So would most gun control advocates. Compromise is not possible when each side thinks the other is Satan. I am for reasonable qualifications before you can own any given weapon, but all small arms (including automatic weapons) should be available to citizens provided they can show proficiency and show they have no criminal history or relevant mental illness. I'm open to discussion over what those proficiencies should be.
So then the answer to the problem seems to be to let crazy people wander the streets until they decide to commit a mass shooting and then that will be used to determine that they should be committed?
You start with a bias and construct a nonsense position from that. There isn't a "each side thinks the other is Satan". There is one side focused on evidence-based policy and there is another, led by pressure group buying politician, focused on ideological driven irrationality. Don't you pretend to be a libertarian? You're ultimately demanding the ultimate coercion on others through personal preferences: denial of life
The statement made by yourself in opposition to confining any individual prescribed SSRI-type medication, on the basis that such makes them too dangerous for legal firearms ownership, was that it would cost, in your own words "a trillion dollars" to do. This is the same amount that would be necessary to hire a sufficient number of ATF agents, just to ensure paperwork requirements "it is just a form" are actually being complied with. It was proven that this amount would be the bare minimum necessary, by citation of annual salaries for ATF agents, and demonstrating how many more would need to be hired, just to make the supposed form a viable possibility for enforcement.
Well when it comes to guns I'm over 50 times safer than you are .... and I think thats a good thing ... as would any other sane person
You are 50 times as likely to get coshed, or stabbed as I might be, in Portland Oregon. Lucky for You, you are 50 times less likely to be shot with a Gun, but 10 times more likely to be a Victim of non gun Violent Crime.
Judging by the first pages of responses, I'm going with "no". What countries are doing it right? Define right? Which countries are happy with their own gun controls? Clearly none are as unhappy with them as America is. But nothing is perfect. The same debate exists to a lesser extent in all places.
Indeed. But elsewhere common sense overrides stupidity on this issue. 1.5 needless deaths in the US over the last 50 years just underlines that
If someone is too dangerous to legally own a firearm, why should they be permitted to remain free in society? Explain such.
Other nations have mental health issues too. Its the easy access to firearms thats the real problem in the US. A person might be perfectly sane when they first get their gun(s) after all. Mental states can degrade or change for many reasons. It is simply a red herring being used here to deflect attention away from the elephant in the room
No, that is false, you see eccentric people in every Nation on Earth, and until someone is truly a problem, they are oftentimes ignored.
I can name a few with strict gun laws and tens upon tens of millions of deaths. Cambodia, China, Germany, Russia....... We ain't letting progressive pus rockets turn us into that. Have a nice day
