this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
58 points (76.4% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3619 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
58
In Wake Of 18 Murdered In Yet Another Mass Shooting, NRA-Funded Federal Agency Trains Children To Shoot Guns (deadline.com)
submitted 10 months ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/politics@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't agree with the thesis of this article. I do not like 4-H taking NRA money and I think 8 is too young, but I have no issue in general with kids participating in shooting sports. Learning to shoot skeet or targets is not going to lead to mass shootings. That is not what is normalizing guns. Also, shooting sports generally use rifles (and not AR-15s) while most mass shootings are done with handguns. As far as I can see, shooting sports are not all that different from archery. I don't think archery is going to lead to killing either.

Shooting sports are one of the more legitimate uses of guns. They are not what is glorifying guns and making a gun culture in America.

[–] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Shooting sports are one of the more legitimate uses of guns. They are not what is glorifying guns

Gun sports absolutely glorify guns. Are you trolling right now? Jesus christ.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com -1 points 10 months ago

No, they don't. It's a sport. It's in the Olympics.

Carrying rifles in cases to the range, putting on your protective gear and learning all the safety procedures, then learning proper stances and target shooting teaches respect for guns.

This is coming from someone who took shooting sports through 4-H starting at like 10, and doesn't own a single gun today. It really is like archery or any other sport. I enjoy archery more and went on to be a 4-H archery instructor for a while.

[–] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I have absolutely no problem with people using guns in a target shooting type of way.

Or in other responsible types of ways, like properly managed hunting or where there are things like moose and polar and grizzly bears. Guns are tools.

I don't like guns, but I understand. Gun nuts are the problem, as are guns as tools that are only designed to kill humans. I can even understand why people would want to shoot an assault rifle or other weapon of war.

It just needs to be controlled.

The worst part is that I would really like to spend an afternoon blowing shit up. Go to someplace fun. Learn about the process. Then push the pluger.

The problem is that that's actually well controlled. Enough so that I can't really find a good way to experience it outside of a construction project in my past.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I've often wondered if weapons like AR-15s should be only allowed to be owned by gun ranges and similar setups. You'd go in, rent an AR-15 for a certain period of time, get a safety lesson on how to use it, and then go to a shooting range where targets have been set up for you to shoot at.

When you're done, you turn the weapon back in and go on your way. The gun range locks it up and is responsible for it. If an employee makes off with the gun and shoots someone, the gun range is liable. If the guns aren't locked up properly and someone breaks in and steals it, the gun range is liable.

There would be regular checks to make sure the gun range was compliant with safety procedures. Kind of like what restaurants go through to make sure that they are storing food properly.

This would allow people to fire weapons like an AR-15 in a safe manner with minimal risk that this gun would be used for a mass shooting.

Of course, given the current Supreme Court makeup, I fully expect that this would be deemed unconstitutional.

[–] Rivalarrival -4 points 10 months ago

I don't think 8 is too young. I think kids need to be exposed to responsible gun use long before they see irresponsible gun use in fiction.

The problem isn't the "glorification" of guns as others have suggested. The problem is normalization of criminal gun use. Responsible gun use should be depicted as the rule, not the rare exception. A kid should not be seeing a gang member or white supremacist murdering a cop on TV before she has been taught the four rules and how to handle a BB gun.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

OP in here flaming lmao

Edit: Don't see why I'm getting downvoted. Dudes speaking facts.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is such a bullshit article. Yeah the NRA is a terrible organization and there are a lot of reasons to attack them. But attacking the educational, gun safety and shooting sports programs that they offer or fund is complete bullshit and is detrimental to the public good.

This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.

Correlation is not causation.

[–] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.

No, it's like saying driving classes shouldn't be beholden to funding from the "Reckless Driving Is Fun Yeehaw Get-er-Done" club. You're just flat out misrepresenting the article. Did you actually read the article? Because it sure does sound like you're just replying to the headline.

[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.

This is a hilarious example considering that in most states you have to be like 16 or something before any driving classes are offered. For precisely the reason you stated.

It's additionally hilarious because cars are something that just about every person in America has to use at some point. Transportation is essential and there are very few other ways to do it, thus driving privileges that are easily and affordably obtained even at the young age of 16 or so are a necessary and calculated risk. I personally would not want that to be a reality for guns and defense, but what do I know.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Sounds like we should pass another amendment guaranteeing access to driving…