Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after argument over Christmas gifts
2y 5mon ago by lemmy.world/u/MicroWave in news from www.cbsnews.com
A 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister in Florida after a family argument over Christmas presents, officials said Tuesday.
The teen had been out shopping on Christmas Eve with Abrielle Baldwin, his 23-year-old sister, as well as his mother, 15-year-old brother and sister's children, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said during a news conference.
The teenage brothers got into an argument about who was getting more Christmas presents.
"They had this family spat about who was getting what and what money was being spent on who, and they were having this big thing going on in this store," Gualtieri said.
Just as the architects of the Constitution intended
As the 2nd amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, well-regulated militias shall have the right to keep and bear arms. Also, in a twist completely unrelated to that other sentence, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I'm talking rifles, muskets, flintlocks, hell, even futuristic weapons nobody's invented yet. Not part of a militia? Doesn't matter. Completely unregulated? That's right. Also, by 'people' we mean everyone: kids, witches, the addled, it's a free for all!
Of course, most people only know the final trimmed-down edited version of that amendment. The original was much better, IMO.
Your command of the English language is... incomplete. Read this, then re-read your comment:
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
At 14 and 15, both of these kids are too young to legally own a pistol in Florida.
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs2.aspx
So, yeah, pretty sure they aren't concerned with the Constitution.
You’ve made an excellent point, just not the one you think
You’re playing chess with pigeons, I wouldn’t bother
Trying to regulate the weapons used in our hellscape dystopia is just a method of maintaining the hellscape and avoiding any real change to society at large.
avoiding any real change to society at large.
So which changes would you suggest to help solve this problem?
That those kids got the guns illegally and would have done so regardless of what laws were in place? That point?
Ah yes, the "If it's not going to stop 100% of the problem, let's not do it at all" bullshit.
That old chestnut.
If random check stops don't stop 100% of drunk drivers, why do them at all. Your just punishing the drivers who AREN'T driving drunk!
If seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, why regulate that we wear them. Muh Freedums!!
It bullshit excuses made by people with literally nothing of any real sense to fall back on.
Not on that guy's side, but he didn't strictly say that we shouldn't have those laws.
He said that if you're siteing a case where we did have those laws and a bad thing happened as an example for why we need laws like that in place to stop the bad thing from happening, it falls a little flat.
Not that the idea of having laws like that is bad, but citing individual cases is flawed, as no amount of regulatory structure will ever prevent 100% of cases.
To frame it a different way, I could argue that there's literally no country on earth with strong enough gun laws, because there's no country with zero gun deaths. I could argue that we need random searches of people homes to try and find guns, or imprisoning people who talk about guns, because the current laws clearly aren't good enough because people are still getting shot. Doesn't matter if it was only 1 incident in the past 30yrs. Still happened, so we need stricter laws.
That's obviously an absurd level of hyperbole, and I want to reiterate that I'm all for regulation on firearms. Just wanted to point out that the core argument here is unideal.
The guy said "would have done so regardless of what laws were in place".
As in, this happened, and there are already laws, so there's no point in stronger laws or more restrictions.
That's like saying "Sure, there are hundreds of fatalities in this factory, but they already get 10c fines whenever there's an at-fault accident. The accidents would have happened regardless of the fines! There's no point in higher fines since the fines have shown they're not working!"
That's all valid, but I think you've missed my point.
While I disagree with "the laws did nothing so why have laws," I also disagree with, "the laws didn't work, so we need harsher laws." Both are flawed logically.
There is, in fact, a level of restriction that goes too far in the name of preventing crime. We could lock everyone in jail for instance, as people in cages can't commit crimes (ymmv). That's obviously a bad idea though, for many reasons.
And I'm with you. I think we need to evaluate what that right balance is. What I was pushing back on was the idea that, "if there's even one gun death ever, then the laws didn't go far enough, and we need more restrictions," which I took to be the sentiment of the OP. That lack of nuance worries me is all.
I don't know if the gun laws that were violated were good enough or not. I didn't look them up, tbh. But you can have all the laws in the world, and have them be completely useless if they aren't properly enforced. Maybe the laws are actually good, and the enforcement mechanism is flawed? Maybe both are good and this is just an unfortunate side effect of it being impossible to police everyone all the time. Or maybe the laws themselves are flawed and the OP is right that something needs changing. I don't know. But I do know that it's a big issue with a lot of nuance, and that a knee jerk reaction of "we need more laws" is unhelpful at best and detrimental at worst.
“the laws didn’t work, so we need harsher laws.” Both are flawed logically.
I don't know what you mean by "logically". There's no "logical" way to determine what will work. This is a matter of human nature, not logic. But, science strongly suggests that harsher laws do work when it comes to guns. Places with strong gun laws have been clearly shown to have fewer gun crimes. That doesn't necessarily work for everything. During prohibition, strong laws forbidding alcohol did somewhat reduce alcohol use, but it definitely didn't eliminate it, and it dramatically increased crime due to smuggling alcohol. For guns, the picture is much clearer. When they're harder to own legally there are fewer gun crimes.
a knee jerk reaction of “we need more laws” is unhelpful at best and detrimental at worst.
In this case it's more "we need the same laws as the rest of the civilized world, which doesn't have all these problems with gun crimes".
I really think we're just having two completely different discussions here mate. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I never did.
I also don't know that I think it's worth the time to hash out at this point. We're just talking past each other.
Imagine applying that logic to anything else:
"He would have been murdered regardless of what laws were in place. There's no reason to change the penalty for murder! The 10c fine already ensures that only criminals will murder other people."
"The city already has a firefighter, and the city block still burned down! What's the point in adding more firefighters if we already have a firefighter and we still get major fires?"
...
The kids got the guns illegally because it's incredibly easy to get illegal guns in the US. The biggest reason for that is that it's so incredibly easy to get legal guns too. In places like Japan or England where it's hard to get legal guns, it's extremely hard to get illegal guns, so the criminals tend not to use illegal guns.
If "would have done so regardless" were true, there should be no difference in gun crime in the UK vs the US. But, they're not. It's not because the US has far more of a problem with mental illness or something, it's because the tool designed for killing is harder to get.
Well, in MY state random stops ARE illegal. Thanks Oregon! Frankly, I'm surprised more states haven't done that.
https://romanolawpc.com/oregon-dui-checkpoints/
There are things that CAN be done, you just have to start with rejecting the idea of "hurrr durrr take all the guns" because that can't be done due to the 2nd amendment.
In THIS case, we know the two kids already had priors for car burglaries.
So #1) You find out who legally owned those guns, then you charge them with improper storage and/or failure to report a stolen weapon.
#2) When kids are arrested for a crime like burglary, you search their homes to make sure weapons weren't anything that were burgled.
“The solution to ensuring our freedom to own guns is to restrict all our other freedoms. “
Our other freedoms aren't restricted though.
Children steal a car and have their private property ransacked by the cops in case they have a gun. That was your suggestion was it not?
Tbf if you steal a car your rights are usually "infringed upon." They call it "jail."
They didn't steal a car, they burgled cars, big difference. But yeah, if the cops recover a stolen car and the owner goes "Hey, where's my gun?" Yeah, the cops absolutely need to be serving a search warrant.
Your rights protecting you from illegal search and seizure don't come into play when there's probable cause and a search warrant.
Wow you're a moron
Really? Well, what would your solution be?
Keep in mind, banning guns is not an option because of the 2nd Amendment and changing the 2nd amendment is currently a political impossibility.
Sooo? Thoughts?
The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia and bearing arms. It gives the right to possess guns by militia members.
The Second Amendment also states its purpose expressly: to protect the security of the state. If the "let everyone have whatever guns" approach is a threat to state security, then obviously that approach isn't protected by the Second Amendment.
Your version of the Second Amendment is a right-wing lie, not borne out by law books, history books, or dictionaries.
Again, rendered irrelevant by the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
Further, they explain their reasoning:
"As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”"
This reading is pretty obvious when you look at the text of the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms.
Yes, this is a radical supreme court that is ignoring 200 years of president. In order to come up with these bullshit rulings. They aren't going to last more than a couple of decades.
We should hope so, but then it took 50 years to overturn Roe... so...
Right now, the court is 6-3 conservative.
If Biden wins in '24 and the Dems win again in '28, that gives a solid chance at replacing Thomas and Alito. Thomas is 75, Alito is 73. So 84 and 82 by 2032.
That would flip the court 5-4 liberal.
But the next 3 after that are Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan. Roberts has been somewhat of a check on the crazier judges, losing these three under a Republican President would lock in Conservative rule for the better part of a century.
regardless of what laws were in place?
Oh come on, regardless of where you stand on the issue, you can't think of any change in law could contain that would prevent someone from getting a gun?
FTA:
"Both teens have prior arrests for car burglaries."
Seems likely they stole the guns from cars, so maybe make it illegal to keep your gun in your car?
Hard to say until the gun origins are traced back, but they weren't legally purchased by or for the kids.
Seems likely they stole the guns from cars, so maybe make it illegal to keep your gun in your car?
Hmm, so the source of the guns were the cars that were broken into. Hmm, yes. So what law can you imagine that would have even prevented the option for those gun owners to keep guns in their cars? C'mon, you've got this. Hint: How did the car owners get the guns?
Nothing that could be blocked because of the 2nd amendment. You can't prevent people from legally owning guns.
Now, if you want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, we have a process for that...
First you get 290 votes in the House, then you get 67 votes in the Senate, then you get ratification from 38 states, so all 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.
Good luck with that!
The constitution was written by a bunch of geriatric slave owners who barely washed once a week. Every single one of the signatures on that paper comes from someone that would be considered mentally deficient in this day and age.
You shouldn't be proud of it standing in the way of sane legislation, nor the fact that gross gerrymandering keeps it that way.
Regardless of how you FEEL about the 2nd amendment, it is the law of the land and it's not going anywhere until we can get 290 votes in the House... you know, the legal body that took 15 tries to get the simple majority of 218 to decide who their own leader was.
But hey, we got 311 to bounce out George Santos, so it IS possible to get that level of agreement, it just won't happen on guns.
“Regardless of the geriatrics who wrote the constitution, it will never change due to the geriatrics who are now in power”
While your comment is entirely true, it represents a seriously flaw in the way that our country determines what is best for its people
Oh, there's no doubt about that, but it's what we have to live with.
Jefferson advocated for throwing everything out and starting over every 19 years, that would have been interesting.
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
So, two years before the Bill of Rights. If Jefferson had his way, the 2nd Amendment (and everything else) would have expired in 1810 and would have had to be renewed then and another 11 times since then.
But Jefferson didn't get his way and here we are!
Very true. Sorry you got downvoted for getting to your real point, but I’m in agreement, that when those that wrote the constitution came up with it, and subsequently additions were added the bill of rights, and what was those who fought for the next amendments, it was the most progressive thing at the time. But as our world has changed, so should our values and therefore our constitution, and every modification and addition. Empires come and go when they think they are infallible, the US is no different, and we should be willing to throw out what some consider “holy texts” when it makes sense to build a better nation.
We actually are really close to a constitutional convention. It takes 34 states to call for it and so far, 28 are on board.
Unfortunately, they're all red states.
https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/
So if we throw out the Constitution, these red states will be the ones to write a new one.
The 2nd Amendment will look positively progressive compared with what they'll come up with, along with likely disenfranchising women, minorities, and any other group they dislike.
The only saving grace is that while 34 states can call for a convention, it takes 38 states to ratify a new convention.
Trump only ever won 25 states, so they would need 13 Biden states to ratify a new convention and that doesn't seem likely.
Which brings us back to the 2nd Amendment not going anywhere...
Yikes. Well I should signify that I want a more progressive constitution that helps women, minorities, and the disenfranchised, not a fascism base to build upon. But yeah, I see what you mean it’s either “throw out the government now in favor of fascism” or “keep the current constitution, but deal with the 2nd ammendment”
That's the reality of it, and unfortunately the people who keep downvoting will never read down this far. :)
Other folks will though, eventually! Hello future people! Hope you've done better!
Realistically, the actual wording of 2nd amendment is actually rather specific. But that leads to a whole different ugly ass problem - what to do about the corrupt SC?
Ugh
Yup, that's a problem and it's only getting MORE conservative, not less.
Adding term limits would require an Amendment which can't be done for the same reason changing the 2nd can't be done, the vote hurdle is too high.
Packing the court isn't the answer, because the next president of the opposing party would just re-pack it the other way.
So the only thing that can be done is make sure Biden wins in '24, and the Dems win in '28 and hope that by '32 Thomas and Alito have aged out. Thomas will be 84 in '32 and Alito will be 82.
If they're still hanging on, then it's a matter of voting D until they're gone.
Because if Trump or another R is in office when they leave, you can forget changing the composition of the court in our lifetime.
The law changes all the time.
It does, it's been getting more conservative since 2008.
Here's the breakdown:
2008 - Heller - Self defense is the core component of the 2nd Amendment, you can't require safe storage, ban entire classes of weapons, or require militia membership.
2010 - McDonald - Heller applies to States as well (Heller was a Washington D.C. ruling so clarity was needed to show it applied to the states.
2016 - Caetano - 2nd Amendment applies to bearable weapons that did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. This one is fascinating. MA tried to charge a woman for buying a stun gun to protect herself from a violent ex. MA argued "stun guns didn't exist, so 2nd Amendment doesn't apply." Supreme Court shot that down.
2022 - Bruen - Carrying a gun for self defense is a fundamental right and states cannot require "special need" to exercise it. Bonus - court also ruled that future gun laws need to show historical precedent or be struck down.
Bruen is going to be key in future gun cases. This court will have some super unpopular rulings in the pipeline.
maybe make it illegal to keep your gun in your car?
Unfortunately this is not possible. There are many businesses and such that have signs to the effect of "no guns in here." In some states those signs hold no legal weight, but in some they do. In states where they do hold legal weight, your choice becomes
-
Just never carry because the grocery store I'll be in for 15 minutes out of my day has a sign they think will keep mass murderers out (spoiler warning: mass murderers target those signs. Not that it's more likely you'll get shot there necessarily, just that their signs only matter to people who aren't about to murder 25 people, as the murderer has other crimes to worry about vs me, where I just want some damn nuggies so prison actually matters to me.)
-
Carry in the store illegally. Honestly more people are doing this than you think, but as I said in some states this can become an issue for you.
-
Leave it in the car while I'm in the grocery store. Legal, not exactly safe, but since I am literally legally forced to be unsafe: "not my fault." If you want to charge people with leaving a gun in a locked car and then the gun gets stolen, you have to at least meet halfway and let people with a permit carry at all times and not force them to leave it in the car. You may say "just go to a competing business. Well the way my state law is set up you can't carry in ANY bank regardless of permission, any government building, and a few more places. And I'm fine with either, make them leave it and no charge or let them carry it and charge if they don't, but I'm not fine with "you have to leave that in the car even though you'd rather leave it in the holster, and if it gets stolen we'll put you in prison for life."
This is not possible
Yes it is, you just don't like the idea of being inconvenienced by public safety laws.
mass murderers target those [gun-free] signs
[citation needed]
Carry in the store illegally. Honestly more people are doing this than you think
This is an excellent reason to strengthen gun laws and make some examples out of the people who decide to violate the law.
If it gets stolen we'll put you in prison for life.
Show me where this has ever happened (life in prison for having a gun stolen from you)
It never fails that the pro-gun argument is always just loaded with dishonest hyperbole. Guess that's expected from a cause that has zero public benefit. Part of your argument is to just casually admit that people are illegally carrying guns all the time, and you say it like it's some sort of argument in favor of guns...
Show me where this has ever happened (life in prison for having a gun stolen from you)
More likely than you think:
Yeah, but do you have a link to what you said actually happening? These articles are all talking about hypothetical liability, and none of them reference anyone getting sentenced to life in prison.
Only a matter of time. The one to watch is this one:
https://apnews.com/article/michigan-school-shooting-oxford-parents-ad8b0255c41b244f58850cbb118c44b5
Yes it is, you just don't like the idea of being inconvenienced by public safety laws.
"Inconvenienced" here means "no banking, and no buying food, cooked or otherwise." So it's a little more than a simple inconvenience. Which again is one thing, and that's fine, I can leave it in the car when I go in to those places, BUT if a possibility of prison time exists for me following the law and leaving it in the car, yes, that becomes a problem. Frankly I'd have to reevaluate following the law, as if I leave it, it gets stolen, and used in a murder, and as such I'm charged in concert with the murderer, it now becomes less risky to just break the law and carry in the store. This law would make many others reevaluate similarly and do the same, killing the effectiveness of the signage in the first place.
[citation needed]
Well, let's start with all school shootings.
And here's an article from the Anti-Self Defense movement's favorite news outlet, biased towards them, that says I'm right. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/us/mass-shooters-soft-targets-challenges-cec/index.html
When gang and drug related shootings where 4 or more people are shot including the shooter, which everytown considers mass shootings (and they're technically right but of course most of us are thinking of Sandy Hook or Vegas and it feels weird to me that everytown likes to blur those lines, but I digress), it does open up a bit, but that's because drug dealers and gang members (crips, bloods, piru, gangstas desciples, ms13, sur13, folk, etc) don't hang out in gun free zones most often (sometimes parks, so sometimes they do but typically it's "the block" and US streets and apartment complexes are not gun free zones.)
So it really depends on if you want to include drug dealers and gang members. It's already illegal to have a gun on you while selling or murdering someone for their drugs though (and how to fix that is an end to prohibition not more prohibition. They're drug dealers obviously they have connections to get illegal shit). It's not necessarily illegal to be in a gang though I don't think, I'm not sure we can criminalize that here but I could be wrong, but usually most people in gangs have felonies that preclude them from legal firearms ownership if they're of age to, usually resulting from said gang activity.
This is an excellent reason to strengthen gun laws and make some examples out of the people who decide to violate the law.
You just doing occular patdowns of your fellow Aldi patrons on the regular, or...? How tf you plan to catch em without security at every door ever patting down every customer ever? If you're in the US you likely have at least one conversation with someone concealed carrying a week and you'll never even know it.
Show me where this has ever happened (life in prison for having a gun stolen from you)
In the hypothetical "we should charge people with having their gun stolen if it is used in a murder" I'm saying we should actually totally "not do." That's where. We don't currently, people say "we should..." I say "we should not..." this is called a conversation, welcome to it.
It never fails that the pro-gun argument is always just loaded with dishonest hyperbole.
That's what we're calling "you can't read" now?
Edit: OH maybe you can read but you're not familiar with how US laws work, just thought of that. Did you read the story the other day going around lemmy that talked about a guy who is charged with murder for a car crash but he was miles away in handcuffs when the crash occurred? What had happened was guy A and guy B were car hopping -- checking door handles and stealing from unlocked cars -- the police roll up and light them, guy A puts his hands up, guy B runs in their car, gets chased by the police, blows a red light (or stop sign but that is inconsequential to the outcome) and kills guy C. Guy A and guy B are both charged with the murder of guy C because they were acting in concert according to the court system. This is definitely a systemic issue that affects minorities, particularly black people, disproportionately, but I have no doubts that this same system would be applied to charging someone for being stolen from, if what was stolen is used in a murder. Currently we don't usually charge victims of theft anyway, so it isn't a current issue as far as having your gun stolen is concerned (but don't hang out with sketchy people because if you thought y'all were just about to smoke a blunt but dude robs the minimart, you're robbing the minimart too without even knowing), but I don't think we should make it an issue.
You seem delusional and scared.
It isn't delusional, it's state law.
Agreed, folks who have an actual permit to carry should not be barred from normal businesses. Courthouses, government buildings, I totally get that. But leaving a gun in a grocery store parking lot is inherently more dangerous than a permitted person keeping it under their personal control.
Have you considered trying penile extension surgery instead?
Never considered it tbh, I always get called back (or calls answered) so I seem to be doing something right.
Have you considered that body shaming is a bad thing to do?
And I'm supposed to be the asshole here? Sure.
Ah, so the gun was purchased legally by one of those trustworthy, responsible members of the well-regulated militia. Nothing to see here, then.
"Well regulated militia" didn't mean the same thing back then.
Well regulated = well armed and equipped.
Militia = general public who could be called up at a moments notice for public defense.
See:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
So:
"A well armed and equipped public, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Your comment has been reported, but as you had links and appeared to be arguing in good-faith, I decided to leave it. With that said, I completely disagree with your words.
Review Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Militia was what we now call "National Guard". Speaking from experience, as a former guardsman as well as vet in 2 other branches. Back when I went to basic, this was well discussed as a given. I'm surprised people think otherwise to this day.
Unfortunately, it's the Supreme Court who defines such things and, as cited in D.C. vs. Miller above, they very clearly set the definition as noted.
Since that ruling, they have further clarified it in McDonald vs. City of Chicago (necessary because Heller involved Washington D.C., which isn't a state).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
Generally when I point out these inconvenient facts the response is "well, who cares what the Supreme Court says! Get the court to reverse it!"
Which, sure, can be done, we saw that with Roe vs. Wade, all it took was 50 years and the appointment of one conservative judge after another.
In theory we could flip the court, Thomas and Alito are the two oldest members of the court and highly conservative, so electing a Democratic President in '24 and again in '28 would virtually assure flipping the court.
Then the problem becomes keeping it, because the next three oldest are Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.
I wasn't arguing with you about what they say NOW. I was pointing you to what they literally said THEN.
You said "a well regulated militia didn't mean the same thing back then"
I merely pointed you to the founders own words to show you that you were wrong.
It wasn't an amendment. It was baked into the first article.
You pointing out the RECENT supreme court ruling was a bad faith argument against my rebuttal.
Yes, I'm pointing out that the Supreme Court now has defined what the founders meant then. :) They are the arbiters of what the founders meant after all.
There's a TON of history they go through in Heller, and McDonald and the recent ruling from New York, Bruen.
All worth reading if you have the time.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
Bruen is the one with most of their historical reasoning because it's the one that requires a historical precedent for gun laws, which is a new twist.
They aren't arbiters of what the founders meant. They're arbiters of how we currently interpret the constitution. Originalism is only one possible way to interpret it.
That's LITERALLY their job.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
Like I said, they're arbiters of how we currently interpret the constitution. Originalism is only one possible way to interpret it. There are philosophies like strict textualism where they only look at the plain text and bring no extra context. Or the living constitution philosophy where they apply current day context.
The Heller decision went against 200+ years of precedent.
And it was upheld 2 years later in McDonald vs. City of Chicago:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
I'm not asking anyone to LIKE the rulings, I just want people to understand what they're talking about.
Unfortunately if you take people point by point through Heller, McDonald, Caetano (my personal favorite), and Bruen, their eyes glaze over and they never read it.
The founders were alcoholic slave owners, who fucking cares what they mean lol
We all need to care what they meant so long as we continue living under their system and that's not changing any time soon.
And under this system they can make up anything they want! That's what you need to understand - there are no rules. They can make up anything.
The Supreme Court can and will do that, which is why it's important to be cognizant of who is on the court and who potentially will age out next.
Just based on age, Thomas and Alito will be next to go, which is why it's important to have a Democratic President in '24 and '28. They will both likely be replaced by '32.
The next three are Roberts, who is slightly more sane than the others on the right, Sotomayor and Kagan.
So reversing the conservative trend is contingent on Democrats holding the office of the President probably until '40? Then hoping there isn't a McConnell style dickbag move that blocked Merrick Garland.
If Trump is elected, you can expect Thomas and Alito to step down so younger conservative justices can dominate the court for the next 30-40 years.
Trump will file a lawsuit if he loses and the Court is going to rule in favor of him 5/4 anyway. 🙄
Even if that doesn't happen, the conservative "trend" is baked into the institution. It was designed to be conservative, to act as a check against democratic forces. It literally can't be anything but conservative. At best we can keep the Court from becoming more fascist, but that's it. We can only play triage with the Court - for the country to heal it must be abolished.
It can be, we just need more Democratic presidents nominating justices.
In my lifetime there have been 8 Republican Presidential terms to 6 Democratic terms, which doesn't sound SUPER imbalanced.
But in that same time, Republican Presidents nominated 15 justices to the court and Democrats only 5. Should have been 14:6 if the Garland seat hadn't been stolen. 13:7 if Ginsburg had stepped down when she had the chance.
In my lifetime half the presidents lost the popular vote and then went on to appoint Justices, so you might understand why I have zero faith in this institution.
Wrong. You're making shit up.
Oh man, I think I saw a fish swim by. It was definitely not blue or yellow, either!
you know those minors, always committing major felonies no matter whatcha try to do.
FTA:
"Both teens have prior arrests for car burglaries."
So, yeah, apparently so... probably where they got the guns.
Guess what, if those kids were breaking into cars in London, there's 0 chance they would've acquired guns that way (not to mention, it's irresponsible to store a gun in a car to begin with).
England doesn't have a 2nd Amendment, but yeah, kids killing kids seems pretty universal:
US per capita homicide rate is 6.4. UK is 1.2
HMMM.
Those stats don’t show kids killing kids. It does show about 50% of perpetrators were aged 16-24 though.
Also UK has a homicide rate of 11 per 100,000. The US rate is 63 per 100,000.
What if I told you it's much easier to use and illegal gun when they are readily available?
Only country where this happens regularly to not have figured anything out. Stop embarrassing yourself and just post thoughts and prayers
USA is not the only country with civilian gun ownership and carry being legal.
So with such crime stats it should be your first thought that the problem is narrower (EDIT: and more USA-specific) than people having guns.
Unless you've already made up your mind and now just want to somehow nail facts to it.
I didn't make any argument about legal gun ownership. Guns are legal in my country and this doesn't happen.
Read into arguments much? You had already set your mind on what I was saying before you read it
What if I told you it’s much easier to use and illegal gun when they are readily available?
Seemed to mean that you tie availability of legal guns with availability of illegal guns, which is not wrong, but in a working system it is insignificant.
That Jordan Lund is too stupid to insult
The solution is to examine how these guns got out of the legal system and into the illegal system.
The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere so you can take that pipedream off the table barring 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate, and ratification from 38 states.
So what CAN we do?
Well...
#1) Hold gun owners accountable for storing a gun in something like a car that can be easily be broken into or stolen.
#2) When kids are arrested for something like burglary, you search their homes for weapons.
So to start with: universal registration and ID/licensing for gun ownership, and strict liability on registered owners for crimes committed by their guns.
I'm in, sounds great.
2nd Amendment. Can't be done. "Shall not be infringed."
Add to that the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
"the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."
This is a new twist from the Supremes. Gun laws must prove that they are in keeping with "historical tradition". So, banning felons from owning guns is allowed, there's an historical tradition for that.
So if there's no historical basis, it won't pass muster at the Supremes.
Youre saying something called an amendment can't be changed?
You might need a thesaurus buddy.
Sure, it can be changed... here's the process:
First you get 290 votes in the House, the body that needed 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader was.
THEN you need 67 votes in the Senate, the body that can't muster 60 votes to over-ride filibuster after filibuster.
If by some miracle, you get those votes, then you need ratification by 38 states, from a country that broke 25 states for Biden and 25 states for Trump in the last election.
Here's the map, find 13 red states that will vote to give up their guns. Keep in mind, of the 25 Biden states, only 19 of them have Democratic statehouses, so you'll likely lose six of them as well and for every blue state you lose, you need 1 more red state.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/2020-actual-electoral-map
So, yes, given the current state of American politics, the Amendment will never change. Same as if, say, you wanted an Amendment protecting abortion, or establishing the size and term limits of the Supreme Court.
Oh so we went from "cannot be infringed" to "supreme court rulings" to "the politics wouldn't work out".
Keep skating buddy youre almost gone full circle
The status quo is "cannot be infringed".
The Supreme Court rulings have codified it.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
Changing "cannot be infringed" is not politically possible.
All three of those are true statements.
You're playing pigeon chess. Dude is mentally handicapped.
You're playing pigeon chess. Dude is mentally handicapped.
Meh, the modern interpretation came from corrupt justices legislating from the bench, building completely ahistoric interpretations to suit modern sensibilities. This whole absolute 2A thing is entirely modern with no sincere history backing it up. The solution is court reform which is needed for a host of other reasons anyway.
But also, just to point out, YOU are arguing against YOUR OWN solutions. Which is absolute proof of how intractable the situation is right now. And the situation has become intractable because of people like you.
You're the problem.
You think you can just say "2a" and that shuts every argument down, it's so cringe
When the argument is the overly simplistic "well, just ban guns" the counter argument doesn't need to be more nuanced than that. We can't ban guns, full stop. The sooner we abandon that dead end logic, the sooner we can start working on what we CAN change.
For example, remember the guy who shot up Michigan State? Had a prior felony arrest on a gun charge, but was allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, passed a background check, bought a gun and shot up the school.
How is this for a fundamental change:
If someone gets arrested on felony GUN CHARGE, you stick them with the felony. No plea deals on gun charges.
Felons, legally, can't buy guns.
Or, how about this, you let him plea down to the misdemeanor charge, but you make it so ANY gun conviction, felony or misdemeanor, blocks you from gun ownership.
Crazy, right? But those are the conversations we AREN'T having because people get hung up on "ban guns" and that will NEVER happen.
If the US had gun laws similar to the rest of the world then the chances of children getting hold of them would be far lower.
True, but that's not going to happen as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place and there are close to 1/2 a billion guns in the country.
Yeah, if only there weren't so many millions of guns in this country that literally any pubescent dumbshit and his brother can get one illegally without any effort! But yeah no the system is flawless and the problem unfixable cool yeah I agree.
I've seen estimates of 475 million+ guns in a country of 330 million+ people, so, yeah. Tons of guns and not enough people taking securing them seriously.
These kids being car burglars makes perfect sense too... here's a stat from my city:
https://katu.com/news/local/car-gun-thefts-increase-portland-police-say
"Kapp said nearly half of stolen gun reports from that last 15 months were firearms stolen from personal vehicles.
"That’s 47% of guns are stolen because they were stored in a vehicle; either the vehicle was broken into or the vehicle is stolen with a gun inside. That is a huge number," said Kapp.
Kapp said gun owners should also have documentation, like serial numbers, in secure, safe spaces."
You would think by now that people would know "Don't leave ANYTHING of value in your car!" but apparently not!
EXACTLY RIGHT! That's why need to outlaw Abortion, have speed limits, make fraud illegal, make murder and illegal and keep all other laws in place! Because laws DON'T WORK!
Not owned, but easy and unhindered access to one. That is the problem : Way too many guns for way too little brains.
Agreed, and based on their rap sheets for car burglaries, a likely source of the guns.
Which goes back to the two points I made in other posts:
-
Any dumbass who keeps a gun unsecured in their car needs to be held accountable.
-
When these kids were busted for burglaries, their homes needed to be searched for any and all stolen goods ESPECIALLY stolen guns.
I don’t recall the forefathers mentioning the age for gun ownership. Toddlers need to protect themselves against perverted republicans. #babyArms
It wasn't the founders, it was the Gun Control Act of 1968 that blocked anyone under the age of 18 from owning a long gun and anyone under the age of 21 from owning a pistol.
Ignore the mob. They know nothing but insults. It's a damn echo chamber in here.
Fuck the United States. Only place in the world this fucking shit happens regularly , because a bunch of small dick Republicans won't give up their guns.
Republicans were so lucky to find the gun issue
They don't give a shit about guns. But at long as they can keep their voters riled up about it, they won't have the time to think about real issues like why they're so poor, why they will go bankrupt if they get really sick, etc etc etc.
Guns is like religion, it's just another method of control where the target doesn't even know they're being controlled
There was a time when the NRA fought for a two-day waiting period on handgun sales and limits on concealed weapons permits. And a time when then–California Governor Ronald Reagan signed legislation forbidding the carrying of loaded firearms in public. Before gun control became a progressive cause, it was a right-wing staple, and it was aimed squarely at the rights of African-Americans nationwide.
In Florida, white "citizens patrols" were permitted to search the homes of free African-Americans for guns "and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away such arms, weapons, and ammunition." The message was clear: guns — like the ballot box, marriage, and the right to free assembly — were for white Americans only.
That conflict — between the fears of racist whites and the needs of African-Americans to defend themselves — arose again in the late 1960s. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement recognized that the need for self-defense still existed — in fact, Martin Luther King Jr. applied for (and was denied) a concealed carry permit. Recounting his memories of "Freedom Summer" and the Civil Rights Movement, Charles E. Cobb Jr., former field secretary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, said, "I know from personal experience and the experiences of others, that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe, and all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings and they're gonna respond to terrorism the way anybody else would."
On May 2, 1967, a group of Black Panthers took to the steps of the California Legislature carrying revolvers, shotguns, and pistols and read a statement saying, "The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late." In a direct response to the incident, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, banning the open carry of loaded weapons, barely two months later. Guns were "a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will," he said.
As former NRA president Harlon Carter said in 1975, the use of guns by violent criminals or the mentally ill was simply the "price we pay for freedom." In 1980, the NRA endorsed Ronald Reagan — 13 years after Reagan had signed the first open-carry ban in the country.
White people may be more likely to carry a gun, but black people are more likely to be jailed for it.
Exactly. And they keep sowing this myth that the guns will be taken away at any point in time, but "you should keep them in case we become tyrannical!" And the definition of what is and isn't tyranny is always subject to change, but usually if it's tyranny against people the base doesn't like, then it's not tyranny.
Yeah the same people are turning around and fully supporting a presidential candidate who is openly saying he will be a dictator when elected.
Just an unbelievable level of stupid.
They want someone who is going to be a dictator to the people they don't like. Ask the SA how they were rewarded for their service to the Fuhrer. Oh, you can't, because they died. Their reward was arrest and summary execution once their usefulness had ended.
They care about the bribes from gun manufacturers.
Find? More like manufacture.
You need to be upvoted to the skies
Republicans were so lucky to find the gun issue
The best part is that Dems could take it away from them at any time by just deciding not to fight them on that one with little lost in the process.
Well Technically... Of the 150 plus democracies on the planet only three have a constitutional right to firearms. The USA, Mexico and Guatemala... Of those Mexico actually has actually fairly heavy restrictions on what firearms are covered by the Constitution and which are restricted to police and military use.
So realistically this sort of thing happens in the US and Guatemala... If it is any consolation the US is flagging way behind Guatemala in gun related deaths when you adjust for population?
Careful there, lemmy has a bunch of gun nut weirdos
It’s actually more like 40%-50% of the country though.
Dude I lean center left...it's not just Republicans that care about gun rights you dumbass. LOT of gun owners also are democrats. Stop trying to one side an issue. Thenissue isn't guns it's literally the owners and yea I'll be damned if I give up my firearms cause you want me to. My guns stay locked up in my safe at all times. My kids know they aren't toys and can seriously hurt someone. I keep the keys to that safe with me.
Secondly taking away legal and lawful gun owners guns will NOT stop people who don't follow the law from obtaining guns and doing bad shit with them. Grow the fuck up.
I bet it's also Republicans fault that BOTH these kids have been arrested for car burglary too?
If it wasn't a gun, I guarantee it would have turned violent with any other weapon. Would you be this riled up if you read the same story but it was about a stabbing?
The people in this story are the problem, not the weapon used
Jesus.
The 14 year old brother shot his 23 year old sister.
Then the 15 year old brother shot the 14 year old brother, and disposed of the handgun.
The 23 year old sister is dead. The 14 year old brother is stable.
The 14 year old is being charged with first degree murder. The 15 year old is being charged with attempted first degree murder.
The sister had a child, which was not harmed.
Everything about this is messed up and tragic
...and preventable. Emotional teenagers should not have access to firearms!
Emotional teenagers should not have access to firearms!
Emotional humans should not have access to firearms, except under exceptional circumstances.
The US military knows this and it's why most people on military bases are not allowed to walk around armed, though they all have access to weapons when necessary.
Well legally they don't have access to firearms. They also shouldn't have access to Heroin, and legally they don't, but it killed 3 of my friends before we even graduated, so in practice...
They also shouldn’t be out stealing cars.
Guns shouldn't be in cars if they're not at least locked somehow
And if your gun is stolen from your car, civil liability should remain attached to you in perpetuity. Teach you to lose your fucking gun.
As a gun owner, yea I fucking agree. Get a co cenceal carry and carry that shit in and out of the car. Di not leave and and do not leave it visible. Responsible gun owners don't have any of these issues. But look at the area the kids were in and the illegal shit they were already doing, that shit is being overlook by almost everyone here just cause a gun was involved. Ffs.
honestly if your gun is stolen you should be charged with anything that happens with it too. thats actually genius no sarcasm. and an extra charge that it was able to be stolen in the first place.
Stuff getting stolen is a fact of life no matter how secure. Maybe in cases of negligence, but if it's locked up then someone breaking the lock shouldn't mean you're considered a party to the crime they use it for
if you dont want that risk then you shouldn't own the gun. simple as
if shootings keep happening everywhere everyday and they're all from illegal or stolen guns there's clearly an issue with legal gun owners too. get rid of all of them.
some school in not US had a shooting of like 10 people and that was national travesty due to there never being anything like it before. in the US? that shooting is a goddamn wednesday afternoon.
youre an embarrassment if you support guns.
This whole thing is tragic and beyond dumb.
It would be tragic if this didn't feel like reading a weather report.
It's also tragic because it feels like reading a weather report
The 23 year old sister had 2 children, one of which was already 6 years old, if my reading skills aren't failing me.
he's going to kill his uncle when he's like 12
This reads like a shitty math problem.
Jamal, 14M, shoots his 23 year old sister, Abriele, dead. Abriele had a 6 year old son How many years will it take for the 6 year old to be old enough to kill his Uncle in cold blood on Christmas? And what age will Jamal be?
The sister had a child, which was not harmed.
Arguable
Apparently the sister died from drowning on her OWN blood.
Anyway, merry jolly Christmas everyone!
What a wonderful family, with a lot of stable geniuses!
The sister had a child, which was not harmed.
I thought you said "armed", and if only... if that kid had been packing he could have been the good guy with a gun who would have mowed down all the bad guys and saved the day.
That family reunion is going to awkward AF next year.
More guns in the hands of the other children would have kept this travesty from occurring. #hopesandprayers
'Murica!
If the 11-month old was armed, all this could have been stopped!
The bullet traveled through her left arm and into her chest, popping both of her lungs. She suffered internal bleeding and was unable to breathe
That's the nice way of saying she drowned in her own blood.
"These young kids — 14, 15 years old — routinely carry firearms and this is what happens when you got young delinquents that carry guns," Gualtieri said. "They get upset, they don't know how to handle stuff, and they end up shooting each other."
Just FYI, this is not limited to children. There's plenty of adults who have zero idea on how to handle stress without flashing a piece. I've seen about six different people use that as a method of indicating I'm getting over in your lane on my way into work pre-pandemic.
I’m pretty gullible and I believe a lot of stuff. So I’m asking this sincerely.
Are you saying that in America people are tapping their widow with a Glock and giving you the stink eye to get into your lane? Like, instead of indicating and then waiting for a safe gap?
America is pretty big, and that isn't something that happens where I live (Seattle)
But there are parts of this country where a surprisingly large percentage of people are completely fucking insane and peacock with weapons in reckless ways. It also isn't unusual for children to have guns, even if it isn't legal.
There's a high school in rural Colorado that has given up on doing anything about guns in their high school because something like 30% of students are armed on any given day.
I grew up in Tennessee, and students were allowed to store guns in their cars parked in the high school parking lot.
I have met many people who open-carry and then openly emphasize it to others because they want to be intimidating. It's a part of their identity, and they will let you know in inappropriate ways.
This country is weird. I'm happy to live in a less violent part of it.
Reno 911! did a bit on this topic. Metal detector at school, manned by the sherriffs. They'd let you surrender your piece and keep it until you left. They had a valet wall behind them and like, claim tags and shit.
I apologize for the tiktok link: https://www.tiktok.com/@reno911tvfan/video/7216351539382979886
Bro...what??? CHAZ was literally in Seattle...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
Tn has two areas that have a serious gang problem. From those two areas comes like 85% of its crime. Everyone carries there and it's not the wild West like you're trying to make it out to be.
Found the Fox News watcher.
Protip: The CHOP/CHAZ was a 3-week protest that closed a single neighborhood intersection, and ended over 3 years ago. The only people who think that it is an example of how dangerous Seattle is are people who watch right-wing news and have never set foot in Seattle...
Fox News literally reported on it as if it were another country. They referred to it as if it as the "US/CHAZ border", and overreported about it like it was the story of the century. Spoiler: they just hate progressive cities like Seattle, and were willing to say anything that would arouse their boomer viewership.
It was basically an unauthorized block party created to stimulate an extended 2020 BLM protest.
Yes, there was some violence, but at such a small scale it had zero effect on the city's already low violent crime rate.
But keep going about how racial justice protests make you feel unsafe...
Lol people died but naaaa it's cool it was just a small problem.
https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2023/11/08/washington-crime-rate-up-statistics-chart
It might have been a low crime city 30 years ago but it's not anymore.
Also hilariously funny how you instantly think I'm a right wing repub. Keep thinking that while you argue with someone who is pro-choice, wants single payer, wants the war on drugs to end and qualified immunity repealed and also marched with the protestors during the BLM movement....but sure...keep putting your head in the sand.
One person and that’s because the paramedics refused to enter and save the person.
If you find it frustrating that people think you're a right winger, consider not talking like one.
Yes because right wingers want all the stuff I've just stated...have you wondered why the Republican party still exists? It's not because the Dems are fantastic... it's because they won't leave the damn guns alone. You tear that one last thing from the repubs and it's a dem win for decades.
The George Floyd protests were outliers and the bigger picture shows that Tennessee is one of the most violent states in the country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate.
Even if you look at homicides per county, violence in TN is pretty widespread: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Granted, Washington state's homicides look fairly evenly distributed there but the worst areas are outside of Seattle. Also, based on your description of TN I'd expect it to look like Illinois where most homicides occurs in specific areas of Chicago
Memphis and Nashville... that's where the gangs are and where the majority of the violence is. This isn't an unknown thing. Both counties that hold those cities are have a high murder rate. This goes for basically all large cities, it shouldn't be a surprise.
Funny how Seattle is dangerous because of BLM, and Tennessee is dangerous because of Memphis (majority Black city), and "gangs".
I definitely see a pattern with what you consider dangerous...
O nooo the white privileged white guy is pointing out that only black people are in gangs...the fuck is wrong with you? Can't refute points....run to the defense of calling someone a racist. Get a grip child.
Lol fucking clown. Never even been to a city have you
Naa never been at all, I'm just some backwoods hick liberal....
https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2023/11/08/washington-crime-rate-up-statistics-chart
Clown...
Wow, Seattle's crime rate grew by 15% between 2019 and 2023? Wow, that's crazy. As we all know, absolutely nothing significant has happened in the past 4 years, and the crime rate nationwide remained static. /s
Are you going to tell me it's because of covid? Or do you want to actually understand that more people have moved their and now you have more crime? It's average for the rest of the USA...
The fact that you go ad hominem with every comment indicates that you are conservative and completely out of touch.
You clearly don't know what a conservative is then.
I literally lived in the CHOP. My apartment was where it was founded. Just stop, other than the police abusing people and paramedics allowing people to die, nothing at all happened.
I've never seen someone flash a gun in my almost 30 years in the US.
I live in Texas and see people strapped pretty often, but they usually aren't like waving it around or anything.
That does seem to be what he is lying about, yes.
I wouldn't be so sure. I saw someone pull a gun at a fast-food drivethrough because there was a disagreement about whether the dude ordered french fries. And you're literally responding to an article about a kid killing his sister with a gun over presents. What makes it so unbelievable to you?
I'm not doubting guns have been used in road rage incidents before, I'm doubting he's seen it 6 times since the pandemic.
And I'm doubting the effectiveness over a blinker because tbh I'm not making eye contact with other drivers at 75mph, I'm a little busy, so I won't even see the gun like I would "the flashing light called a turn signal."
They said pre pandemic not post
Fair, I assumed he meant since then, but it looks like he hasn't seen anyone do that since the pandemic maybe? Are we just referring to all of recorded history before 2019 as "pre-pandemic" now?
In any case I don't believe this dude has seen it happen six times in his life or any of his past lives, flat out.
🙄
:€
He wasn't saying it was effective. And typically on freeways and interstates, the speed differential between cars, which are also all moving in the same direction, makes it much easier to make eye contact and see individuals in their cars.
The lack of a large speed differential is also one of the reasons assisted driving systems are most effective on interstates, freeways, and highways.
He wasn't saying it was effective.
He indicated their success by neglecting to use the word "try."
And typically on freeways and interstates, the speed differential between cars, which are also all moving in the same direction, makes it much easier to make eye contact and see individuals in their cars.
Keep your eyes on the road man, you're going to get in an accident.
The lack of a large speed differential is also one of the reasons assisted driving systems are most effective on interstates, freeways, and highways.
Do they brake for armed motorists?
I sense you get this a lot in your life, but: 🙄
He who smelt it dealt it.
👍
( . )( . )
I think it is generally unlikely but am also sure that there are places where this is part of the culture.
In Florida you’re allowed to use lethal force if you justifiably believe that your safety is threatened. When lockdown first started, there was a video of a dude having a meltdown at a Costco because he had to wear a mask. The person at the door was a woman of 65-70 and the man child pumped up his chest and yelled “I feel threatened” at her, which I learned in Florida for threatening to murder someone over an inconvenience.
Good God what city do you live in?
Jesus. Where the fuck do you live that people do that?
15-year-old brother and sister's children
This sentence is a great argument for the Oxford comma.
The sentence is a great argument for editorial oversight. How'd a copy editor let that go to print???
Copy editor got laid off
*ChatGPT please copy edit this for me"
This whole article was confusing for me.
There are 2 brothers and 1 sister, who has her own child.
14 year old brother shoots 23 year old sister.
15 year old brother shoots 14 year old brother in retaliation.
Writing isn't difficult, but most journalists suck donkey shit at what they do.
This isn't a series. Oxford commas are for a series.
I got a little lazy with the copy/paste. The first item of the series isn't in the quote.
Go into any of the relationship subreddits today and for the next few days and you will see countless Americans melting down into various degrees of rage and bitterness over Xmas presents.
It’s like this very goddamn year.
Can anyone explain this part of the culture to me?
I’m not saying I hate all Americans or anything ridiculous like that, the cast majority of Americans I’ve met are good hearted people but when it comes to Xmas and in what I’m given understand is the modern vernacular: “y’all cray.”
Don’t any of your families still watch the Charlie Brown Christmas? Because you really should.
Go toxic places to read toxic things. I've never heard of this. But also I can't imagine going to a relationship board and expecting to come away with anything but misanthropy regardless of time of year.
Materialism is really big with a lot of people. My in-laws kids are spoiled rotten and only accept big brand name stuff because that's all their parents give them for Christmas and Birthdays. Same people who can't afford to pay their mortgage and are likely to lose the house in a few months.
I like present-less holidays. Better to focus on just being with people I find. Also helps if there's a lot of good, homemade food.
I like present-less holidays. Better to focus on just being with people I find.
presence > presents
For me it’s all about consumables and experience. You like sauerkraut? I just made you a jar. You like classical music? Here are two tickets to the symphony. I just avoid stuff unless it’s like plates for someone who moved into their first apartment.
Americans live in a state of constant stress that is satiated by material possessions and trying to impress or be better than others. These kids were just trying to get their dose of imbalanced brain chemicals
There are 335 million people in the United States.
One asshat shot someone.
I'm not defending guns, shitty culture, or shitty people, but this is clearly a case where this kid has some sort of mental disorder. Literally hundreds of millions of families watched Charlie Brown and went the entire holiday without murdering each other
There were 89 shootings in the united states on Christmas day. Source with incident reports for each one.
89 is 0.00002670367% of 333,287,557.
Each one of the 89 shootings was one too many.
Any idea how many shootings were on Christmas day in Australia, Canada or Switzerland where a lot of people have guns too?
By the way, if you look at shootings in Australia before and after semi-automatic rifles got banned in 1996 you know how to improve the situation in the US.
Someone in Prague just killed 15 people with a bolt action firearm...
We have an issue with our society, not our firearms.
No, you have an issue with your society and with firearms.
Our firearms have been around for a lot longer than we have had these recent mass shootings issue...
Firearm technology (and perhaps accessibility?) has been increasing since the earliest firearms in the US. I wonder how guns per capita has been changing (if at all), too
Where did you see that it was a bolt action rifle? I couldn't find any real details on the weapons used. I'm looking for sensible gun policies to advocate for in the US and a mass shooting with a bolt action refutes my "limit the rate of fire" idea.
There is a video out there, and it shows him cycling the action. It was basically a dressed up hunting rifle he used.
If you're actually wanting to solve our violence problem, you go to the root of our societies issues, not the tool used. All of these things below would curb our violence as a whole 1000xs more than any new gun control can.
We can start with:
-
Single payer healthcare
-
Ending the War on Drugs
-
Ending Qualified immunity
-
Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.
-
Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren't 30-40 kids for one teacher.
-
UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.
-
End for profit prisons
-
Enforce the laws already on the books
-
Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don't turn to violence/gangs to survive.
-
Increase the minimum wage
-
Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don't turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.
-
Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.
-
Banning Insider Trading for Congress
-
Term limits
-
Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system
Does it not seem reasonable to take away guns while we solve our society issues ?
Lol uhh...ok...yes the videos online are just fake news right?
By the way, if you look at shootings in Australia before and after semi-automatic rifles got banned in 1996 you know how to improve the situation in the US.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you can also shoot people with bolt actions, lever actions; and SA, DA, and S/DA revolvers.
See, if it were 90 I could understand you being upset..., but it's just 89! are we really going to make a scene about 89 totally avoidable deaths ?? when we could just enjoy Christmas with the children we might lose tomorrow ?
(thanks for the source)
No it is not clearly a case where the kid has some sort of mental disorder. You know literally nothing about this person.
I would probably bet that this kid made a stupid split second choice in the heat of the moment about something that (partially likely due to raging teenage hormones) probably seemed very important at the time, and the guilt will haunt him until the end of his life (which, statistically speaking, just got much shorter on average).
This is exactly why guns are so dangerous. It gives people (in this case, a literal child without a fully developed brain) the capability to make a decision to end another life in a split second.
You really think any sane rational FOURTEEN year old would just shoot their sister solely because of a Christmas gift?
I'm not saying 14 year olds have adult mental capacity and decision making ... but by that age you KNOW what a gun goes and you KNOW you can't take it back.
Either there's more to the story or this kid definitely has some kind of mental disorder or mental distress that they needed to see a therapist about.
Maybe the more to the story is that he thought he could just scare her by pointing the gun at her or her thought it was empty ... and it wasn't/the gun went off. If that's the case, then the parents really screwed up having a gun in the house, not teaching the kid anything about gun safety, and allowing the kid across to the gun (granted again by 14 you're pretty smart ... the average 14 year old could probably figure out the code or were the keys are kept on a gun safe because I know most people do not follow best practices with any passwords or keys).
And before you make any assumptions like you did with the other person, I've voted for Democrats in every election, donated some significant money to their campaigns, and I do not own a gun and do not have any restrictions that prevent me from owning a gun, I've just decided that for me ... particularly with living alone and a (granted not recent) history of depression that included suicidal thoughts ... they're not a good thing to have around. I avoid alcohol for similar reasons.
Thoughts and prayers might be a meaningless response but a huge block of the population has said "we're not giving up our guns" ... come to think of it ... just like a huge block of the population has said "we're not giving up our alcohol" (as is their right at the polls).
There is a majority that would like to see some common sense gun reform and we should do that. However, I believe the right has a point about mental health and guns. What they don't have is the willingness to fund mental health systems and instead they blame all the mental health issues on a degraded culture (🙄). We need to bring mental health back into the conversation with information from professionals. They also have a point about teaching kids about gun safety, if we're going to keep guns, then it's a public disservice to not teach kids (or at least the kids of gun owners) "this is what a gun is, don't point it at anything you don't want to kill" and "there's a difference between pretend and reality, these are never for pretend" as a baseline.
Yes. Countless stories of children murdering their parents over this stuff. It’s very common. Remember that the country is big with lots of people so you’re going to see these things from time to time-it’s statistically likely to happen.
What are you arguing here? That it happens and it's not mental illness because there are so many people that it's bound to happen?
No. That with that many people, there are enough whackos that this sort of thing will constantly be in the news even though when compared to the population size the events are still extraordinarily rare.
Murdering another human is a sign of mental disorder. Especially if it's in a case like this. I don't think it's possible to argue "this human is acting rationally, losing control of yourself to the point where you literally murder someone is, indeed, a sign of mental stability."
Also, access to guns isn't the reason people murder each other.
In Christmas Day a 36 year old stabbed 2 children, 2 girls aged 14 and 16, for no other reason than seemingly, they weren't white. A fucking racist asshole decided to attempt to murder kids. Is this person not suffering from a mental disorder? Should we stop people from owning knives too?
Again, I have never said this was about gun ownership. People who think violent crime stops if guns are gone are delusional. It's such a rhetorical trap. I bet conservative leadership in the United States love when liberals make this an issue, it's one of huge issues that motivates their base.
This is now, and always will be, a public health issue. You want less people to be victims of violent crime? Give us universal healthcare that also covers mental illness. Make it free, make education high quality, and free too. Crime will go down, violence will go down.
The political discourse about guns disguises that entire debate. And it's stupid that people fall for it.
The political discourse about guns disguises that entire debate. And it's stupid that people fall for it.
Only stupid people say dumb shit like "guns aren't the problem, the ONLY problem is mental health". People can expect reform in two separate yet connected topics. One can absolutely impact the other.
Yeah, a crazy fucker stabbed a couple girls. He had a knife. I WISH that the crazy fucker who shot up entire classrooms at Uvalde or Sandy Hook had only had a knife.
Provide better mental health AND tighter gun control policies.
I have never said anything about gun control, for it or against it.
This is a mental health issue. Happy, well adjusted people don't murder other people.
It's interesting you mention Sandy Hook. Did you know on the same day in China a mentally ill person ran through a Chinese school and stabbed 22 kids in the fucking head?
Stabbings in Chinese schools are a huge issue. The person killed 8 of the kids by stabbing them in the head.
But sure, keep focusing on guns. Let's put all of our effort into that. That's clearly more important than free, publicly funded mental healthcare.
I have never said anything about gun control, for it or against it.
You're apparently saying that we shouldn't be focusing on guns because mental health is more important...
But sure, keep focusing on guns. Let's put all of our effort into that. That's clearly more important than free, publicly funded mental healthcare.
We can surely do both at the same time, don't you think?
I really don't.
The whole topic, in the current political environment, is so polarizing and so toxic, I think it torpedoes any progress that could be made in reducing gun violence.
I believe gun violence will go down if people have better mental healthcare, better access to housing, and better job prospects. My personal belief is people who commit violence against others are doing so because of mental disease. If you reduce their stress, make their future prospects better, and tell them they have a future, their prospects, and mental health, will improve.
America is more polarized now than it ever has been. A conservative and a liberal will never agree on gun control. They just won't. But I do think a liberal and a conservative can agree that violence is a problem, and that conservatives would be willing to consider solutions to it that aren't simply making firearms illegal.
It obviously wouldn't reduce gun violence to 0 like a ban would, but focusing on it as a mental health issue, and addressing that, would reduce other forms of violent crime too. Less muggings, stabbing, rapes, etc. I believe, taken as a whole, there would be less crime and drastically less violent crime, doing that, than any kind of firearm ban could achieve.
Edit: the downvotes prove my point. American politics right now care more about winning whatever hot button issue someone has, rather than cooperating to make meaningful change.
How about everyone reading this does a mental exercise. Let's say liberals decided not to care about gun control, and that issue wasn't relevant in American politics for the last 20 years. Do you think the current supreme court would look the way it does? Do you think organizations like the NRA would have anywhere near the funding and power they have now? How many single issue conservative voters did simply not show up to vote if there was 0 chance a liberal majority would "take their guns"
How convenient for you: a kid shoots and kills another kid, and just by default, you can make all sorts of assumptions about their mental health, and use it as a scapegoat, before the topic of firearms can even be brought up.
Please save us all the time and energy and don't pretend like you actually give a single shit about funding mental health care. A thing conservatives have also gone out of their way to de-fund.
Interesting you'd label a guy advocating for universal healthcare and increased education spending a conservative.
You're not even listening to my arguments.
If it was the only shooting that day, it would have been a peaceful one for a change. Hint: It wasn't.
Like I said, I'm not defending guns.
What I hate is people who attack where I live, with sweeping generalizations about how shitty a place it is. It isn't. The United States is entirely neutral. There are good things about it and bad things about it. Every country has their issues, and reducing violent crimes to such a simplistic focus as "lol, guns bad, USA sucks" is catastrophically stupid.
One of the main ways I judge people is if they punch down. A good example of this is Trump's feud with Greta Thunberg. At the time he was president of the United States. And she was a 16 year old autistic girl. Think about that. For a time the president of the United States, a person with literal tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, decided that a 16 year old, foreign, autistic girl needed the focus of his ire. That's punching down. And it's classless.
So if you think the United States is shit, that's fine. But if you live in a place that you think is so much better than it, you can say that in a way that's constructive. There's no need to attack somebody or some thing you think you're better than
The United States is entirely neutral.
No. Definitely not. When it comes to violent crimes, with guns or otherwise, the US is anything but "neutral". It is a sore point sticking out of all western countries.
There’s no need to attack somebody or some thing you think you’re better than
Well, it is a fact that shootings are an everyday occurrence in the US. Heck, even mass shootings (plural!) are a normal, everyday occurrence in the US, to the point that mass shootings with less than ten dead people rarely make the news anymore in the US. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating the facts. But yes, I think any place in the world where things like that are not normal, everyday events is inherently a better place. Try to change my mind on that.
Entirely too many people base their self worth on what other people think of them.
So "I didn't get enough shinies" = "nobody really loves me" = "I'm a worthless human being".
Alternately "I didn't get enough shinies for my kids" = "I'm a bad parent" = "I'm a worthless human being."
Then that gets reflected outwards, poorly. :(
Breaking that cycle of seeking approval from other people is one of the hardest things you can do. At our core, we all seek validation on some level or other.
Is it all about how terrible the gf/bf is for not magically getting the super perfectist thing ever?
It’s mostly people running a mental ledger then comparing the value of presents to how much they do in the relationship as a journal for the shortfall in gift value.
Often siblings resenting one another for perceived (or even sometimes objectively clear) favouritism.
The sibling thing I get.
Anyone who does the first one isn’t ready for relationships.
If only there was a good sibling with a gun to stop him...
That's it no more guns... For minors that is.
Three years ago I had to stop my 17 year-old adopted sister from hitting our elderly mother over $30 of missing Amazon crap on Christmas day, then I called the sheriff on she and her baby daddy. Five cars came to mediate the situation.
Needless to say, I don't go to family Christmases anymore.
Families suck.
Sorry to hear that. That's awful. If you have your own family in the future, that's your chance to make sure nothing like that happens in it. We learn from the mistakes we experience.
I honestly feel like we get better with each generation from experiences like this.
I've read too many history books to think that things get better with our species over time, and my time is too valuable to me to waste on kids, but that's just me.
I hope the choices you've made are fulfilling for you.
Oh I'm certain our generation is kinder to our kids than those that came before us. History shows us a lot of cruelty to each other over the years but it also shows us a huge improvement over time, particularly in the last 60 odd years.
But thanks I appreciate where you're coming from and for sure I'm a better dad than my dad was and for sure he was a better dad than his dad was.
Hopefully we're getting there. :)
I hope you have the opportunity to build a family (via biology or social bond) that better lives up.
I learned to be happy on my own, which is the best thing ever if you ask me.
I don't need other people to live a fulfilling life, and I hope I never feel like I need anyone but myself.
Lol, what? I'd beat the shit out of her if she tried to lay a hand on me mom.
She'd learn real fucking quick about what it really means to beat on someone weaker than you.
It's a nice thought but I'm pretty sure my beating the shit out of a 17 year-old girl wouldn't have reflected well on me in front of five sheriff's deputies.
Strict liability for whoever was the legal owner of the gun(s), I say.
Whoever let these children get their hands on the firearm is absolutely a murderer. Even if it someone who let their gun get stolen from their car. Definitely if it was a family member or friend.
Oh, I remember that event with an actor killing a camera operator with a prop gun (jokingly pointing it at her) or something.
The person responsible for props was a complete dumb baboon and guilty of murder, yes.
However, I was shocked by the fact that so many people think that pointing a real gun, even if it's a prop, at somebody without checking that it's not loaded is normal and thus that actor was innocent. They were defending that action as if they themselves would really have taken a gun and squeezed the trigger while pointing at someone without checking.
So maybe it's about responsibility and education, not ownership of guns.
Because, say, Moldova (off the top of my mind), hardly a rich country or even with a healthy society, has gun laws more liberal than in USA, and doesn't have school shootings and such events.
Switzerland and Austria have very liberal gun laws, again possibly more so than in USA, and don't have such a problem.
Can't speak for Moldova or Austria, but I would not call Switzerland's gun laws liberal.
They are VERY strict. Gun ownership rates are high, but there are tons of restrictions and licensing requirements on ownership and sale of guns there. The country is proof that having a strong regulatory structure does not necessarily prevent gun ownership and should absolutely be considered a model for where the US regulator environment should be moving (universal registration including 2nd hand sales, full license checks for all purchases including ammo, effective bans on large categories of weapons, mandatory training, and the like).
People who love "gun rights" always cite Switzerland without even doing the most basic Wikipedia-level research on it.
People who love “gun rights” always cite Switzerland without even doing the most basic Wikipedia-level research on it.
People winning arguments in their heads shouldn't come to real ones.
and Austria have very liberal gun laws, again possibly more so than in USA,
Austria has relatively relaxed gun laws for Europe. but it's still fairly strict compared to the USA.
Oh, OK, OK. I've literally had something in my memory and did only quick reading on laws in those 2 countries before writing that comment, and evaluated strictness on my own.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those places where you're required to take some kind of classes to be able to qualify to own a gun? Isn't it also pretty easy for anyone from the police to be able to take them from you within reason if they find you to be violating some laws?
Yeah. If "taking some kind of classes" is not obligatory in the US, then we have the main reason for all the accidental shootings and kids takings their parents' guns right here.
Depends on the state if it's required. Not required in Kansas, but required in Minnesota as an example
on the actor who never chose to own a gun, so they have no reason to educate themselves about gun safety.
He chose to take it, point it at a person and squeeze the trigger, so yes he had that reason and yes I can.
Jokingly, I should add, he wasn't instructed by anyone to take that gun and wave it around.
The only people not having a reason to educate themselves about gun safety are people who don't touch guns.
All responsibility lies with their employer (I guess that’s the producer and/or director), who made them handle a gun as part of their job and should have given them the required training,
Yeah, they probably managed to make only the prop guy responsible too, just like that actor. But I don't remember the details.
as well as the prop guy whose job it was to check the gun.
... and about that person I've already said what I wanted.
Even if it someone who let their gun get stolen from their car.
No.
America is hell.
A lot of third world countries are.
And Florida’s answer to this, along with so much of the country, is more guns. Absolute insanity
Well, those kids had already been born, so IDGAF. Vote Republican!
Unclear why second brother being charged with attempted murder but it is presumably because there was a delay between the two shootings.
A daily occurrence in Red States, unfortunately.
I mean, probably true, but misleading? You're definitely way more likely to get shot in pretty much any major US city, almost all of which are blue.
Not making any value judgement of one vs another. Just saying that this particular issue is pretty ubiquitous. Definitely not just a "red state" thing.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/16/america-gun-deaths-crime-south
It's actually both a huge and growing issue in red states specifically. Plus the guns people are using in crimes in states with more restrictive gun laws are coming from the states with less restrictive gun laws.
Basically, the more people who have guns, the more likely those people are to use those guns. Go figure.
Those figures are per capita however. So while there are more gun deaths in California, you are significantly more likely to be killed in New Mexico to gun violence.
Blue cities in red states...gangs in those cities ... shocking...
If you read it, you'll actually notice there's a specifically different flavor of gun violence in both urban and sub urban areas in states with more restrictive gun laws (generally but not always blue states) and states with less restrictive gun laws (generally but not always red states).
The casual gun violence in red states is also very high, road rage, bars, in addition to areas where the crime is already high, like areas with gang violence. The amount of people dying per capita is higher in red states.
When you add in the gang violence from blue cities....yes it is. Just like NYC carries all the violence of NY state, even thou NY state is pretty damn redneck.
You're not wrong, just maybe purposefully missing the point? Actually, the majority of gun violence is suicides, have to be careful looking at the data to separate violent crime and suicide. But yeah I would agree with you except almost every other City is experiencing drops in crime and gun violence rates, even New York! Places like Florida have 20% increases in violent crime year over year in their largest cities.
https://time.com/6294021/ron-desantis-crime-florida-data/
You see Orlando catching up with Chicago there, that's wild! So yeah, a lot of that violent crime is gang activity, but gangs use guns more in "blue cities" in "red states" then their "blue state" counterparts. Data is old though and Florida is currently attempting to go through a data collection sea change to match FBI recommendations.
*Need to note, the pandemic crime levels went absolutely insane everywhere, and just about the entire country saw general crime rate increases in the 30-50% range, this is specifically a discussion of gun violence.
So if the cities are blue in both red states and blue states, but the cities in red states have more gun violence, what could possibly be the difference between the two to account for the increase? Could it be that more lenient gun laws lead to more gun violence?
Nope, poverty, most red states do not take care of their poor. With poverty comes deeper rooted gangs and drug problems. Hell look at some of these dumb states saying they won't take federal money to feed the impoverished children of their state. Guns aren't our issue, our shit politicians who don't want to try and help those at the bottom which create 95% of all the violence. Children growing up without anything but gangs and drugs to call home repeat that cycle. Tossing them in jail just furthers it even more. We need to be helping these people, not pushing them further into poverty. A good start would be single payer healthcare, dumping money into the schools and making sure every child is at least taken care of until they are 18 no matter what their parents are doing. This is a cycle we're letting continue that can be stopped. We just need our politicians to stop being greedy pieces of shit
Christmas is ruined forever for that family.
This would never have happened if the sister had had a gun of her own : she would have been able to retaliate, and kill her brother before he could kill her, and we would have gotten a happy ending. I just don't understand, it seems so simple to me : just issue a gun to every child over the age of 5 (months)! There, done !
Florida: the dong of amerkuh
[The 14-year-old boy has] been charged with first-degree murder, child abuse and being a delinquent in possession of a firearm, police said. "These young kids — 14, 15 years old — routinely carry firearms..."
This is where USA culture feels alien to me. It is well known that children at that age tend to have poor emotional regulation, and underdeveloped physical and mental skills. The adults have duty of care, and they've allowed the child to wield a gun and kill someone. I would think that surely the parents have been criminally negligent in this case. But no, in the USA it's apparently totally normal for children to carry around lethal weapons as though they were a toy. The outcome is sad, but unsurprising.
The 23 year old sister should've had a gun also, to protect herself from 14 year old boys /s
Yes because gang members are totally card carrying members of the NRA lol
Why are you assuming their race because I pointed out that they're probably in a gang? Sounds like you're being the racist one. Gang members don't have a race.
Lol ok kid... assuming that only a single race makes up gangs is pretty fucking racist.
Ok kid
'Course, the kid being armed is illegal and shooting your sister over jealousy, last time I checked, isn't an appropriate legal use of deadly force. For a freedom celebration I'd expect less "people going to prison."
This is more "NRA freedom celebration" material, featuring Keanu Reeves no less.
probably need more guns?
That whole family is fucked up.
Kid whips out a gun, and the "adults" did nothing about that. Just shoo him outside with his firearm after threatening to murder his brother.
Now one is dead, one is charged with murder, and one is charged with attempted murder. Fuck it. Charge everyone at that house with murder and get them all out of society. Fucking trash.
Sanest Floridan family.
why is this news on here we don't need to hear about this shit