A kid was recently shot and killed by a 'homeowner' in DC.
The rightwing Supreme Court helped do this. The Fed Soc has blood on their hands.
DC tried to ban guns. But the FedSoc judges—Scalia, Roberts, Clarence Thomas—overturned DC's gun ban in Heller v. DC.
FedSoc judges are chosen because they are willing to flood our streets with guns (for votes and to help billionaires.) But here if as alleged, it’s even worse: Scalia and Thomas allowed this killer to have that gun.
🇳🇱
@protecttruth I am no fan of the right in general.. but we already know well from past bans on guns in america that it has had the unfortunate result of increasing homicides.. Not banning guns is the reason more people arent murdered.
Yes there is a problem that needs to be addressed with crime and homicies.. banning guns has never been shown to be the solution however, and only results in more deaths. Lets look for real, science-based solutions.
@freemo No.
Fewer guns means fewer gun homicides.
Here's a paper that shows that. This is science showing fewer guns means fewer homicides and fewer deaths.
Ban handguns and weapons of war. Like Canada does.
https://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/fewer-guns-mean-fewer-gun-homicides
@protecttruth Thats like saying "fewer vaccines means fewer vaccine death", while technically true its also very poor logic. Sadly no, banning guns generally means more homicides overall.
Also who said anything about Canada. Sadly the body of the american data on this clearly disagrees with the assesment.
Here is an image of ther effects of one such gun ban within Jamaica.. sad to say this isnt na isolated pattern. If you really want to get into the nitty gritty I can show a dozen or two similar charts across many countries. The pattern is quite obvious sadly.
@freemo @protecttruth
Johns Hopkins center for prevention of gun violence's most common suggestions:
1. Red Flag laws to let people close to someone have guns taken away if people are shown to provide a risk to themselves or others.
2. Laws to mandate safe storage of firearms.
3. Universal background checks.
4. Waiting periods for firearm purchases.
Now we are getting into the weeds (in a good way).. I think its valid and important to discuss what, if any, we want to place limits on guns...
#1 I can support in principle, but in practice based on specific implementations I often oppose it more than support it... If a person is **charged** with a crime I think that crime should and can be used to judge if they can have a gun.. But to take a gun away from a person who has not commited a crime, that adds more problems than it solves and is particularly concerning slippery slope.
#2 This can be ok, but again needs to be nuanced. As long as you can ensure someone has quick access to the gun while still being able to secure it I would say this will work well. Obviously the laws need to provide restrictions that can allow for easy access.
#3 As long as those background checks are strictly limited to criminal records I can support this.
#4 This one is dangerous, one of the biggest reasons to allow guns is so women can protect themselves, its the great equalizer. If a rapist or stalker is thrteatening a woman a waiting period can cost her her life.
