Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up

[Deleted member 848]

It also argues against a gun ban then. Violent crime is going down and America doesn't have a gun ban. If a gun ban was needed then violent crime would be increasing. Deconstructed.

No it doesnt-- because while it is still decreasing (and this should be applauded), the rates in comparison to other nations with tighter regulations is, well, not exactly a comparison. America is stratospheres behind other developed countries, mine included.

So if you're complacent and happy with where y'all are at, then keep on.

Also, there is evidence of nation-wide gun bans reducing homicide rates. Which you know. You're just purposefully being obtuse, and conflating two arguments that are dissimilar.

 

[moevillini]

while the rates of single parenthood may be comparable, it's the support-systems instituted by governments to support single-parent families that differs between nations, and therefore can act as a social determinant of everything from illness to delinquency. I figure that's what people are getting at.

while I may agree with this, at least to a point - - it's just my guess, but I think at least a few of the folks around here would be very much against strengthening the government's safety net and support systems

 

[Deleted member 848]

Already exist.

if they exist, then they are clearly complete **** and were devised by morons.

 

[The Midnight]

anyone want to take a stab at explaining this?

Kiwis (me included) are peace loving people.

 

[Deleted member 848]

not sure - - just my guess, but I think at least a few of the folks around here would be very much against strengthening the government's safety net and support systems

well that would be hilarious, seeing as the argument to maintain gun access is always grouped with the notion of "we need to address systemic factors leading to gun violence!!"-- so this either means bigger government, or scapegoating black people.

 

[Harambe]

I don't agree. When he's proven wrong with facts, he just needs stfu. Nah mean?

Facts are facts. You can't beat facts.

I know that for a fact!!

I'm barely a fact.

When he's proven wrong, yes, he should just stfu. But when he's proven wrong with arguments that were previously proven wrong, or at best inconclusive(which is F-Toop's trump card), the book shouldn't be closed... more should be read/written.

 

[Harambe]

if they exist, then they are clearly complete **** and were devised by morons.

This needs clarification - there's way too many loop holes. Buying at gun shows, background checks don't look at mental illness, etc.

 

[Deleted member 848]

This needs clarification - there's way too many loop holes. Buying at gun shows, background checks don't look at mental illness, etc.

which is its own problem, because this would lead to a further stigmatization of mental illness-- which is essentially the leading factor of why people don't seek medical help even when they know that they suffer from a mental illness. Maybe instituting this would have negligible impacts-- maybe it would worsen it. You'd have to look at other nations with this sort of infrastructure to look at its consequences.

The better solution is better infrastructure for mental illness prevention and facilitation, as opposed for punishing those who have the courage to seek help.

All very nuanced, of course. But ya no Hack is right Dala is Daladumb.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

The problem is not guns the larger problem is USAs anti-police situation. What we need is to triple the police force and allow random stop and frisks. Like in secure public buildings you should be subject to search at any time anywhere in public. It is not a right to walk around being a potential risk. Just like airports and New York subways. I guarantee three times as many police with more authority will do same for USA as in other develop nations.

 

[moevillini]

I suppose if we consider anger and jealousy to be mental illnesses, then yeah, it's a factor in a many violent attacks

 

[Siro]

I suppose if we consider anger and jealousy to be mental illnesses, then yeah, it's a factor in a many violent attacks

That's funny because in many ways, countries like Japan and Germany have pretty much SOLVED the homicide problem. I mean, they solved it as it is possible to solve anything in human communities. But the rate will never drop to zero, because you'll always have the occasional stabbing in a moment of anger or jealousy. Best we can do is reduce the rate to 1 in 100k, and call it a day.

 

[Harambe]

I suppose if we consider anger and jealousy to be mental illnesses, then yeah, it's a factor in a many violent attacks

There has to be some level of mental illness that decides whether you're a killer or not. Most people get mad/angry/jealous and don't go off half cocked. Mental Illness is just a generic term that fits many, many disorders.

Once upon a time there was discussion about this, and we came up with a scoring idea, like physicians use to gauge different health issues(mEWS, Braden, etc). Perhaps during your mental health evaluation, you get a score from a trained professional, and that dictates if, what kind, and how many guns you can have.

X has trouble understanding how his/her actions effects others, and has some serious anger management issues; perhaps fewer if any guns would be best.
Y has a firm grasp on reality and how your actions will effect the lives of others; go hog wild.