No assault rifles for people on behavioral meds or people with a history of violent crime

Most all recent mass shootings in the united states have been carried out in locations where the legal carrying and possession of firearms is prohibited by law.

 

I would dispute any idea that marksmanship is easy, particularly when the targets shoot back. It is particularly perishable, especially when you remember it is dependent on visual acuity and hand-eye cooridination, two things very much affected as we age.

 

The military does not deny enlistment to anyone who was put on anti-ADD medication as a child. That ended in 2014. Why? well, it's been found that a lot of kids outgrow the need for ADD medication. I know my oldest was in that boat. He took it for about two years, then he was ok.
https://www.thebalance.com/new-asthma-and-add-adhd-policy-3353970

 

The statement was facetious. How many areas do you know of where people have to engage in gunfights with any real frequency?

I was a Real Estate Appraiser for some decades. I had to go into particularly seedy areas quite often and the job required I dress nicely and have a late model car I have never owed a gun nor felt the necessity to have one. I was robbed once, and were I armed at that time I would not be alive now.

 

Don't know about when the target shoots back, but it's easy otherwise.

 

We have had guns in this country for over 200 years yet mass shootings have been occurring the past 30 years. Why? It's certainly not because we have guns available. Something is causing people to think it's ok to kill lots of random people. How did we as a society get to this point?

 

Well, semi-autos are about 50% of gun sales these days, including shotguns.

 

How many such areas would be necessary to completely undermine the position of yourself, and leave you with no response other than to leave the discussion entirely?

Anecdotal evidence and personal opinion, nothing more.

 

As many as are necessary be noted in CREDIBLE statistical journals. And I consider John Lott a charlatan and a mountebank.

I am alive though, which given your viewpoint of American life, shouldn't be possible.

I've also traveled to many places which have very strict gun control. None seemed the crime-ridden hell holes you seem to posit they should be.

 

The shotguns lower that stat significantly since every pistol on the market is a semi auto, and pistols are the most common firearm out there.

 

But box trucks are ok?

 

That's treasonous.

 

1. Finally you admit that meds are the problem and not guns.

2. People with a felony and misdemeanor assault records are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

 

If they're too violent to own a firearm, they're too violent to have their freedom.

You know where violent people can't get guns? Jail.

Or if they do, it's just more criminal on criminal crime which is a net positive.

 

That's already happened.

 

You do understand that criminals don't observe the law, right?

 

How about we extend this to every item you own?

If someone buys your house and kills someone in it, you go to jail too. If someone buys your car then kills someone with it, you go to jail too.

Maybe we could also start putting 3 generations of families in jail when one of their family members commits a crime.

Man, that would REALLY cut down on criminal behavior.

 

Yeah the murder rate in the UK was really changed by the antigun laws in 1920 and 1937.

 

What has this got to do with gun related deaths and number of guns in UK? BTW you think that there was 5 million murders in 2010? Someone seems to be very rattled

 

Oh I see.

The overall murder rate skyrocketing after the gun laws going into effect doesn't matter.

What matters is that fewer people were killed with guns.

 

Try and get some facts right. For a start you if you want to discuss murders it would help if you posted a graph showing murders! Number of murders between 1920 and 1965 stayed fairly stable at around 300 apart from two spikes in 1942 and 1945. During this time the population increased from 35M to around 45M hence the murder rate did decrease. One day you will stick to the topic

 

I agree. How many of these school shooters have been on meds for mental problems? Probably every damned one of them. It is a common sense move to not sell guns to such people, or anyone with violence in their record.

There is still room for common sense laws, to be used. I don't know if they would help, but it is bound to save some lives over time. Especially the law which would forbid the sells of guns to people on behavioral meds. That should have been common sense before now. SO who has opposed it? I would imagine faux liberals could oppose it, some of them, for just separating out those people who are on meds, or who might be seen as certified nutcases. Last I heard, there are no crazy people, for that is cruel to even mention it. You should not separate them in any manner from normal people, for there is no normal. I head this expressed by a faux liberal last year on the Joe Rogan podcast. But how prevalent is this fake liberal belief? I dunno.

 

The problem is that there is no murder in the UK unless someone is convicted, so you can't really compare murder rates.

Your murder rate has not gone down over time though.

So clearly your gun bans did not lower crime, nor did it lower murder.

 

The murder rate went up in the sixties and has fallen in the last decade (longer I think). Many attribute that the number of young males who commit the vast majority of murders. This is different from attacks invoving multiple deaths. I am not sure when that data started being collected.

 

Unenforceable, as well as utterly useless. Even if all legally owned firearms were registered and subject to universal background checks, they would still be acquired in larger numbers by those who should not have them.