Anyone else have a stroke trying to make sense of the title?

That same logic suggests that Red states would kick Biden off the ballot if they’d like regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

Looks like Kermit’s cracked out cousin and some beat down teledruggies.

There’s no evidence that suggests these photos were posted by Trump’s campaign, and BBC didn’t mention who posted them despite having talked to them.

I doubt it’s just me, but when I read the headline, I assumed that Trump’s campaign posted these photos. How else would it be news worthy? “Trump supporters post AI generated photos of Trump in an attempt to garnish support for Trump” is a normal Tuesday activity for these loons.

This “journalism” is just rage bait, in my opinion.

Paranoya.

Sure, but only if the purchase adheres to state laws where the resident lives in. You can’t leave your state and buy a gun that’s illegal at home. Here’s the ATF’s explanation.

That’s a myth - It’s a felony offense for gun stores to sell guns to non residents of the state they’re in.

Just to clarify, the FOID approval process is effectively performed in every state for any gun purchase. It’s not like the FOID background check carries more scrutiny or anything. If a Texan resident can buy guns in Texas, they could get a FOID card if they lived in Illinois.

And it’s federally illegal to sell guns to non-residents of the state the sale is made in, so Chicago residents can’t buy guns in neighboring states. Indiana and Wisconsin residents could bring guns into Chicago, but that alone is highly illegal too.

What exactly do you have in mind?

If they cared more about making our society safer, they’d pay teachers more, build more homes, quintuple minimum wage, make education cheaper or free, actually tax the rich, reign in corpos, reform the police, abolish for profit prisons, make healthcare affordable and accessible, remove money from politics, just to start.

But nah, virtue signaling is way easier and is clearly enough to get them re elected, so let’s ban 3D printers baby!

America takes awful care of its citizens, some other countries certainly do better. I wish we’d focus more on addressing the root cause issues that push people to commit violence instead of superficial actions like banning weapons, though. Even if all guns disappeared overnight, the conditions that incentivize violence would still be around.

I mean, “mass shooting” used to colloquially mean a random act against the public. I feel like people still think it means that when they see stats like this, but practically all the shootings in this stat are from gang violence and organized crime. A drive-by is a mass shooting.

Not to downplay the severity of it, but I hope people aren’t thinking that there have been ~45 Kroger type shootings this year already. Solutions that address crime like this are different than addressing sick, politically motivated domestic terrorists. Not to say we don’t need a lot of both, though.

I interpreted Donjuanme’s comment as sarcastic, where “no way a background check would’ve stopped this” implied that they thought a background check wasn’t performed, but if it would’ve been, this murder wouldn’t have happened.

Not everyone who commits a violent crime with a gun has a previous record of doing that, or other indicators that would fail a background check for that matter. Not a lot of anti-gunners seem to remember that though, which is partly why I interpreted the comment that way.

You can’t trust Amazon reviews either though.

* Sellers frequently farm good reviews by including cards in their packages that state “give us a 5 star review and get a full/partial refund!”

• Sellers update their listings with good reviews with different pictures, descriptions, etc. which effectively creates a different listing while carrying over a large review count.

* Amazon doesn’t allow reviews after 30 days (?) from purchase, so items poor durability will not have that reflected in their reviews

It’s a damn shame, but between this broken review system and their incredibly low quality items and quality control, they’re not worth the money or headache to use. Especially since most of their products are no name Chinese garbage that are exclusively available on Amazon. They’re basically Wish, Tubi, or Alibaba.

Edit: Amazon must’ve updated their review policy since I’ve last used them, 2+ years ago. They explicitly ban monetary rewards for good reviews, and I don’t see a mention of review deadlines either. The only references I found about their review deadlines is a few Reddit posts from a year ago. So my bad!

If nothing’s changed though, they still sell hot garbage.

Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times? What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?

I was highlighting the convenience/safety tradeoff in taking basic precautions against low probability but high risk events. You were incorrectly stating that people feel like they need to carry a gun just to grocery shop, and I explained how that was false. Not sure how that went over your head, but it clearly did.

My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.

Ok, name a few? How else would someone mitigate risk of human threats against their life? I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, but you don’t have to forgo carrying a weapon for self defense in order to eat healthy and exercise to mitigate risk of heart failure. Carrying a gun everyday also isn’t a burden, and I enjoy range time and training. People should be allowed means to self defense if they want it. If they abuse it, they get their rights taken away. It’s really quite simple.

Don’t pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.

If the goal is having means for self defense against people, concealed carry is the only effective way to achieve it. Pepper spray, taser, knife, or anything else is objectively ineffective. I don’t need a gun to grocery shop, but I do need a gun if I want adequate self defense.

No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn’t make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves “oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That’s just what this Baskin Robbins needed”.

The goal isn’t to make other people feel safe, the goal is to help myself and my loved ones. Other people will never know that I have a gun on me, so whether I actually have one or don’t doesn’t change anything from their point of view.

Small thing I want to point out.

I don’t feel like I need a fire extinguisher in my kitchen to make some pancakes. Is it a good idea? Sure. The chances are really small that I’ll need it, but I’ll be very happy to have it in case the worst case scenario comes up.

I don’t carry a gun to the grocery store because I’m afraid I’ll need it, I carry because I acknowledge that violent crime happens randomly to normal people like me and I’d rather be prepared for it than not. Modern guns retained in concealed holsters are actually very safe. They don’t just “go off” on their own, and the only reason someone would draw theirs is if their life or a loved one’s was in immediate danger.

I don’t get up in the morning thinking “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store.” That’s way too reductive and gung ho.

Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren’t evil machines only used for crime, you’re a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.

I’m sorry, looks like I got that wrong. I didn’t realize the wiki omitted that.

The NPR article I found that explained this also says that the jury was asked to consider lesser charges but still acquitted. I’m not sure what lesser charges exactly, but I assume it was second degree accounts. For first degree intentional homicide, Wisconsin law lists “mitigating circumstances” that downgrade first degree charges to second degree charges if proven true. It’s 940.01, found here.

He wasn’t charged with 1st degree murder, that’s nonsense. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. Here’s the wiki.

I watched almost the entire trial live, and it was clear as day that his actions were textbook self defense. The prosecution had essentially no evidence - at one point they argued that Kyle had a desire to shoot people because he plays Call of Duty. I’m not making that up.

Everyone I’ve talked to about this incident who believes he should’ve gone to jail were unaware of what actually happened. The media lied about what happened and smeared his character leading up to the trial, so I’m not surprised that people think he’s a murderer. I am extremely disappointed though that the media blatantly lies this way in order to push a narrative or agenda, and people who consume it do little to no research to check it’s accuracy.

Edit: Clarity below

Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.

I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn’t live in and got away with it.

What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom’s house),to help protect his family friend’s business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.

This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.

And he wasn’t charged with 1st degree murder, that’s misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.

Edit: He was charged with first degree accounts, the wiki doesn’t state this. However, the jury considered lesser charges and still acquitted. Here’s an NPR article that goes into more detail.