this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
418 points (96.4% liked)

politics

25464 readers
1861 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] willis936@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No. There's a clear line that someone crosses when they're hoarding. The physical space is unsafe and the people typically have some deep trauma they are not working through well. GP used the term "hoarding" to describe "dangerous weapons collectors" in a slurry way.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago

GP used the term "hoarding" to describe "dangerous weapons collectors" in a slurry way.

I’m not sure what “a slurry way” is, but it doesn’t sound very kind.

I just mean “hoarding” in the way a dragon amasses gold. More than could serve any conceivable purpose.

The physical space is unsafe and the people typically have some deep trauma they are not working through well.

This is a fairly modern definition tied to a very particular mental illness popularized by reality tv programs. It’s not the dictionary definition of “hoarding”.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That seems like a convenient definition if one wants to okay possession of large numbers of guns. Thinking on it, collecting anything with no non-intrinsic value seems like obsessive behavior. Just because the obsession doesn't express itself in physically hazardous ways doesn't mean it's healthy.

Mental health is largely about being functional. There are lots of people out there who are functional but unwell (and they are considered mentally healthy) until one day something pushes us over the brink. My son has bipolar and is able to function fairly well, but the incident that led to the diagnosis was a disaster. No one knew until he flipped in an incident that put him and everyone around him in danger. Fortunately guns weren't involved.

The point of which is the accumulation of guns may very well be an indicator of a mental illness being kept in check and just waiting for the right trigger to turn into tragedy. And regardless of whether you agree or not, I think that's what the OC was getting at: amassing a bunch of anything, specifically guns in this case, beyond what one can use is inherently an indicator of illness. I agree with that in concept although I think there is a lot of room for disagreement about what is an unhealthy number.