i think that would be more true if the democrats had made any worthwhile policy proposals on mental health. it could be said they're trying in a roundabout way with socialized healthcare, but their messaging always focuses on overpriced medicines and lack of access to healthcare generally, with less emphasis on mental health specifically.

don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting that dems have THE solution for the issue, although socialised healthcare sure seems like a step in the right direction to tackle mental health as well.
i do, however think there is a clear distinction to make: if republicans had a concrete proposal to tackle the issue of mental health, i don't think that democrats would dismiss it and say 'no, we just want to talk about guns'.

in short: i think it would be wrong to claim that both sides are equally dishonest about this.

equally dishonest? no. of course not.

the GOP is the party of govt minding it's own business, that's their brand. so they have to shut down gun policy AND mental health policy. it just happens that they're only seeing gun policy proposed.

it's not really possible to be equal because one party is for govt action and the other is for inaction. they're playing the same game but one side is on defense the other offense.

democrats are using the "first step" narrative sometimes, i do hear that. i just think mental health is more important to push than healthcare generally. the numbers of uninsured are dwindling, whereas the numbers of people who need mental help that aren't getting it are still sky high. its so bad that we have online therapy. a terrible fucking idea where u chatroom with someone to get help...

in general the democratic dishonesty is their narrative that the policies they propose will have as large of an effect as they claim. they know the universal background checks will take many decades to have a serious effect, but they never sell it that way. if my doctor gave me a pill for heartburn that took 2 years to work i'd be pissed if he didnt tell me that up front. the most honest proposals are gun buyback programs, at least they're sold at face value most of the time. on the same token there's no guarantee guns in classrooms will save more kids than it kills through accidents. everybody lies.

can't really disagree with that, but to be fair it's a tough position to argue for. while it might realistically lead to a decrease of such events on average, you just have to look at right wing talking points whenever something happens in places that already have stricter regulations. so it's pretty easy to undermine such efforts and 'sell' (quite literally) the 'it simply doesn't work, so we might as well not go through with it' talking point. unfortunately many people can't or don't want to consider it with an open and honest approach.

it's yet another issue that might be discussed more honestly and productively (less fearmongering, slippery slopes, and misrepresentations of the other side to divide the population into two strictly opposing factions) if special interest groups had not such a big influence on the political process...

all fairly true. funny thing is tho the NRA is a bit of a meme these days compared to how they used to operate. picture gun safety courses taught in all middle schools by the NRA handing out literature on gun ownership and literally indoctrinating kids in schools. thats what my parents grew up in. at least now they're relegated to only paying off politicians.....

even on that tho i think gun safety should be required in a country like the USA. if only to prevent more accidental deaths from people mishandling them. i go back and forth on that. wanting all to learn but not wanting it to be a govt pushed thing.

Can't believe the Swiss executed 1% of their pop for being a witch, wtf.

and i can't believe that spain, italy, and france only such a 'small' percentage... i would have put those three on top without hesitation...