Gun Control postponed indefinitely by the GOP

[Economy 52,860]

On July 7, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Goosey said:

Nope. It's great news. Study the issues instead of making hasty emotional responses.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

You realize the Republicans tabled an NRA-sponsored bill that would have prevented people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns? The Democrats voted it down.

The Republican proposition would have blocked the sale for three days, in which time the government would need to file a case against the purchaser.

 

 

Whatch lists wouldnt do much

 

making it hard to buy guns would help reduce shootings like it did in Australia.

 

Gun regulation and licenses may not prevent pre-meditated shootings etc cuz if they want a gun badly enough they will get it

 

But what about ppl with mental illness that have meltdowns etc?

 

The long process to obtain a gun hopefully would mean by the time someone going thru an episode got it already they calmed down and dont carry out something crazy

 

If u can get it just anywhere, any time someone has a meltdown and goes phycho, they will have a gun!

[Goosey 3,017]

14 hours ago, Economy said:

Whatch lists wouldnt do much

making it hard to buy guns would help reduce shootings like it did in Australia.

Gun regulation and licenses may not prevent pre-meditated shootings etc cuz if they want a gun badly enough they will get it

But what about ppl with mental illness that have meltdowns etc?

The long process to obtain a gun hopefully would mean by the time someone going thru an episode got it already they calmed down and dont carry out something crazy

If u can get it just anywhere, any time someone has a meltdown and goes phycho, they will have a gun!

 

Fact: Europe, Canada and Australia don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: America does have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: Since it has that right and the other countries don't, the laws in America are always going to be far looser.

Fact: people with a history of serious mental illness are already banned from buying guns.

Fact: regular people "have meltdowns" and kill others. Not just obvious crazies. It happens and you can't prevent it, especially not without violating Americans' constitutional rights.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Goosey said:

 

Fact: Europe, Canada and Australia don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: America does have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: Since it has that right and the other countries don't, the laws in America are always going to be far looser.

Fact: people with a history of serious mental illness are already banned from buying guns.

Fact: regular people "have meltdowns" and kill others. Not just obvious crazies. It happens and you can't prevent it, especially not without violating Americans' constitutional rights.

 

1: True.

2: For now

3: To an extent, but the point in bringing up those countries and nations is to show that you CAN breed a healthy environment where people trust their government and societal norms (esp. on gender lines) are conducive to generally peaceful behavior to the point that guns are NOT necessary. I'd argue that the only reason guns are still "necessary" in America is because of our recent history and the politicization of them, so basically the social climate...not because its anything objective. Things like ending the war on drugs, massive prison reform, education, reducing poverty, diversifying the economy, tackling institutional racism (which plays into all of the above a LOT), depolarizing political parties positions (things like, more Conservatives becoming at least Socially Liberal; getting rid of the Religious Right basically  ) and more would go a LONG way to making a safer political climate where guns were not necessary, or more importantly one where people did not feel they were necessary anymore. Also, not trying to imply that Europe Canada Australia etc. are non violent purely peaceful egalitarian socieites, because that's not true  Just that history and the culture has not enfeebled their countries into an individual reliance upon guns. They also were not necessarily founded on breaking free from an oppressive government, so things like "Right to bear arms; militia" are pretty engrained in our history, making them way harder to do away with.

4: True, but America's track record on Mental Health treatment and prevention is absolute ****, which is part of the problem  It's also a bit universal, but Patriarchy goes into play here, especially given that things like mass shootings are overwhelmingly committed by men. Men are less likely to seek medical help because of the immense stigma behind mental health care; it's often socialized to be a "feminine" act, or rather a non-masculine one. Lots of people go undiagnosed because they are afraid of a diagnosis and they lack proper education to understand what Mental Health really entails. It's also possible they lack the resources to seek help #Capitalism.

Simply banning people with "serious" (hint: subjective) mental illnesses does little to curb modern gun violence when the majority of mass shootings are done by people who are most likely  "sane of mind" (ugh, ableism  ). Media immediately paints men (note; white men) as lone shooters witih troubled pasts and "clear" mental health issues which does more to stigmatize actual people with mental illnesses, which contributes to their oppression even though they are NOT the people committing mass shootings. Society doesn't want to accept that our racist, patriarchal, white supremacist CULTURE is actually entirely conducive to raising violent"domestic terrorists" without there being a need for any sort of mental illness to necessarily exist. It's an excuse to not reflect and analyze and critique our own society tbh. This "othering" mentality, "No sane person would shoot up a school full of children!" etc does more harm than good. The solution to gun violence is certainly more complicated than mental health reform, but it would go a long way.. It has to be an intersectional approach, simply throwing $100 million to mental health research would do some good, but its not going to solve the problem in 10 years or anything  Also, people who are "banned" from guns still sometimes get them even through non back-alley type channels... We can do more than "well, its gonna happen no matter what  " and not all of it is even societal; we can make laws and bills to strengthen to system we already have to make it more effective if we could get past the NRA  

5. I already basically talked about this in #4. "It happens and you can't prevent it" is a damn lie and you know it though. Morality is not innate, its relative. Sure, psychotic breaks and things of that nature do happen and can result in murder, but I think its a bit naive to assume that all extreme violence is an example of people deviating from some kind of natural state as human beings that involves nonviolence. I could go more into this, but I'm tired.

 

 

[Economy 52,860]

5 hours ago, Goosey said:

 

Fact: Europe, Canada and Australia don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: America does have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: Since it has that right and the other countries don't, the laws in America are always going to be far looser.

Fact: people with a history of serious mental illness are already banned from buying guns.

Fact: regular people "have meltdowns" and kill others. Not just obvious crazies. It happens and you can't prevent it, especially not without violating Americans' constitutional rights.

 

But they are more likely. And some ppl go undiagnosed

 

also im not questioning the fact that the right exists in america. But laws are not in stone forever. Constitutions can be re-written

[Goosey 3,017]

9 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

1: True.

2: For now

3: To an extent, but the point in bringing up those countries and nations is to show that you CAN breed a healthy environment where people trust their government and societal norms (esp. on gender lines) are conducive to generally peaceful behavior to the point that guns are NOT necessary. I'd argue that the only reason guns are still "necessary" in America is because of our recent history and the politicization of them, so basically the social climate...not because its anything objective. Things like ending the war on drugs, massive prison reform, education, reducing poverty, diversifying the economy, tackling institutional racism (which plays into all of the above a LOT), depolarizing political parties positions (things like, more Conservatives becoming at least Socially Liberal; getting rid of the Religious Right basically  ) and more would go a LONG way to making a safer political climate where guns were not necessary, or more importantly one where people did not feel they were necessary anymore. Also, not trying to imply that Europe Canada Australia etc. are non violent purely peaceful egalitarian socieites, because that's not true  Just that history and the culture has not enfeebled their countries into an individual reliance upon guns. They also were not necessarily founded on breaking free from an oppressive government, so things like "Right to bear arms; militia" are pretty engrained in our history, making them way harder to do away with.

4: True, but America's track record on Mental Health treatment and prevention is absolute ****, which is part of the problem  It's also a bit universal, but Patriarchy goes into play here, especially given that things like mass shootings are overwhelmingly committed by men. Men are less likely to seek medical help because of the immense stigma behind mental health care; it's often socialized to be a "feminine" act, or rather a non-masculine one. Lots of people go undiagnosed because they are afraid of a diagnosis and they lack proper education to understand what Mental Health really entails. It's also possible they lack the resources to seek help #Capitalism.

Simply banning people with "serious" (hint: subjective) mental illnesses does little to curb modern gun violence when the majority of mass shootings are done by people who are most likely  "sane of mind" (ugh, ableism  ). Media immediately paints men (note; white men) as lone shooters witih troubled pasts and "clear" mental health issues which does more to stigmatize actual people with mental illnesses, which contributes to their oppression even though they are NOT the people committing mass shootings. Society doesn't want to accept that our racist, patriarchal, white supremacist CULTURE is actually entirely conducive to raising violent"domestic terrorists" without there being a need for any sort of mental illness to necessarily exist. It's an excuse to not reflect and analyze and critique our own society tbh. This "othering" mentality, "No sane person would shoot up a school full of children!" etc does more harm than good. The solution to gun violence is certainly more complicated than mental health reform, but it would go a long way.. It has to be an intersectional approach, simply throwing $100 million to mental health research would do some good, but its not going to solve the problem in 10 years or anything  Also, people who are "banned" from guns still sometimes get them even through non back-alley type channels... We can do more than "well, its gonna happen no matter what  " and not all of it is even societal; we can make laws and bills to strengthen to system we already have to make it more effective if we could get past the NRA  

5. I already basically talked about this in #4. "It happens and you can't prevent it" is a damn lie and you know it though. Morality is not innate, its relative. Sure, psychotic breaks and things of that nature do happen and can result in murder, but I think its a bit naive to assume that all extreme violence is an example of people deviating from some kind of natural state as human beings that involves nonviolence. I could go more into this, but I'm tired.

 

3. Guns are not necessary. It's the 21st century, there are supermarkets. Food, water and shelter is necessary. People do not care whether they need a gun to survive.

4, 5. I already said it's normal people, not those with mental illness. Did the Dallas shooter have a diagnosed mental illness? Answer: no. Did he have a criminal record? Answer: no. So he had no mental problems and no criminal record, he was also a veteran. There is no way to prevent that man and people like him from purchasing a gun without banning them for everyone, which will not happen.

 

7 hours ago, Economy said:

But they are more likely. And some ppl go undiagnosed

also im not questioning the fact that the right exists in america. But laws are not in stone forever. Constitutions can be re-written

You're saying that they should edit the revered Constitution to take away people's rights. Dwell on that. That's an anti-gun pipe dream. Even Hillary would never state such a thing (if only because she's too vote-hungry). Simply not gonna happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Goosey said:

 

3. Guns are not necessary. It's the 21st century, there are supermarkets. Food, water and shelter is necessary. People do not care whether they need a gun to survive.

4, 5. I already said it's normal people, not those with mental illness. Did the Dallas shooter have a diagnosed mental illness? Answer: no. Did he have a criminal record? Answer: no. So he had no mental problems and no criminal record, he was also a veteran. There is no way to prevent that man and people like him from purchasing a gun without banning them for everyone, which will not happen.

 

You're saying that they should edit the revered Constitution to take away people's rights. Dwell on that. That's an anti-gun pipe dream. Even Hillary would never state such a thing (if only because she's too vote-hungry). Simply not gonna happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

 You're being obtuse.

And False. It's just not an immediate or easy solution, as I've laid out.

[Economy 52,860]

3 hours ago, Goosey said:

 

3. Guns are not necessary. It's the 21st century, there are supermarkets. Food, water and shelter is necessary. People do not care whether they need a gun to survive.

4, 5. I already said it's normal people, not those with mental illness. Did the Dallas shooter have a diagnosed mental illness? Answer: no. Did he have a criminal record? Answer: no. So he had no mental problems and no criminal record, he was also a veteran. There is no way to prevent that man and people like him from purchasing a gun without banning them for everyone, which will not happen.

 

You're saying that they should edit the revered Constitution to take away people's rights. Dwell on that. That's an anti-gun pipe dream. Even Hillary would never state such a thing (if only because she's too vote-hungry). Simply not gonna happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

Well i didnt say it was gonna happen... Im merely saying i think it should

 

I dont see any reason why we should allow people to carry guns as if it was just some ither accessory

 

and the attittude "it will never change" basically sets it in stone... Challanged laws and systems always start that way and its a long process

 

 but the culture is changing and the younger generation is more in favor of fun control or bans etc

 

do not be shocked if sometime in the future the US finally becomes like the rest of the developed world in regards to gun policy even if its not right now

[Goosey 3,017]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 You're being obtuse.

And False. It's just not an immediate or easy solution, as I've laid out.

Nope. You seem to think that if guns aren't "necessary", suddenly the American public will be okay to restrict them or even give up the right to bear arms. You don't understand the cultural values.

59 minutes ago, Economy said:

Well i didnt say it was gonna happen... Im merely saying i think it should

I dont see any reason why we should allow people to carry guns as if it was just some ither accessory

and the attittude "it will never change" basically sets it in stone... Challanged laws and systems always start that way and its a long process

 but the culture is changing and the younger generation is more in favor of fun control or bans etc

do not be shocked if sometime in the future the US finally becomes like the rest of the developed world in regards to gun policy even if its not right now

Actually the laws are looser and looser. "Generation" doesn't matter. For example, way more people supported bans on handguns in the past. In the past couple decades, the big factor in public support for gun control seems to be the state of the economy...

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Goosey said:

Nope. You seem to think that if guns aren't "necessary", suddenly the American public will be okay to restrict them or even give up the right to bear arms. You don't understand the cultural values.

I don't understand the cultural values?  Have you even been to America?  I know that's not related, but I just think its interesting that you accuse me of this after having a long history of showing all sides of the situation. I've met and talked to and debated with Americans who range from "everyone should have guns" to "All guns should be banned" to absolute pacifists and I've always made sure to show the perspectives of all interested parties when I'm describing a situation  

People obviously disagree as to whether guns are necessary or not,and like I've already said, the fact that people in other countries and cultures can be highly functioning progressive 1st world countries with democratic practices and NOT have guns prove that a right to bear arms in the sense that it exists in America is not an essential trait at all, in fact it can be detrimental to society. If America wasn't raised on guns, regardless of whether they are objectively necessary or not, people would more importantly feel they aren't necessary and be more open to realizing the danger in owning them so freely, which translates to changes in culture, legislation, etc. Honestly I've already said ALL of this, did you even actually read my post?  I painted a very comprehensive image I thought  

Trying to appeal to me on the basis that some things are just.. unquestionable, unchangeable, sacrosanct facts of life is really a wasted effort too btw It's also quite defeatist and I'd like to assume you are intelligent enough to realize that just because things are or have been a certain way doesn't mean they can't change or be improved. I'm not afraid to criticize things that people hold sacred, as long as its valid criticism.

[Economy 52,860]

13 hours ago, Goosey said:

Nope. You seem to think that if guns aren't "necessary", suddenly the American public will be okay to restrict them or even give up the right to bear arms. You don't understand the cultural values.

Actually the laws are looser and looser. "Generation" doesn't matter. For example, way more people supported bans on handguns in the past. In the past couple decades, the big factor in public support for gun control seems to be the state of the economy...

I wouldnt be so sure that generation doesnt matter...

 

It can sometimes give an idea of what the changing mentality is since younger people usually adopt new thinking before the older generation

 

If anything, the ones in favor of guns getting more agressive about the debate and more involved could actually be a sign that they are having to get more defensive because of the rise in gun control support...

 

If almost everyone agrees, theres no discussion period

[Goosey 3,017]

9 hours ago, Economy said:

I wouldnt be so sure that generation doesnt matter...

It can sometimes give an idea of what the changing mentality is since younger people usually adopt new thinking before the older generation

If anything, the ones in favor of guns getting more agressive about the debate and more involved could actually be a sign that they are having to get more defensive because of the rise in gun control support...

If almost everyone agrees, theres no discussion period

It goes the other way as well: support for "assault weapons ban" is lower than it was in 1990s, because back then they were new and strange, now they are the most popular rifle in America. It's normalized.