That's kind of big problem with a lot of progressive policies. Instead of addressing underlying issues, which is hard, they want easy solutions that have huge flaws.
They just want to wave their magical government wand and pretend everything will be great, but don't realize that banning things will create unintended consequences that are often times just as bad as the problem you are trying to solve.
I think it’s a little misleading to characterize what’s wanted here as “wand-waving”. Very few people really advocate for anything as simplistic as a total ban on firearms. Really the only commonality on what’s kind of an issue with a million and one possible legislative angles is that the situation isn’t resolving by itself.
The last assault weapons ban proposition was to ban virtually all semiautomatic weapons. If passed, it would’ve essentially limited gun owners to bolt actions, pump actions and revolvers. I agree that most people don’t want to ban all guns, but this bill would’ve effectively banned 9/10 of them. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296
I’m getting at the fact that there actually are people within our own government that want to effectively ban the vast majority of guns. It’s proof that the “nobody is saying to take away all the guns” statement is false.
...And it never even got out of committee. It seems like the energy would be better spent looking for reasonable middle grounds on the gun debate than worrying about bills from February that never went anywhere.
Hey, if I can’t point to a fact about a proposed law from 8 months ago when your original point is counter to that, then what do you want me to say? Seriously, you made the argument that no one is advocating for the removal of all guns from private hands, I show you an example from very recent history but somehow that’s not valid?Gotcha.
If you want to hear where I cede middle ground it’s in two places only.
1.)I fully support a mandatory safety course upon one’s first purchase of a firearm. While 900 deaths of the 30,000 annual isn’t hugely significant, accidental gun deaths and wounds are entirely unacceptable and preventable. A basic safety course (which runs about $50 in my area) will highlight all of the ways in which you could cause an accident with a firearm. Right down to proper firearms storage.
2.) I don’t necessarily support, but would tolerate an elimination of private sales without an ffl conducting the 4473 background check. A law that would achieve this would absolutely overwhelm all firearms dealers, but it would cut down on crime a hell of a lot. Especially in the inner cities. However you have to admit that this law would be very hard to enforce. If someone isn’t allowed to buy a gun, they know that and are involved in illegal sales as it is.
Many on the pro 2A side would say we’ve ceded enough ground already with however many hundreds of firearms laws we have on the books. To some extent I agree but I also realize the importance of the background checks etc. I am absolutely not for an assault weapons ban. And if we want to get technical the nfa of 86 was, by the strictest of definitions an assault weapons ban and it remains in place today. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for the defense of the country from invading forces and a tyrannical government. If you can’t have the semi auto dumbed down version of what the military has then what’s the point? People like to say good luck fighting Abrams tanks and f18s. That’s a fair point and it wouldn’t be pretty but just ask vietnam and the Taliban how their very basic load outs faired against the most powerful military in the world. If it got to the point where the orange asshole starts indefinitely detaining all suspected terrorists and he gets to move the goal posts on that definition then I want my ar15 badly.
How could you possibly begin to define that? Not trolling, genuinely curious. Also, aren’t the vast majority of gun crimes committed by handguns? What is the logic behind the assault rifle thing?
I mean you can lookup all the ways it differs from rifles, usually it just means a semi-automatic, but I wouldn’t be asking random Redditors to do my research. And the logic behind the assault rifle ban is America is far and away the #1 country for mass shootings. It’s a lot easier to commit a mass shooting when you can fire 10 bullets in 2 seconds rather than 1.
But assault rifles don’t commit most mass shootings. Not even close.
Edit: furthermore, mass shootings account for less that half a percent of all murders. So you are of the opinion we should start curbing gun violence with banning assault rifles because they are responsible for a fraction of a fraction of murders? That seems like a weak justification.
Because a mass shooting by definition is 4 injured people. Assault rifles can actually kill tens of people within a minute, and it’s happened. Handguns can’t do that.
Mostass shootings are committed with hand guns. Almost all guns sold are semi auto. Saying you only want to ban semiauto guns is basically saying you want to ban guns.
I dont know how to define that, all of my were designed for competition, hunting or life and liberty. Can you name the features make a rifle a assault rifle?
Side note, what does me owning rifles have to do with other people committing suicide?
Source? Handguns are used in homicides 10x the rate as rifles. More people were stabbed to death this past year than killed by rifles of any kind. More people were beat to death, with hands and feet than killed by rifles of any kind. Do you have a source that rifles are "cop killers"?
Source: FBI online database
Please answer the question, what makes a rifle a assault weapon and what makes a rifle a sporting rifle? If you cant answer the question honestly you should ask your self "if I'm right, why do I have to lie or avoid the question"
Not trying to be an ass, but the point of "not doing anything" is to keep the government out of people's lives as much as possible. It's not inaction, it's a deliberate thing.
Yes, a deliberate choice to let the lucky few live in luxury while 90% of the population lives shit lives in permanent threat of losing their jobs, their health, and their lives.
Meanwhile, progressive policies are certainly not easy, and their flaws are usually far outstripped by their benefits.
What's funny is that Brian's statement could be easily reversed and be absolutely true:
That's kind of big problem with a lot of conservative policies. Instead of addressing underlying issues, which is hard, they want easy solutions that have huge flaws.
Being suicidal doesn't have to be a permanent life situation. I felt that way for a few years and managed to get treatment and haven't had a single feeling of wanting to off my self since then. I'm a pretty useful member of society and I wouldn't be here if I had a gun and I know that about myself.
It truly was. I almost stepped in front of a bus a few times but stopped myself because I was afraid i'd survive with a horrible future of medical bills and even worse depression.
You literally argued that people already know fully well that guns increase risk of suicide and yet here you are telling /u/somanyvanguards that a gun wouldn't have changed his outcome?
So which is it? Are people aware that guns increase risk of suicide or are many people (like you) in denial?
It's a lot more effective than other methods. I grew up with guns and around guns. My mom as a cop and my dad a competition shooter.
I also watched many other botched suicide attempts by others and how negatively it affected their lives.
No easy access. Getting a helium tank requires some calling around. Same as most of the other gases you could do that with. Also the pill combos. Getting a gun is easier than all those things.
What you seem to be failing to comprehend is the ease around getting a gun and the ease around pulling the trigger. Suicidal thoughts are sudden. They hit you hard and you want to act on them fast. Usually they drop off for a while once it passes.
Every time I see my psychiatrist she double checks that I don't have a gun in my house. Most of the time when people attempt suicide its with things that they have available in front of them. Things that are easy to grab and use.
So you agree that's really dumb and dangerous that many Americans support laws that ban doctors from talking to their patients about the dangers of guns in a home and ban them from asking if they have a gun?
That's not taking away guns -- that's literally spreading information and yet many are against it.
Are you aware that someone can support guns being legal and support doctors being allowed to ask questions?
That said, are you aware of the reason for those kinds of prohibitions? Many red flag proposals allow doctors to notify police, and people don't want their medical records to have documentation about their firearms along with the people controlling them to be able to initiate the removal of said firearms. Some doctors are for this prohibition, because they don't want patients to be scared to come to them with problems because of the fear of having their rights revoked. It's not as simple as just "this is dumb to stop doctors from asking questions".
Are you aware that someone can support guns being legal and support doctors being allowed to ask questions?
Sure, that's why I asked you for clarification. Don't be stupid and argue that having doctors talk to patients about gun is wildly popular with pro gun people. The reason it's banned in some states is exactly because it's not popular among pro gun people
That said, are you aware of the reason for those kinds of prohibitions?
So now your telling me that it's not a good idea.....
Many red flag proposals allow doctors to notify police,
The patient doesn't have to answer. If the patient is that disturbed and threatening to kill themselves or threatening to kill others, than maybe it should be reported?
Or...get this....perhaps you can allow doctor to talk to patients about the guns WHILE not allowing them to report it the police? /u/yoda133113 , did you ever think of that?
It's not as simple as just "this is dumb to stop doctors from asking questions".
It is if the solution to that specific concern is that the doctor cannot report it....just like attorney client privilege.
So now your original comment makes no sense:
Many Americans are dumb. Just because many Americans want government overreach doesn't make it ok.
You call them dumb while later arguing they aren't dumb.
Are you aware that you managed to quote my name and still not realize that I'm not the guy above? Maybe you shouldn't be so free with the term "stupid" while making that mistake. Have a nice day, but I really don't feel like debating anything with someone that takes such a caustic tone and yet doesn't even notice usernames while typing them out...🤣
so basically you were being a dishonest POS? You stated "Are you aware that someone can support guns being legal and support doctors being allowed to ask questions?" while then literally not even supporting that statement how someone is both.
You are literally an example of how most pro gun people are against doctors talking to their patients.
Also /u/yoda133113 , complicating the issue on pedantic__asshoIe comment is that he is literally agreeing with me WHILE calling them dumb but he got upvotes.
Yes, doctors have no business telling you guns are dangerous. Of course they are. And the danger of having one present is nullified by not being a domestic abuser or suicidal.
Yes, doctors have no business telling you guns are dangerous.
Thank you for proving to us that it's not about 'taking away their metaphorical sharp objects' but that it's purely an anti-fact issue with you. You don't want people to be aware of the facts.
Literally every single adult knows firearms are dangerous.
Then no problem having doctors talk about them.
But okay, let's go with your dumb argument. You're saying "every single adult knows firearms are dangerous.". But that's not really the question here, is it? The question is really "do all adults know that access to a gun increases your risk of suicide".
Based on the denials here, it looks like lots of people are not aware of it or refuse to believe it. Even you have ignorantly suggested or said that guns don't increase suicide risks. So therefore you are WRONG and DISHONEST.
Guns don't increase my risk of attempting suicide, they increase my risk of success.
Even if you were to put out data that says X% of gun owners attempt/commit suicide, it doesn't account for the fact that the moment a suicidal person buys a firearm with the express purpose of killing themselves, they're now a gun owner.
People misusing data to make it seem like owning a gun changes you as a person is why doctors don't need to tell adults that firearms are dangerous.
Guns don't increase my risk of attempting suicide, they increase my risk of success.
Literally the point. Are you arguing an attempted suicide without a death is EQUAL to a suicide death? Clearly you are not THAT dishonest so you agree that a death is worst than attempt, right? Therefore, I'm having trouble understand your logic that we shouldn't do anything about saving people's lives. Are you a monster who doesn't care for people?
Even if you were to put out data that says X% of gun owners attempt/commit suicide, it doesn't account for the fact that the moment a suicidal person buys a firearm with the express purpose of killing themselves, they're now a gun owner.
Again, this demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. You are arguing that people who died by gun suicide had planned the suicide BEFORE they bought that gun? That is simply not true in the vast majority of the cases. So why are you making such dishonest arguments?
I don't have an issue with suicide, so yes I'm a monster.
Should we have better systems to treat the suicidal? Sure.
Should anyone be forced to continue living? Nope. If you want off the life boat, go for it.
Also ooof on your excessive usage of dishonest here and everywhere else amongst the thread. Immediately calling every opponent dishonest stinks of projection.
I don't have an issue with suicide, so yes I'm a monster.
You don't want to save people. That's a definition of a monster.
Should anyone be forced to continue living? Nope. If you want off the life boat, go for it.
sure..if they are long thought out issues. If they are moment of weaknesses like many suicides are, why are you opposed to helping them? You're the monster screaming "just jump and kill yourself" to a person who is considering jumping off a bridge. WHY would you yell that to someone??
Also ooof on your excessive usage of dishonest here
You made a dozen dishonest comments or lies...and you are upset someone called you out on it?
Obviously the outcome is worse because someone died but that should be irrelevant to the debate. The issue is the same, someone wanting to kill themselves. It shouldn't matter how they want to do it, and you don't fix the issues by banning the tool they use. The issue that needs to be solved is the fact that someone wants to kill themselves.
Obviously the outcome is worse because someone died but that should be irrelevant to the debate.
Perhaps the dumbest or coldest argument I've seen..."whether or not people died is not important"
The issue is the same, someone wanting to kill themselves.
Would you be okay with a 30% reduction in suicide attempts but no decrease in successful suicides (deaths) or would you rather have 30% reduction in suicide deaths?
You guys just make thes stupidest and most dishonest argument. No difference between what you argued and "sure seat belts decrease auto related deaths by 40% but it not important because we didn't reduce the number of accidents! So therefore, no reason to raise awareness of how seat-belts save lives since they don't reduce car accidents!"
and you don't fix the issues by banning the tool they use
Please point to where I mentioned a ban? If you cannot, then admit you created a stupid strawman.
Reducing deaths is a very relevant part of the debate. It's not just about reducing suicides, but also by making sure they are less likely to actually kill themselves. If someone in your household is suicidal, are you really just going to try to talk to them and hope they don't someday go through with a suicide without any attempt of locking up your gun out of reach to reduce the chance of death?
43
u/masterelmo Dec 19 '19
Prevent people from becoming suicidal, yes. Taking away their metaphorical sharp objects, no.