Their recent ToS update: “We bricked your TV until you ‘consent’ to waiving your right to sue us if we do something illegal. Also, we won’t tell you what you’re consenting to up front, instead we’ll make you spend hours reading through pages and pages of legal garbage to find where we buried this statement.”

They know that nobody would agree to this if they put it in big bold letters right above the “agree” button, so they bury it behind hours of tedious reading so that people cave in and just “consent.”

If you roofy someone’s drink and pester them until they “consent” to sex, you would get thrown and jail and probably shanked in the liver. If Roku bricks the TV that you purchased and won’t let it work again until you consent to something that you’re nearly guaranteed to miss or not understand by design, their profits go up because people can’t sue them.

This capitalism hellhole can’t burn down fast enough.

Do you see new, unique colors, or are you more sensitive to what’s already there?

Yep, we just gotta vote in people who will legislate it. Which means normal people who don’t take bribes donations from corporations will need to run for office and beat those who do.

So basically we’re doomed. We either need a modern day Teddy Roosevelt or we need to start building guillotines.

The ATF said that people at Waco and Ruby Ridge shot first too, turns out that was a lie.

We shouldn’t believe a word they say about this case yet, wait for an investigation to take place. For some ungodly reason, they have a track record of fabricating gun charges against people, surrounding their home with armed men, and claiming they were shot at first when stories like this hit the news.

Anyone else have a stroke trying to make sense of the title?

There’s no evidence that suggests these photos were posted by Trump’s campaign, and BBC didn’t mention who posted them despite having talked to them.

I doubt it’s just me, but when I read the headline, I assumed that Trump’s campaign posted these photos. How else would it be news worthy? “Trump supporters post AI generated photos of Trump in an attempt to garnish support for Trump” is a normal Tuesday activity for these loons.

This “journalism” is just rage bait, in my opinion.

Sure, but only if the purchase adheres to state laws where the resident lives in. You can’t leave your state and buy a gun that’s illegal at home. Here’s the ATF’s explanation.

That’s a myth - It’s a felony offense for gun stores to sell guns to non residents of the state they’re in.

Just to clarify, the FOID approval process is effectively performed in every state for any gun purchase. It’s not like the FOID background check carries more scrutiny or anything. If a Texan resident can buy guns in Texas, they could get a FOID card if they lived in Illinois.

And it’s federally illegal to sell guns to non-residents of the state the sale is made in, so Chicago residents can’t buy guns in neighboring states. Indiana and Wisconsin residents could bring guns into Chicago, but that alone is highly illegal too.

What exactly do you have in mind?

If they cared more about making our society safer, they’d pay teachers more, build more homes, quintuple minimum wage, make education cheaper or free, actually tax the rich, reign in corpos, reform the police, abolish for profit prisons, make healthcare affordable and accessible, remove money from politics, just to start.

But nah, virtue signaling is way easier and is clearly enough to get them re elected, so let’s ban 3D printers baby!

America takes awful care of its citizens, some other countries certainly do better. I wish we’d focus more on addressing the root cause issues that push people to commit violence instead of superficial actions like banning weapons, though. Even if all guns disappeared overnight, the conditions that incentivize violence would still be around.

I mean, “mass shooting” used to colloquially mean a random act against the public. I feel like people still think it means that when they see stats like this, but practically all the shootings in this stat are from gang violence and organized crime. A drive-by is a mass shooting.

Not to downplay the severity of it, but I hope people aren’t thinking that there have been ~45 Kroger type shootings this year already. Solutions that address crime like this are different than addressing sick, politically motivated domestic terrorists. Not to say we don’t need a lot of both, though.

Bernie wasn’t much of an anti-2A advocate until he ran for the Democratic bid in 2016. Align with party values or get out.

Our country is sick. Healthcare is inaccessible and right out unaffordable, the Bible belt vilifies science, education is both piss poor and stupid expensive, we’re the richest country on the planet but a tiny handful of grubs are hoarding all the wealth, something something preaching to the choir.

People wouldn’t commit politically motivated domestic terrorism if living here wasn’t made intentionally shitty by the people in charge. I want our planet to stop burning, but they’re only focused on revoking trans rights or whatever fabricated problem they’re whining about this week. Americans need to wake the fuck up and stop being so complacent.

I interpreted Donjuanme’s comment as sarcastic, where “no way a background check would’ve stopped this” implied that they thought a background check wasn’t performed, but if it would’ve been, this murder wouldn’t have happened.

Not everyone who commits a violent crime with a gun has a previous record of doing that, or other indicators that would fail a background check for that matter. Not a lot of anti-gunners seem to remember that though, which is partly why I interpreted the comment that way.

You can’t trust Amazon reviews either though.

* Sellers frequently farm good reviews by including cards in their packages that state “give us a 5 star review and get a full/partial refund!”

• Sellers update their listings with good reviews with different pictures, descriptions, etc. which effectively creates a different listing while carrying over a large review count.

* Amazon doesn’t allow reviews after 30 days (?) from purchase, so items poor durability will not have that reflected in their reviews

It’s a damn shame, but between this broken review system and their incredibly low quality items and quality control, they’re not worth the money or headache to use. Especially since most of their products are no name Chinese garbage that are exclusively available on Amazon. They’re basically Wish, Tubi, or Alibaba.

Edit: Amazon must’ve updated their review policy since I’ve last used them, 2+ years ago. They explicitly ban monetary rewards for good reviews, and I don’t see a mention of review deadlines either. The only references I found about their review deadlines is a few Reddit posts from a year ago. So my bad!

If nothing’s changed though, they still sell hot garbage.

Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times? What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?

I was highlighting the convenience/safety tradeoff in taking basic precautions against low probability but high risk events. You were incorrectly stating that people feel like they need to carry a gun just to grocery shop, and I explained how that was false. Not sure how that went over your head, but it clearly did.

My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.

Ok, name a few? How else would someone mitigate risk of human threats against their life? I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, but you don’t have to forgo carrying a weapon for self defense in order to eat healthy and exercise to mitigate risk of heart failure. Carrying a gun everyday also isn’t a burden, and I enjoy range time and training. People should be allowed means to self defense if they want it. If they abuse it, they get their rights taken away. It’s really quite simple.

Don’t pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.

If the goal is having means for self defense against people, concealed carry is the only effective way to achieve it. Pepper spray, taser, knife, or anything else is objectively ineffective. I don’t need a gun to grocery shop, but I do need a gun if I want adequate self defense.

No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn’t make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves “oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That’s just what this Baskin Robbins needed”.

The goal isn’t to make other people feel safe, the goal is to help myself and my loved ones. Other people will never know that I have a gun on me, so whether I actually have one or don’t doesn’t change anything from their point of view.

Small thing I want to point out.

I don’t feel like I need a fire extinguisher in my kitchen to make some pancakes. Is it a good idea? Sure. The chances are really small that I’ll need it, but I’ll be very happy to have it in case the worst case scenario comes up.

I don’t carry a gun to the grocery store because I’m afraid I’ll need it, I carry because I acknowledge that violent crime happens randomly to normal people like me and I’d rather be prepared for it than not. Modern guns retained in concealed holsters are actually very safe. They don’t just “go off” on their own, and the only reason someone would draw theirs is if their life or a loved one’s was in immediate danger.

I don’t get up in the morning thinking “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store.” That’s way too reductive and gung ho.

Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren’t evil machines only used for crime, you’re a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.

I’m sorry, looks like I got that wrong. I didn’t realize the wiki omitted that.

The NPR article I found that explained this also says that the jury was asked to consider lesser charges but still acquitted. I’m not sure what lesser charges exactly, but I assume it was second degree accounts. For first degree intentional homicide, Wisconsin law lists “mitigating circumstances” that downgrade first degree charges to second degree charges if proven true. It’s 940.01, found here.