Here’s a thought. Instead of banning guns, how about we have mandatory annual psychological evaluations for EVERYONE. That way we don’t have crazy people killing our fellow man with guns, knives, bombs, or flying planes into mountainsides like in Europe a couple of years back. Let’s get the mentally ill the proper psychological help that they need. Just spit-balling here.
@RemovedUsername329422: First of all, let’s look at what happens with the screenings. Some people may get diagnosed with with depression. Just your “garden variety depression”. Maybe due to the loss of a loved one or divorce or whatever. Would it be a “bad thing” to get these people help? I’d say probably NOT. I’m NOT suggesting that we go out & have psychological screenings & then put people on some “blacklist” for public persecution. But some people just might need a little help. Perhaps it would save some people from committing suicide. Give people avenues to combat addictions, and steer them to self help groups & whatever. I’m NOT suggesting that we mark people with a “Scarlet I” & label as Insane. But the people who need help for WHATEVER can be pointed in the direction of the resources that might do them some good. But, YES, I believe that the majority of the people who are psychologically impaired & “bat shit crazy” can be identified. The ones who pose an IMMINENT danger to society can be identified. And swift & intense treatment can save them from picking up dangerous instruments (whether that be guns or fertilizer & diesel) to go carry out mass killings. It’s not guns that kill people; it’s crazy people who kill people.
@RemovedUsername329422. Sounds far fetched to screen everyone but I understand your point. Someone suggested a better healthcare system so that people who need help can get it. Maybe those who want help cannot afford the care they require.
@SimplyTracie: I understand that it’s far fetched. And I realize that it’s never going to happen. However, in this age of the Affordable Health Care Act, I do believe that the concept has SOME merit. I think that using that frame of reference, nearly everyone has SOME access to health care providers. Perhaps it should be expanded to include some sort of psychological counseling. But my premise remains. It’s not the ARs that are killing people, but the crazy people that WANT to kill people.
I'm not entirely opposed to banning semi-automatic rifles, but why only AR-15s? That's just one brand of killing machine. That would be like a school banning JIF peanut butter only in case someone has an allergy.
@BlueVeins There won’t be a referendum but Andrew Yang and @BobsGotBalls have sparked a discussion. I understand that these weapons are the of choice for many hunters so I’m sure they’re safe and won’t be taken away.
I find it odd that policy about guns is only dealt with in absolutes. I think AR-15s should be heavily tracked and licenses with mandatory safety training for a license. The Canadian system works fairly well.
@CountScrofula Our pillars of society the 9/11 terrorists,,,, went through the motions of getting properly trained on how to fly a jet. Example if you had the criminal mind to rob a liquor store are you going to go to a gun shop pay a ridiculous price for a handgun wait 15 days to do a background check (That you might fail) or are you going to go pay some hood on the street $20 for a loaner...
@MarmeeMarch The general point of gun control schemes is to drive up the black market cost of weapons. The fact that it's $20 is the root of the problem.
look the thing with guns, it's not the gun itself, there aren't good psychiatric evaluations or help for the people, since it's a more capitalistic way to approach health in the U.S. with a better health system, and more affordable, people who has troubles, will deal better with their emotions and feelings than just going on rampage, you can see it, in other countries that has the same amount of guns.
@QuixoticSoul Actually, they no longer have trhe sealed ammo. It's now stored only at supply depots. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/soldiers-can-keep-guns-at-home-but-not-ammo/970614
I look at it this way... if we had a leader worth his salt, he would unite both parties for a common cause. I say this because that’s what Trump boasted about a lot. Remember?
Look what NZ did after Christchurch March 15 this year.
The Government has announced that the first tranche of gun law changes will be passed by April 12.
These changes include the ban on military-style semi-automatic weapons, assalt rifles and modifications that make legal guns more dangerous. The second tranche of laws - likely to include a gun registry - will take the form of a separate bill and could well take a lot longer.
Law changes - especially possibly contentious ones - often take longer than a year to get through the full legislative process, while this will take just two weeks.
The vote was carried 119 votes to one with almost complete bipartisan support. It helps having a unicameral legislature
The only dissenting voice was from the right wing libertarian ACT Party's sole MP, David Seymour.
@KiwiBird Politicians here choose to be re-elected instead of doing what’s best for the majority. Not only when it comes to gun laws but almost everything else.
I'd probably be against it. An AR-15 isn't really much when you look at the specifications. The most dangerous ones are illegally modified anyhow. And while some people know this, "AR" doesn't stand for "assault rifle." It stands for "armalite rifle," the name of the original design company.
The AR-15 is only a weapon style. It has a plastic stock and it looks scary. If it has a wooden stock it looks traditional, but it is the same weapon. People should be more concerned with the fact that 90% of the shooters are on mood altering drugs like Prozac, Albien, Zoloft etc... And many of the shooters were on a no-buy list but they were not tripped when they bought a gun.
@QuixoticSoul I saw an article and they reviewed shooters and it was something like 12/14 had been on drugs some time during their life and many were current users. Sometimes the drugs alter your thinking and actually become addictive.
School shooters, at least, seem to be less likely to be on anti-depressant and anti-anxiety meds than the average person 🤷♂️
And the rise of such prescriptions also coincides with a historic drop in overall homocide rates, one would think you'd see the opposite if psych meds were to blame.
I find it interesting how many have no problem with infringing a "right" because it is big and scary. If you can restrict one right, what is to prevent restrictions on any of the others?
@sunrisehawk Only you would compare a truck or a book of matches to an AR-15. A baseball bat might have been used to kill too. It’s not a realistic argument.
@GraylightWhen did I say I had the “authority” ?? I gave a general opinion that you felt the need to pick apart. I wasn’t offensive or mean..
I’m not sure why you’re taking this so seriously and personally. You seem to have more of an issue with me and if that’s the case come at me with the real issue instead of picking an argument over my opinion that I’m entitled to.
@GraylightI wasn’t trying to debate. I was just saying it’s probably best that those who for example beat their spouse and/or child and have a record of doing so shouldn’t have easy access to firearms. Another example- a neighbor of mine who I’ve know for over 20 years isn’t a bad person, but he over the past few years became schizophrenic and tried to go after a person w/a knife who he felt was sent by the the government to kill him. The police came, he was taken away and sent home later where he did similar things. I feel allowing someone with that kind of history access to a gun would only make him more of a danger to anyone who comes his way.
Of course not all cases are as clear cut, but I just feel those that are should be taken more seriously than they are.
I'd vote to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. They're not useful for hunting, and really not for defending your home or self against intruders. I haven't heard of one robbery, assault, or murder stopped by an individual citizen with a machine gun (though I'm sure there's some obscure case that exists). No one person should be able to make the snap decision to kill 50+ people if we can stop it.
The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party and the abbreviation "GOP" is a commonly used designation. The term originated in 1875 in the Congressional Record, referring to the party associated with the successful military defense of the Union as "this gallant old party"
@KiwiBird Gotcha. Thank you. I’m glad they don’t use gallant anymore. Gallant sounds too phony in today’s political arena. Can you name a Republican politician that could be considered noble-minded or chivalrous?
@OwnerOfMany I don't mean to imply the AR-15 is the problem. It's just the darling of the anti-gun lobby.
Gun confiscation - and to be clear, that's not what I support - does work. It has worked in other countries. Societal bans on firearms work. They work very well in other countries.
I think the US is unique in its gun culture, and that's an issue that has to be addressed if people are to stop dying, but in the meantime, it's the guns doing the shooting. Lose them and you lower deaths.
@Graylight You and I strongly disagree. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and the list goes on. Those are only cases of mass murder of unarmed populations and please don't be foolish enough to think it can't happen again. Also, if you find accurate statistics, which is difficult, confiscation has not worked in other countries as well as advertised. To coin a phrase, been there, seen that. Again, it is the people, not the guns, and if they can't get a gun they will only resort to something else be it bombing, incinerating, or stabbing. Gun confiscation, banning, buy backs, won't work in the US. You will only leave innocent people unable to defend themselves. I truly wish you could see what I have seen and look at what is currently happening through my eyes.
@OwnerOfMany And I, you. What we've seen and lived through helps shape what we are and what we believe. So I defer to the SCOTUS and good judgment. That's all we can do.
@DallasCowboysFan Not the same thing. You can have all the guns as you want but ya can’t own an AR-15 or an AK-47. Okay?
And you can still “stand your ground”. Imagine, I could shoot that guy who told me I’m gonna pay dearly for trash talking Trump. That sounded like a threat huh?
@SimplyTracie I'm curious why you think it's ok to have all the guns you want, but not AR-15s and semi-auto AK-47s. What makes those particular firearms so much more dangerous than others?
All of this talk is idiocy. The ONLY people gun bans or laws will effect are law abiding citizens that you don't have to worry about in the first place. Most who are in favor of a ban know nothing about firearms and little about history. Not to mention, more people are beaten to death by hands and feet each year than are killed by AR15s.
@OwnerOfMany It’s because of personal reasons. I know someone close to my family who was shot and killed. Also I know that people hunt as hobby and I’m kinda against that too. No offense if you like hunting giraffes and elephants or whatever. I’m just against that.
