Hey, he’s like, just this guy, you know?

  • 13 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle






  • Here’s the trick… the Nashville shooter had no criminal record and bought the guns 100% legally. There is no gun restriction that would block someone who passes the background check from buying a gun.

    BUT:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting

    “Hale was under care for an emotional disorder and had legally purchased seven firearms, including three recovered from the shooting scene, between October 2020 and June 2022.[1]”

    If someone is under psychological care, should that be allowed to pop up on a background check? Maybe not as an instant disqualification the way a court ordered commitment or conviction would, but as an advisory note? Leave it to the discretion of the firearms seller? “By the way, this person is undergoing psych care, you could be held liable if they use this firearm in a crime.” That kind of thing?

    Because right now, the only stuff that shows up on the background check are things that were ruled on by a judge, and sometimes not even all of those.

    For example:

    The guy who shot up Michigan State University:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting

    “McRae was arrested in June 2019 for carrying a weapon without a concealed pistol license.[38] Initially charged with a felony, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful possession of a loaded firearm as part of a plea agreement in November 2019.[39] He was originally sentenced to twelve months’ probation, which was later extended to 18 months, and in May 2021, he was discharged from probation.[35] Because McRae was not convicted of a felony, his ban on possessing weapons ended with the end of his probation.[40]”

    Arrested for a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, was allowed to buy guns again.

    Had he been convicted of the felony, he would have been blocked from owning a gun. The misdemeanor was not a barrier and did not appear on the background check.

    Maybe it should have? Maybe ANY gun charges, felony OR misdemeanor should bar you from gun ownership?











  • Huh, I went looking for it just now and can’t find it, so either I already blocked it or maybe lemmy.one already defederated from it? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

    But yeah… bad administration needs defederation. Bad users need blocking/reporting.

    lemmy.world got a bunch of heat from defederating from hexbear pre-emptively, but it seems like that was the right call. Then they got ddossed after defederating from pirate communities. Not saying that’s CAUSATIVE, just “interesting”. ;)


  • Blocking them on Voyager on Android works for me. :)

    But I think it’s reasonable to tell people to use the search to find communities that interest them, curate your home feed, and be aware that diving into the “All Federated Content” feed will show you stuff that’s a) not particularly useful or b) potentially offensive to your sensibilities.

    It took me way longer to get fed up with bot@lemmit.online than I’d really like to admit, and I only blocked them when it became clear they weren’t going to stop. I could see other people enjoying the feed… but then why don’t they comment? 🤔



  • Repost bots are no better than spam bots IMHO, but I think defederation needs to be based on bad behavior by the admins, not the accounts themselves.

    In the case of lemmit.online, yeah, they are creating a bunch of communities that ONLY the bot can post in, and the posts get no replies because what’s the point in replying to TIFU or AITA if OP will never see it?

    That’s clearly the fault of the admin, but OTOH, blocking bot@lemmit.online solves the problem without full defederation.

    There’s a food community I read that gets spambots from lemm.ee all the time only posting affiliate links.

    Those get reported for spam and blocked, but it’s clearly not the policy of lemm.ee so no reason to defederate.