World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Unfortunately, no, that's never going to happen. Even in countries that severely limit guns, the number is not 0.
Just this year in England for example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euston_shooting
Or Germany:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamburg_shooting
Last year in Australia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieambilla_shootings
It is not and never will be 0.
I didn't claim the number could be 0, I claimed the acceptable number is 0.
Following every one of those shootings you linked, people demanded to know how it happened. Why did they have a gun? Was there warning signs that were missed? Was anybody negligent? How can we stop it from happening again and limiting the damage if it does?
That is the reaction of a society that finds any number above 0 unacceptable. They treat mass shootings as a failure of the system.
Meanwhile in America, they don't bother to ask those questions.
They had a gun because it's trivial to get your hands on semi-automatic rifles and handguns, even if you can't pass a background check, because there are millions of unsecured weapons and no universal background checks.
The police and politicians are deliberately negligent, staunchly opposing red flag laws despite most mass shooters having multiple red flags.
No effort is made to prevent it happening again, because the murder of 20 children is shrugged off as some kind of inevitability, no more preventable than an earthquake or tornado -- much the same as you're doing right now.
Limiting the damage isn't just staunchly opposed by the pro-gun community, many of them fully support making more dangerous weaponry available.
These are not the actions of people who find all gun violence unacceptable and the only reason the Ulvade police are criticized and the Newtown police are given a pass is because the Ulvade police didn't bother to pretend they cared.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against sensible legislation, there are many things that can and should be done starting with an actual analysis if what could or should have prevented any specific shooting, once you realize that "banning guns" is off the table thanks to the second amendment.
An example I like to cite is the guy who shot up Michigan State. He had previously been arrested on a felony gun charge, was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, had a clean background check, bought guns and shot up the school.
Now, we already prevent felons from owning guns. Maybe, just maybe, if someone is arrested on a felony gun charge, that is something that should not be allowed to be pled down to a misdemeanor? Ya think?
Alternately, since we block felons from owning guns, as well as domestic abusers, and people charged with crimes that can land them in prison for more than a year, how about we block people with ANY gun charge from owning a gun? Felony OR misdemeanor? They've already proven they can't be trusted with a gun.
These are the sorts of conversations we need to have but aren't having because people get so caught up in knee jerk actions that can't be taken.
I remember years ago the call was for "common sense gun reform!" and the action was "Did you know, people on the no-fly list can buy guns? How is that common sense??!??" Obama was making that call.
To which my reaction was "How many of these shooters were on the no-fly list? Oh, right, NONE of them? Good jorb!"
And there's no set process for adding or removing people from the no fly list and it, itself, appears to be non-sensical:
https://www.aclu.org/documents/statement-david-c-nelson
I'm sure that reply was fascinating but you've already revealed that you're full of shit, so I'm not going to read it.
Proving, yet again, why you lose the debate.
Whatever helps you self soothe.