A Texas man accidentally shot a child while officiating a wedding in Lancaster County on Saturday, the sheriff’s office says.

Chief Deputy Ben Houchin said deputies were sent to a wedding at Hillside Events near Denton on a report of a gunshot wound.

Deputies learned that 62-year-old Michael Gardner, the wedding’s officiant, fired a gun to get everyone’s attention.

“He was going to fire in the air, and as he did that, it slipped and went off,” Houchin said.

The gun was loaded with a blank that Gardner made with gunpowder and glue.

  • jackoneill@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    93
    ·
    1 year ago

    They truly aren’t, this is straight up lack of brain cells that’s the issue here

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d think the “don’t ban guns” people would be all for registration and background checks. After all, guns aren’t the problem, people are.

        • yeather@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          34
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m all for background checks, even mandatory safety classes, it’s the random banning of features that gets me. Banning firearms because they have a pistol grip or more than 10 round magazines makes no sense. The problem is most people who think like this get lumped in with the crazies.

          • The Pantser@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            The right was given when guns were muskets. I have no issue following the forefathers intended right. You may have all the muskets you want but if it’s not needed for hunting or defending your home from an intruder then you shouldn’t have it. Nobody needs a hundred round clip or full auto for an intruder.

            • RedKrieg@lemmy.redkrieg.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I hate to argue against you because I agree that nobody needs a hundred round clip or full auto for an intruder, but the forefathers’ intended right wasn’t “people should have muskets”. It was much closer to “the people should be armed in case of tyrrany by their government”. The intention was for people to defend their other rights by force, making it more difficult for the government (or an invading force) to take over (this was immediately post-revolution mind you and much of the bill of rights was in direct response to british soldiers’ activities). Of course they also thought we’d be reforming the government and drafting new constitutions as the culture changed, but of course that never happened.

              I am not a historian, just a pedant.

              • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean I get you are playing Devil’s advocate but its clear we have also moved far those ideals. You are right the founding fathers didn’t just say “people should have muskets” but we also have to think in the context of the times, private companies were also able to be armed with naval cannons but in the modern day I don’t think Pepsi, Coke, Johnson and Johnson, or Nestle have an battalion of M1 Abrams and F22 raptors and the such. Like we are told we have the right to bear arms and in those days would be able to purchase the same arms that the military uses but I don’t think I would want a world where every idiot can somehow afford and operate nukes, apache helicopters, etc. Hell while full automatic weapons aren’t “technically” illegal in the US they are heavily regulated and expensive to possess and we the common people are boxed out owning such devices. So its clear we are “compromising” on the vision already quite a bit. Hell I would hope even some of the most die hard conservatives would think a private citizen owning the right such devices would be a bit much as well.

              • Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

                The founding father’s used capitalization to put emphasis on certain terms. It seems to me that they wanted the well regulated Militia, made up of the people, to keep and bear Arms to protect the State and by extension themselves from a tyrannical federal government. If they intended the people to bear arms, why did they add the terms Militia, State, and Arms with emphasis but the people without it?

                The only other place in the Constitution that speaks about what constitutes a militia is the fifth amendment, and it specifically only protects a Militia when it is in service to the government, which again is capitalized because they wanted emphasis that it was a proper militia and not a make shift one.

                • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree with you, but I wouldn’t read that much into their writing. The English language was even more lawless in their day.

                  In fact, the German-style capitalization of nouns may have just been a stylistic choice by the calligrapher:

                  Modern printings of the Constitution that follow the engrossed copy of the original can be identified by the many stylistic features in which Jacob Shallus’s calligraphy departs from the style of the printers of 1787. The most conspicuous difference is Shallus’s capitalization of almost all the nouns, in contrast to the very limited presence of capital letters in the work of the printers. The capital letters now help to give quotations from the Constitution, when taken from modern prints that follow the engrossed copy, an air of authenticity.

                  https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/fall/const-errors.html

            • yeather@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The Second Amendment was never about hunting or home defense. It was about arming yourself against the government and to defend your other rights by force. In which case you should have every feature you can afford. Also, about muskets, the founding fathers understood the march of progress would eventually create bigger and more powerful smalls arms, they even wanted the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater for their army to stay ahead. To think the second amendment only covers muskets is moronic.

            • havokdj@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Cool, so we’ll be taking those away from law enforcement and the military too then, right?

          • PapaStevesy@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If they actually out-and-out banned anything, I’m sure it was for monetary reasons, not for health and safety. But idk, it seems like a small price to pay, you still get to feel like John Wayne whenever you want. Sorry you can’t really fuck up that paper target like you want, but don’t worry, it’s dead.

            • yeather@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The second amendment wasn’t made for plinking, hunting, or home defense. It was made to allow the common citizen to defend their rights by force against the government. In which case you should have every feature you can afford available to you.

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

                No. It wasn’t. I’ve seen you say this more than once in this thread. The right to bear arms was intended to defend the US against a foreign military, as the founding fathers did not want a standing army. Obviously that was retarded, but they were a bunch of rich slave owning assholes, so maybe you need a new set of guiding principles.

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

            For what it’s worth, people like you are necessary if we’re going to have a future without gun violence while maintaining gun ownership. My understanding is that banning specific guns really doesn’t do anything.

            Most people stop at that, but I appreciate that you go on to say what will work instead. Mandatory safety classes and comprehensive background checks that include psychological evaluation are necessary. And if someone rabid comes into a safety class and says they want a gun to make a point or uses a racial slur in the process, they should be denied ownership and that should be recorded in a manner that background checks will see it. They’d be free to retake the class, but until they reform their behavior and show responsibility, they won’t get a gun.

            I reckon that’s probably agreeable to you? I think it would go a long way. The other half of the puzzle is strengthening and enforcing the laws we currently have on the books. Police need to be held accountable if they refuse to enforce a gun law, including prosecution as an accessory to murder if warranted.

            There’s so many times after a shooting when information comes out that they were a troubled individual who showed some violent tendencies. That should have been caught in advance.

            • yeather@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              At this point it’s been proven psych evals don’t really work, firearms classes and background checks should be plenty to stop people with issues and allow us I not have our rights infringed upon.

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

                Works for me. We should just have an option for a medical provider to say they don’t believe the person will be safe with a gun – this goes for not only homicidal tendencies, but people at risk of suicide.

      • wolf6152@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your ideas are incredibly radical. We first must imagine the mindset of dead 200 year old wealthy men before we do such a thing.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or send anyone over the age of 16 who you wouldn’t trust to be safe with a gun to reeducation camp until they get their shit together.

      • jackoneill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah 100% if you want to own a class of gun (say a revolver) you should have to take a class on that specific type of gun and pass a written and practical test, and renew this regularly. Want a different type of gun? Better go take that class and pass that test.

        Rabid anti gun folks are just as bad as the rabid pro gun folks, but the regular ass folks in the middle all seem to agree that strong controls on who can purchase the dangerous tool is the most reasonable solution

        But this is lemmy, basically Reddit but more intense. I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance

        • NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your comment seems needlessly inflammatory, almost aggressive. I did not vote on it at all, but I would not be surprised if the downvotes you received were mostly because of that and not due to disagreement with your points.

          • jackoneill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah my bad. I’m tired of every single time a fun in mentioned seeing “just get rid of all of them it’s so easy” then when I reply with reasonable solutions, get shit on. Just tired of it. Shouldn’t have bothered to comment on this thread in the first place

            Copy pasted for like the 6th time now:

            Yeah 100% if you want to own a class of gun (say a revolver) you should have to take a class on that specific type of gun and pass a written and practical test, and renew this regularly. Want a different type of gun? Better go take that class and pass that test.

            Rabid anti gun folks are just as bad as the rabid pro gun folks, but the regular ass folks in the middle all seem to agree that strong controls on who can purchase the dangerous tool is the most reasonable solution

            But this is lemmy, basically Reddit but more intense. I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        He probably would have used firecrackers or something. At least then it would have probably only have been his own fingers.

      • jackoneill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone who makes their own blank and whips it out at a wedding near a child simply to get folks attention is so fucking dumb he’d find a way to hurt himself with his dinner fork

        The issue isn’t the tool, it’s the retard wielding it

          • jackoneill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            The child didn’t die in this case, but yeah I think someone this dumb could easily have some similar damage with something more innocuous

            That’s not really the point though…. Guy like this should never have passed certification process to get a gun if we had proper controls in place. Something that I always argue for but because I’m arguing for good testing and controls and limits rather than outright banning and forcible confiscation all the privileged folks that have never had to defend their families come out of the woodwork to shit in my face, every time

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

              If you keep getting shit on, maybe stop acting like a toilet. Idk man every other country in the world figured it out, the US isn’t as special as you’re all taught it is. I’m all about sensible gun controls as well.

              • jackoneill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                Copy pasted for I think the seventh time now

                Yeah 100% if you want to own a class of gun (say a revolver) you should have to take a class on that specific type of gun and pass a written and practical test, and renew this regularly. Want a different type of gun? Better go take that class and pass that test.

                Rabid anti gun folks are just as bad as the rabid pro gun folks, but the regular ass folks in the middle all seem to agree that strong controls on who can purchase the dangerous tool is the most reasonable solution

                But this is lemmy, basically Reddit but more intense. I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance

        • BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Someone who is living in a allegedly first world country who needs to carry a gun around is the issue.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that an idiot with no brain cells was allowed to have a gun.

      • Nudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that gun companies have convinced half the population of a country that owning a gun is a “God given right” which is a fucking weird concept to begin with lol.

    • DTFpanda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Americans have an estimated 120 guns per 100 citizens, almost double that of the country with the second highest amount of firearms per capita.

      Tell me again how that isn’t a problem.

          • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            So first of all, no we don’t have double the murder rate, and secondly even looking specifically at “firearm related deaths” we aren’t even in the top 5? All that with 120 guns per 100 people, nearly double that of the next country (according to the above commenter).

            • hperrin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, there are multiple factors, just like basically everything in life. We’re not the absolute worst at one statistic, so there’s no problem right?

              That stat obviously won’t scale linearly, because it’s not like every 1 person owns 1.2 guns. There are a few people who own like 50 guns, and that drives up the average.

              If you’re cool being the only “first world” nation way up near the top of the gun death list though, I guess there’s probably no convincing you anyway.

      • jackoneill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s a tool. Blame the idiots that don’t use it correctly, not the tool itself

        There are 908 motor vehicles per 1000 citizens in the US (source

        In 2020, there were 5,250,837 vehicle collisions in America source

        Tell me again how cars aren’t the problem.

        Oh wait, that’s right, they are just a tool. The problem is people.

        • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, we should treating guns like cars. They should require revocable licenses, registration, training, and significant financial investment.

          • tburkhol@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to mention liability insurance. Your gun harms/kills someone? You’ve got insurance to pay for it. Your gun stolen and used to harm someone? Prove it was securely stored or it goes on your insurance.

        • Kalash@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Tell me again how cars aren’t the problem.

          You do realise cars actually require a license to operate? You literally already have “car control”.

          So what exactly is your agrument again?

          • jackoneill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Copy pasted for like the 5th time

            Yeah 100% if you want to own a class of gun (say a revolver) you should have to take a class on that specific type of gun and pass a written and practical test, and renew this regularly. Want a different type of gun? Better go take that class and pass that test.

            Rabid anti gun folks are just as bad as the rabid pro gun folks, but the regular ass folks in the middle all seem to agree that strong controls on who can purchase the dangerous tool is the most reasonable solution

            But this is lemmy, basically Reddit but more intense. I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance

        • N4CHEM@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, no, you’re right there. Cars are a problem too. But that’s a different topic, we’re talking guns now.

          • jackoneill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah ok so any tool that can possibly harm you must be banned

            Just go live in a padded cell and leave the rest of us alone

            • N4CHEM@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Who talked about banning cars? Don’t put words in my mouth and don’t be so rude.

              Cars are a source of different problems: pollution, traffic congestion, lack of space in cities due to parking needs… and accidents too, yes. All of these issues can be solved with his public transport, and 95% car rides can be replaced by public transport (unless I’m transporting the furniture I just bought back to my house).

              There’s no need to go live in a padded cell (although if you wish to, be my guest), just stop whining online and look for solutions instead.

        • hperrin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ok, let’s treat guns like cars and require a training period and license to use one.

          Though I would probably treat it more like a forklift, because a gun is a lot more immediately dangerous if you make a mistake than a car, like a forklift. With a car, you usually have to be doing something wrong for a while before you’ll kill anyone. With a gun you just accidentally pull the trigger when it’s pointed at someone and you probably just ended a life.

          • jackoneill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            100% agreement! I world have no problem being made to take the required classes and tests to qualify for my firearms like this, and anyone who refuses or fails has to turn their firearms over. 100% agreement. I think it would help these kinds of issues as well as public perception, so I wouldn’t have to argue this hard to stand up for the right to keep my family safe

        • DTFpanda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nice red herring. What does this have to do with the fact that there are TWICE as many guns per person in America than the next highest country? Doesn’t that tell you that maybe we have influenced too much gun culture in our society and made it too easy for people to obtain without proper vetting and safety regulations?

          • jackoneill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Copy pasted from a reply to some other asshat

            Yeah 100% if you want to own a class of gun (say a revolver) you should have to take a class on that specific type of gun and pass a written and practical test, and renew this regularly. Want a different type of gun? Better go take that class and pass that test.

            Rabid anti gun folks are just as bad as the rabid pro gun folks, but the regular ass folks in the middle all seem to agree that strong controls on who can purchase the dangerous tool is the most reasonable solution

            But this is lemmy, basically Reddit but more intense. I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance

            • DTFpanda@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance

              Maybe don’t start off your argument with calling someone an asshat then 🤷‍♂️

              I’m not anti gun, btw. I own a shotgun and know how to use it. My state recently passed a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons that I voted in favor of. But go ahead and keep insulting those who disagree with you and assuming they’re ‘rabid anti gun.’

              Americans have all sorts of mental health issues that are completely undiagnosed and many of them are dealing with their unchecked emotions by waltzing into a Sportsman’s Warehouse and back out with a cart of weapons after signing some waivers and shooting up places with large gatherings of people.

              I don’t even understand how people argue against this shit. It’s been happening for far too long, getting much worse, and America is basically alone on top of this shit mountain we’ve built for ourselves.

              • jackoneill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                1 year ago

                Copy pasted from another reply

                Yeah 100% if you want to own a class of gun (say a revolver) you should have to take a class on that specific type of gun and pass a written and practical test, and renew this regularly. Want a different type of gun? Better go take that class and pass that test.

                Rabid anti gun folks are just as bad as the rabid pro gun folks, but the regular ass folks in the middle all seem to agree that strong controls on who can purchase the dangerous tool is the most reasonable solution

                But this is lemmy, basically Reddit but more intense. I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance

          • jackoneill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            I live in a bad neighborhood and have had to defend my family against fucking armed meth heads trying to break into my house and harm my wife and son. The police are completely useless. I am a cripple and can’t fight. If I didn’t have a gun we’d all be dead by now.

            If you try to take the guns away in this country, you’ll take them from law abiding folks like myself that use them for self defense but not the criminals we need to defend ourselves from

            Maybe if we had real police that actually protect and serve we could be in the same page. As long as the police are worse than useless and every junkie criminal has a gun, the rest of us need one too

            You think I want to raise my kid in a world where everybody is armed?!? Fuck no! This sucks! It’s better than being dead though. That’s the alternative. If you’ve had the privilege to live your life in safe areas that’s great! Not everybody does.

            • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              armed meth heads

              Huh … because of guns? You need guns because other people have guns?

              So if there were no guns … you wouldn’t need a gun?

              As someone from a country with sane gun control. Not once in my entire life have I wished to have a gun to defend myself with against other people.

              I don’t even live in a “good” area. But because guns aren’t exactly legal, there are very few guns around at all.

              This is an entirely workable solution as almost every other western country has demonstrated. America is just obsessed with owning (to use your words) “tools” to murder each other with.

              You know what happens when guns are actually restricted? They become difficult to get for everyone. Going by the logic “banning guns means only criminals have guns”, do you ever wonder why other countries don’t have a huge crimimal-gun-problem? Because its a myth perpetuated by gun nuts.

              The average person in modern society should have no reason to own a gun.

              America is just psychotic

              • jackoneill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                1 year ago

                Try to follow along. You can’t take the guns away from the criminals in this country. There are more guns than people. We are not an island. We are literally swimming in guns. I don’t like it, but if you try to take them away YOU WON’T TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE METH HEADS you will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves

                If you could magically get rid of all the guns, sure! Let me know when you figure that out

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most people that are pro gun aren’t against stricter gun control measures, the problem is we don’t live in society where we can tell who will do something dumb in the future. Blanket bans don’t help anyone.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it would be useless to ban blankets, everyone would be cold 🤓

          But restrictions on carrying would make a lot more sense. They should not be carrying a weapon in a crowded area

          • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, dumb fucks shouldn’t be allowed to walk around with guns and do whatever they want. Anytime I see a post of some idiot walking around town with an AR-15 on his back I want to punch them in the face.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would rather cage stupid people than implement stricter gun control to be honest. I think that would go a hell of a lot farther in improving society.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is that caging stupidity doesn’t prevent harm. What about the toddler who got shot? It would be far better to try to prevent the situation from happening in the first place

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

            Maybe I need to be more clear. These people would be caged preemptively upon being identified as a moron, not just after they do something stupid with a gun. This idiot would have been in the cage instead of out shooting toddlers.

      • jackoneill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Copy pasted for like the 8th time in this god damn thread now

        Yeah 100% if you want to own a class of gun (say a revolver) you should have to take a class on that specific type of gun and pass a written and practical test, and renew this regularly. Want a different type of gun? Better go take that class and pass that test.

        Rabid anti gun folks are just as bad as the rabid pro gun folks, but the regular ass folks in the middle all seem to agree that strong controls on who can purchase the dangerous tool is the most reasonable solution

        But this is lemmy, basically Reddit but more intense. I fully expect the folks here to be rabid anti gun without any rationale arguments for that stance