Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    If some people losing their right to own guns based on a false accusation also means that some different people don’t get murdered by their psycho exes, is that a good thing on balance?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If some innocent people get executed, but that also means that different, highly-dangerous criminals get executed, is that a good thing on balance?

        • krayj@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is that infringing people’s rights because there -might- be some public good is a horrible precedent.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you have enough evidence for protective order, then there should be enough for a criminal trial. If you don’t have enough for a criminal conviction, then IMO you shouldn’t have enough evidence to remove a person’s civil rights. A person that has been convicted of a domestic violence offense–including misdemeanors–is already a prohibited person.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure what relevance your previous post has to this topic.

            Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important. As for the right to own a firearm, I’m of the opinion that it’s past time to revisit this amendment. People living in countries without something similar to the 2nd amendment aren’t less free. In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.

            As for your point about protective orders. Did you read the article? The rationale is discussed there.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.

              Fortunately, the only reason to have such fear is media sensationalism and your personal failure to understand the statistics.

              Despite the fearmongering, you’re still not even close to likely to experience one.

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People also argue that China is more free than the US because people aren’t burdened with the need to choose which party they prefer, or worry about speech that may run counter to the party’s beliefs. And hey!, they have healthcare!

              Personally, I believe in civil rights, including the ability to be a religious fundamentalist of any stripe, to say dumb shit that’s devoid of reason without being politically persecuted for it, the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (all of which are constantly being eroded by SCOTUS), and yes, the right to own the firearms of your own choice.

              Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important.

              By this argument, you could claim that an absolute totalitarian gov’t that allowed no freedom of any kind and ruthlessly prevented any criminal activity would be a better choice than a style of governance that allowed for any person freedom at all, since all freedoms can be misused in ways that cause harm. By eliminating all rights, you ensure that the gov’t has the ability to keep the maximum number of people safe and secure. You don’t even have to go that far; you could claim that speech that is politically unpopular should be criminalized, that any religion to the right of Unitarian Universalists causes harm to people and society and should be excised, that it’s necessary for the police to have broad search and seizure authority to prevent harmful activities, and so on and so forth.

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                By going from revisiting the 2nd amendment straight to Chinese totalitarianism you’re showing a complete lack of nuance and critical thinking which makes your opinion less than interesting to me.

                There are plenty of countries which exercise gun control and they’re not any less free than the US. Many are more tolerant, more progressive and their societies are fairer and more equatable for everyone.

                • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Congrats! I, too, don’t care about the opinions of people that wish to limit civil rights for individuals!

                  Just to point out, many of those societies with gun control that were traditionally more tolerant and progressive are also trending right and limiting civil rights at alarming rates. Sweden is trying to make (has made?) burning a Q’uran a crime. France has banned the niqab in numerous public places, and Marine Le Pen keeps getting more and more popular. So if the choice is being armed while fascists are taking power, versus being unarmed while fascists are taking power, I’m gonna take the former every time.

                  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s interesting that you point to the erosion of rights in other countries when the US is on a similar trajectory and yet all the gun humpers here are showing not even the smallest desire to do anything about it. You just played yourself. Not that you care.

    • krayj@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some people will say yes and some people will say no. The same argument you made could be used to outlaw a LOT of human behavior, though.

      For me personally, I universally don’t think it’s fair that I could be stripped of some of my rights without due process - that bit is important to me regardless of whether that is used for wrongdoing by others or not. A better solution would be to make due process happen faster, imo…or for the state to take a more proactive role in protecting the accuser until that due process runs its course.