Without context, this could be easily dismissed.
However, OP is posting on 4chan, so it’s likely he did pose a threat.
That said, it’s fake and gay.
fake: Anon didn’t have a gf.
gay: anon had a bf.
if you have multiple guns and can’t afford a lawyer you have kinda fucked your priorities
You either overestimate how much guns cost or underestimate how much lawyers cost.
Or any of the scenarios where op is no longer employed or self employed and between jobs. Court appointed attorneys are based on current income iirc.
LOL, I have shitloads of guns, unemployed. Ya got me! And it’s not like selling them would bring me any amount of lawyer time.
$1,000 AR-15, $800 used, at best. That’s 3 hours of lawyer time and a few emails. I couldn’t get $300 for most of my crappy guns.
Fake: anon has gf
Gay: anon writing fanfic flirting with male cops
gottem
Had
“She’s probably right.” “Dude was probably violent.” “Easier to give up your guns than fight this in court” “Just give up your guns!”
Lmao wowww lemmy. Nobody here likes due process?
I’m pro gun, I’m just considering the statistics of a 4chan-er. Maybe that’s profiling, but I’m not a judge. He should certainly have his day in court, I’m just predicting the outcome.
Lot of US leftists and liberals hate guns, as a reaction to the right’s obsession with them.
It is a stupid and dangerous reaction, because they give up their means of self-defense against far right militias and a fascist government.
You’re spot on. I lean HARD left myself and still I’m actively advocating all my friends go out and purchase a firearm while they can. Not for some far fetched rebellion against tyranny, but simply to protect themselves from getting hate-crimed by the scum who will inevitably feel they’ve been given permission to do so by this regime. Furthermore if they do start deporting citizens for undesirable political behavior, I know I’d rather be six feet under than in CECOT or South Sudan.
Exactly. I’m fully capable of both owning a gun and advocating for gun control at the same time… People act like you’re a traitor to the cause.
😂 right! Like the fascist government that is now taking hold of the US. Not fascist enough to defend themselves yet?
No, lots of liberal hate guns. Lots of leftists are either anarchist or communist, both of which support arming the populace. Many socialists support gun ownership as well.
I don’t hate guns, I hate the “gun rights” movements and there fetishization of a skewed interpretation of the second amendment where any individual has the unalieanable right to own a gun.
Even if a violent revolution were to happen, which odds are 99 to 1 it wont happen in the US in our lifetimes, then people like op hoarding guns aren’t going to help. A well regulated militia might but that requires social organization and discipline, which most people in the gun rights movement don’t have the time or willingness for.
They aren’t serious about using guns to defend liberty, they just like the aesthetic of it and make it part of there personality. So much so that they get offended by dumb and probably made up stories like this but not the countless other similar stories where there were no red flag laws and the gf gets killed.
Then they post about how the gun owners aren’t doing anything to stop the fascist government. Yea, you’ve been alienating them for decades. They’re not on your side.
They’re saying that ironically because the gun fetishists always excused their behavior with fighting tyranny. Then matched in goose-step to vote for a tyrant
I think we just don’t like guns.
I like guns.
nice
Eh, the cops are worse than the guns.
Don’t be disarming when gestapo in roaming the streets.
(But Anon probably supports the gestapo tho… 🤷♂️)
Speak for yourself. God forbid men should have a hobby.
Are you really pretending this is about men having hobbies?
I use my rifles for hunting. Some people like collecting and sport shooting. Some have theirs for self defense in higher crime areas because they can’t afford better. So yeah?
It can be a hobby, sure. But men having a hobby isnt was was being discussed at all. Nobody cares about men having hobbies, the issue is when this hobby is a potential threat to other people. Isnt this rather obvious?
You know exactly as much as I do about this hypothetical situation. Girlfriend cheats. Guy breaks up. Girl calls cops. Guy gets guns confiscated. If your argument is nothing more than “Well maybe he deserved it” you’re an asshole.
Thats just not what im saying.
Lemmy wants it easier for cops to take away your guns, but simultaneously distrust the cops and want to abolish the police. So which is it lol?
But then again, this is 4chan so Anon probably is on the side of the tyrants anyways; they think they’re part of “the good ones”.
And they’re probably borderline homicidal, just looking at stats.
Dunno, someone having guns to shoot normal people is a big red flag to me.
“Ah yes, someone is trying to break into my house, let’s go down to the shop and buy a gun”
If you think before posting, ask yourself: is it normal to break into people’s homes?
And even then, here we don’t worry about criminals with guns that much. The USA is idiotic in that regard, with its pervasive gun culture, resulting in weekly mass shootings.
I didn’t ask to be born in a country where burglars are likely to have firearms. But now that I am, I have to react to that fact myself.
I am pro gun control, but if I lived in the USA, I’d own a gun. My opinions are for the ballot box and don’t matter whenever someone is breaking into my house and threatening the lives of my wife and my children.
I’m against gun control generally, live in the US, and don’t own a gun. Why? The chance that my kids find my guns and play with them causing a tragedy is much higher than the chance I’ll need to use a gun. Crime is incredibly low in my area, with the most pressing crime on my neighbors’ minds being a “break-in” (nobody locks their doors) several years before we moved in by akid in the neighborhood, and we’ve been here >10 years without any incidents.
So yeah, guns are more of a liability for me than a useful tool. However, not everyone lives in my area, so need for guns absolutely varies by area. I’d absolutely prefer an armed populace to the government having a monopoly on guns.
I do agree w/ sensible restrictions, and most mass shootings would be averted if we actually enforced the laws we have. Most of the time, someone close to the shooter knew they were a risk yet did nothing.
Most firearm deaths are either gang related or suicides. The solution there isn’t banning guns, but solving the underlying problems. For those, I support:
- drug legalization - cuts down on incarceration, which should reduce conversions to organized crime
- cash redistribution - my preference is NIT, which is similar to UBI; helps prevent people from getting desperate
- reform prison system to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment - maybe prisons get funded based on reduced recidivism?
IMO, guns aren’t the problem, they’re a tool. We need to solve the actual problems instead of putting kid gloves on everyone.
Why? The chance they my kids find my guns and play with them causing a tragedy is much higher than the chance I’ll need to use a gun. Crime is incredibly low in my area, with the most pressing crime on my neighbors’ minds being a “break-in” (nobody locks their doors) several years before we moved in by akid in the neighborhood, and we’ve been here >10 years without any incidents.
Valid. But it’s different if you are a transgender person living by yourself (i have heard and don’t question the claim that transgender people in some areas may have their lives threatened)
most mass shootings would be averted if we actually enforced the laws we have.
Wasn’t there a school shooting in America where the police tried to “contain” the shooter instead of confronting him? By contain, leave him in a class of kids.
If you think before posting, ask yourself: is it normal to break into people’s homes?
No. It’s incredibly disturbing behaviour, and in the USA they are likely armed as well. They’re not going to nicely ask you not to resist them. That’s why you need to have a gun so you can shoot them before they shoot you.
With that mindset everyone will have guns, so violence then actually increases.
The only answer is to dearm everyone.
Yeah, I think we’re all in agreement about that here. But everyone isn’t disarmed. I won’t give up my gun until I know with 99% certainty that your average burglar won’t get a hold of an illegal firearm.
In most of the UK, even the average police officer isn’t armed. (In Northern Ireland, the average police officer is armed, but the amount of times the firearms are ever actually fired is incredibly rare. Most of the time they go off is actually negligent. When they do go off, they are always investigated.)
The problem is, how do you disarm the bad guys when you’ve been giving them guns without tracking them for decades
What a terribly privileged take. Not everyone can live up in that ivory tower with you.
Someone having guns to shoot the boot soldiers of an unjust regime? All for it. Big green flag to me.
Those aren’t exactly normal people.
When I said, “someone having guns to shoot normal people”, I talked about the MAGA guys having those weapons.
I wonder if anon left something out? Like, threating to kill her or the person(s) she cheated with. Or some of the weapons being illegal? Nah, it would have been included if they weren’t. Some people have high drama lives.
Probably the part where this never happened, Anon is trying to get people mad at Red flag laws and women
I’m very sure he was very amicable and reasonable about it. He’s on 4chan, after all.
FYI, women are just as capable of being terrible people as men are
Yes, but this is 4chan, so the odds aren’t in OP’s favor.
Fair enough
My understanding is there is not a single state with red flag laws that allow all weapons to be seized based on one person’s word. Well other than a doctor giving a professional diagnosis.
For everyone else you have to have some evidence. Either multiple people witnessing threats/harassment video, or text based evidence.
There is a definite bias. Especially, ESPECIALLY when it comes to partner violence. And EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY when it comes to gun violence.
Well red flag laws are bad, on the whole. There’s no need to resort to propaganda really. Mostly because they present a disincentive for people to try and find help or share how they’re feeling with others; not whatever bullshit the post is about.
This reads like anti red flag law propaganda anyway. Fake and incel recruitment.
Sure, but it isn’t their side we read.
well even if this is the whole truth it would be a testament to his character that his girlfriend would cheat on him and then lie to the police just so he gets in trouble
Some people have bad radars about how dangerous the people they get in bed with are.
Some people self-sabotage by getting with toxic partners in the same pattern over and over again because they have unaddressed psychological issues.
It’s usually people who were victims of past abuse, too.
Especially past childhood abuse.
C’mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but “if people treat him badly, he must deserve it” is hardly fair.
In the hypothetical scenario that this is the whole truth, what you’re doing is victim blaming.
I didn’t intend to do that at all. The proverb I had in mind was “birds of a feather flock together”. It doesn’t mean he deserved it but I do think people who date people who would do this to them are probably not much better either. Also he wrote this on 4chan which is again, not a complete footprint of his personality but certainly a testament to his character.
This is the horror story for red flag laws existing.
Now imagine the horror stories of red flag laws not existing.
You don’t even have to imagine, just listen to one of the million true crime podcasts. Then multiply all those cases by 5 for all the minority women who they don’t talk about.
I appreciate the 100% complete, unbiased and unvarnished picture of the situation Green OP (Gropey?) has painted for us.
Story: Girlfriend cheats This guy: Maybe he deserved it
Weird take. If you ain’t happy with your SO you try and deal with it or you fuck off. Cheating just makes everything worse.
My colleague cheated on her man and now everything is worse. Whatever situation caused her to do it, now the situation is even harder to resolve. No one is gonna go “yeah okay, I probably deserved that. Let’s move on”, haha!
Funny to read the comments. I don’t want to judge anyone as Im not american and I grew up without even touching a real gun.
Its just amazing how big role guns play in US culture. I can’t imagine owning one, but most americans can’t live without them. Its very bizarre.
It’s not most Americans. It’s about a third (which is still huge) and less than half of the population living in a gun owning household.
Then there’s a spectrum of how “important” guns are culturally. There are in my experience 3 categories of gun owners.
- People who own a gun or two. They may take it to the range or hunt, but mostly it’s tucked securely away and they don’t think about it or use it.
2)Then there are collectors and enthusiasts. They enjoy firearms as a hobby. They have multiple. They watch firearms videos on social media. They go to gun shows and might join a club related to the hobby.
3)Then there are the paranoid psychopaths for whom gun ownership and the insistence that they could have to defend themselves at any time is constantly at the forefront of their mind. They wish they had a reason to shoot someone and may end up shooting someone anyway.
I’m a #2 except I dislike gun shows. Everything’s overpriced and there’s right-wing merch everywhere. Bought a canteen from a Proud Boy at one. Didn’t know it until I overheard him talking to another guy. Tried to investigate him later, couldn’t get a name.
deleted by creator
You’re fine. It doesn’t count as “bad phrasing” when you admit that you’re talking about something that’s weird to you and you don’t understand.
Lots of Americans think the gun culture is messed up, too.
Sorry bad phrasing, by most I meant a lot of americans. Thanks for correcting me :)
I am somewhat familiar with the type of gun owners from US media and movies.
For me the most mind-blowing thing is how easy is to get a gun at some places. I just imagine some shady people I know in my country, even some of my family members and can’t imagine them having access to guns :D
It perpetuates itself. If someone thinks there is a significant probability a burglar might have a gun, getting a gun themselves can increase their chance of survival. This is even ignoring the actual culture around it, where people want guns “just to have them”.
You don’t own a gun in case of a burglar having a gun. It’s in case of home invasion period. I’m not going to wait around to determine if they’re armed or not and I’m not going to restrict myself to some lesser means of stopping them just because they aren’t. I didn’t create this situation and I am not going to accept risk to myself to preserve the life of some asshole who doesn’t even respect me enough not to break into my home.
Isn’t this just a vicious cycle? You own a gun, because other people also have access to guns. The burglar might bring a gun, because the home owner possibly has a gun, etc
I don’t own a gun, I am 100x more likely to use it on myself than need it for self defense where I’m at. But the scenario I’m describing, whether or not the home invader has a gun or not doesn’t matter, the simple fact that they are invading your home in the first place justifies lethal force. You could be injured/killed by them even without them having a gun so the safest option for the resident is shoot them immediately. The resident should not have to accept any level of risk whatsoever in dealing with this situation. You’re not getting a gun because someone might attack you with a gun. You’re getting a gun because someone might attack you.
Kinda. It’s also a remnant of the old west. Guns were freedom, protection, power, etc.
It would be much more effective to curb crime by meeting everyone’s basic needs than giving everyone a gun.
But dumb Americans don’t know any other way. They are just to self-centered and absorbed to think about anyone else.
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It’s origin lies in emotion, not reason. It’s filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
I don’t avoid guns due to a fear of crime. I avoid guns due to a fear of negligence.
Every single day, someone in my family does something negligent, but ultimately harmless. Oops. Now there’s an extra dirty dish. Oops. Broke a coaster. Oops. Dirty towel. Oops. Got sprayed with water.
Putting a gun in that situation would be pretty dangerous.
I suppose some households could keep guns responsibly. Mine could not, despite my personal practices.
I don’t understand how you justify in your head adding guns into any of those situations you listed.
If you own guns, you’re supposed to have a secure way to store them. Especially if you have kids. While some people do leave guns sitting around the house, that is strongly discouraged.
You’re supposed to keep guns inside a safe unless you’re about to use it such as going to a range or hunting. And best practice is to keep ammo secured in a separate safe as an extra measure. And when you are handling a gun, you always check if it’s loaded and follow the 4 rules of gun safety
Thank you for proving my point.
Given how nonsensical your first comment was, I don’t think you had a point
They were talking about the dangers of negligence. You countered with how guns can be relatively safe if one follows safety guidelines.
The ‘negligence’ part is referring to those that don’t follow guides. By listing all the guides and rules to make guns safe, they probably mean you prove their point by showing the burden of responsibility guns require (and thus the risk when irresponsible people don’t meet them).
I’m not sure if you got to see their comments before they were deleted, but I recall their comment being a bit weirder than that. Things like “sometimes my family forgets to pick their wet towels off the floor. What happens if you add a gun to that?”.
As the second part of your comment, yeah I see your point. That being said, the rules of gun safety aren’t as huge of a hurdle as people seem to think they are. I think it’s more that some people are repelled by any form of friction when starting a new activity.
It’s very amusing to read such things from outside the American hellscape. Well, “amusing.”
Let’s say eventually there comes a government overreach that a popular armed uprising puts down. Every day until that day, children die. Accidental death from firearms is one of the leading causes of death of children in your country. (Do you feel that pricking sensation in your neck and face or are you immune to shame?) If the rebellion doesn’t come soon enough (or at all) then you are underwater in terms of dead children. So, how long is that runway? How long do you get to keep killing children until you have to admit, fuck, this is costing us more than it’s worth?
HAVE YOU EVEN DONE THE MATH, or are you just working from feelings?
It’s a good argument, but it’s entirely flawed because American policy is that the children have no worth until they pay taxes.
To compare dead children to the cost of failing to check government power, we can reduce both to life-years lost:
🔫 Current Cost: Child Firearm Deaths in the U.S.
- ~2,000 preventable child gun deaths/year
- ~60 life-years lost per death
- 120,000 life-years lost annually
- Over 30 years: ~3.6 million life-years lost
🏛️ Hypothetical Benefit: Preventing Tyranny
Assume a worst-case scenario:
- Authoritarian collapse kills 10 million (based on 20th-century examples)
- Avg. age at death: ~40 → ~35 life-years lost
- 10M deaths × 35 = 350 million life-years lost
Estimate risk:
- Without civilian arms: 0.5% chance over 30 years
- With civilian arms: 0.4% chance
- These figures are speculative; there’s no empirical support that civilian gun ownership reduces the risk of tyranny—many stable democracies have strict gun control.
In fact, high civilian armament may reduce stability:
- Greater availability of weapons increases the lethality of civil unrest, crime, and domestic terrorism.
- Armed polarization can accelerate breakdown during political crises, as seen in failed or fragile states.
- States may respond with harsher repression, escalating rather than deterring authoritarian outcomes.
📊 Expected Value Calculation
- Without arms: 0.005 × 350M = 1.75 million life-years at risk
- With arms: 0.004 × 350M = 1.2 million life-years at risk
- Net benefit of arms: ~550,000 life-years saved (generous estimate)
📉 Conclusion
Even with favorable assumptions:
- Civilian firearms cost ~3.6M life-years (due to preventable child deaths)
- And prevent only ~550K life-years (via marginally lower tyranny risk)
Bottom line: The ongoing cost vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefit, and high armament may worsen long-term stability rather than protect it.
In 2015 I’d agree.
In 2025? Nah, look at what’s happening around the US.
Dems are losing votes because of the guns issue, drop the gun issue, along with promoting a progressive platform and that’s easily winning elections.
Tongue in cheek of course but it still makes a point. The facts-over-feelings crowd has to show that the benefit of firearms outweigh the very observable negative consequences, and they cannot. So they are arguing feelings, not facts.
Accidental deaths from firearms can be reduced by making people get obligatory training and requiring storage in a gun safe, when not carried.
Okay? So how many years does that push the “break even point”? Do you see how this doesn’t engage with my point in the slightest?
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The problem is that the system is open to abuse. Anyone who wants to get back at someone can make up allegations and have their guns taken away with no due process.
But on the other hand if you make this process too difficult you can allow someone who is actually dangerous to keep their guns.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The thing is, this isn’t shown in the original post. Also, making death threats on its own is illegal, red flag laws aren’t required if the person making the report has proof.
Said victim could even get a restraining order if they were worried about violence, which won’t completely assure safety but will go down a process that actually uses due process and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.
I never said that Anon made any death threat and the concern you are raising is covered in the rest of my comment.
Uh, there is reason in not wanting people to be shot by a culture of fear.
Look up overall crime statistics for both countries that restrict firearm access and those who don’t. You’ll find that overall violent crime ends up being proportional to the countries’ midi coefficient (a measurement of economic inequality). Firearm availability mainly changes the proportion of violent crimes involving firearms vs overall violent crime.
Like I said, most of the statistics you see are cherry-picked to give an overly simplistic view of crime to distract from the fact that economic inequality is a huge correlating factor
While income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is positively correlated with violent crime, firearm availability has been shown to independently influence both the rate and lethality of violence.
According to Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza (2002, The Journal of Law and Economics), there is a significant cross-national association between income inequality and homicide rates. However, firearm access is not merely a determinant of the method used in violent crime—it also affects the frequency and outcome of such incidents.
Data from the Small Arms Survey and the Global Burden of Disease project indicate that countries with high rates of civilian firearm ownership (e.g., the United States) experience substantially higher rates of firearm homicide, suicide, and accidental gun death than peer nations with stricter gun regulations (e.g., the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia), despite similar or lower Gini coefficients.
For example, the U.S. firearm homicide rate was 6.1 per 100,000 in 2021 (CDC WONDER), compared to 0.5 per 100,000 in Canada and less than 0.1 in countries like Japan and the U.K. This disparity persists even when controlling for overall violent crime or economic inequality.
Moreover, studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have found that the presence of firearms in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide and suicide, particularly among women and children (see Kellermann et al., 1993; Anglemyer et al., 2014).
Therefore, while inequality is an important factor, firearm regulation has a demonstrable and independent effect on both the incidence and deadliness of violent crime. The distinction between type and frequency does not eliminate the public health implications of firearm prevalence.
You present yourself as rational while dismissing emotion as weakness. But emotions like shame, fear, and the impulse to protect others are not failures of reason. They are essential to moral awareness.
The need to maintain rigid rational detachment is itself emotionally driven. It often reflects a desire to avoid guilt or to preserve control. That isn’t objectivity, it’s fragility disguised as discipline.
The gun control movement is not left-wing. The left supports gun ownership overwhelmingly.
Gun suicides are a huge problem, so there is a legitimate need for interventions in the appropriate circumstances. Suicidal ideation is also usually an impulsive or fleeting idea, so removing the means of suicide only temporarily can be a solution to that temporary problem.
The Swiss saw suicide rates drop with reduced access to firearms in shrinking their military, and the Israeli military has seen weekend suicide rates drop by simply having troops check in their weapons into armories over weekends, without a corresponding change in weekday suicides.
Anti-suicide nets on bridges work very well, too, because simply making a suicide more inconvenient, or require a bit more planning, is often enough to just make it so that the suicide attempt never happens.
So yeah. I’m generally against restrictions on firearm ownership or access for people who can be responsible with them, but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence. And, like, convicted criminals, too.
but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this. When the police recieve a report, they end up seizing the guns without any due process, and the owners has to sue to get them back.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this.
It’s my understanding that every state with a red flag law imposes a procedure similar to involuntary commitment: a court weighing evidence presented to it under penalty of perjury, with a heavy presumption that these orders are only for extremely rare situations.
Florida’s procedure, for example, requires a petition from the police to the court, and requires the police to show the court that the person is suffering from a serious mental illness, has committed acts of violence, or has credibly threatened acts of violence (to self or others). In ordinary cases the person whose guns are being taken away has an opportunity to be heard in court before the judge decides, but in emergency cases the court can order the guns be taken away for up to 14 days, and requires an opportunity for the person to be heard in court.
So in practice, in Florida, someone would have to convince the police they’re a danger, and then provide enough evidence that the police can persuade a judge. Private citizens aren’t allowed to petition the court directly, and the process requires proof of a serious enough set of facts to justify taking guns away.
Pro life and pro gun control are both anti-killing positions about preserving human life.
Not true, “pro-life” is actually “anti-woman’s life”. Those people would rather have an adult person die from an ectopic pregnancy than have a clump of cancer removed.
This. Pro-life supporters don’t care if the mother dies. Hell, corpses get more rights than pregnant women, because at least people can refuse to be organ donors
So you nazis have mind reading technologies now?
Resorting to calling me a Nazi now? Thanks for telling me that you have no actual counterargument.
The Pro-Choice argument is one of bodily autonomy. If people have the right to refuse the use of their organs to save others after they are dead, then everyone should also have the right to refuse the same while they are alive.
Not only that, bans on abortion adds red tape to many procedures necessary to keep the mother alive, incpuding in situations where the fetus isn’t viable. If the fetus dies in the womb and the mother doesn’t naturally expel it, she needs an abortion ot it’ll rot and kill here. If the zygote never fully makes it to the uterus and starts developing inside the ovarian tubes, it needs to be aborted or it will kill both the mother and the fetus.
Making it harder for pregnant women to gain access to these procedures is needlessly and ridiculously cruel.
And let’s also discuss your Nazi claims: I’m pro-workers right, pro-consumer rights, pro-privacy. I think we need to increase social welfare services to help the most vulnerable of us, including some form of universal healthcare. But I’m a Nazi simply because I support the 2nd ammendment? Yeah, that bullshit. You aren’t worth wasting more of my time on.
The Pro-Choice argument is one of bodily autonomy. If people have the right to refuse the use of their organs to save others after they are dead, then everyone should also have the right to refuse the same while they are alive.
The choice is made when she gets pregnant. A slim minority of abortions are in cases of rape. Because I know pro-aborts like to bring up rare scenarios every time
Not only that, bans on abortion adds red tape to many procedures necessary to keep the mother alive, incpuding in situations where the fetus isn’t viable. If the fetus dies in the womb and the mother doesn’t naturally expel it, she needs an abortion ot it’ll rot and kill here. If the zygote never fully makes it to the uterus and starts developing inside the ovarian tubes, it needs to be aborted or it will kill both the mother and the fetus.
Removing a dead foetus isn’t murder. Of course I’m not advocating for a ban on that
You’re a nazi because you’re using dogwhistles by referring to humans as “lumps of cancer”. That’s a classic dehumanisation tactic.
A foetus isn’t a clump of cancer. No need to use a Eugenicist dog-whistle, Nazi.
Wtf? Cops just come and take your shit away because some girl said so?
No. Thats 4chan, a place of lies and deception.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
Despite being blatantly unconstitutional (deprives a citizen of rights based on an accusation without trial) red flag laws exist in 21 states.
In this particular thread, 4chan is a better source of information than Lemmy.
If you look at the numbers in your own post these laws are used very rarely, and in every state a fraction of petitions applied for are granted.
There needs to be actual evidence greater than “ex girlfriend said so” for a court to grant the request.
Ironically by the numbers Florida seems to be the state most likely to use the law. Granting a total of 2,355 in 2020. California on the other hand has issued only 984. These are the 3rd and 1st most populous states respectively.
Given how many people go through breakups each year and how many people are insanely petty, seems like it’s not just based on a disgruntled ex’s word.
Florida seems to be the state most likely to use the law.
I wonder if the stat is skewed by the fact that Florida has the largest population of Florida Men.
The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it’s narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it’s not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn’t done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
Red flag laws, as written, don’t come anywhere near a strict scrutiny standard and rarely involve a judge. Usually police are empowered to make the decision, or worse, instructed to always seize weapons immediately until a judge says give them back, even if the police think it sounds like bullshit (as in the scenario of the greentext).
From the Wikipedia page, emphasis mine:
In the United States, a red flag law (named after the idiom red flag meaning “warning sign“; also known as a risk-based gun removal law,[1]) is a gun law that permits a state court to order the temporary seizure of firearms (and other items regarded as dangerous weapons, in some states) from a person who they believe may present a danger. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6][7]
Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone’s home for guns without a judge’s permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.
I didn’t see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.
When I was living with my parents my dad pushed my brother and told him to “get the fuck out”. My brother called the cops on him and the cops came and took my dad away that day. He got let out but IIRC a couple days later he had to surrender his firearms later until everything was settled.
If you can afford a bunch of guns there’s no chance in hell you’re getting approved for a public defender. Good luck anon
Anon can easily get a lawyer pro-bono, with contingency fee, who would nail a case like this to a cross.
In civil court, because she defamed him causing real and considerable loss of property, and psychological harm.
As for defending, Anon hasn’t really outlined any laws he might have broken…? Court for what? Just go to the trial and explain your side clearly and concisely: never a threat to anybody, cheating girlfriend made a false report.
lol I’d love to meet the lawyer who would be willing to defend a 4channer on contingency.
Can afford a bunch of guns and ammo, but can’t afford a lawyer to defend yourself in court?
Strange priorities
I mean you can buy a gun for 200 USD at Walmart. Lawyers cost 200 USD per hour.
Do you really believe that “all my guns, bullets and reloading material” is cheaper than a lawyer for a hearing like this? In my mind that phrase represents thousands of dollars worth of gun stuff, and a lawyer who can represent you in a TRO hearing might be about $500-1500 ($200/hour, maybe 2-8 hours of work for that first hearing).
I mean they already own the guns. They can’t even sell them to hire a lawyer because they were taken.
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you. 🤷♀️
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
You’re off by an order of magnitude. I’m saying the lawyer would cost between 3 to low 4 figures, generally less than a single gun.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you.
The ownership of the gun hasn’t changed. That owner can sell the gun even if they can’t physically possess it. Federal law requiring relinquishment of firearms (like upon conviction of a disqualifying felony or domestic violence misdemeanor) explicitly provides for selling the guns as a way to comply with the order. Each state is different in their rules on selling weapons already in the police’s possession, and states require that transfer to go through an FFL, but most do not.
Look, I’m a gun owner. And I think part of being a responsible gun owner means having the financial means to actually deal with the consequences of owning, and potentially using, that firearm. I think it’s a defect of American gun culture that there are so many people with concealed carry licenses who wouldn’t even know how to contact a lawyer if they were to actually fire a gun in a real situation, whether it’s a legitimate self defense situation or a negligent discharge. Gun ownership carries important responsibilities, and there is such a thing as someone who is too poor to responsibly own a gun (much less enough to where the phrase “all my guns” carries its own implicit meaning).
You do you. But I challenge you to go and look at gun prices at your local Walmart in the USA. Not every guy you buy has to be an FN-Scar 17 in pricing.
Turn around a look at how much it costs to defend yourself criminally in the USA.
Guns are about $200 at Walmart.
Robust criminal defense is about 30-40 hours.
Also good luck selling a gun you don’t have in your possession. Try going to a gun shop and saying “give me the cash now, I promise to give you the gun when the police give it back to me”
You might legally have that right but practically… good luck.
We do agree that you should be responsible for your actions. But looking at the meme here nothing wrong was done.
defend yourself criminally
Robust criminal defense
These court proceedings aren’t criminal cases. They’re more like hearings on restraining orders and things of that nature. Like I said, this is generally less than a single day’s work for a lawyer, 2-5 hours.
I’m comparing middle of the road prices for handguns ($500-$1200) to middle of the road prices for a lawyer who can handle one of these hearings ($500-$1500). I still think it’s financially irresponsible to own more than 3 guns and not have a $1000 emergency fund.
I’d like to hear her version
Right? I’m sure the BF is a very well adjusted person that just happens to post on 4chan
I mean more often than not, when a woman accuses a man of doing horrible things and the man denies it, the woman is right
I mean… isn’t that what is NRA is for?
Or… do they only defend rich white people’s gun rights? 🤔
