As a responsible gun owner, we as a country need to fix this gun violence problem!

[Kimstu]

@Bullitt

@chela

@Crafter_Man

[…] As mentioned, I am against any and all additional restrictions on the possession, purchase, and sale of firearms. (I am actually a proponent of less restrictions.) There’s no quick solution or easy answers to curtailing gun violence, IMO. The best we can do is provide better funding and access to services that address mental health, drug dependency, and the needs of children & teens.

Why less restrictions on the possession, purchase and sale of firearms?

How does that help people, children already at risk of violence in their community, or family?

Waiting on funding to identify and help someone who is prone to committing gun violence is NOT the best we can do.

I agree with @chela on this.

@Crafter_Man how will fewer gun restrictions help the gun violence problem? Perhaps it may enlighten us better by asking, how do you define “the gun violence problem”?

While yes we do need to provide better resources for mental health, drug dependency, and the needs of children & teens, I refuse to accept that that is the best we can do.

Far from it.

I am especially dubious about that stance because—although I don’t want to pin down any poster to something they said five years ago (or longer) and may have changed their minds about since—over the decades we’ve had very consistent input from Crafter_Man about his strong opposition to government “funding” and “services”.

As in this statement of positions he supports, from back in 2017:

@Crafter_Man

Medicare should end.
Medicaid should end.
Social security should end.
All schools and libraries should be private.
All forms of welfare should end.
The U.S. Department of Labor should be shut down.
The U.S. Department of Education should be shut down.
All gun control laws should be done away with.
The minimum wage should end.

Maybe Crafter_Man has had an epiphany in the intervening time and changed his position on the issue of whether society has a duty to “provide better funding and access to services” to address some of the problems that are contributing to our gun violence epidemic. Or maybe not.

But whatever his personal views, ISTM that there are probably very many gun-regulation opponents out there who are currently just paying lip service to the idea of “better funding” for mental-health services in order to deflect attention from the issue of regulating guns.

If somebody who opposes increased gun regulation claims to have an alternate solution to gun violence involving better societal policies for dealing with mental illness, I think we need to see some specific, concrete proposals for legislative action that they’re supporting, and steps that they’re taking to implement their support.

Otherwise, I fear that “better funding for mental health” will just be the next “thoughts and prayers” buzzword. How can we tell when it’s more than a mere gesture toward virtue signaling, uttered by people who have no intention whatsoever of seriously advocating for more mental-health funding (and may even be ideologically opposed to it), but who just want to deflect some flak away from their opposition to gun regulation?