The “winner takes all” political system that ends with two extremist parties and a huge divide between people
Healthcare. Do I need to say anything?
The extreme divide between rich and poor
Police force. They hire lowly educated people, preferably racist, receiving barely any training, and what they do get is mostly nonsense. They then get military equipment, and the entire system is protected by a corrupt union
The amount that news organizations are allowed to lie
Well it is hard from a “cat out of the bag” reason.
To be clear I agree, there’s way to many guns around and the best time to plant a tree is before today, but today is better than tomorrow. So let’s start.
But there’s millions of absolutely unknown guns here and banning them would create a black market with no end in sight
I didn’t say ban them, I said restrict them. Heavily. Tax them. Increase bullet prices. Kinda like that black comedian, forgot his name, said: make every bullet 5000 dollars. Im gonna save up, I’m going to get an extra job, imma get me a bank loan, and then you’re a dead man!
It was funny, but I think there is a realistic point to it. Make it all most expensive and people will use it less, have it least, cause less casualties
Also to be honest I’m not sure I’m cool with the “rich white people that are friends with some congressman are the only ones who deserve the right to protect themselves” attitude most of the anti gun crowd seems to default to. Sure, they tell you that isn’t what they want and frankly I believe them, but they still advocate for policies that will in effect criminalize gun ownership for especially the poor and disenfranchised, and also the vanishing “middle class.” Especially considering our tendancy to enforce things like this in overpoliced marginalized neighborhoods, you think they’re rolling into gated communities talking about some guns? Nope, they’ll be just fine, after all, they “need it to protect their lives from those who seek their property,” you are “too poor to have to worry about that, just die.”
Most people aren’t hugely divided on guns. Like you said, you’re seeing the two extremes of the parties, not the will of the people. Browsing Lemmy would convince you that everyone except for the big bad GOP wants guns banned, and that’s simply not true. Most people want responsible gun limitations, not total gun bans.
Problem though is, define “responsible gun limitations.”
That could mean anything from “just ending private sale” to “full on confiscation of millions of firearms from millions of people, that have the usual laundry list of california un-approved accessories for no reason” depending on who you’re talking to.
Most of the laws proposed in the last 20yr are either entirely innefective or too effective and could easily be abused to deny people their rights (those people are usually the marginalized or disenfranchised, not rich white men, of course).
Guns. Just restrict them, it’s not that hard
The “winner takes all” political system that ends with two extremist parties and a huge divide between people
Healthcare. Do I need to say anything?
The extreme divide between rich and poor
Police force. They hire lowly educated people, preferably racist, receiving barely any training, and what they do get is mostly nonsense. They then get military equipment, and the entire system is protected by a corrupt union
The amount that news organizations are allowed to lie
Well it is hard from a “cat out of the bag” reason.
To be clear I agree, there’s way to many guns around and the best time to plant a tree is before today, but today is better than tomorrow. So let’s start.
But there’s millions of absolutely unknown guns here and banning them would create a black market with no end in sight
I didn’t say ban them, I said restrict them. Heavily. Tax them. Increase bullet prices. Kinda like that black comedian, forgot his name, said: make every bullet 5000 dollars. Im gonna save up, I’m going to get an extra job, imma get me a bank loan, and then you’re a dead man!
It was funny, but I think there is a realistic point to it. Make it all most expensive and people will use it less, have it least, cause less casualties
Also to be honest I’m not sure I’m cool with the “rich white people that are friends with some congressman are the only ones who deserve the right to protect themselves” attitude most of the anti gun crowd seems to default to. Sure, they tell you that isn’t what they want and frankly I believe them, but they still advocate for policies that will in effect criminalize gun ownership for especially the poor and disenfranchised, and also the vanishing “middle class.” Especially considering our tendancy to enforce things like this in overpoliced marginalized neighborhoods, you think they’re rolling into gated communities talking about some guns? Nope, they’ll be just fine, after all, they “need it to protect their lives from those who seek their property,” you are “too poor to have to worry about that, just die.”
Most people aren’t hugely divided on guns. Like you said, you’re seeing the two extremes of the parties, not the will of the people. Browsing Lemmy would convince you that everyone except for the big bad GOP wants guns banned, and that’s simply not true. Most people want responsible gun limitations, not total gun bans.
Problem though is, define “responsible gun limitations.”
That could mean anything from “just ending private sale” to “full on confiscation of millions of firearms from millions of people, that have the usual laundry list of california un-approved accessories for no reason” depending on who you’re talking to.
Most of the laws proposed in the last 20yr are either entirely innefective or too effective and could easily be abused to deny people their rights (those people are usually the marginalized or disenfranchised, not rich white men, of course).