Only gun nuts could believe that arming MORE people is the solution to gun violence. Every one of you makes me sick.
And what is your fucking plan? Even though my username may suggest otherwise, I don’t even own a firearm and I think people like you are idiots. Mass shootings are not a gun control issue - they’re a mental health issue. Why? Because the black market is too fucking huge already. It’s been estimated that 70% of the guns used by the Mexican drug cartels came from the U.S. Now, that’s a huge problem, but it does show that the black market is already out of control. That genie is just not going to go back in the bottle.
Whether you like it or not, there is no magic wand to make all guns go away. If you want to prevent mass shootings, you focus on mental health and not the guns.
Now, that’s not to say that the sheer amount of guns in the U.S. isn’t a problem. It just doesn’t have anything to do with mass shootings. Screaming “GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!” doesn’t fix a damn thing.
Personally, I would like to see some more stringent legislation regarding firearms. I wouldn’t mind seeing a cap on the amount of firearms a person is allowed to own*, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a longer waiting period. A mandatory gun safety class before you’re allowed to own one also wouldn’t be a bad idea. None of that, however, would do fuck all to prevent mass shootings.
*I’d put it at five with some kind of exception for true collectors and antiques. Five should be enough for most enthusiasts. All the bases can be covered (hunting rifle, hunting 12 gauge, hand gun, target pistol, 20 gauge for skeet, or whatever). The logic behind the limit is to slow down the black market.
I’ll take the potentially meaningless but at least we’re trying’ side over the ‘by god don’t even try to do anything, cause it’s useless, and also GUNS!’ side.
Did you even read my last post? The one where I talk about limits and waiting periods? I’m guessing you didn’t.
Your “side” doesn’t even fucking think. It begins and ends at “guns are bad”. There is zero nuance, no grey areas, and sure as hell no remotely workable proposals for real world problems.
Even one unjustified gun murder is bad but when people start hyperventilating and acting like we are in the midst of an epidemic of gun violence when gun violence is at a relative low it makes you seem hysterical.
Probably a lot of things. I like the leaded gasoline hypothesis.
So maybe we have just reverted to the norm.
I think a vision check with every driver’s license renewal seems reasonable but how would you do a mental health check on 80 million people every 5 years? Do we even have enough psychologists for that and who pays for the mental check up?
It sounded like he was saying we shouldn’t disarm law abiding citizens while leaving the criminals armed.
How so? What do you mean by mental health? What do you mean by mass shooting?
How so? In what way do you propose to “focus on mental health”? In what way will this focus address gun violence (or mass shootings)?
Relative to what? :dubious:
Speaking of mental health … Yours, that is.
You’ve repeatedly claimed that’s the sort of thing we need to work on, providing better mental health care and keeping the mentally unhealthy from having access to guns. But if it actually comes up as a serious proposition, your fetishist reflexes take over, don’t they?
I thought it was pretty clear that they think that banning and confiscating all guns would do the trick.
[/quote]
I’m curious how you think this will slow down the black market? And how would you keep track of how many guns someone has without a registry? And if you have a registry anyways, what does the addition of a cap on guns owned add to the effect of a gun registry?
I guess I’m just saying that licensing and registration probably covers all the ground that you would cover with a limit on how many guns you can own.
Its not potentially meaningless. An AWB ISmeaningless and ineffective. And I think I’ve probably mentioned licensing and registration a dozen times only to have people keep pretending that noone on my side of the argument ever proposes anything because GUNS!!! Noone wants to hear about licensing and registration (the gun rights side doesn’t trust the gun control side to be satisfied with anything short of banning and confiscation so they don’t want to do anything that will make that banning and confiscation any easier; and the gun control side calls me a psychopath because I won’t agree with gun banning and confiscation).
The 1990’s, ya idiot. Are those ancient days to you?
Does the rest of the civilized world mean anything to you?
Relative to other years. 1993 for example.
Where do I repeatedly say that, I’m pretty sure that my suggestions have largely been limited to licensing and registration? I hardly ever mention mental health and I certainly never suggested that we do mental health screenings of 80 million gun owners on any sort of regular basis.
I know you would like to pretend that all gun owners are clones of Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre but the only living caricatures on this board are on your side of the debate.
Forget everyone else, how do we get guns out of the hands of Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre?
Do explain why you would like to get guns out of the hands of Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre? Did they shoot anyone - ever? Commit any crimes using their guns?
Why do we have to wait until *after *somebody gets killed to stop a shooter?
Hey, Damuri was the one who implied people like them were the problem. Your argument’s with him.
Because, as Thomas Jefferson apparently wasn’t bold enough to say, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of people unlucky enough to be in the way of a hothead with a gun.
ETA: And this is my real beef with the gun crowd: the notion that a bunch of other people are the ones who must pay the ultimate price for their freedoms.
He’s also claiming to be mentally healthy in comparison to them. Unfortunately there’s no evidence to support that claim.
That ties in to the problem of their essential lack of regard for human life. It’s a symptom of psychopathy. The ones also claiming that one of the “freedoms” they’re supporting is resistance to government tyranny are delusional as well.
Good question. I talked about the back market, but a good portion of that market comes from actual legal sales. It works like this, for example. Mexican drug cartels get a very significant amount of their weapons on the American black market. They approach an American and ask him to go to the local gun shop and buy some guns. He does and then they smuggle them back across the border. It’s a mill. Buy the firearms legally and then resell them illegally. That’s a fucking problem.
That method of smuggling would not work if there was a limit to how many firearms an American Citizen can own, and a companion registry with some teeth. “You can only have five, where did the other four go?”. Implementation would no doubt cause a huge headache for person to person sales, but, well, it’s a problem that needs to be fixed and that’s the best solution I can think of.
I think you are conflating wealthy industrialized nation with civilized world. Or are you saying that virtually all of Africa, Central America, and South America are uncivilized? Not to mention large parts of the middle east, central asia, eastern europe, etc. Our murder rate is nothing to be proud of but its not high relative to the rest of the world (us rate 4.8, world rate 6.3).
More of your desperate, hysterical evasions.