this post was submitted on 21 May 2024

1 points (100.0% liked)

News

36118 readers

4075 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

California is about to tax guns more like alcohol and tobacco − and that could put a dent in gun violence (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property."

― Chris Rock

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Classic

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is pretty fucking elitist.

If you don’t want guns go all in and ensure the elites cannot have them either.

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, but it's also a joke. He likely doesn't believe what he says. He's trying to make people laugh.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Some people really do forget that a comedian isn't a well-versed expert in the shit they talk about, and their primary intent is entertainment.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

Same can be said for OP and Steve over here, the former of whom posted it presumably because they take it at face value as a good idea, and the latter defending it because he clearly does.

In times like that it can be a worthy pursuit both to refute the premise, as the poster who said "this is pretty fucking elitist" was doing, and to remind people of the nature of comedians, as you have done.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Iirc that's how Australia does it. You need the whole strict background check and training and I believe you can only get ammo at the range.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I doubt it. Look at Illinois, they'll just straw buy shit from neighboring states.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

A demonstration that the laws work, but need to be implemented at a national scale.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Pretty sure the guns i see the criminals use aren't even legal. Crazy extended mags

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is the fundamental problem with gun regulation at the state level -- they can be effectively abrogated by neighboring states with more lax regulation. FiveThirtyEight did a piece on this a while ago. In that article they show how strict gun laws in Illinois, California, and Maryland are defeated by guns flowing in from the surrounding states with more lax laws. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with guns which are illegally possessed, but were initially obtained through legal means.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's why Mexico is suing Arizona, and maybe Texas? Cali has strict gun laws so the cartels can't get guns here. They have no issues getting guns in AZ and TX

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Big part of the modern drug trade is fueled by arms sales passing South as collateral.

US arms exports are paid for with Latin American drug money. And those arms help gangs engage in the human trafficking they need to produce recreational narcotics and amphetamines at industrial scale.

[–] jnk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?

I mean it makes sense, but doesn't certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much? Are they using their brains at all?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?

More describing the economic incentives of the opposition.

I mean it makes sense, but doesn’t certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much?

On paper, sure. But in practice the folks profiting from the exchange can just blame the drugs and the crime on stupid weak leftists in government to deflect blame from the arms trafficking.

Are they using their brains at all?

Garbage in, garbage out. If all your information comes from gun-sponsored sources, you'll end up with gun-sponsored views.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

the guns i see the criminals use

Are you running up to folks during a bank robbery and asking them for receipts?

Or is this, like, guns you saw criminals use in a cartoon show?

[–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools stole guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice

Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes, there are many reports and statistics to back this up. If you need some hard data I'll be happy to provide or you could do a quick web search as well.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes

You're leaning hard on the term "stolen" to describe a teenager using a parent's firearm, particularly when the teen already has regular access to the weapon for target practice.

Similarly, guns that have been anonymized after purchase aren't something you can regulate against.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, that’s one of the missing links: owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences. Either it was an actual theft and the kid faces legal consequences for that too or it was careless behavior on the owner and they face partial consequences for the deaths and devastation

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences

We played this game with Beto O'Rourke. He tanked his electoral prospects by suggesting he'd enforce gun laws like any other governor would enforce drug laws.

Between the Sandy Hook style conspiracy theories and the NRA hysteria, the onus is never on the gun owners. It's always on the victims to not get shot.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think it was Chris Rock who said something like "if you want to reduce gun violence then you gotta make bullets more expensive." You're gonna see a drop in gunshots if every bullet costs $1k.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.