It seems that they never intended to enforce this to current gun owners because they knew they wouldn’t comply. It is more of a measure that they will enforce going forward on future generations of gun owners.
At the very least, they should be slam dunks for crime enhancements. If they commit a crime, and the illegal firearm is found in their possession, that should tack on some hefty penalties.
It’s honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.
I know, I know, Lemmy isn’t a singular person. But it’s rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action–apparently it’s okay just because they are gun owners?
I absolutely believe we’d be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you’re advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.
Agreed, I am a very liberal person and I see other liberals far too often falling into the ‘benevolent dictator’ trap.
That’s because they are authoritarian.
Strong gun control requires a police state, and it’s advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.
Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It’s a lot easier to break strikes and enforce “work discipline” when the working class is disarmed.
Strong gun control requires a police state
False. Unless you are saying every other country in the world with strong gun control laws is a police state. Which is also false.
And some aren’t even strawmen…they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven’t solved the problem…just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they’re all terrified for their lives.
Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.
Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
The Battle of Athens is probably the most uniquely clear-cut example of what you’re asking for, unless we count the American Revolutionary War itself.
Other successful examples mostly involve activists using non-violent protest to push for change, while using firearms to protect themselves from violent reactionaries that would otherwise murder them. Notably, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. For a modern example, there’s various “John Brown Gun Clubs” and other community defense organizations providing security at LGBTQ events against fascist groups that seek to terrorize event-goers.
It’s also worth noting that resistance is often worthwhile even if it doesn’t result in unqualified victory. For example, the Black Panthers’ armed cop-watching activities saved a lot of Black folks from brutal beatings at the hands of the police, even if the organization was eventually crushed by the federal government.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.
It sounds like you might be in a bit of a filter-bubble. I don’t mean any offense by this, it’s a normal thing that tends to happen to people. If the news sources you read and the people you talk to don’t mention these things because it doesn’t mesh with their worldview, how would you hear about them?
This is pretty much uniquely American phenomena, even historically speaking. You might be in a filter / culture bubble and cannot see the outside perspective of it. You are a violent culture.
just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they’re all terrified for their lives.
Police brutality isn’t a product of fear. They treat armed crowds with more respect than groups they assume to be unarmed.
Some of us are just sick of reading about mass shootings every couple days.
What the anti gun crowd doesn’t get is, saying you have a mental health issue blocks you from getting em, so people are going to bottle shit up because one moment of weakness might cost you your right for a lifetime. It actively discourages people from getting help.
It’s almost as if they don’t have a fucking solution at all.
Despite pointing to “evErY oThER cOUnTrY doEsNt hAvE a PrObleM” they haven’t thought about gun control implementation for 3 seconds.
It’s literally as bad as the conservative saying “do nothing” or “more guns solve the problem”. It’s equally as stupid as that, but the liberal crowd acts like they’re fuckin geniuses whilst giving their suggestions.
Australia fixed their gun problem. You’re pretending it cannot be solved despite loads of countries have a pretty good grasp of it.
It’s not rare to see the anti gun crowd advocating police violence.
While it’s to true that we too often talk about groups of people like they’re individuals, it’s also true that very few people actually bother to have underlying principles for their opinions, much less stick to those principles when they get in the way of a short-term goal.
If you don’t stick to them then they aren’t principles, they’re opinions.
So what are you gonna do? Send the cops to kill them? Because that’s how it plays out.
And then there’s the apocryphal boating accident. Prove I still have the guns.
If you jump straight to shooting when cops show up to take your toys, it’s a pretty good bet you never should have had them in the first place.
If you “lost” it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it’s really gone.
If you “lost” it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it’s really gone.
It blows my mind that some people think this course of action would be ok, and that it wouldn’t be abused by the authorities.
God forbid we get guns off the streets or out of the hands of criminals.
I’d be much happier if they were doing it for guns instead of marijuana like they have for the last several decades.
What makes you think it would be abused any more than warrants are right now?
What makes you think it would be abused any more than warrants are right now?
Because time after time we’ve seen that when given new powers, new tools, or new technologies, the police abuse them.
They would absolutely use this power to terrorize their opponents by ransacking their homes, whether they owned a gun or not. I’m not sure that it matters because more than half of this country seems to be ok with living in a fascist dictatorship as long as the dictator happens to be on their ‘side’ for the moment.
Search warrants aren’t a new power, tool, or technology.
We cool with police and government just barging into our homes and taking our property that we purchased legally with our own money now?EDIT: FWIW, I misunderstood the title. I thought it was banned guns, not people banned from having guns (due to felonies, etc.). This is a bit different.
What are you going to do? Shoot at cops executing a lawful search warrant?
That has happened many many times and a few times in the past few years the homeowner has even gotten away with it.
Maybe a few, but they’re all cowards unless they’re in a group. Vast majority would surrender then afterwards proceed to cry in court.
Edit: just like 1/6 cowards
License, insurance and registration (just like cars) for every gun. Massive fines with accruing interest lifetime liability for “lost” guns.
What about stolen guns?
If you carve out an exception then everyone will just say they were stolen.
And if you don’t carve out an exception, you are now punishing people for a crime they didn’t commit.
Then you report it stolen as soon as you see that it’s gone
If it’s used to commit a crime before you report it, there should be huge penalties. And if you’re just falsifying police statements, that’s already a crime.
Just change “guns” to “cars” to see how ridiculous this position is. And cars are far more lethal per capita than guns are.
So you know, I’m in favor of much stronger gun control in this country, licenses, registration, insurance, training requirements, recurring training requirements, all that. But your line of thinking in regards to criminalization is counterproductive and not rooted in the reality of how society works.
That would be a much stronger argument if cars were specifically designed to kill things efficiently.
There are also licensing and insurance requirements for cars that don’t exist for guns.
I think you’re dodging the point. I already said I was in favor of stronger licensing, insurance, and training requirements in a failed attempt to avoid that rebuttal. If somebody steals something from me in the middle of the night while I’m asleep, something I was legally allowed to have, and they use it to commit a crime before I notice it’s gone, I should not be punished unless I was negligent in where I left it.
I also don’t understand the design argument. Cars are used to kill people efficiently all the time. Doesn’t matter if they were designed for it, they do it. If you want to go down that route, I would say the guns I own were designed to put holes in paper from a distance, because that’s all they’ve ever been used for. My guns, like my car, have a zero percent fatality rate. There are a lot of people in the world who can’t say that about cars they’ve owned. See how silly the argument gets?
Great, you’ve identified that there are going to be edge cases in what I said in a non-binding web forum. My point was that if your guns are stolen and you don’t notice or report it until the police show up weeks or months later you don’t fall under the “responsible gun owner” label that everyone loves to throw around.
Don’t play dumb dude, we all know what guns are designed for regardless of your own personal use. You can just as easily put holes in paper from a distance with BB or airsoft guns that are significantly less lethal.
Guns are designed to kill deer, ducks, and other animals that I want to kill. That they can kill humans is not intentional.
That argument isn’t much different from the argument that cars are for getting around and that they can kill is not intentional. If you care about death, then by every metric you need to ban cars first.
Humans are animals and some people seem to like killing them. By all means, let’s mandate licensing and insurance to own guns. No one seems to have a problem with those being requirements for cars.
Billions of dollars have been and are being spent to make cars less likely to kill people. But they have actual uses outside destroying things, unlike guns.
As a liberal gun owner who carries a concealed handgun, I say bullshit. You can’t say that as a blanket statement. Handguns are meant to kill people, first and foremost. Military rifles are designed to kill people, period, because the military is not in the business of hunting. The vast majority of guns ever created were created to allow for easier killing of human beings. To argue anything else is disingenuous. I facetiously argued against that point in another post in this thread, but only to illustrate that the design is irrelevant to the usage. Nobody buys a handgun to kill deer or ducks.
Funny how it’s not an issue in Australia or virtually any other countries.
I’d love to see something like the response in Australia happen in the U.S., but it’s clear that there are enough people in the U.S. who are okay with kids being shot to death in schools, and adults being shot to death in theaters and grocery stores, that it isn’t going to happen. So we have to use alternative tactics to make meaningful progress.
Just the minority of this country is fine with it, doesn’t make everyone. Where would we be if the civil war was not fought?
I see much more conviction from progressive citizens than conservatives who are terrified of going to the grocery store without an AR. I grew up with conservatives. They are cowards. The 1% with their constant propaganda instills that fear. People weren’t like this 30 years ago. It’s manufactured. You’re arguing their case. In the only country where this happens regularly.
I’m not arguing their case, I’m arguing my case. I’m completely against their position of unfettered access to weapons without restriction.
Otherwise I agree with everything else you said.
If the gun was properly stored and secured it would not have been stolen. You must not be paying attention to justice in America. Many people are punished present day for crimes they didn’t commit.
If the gun was properly stored and secured it would not have been stolen.
Took 15 seconds to find an example. This was just one, I have read about similar situations in my state alone over the last couple years.
I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t store weapons safely. But your premise is false. That’s why I’m against this ‘punishing the owner’ line of thought when they are the victim of the crime.
The terrible state of the U.S. justice system is a whole other argument.
The whole license, insurance and registration is meeting in the middle. They should be outright banned. Anything beyond that is illogical and irrelevant. The narrative has been moved so far to the right, it’s not even discussed.
Edit: added a point
And since that’s not going to happen, nothing else happens to make things better than the status quo. You’re letting lack of a realistic, unilateral, perfect solution get in the way of making things better incrementally. Which is itself illogical.
If the Supreme Court wasn’t captured by partisan hacks controlled by Billionaires these regulations would already be in place, which makes your point moot
Protip: don’t ever get diagnosed with a mental illness.
If they know who they are, they are complicit in the violation by letting them continue
Start putting these people in jail in large numbers. Make it clear to the rest that they need to surrender their illegal firearms.
That’s funny that you think the cops would do that. They only enforce the laws that are convenient for them.
Same thing happened in New York when they banned “assault weapons” and many of the sheriffs also said they wouldn’t enforce the ban. Vast non-compliance with the bans is what happened, and will continue to happen going forward.
Take funding from the sheriff’s office and form a task force specifically assigned to tracking and retrieving illegal guns.
Sure go right ahead, what’s stopping you?
“I lost my guns in a tragic boating accident.”
Now what?
The judge sees through the lie and issues a search warrant anyway?
There are lots of ways to hide guns. One person who is a legal gun owner who doesn’t approve of the law can hide them for his friends. Do not assume Illinois is united on this, enough voters are to pass a law, but gun owners consider this a tyranny of the majority and are sticking together
In a lot of rural areas where guns are most common the police don’t approve of the law. They won’t ask for a warrant in the first place. If someone else asks for one they will give plenty of warning to the person to be searched - or they will just take the warrant and throw it away without searching. If forced to search they will ignore you moving guns past the front door when they knock, then when the door opens find no guns in plane sight in the front room and leave.
And then when there’s yet another mass shooting they’ll jump up and down about how we don’t need new laws because the person was already legally barred from owning them and we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Well you’re going to have to pay to have the lake dredged to recover them then. We don’t care what condition the guns are in when you surrender them.
“Cool, then you shouldn’t mind if we search your entire property right now to prove that you don’t still have the thing you are explicitly prohibited from possessing. Or you can show us where you were boating when they were lost and we can charge you for the cost of the search if they aren’t there.”
Make it clear to the rest that they need to surrender their illegal firearms.
So when do the SWAT teams and National Guard roll into the seedy side of Chicago to do this to the Gang Members that are carting around illegal firearms? When the hell are Illinois Prosecutors going to start jailing the people that police catch with illegal machine guns?
That person at home who shouldn’t have a firearm is a a problem but they are far and away not the biggest problem and its not even close.
Aww, look who is mad gun laws apply to white people too.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun then they’re too dangerous to be loose in society anyway. They can always find some other means to hurt people.
Soooo we should make it really convenient for them?
No, they should be locked up somewhere until they receive sufficient treatment to straighten them out.
they should be locked up somewhere
Well there’s some medieval thinking right there.
Okay, how do you think violent mentally ill people should be treated?
Don’t know, I’m not an expert on that. But locking them in a dark room somewhere out of sight isn’t the answer. The whole “until they receive sufficient treatment” is the missing piece in the puzzle, because that doesn’t happen. That’s the part I’d like to see get fixed instead of spending money on torturing them.
If you would have read my entire comment you would see that I said they should receive treatment…
And if you read mine you’d see me saying that doesn’t happen so it’s a worthless argument.
Then they should get their guns back upon release.
