Quote (fender @ Feb 15 2021 09:56pm)
yeah, because mental health is a US exclusive problem. the fact that school shootings (firearm suicide / accidents / mass shootings...) are not major issues in your peer country has nothing to do with the fact that they have stricter gun regulations, it's all just mental health...
my god, you gun nuts are so incredibly dishonest and deluded. do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous what you're saying there sounds? even with regular mandatory (and i'm sure as a 'libertarian' (lol), you're strictly against this) mental health checkups and treatment, shootings would remain a problem, so what mental healthcare policy specifically would prevent them? humour me. after all, you claim to be against school shootings (just not as much as you are against any kind of gun law, hence the idiotic conjecture and fearmongering concerning the proposed legislation)...
Humor me. Use capital letters to start your sentences.
As you said, there's bad faith here. On your part as well, so why engage you? This is the example you set just a few posts ago. So, now it's shift this discussion to topics with a better foundation in rhetoric?
Quote (Plaguefear @ Feb 15 2021 10:01pm)
Australia literally ended all random mass shootings by implementing gun control, but its a mental health issue so it can never be fixed.
Curtailed, not ended. And whether it stemmed from gun control is debatable. You got rid of what? 20% of the guns in the country? 20% of America's guns leaves us with... hundreds of millions of guns.
It's more than mental health, it's just a major factor. American kids are far more likely (anywhere from 50-350% depending on the source used) to be put on antidepressants like SSRIs than other western nations. These classes of drugs have known links to aggressive, violent ideation. Throw in the fact that we don't utilize universal healthcare like the rest of you yahoos, and we get more probability that these kids get wild swings in their prescription filling, leading to poorly managed conditions.
Quote (Plaguefear @ Feb 15 2021 10:06pm)
Not going to look up every mass shooter but the two who started the craze dylan and eric were both raised in happy normal families with both parents present.
Dylan and Eric didn't "start the craze." Charles Whitman preceded them by decades and he didn't start it either. Eric was on Zoloft & Luvox. Dylan's medical records remain sealed.
Quote (thundercock @ Feb 15 2021 10:26pm)
This. I am not concerned given that we have a 6-3 SCOTUS majority and it's highly unlikely you could use budget reconciliation to pass this. This is red meat for the anti-gun lobbyists and has zero chance of passing.
The problem is that there's a real chance the filibuster doesn't survive this Congress, and if it dies, not only could this law pass, but so could their goal of court stacking.
Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 15 2021 11:01pm)
The 2nd amendment is clearly written and has plenty of precedent. Anti-gun activists need to go about this the right way, and win over the majority required to amend the Constitution.
Anti-gun activists in the United States simply know very little about guns. They will continue to be laughed at and excluded from the decision making process until they spend the time and effort necessary to educate themselves on the things they intend to regulate.
This. MFers be all like "this semiautomatic rifle is a rifle and this other semiautomatic rifle is a weapon of war." Same pew, same firing rates, but the black gun is scary. Terms that get you laughed out of the discussion: common sense gun reform, weapons of war, assault weapon, high capacity magazine.
Quote (thundercock @ Feb 16 2021 02:05am)
I don't know the number but I do know that it would help a lot in this country. There are certainly other variables in play (including the gun laws). It would also help if the media didn't glorify the events. The evidence that the media via contagion is pretty compelling. However, I think any sort of regulation to prevent the media from reporting on said events would be wrong.
If you banned guns completely in America, you'd still have the issue of angry folks wanting to take revenge on society for whatever reason. Would there be less deaths? Absolutely. Guns are efficient tools for killing which is why we use them in war. But are we just saying that some number of revenge deaths are acceptable? Should we not also try and get to the root cause of the violence? When some lunatic drives into a crowd of protestors, do we just say "well, hardly anyone died so let's move on?"
Lastly, I think you'd have a difficult time convincing a lot of libertarians/conservatives that mass shootings are even a PROBLEM. They'd rather accept the social risks by having their gun rights and call it a day. Freedom always comes with a cost.
Fact.