It seems contradictory because you didn’t comprehend what I was saying. I said it isn’t meant to stop violent behavior * any more than they already do*
I understand that the majority views it as the case. I do not interpret it that way.
My opinion is that guns as a practical means of self defense is largely overstated. A gun is an offensive weapon meant to be used at range. I dont doubt they can be used in defense, but i think there are better solutions in most situations.
I apologize for the generalization, I meant all republicans excepting you. (Kidding!)
The aim isn’t to stop murder, but to reduce gun crime as much as reasonably possible while still allowing access to guns.
-
Not really the right thread for this, but the people pointing to other countries are pointing at an idea that works, and one that would be prudent to try, considering the number of countries it is working in.
-
I guess theres point in trying to come up with any solutions then, since everybody will just print their own guns and bullets.
That’s a start, but I think most of the gun violence comes from people who would be deemed mentally stable. I think increased or mandated access to therapy would help prevent those who are not mentally ill from thinking a firearm is their best or only solution, as well as help identify who is mentally unfit to use a firearm.
I’d argue that they do. Suicide is a very impulsive action. Many times people will cry out for help and attempt to be stopped. If it weren’t as easy as pulling a trigger, many people would have second thoughts. Not as easy to have second thoughts when they’re splattered all over the ceiling.
You can start your own thread on that matter, however you’re off to a bad start by referring to them as “mental cases”. In this thread, we are strictly trying to come up with plans to screw over legal gun owners. Allegedly.
Your cites didn’t show that mental therapy for those who are not mentally ill helps society in general.
I don’t know how many people without mental illness seek therapy. And one cannot infer that it helps them unless you can show that it helps them.
I don’t know what this means. Is mental therapy meant to reduce violent behavior among the mentally normal? If not, what good is it?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know how you sleep at night, to be honest. I sleep like a baby, however, but thanks for asking.
There would be no incentive to turn in the older guns in your plan either. And THAT is your only question? A drive by one liner implying something stupid about me being able to sleep and this about cars? Well, I don’t see anything of value in your thread, and you haven’t even tried to address any of the issues with your grand plan that have been brought up. You seem to simply want an echo chamber, so good luck.
“Issues with aggression and violence or their effects can be addressed in therapy with the help of a mental health professional.”
“Many different types of therapy may be helpful in treating aggressive or violent behavior, depending on the reasons for the behavior as well as the personality and life experiences of the person in treatment.”
Do I really have to show you an article or study for you to see that less instances of aggressive or violent behavior is beneficial to society?
It was a statement, not a question. In case you didn’t understand, I was saying that you can believe whatever you like if it helps you sleep. Apparently it’s working. That doesn’t mean you’re right though. It just means that there was nothing worth responding to other than your point about cars in cuba.
Who said there would be no incentive? Gun buyback programs exist now, what makes you think they would stop? I would imagine there would be even more incentives to lower the amount if available guns as the plan is implemented.
In case you ask for more cites:
"Myth:
Only crazy people go to psychotherapy.
Reality:
Untrue. People seek psychotherapy for a range of reasons in everyday life. Some pursue psychotherapy for treatment of depression, anxiety or substance abuse. But others want help coping with major life transitions or changing problem behaviors: the loss of a job, a divorce or the death of a loved one. Yet others need help managing and balancing the demands of parenting, work and family responsibilities, coping with medical illness, improving relationship skills or managing other stressors that can affect just about all of us. Anyone can benefit from psychotherapy to become a better problem solver."
This last one is an op-ed reader response, but still contains good information.
Do you ever post anything of substance? All I see is towering self righteousness coupled with presumed moral superiority and a purity of arrogance. Like I said, must be hard for you to sleep at night with all that going on.
As for the Cuba analogy, look, it’s cool…you obviously don’t get it and haven’t a clue what I’m talking about. It’s ok man, really.
Did you mention gun buy back programs in your assertion you solved the ‘problem’? But ok, gun buy backs. What do you propose the buy them back at? And where is the money coming from? Unless you are going to offer quite a bit I don’t see why anyone would take you up on it. Let’s go through it again, shall we? You propose to allow currently owned guns to remain in the hands of owners as is. It’s your plan, recall. It’s only new guns that do something something and something and are in the armories with some sort of something doing something. So, taking you at your word, that means all of the guns today have pretty much the same restrictions as today. So…gun buy backs. As you have now created a supply and demand issue and made it more beneficial for people to hold onto their old guns, those guns are now going to be worth a premium…you said gun transfers and the like are the same as today for the old guns, recall? So…why would anyone sell their guns to the government unless there is something in it for them more than holding onto them or selling them to someone else? And why would the government pony up the kind of money we are talking about to buy these things…plus the kinds of money it would cost to logistically handle and dispose of them? How could any government in the US justify the costs? What would those costs be, broadly? Let’s break it down. 350+ million guns currently in the US…and probably more, especially in the spin up to your great plan. If you tried to buy them back at $10 a gun you are talking $3.5 billion dollars…and would probably get almost no sales. So, that’s a bonus…it wouldn’t cost you anything at this level because no one would take you up on it. If you are talking about $100 a gun we are talking $35 billion dollars…and you would get very few sales…so, again, not too bad since you might get a few thousand guns here. If you are going to offer $1000 a gun you would start to get folks interested…and the cost would be in the hundreds of billions at that point. See the issue? And, more broadly, do you see the issue with your great plan? No? I figure you don’t, since you dismissed the Cuba cars analogy and have pretty much refused to understand other posters trying to point out the myriad flaws with your solution.
I hate to sound glib but $35 billion dollars is a small amount when we’re discussing the federal budget. A billion sounds like a lot when you imagine it in the hands of a just one citizen, but spread out over an entire country (one of the biggest and richest countries ever) it’s not very much money at all. The budget for the VA is roughly double that much. We spend about three times that much every year just on foreign wars such as Afghanistan. Now, $350 billion is a more sizable chunk, but remember that the buyback only needs to happen once, not repeating on an annual basis. Heck, the decreased revenue from the recent tax cut will probably exceed $350 billion in the first three years. Last year, we spend $3,270 billion (total federal expenditures), which is approximately 16% of our GDP. Our natural resources have an estimated value of $45,000 billion. $35 billion is small potatoes on that scale.
Naw, I get it, and you are right…$35 billion or even $350 billion is just a small percentage of the US annual budget. Just one thing though…Congress would have to vote on such a thing, if this were going to be enacted at the Federal level…and I just don’t see Republicans or even all Democrats voting an allocation that big to buy back guns from the public. Perhaps it could happen…if we are suspending our belief to even consider the OPs great plan we could just handwave away the funding too I suppose. But the reality just doesn’t seem to be there, as with most of this plan (the gun buy back was bolted on after the OP seemed to have realized it wasn’t going to work even if we suspend our disbelief wrt the politics).
That said, you COULD, perhaps, do this at the state level. I could see, perhaps, California doing something like this, as well as some of the big East Coast states. I don’t see this flying in Texas or many if any of the red states, though, but California would be a noticeable percentage of the total guns, assuming folks there could be enticed to sell them to the government for something that wouldn’t break the bank. I’m a bit skeptical that most won’t see the inherent advantage in not doing so, however, as the new guns would be under the OPs new rules, and I have my doubts a lot of folks would be keen, and instead want to take the grandfathered guns and the current rule set. Since the OP didn’t get or accept the Cuba cars thing, consider the various versions of the automatic weapons regulations and how that has made the ones that got grandfathered in that much more valuable and sought after. That would be what ALL the guns currently out there would be like under the OPs grand plan, IMHO.
No, you have to show a study that demonstrates that mental health treatment for people who have not shown the need nor the desire for it, reduces instances of aggressive or violent behavior. None of your cites so far have done that.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s every reason to come up with solutions *that have a chance of working/I]. Any solution involves trying to get people to surrender their guns is simply a fantasy.
The Australian program that many gun- control enthusiastic are a fan of cost millions and only got about 25-30% of the country’s firearms … and that’s in a country without a 200-year tradition of bearing arms as a fundamental civil right. There are quite literally millions of Americans who would rather die than see their arms taken. The “cold dead hands” line is not just rhetoric. You can be mad, sad, or disgusted by that, but it is the blunt reality and it isn’t going to change.
And the time society wastes talking about solutions that have no chance of being enacted is time taken away from things that actually could.
No, they don’t. Spend a few minutes acquiring a Wikipedia-level education, and you’ll find that the majority of developed countries have conditions and requirements - waiting periods, multiple doctor certifications, etc., (especially after the first 10-20 weeks) - that have usually been struck down in the US (and are certainly opposed by the political left). This is because our jurisprudence has deemed abortion a right, and American law and culture are rather passionate about even mild infringement on those.
Yeah, I don’t see how your plan differs from the gun control side’s wettest dreams. Why not just ban guns altogether?
I think your idea is very stupid. Very.