• cum@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Having the right to have a mass killing device is never required.

    • bi_tux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I tend to disagree for following reasons:

      - freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins

      - no one said freedom was save

      - people don’t stop to murder other people without guns

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its a joke, don’t think too hard about it.

        Freedom as a concept is to vague and personal to be useful any kind of real discussion; “freedom” means whatever you think it means. This is why politicians love to say it.

        I would say that you’re right guns make people feel safe.

        However, that the constant threat of violence in society leads to degradation of social norms, especially for children who then get less socialization and become more extreme.

        You see this in like more people choosing to homeschool their kids - they then get lower quality education and poorer social skills and are less able to survive in society. In a capitalist world, this is slowly eating away the ability of americans to compete in a global economy and so there is a strong movement to isolate our economy which will only make us less competitive.

        • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say that you’re right guns make people feel safe.

          I just wanted to say that guns absolutely do not make me feel safe, knowing one is nearby or seeing one makes me incredibly anxious. Holding one even more so. I don’t understand how people can feel safe around them, to me it’s like having a ticking time bomb in the room but the timer was set by a rng.

  • varnia@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I knew something was off, I never really could watch his channel for some reason. This is one more hint that my intuition wasn’t wrong.

    • FatCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thats fine, but I also would argue against this kind of purity testing. Where a person is written off because they disagree with you on one or two issue. There are a lot of colorful characters in the community so you would quickly end up very alone…

      I think overall DT is a good advocate for FOSS.

  • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just got my restricted possession and acquisition license in Canada (RPAL), which gives me the ability to own firearms and ammo.

    It was fascinating to see just how different Canada and US laws are in this regard; and how much less likely a widespread ‘unrestricted gun rights’ movement is here.

    • BaskinRobbins@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      How difficult did you find the process? Over here we basically just go to the store and buy it after a simple background check. Even the background check seems to be avoidable if you do a private gun sale. At least this is how it was described to me by friends who have firearms, I don’t own any myself.

      • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Canada…

        For (most) long guns and shotguns, you need to take a day-long safety course, followed by both a written and practical exam. If you pass that, then you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years. Then there’s a background check and a 28 day waiting period before they process it. (Also, I understand that the background check is far stricter here.)

        If you want to be licensed for restricted firearms (handguns and some long guns), there’s a separate 6-hour course and exams. Most people do the courses and exams back-to-back, so they can apply for restricted weapons at the same time.

        Purchase, storage, transport, and use rules are vastly different as well. Restricted firearms can only be used at a licensed range, and to buy one you need to be a member at a range in your province.

        Generally speaking, firearms have to be stored empty and locked. Restricted firearms also have to be registered to a specific address, and if you move, you need to fill out the change of location ahead of time and are given a window in which you can move them between houses.

        I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.

        • SexWithDogs@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years.

          Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.

          I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.

          The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.

          • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.

            In signing, the references are saying that “I have known this person for three years and don’t believe them to be a high risk for violence.” One might argue that if you don’t know two people who don’t consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!

            Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn’t have firearms.

            The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.

            Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it’s a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.

            I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren’t a right in Canada - they’re a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.

            At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)

            So the process is arduous, it’s restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.

            Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it’s not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn’t more than twice as high as Canada’s rate.

  • robocall@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I watched the video. He says that if you support FOSS you should support guns, but never once advocates for guns to be free.

    He says the problem is that politics are tribal, and people are simply in their corner, cheering for their teams - without acknowledging that there are Americans that want different levels of gun control, and there are reasons that people want gun control outside of tribal politics, and there are Republicans/conservatives/gun enthusiasts that have nuanced opinions, and support things like red flag laws and certain gun control policies.

    • ShieldGengar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’s a troll trump supporter, which is all anyone needs to know. If there are 9 regular people at a table and a nazi sits down, and all that.