe where we did ban all guns and there was a whole legalize it movement.
Prohibition is hardly ever a great answer.
Do you fetishize being wrong?
You seem to get off on it.
Ignoring the fact that this is obviously a false dichotomy........ Have you ever served in the guard or active duty military? The guard especially from certain states, is usually known for being an unorganized shit show. Active duty has its obvious issues, but they also have a lot more control over their personnel, including who they keep and promote.
In the guard, as long as you show up for roll call and pass your test you're pretty much promoted until you want to leave. Which is why the last few military pr blunders were committed by officers or NCO in the reserves.
I doubt you would find many people who served in the reserves that would claim they were well organized or well regulated.
Funny, both you lose the intended scope of the second anyways. It has nothing to do with crime.