• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    I agree with this morally. I think the law in america doesnt agree with that but I’m not a lawyer.

    People open carry guns all over, including in ways that most would consider brandishing them.

    I think the real takeaway from this shooting is that when accidents with guns happen, people can get hurt or die, and its impossible to make everyone accident less, so to even own one is inherently dangerous.

    Because of that, you should have to have a real need to put that sort of danger on those around you.

    Everytime this happens we have the same list of replies saying they were just a bad person with a gun, they should just allow good people to have guns. Funny how every single poster here is one of those good people based on their own analysis.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
      link
      fedilink
      52 months ago

      Depending on the state. In some states, you haven’t committed a crime until the weapon is discharged, and then not a seious one until it hits something important. But that can change based on the race and circumstances of the gunman. Most counties really don’t like black men carrying guns.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        Are there states that actually code racism like that into law or does it just bear out with the statistics?

        I only know my home state laws really, and its legal here to walk around with a rifle on your back. Although last time someone tried that in my town the police came and followed him for a few hours.

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Ever since the civil rights movement and the overturn of the Jim Crow laws (and the establishment of the right to interracial marriage), laws to prevent gun ownership based on race (even by implication, such as based on neighborhood) have been successfully challenged, but that doesn’t stop the police rushing to escalation once it’s established a someone has a gun, and blacks are represented disproportionately in officer-involved homicide.

          But I can’t say I have the data specifically regarding armed black suspects verses armed white suspects. Still if you’re black in Missouri or Mississippi (or Oakland, California – the US teems with a lot of racial-tension hot zones) then yes, the police are more likely to escalate a situation or shoot at you than if you are white, but that’s true regardless if you have a gun.

          Also blacks are convicted of crimes, violent or otherwise, statistically more often than whites with less evidence, and are given harsher sentences than whites for the same crimes, and this includes possession of illegal firearms. I suspect it’s harder for nonwhites to get concealed-carry permits in states they are needed.

          (My impression is no-one really likes open-carry in urban or suburban regions. Even here in California, there are rural towns where one could carry a rifle on their back, at least during hunting season, especially since the local economies depend on hunting tourism. So you’re not going to be bothered by the county sheriff along the California / Nevada border the way you would say, in the Bay Area.)

          The killing of Philando Castile in 2016 serves as an example of what blacks fear. He was pulled over for a broken tail-light, announced he was armed to Officer Jeronimo Yanez of the St. Anthony PD. Yanez freaked out and shot Castile seven times, two of which penetrated his heart. (Of note is that in the last thirteen years, Castile had been pulled over 39 times in that area for broken tail-light type offenses.) Yanez was tried and acquitted. He was removed from that precinct but as far as we know Yanez is serving as law enforcement elsewhere.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            I see what you mean thats very insightful.

            I was mainly wondering if there were laws in some states that explicitly state some sort of racism in the letter of the law.

            Thats not to say thats a requirement to believe the things you said, I just thought at the very least racist laws were more indirect in how they are racist.