#Gun rights infringement | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

discount-walter-white · 2 years ago

Text

Someone on Quora asked, “As a Republican, if someone in your family was murdered in a mass shooting, would you advocate for any gun-control policies?”

Here’s the most upvoted answer, from L. Toth, Law:

“I’m not a Republican.

I’m not even an American.

I was nowhere near Parkland Florida.

I was nowhere near Columbine High School in Colorado.

I am a European.

What that means is that we have no “Gun-Control Debate��.

We were disarmed long ago. Our governments decided that we (law-abiding European Union Citizens) don’t have any inherent rights (Natural Rights, or God-given Rights) to self protection, and to protect our families. Our rights derive from a distant (and often unresponsive, sometimes even oppressive government), and not from God or Nature.

What government gives, government can take away. Remember that.

If your government is the source of your rights, then you have no rights.

What that all means is that, for all but the very few, the “government in far off Belgium” has decided that only a very few and select EU Citizens can own a weapon.

So, in reality, the ONLY people who have weapons in the EU are agents of the government, or they are criminals.

There is no debate. End of story. You have no right to self-protection, because the government has said so.

As I said, I was no where near America when the Parkland, FL mass shooting took place.

However, I was very, very near Utoya island, Norway, on 22 July, 2011.

Do you think that I wish that I was armed and trained on that day, ready to engage that piece of shit Anders Breivik as he spent 1 hour, randomly shooting at hundreds, injuring many, and killing 69 unarmed EU Citizens (many of them under age 18 children) on Utoya island?

You bet I do.

Did you catch that? That Anders Breivik spent 1 hour on an island (difficult place to escape, Utoya, without a readily accessible boat), shooting at anything that moved, children and whomever.

Where were the Police?

Where were the other guarantors of our rights to self-preservation, or those other government agents, whom we depend upon for our very lives, for the 1 hour that Anders Breivik was killing innocents with impunity?

Does it matter where the government was, to the 69 murdered? They all, each and every one of those murdered, and the others who were shot by Breivik and survived, were law-abiding citizens of the EU. That means they were not allowed to defend themselves, while they waited for the government to protect them from a CRIMINAL ARMED AND READY TO MURDER THEM.

While they waited for the government, from whom they must ask for their rights to self-preservation, they were murdered.

Waiting for the guarantors of their very lives, they were murdered.

Those murdered had no right to live, to protect themselves, from a murderous mad-man criminal, Hell-bent on murdering them to make a political statement. Our government has said so. You have no right to protect yourself from an armed criminal, Hell-bent on killing you.

So says our government.

If only a few of the hundreds of people on Utoya that day were trained and armed, ready and willing to live, to defend themselves and other innocents, many of those dead children and adults would probably be alive today.

But because our government, our distant, unresponsive, sometimes oppressive government, has said we don’t have the right to protect ourselves, those innocents were all murdered, without a chance in Hell to protect themselves.

Anders Breivik knew he would not have any resistance that fateful day. None whatsoever. And he knew that the government guarantors of the lives of the innocents that he brutally murdered that day were preoccupied with the bomb he had planted elsewhere as a distraction from his real target: An Island full of unarmed and unprotected children. Ready for the slaughter. His slaughter.

As a civilian, a law-abiding Citizen of the EU, I was not allowed to go and defend an island full of innocent children. Because my government has said so. And the very victims themselves were not allowed to protect themselves. All because my government has said so.

Don’t you think the children on Utoya on 22 July, 2011, had wished that someone, anyone at all, was armed and had returned fire at Anders Breivik?

Can anyone, honestly and with a straight face, tell the loved ones of those who were shot and murdered by Anders Breivik on 22 July, 2011, that it is more important that their children had no right to live, and that the rights of the government to grant said favour is more important? Honestly?

Put yourself in the place of the dead.

I’ll bet they wished that they had the God-given right to self-preservation, and that they could have personally shot back when Anders Breivik decided to murder them that day.

The American Forefathers were much wiser than our rulers in the EU. They codified into the US Constitution the truth that all Human Rights are derived from God (or from Nature via Natural Law, for you non-religious folk), and no one, not any person nor any government can take those Human Rights away from the person.

Rights given by people can be taken away by people. Rights derived from God cannot be taken away from the person. Period.

We in the EU must live with the choices and decisions made by people, often distant people, who do not know us. And often, they do not care for the individual. They do not care about me, nor you…

It is up to me, ultimately, as a Human, with God-given Human Rights, to look after myself and my family.

Even if my government says I do not have that right granted to me… I WILL CHOOSE TO LIVE, AND TO PROTECT MY FAMILY, AND ANY INNOCENTS THAT I CAN.

WAKE UP, AMERICA! DO NOT FOLLOW THE EUROPEAN MODEL! DO NOT GIVE IN TO FEAR AND DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF OUT OF FEAR. DON’T LET THE LEFTISTS WHO WANT TO CONTROL YOUR VERY LIVES TAKE AWAY ANY OF YOUR GOD-GIVEN HUMAN RIGHTS.

Don’t be a victim. Stand up and fight evil, like the evil of Anders Breivik and that piece of shit in Parkland, FL, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Parkland FL, Columbine, San Bernardino, Utoya… They all waited for the government to protect them from evil.

They all died.

Protecting yourself is the only answer.”

#gun rights matter #shall not be infringed #do not comply

3K notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 9 months ago

Text

A profoundly stupid case about video game cheating could transform adblocking into a copyright infringement

I'm coming to DEFCON! On Aug 9, I'm emceeing the EFF POKER TOURNAMENT (noon at the Horseshoe Poker Room), and appearing on the BRICKED AND ABANDONED panel (5PM, LVCC - L1 - HW1–11–01). On Aug 10, I'm giving a keynote called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE! How hackers can seize the means of computation and build a new, good internet that is hardened against our asshole bosses' insatiable horniness for enshittification" (noon, LVCC - L1 - HW1–11–01).

Here's a weird consequence of our societal shift from capitalism (where riches come from profits) to feudalism (where riches come from rents): increasingly, your rights to your actual property (the physical stuff you own) are trumped by corporations' metaphorical "intellectual property" claims.

That's a lot to unpack! Let's start with a quick primer on profits and rents. Capitalists invest money in buying equipment, then they pay workers wages to use that equipment to produce goods and services. Profit is the sum a capitalist takes home from this arrangement: money made from paying workers to do productive things.

Now, rents: "rent" is the money a rentier makes by owning a "factor of production": something the capitalist needs in order to make profits. Capitalists risk their capital to get profits, but rents are heavily insulated from risk.

For example: a coffee shop owner buys espresso machines, hires baristas, and rents a storefront. If they do well, the landlord can raise their rent, denying them profits and increasing rents. But! If a great new cafe opens across the street and the coffee shop owner goes broke, the landlord is in great shape, because they now have a vacant storefront they can rent, and they can charge extra for a prime location across the street from the hottest new coffee shop in town.

The "moral philosophers" that today's self-described capitalists claim to worship – Adam Smith, David Ricardo – hated rents. For them, profits were the moral way to get rich, because when capitalists chase profits, they necessarily chase the production of things that people want.

When rentiers chase rents, they do so at the expense of profits. Every dollar a capitalist pays in rent – licenses for IP, rent for a building, etc – is a dollar that can't be extracted in profit, and then reinvested in the production of more goods and services that society desires.

The "free markets" of Adam Smith weren't free from regulation, they were free from rents.

The moral philosophers' hatred of rents was really a hatred of feudalism. The industrial revolution wasn't merely (or even primarily) the triumph of new machines: rather, it was the triumph of profits over rent. For the industrial revolution to succeed, the feudal arrangement had to end. Capitalism is incompatible with hereditary lords receiving guaranteed rents from hereditary serfs who are legally obliged to work for them. Capitalism triumphed over feudalism when the serfs were turned off of the land (becoming the "free labor" who went to work in the textile mills) and the land itself was given over to sheep grazing (providing the wool for those same mills).

But that doesn't mean that the industrial revolution invented profits. Profits were to be found in feudal societies, wherever a wealthy person increased their wealth by investing in machines and hiring workers to use them. The thing that made feudalism feudal was how conflicts between rents and profits cashed out. For so long as the legal system elevated the claims of rentiers over the claims of capitalists, the society was feudal. Once the legal system gave priority to profit over rent, it became capitalist.

Capitalists hate capitalism. The engine of capitalism is insecurity. The successful capitalist is like the fastest gun in the old west: there's always a young gun out there looking to "disrupt" their fortune with a new invention, product, or organizational strategy that "creatively destroys" the successful businesses of the day and replaces them with new ones:

https://locusmag.com/2024/03/cory-doctorow-capitalists-hate-capitalism/

That's a hard way to live, with your every success serving as a blinking KICK ME sign visible to every ambitious person in the world. Precarity makes people miserable and nuts:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/19/make-them-afraid/#fear-is-their-mind-killer

So capitalists universally aspire to become rentiers and investors seek out companies that have a plan to extract rent. This is why Warren Buffett is so priapatic for companies with "moats and walls" – legal privileges and market structures that protect the business from competition and disruption:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-explains-moat-principle-164442359.html

Feudal rents were mostly derived from land, but even in the feudal era, the king was known to reward loyal lickspittles with rents over ideas. The "patents royal" were the legally protected right to decide who could make or do certain things: for example, you might have a patent royal over the production of silver ribbon, and anyone who wanted to make a silver ribbon would have to pay for your permission. If you chose to grant that permission exclusively to one manufacturer, then no one else could make it, and you could charge a license fee to the manufacturer that accounted for nearly all their profit.

Today, rentiers are also interested in land. Bill Gates is the country's number one landowner, and in many towns, private equity landlords are snappinig up every single family home that hits the market and converting it to a badly maintained slum:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/22/koteswar-jay-gajavelli/#if-you-ever-go-to-houston

But the 21st Century's defining source of rent is "IP" – a controversial term that I use here to mean, "Any law or policy that allows a company to exert legal control over its competitors, critics and customers":

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

IP is in irreconcilable conflict with real property rights. Think of HP selling you a printer and wanting to decide which ink you use, or John Deere selling you a tractor and wanting to tell you who can fix it. Or, for that matter, Apple selling you a phone and dictating which software you are allowed to install on it.

Think of Unity, a company that makes tools for video-game makers, demanding a royalty from every game that is eventually sold, calling this "shared success":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/03/not-feeling-lucky/#fundamental-laws-of-economics

Every time one of these conflicts ends with IP's triumph over real property rights, that is a notch in favor of calling the world we live in now "technofeudalist" rather than "technocapitalist":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/28/cloudalists/#cloud-capital

Once you start to think of "IP" as "laws that let me control how other people use their real property," a lot of the seemingly incoherent fights over IP snap into place. This also goes a long way to explaining how otherwise sensible people can agree on expansions of IP to achieve some short-term goal, irrespective of the spillover harms from such a move. Hard cases make bad law, and hard IP cases make terrible law.

Five years ago, some anti-fascist counterdemonstrators hit on the clever idea of blaring top 40 music during neo-Nazi marches, on the theory that this would prevent Nazis from uploading videos of their marches to Youtube and other platforms, whose filters would block any footage that included copyrighted music:

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/07/23/clever-hack-that-will-end-badly-playing-copyrighted-music-during-nazis-rallies-so-they-cant-be-posted-to-youtube/

Thankfully, this didn't work, but not for lack of trying. And it might still work, if calls for beefing up video copyright filters are heeded. Cops all over the place are already blaring Taylor Swift songs and Disney tunes to prevent their interactions with the public from being uploaded:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/07/moral-hazard-of-filternets/#dmas

The same thinking that causes progressives to recklessly argue in favor of upload filters also causes them to demand that web scraping be treated as a copyright crime. They think they're creating a world where AI companies can't rip off their creation to train a model; they're actually creating a world where the Internet Archive can't capture JD Vance's embarrassing old podcast appearances or newspaper editorial boards' advocacy for positions they now recant:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/17/how-to-think-about-scraping/

It's not that Nazi marches are good, or that scraping can't be bad – it's just that advocating for the use of IP to address either is a cure that's not just worse than the disease – it's also not a cure.

A problem can be real, and still not be solvable with IP. I have enormous sympathy for gamers who rail against cheaters who use aftermarket hacks to improve their aim, see through buildings, or command other unfair advantages.

If you want to tell a stranger how they must configure their PC or console, IP ("any law that lets you control your competitors, critics or customers") is an obvious answer. But – as with other attempts to solve real problems with IP – this is a cure that is both worse than the disease, and also not a cure after all.

Back in 2002, Blizzard sued some hobbyists over a program called "bnetd." Bnetd was a program that provided a game-server you could connect to with the Blizzard games that you'd bought. It was created as an alternative to Battlenet, Blizzard's notoriously unreliable game-server software that left gamers frustrated and furious due to frequent outages:

https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd

To the public, Blizzard made several arguments against bnetd. They claimed that it encouraged piracy, because – unlike the official Battlenet servers – it didn't check whether the copies of Blizzard software that connected to it had a valid license key. Gamers didn't really care about that, but they did respond to another argument: that bnetd lacked the anti-cheat checking of Battlenet.

But that wasn't what Blizzard took to the court: in court, they argued that the hobbyists who made bnetd violated copyright law. Specifically, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which bans "circumvention of access controls to copyrighted works." Basically, Blizzard argued that bnetd's authors violated the law because they used debuggers to examine the software they'd paid for, while it ran on their own computers, to figure out how to make a game server of their own.

Blizzard didn't sue bnetd's authors for pirating Blizzard software (they didn't – they'd paid for their copies). They didn't sue them for abetting other gamers' piracy. They certainly didn't sue them for making a cheat-friendly game-server.

Blizzard sued them for analyzing software they'd paid for, while it was running on their own computers.

Imagine if Walmart – one of the biggest book-retailers in America – had a policy that said that you could only shelve the books you bought at Walmart on shelves that you also bought at Walmart. Now imagine that Walmart successfully argued that measuring the books you bought from them and using those measurements to create your own compatible book-case violated their IP rights!

This is an outrageous triumph of IP rights over real property rights, and yet gamers vocally backed Blizzard in the early noughts, because gamers hate cheaters and because IP law is (correctly) understood as "the law that lets a company tell you how you can use your own real, physical property." Hard cases make bad law, hard IP cases make batshit law.

It's more than 20 years since bnetd, and cheating continues to serve as a Trojan horse to smuggle in batshit new IP laws. In Germany, Sony is suing the cheat-device maker Datel:

https://torrentfreak.com/sonys-ancient-lawsuit-vs-cheat-device-heads-in-right-direction-sonys-defeat-240705/

Sony argues that the Datel device – which rewrites the contents of a player's device's RAM, at the direction of that player – infringes copyright. Sony claims that the values that its programs write to your device's RAM chips are copyrighted works that it has created, and that altering that copyrighted work makes an unauthorized derivative work, which infringes its copyright.

Yes, this is batshit, and thankfully, Sony has been thwarted in court to date, but it is steaming ahead to the EU's highest court. If it succeeds, then it will open up every tool that modifies your computer at your direction to this kind of claim.

How bad can it be? Well, get this: the German publishing giant Axel Springer (owned by a monomaniacal Trumpist and Israel hardliner who has ordered journalists in his US news outlets to go easy on both) is suing Eyeo, makers of Adblock Plus, on the grounds that changing HTML to block an ad creates a "derivative work" of Axel Springer's web-pages:

https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-infringes-copyright-ancient-sony-cheat-lawsuit-may-prove-pivotal-240729/

Axel Springer's filings cite the Sony/Datel case, using it to argue that their IP rights trump your property rights, and that you can only configure your web-browser, running on your computer, which you own, in ways that it approves of.

Axel Springer's war on browsers is a particularly pernicious maneuver, because browsers are the best example we have of internet software that serves as a "user agent." "User agent" is an old-timey engineering synonym for "browser" that reflects the browser's role: to go out onto the web on your behalf and bring back things for you, which it displays in the way you prefer:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/07/treacherous-computing/#rewilding-the-internet

Want to block flickering GIFs to forestall photosensitive epileptic servers? Ask your user agent to find and delete them. Want to shift colors into a gamut that accounts for your color-blindness? Ask your user-agent:

https://dankaminsky.com/2010/12/15/dankam/

Want to goose the font size and contrast so you can read the sadistic grey-on-white type that young designers use in the mistaken belief that black-on-white type is "hard on the eyes"? That's what Reader Mode is for:

https://frankgroeneveld.nl/2021/08/24/most-underused-browser-feature/

The foundation of any good digital relationship is a device that works for you, not for the people who own the servers you connect to. Even if they don't plan on screwing you over by directing your user agent to attack you on their behalf right now, the very existence of a facility in your technology that causes it to betray you, by design, is a moral hazard that inevitably results in your victimization:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/02/self-incrimination/#wei-bai-bai

"IP" ("a law that lets me control how you use your own property") is a tempting solution to every problem, but ultimately, IP ends up magnifying the power of the already powerful, in contests where your only hope of victory is having a user agent whose only loyalty is to you.

The monotonic, dangerous expansion of IP reflects the growing victory of rents over profits – income from owning things, rather than income from doing things. Everyday people may argue for IP in the belief that it will solve their immediate problems – with AI, or Nazis, or in-game cheats – but ultimately, the expansion of a law that limits how you can use your property (including your capital) to uses that don't threaten neofeudalists will doom you to technoserfdom.

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/29/faithful-user-agents/#hard-cases-make-bad-copyright-law

977 notes · View notes

copinghex · 9 months ago

Text

Under his wings | T.S

Summary: The peculiar details of your relationship are nothing but small inconveniences compared to how much Tommy loves you | dark!AU

If there's something you admire the most about Tommy, it's his eyes, they're blue like the sky, deep as the ocean and they're never, ever bright. Something about being under his gaze felt warm in the best ways, you felt protected, desired and cared for, a fact you once voiced while he slowly thrust into you.

"I like when you look at me like that," you confessed and bit your lip, a little shy for not being able to look away.

"Like what?"

"Like- like you own me,"

"I do own you," was his answer before he sped up his pace.

Although you like to be under Tommy's gaze, sometimes it makes you shy, scared even. You don't want to disappoint him, nor to make him embarrassed for having you around, after all, he's so handsome, smart and cunning, and what are you?

No, Tommy doesn't like when you think low of yourself, you're his sweetheart, his doll, his pretty girl, but…

"Pretty girls don't go out alone to behave like whores," "My doll does she's fucking told and doesn't get whiny about it, ain't that right?" "You're my sweetheart when you smile and cheer up, I’m not sure if I like this pout."

He's probably right most of the time, you don't get any reasons to throw tantrums, everything you want, he will give you, jewels, shoes, flowers, himself, "Tell me what you need, love." he always says.

Tommy never denies you any material goods, himself though, it's a privilege he sometimes takes away. His answer to minor infringements, such as smiling too much to another man, disappearing from his sight in public or being an unmannerly brat in events, is loneliness.

A couple of times you've been treated like an object of the house, the furniture Tommy walked by barely noticing, he knows you learnt your lesson when you're on the verge of tears.

"Don't ignore me anymore, please," you pleaded, on your knees at the side of his office chair.

He looked at you when was done with his cigarette.

"You know why you're there, love?" he held your chin and you nodded.

"I made you worried at the fundraising, I went outside to take an air, I- I didn't even go alone, Polly was with me,"

"But?" he arched his eyebrows, ready to go along with the punishment if you gave the wrong answer.

"But I should have warned you, I'm sorry, Tom," you held his hand on your face, "I'm so sorry,"

"Come here, my doll," he pulled you to his lap with a pleased face.

After punishment, you always have Tommy all to yourself. It's hard to endure, surely, but it's for your betterment, everything Tommy does is, you had no doubt of that.

Or at least, perhaps, not until this moment.

"Did you hear what I said?" his eyes switch between you and the young, new driver hired two weeks ago.

"P-please, Tommy, he was just being nice," you sob at the boy's awful state.

"Go back inside." he drawles and pulls a gun out of his coat, "You're not allowed in the garden without my permission anymore,"

"But-"

With only a look, he silents you. On the short way home, tears fall on the grass. The second you close the heavy doors behind your back, you hear a gunshot outside.

#tommy shelby x reader #dark!tommy shelby #peaky blinder imagine #peaky blinder fanfic #reader insert

340 notes · View notes

liver-f4ilure · 2 months ago

Text

American Gun Laws & School Shootings (an essay)

WARNING! This essay is very old and is NOT at all my best work. Thank you and enjoy!

Gun laws in America have been one of the most controversial ideas in American history. The right to bear arms is engraved in the American Constitution as the second amendment in which the writer, James Madison back in 1791 concludes “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The original meaning has been speculated since some believe it was intended to be used for unprofessional citizens to defend against the British. However, the main controversy is if it meant individual rights to bear arms or only militia. In 2008 the DC v. Heller case concluded that in the state of Washington the amendment protected individual gun rights however the state can take away those rights if deemed dangerous by court. Americas history of school gun violence dates far back but the first major shooting to make headlines was back in April of 1999, when on April 20th of that year in Littleton Colorado teens Eric Harris (18) and Dylan Klebold (17) shot and killed 13 people at Columbine High School before killing themselves by gunshot in the school’s library. The pair had planned at least a year in advance making bombs and recording the days leading up to the shooting which is now coined the name ‘The Basement Tapes’. The guns were obtained from an illegal gun show where the two got their friend Robyn Anderson who was legally allowed to own. The shooting has sparked hundreds of shootings

since not all being schools. The aftermath also triggered the Youth Crime Gun Act of 1999 which prevents people to hold gun shows without informing the secretary of state at least 30 days in advance of location, time and duration as well as submitting all the vendors names and verifying their identities. The law also prohibits those dealers from dealing to those without license and keeping the firearms they sell from reaching the hands of minors or those unlicensed and lastly the law illegalizes the making of explosives like pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.

The shooting was the first major school shooting the country had seen at the time.

While it may be mental health in some cases, American gun laws should be stricter and more limited due to the fact of the childhood gun mortality rate in America and the estimated 338,000+ students who have experienced gun violence in schools since Columbine.

Data shows countries with much stricter gun laws including Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the UK have had 5 total school shootings, while America alone has 288 (2009-2018) America has already had 18 this year (2024) as of April 18th. America has seen an uprise with school shootings after the pandemic, in 2021 there were 73, in 2022 there were 79 and in 2023 there were 82 school shootings. In the past three years there have been a total of 234 school shootings. Many believe the number one cause of childhood mortality in America (0-19) is cancer or abortion. But this simply isn't true, in America the leading cause of child death is gun violence. In 2021 2,590 children lost their life to guns. While in Canada the leading cause is accidental injury. The NRA states gun laws don’t work and brings up strict cities have high crime rates. I personally find it interesting they ignore the gun aspect of it. The issue doesn’t lie within what the city or state does for real change its up to the federal government. The NRA says Chicago has strict gun laws but has high crimes, that doesn't have to do with guns. Take California, one of the strictest states with guns compared to Texas the state with some of the least strict laws. Californias gun mortality rate is 8.5 per 100,000 while Texas's’ is 14.2 per 100,000. In Texas’s’ history with gun laws after the Luby's shooting the state made it legal for open carry. In 2012 after the sandy Hook elementary shooting which killed 20 kids ages 6-7 in Connecticut, Texas made it legal for school staff to bear arms and after a church shooting the state made it legal to carry firearms in places of worship (mosques, churches etc.) All these laws passed that took restrictions off guns made the trend of mass gun violence to increase. States ran by democratic leaders were found more likely to pass laws in the state that restricts guns were found more effective at keeping mass shooting changes insignificant. However, the state with the highest gun violence is Mississippi. Comparing capita to the most restrictive state, California, the state that the NRA claims is the most violent, Illinois and the state with the highest gun violence, Mississippi. Out of the three California has the lowest with 9.0, Illinois with 16.1 and Mississippi with the highest of 33.9 per capita. Comparing evidence, we can see that the common denominator is that stricter laws bring down gun deaths and will limit petty crimes and situations from becoming deadly when guns are involved. And you’d think the federal government would act on this and add restrictions to limit types of rifles, but they haven’t. The closest they’ve gotten was the red flag program bill passed after the Robb school

shooting in 2021 which left 21 children and staff dead due to the police waiting 77 minutes after arriving, armed with vests and shields, to do anything. In response president Joe Biden passed the bill to end gun background check loopholes instead of talking about the issue of the polices incapability.

Studies show 57% of students in America are scared to go to school due to the rise of school shootings. Over the years about 45% of schools have installed metal detectors and other security measurements. These detectors are more common in high minority schools; however students of minorities are more scared of the chance of school shootings. In arguments of school security being the solution, some often bring up giving teachers guns however many teachers state they would never want to put their students in those situations or have to take a life. 78% of republicans agree with this while only 24% of democrats agree. 81% democrats say that banning assault-style weapons would be effective and 35% republicans agree too, overall majority, including teachers, agree that arming teachers wouldn’t help. Some parents have bought bulletproof backpacks and inserts to keep their child safe, the backpacks cost as much as an AR-15. Leading to the next point that ‘good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns’ isn’t accurate, in fact in schools where security is armed during shootings they can’t stop the shooter. Personally, as a Canadian where gun laws are strict, I have never seen an armed security guard in a school or have seen metal detectors in my school. Now we have all been 6 years old and I, personally at that age I liked to feel safe at school.

The most common argument about Americas gun laws is the second amendment. It’s by far the most political amendment, as mentioned earlier the suspected original intent was against the British. The amendment says it shall not be infringed. However, over time the federal and state government have passed laws that limit guns however have not infringed the right to own. So, who’s to say that they can’t limit more high capacity magazines, in sports of hunting who needs a gun that can shoot 60 bullets in a single minute?

Media like games, music and movies have all been blamed for school shootings. This is a common misconception. The most common motives for school shootings are bullying, which can be seen with the Thuston school shooting, and columbine copycats (AKA. Columbiners) which can be seen with the Weis market shooting. Although mental health is also common it doesn’t directly lead to shootings, mental health gives a person the mindset and guns give them the ability.

In conclusion guns should be stricter to reduce childhood death. A child deserves to feel safe in school and not fear becoming a victim to the myriads of kids shot and killed per year in America. I believe all these facts and statistics, like children being scared about their safety and the 388,000 kids who have heard gunshots at school, Americas answer is stricter gun laws. At what cost, how many children who haven’t reached 10 will have to die before America realizes the right to live till 19 is more important than the weapon used to take the right away?

#liveralone #tccblr #tc community #tcc columbine #true cringe community #tcc tumblr #eric columbine #eric and dylan #dylan columbine #sandy hook #adam tcc #nikita and artyom #nikita lytkin #tcc artyom #artyom anoufriev

103 notes · View notes