• GiddyGap@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Irresponsible use of firearms in an irresponsible gun culture. Toxic combo.

    • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      58
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sounds like you’re conflating gangbangers who post tiktok videos of themselves blasting the air with the 1/3-1/2 of normal humans in American households who own guns.

      The real problem here seems to have been the court confusing a gangbanger for a human who can integrate into society.

          • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it’s exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and “beyond a reasonable doubt” work: on the principle that it’s better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that’s the idea and the trade-off taken.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, it’s not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it’s a subscription service because you haven’t won those rights yet and you’re still paying the cost of not having the right to live.

              • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not sure you fully understand the words you’re saying, “right to live” would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else’s lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.

                You’re looking for a different kind of government altogether.

                • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There is a surplus of resources, that’s a strawman argument.

                  Taxes on unhealthy items such as cigarettes and recreational drugs, and sugar exist, these are how you account for those issues of behavioural social damage and the imbalance in cost of social healthcare.

                  You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive

                  Yes, we should do this. Let’s start with the billionaires and see if everyone has enough then.

                  • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Can you quantify this surplus? Because your unqualified statement requires there to be enough to meet ANY demand. You just sound like a genzedong tankie who does not understand the most basic market theory that for every demand there must be a counterpart, who themselves will have demands, and there’s no unlimited resource hack IRL (yet).

                    Your right to life ends where my right to not get unalived by your wishes ends.

                    Sorry meant to add here and this app needs polish… Deleted comment too slowly.

                    Also your tangent changed subjects. Right to life. Criminality vs liberties.

                  • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Do you know how many dollars you’d have if you took every dollar away from every billionaire and divided it evenly? Enough for a nice dinner, maybe a very cheap getaway, not enough to stop working or get all your needs met by someone else who is in the same position as you.