1y ago

New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

apnews.com New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has issued an emergency public health order temporarily suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County.

News @kbin.social

apnews.com /article/albuquerque-guns-governor-concealed-carry-fc5b4b79bf411b8022c3ad58975724d7

24 5

News @lemmy.world

New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

apnews.com /article/albuquerque-guns-governor-concealed-carry-fc5b4b79bf411b8022c3ad58975724d7

219 45

You're viewing a single thread.

199 comments

A judge has already issued a temporary order to block the ban.
- Thank goodness, the murders can continue
  
  I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead
  
  I don't think it's quite an equivalence. When carrying firearms is illegal (as it effectively is in my country of Canada), you know whenever you see someone with a gun that you should run and call the police. You know they're up to no good. In many US states, if you see someone with a gun... you kinda just have to deal with it. Maybe they'll shoot you. Maybe they just need to overcompensate for something. You can't really run from it because it can be so common.
  A decent amount of gun crime is also spur of the moment acts. They won't go home, get their gun, and come back. The gun violence only happens because the perpetrator happened to have a gun when they were angry. Banning carrying doesn't guarantee people won't be armed in public, but it sure will heavily reduce it.
  
  Criminals don't open carry. If you see a gun holstered on someone, they are explicitly showing you they are not a threat to you unless you become a threat to them. If they wanted to harm you, why would they show their hand before making a move.
  Lethal crimes of passion are far more rare than you're making them out. Carrying a pocket knife is legal in Canada no? Do you feel you're in constant danger of being stab by any random angry stranger? Cars are common in Canada, do you flinch at every intersection because you aren't sure if someone had a bad day and wants to run someone over randomly? No of course not, because the overwhelming majority of people don't want to hurt anyone
  
  Did you see that video of the lady open carrying in Houston who started shooting at the car that cut her off? Hilarious. Sorry, you were saying?
  
  Did you see the article of the Saskatchewan mass stabbing that had something like 28 casualties? Anecdotes are not indicative of trends.
  In a country of 300M you will have outliers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of carriers not hurting a fly for every article like this. Texas alone has 1.7M licensed carriers. So that ratio is actually probably in the hundreds of thousands to 1.
  
  US has a gun problem. It isn't really news. Unfortunately guns are ingrained into US culture and people will defend their right for guns against all common sense.
  
  Try comparing countries by homicide categorically.
  As it is, you're showing you don't care at all about homicide - only that the specific implement is a firearm.
  
  So US is what, in the top 20? If you filter for developed countries, US is firmly #1. There is certainly room for improvement. Having easy access to devices designed to kill people is just madness to me.
  
  Why don't you check out the data and directly refer to that early than making more bad guesses?
  The original intent of a thing is entirely irrelevant to what a thing is used for. The sheer number of things in use in day-to-day life in ways far beyond original intent is mind-boggling. And then there's the flip-side, the logical extension of such an absurd focus precludes assigning actual blame for use of a thing in the way it was designed.
  I'm not sure how you define easy, but requiring a background check is more than sufficient barrier for me. Then again, I'm not pants-shittingly terrified of inanimate objects.
  
  If you don't want to hurt anyone, why carry a weapon designed for that exact purpose? There's literally no other use for a gun.
  
  Want and need are different. I don't want to shoot a rabid dog that got loose, but I absolutely will before it bites me. Same with any other threats to my bodily safety that I can't escape from.
  
  God, do Americans live in such a state of paranoia they always think something like that might happen whenever they leave the house so need a gun? Seems sad.
  
  Are you under the impression that America has a violent crime rate of 0 and carriers are just hullicinating the existence of criminals or dangerous animals?
  If you're cool with relying on chance that you'll never need it, that's fine I'm not advocating you carry or change your laws. But I prefer to have the right to carry the tools to defend myself even if I'll likely never need them.
  
  I mean, all countries have violent crimes, but I don't leave the house assuming I'll be a victim of one to the point I need to carry a lethal weapon. I can ubder stand say, women carrying pepper spray or the like to deter an attacker but killing them just seems like a step too far when you have no idea how they ended up at that point.
  
  So you understand the concept and need for self defense. Pepper spray and tasers don't always work. If your assailant is on mind altering substances, pain compliance tools like PS will be inaffective. Tasers won't work (or are less likely to work) on winter clothing.
  If you're cool with your odds that's fine, but I'm not willing to risk my life (or more importantly my partner's life) when conceal carry is just as physical easy as PS.
  
  The problem is that the things you talk about are all tools. Including guns. It's just that the primary tool use of a gun is to kill. If I see someone openly carrying a gun they are saying, "I am ready to kill." Carrying a knife? "I am ready to cut something." Driving a car? "I am going somewhere"
  Can those latter two things be used to kill? Of course. Anything can be used to kill, but that isn't their primary function. The primary use of a gun, the reason why guns are made, is to kill things. And that makes all the difference.
  
  Uh, yeah? This shouldn't be a revolation.
  A family member of mine concealed carries because she was raped (I know a couple women like this but I know my family memeber's reasoning better since she's family). Do you want to be the one to tell her she's being paranoid? I sure don't.
  And if she uses the gun on a would have been rapist, blame the rapist not the person defending themselves.
  
  https://thosenerdygirls.org/logical-fallacies-8/
  Do read the whole article.
  
  I'm aware of the anecdote fallacy. Her carrying a gun is not a reason I'm for carry rights, her carrying a gun is a reason I'm happy to have the right. Subtle but important distinction.
  No the reason we have the right is the 2nd amendment, full stop (no well regulated does not mean government regulations). And SCOTUS confirming this with the Bruen decision.
  
  That... seems circular. The reason you have the right isn't self-defence though, its national defence. The second amendment was put in place to provide a ready source for a "well armed and well regulated militia", and that right has killed more people than it has saved. I guess the real issue is that I can't understand you, or where you are coming from.
  I'm in my 50s and live in rural Canada, back in the itty bitty town on the West Coast that I moved out of as a teen, desperate to find work in the city. Today I hunt, I fish, and my favorite gun is the .270 Winchester I inherited from my father after he passed on a decade ago. Gun ownership and carrying laws are vastly more restrictive here than they are in the US, but not once have felt that those restrictions impinge on either my rights or my ability to protect myself or my family.
  You have hundreds, nay thousands of people, dying every year from what to me, seems like a stupidly easy cause to prevent. All because your nation seems unwilling to grasp the concept that a good number of people aren't able to responsibly use the ability to project lethal force. No, you can't stop gun crimes by regulating guns, any more than locks can prevent all burglaries, but you CAN make it harder for bad people to get guns. Just like a good lock makes it harder for someone to steal your stuff.
  Anyway, it's 2am here, and I apologize for subjecting you to this rant, but its a frustration I've wanted to get off my chest for awhile now. It's pretty clear you and I will never see eye to eye on this, but it was nice to back and forth a bit on this. I know it means less than a pitcher of spit, but all the best to you and yours, and to your sister as well.
  Worstdriver
  
  We probably agree on more then we disagree. There's a problem with murder in the US (gun or otherwise) and I agree we need to fix it. I just feel social programs that actually take care of people's needs (like what Canada has in universal healthcare and better worker protections) will fix far more violence, gun or otherwise.
  The 2A is a right of the people and is clear about it being a personal right not a malitia right, so laws restricting gun ownership like what you have in Canada are illegal here.
  And thank you for the polite banter, we may not agree on everything but discussing it without devolving into insults is a breath of fresh air.
  
  criminals don't open carry
  The Bundy family would like to have a word.
  
  Yep. Waiting until after murders occur is definitely the right approach to curbing gun violence.
  
  Exactly, that's why she should have made murder illegal a long time ago instead so the murders stop without the courts ruling it unconstitutional forhead touch x2
  
  For a second there I worried my children could die without firearms!

199 comments