Post
by rabidtictac » Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:47 pm
The problem with the rethugican approach is what Poonoo said. They sit around crying MUH MENTAL HEALTH and then do nothing.
I agree, Poonoo, that for severe cases like schizophrenia or extreme autism, it would be fair to remove the right to own firearms. However, one other issue which must be examined is the likelihood of a shooter using a firearm that they did not purchase. What I mean is that at least one mass shooter used their parents' guns. The parents may very well have a fine mental health record. Can we restrict a parent's right to own a firearm because their child may be autistic? That could create quite a shitstorm. It would constitute discrimination. After all, the parent has not done anything wrong and they may keep their weapons out of their child's reach. Or they may not if they are a shitty parent.
But video game ESRB ratings have proven that nobody can force parents to not be shitty. Shitty parents will continue to be shitty.
I think one of the reasons nobody is tackling the mental health angle seriously is the complexity of any workable solution (that does not violate existing laws about discrimination) combined with the expense of evaluating people. Even performing extra background checks to establish if someone has schizophrenia would constitute an expense. Republicans hate to spend money on those kinds of social issues and Democrats would be opposed on the basis that it's not a complete firearms ban (which is what they want.)
At least we're all on the same page that it's not right to remove someone's right to own firearms based on them having received treatment for a mental illness. I think it should be especially pertinent to know whether or not they are currently undergoing such treatment and whether or not their issues are under control.
Now, as you pointed out with Chris-Chan, he maced someone and tried to run someone over. Who knows what he would have done with a gun, but even without a gun, he obviously had access to ways to harm others. He could have also used a knife or even developed a homemade bomb or mustard gas.
Perhaps the best solution would be a sweeping overhaul of how we handle mental health in America. But this would be the most expensive response by far and the most likely to be voted down by both parties.
This is one reason why I say a meaningful solution is unlikely to be reached in this country. Neither party is interested in solving the problem. Shitlibs just want all guns banned and they've wanted that for decades. Conservatives don't give a shit about allocating tax dollars to public health, not even to prevent a universal gun ban. We already have criminal background checks for anyone purchasing a firearm.
Like with anything, there are a myriad of factors causing mass shootings. There's no magic bullet solution, just a bunch of expensive, sweeping changes we can try to maybe stop a few mass shootings here and there. Which may not even work. Spree shootings are, by nature, an extremely uncommon crime, despite what the media and shitlibs like to claim. It's like trying to find a solution to serial killers.
Now, one solution the republicans seem eager to try, which may work, is to arm a teacher or two. We obviously shouldn't have everyone walking around with guns in schools all day erry day, but the presence of a "good guy with a gun" can reduce the scope of the crime when a spree shooting does happen. It's not as simple as a bad guy shows up and good guy immediately pops him in the head, but the spree shooter being shot back at can encourage them to commit suicide or delay their massacre.
RAPEMAN wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome
