Here we go again…

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Every iteration of gun control, with few exceptions, carves out exceptions for LEOs and Military. If you want this to stop a good start would be making these guys have to follow the laws the rest of us do, because if you campaign for more of the same from your lawmakers, I guarantee there will still be exceptions for the people who protect the rich.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exceptions for active military can work because they are subject to the far more strict ucmj. Cops are a real problem though, they kill 1000 or so people every year with minimal consequence.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ucmj being strict is worth little against someone taking up his guns and going rampage.

        Why does anyone from the Police or Military need to own firearms privately? The only reason i could think of is training, but that is a responsibility of the employer, to give enough training to the cops and soldiers.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Private ownership of guns is allowed, asking why anyone needs it is non sequitur.

          You need to decide if you are ok with living in a free society or not. In a free society people are going to be able to do bad stuff sometimes.

          • RoadArchie@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What makes you a more free person? Much smaller risk of death and suicide or owning guns? Lol

            • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Being able to choose either of those myself is unarguably the freest. The real question is the conflicting rights. If the right to own guns is conflicting with the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness then we need to find a resolution. Legally speaking when two rights collide like this the they typically try and preserve as much of both rights as possible. Thats not what every gun control advocate wants though. Everyone has a different version of how it should shake out.

          • Varixable@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            This argument would make more sense if this free society wasn’t the same society that would jail me for years for wanting to occasionally do some cocaine. As it stands, this is not a free society and this argument isn’t one.

          • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            Deutsch
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s where the gun culture comes in. America has none, they just have guns and no protective, strict culture of do’s and don’ts around them. Not everything has to be restricted by law if a society decides that there are still rules. We have a social rule that when we sneeze or cough we put something in front of our mouth. It is not a law, but it is a healthy social rule that is helpful; everyone accepts that they are not free to sneeze in other people’s faces. You need either gun laws or gun culture, Switzerland chose more culture, Germany more law, both work. America chose … more guns and the “freedom” to shoot them in other people’s faces. That’s stupid and dangerous.

          • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            you should clarify what exactly you mean by ‘free’, cause as an outsider it just seems like you have the freedom to get indiscriminatly mowed down by high powered rifles owned by mentally ill spree shooters.

            • you should clarify what exactly you mean by ‘free’, cause as an outsider it just seems like you have the freedom to get indiscriminatly mowed down by high powered rifles owned by mentally ill spree shooters.

              As an insider it seems like this too.

              But to the guy you replied to it’s most likely the freedom to have a gun which you never do those bad things with, while also plugging your ears regarding the reality that the same laws protecting your ability to have a gun and not do those bad things are enabling that endless stream of indiscriminate deaths by the folks who do those bad things.

              And although I don’t know him personally, he probably also deflects to mental health being the cause while continuing to vote for the party that both is responsible for our lack of mental health infrastructure and also refuses to consider restrictions on gun ownership.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s unsurprising is how strictly gun control is implemented on US military bases and navy ships.

      If you live in barracks on-base and own a personal gun, if often has to be stored in the base’s firearm storage. The only people who can walk around armed are MPs or people on their way to/from authorized training. Even if you have a concealed carry permit for the state the base is in, you can’t conceal carry in the base. If you’re on your way to the base’s firing range and stop to get gas at the base’s gas station, you can’t leave your gun in your car while you go into the convenience store at the gas station unless your car is locked in your trunk. Often even a paintball gun has to be stored in the base armory.

      Keep in mind these aren’t rules for random civilians. These are the rules for people who have already had to pass extensive firearms training courses.

      It’s pretty insane that random untrained civilians have far fewer restrictions on guns than members of the military on a military base.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The only people who can walk around armed are MPs or people on their way to/from authorized training.

        Uh huh… I’ve carried a Mk-14 clear across base before. Nobody stopped or said shit…

        If you live in barracks on-base and own a personal gun, if often has to be stored in the base’s firearm storage.

        No… your units weapon storage… and that only because you can’t bring a gun safe into the barracks. Keep in mind that Barrack != on post housing… You can have a gun safe and many guns in your on-post non-barracks housing.

        Often even a paintball gun has to be stored in the base armory.

        No in my experience on 4 different posts.

        Even if you have a concealed carry permit for the state the base is in

        Cause Federal land doesn’t need to recognize local laws. It’s up to the post commander what they want to do.

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

        Extensive firearms training is a bit of a stretch. Yes combat jobs get plenty of range time, but many only get a basic refreshers as needed (before deployment)

        But yes military bases are pretty strict compared to outside the fence

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I understand why it seems strange that the Military has stricter regulations on weapons than civilians but honestly thats a good thing to me. Not saying the level of rules on civilians is fine the way it is, however soldiers are quite literally tools of and representative of the US government, what they do, the US government does, or at the very least is accountable for. Often times what they are doing they are doing to citizens (or soldiers) of other countries as well. A random US citizen doesn’t represent the government, but an active soldier is very much representetive of theirs. From the governments POV its like self preservation.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Aside from all that, it’s just sane to lock down weapons.

          The military knows how dangerous they are, so they don’t let people on military bases just wander around with them. They’re carefully controlled. It’s just insanity that outside the walls the rules are less strict.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The lack of laws around weapon storage are wild. As a part of gun culture I can tell you in the US the gun culture around you is going to determine how safe the area is from guns, and in no small part due to storage habbits that somehow come down to the culture rather than the law. When I see divisions between red and blue state gun crime, it makes intament sense to me having seen how gun culture is in each place. Even the conservatives in liberal areas are generally more careful with weapons than the conservatives in area where they are the majority. Advertising is another problem that imo is a massive contribution to the negative aspects of US gun culture. Not many outside of the culture would see this but if you go to a web site that sells gun accessories and buy something, just wait for the bonkers catalogue they send you in the mail later. For me it looked like a mall ninjas paradise, with just enough inflammatory marketing to not be punished for it, and if we can’t reign that in as well I fear all we will be doing is chnging what type of gun the next shooting will be done with.

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not aware of any federal exemptions to gun laws for military/ex-military citizens.

      The only ones I’ve seen relate to state gun law in e.g. AZ, where if military/ex-military want a conceal carry permit, the training requirement is waived. You still have to submit an application with fingerprints and everything to DPS. (Which is kinda moot anyway, since AZ citizens who can federally own a firearm can also open/conceal carry.)