|
SealHammer posted:Am I the only one who thinks this would be really interesting to see, even once? It would sure break up the loathsome monotony of "Guy walks into place and point-blank executes a whole bunch of people in comically unhurried manner." It'd likely be the last thing you ever saw. The US likes guns because the NRA has convinced huge groups of poorly educated people that if the government ever decided to restrict gun ownership, fascism and tyranny are right around the corner, so they may at any time need to fanatically defend their and their families freedoms against the government. Even the most common sense legislation is fought over and inevitably defeated because of this fear. Incredibly loose gun regulation combined with a poor healthcare system results in many damaged individuals getting weapons and doing damage.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
Making guns of all kinds more difficult to acquire would reduce all varieties of gun related violence/injury. I don't see why this is confusing. Even counting gang violence and self defense, if gangs are not able to acquire as many guns ( or have to pay significantly more to acquire illegally), that is a good thing. If criminals struggle acquiring guns, then the need to carry in the name of self defense is reduced. Those who supports gun ownership to "defend against the government" are deluding themselves. That ship has long sailed in the age of drones, tanks, and tactical strikes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Not sure if it's been posted but this article implies some rather alarming connections between gun ownership/proximity and suicide/homicide/injury.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Shoren posted:Yeah, no poo poo, having a weapon around makes injury by that weapon more likely, thanks for that brilliant insight. Removing the tool isn't the solution. Instead of mass shootings you'd hear of mass bombings instead. The only way to prevent these tragedies from happening is addressing the mental state of these individuals. Anyone in a bad enough mental state that feels they have to harm other people at random will find a way to do it even if guns didn't exist anymore. No need too be rude. And yes. I agree with you. Proximity to dangerous things increases risk. That's why many dangerous things are regulated. It's a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
I'm sure Alameda County really needs this...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
That dude looks like a dude the nerds beat up to recoup milk money losses to bullies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:The challenge is defining criteria that should be used to disqualify a person from purchasing, getting that information into NICS in a timely fashion, doing so without violating that individuals privacy rights, and creating a process that works to get the hold removed after folks are healthy again. None of that is easy, and no one seems to want to tackle it. Privacy rights don't mean anything if the psych evaluator believes they are a risk to themselves or others. Situations such as "this person suffers from severe delusions and violent tendencies. If you give them a gun they very well may do something with it" should definitely count into that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
Tremblay posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you. However working on this kind of minutia no matter how helpful: Sadly agreed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 22:58
|
|