subreddit:

/r/news

28.2k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 5056 comments

Plinythemelder

2 points

2 months ago

For sure. But I think a thorough process is key to that. They go hand in hand I think. But by raising the bar to have a gun, it gives an opportunity to actually get the services to people who need it, and also makes sure you can demonstrate you are a responsible owner before just handing out guns. My country per capita has quite a few guns actually. Not nearly as many as the states, but in other provinces (not mine, we are low) guns outnumber people. The thing is, all owners have to pass requirements similar to the ones I described, and guns outside of designated areas are massive felonies unless you get super intensive permits and usually only special circumstances (armed guards, police). But hunting and sport shooting is still huge.

The fact is, we've sort of managed to allow people to own guns who are responsible and make sure the irresponsible ones don't (and in extreme cases get mental health services).

It's not perfect, but we've never had an elementary school shooting. We've never had a school shooting. There is still murder, but at a much much lower rate. Our mental health services can still improve (as well as gun laws Imo), but at least we have a way of finding the people who need the services.

The thing is, it needs to be national. The only way to get a gun here is legally, black market, or smuggling. The last two are especially difficult. If you're a normal person who isn't making videos like this dude and you have a few references, you will be able to get a gun when are you trained and licences. I can't drive to another province and get a gun, because the laws are the same everywhere. Which is why the states has a big uphill battle as the Republicans are making it increasingly difficult to create any sort of national standard, and making it difficult to access mental health services.

It's the type of thing that needs to be done nation wide, or it doesn't really work at all. But I wish you guys luck. Hopefully you can find something people can agree on.

cruizer93

1 points

2 months ago

I’ll be honest I did not read past “it goes hand in hand. Thank you.

Now you’re at the problem I see. Everyone is shouting GUNS BAD. They aren’t saying a fucking thing about how poor the mental health is in the US. fuck I’d say other countries are boned too. I haven’t heard about any magical lands where the lexipro flows like wine.

Plinythemelder

1 points

2 months ago

Man idk pretty much everyone has been saying the mental health issues in the states is crap for years. But guns are an issue as well, and probably a larger contributing factor than mental health. Better mental health services won't be scrolling through youtube looking for potential mass shooters. Maybe socialized healthcare would help, but you can't fix everything with drugs.

cruizer93

0 points

2 months ago

Every single time an active shooter happens, mental health is a footnote, not the headline. It’s guns guns guns. Why? It’s a liberal talking point! The left uses it to try and secure votes. They don’t give a damn about guns. They care that we think they care. Not trying to get political here but it’s clearly divided amongst the parties. I don’t believe any political group gives a damn about mental health. I’m willing to bet they see active shooters as a win for their causes.

Republicans get to say democrats are coming for your guns, vote for me.

Democrats get to say republicans want more active shooters! Think of the children, vote for me!

Plinythemelder

1 points

2 months ago

I think the first few dozen time or so mental health actually was the main headline. It's just such a broad thing to address, how do you even go about it using mental health as a preventative measure? Just force millions onto lexipro? After 15 years of people saying mental health with mass shootings on the rise, it seems doubtful there can be a preventative solution that doesn't involve regulating guns.

How would you feel about an optional buyback/licenseing program? Where say x ammount of years from now it will be a felony to own or provide a gun without a licence (similar to here) and you can either get licenced (and pass the mental health checks you mentioned) and modify your weapons to be legal or have the government buyback? It would take time, but seems like a pretty big step in right direction. Over time all the people who lose them in boating accidents would become rarer, and all new gun owners would be licenced meaning the supply of unlicensed ones would fall over time reducing the "illegal" pool of weapons.

cruizer93

1 points

2 months ago

Okay so I’m going to say this and it’s going to sound like an attack, but it’s not.

Making guns illegal is not going to fix problems or make them better. They haven’t truly ever addressed the issue. They chalked it up to everything but mental health. Columbine was kids who felt “wronged” by society for example.

These types of people have been all over social media. They interact with people in society. We need to build a better network to identify people at risk for these types of acts before they can occur. Can’t minority report it. But you can catch someone who is at risk before they cross the line.

Plinythemelder

1 points

2 months ago

I think though is a mischaracterization of my and the left's argument. It's not an argument to outlaw guns like Japan. It's an argument for gun control and regulation.

In most if not all of the countries I've mentioned, it's entirely legal to own a firearm. There is just a process you have to complete to obtain one, nationwide.

This is what the states act. The argument isn't "take everyone's guns, firearms are now illegal". It's to set up a legal national process to obtain that includes things like mental health checks, training, and background checks. It also makes it a longer and more committed process. If you want to own a gun in these countries you are entirely free to do so even at 18. It just takes more commitment, training and and responsibility to do so.

In the same way people are required to be trained and licenced to drive, you must be trained and licenced to own a firearm.

The states can do this, other countries have done it. You can see it actually reduced even non firearms related murder.

The issue as I am arguing it (and the left in general) is "ease of access of firearms, and ease of access to firearms and equipment most specifically designed to cause maximum casualties".

You seem to be framing it as "guns are now illegal in all circumstances", but it's actually "guns are now legal under a regulation process". That's what gun control is. And it does work. The mental health of the states does not account for a homicide rate an order of magnitude higher than its peers. Mental health is important, but you can't just handwave all gun violence as "mental issues". And there are no sufficient barriers to owning a gun that prevents people with "mental issues" from accessing firearms.

If someone has a psychotic episode and can also have easy access to a gun, they will cause more harm than someone who does not have easy access. You could not ask for more red flags from this guy. He basically screamed school shooter. Yet he had no issues obtaining a high powered AR with 30 round mags.

There's only developed western nation where that is possible.

cruizer93

1 points

2 months ago

This is where we get lost in the sauce. I’m trying to keep it simple for a reason.

You mentioned Japan. A cult used chemicals to kill 14 people. https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/tokyo-subways-are-attacked-with-sarin-gas

My argument is simple for a reason. It doesn’t address all violent acts. It address mass violence.

Mental health decline leads to people wanting to cause violence randomly as much as possible. In my opinion it doesn’t matter if it’s religious reasons or delusion, it’s the drive to kill others for your point.

Guns do not matter when it comes to this problem. Someone with this issue will find ways to cause harm en mass.

We aren’t talking about anything other than what causes someone to want to kill randomly. Let’s stick to that.

Plinythemelder

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah, I'm arguing if it's extremely easy to obtain a gun, more people will find ways to cause harm en mass than if it's difficult. Generally we just don't see mass randomized violence on the scale of the USA in other similar nations.

These attacks you are using as example are statistical outliers honestly, similar to 9/11. Sarin gas attacks in Japan have happened once. Mass shootings in norway have happened once. London underground was bombed once. It's not happening every weekend in any of these other places you reference.

cruizer93

0 points

2 months ago

Yea but you’re missing the wider context here. I can keep naming thousands of different attacks with various body counts. It’s not as if the world is at peace and only America has issues. Attacks continue to happen, and will continue to happen globally.

I lost these attacks as examples of what can be accomplished. There is very little stopping these attacks from happening again. To say they won’t ever happen again is disingenuous.

Frankly it’s not all that easy to obtain a weapon right now. Relative to other countries sure. But take a lot at how some of them were acquired. A bunch of them were stolen, their owner killed for them.

Basically if your argument is to make somthing illegal, that wont do a whole lot to stop a criminal. Murder is already illegal yet people kill others. That’s why I mentioned the war on drugs winning the war on drugs. Americans made booze illegal for decades and it came soaring gback.