World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Why is my freedom to build bombs in my basement being overridden?
Oh that's right, because laws are ultimately created based on relative perceptions of risks and social acceptance of the populace (generally, in a democratic society, there are a lot of exceptions here).
Note for my FBI agent : I'm not building bombs in my basement, I'm using that as an example of why we have laws at all.
Well to be honest, there is an argument for letting you build bombs in your basement. A bullet is effectively a bomb. Plenty of people make their own bullets/shells. Should they be forced to buy those from a company?
There is nuance to just about everything.
Laws should be restricted to protecting people from other people, not from themselves.
For very, very small definitions of "plenty".
Sure, in that example, plenty is small. But who decides how small a group has to be to be allowed to take their rights away when they have committed no crime.
If a law is passed making what they're doing illegal and they continue to do it, then they are committing a crime.
You really wrote that right? So don't like someones rights. Justify taking them away because you wrote a law to make what they were doing a crime. It wasn't a crime until you decided it was okay to take their rights away. So they hadn't committed a crime when you made the law.
"Rights" are just things that aren't outlawed. Do you have a right to commit murder, and are upset that the government has outlawed it?
Rights are rights until they are outlawed. So you can't justify making a law to take away someones rights because after the law they will be criminals.
And no, I am not upset that there is a law against murder. Because murder impacts others directly. But smoking alone in your basement doesn't. Big difference. A law making it illegal to force others to inhale your smoke and such... fine by me. Make it illegal to smoke at all. Not fine by me.
Exactly. People have a right to murder other people, until the damn government trampled all over their rights by making it illegal!
Sure there is an argument for letting me do anything, but when you keep persuing and reducing the argument, it eventually boils down to "Why do we even have laws at all?"
The answer to that question is "because we as a society decided to." By their very nature, laws created by people are arbitrary and intangible, their only actual effect is derived from society's willingness to actually enforce them.
If the laws were actually agreed upon by the people... but they aren't. And most are really to protect businesses, not people.
But no, it doesn't boil down to why have laws at all. Laws should protect people's rights. Like the right to not get murdered. But that's not what this is.
Okay, let's play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren't going to use that right doesn't mean that I wasn't going to.
Maybe you came in on a side thread. The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others. It's still a super large list. But your right to snoke in you basement isn't on it. Your right to murder is.
It has nothing to do with using it or not. Just who it impacts directly.
People smoking in their basements present a fire hazard, major issue if you live with other people.
People smoking (at all) creates second-hand smoke, which harms the people that come into them, or their spaces (like say, a contractor, or first responders, utility technicians...)
People who smoke end up using more critical and limited medical resources because of their habits.
I'm not as daft as to say that smoking harms to the same degree as outright murder, but it's equally stupid, if not more so, to say that smoking (even in your basement by yourself) harms no one else.
Also...
Who decided what rights should be considered for laws?
I'll give you a hint; it's not some universal property of the universe, nor a divine command.
At some point in time, the society I live in established that murder is against the law, and that is the sole reason I'm not allowed to murder anyone. My "right" to murder was just as valid as my "right" to smoke in my basement until there was a law created that defined (or changed) those "rights".
So, back to my still very relevant comment from earlier....
Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.
How about we say, smoking in your basement alone, in a house only you live in to avoid the semantics. Second hand smoke exposure usually requires the smoking to be taking place at the same time or very recently. So first responders are not signficantly at risk if the person isn't smoking at the time. And their ppe should help reduce that further. If it is a concern based on data, then better ppe should be provided. 2nd hand smoke is probably the least concerning thing they are exposed to when responding. Other people like contractors and such can refuse to enter until the place is aired out.
People who smoke do end up needing more medical care. But so do people who drink alcohol, eat red meat, or any of a large number of lifestyle choices. Motorcycle riders are a great example. If they get into an accident, they will likely need greater healthcare than someone in a car. So should be ban those too?
As for who decides what rights should be considered for laws. That is litterally what we are discussing here. No it's not universal anything. It's my opinion. Universally no one has any rights.
Cool, you're going to die or move sometime, and that smoked in house will go to someone else, which will harm them.
Your house burning down harms your community by using up emergency response resources.
Hell, the smoke from your burning house harms your neighbors. I should know, since the house halfway down the street from me caught fire and fogged up the whole neighborhood for a day. I had to take my wife to stay with her parents because the smoke was extremely irritating for her.
Tell me you've never been in an indoor smoker's house without telling me.
Ah, so your opinion is law? Must be nice to be a despot. Am I talking with Kim? Maybe Vlad?
Yes... This was my point actually, and it takes away from your point that harming other people cannot be a right. Rights are determined by the society you are in. I don't have a right to murder because the society I'm in has said that murder is not a right. It's not any more complex than that.
What are you even arguing here? You've jumped around so much, I can't even really tell if you remember what your position was? I think it was something like...
"Laws should be restricted to protecting people from other people, not from themselves."
Or...
"Well to be honest, there is an argument for letting you build bombs in your basement."
I dunno. You seem to be reading different things than I am writing.
I litterally said "should" which is a pretty clear indication that it was my opinion. You saw me reference othe things that cause increased healthcare costs, but ignored the point that some group deciding which life choices that cost more are okay is, in my opinion, not something laws should be used for. And gou say Iam jumpping around when my focal point has been pretty clear. Don't legislate what people can do if it does not DIRECTLY impact others.
You talk about cleaning out a smokers house. It may smell bad, but do you have any data to show it is bad for you after the smoke has settled? And no one "has" to go clean it out. They can choose to take on that job or not. So it isn't a direct impact. It requires the person to choose to be impacted. With bombs.. if a guy has 50 acres in the middle of nowhere, why shouldn't he be allowed to make bombs in his basement.
A bullet isn't even remotely "effectively a bomb."
But the things you use can also be made into a bomb just by putting them in a pipe instead. Where is the line? Who decides?
Lots of things are made from the same ingredients. That doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Sure but how do you plan to make a law that makes it illegal to make bombs in your basement?
That's already a law in many places.
Find one. Take a look at it. It bans the ingredients in certain quantities usually because it's hard to argue with. Just saying "bomb making" is illegal ends up being highly objective. I mean, my propane tank is a kind of bomb really.
We're kinda getting into the weeds here man. What you're describing is just banning a bomb with extra steps. Regardless, I don't know what this has to do with your original assertion that an ammo cartridge is basically a bomb.
So if to ban bomb making, you ban anyone from having a quantity of explosive enough to make a bomb, you also banned them from buying a bottle of the gunpowder needed to make bullets. And if you simply have enough bullets, made by you or not, you also have enough for a bomb. It's very hard to prove an action noone witnessed. Find some bombs in a basement of a house with 4 occupants. None of them are talking. How can you prove which did it. That is why laws usually revolve around possession for this sort of thing. And really, at the end of the day, a bullet is a bomb by most definitions. Hit it just right, and it explodes. It's just small. Though it could still do some damage without needing to be in a gun.
A bullet is a projectile. It doesn't contain gunpowder in any amount. You don't even know what youre talking about.
Before claiming someone doesn't know what they are talking about, you should confirm that you in fact do. In this case, you do not.
The projectile, sometimes called the bullet tip, is part of the bullet... when you buy bullets, they contains all the parts including the gunpowder.
https://www.gunnersoutlet.com/v_21/news/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/bullet-parts-1024x585.png
I do know what I'm talking about. Your link is incorrect. What you're showing me a photo of is an ammo cartridge. A cartridge contains a bullet, a casing, gunpowder, and a primer. The part labelled projectile is the bullet. Not all projectiles are bullets, but all bullets are projectiles. The (typically brass) casing houses the gunpowder and the bullet is seated in the opening of the casing, with the primer at the closed end. All these components together is called a cartridge. You can buy bullets on their own, sure, but if you just buy a box of bullets all you are getting is the projectile. If you buy a box of ammo, you are buying a box of cartridges.
I'm going to guess this depends on where you live or something.
In the English speaking world, not really, no. People with little firearms experience incorrectly refer to cartridges as bullets, but they are exactly that: incorrect.
Oh, you are the master of the English speaking world now. Or is the world just what you can see.
I could start listing people I know with more experience then you probably are years old that call the bullets. Once ina while they also call it a cartridge. But it's like 9 times bullet, 1 time cartridge. Oh yeah, and we all speak english and live in part of the english speaking world. You might need to got out a little more often before you speak for people you have no knowledge of.
Literally not what I said. Its fucking amusing though you telling me I'm wrong because you found a mislabelled image online when you clearly know jack shit about what you're talking about. Just because you're able to find someone who speak incorrectly on the subject, that doesn't make it correct. Educate yourself, please, before you embarrass yourself any further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)
Now kindly fuck off.
What was it I claimed you said but you didn't?
The difference here is when I found that you clearly have experience with people calling it a cartridge vs my experience of people calling it a bullet, I said maybe it varies by where you live. You on the other hand claimed I was incorrect, and started to insult me personally rather than admit that people use different words for things in different areas. You went further to claim to be knowledgeable about how it is referred to in the entire "english speaking world".
One of us is willing to admit that the world is bigger than just us, the other not so much.
But you've never had that freedom. Do you really not see the difference between taking away freedom that people have had for thousands of years and a hypothetical that nobody has ever had?
People who were not permitted to buy tobacco and vape products are not losing a freedom they had either.
Regardless, laws are written and removed constantly throughout our lifetime. It's not legal for me to park where I used to, it's not legal for me to bring a big bottle of orange juice or a tube of toothpaste on a plane anymore. The fact that things can become illegal or legal is a necessary consequences of having laws that can be changed.
Also, you could legally make your own explosives right up until there was a law passed that made it illegal. There isn't some universal property that says humans aren't allowed to make explodey shit.
Yes, they literally are losing that freedom. Just because it may come later in life, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just remember that laws are not inherently moral or ethical. What people do in their own time in their own space is their own business, as long as they're not doing it in a way that puts other people in danger. This is purely about control and you're just wolfing that boot down.
Smoking does put other people in danger. So does driving, or skipping vaccines.
Yes... That's kinda my whole point. The sole basis for a law is if people decide to enact it and then enforce it.
You understand that if we change laws, then things that were previously legal will become illegal and vis versa? This avenue of argument ends in "Laws can never be created, removed, or changed."