• TherouxSonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    He was in an asylum and reported hearing voices. He’s a trained army vet and a gun instructor. And they let him keep his guns.

    Fuck every single Republican.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      More and more Democrats are also gun lovers so fuck all gun people, get rid of all the guns and you get rid of the issue.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t really buy that. I think it’s right-wing astroturfers trying to muddy the waters while gun lobbyists seek to tap into another market.

      • TherouxSonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m in favor of mental health checks on an annual basis. Crazy people shouldn’t have access to guns. And you can bipartisan this all you want, the VAST majority of irresponsible gun owners are REPUBLICANS (or whatever center->right bullshit title they choose. LiBeRrRtaRrRiANz

    • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      A bulletin put out by the Maine Information and Analysis Center, a database for law enforcement officials, said Card was a trained firearms instructor and was believed to be in the Army Reserve.
      It added that law enforcement said Card “recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME.”
      The bulletin said Card was reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks this summer and then released. NBC News has not been able to independently verify the bulletin’s statements about Card’s history.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-maine-shooting-robert-card-what-know-rcna122262


      The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
      who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;


  • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    They won’t address the mental health problems of this nation because it isn’t profitable to do so.

    They won’t address the gun problem of this nation because of something a slaver jotted down 200+ years ago. And guns are profitable.

    They won’t address mass shootings because then you wouldn’t be living in fear of them and would have time realize how they have ruined everything in the name of profits.

    America is doomed for as long as we care about profit more than people

    • Nudding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      America is doomed for as long as we care about profit more than people

      Sorry to break this to you but that’s the literal back bone of your country lol. Slaves much? You still have slavery to this day!

      • FReddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not actual slavery – you can always quit your job and starve to death under a freeway overpass.

        But I think a lot of corporate America would love actual slavery. Look at the way Amazon treats warehouse workers.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          No, slavery is baked into your constitution, and allows the use of slave labor. To this day. Literally. The 13th amendment. Actual slavery.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      They won’t address the mental health problems because it’s all part of a strategy to keep people scared.

      • RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Also for hospital systems it’s wildly unprofitable. You make your money in two places in medicine, elective surgeries and in the emergency department. Mental healthcare is slow, in the extreme cases you’re dealing with unpleasant patients that are hostile to the care you’re trying to provide, and you often have to house them and feed them for extended periods of time knowing they don’t have any money to reimburse you.

        That’s why the hospital I’m working at has built a multimillion dollar cardiac surgery tower (not a unit, not a few floors, an entire tower), but scrapped the plans to rebuild the aging and woefully inadequate inpatient psych facility.

        If we can’t squeeze every cent from you we will only do the bare minimum that the CMC requires from us.

    • Treczoks@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Funny, though, that gun laws work everywhere else on the globe, just not in the US where the don’t even try.

      • nicetriangle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Oh yes, please explain to me how the US would go about changing the 2nd amendment right now given how the legal mechanisms for doing so work. It’s basically impossible at the moment.

          • nicetriangle@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

            Altering the constitution is an extremely tall order in today’s US politics. It hasn’t been done successfully in over 30 years and the one prior to that was over 50 years ago.

            The Republicans can barely even vote in a house speaker right now when they have the required majority to do so. Good luck getting a change to the 2nd amendment through. It’s just not going to happen.

        • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Troglodyte. Laws aren’t real. Money isn’t real. The constitution isn’t real. None of this is real. We could wake up tomorrow and change it if we wanted, because the government isn’t real either.

          • nicetriangle@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Well nothing you’re saying is going to happen. So again, feel free to explain to me how – realistically – people are going to manage to change the 2nd amendment.

            Bonus points for doing it without name calling this time.

            • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              We rose up against British law once and made a whole new country. We should do it again.

              I know right!? Crazy we did an illegal uprising and made a whole new place!

              How did we do it? Because laws aren’t real. Governments aren’t real. Constitutions are not real.

              We said “fuck it” and just started killing people until we wrote a new piece of paper.

              none of it is real

              • Zink@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Sure, none of it is real and we can change it. The problem is that “we” includes all the other people, and what is “real to us” is what we make of it.

                If the people collectively decide to abide by our current system of government, laws, and voting in order to not rock the boat, then trying to forcefully change that gets you labeled a terrorist or a criminal.

                But if enough people agree with you, then it starts getting closer to being a new thing.

              • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Laws aren’t real, but the time you will end up spending in jail will sure feel real.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Wait, so your plan is for the people without guns to use guns to stand up to the people who want/own guns and the US gov, all to ban guns?

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              To give you an actual answer, interpreting the 2nd Amendment as granting an essentially unrestricted right to firearm ownership to all Americans is a very recent concept, only being solidly established in 2008 in the SCOTUS case of DC v. Heller, which struck down a firearms regulation law dating from 1975. Justice Stevens called it “unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench”, and suggested that a constitutional amendment should be enacted to explicitly overturn it.

              That, and Republicans have clearly established that precedent means essentially nothing now, so appointing a SCOTUS majority that favors some amount of gun regulation is also a completely valid path forward, and probably more reasonable than an amendment.

              So, the realistic option is to keep Republicans out of the presidency for a good decade or so. It’s not fast, but Republicans persisted for nearly 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s doable.

              • nicetriangle@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yeah I would agree that basically packing the court or waiting out more retirements from right wing judges is about the only realistic path forward, and like you’re saying that could take decades.

                People in these kinds of discussions being like “WHY CAN’T WE CHANGE THIS OVERNIGHT?” really ought to better inform themselves of how this stuff works. It’s not that simple.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      His “liked” tweets include content published by Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza. He also liked tweets by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, according to the screenshots.

      Yup, but color me completely unsurprised like you because — guess what — the vast majority of all politically-motivated acts of violence including murders come from the right-wing side of the political spectrum. This isn’t even a recent phenomenon; this extends throughout our history.

      So don’t tell anyone it’s a BoTh SiDeS thing. These people are mentally-ill and so damn gullible when it comes to misinformation. They generally lack education and critical-thinking skills to distinguish truth from fiction. They are generally in positions of low self-esteem (e.g., incels) or socioeconomically struggling and thus they feel vindicated when they can believe in something bigger than themselves — or especially to blame someone other than themselves.

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The last one was August 26th according to this wikipedia list, which is 60 days ago. But there were 2 in August 3 days apart, so… I guess it has been a while by comparison.

      But only if you don’t look at this other list on Wikipedia. This list has only 1 of a chosen set of sources who referred to it as a mass killing, the other lists mass killings where 2+ of their sources called it a mass killing. I wonder how long the 3+ sources list will be before it gets it own fork.

      I remember a time when each would be the center of news for at least a week.

    • Treczoks@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Just because they don’t report shootings under ten kills anymore does not mean they don’t happen. But mass shootings, i.e. incidents where four or more people are killed) are still daily occurances in the US.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        That definition is so ridiculous. Shoot 100 without killing a single one? That wasn’t a mass shooting.

      • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just because they don’t report shootings under ten kills anymore does not mean they don’t happen.

        I never said or implied otherwise?