this post was submitted on 17 May 2024

316 points (99.4% liked)

News

23259 readers

3455 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

316

Over 80,000 Illinois people banned from owning guns still keep them, report shows (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago (9 children)

It's honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.

I know, I know, Lemmy isn't a singular person. But it's rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action--apparently it's okay just because they are gun owners?

I absolutely believe we'd be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you're advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Strong gun control requires a police state, and it's advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.

Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It's a lot easier to break strikes and enforce "work discipline" when the working class is disarmed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

And some aren't even strawmen...they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven't solved the problem...just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they're all terrified for their lives.

Personally, I've yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.

I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were "defending" was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn't want to pay for access like everyone else.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

Strong gun control requires a police state

False. Unless you are saying every other country in the world with strong gun control laws is a police state. Which is also false.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Some of us are just sick of reading about mass shootings every couple days.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 37 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It seems that they never intended to enforce this to current gun owners because they knew they wouldn’t comply. It is more of a measure that they will enforce going forward on future generations of gun owners.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

At the very least, they should be slam dunks for crime enhancements. If they commit a crime, and the illegal firearm is found in their possession, that should tack on some hefty penalties.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

So what are you gonna do? Send the cops to kill them? Because that's how it plays out.

And then there's the apocryphal boating accident. Prove I still have the guns.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

License, insurance and registration (just like cars) for every gun. Massive fines with accruing interest lifetime liability for “lost” guns.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (9 children)

What about stolen guns?

If you carve out an exception then everyone will just say they were stolen.

And if you don't carve out an exception, you are now punishing people for a crime they didn't commit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (17 children)

Then you report it stolen as soon as you see that it's gone

If it's used to commit a crime before you report it, there should be huge penalties. And if you're just falsifying police statements, that's already a crime.

load more comments (17 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What are you going to do? Shoot at cops executing a lawful search warrant?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Maybe a few, but they’re all cowards unless they’re in a group. Vast majority would surrender then afterwards proceed to cry in court.

Edit: just like 1/6 cowards

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

If you jump straight to shooting when cops show up to take your toys, it's a pretty good bet you never should have had them in the first place.

If you "lost" it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it's really gone.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you “lost” it they should tear your fucking house apart with a warrant to make sure it’s really gone.

It blows my mind that some people think this course of action would be ok, and that it wouldn't be abused by the authorities.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

God forbid we get guns off the streets or out of the hands of criminals.

I'd be much happier if they were doing it for guns instead of marijuana like they have for the last several decades.

What makes you think it would be abused any more than warrants are right now?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

What makes you think it would be abused any more than warrants are right now?

Because time after time we've seen that when given new powers, new tools, or new technologies, the police abuse them.

They would absolutely use this power to terrorize their opponents by ransacking their homes, whether they owned a gun or not. I'm not sure that it matters because more than half of this country seems to be ok with living in a fascist dictatorship as long as the dictator happens to be on their 'side' for the moment.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

~~We cool with police and government just barging into our homes and taking our property that we purchased legally with our own money now?~~

EDIT: FWIW, I misunderstood the title. I thought it was banned guns, not people banned from having guns (due to felonies, etc.). This is a bit different.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Start putting these people in jail in large numbers. Make it clear to the rest that they need to surrender their illegal firearms.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's funny that you think the cops would do that. They only enforce the laws that are convenient for them.

Same thing happened in New York when they banned "assault weapons" and many of the sheriffs also said they wouldn't enforce the ban. Vast non-compliance with the bans is what happened, and will continue to happen going forward.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Take funding from the sheriff's office and form a task force specifically assigned to tracking and retrieving illegal guns.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Sure go right ahead, what's stopping you?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

"I lost my guns in a tragic boating accident."

Now what?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

"Cool, then you shouldn't mind if we search your entire property right now to prove that you don't still have the thing you are explicitly prohibited from possessing. Or you can show us where you were boating when they were lost and we can charge you for the cost of the search if they aren't there."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Well you're going to have to pay to have the lake dredged to recover them then. We don't care what condition the guns are in when you surrender them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The judge sees through the lie and issues a search warrant anyway?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

There are lots of ways to hide guns. One person who is a legal gun owner who doesn't approve of the law can hide them for his friends. Do not assume Illinois is united on this, enough voters are to pass a law, but gun owners consider this a tyranny of the majority and are sticking together

In a lot of rural areas where guns are most common the police don't approve of the law. They won't ask for a warrant in the first place. If someone else asks for one they will give plenty of warning to the person to be searched - or they will just take the warrant and throw it away without searching. If forced to search they will ignore you moving guns past the front door when they knock, then when the door opens find no guns in plane sight in the front room and leave.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments