this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
342 points (96.0% liked)

News

23397 readers
3618 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
 

A US appeals court Saturday paved the way for a California law banning the concealed carry of firearms in “sensitive places” to go into effect January 1, despite a federal judge’s ruling that it is “repugnant to the Second Amendment.”

The law – Senate Bill 2 – had been blocked last week by an injunction from District Judge Cormac Carney, but a three-judge panel filed an order Saturday temporarily blocking that injunction, clearing the path for the law to take effect.

The court issued an administrative stay, meaning the appeals judges did not consider the merits of the case, but delayed the judge’s order to give the court more time to consider the arguments of both sides. “In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel’s consideration of the merits of these appeals in any way,” the judges wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skydivekingair@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The deterrent is the uncertainty of who may and may not have a gun on them. A lot of self defense is making yourself a harder target, the knowledge that a firearm might come into play and the victim may be proficient at using it makes anyone and everyone a harder target. It doesn’t mean desperate criminals won’t still make a move, but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Again, it is already uncertain who may and may not have a gun on them.

but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.

Is there any data to that effect or is that just wishful thinking?

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's not good data on anything related to guns and it's frustrating.

Intuitively it makes sense that if there might be a bear in the woods some people aren't going to go into the woods because they're afraid of getting mauled by a bear. It almost certainly has an effect, but quantifying it is going to be hard and subject to bias and the real effect will always be subject to other unrecorded factors (e.g. maybe when they tested one group the bears were hibernating).

I personally don't think many people who aren't into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place ... which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I'm going to go rob this gas station).

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I personally don’t think many people who aren’t into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place … which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I’m going to go rob this gas station).

Very well said and I am in agreement.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'd say the crime rates in no carry zones vs like... Red bits of Texas would be an indicator. No idea what those are but the number of stories out of Texas like "robber shot by 3 different people during hold-up"... Yeh.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Those stories are curated by the media. That is not good data any more than all the crime reports the media makes is an indication of the crime rate which has been dropping for years.

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

By saying it's already uncertain, you've immediately made an assumption. Congratulations, you're just as biased as the rest of us. Nothing you said so far has been supported by evidence.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Are you saying you can be certain that someone doesn't have a gun concealed on their person where concealed carry is illegal?

Otherwise, I don't think it's an assumption.