• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    We’ve turned into a nation of cowards. Just completely craven people who shoot first and ask questions later because the news has made them terrified that they’ll be murdered in their beds, despite violent crime being historically low, comparatively speaking.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The NRA fear paranoia narrative has permeated our society. Add to that those who feel inferior so they carry a gun to feel powerful. Now add the hate farming by Russian trolls and right wing media, (the two are the same, with different names)

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        How often I witness roadrage/aggressive drivers makes the mass gunownership in this country kind of terrifying. I’ve seen a truck try to push another car off the road for getting off a left hand exit. I can only assume the truck driver was mad at the car for “being in the way.” The power tripping and entitlement to being aggressive towards others combined with your list of problematic cultural phenomenon and guns is horrifying.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Everything is a threat. Thank you Faux News and the rest.

      Different color skin - threat

      Gay - threat

      Trans - threat

      Environmental rules - threat

      Immigration - thread

      Vegetarian - threat

      Equality - threat

      Atheism - threat

      Non-western religion - threat

      Woke - threat

      Electric cars - threat

      The list is endless. Everything is a threat to them. Their pocketbooks, their marriage, their jobs, their theism, their TV, their guns…

      An endless barrage of threats that they are constantly reminded of.

      What can they do against all these threats? Elect a Strong Man that will crack skulls, He Has All The Answers. But those pesky libs keep getting in the way, so you gotta take matters into your own hands. Thank god and the good ol’ USA you can have a personal arsenal at arm’s reach to instantly panic-fire at that dark-skinned person pulling into your driveway who wants to steal your TV.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The “I feared for my life” rhetoric is just an excuse to shoot people, borrowed from police when they wanted to shoot people. You don’t have to politely believe them just because they said it.

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’ve talked about in in several other posts regarding gun control.

      The rampant media sowing fear is poison. It’s the culture that’s being fostered that’s more dangerous than the guns. “Fuck around and find out” and “come try and take them” keeps reinforcing that guns are a totally normal thing to use to solve problems.

    • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Having mingled with the gun community for some time, there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners but there are also a worrying amount of terminally fearful people with violent ideation. Many are likely one bad life event, one half-cocked response to an uncertain situation from being a mugshot on a news story like this prick.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners but there are also a worrying amount of terminally fearful people with violent ideation.

        The problem is that both groups have the same ease of access to weapons.

        Until there are a lot more reliable ways to tell the 2 groups apart, weapons need to be a lot more difficult to get your hands on.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Having mingled with the gun community for some time, there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners

        This is why US has so much gun violence. Like rabid dog owners assuring you theyre safe. You just havent seen them when theyre not level headed, we’re all emotional apes.

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          For the same reason, it makes spur of the moment suicide attempts more likely, and more deadly.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yep. Even the “responsible” gun owners I know radiate the “I want you to know I’m dangerous” energy when they tell you how prepared they are, “just in case something happens that requires a gun”

          There are other quieter owners you never really hear about though. My brother never really talks about it, doesn’t chime in to water cooler “what are you shooting” kinds of talks, and basically just keeps them in the gun safe except for his ~2x a year gun range trips to make sure he stays competent.

          He treats them like his garage full of dangerous power tools. Not a toy, but good to have in your back pocket should there be a need for that particular tool some day.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            I know most gun owners go their entire lives never shooting someone.

            But i dont trust anyones judgment on who will or wont. Its not just the loud and proud gun enthusiasts that end up on the homicide news.

            • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              I know most gun owners go their entire lives never shooting someone.

              But i dont trust anyones judgment on who will or wont.

              Even the cops who aren’t bastards could make the wrong assessment here, too.

              It’s safer to go unarmed so when the pros show up you don’t become a concern for them for an instant.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            He treats them like his garage full of dangerous power tools. Not a toy, but good to have in your back pocket should there be a need for that particular tool some day.

            A significantly unfortunate number of gun owners treat them like fashion accessories. To be displayed, accessorized, collected, and carelessly treated.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah. I have friends that won’t even let their kids walk a quarter mile to school, in one of the safest communities in the entire state. It’s insane. The media has put the fear of “but what if…” into so many people.

      You’ve got better odds winning the lottery than what these people are afraid of. Be smart, be savvy, be aware of your surroundings and watch out for the oblivions as you go about your business. But there’s no need to be afraid of everything around you.

      • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        In that situation I’m concerned about other drivers, and also the child not paying attention while staring at their phone. I have seen sooo many teens just step off the curb and walk across the street without even looking up from their phone. Stranger Danger would have nothing to do with it.

        There needs to be a better balance between the latch key kid independence/responsibility and the absolute lack of trust in your kids and your community to just not be child kidnapping murderers???

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fixing transport infrastructure would have the most impact. Narrower roads with fewer lanes and more complexity, 20mph/30kmph speed limits, better designed pedestrian crossings, and separated bike and pedestrian infrastructure. And requiring the vehicles themselves to be designed such that they are not just safe for the occupants, but safe for other vehicles and people too (which means lower hood heights and lower weight).

          And in general, providing viable alternatives to driving so there are less vehicles on the road, making it safer to walk and bike.

          • daltotron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            but safe for other vehicles and people too (which means lower hood heights and lower weight).

            Small note on this, but better crash compatibility and an upper weight limit might also increase the relative safety of bicycles, motorcycles, and even potentially some larger local wildlife, on top of just increasing safety for pedestrians and people driving relatively smaller cars, like sedans.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          The whole way our society is built is not around pedestrian safety or teaching it to children.

          My daughter is growing up in a subdivision with low traffic and no sidewalks and I have to regularly remind her to look both ways when crossing the streets when we’re elsewhere because it’s just not something she has to do all the time.

          There’s room for sidewalks, they just didn’t build them. If there were sidewalks, it would be far easier for her to remember to do it every time.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’ve got better odds winning the lottery than what these people are afraid of. Be smart, be savvy, be aware of your surroundings and watch out for the oblivions as you go about your business. But there’s no need to be afraid of everything around you.

        Awareness prevents the vast majority of dangerous situations. Carrying is actually more likely to escalate situations into being dangerous than not. even a basic situational awareness will keep you far safer than a fire arm ever will.

      • bufordt@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree that people shouldn’t be afraid of this stuff, but I think you underestimate the odds of winning the lottery and your chances of being murdered.

        Around 32,000 homicides/year in the US. 333,000,000 people, so about 1 in 100,000.

        Powerball odds are 1 in 292,000,000.

        • nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          the distribution is different though, if you buy a powerball ticket you have the same odds as everyone else who bought one assuming the numbers are equally distributed and truly random

          the difference between living in Biden’s suburban neighborhood in Delaware vs west Philly or Baltimore is huge

    • Nobody@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re right that the vast majority are cowards, but you also have psychos who jerk off to a fantasy of shooting someone. There are all kinds of crazies out there just looking for a reason, and they’re getting crazier in their psycho echo chambers.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The ONLY ONLY ONLY way to Prevent this is to make sure TEENAGE DELIVERY DRIVERS shoot at every home they pull up in before getting out!

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Please make sure this fuckhead is never allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life. And give him a few years in a secluded spot to think about what he did wrong.

    Sincerely,

    Responsible Gun Owners

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      He’s been charged with a felony, the only thing that could “save” him there is pleading down or acquittal. We do have some laws, y’know.

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      You know what this guy was before he tried to kill someone for the first time?

      A responsible gun owner.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Eh, he clearly was not, but I’m not here to get into a debate about guns or gun control. We definitely need way less of the former and way more of the latter but everybody has different ideas on that and I’ve had that online argument dozens of times.

      • Paddzr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        If all it takes is 40 questions and some for show handling test? The system is fucked and not strict as others would make you believe.

        Car license is 10x harder here and that’s still loose.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Responsible” as in “doesn’t know the laws regarding firearms ownership in his area so he just tried to shoot someone he was never legally allowed to even if he was breaking into his car?”

        Trust me on this one, anyone who owns guns but doesn’t know how to use them safely, efficiently, and legally, isn’t “responsible,” as those are prerequisites for “responsibility.”

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          The point is there is no way to distinguish the two until they try to kill someone or kill someone. (And seemingly every effort to make it possible to distinguish the two ahead of time - well, you know how those go.)

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Right, you can’t know what’s in the can until you open it. Unfortunately there isn’t really a way to distinguish it ahead of time in many cases.

            Sure, there are cases like Parkland, in which Broward Co had received over 40 calls about Cruz in the years before the shooting and each time decided not to charge him with a felony or hold him on an adjucated IVC, both of which could have been done but weren’t. Same for that recent kid who’s parents got charged, he had been begging for help, there are times which we could’ve done something even with our current laws and the system failed. In those cases there was a clear indication of the “can’s contents” so to speak. There is clear evidence to speak that they are a danger, and we can already do something about that, even if sometimes we fail to do so (and I blame in part, in the above cases, Broward Co Sherrifs and the kid’s parents respectively for their failure to act on the information they had).

            But that isn’t what they’re advocating for. They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system, which considers (at least ostensibly) people innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

            I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.

            • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system

              And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police. That’s tangential, but I couldn’t not mention it in response to this comment.

              I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.

              You know what would shut me the hell up on gun control? These simple measures, which would be treated by the right like I’m calling for a total ban on guns.

              • To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun operator.
              • To be licensed as a gun operator, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.
              • To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.
              • Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them “red” flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern. Edit - such “flags” could in some cases be resolvable.
              • To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I’m thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)

              Caveats:

              • If you are licensed, you get concealed and open carry privileges in every location where this doesn’t violate applicable local/state laws.
              • If your license lapses, it’s a felony to leave your home with your guns.
                • Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.
                • And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don’t really matter at that point, right?

              Would my plan solve every problem? No. Would it be a better solution to school shootings and other related issues than “let’s arm teachers and everyone else Wyatt Earp style?” Yes, yes it would. And, like any such measure, it could be further refined over time.

              Edit - I made a distinction between owner and operator, I think this makes it better. shrug

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police.

                And yet we continuously decry this as “bad.” It’s wrong when they do it yet you encourage it more. Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?

                To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun owner.

                2a prevents this, it would have to be overturned to pass. Licensure is seen as turning a right into a privilege by the courts. Personally I don’t like it because of how easily it could be abused to deny “the dangerous blacks” or “those suicidal trans” from gun ownership by an “instructor” so inclined.

                To be licensed as a gun owner, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.

                See above. Though I did want to mention accidents are on the low end of our actual problem in terms of numbers. I think gun safety is important too but this does nothing to stop murderers and the like.

                To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.

                The license thing being blocked by the 2a still throws a wrench in your plan, but these are the guys who can decide “I won’t approve guns for blacks” that I was referring to. Currently, these people are sheriffs doing it with carry permits, because that’s the extent of their power, but it is being done as black people are iirc 60-70% of permit denials in some areas. Furthermore some guy deciding I’m “weird” is no basis for denying me rights. Even if it isn’t due to skin color, I’m certainly not christian, what if I happen to wear my Anti-Christ Demoncore (great band) shirt and the instructor decides that’s a “red flag” simply because he doesn’t understand Vegan Satanists from California aren’t actually all that bad just because they use scary imagry? Hell, “those columbine kids loved metallica, any metalhead shouldn’t own a gun” is a thing I’ve actually heard before. Having the basis for denial of rights being anything other than “is criminal” opens denial of rights up far too wide.

                Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them “red” flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern.

                Sheriffs currently can do this to some degree with those permits, it’s just that those “red flags” are often “is black.”

                To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I’m thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)

                Frankly safety doesn’t change much over time, the guns themselves haven’t even changed all that much in the last 100yr.

                If unlicensed, it’s a felony to leave your home with your guns.

                But they can have them unlicensed at home even though they can’t legally own them at all without a license? A) How would they get it home from the store? B) From the home to the range?

                Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.

                So if you carry it illegally out and don’t get attacked and don’t shoot anyone but get searched by an overzealous likely racist cop you’re fucked, but if you do get attacked and kill a guy it’s cool that you were carrying illegally? Why not just not harass the guy for not getting attacked?

                And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don’t really matter at that point, right?

                Well sure lol.

                • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?

                  LOL you are either being intentionally obtuse, or otherwise reaching so far, I don’t really see the point in trying to tease any further nuance out of this discussion.

                  I do find it genuinely amusing that my sideswipe at police was interpreted as a pro-police statement - but clearly we’re having two different conversations.

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Youre hearing about him after he tried to kill someone for the first time. I said before. Now, think to before this happened, how do you tell this guy isnt a responsible gun owner?

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Did he know the laws before, simply getting amnesia the day he broke them thus “becoming” an irresponsible gun owner, or did he never know the laws, and was always an irresponsible gun owner?

            Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not. Can you tell what is inside of an unlabeled soup can before you open it? No, but that doesn’t make it not chicken noodle, you just have to open it before you know that it’s chicken noodle. Just because he hadn’t opened his can and shown his irresponsible contents doesn’t mean they weren’t in there to begin with, the closed can doesn’t contain tomato soup until you open it and it magically becomes chicken noodle now that it is open.

            • blazera@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not.

              I know youre used to the US where tons of gun homicides happen everyday, but its not normal for the rest of the developed world. If you want guns to be a safe thing, you have to be able to tell before these people go murdering. Hindsight is 20/20. There are people today that are going to kill someone for the first time, people that to the outside world look like responsible gun owners.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Unfortunately, like unlabeled cans, people are able to hide their contents. Unlike the cans, people can even actively attempt to resist “opening” them to find out their contents, making it all that more of an impossible task.

                • blazera@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  right, do you see the problem here? To the outside world, a responsible gun owner, and an irresponsible one that hasnt killed yet look the same. how do you keep guns away from irresponsible gun owners before they kill someone? You have to treat every gun owner as irresponsible, because we cant tell before it happens. And it needs to stop happening.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The difference between a responsible gun owner and a fucking lunatic with a firearm is one mistake.

  • millie@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    As a late night cab driver, if you’re ever wondering why I’m on the street rather than the driveway in your sketchy, pickup truck filled suburban neighborhood, this is why.

    Give me a shady looking industrial district or run down residential neighborhood over semi-rural suburbia any day of the week. I feel much safer.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    What the fuck are these people so scared of that they start blasting folk for pulling into their driveway? This seems to keep happening and nobody ever thinks to check up on the mf who almost blasted a delivery driver who got the wrong address? Forget just charging the dude with attempted murder, can we search the house and take away firearms from somebody so clearly irresponsible that they can’t distinguish a genuine threat from an imagined one?

    If the second amendment won’t allow that to happen, then the amendment needs to be re-written.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      A diet of fear mongering media with a heaping helping of social isolation.

      Antisocial monsters are made surprisingly easily.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The second amendment absolutely would allow that to happen. To people purposefully misrepresenting what it says won’t.

      First, it says what it says because we need a militia to protect the nation, which was once true when an professional standing army wasn’t expected but no longer is.

      Second, the goal is for a well regulated militia. Even if we assume it still applies (it doesn’t, but let’s pretend), nothing about this is well regulated. Make sure people have training if you’re going to let people own firearms so freely.

      • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        It wasn’t that a professional standing army “wasn’t expected” - in fact they were quite common at the time. Standing armies don’t tend to go unused, they make it easy for asshole politicians to pick stupid fights with other countries. Not having one was a deliberate choice we made to avoid such things, and for the most part it worked, for a little while at least.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      As a responsible gun owner: they can and should take his guns away. There’s multiple felonies he can be charged with and he’ll almost certainly be convicted of at least one.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Shit I delivery drove for 10yr, and I definitely got paid with a couple boxes of JHPs in that time. A lot more pizza drivers are strapped than you think and some take alternate forms of payment (commonly weed, but bullets and other trades are certainly not unheard of.)

  • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The “castle doctrine” and everyone who’s misunderstanding it is reminding me a LOT of a “localized purge” - been watching the first 2-3 films lately and season 1 (surprisingly good) and it’s chilling to see the real state of the US these days. Used to be my favourite travel destination in the 90s, then still a great place to go for business trips in the 2000s - but never again will I set foot on that unholy land where every insane person can get a gun and murder you on the spot and will likely get away with it.

    • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Never mind that the 90s was a peak for violent crime mainly due to the war on drugs, and it’s safer now than it was then…

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Nobody seems to be misunderstanding it but you. This is the kind of country these people want.

      • stringere@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Many of us are trapped by the choices of our Fox-brainwashed elderly population.

        The absolutely morally bankrupt and spoiled boomers dominating the voting population with blind allegiance and rising evengelicism over the last 50 years got us here. Basically, the most self centered and selfish generation in modern American history is hell bent on fucking every generation that follows them.

        A lot of us have chosen and chosen and chosen otherwise in futility. Even when we’ve had the opportunity for progress it was tempered by trying to appease the other party; in the name of bipartisanship we get a neutered health care plan that still has grift built directly into the system.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I suppose I forgot the quotes around “misunderstanding” - maybe should have rephrased to “deliberately misinterpreting”. Either way, I agree & it is a sad and depressing world in which people get murdered daily because some asshole with a gun wanted blood…