"It's a mental health problem!"
2y 7mon ago by feddit.ch/u/ZeroCool in politicalmemes from i.postimg.cc
Well because here you can get treatment for your mental and physical illness without ending up in debt for the rest of your life
Accessing mental health services in the UK is a nightmare though.
Was in a deep depression. I have good Healthcare and tried to make an appt with a psychiatrist to take care of it.
6 month waiting list.... I thought US Healthcare was supposed to be better than this?
Still cost me $300 when I finally got in too since it's a specialist... Fml
It's also a nightmare in much of the US if you are not rich or happen to have excellent insurance. Having to wait six months to receive a bill you can't afford isn't great.
Agreed. I'm just pointing out that it's not lack of access to mental health services that's preventing gun deaths in the UK, it's lack of access to guns.
It's basically impossible in the US.
I couldn't leave the house for 5 years becuase I was terrified of people, and when I finally went to see a GP for help all I got was "well I can't sell you a pill to fix it so I'm not going to do anything".
Hahahahaha! Mental illness treatment? In Canada? Got insurance to cover that or years to wait?
This part is no better than the USA (and surprise surprise, it's mostly privatized!)
years
u mean a couple weeks, right? or have you never left bumfuck, Missouri?
In Canada you can wait years for a psychologist in the public sector.
Even when americans hate guns they can't help revolving their entire mentality around them.
The best and cheapest possible treatment you can get here for mental illness is the kind you grow on your own sadly 🍄
The German police uses less bullets every year than the average policeman in the US.
Yes you read that right, the entire German police, all of them.
The UK and Canada have similar occurrences, but not in the vast number as the United States. We all understand the access to firearms is the problem.
Except for all the people trying to deflect blame from firearms by blaming mental illness. Without any will to actually address mental illness, of course.
It's all about the access to firearms.
Other countries have easy access too, so no, that is not simply it. Look at Switzerland for example, where you can take your military service weapon home.
Military are trained to use it. Part of the issue in the United States is the lack of quality training for civilians and improper background checks. We should be checking for mental health disorders and other red flags like domestic violence and criminal activity.
So it is not all about the access?
"your MILITARY SERVICE weapon"
Yes, it's about access.
The military service part is affecting the "access"
/facepalm
Try to keep up champ.
They literally already do that
The access isn't as easy at all. It's also the culture though. Nobody buys guns for fun or to show off, they aren't toys, there are barely any gun ranges and you don't bring your kid to it.
You maybe have a gun for hunting, it isn't an assault rifle and you only pull it out when you do go hunting.
Why not both?
How do you effectively remove firearms from the equation at this point? Doesn’t the US have something like 120 guns per 100 residents? I don’t want to be the guy tasked with taking someone else’s gun away, that sounds incredibly dangerous. It also doesn’t seem fair to task someone else with that duty.
I won’t disagree that it’s a problem, but I don’t have a solution either.
Every country that currently has gun control laws, at some point didn't have gun control laws and did have an armed population
They all managed to pull it off, the USA is unique in thinking this is an impossible task. And they haven't even tried
Every country that currently has gun control laws, at some point didn't have gun control laws and did have an armed population
Many of those countries had only an armed aristocracy, and they made those laws to keep firearms out of everyone's hands before there were hundreds of millions of armed people.
No. All these countries had crap loads of guns. UK is a good example.
Interestingly enough, you can still purchase rifles and shotguns in the UK… you can even purchase an AR-15 or a Beretta ARX 160 legally in the UK so long as it’s chambered for .22LR and approved by the police. You just have to tell them it’s for a shooting club; not self defense.
When the UK passed their laws, it was more targeting handguns.
One of the biggest problems around guns in America is the culture. Dickbags seem to want to associate manhood with the usage of this one specific type of tool.
You can buy pretty much anything in the UK if you meet legal requirements. People have machine guns and even bloody tanks. But they have them for a good and valid reason and don't go on killing rampages.
Guns regs don't mean no guns. Gun regs mean no guns for idiots.
Yet you have provided no possible options as to take action. Nice work on the reply. 👍
To provide actual discussion:
Increase rigor for screening on all firearm purchases
Removal of any and all "gun shop loopholes"
Voluntary, no questions asked, buybacks on any firearm
Two of these make it harder for new guns to enter the equation, while not making it impossible for a reasonable adult to get one, and the final drastically lowers the number of guns in circulation.
Voluntary, no questions asked, buybacks on any firearm
That's already a thing for the most part. You can walk into any gun/pawn shop and sell your gun there and they'll be happy to take it off your hands AND pay 5x more than a gun buyback program from the state.
Removal of any and all “gun shop loopholes”
That was never a thing. The "loop hole" was selling private party since no individual person has access to the NICS.
The reason you're going to get more for a gun at a pawn shop or gun shop is because they're going to resell them. The idea with a government initiative would be to decommission the guns.
It's my understanding that the term "gun show loophole" is used is because it was/is a common enough practice to meet at gun shows and sell as private sellers, thus bypassing the requirements for bg checks.
I also realized now that I typed gun shop instead of gun show, so sorry if that caused confusion, I'm going to blame autocorrect.
The reason you’re going to get more for a gun at a pawn shop or gun shop is because they’re going to resell them. The idea with a government initiative would be to decommission the guns.
Now you had all of that energy and resource that went into making the gun + the energy required to destroy it vs letting someone who actually wants it, and it mentally OK using. And what if it's a historically significant firearm? Trying to destroy guns is not going to get firearms owners on your side.
Opening up NICS so the average Joe selling private party can double check the person they're buying it from would be a huge step forward. That's a win win for both sides.
Worked just fine in Australia.
I don't think Australia ever had "the right to bear arms" which is why that won't fly well.
Plus Australia is an island. It's a lot easier for that to work when your nearest neighbor is 100 miles away by boat
I don't think
Should have stopped there. Better to have someone think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Ok, Australia ever had “the right to bear arms” which is why that won’t fly well.
Is that better for mr condescending? Do you have an actual response or are you just interesting in insults?
"'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"
I'll take that as a no.
We've Tried Nothing and We're All Out of Ideas!
That's a viable start, and both of your suggestions I am in favor of, but it will not remove the millions of firearms that are already in the hands of 1/3 of the U.S. population. It would also not prevent someone from 3D printing a ghost gun. Considering that some gun owners are also handloading / reloading their own ammo at home, you would effectively need to ban the sale of all smokeless powder as well. However, even in doing that, it would not take back the millions and millions of rounds that people already have.
Right. And these are all valid concerns, but they exist everywhere. The end of the day, you'll actually never remove firearms from the equation, and I'd argue you really shouldn't. The idea is to limit the access to either people who are damned and determined (3d printers, home gunsmiths and reloaders, etc) and those who are somewhat qualified.
The end of the day, you’ll actually never remove firearms from the equation
Agreed.
It's not perfect therefore we shouldn't do anything
Douche.
The answer was clearly "Try"
We haven't even done that yet.
The path on how to start is clear enough. Voluntarily surrendering weapons, followed by mandatory, decades later we'll see results. But I don't think you're the type to participate in gun control discussions in good faith.
The fact that real kinder eggs are illegal because of safety concerns and guns are not is mindblowing.
It is easier to get a gun in the states than it is to get a kinder egg with a little toy in it.
That's an absolute lie. I can buy a kinder egg no questions asked online. You can't sell them as food with plastic pieces inside them, though.
In most US states you have a huge amount of regulation on guns you need to be familiar with and of course it's different state by state.
Try to cross the border into the states with a real kinder egg and then we can talk about where the lies are.
I have? It's literally an FDA thing, not something generally enforced by border patrol or regular cops. Customs might stop you if you declare it but frankly I doubt it. They're more likely to stop you if they think it's a real egg.
How out of touch can you be?
How out of touch can you be?
You are the one fighting over kinder eggs dude.
Btw I've gone across the border and had them taken away so... Yea
Anyhow you are pointless.
You are the one making dumb ass claims about kinder eggs, not me. Look in the mirror and out the window once in a while
You are still ranting about kinder eggs??
Yikes.
You know bettterhelp.com is less expensive than you might think...
Try how? Go on, what can I do right now today to start fixing the problem? See if you can answer without an insult.
Read further down the thread.
Nah.
Again, the point is we're not even there yet. We can theory craft all we want, and you can poke imaginary holes in every measure taken. And in the end, you will still reach the conclusion of "if it's not perfect, why try?" and nothing will change.
So, why bother? No matter what solutions someone brings to the table, you will not be satisfied.
I've yet to see a solution come to the table. That's my point. There certainly are plenty of people making claims that it needs to be done, but no one to provide the "how."
Draw a line in the sand for weapon varieties. For me, that's semi auto. Allow shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc for practical use and self defense. But any line will be hotly debated.
Ban sales of new ones. Give X years for voluntary surrender of existing ones.
After voluntary window expires, send authorities after registered ones, or just send fines for a while.
Any crime after mandatory kicks in gets multiplied if an illegal gun was in proximity.
Then, time.
Happy? It's pretty simple to get started. Then iterate when actual problems manifest.
After voluntary window expires, send authorities after registered ones, or just send fines for a while.
This part doesn't work with your "solution." Do you expect the police to enter people's homes and take their guns?
Iterative. Fines, court dates, warrants when it comes down to it. Sentencing enhancements for crimes.
I wouldn't send authorities into homes, no.
Fines, court dates and warrants do not take firearms out of the hands of people that would rather die than give them up. You'd eventually need SWAT tasks force level initiatives to go and kill resistors eventually; I find that highly unethical.
And there it is. Exactly what I said was going to happen. What was the point of this exercise?
And there it is...? Would you have preferred I started off with that statement in the future?
The point is that you cannot effectively remove guns in the US, without substantially increasing loss of life, and that's why it doesn't happen.
Let me remind you of my comment above
Again, the point is we’re not even there yet. We can theory craft all we want, and you can poke imaginary holes in every measure taken. And in the end, you will still reach the conclusion of “if it’s not perfect, why try?” and nothing will change.
So, why bother? No matter what solutions someone brings to the table, you will not be satisfied.
You proved that correct. There was no point to any of this.
The conclusions I came to are as follows:
- You immediately resorted to name calling when you didn't like what I said... like some kind of petulant child.
- You make claims that we just need to "try" and then once a problem with your half-baked idea is presented, it became my fault
- I outright told you the point and you still missed it like a fucking moron.
Assuming the thought experiment is reaching a system such as exists in many parts of the world including the UK and Canada, what do you think the best approach to achieve that, would be?
I honestly do not have a solution; that’s why I asked the question. Limiting ammunition sales significantly would help, that’s only part of it though.
There’s a second amendment to allow the right to bear arms, but I missed the part in the second amendment that makes any mention of a right to purchase ammo.
Ban the sale of all forms of gunpowder that can be used to remanufacture used rounds.
As far as solving the problem of getting semi automatic rifles out of the hands of people that should not have them goes, there’s only one method to do it, but busting into peoples’ homes and taking their stuff when they aren’t around isn’t likely to have 100% fantastic results either.
Fair enough. I agree with your comment that at some point there’s going to be a shootout with SWAT if this happened, regardless of approach. Financial disincentives perhaps? Make it prohibitively expensive to buy ammunition?
Maybe tax the shit out of ammo and make the tax 100% fund hormone replacement therapy; or just something else nice to do for trans-folks…
Maybe more appropriately, towards mental health services. And the circle is complete.
I don’t think that the tax going on to pay for mental health services would act to disincentivize or dissuade from the purchase of ammo; it would be quite useful though. Maybe that’s better.
Minus points for name calling and hypocrisy.
The name calling was to one person; and in response to name calling.
Care to point out the hypocrisy?
Calling him out for name calling then nar calling.
Sorry, I tend to speak to people on the level they speak to me.
You can't, but in Canadian communities where firearms are more prevalent you see the same result. Mental illness and access to firearms is a huge red flag no matter where in the world you are.
Most places solve it with buy backs and slowly tightening the vice. So that people have both incentive and time to come to terms with it before it comes to a point where they would have to fight to keep them. The crazy gun nuts are actually more talk than action, despite how often they "say" they aren't.
We saw a lot of those gun nuts actually take action back on 1/6/2021. I wouldn't write them off.
Those weren't gun nuts, those were Trump nuts.
A large percentage of them probably are, but they where there because of Trump, not guns.
That venn diagram is pretty close to being a circle.
On one side yes, on the other side not so much.
I guess it would be more of an oval at that point.
It’s the same people.
Not many, statistically. And I bet even fewer next time.
Are you counting on a “next time?”
I still would. It's not like ignoring it has been making it better. Many other countries solved the problem exactly the same way. A steadily ratcheting buyback does work for 90-95% of gun owners. And yes you are left with the crazies that are most likely to actually do terrible things with their guns, but at that point they will already be criminals before they even shoot... so it makes things alot easier.
That's another problem I have with simple baning of guns all your doing is disarming the responsible folk as what are you going to do with the people who fight back with said guns and what about the people who hide their guns or people that get guns illegally you have to remember that there are people that break the law
Historically, old America looks very different from the current one. I look at things like our transit network being entirely train-based, and now being completely car-based. That is a HUGE change driven by demand.
The point is just that large, glacial changes over many years are by no means impossible if we’ve set it as a target and there’s motivation. Nobody ever barged into a railway company’s office and said “We’re tearing up your lines by force and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
What kind of argument are you making here? Rail lines were torn up by force. Vehicle manufacturers bought up all the public transit systems in the US and destroyed them to increase dependency on cars.
And then they lobbied hard to make it illegal to cross roads outside of crosswalks, they lobbied for highways and road expansions, and manipulated the public into believing that real freedom comes from owning a car.
None of that was truly driven by real demand, the system was manipulated to increase car dependency to the benefit of the car manufacturers.
A part of the problem, not the only aspect.
Really? I'd say it's a no Brainer. Easy access to firearms IS the problem.
Yeah that take is definitely a "no brainer".
Not in the way you meant it, but still.
I mean it's easily verifiable if you look it up that easy access to guns is the primary cause of gun deaths.
There is no problem on earth that can easily explained by only one thing.
Underestimating problems is an easy way to earn political points while never solving the overall problem.
I would suggest you use more of your brain in the future.
Yeah, except all the research and data points to easy access to guns as the issue. But yeah, bone headed take for sure.
Define easy access… is that some mental defect teenager taking a gun from his parents gun rack?
I don't think it's a mental health problem per se - I think American society is sick.
And I don't mean sick as in "something happened to you all" - I mean sick as in "you all willingly participate in it together"
There are plenty of other countries with guns who don't have the same kinds of mass killings the USA does.
The problem as I see it is that so many Americans are just so fucking emotional about everything.
Everything's a drama, or a story that needs to be be told, of a journey, or an underdog, or revenge, or a protector. Are musical montage. "I just have to tell you where I have come from" - "you just need ro know my roots"
Every disagreement is a fascist or a communist.
Nothing just "is".
Everything has to have bullshit emotional content and context.
The trouble is none of you will ever see yourselves as part of the problem.
You're in a narcissistic trap.
Liberals are 100% certain that "it's the guns" and get absolutely high saying it.
But it's not the guns. Canada has guns.
Loads of other countries have guns.
You're all fucking hysterical.
TL;DR: it is the guns, but it isn't just the guns. It isn't any one thing and it isn't not any one thing.
-
it IS the guns. It's hard / difficult to massacre with knives.
-
it IS mental health too.
Canada, Australia, UK, etc have horrifically underfunded and backed up mental health care systems - but yes, still far better than anything in the USA.
- Canada has guns. Australia has guns. Neither has as many guns as the USA. Neither is as easy or cheap or widely available as in the USA. Restricting guns is what actually happens and is meant by your imaginary liberals and guns. They don't mean that farmers shouldn't have guns - they know that as a tool, they're useful. I'm not saying hyperbole isn't used (which pisses me off as much as you). But what I am saying is they're right. It's the guns. It's the amount of guns. It's the types of guns.
Which brings me to:
- using words like "hysterical" doesn't help. It's misleading, and plain wrong.
And yeah, I've gone off from your main point of "the USA is too emotionally extreme". This is... not wrong, but I want to argue overly simplistic. I (and others) have described the USA not as one country, but 50 or so (I'm not sold on the Dakota twins) countries that are loosely bound by their xenophobia of everyone else more than anything else. The country wasn't founded on a love of the USA, but the hatred of the UK.
I mean, the UK isn't really that much different. Remember Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Scotland and England? If they had guns like the USA had guns.. woo.
So, America being a drama, etc? You're not wrong. It's an ideology that was instilled at birth, and raised by capitalism - money from engagement, and emotionally trapped people are engaged. It's a society/system created, used and trapped by itself.
And guns are what turns that bubbling cauldron into massacres.
And massacres make the emotional drama cauldron bubble more.
Get rid of guns, you get rid of a lot of stress and drama. You don't solve all problems, but you solve one that is repeating and feeding the drama machine.
Sell the guns to South America/ Israel / wherever they want to ruin next, and use the money to fund affordable housing or something. Solved two birds with one stone!
PS: I'd love to see the USA fundamentally change in one big way: a stronger, standardised federal government. For example, let states do state elections however they want. But if you're voting in a federal election, it should be the same forms, same design, same level of access everywhere in the country. If you can drive freely between states, driving rules and tests should be standardised (they basically are, rural vs city aside). Education? Anything which affects and creates a level playing field across the country, ie. federally, should be standardized. If a state wants to charge sales tax, and another doesn't - that's fine! That's local.
In the same vein, remove weird voted-in positions, like judges and sheriffs. Emotional, populist,partisan involvement in roles that are supposed to be neutral and balanced is insane.
And the guns aren't helping.
Youre not entirely wrong, but I gotta say how funny it is to see a post complaining about how everyone blows each other's positions way up fisish by saying American liberals want to take away all guns. I'm sure you can find an American liberal that says that, but they're in a massive minority. Most of us would be very happy with Canada's level of gun control. You have to take a gun safety class and pass a safty test for any gun, with an extra class and test and a license for hand guns and assault rifles.
Canada also has a system for helping people with mental health problems that doesn't bankrupt the person.
Im pretty sure that's exactly what the Democrats have been asking for for the last 30 odd years.
Our propaganda machine is generational and runs deep.
Insert Fight Club quotes. We've known for years. The American Dream is consumed by everyone from everywhere and when it doesn't come true, no one knows what to do.
On the other hand, guns don't kill a lot of people in most european countries (even the ones with very little gun control)
well... it is a mental health problem. Plus culture. Switzerland has guns and just as many people with mental health problems as the rest of the 'developed' world, but almost 0 shootings.
Everybody knows that sane, law abiding citizens become mass murderers the moment they hold a gun in their hands.
Yes, limiting access to the tools of murder will decrease murders caused by those same tools, but it does nothing to eliminate the murderous intentions of those people.
If we truly care about people's well being we should be doing both, reduce the risk of senseless shootings and massacres (gun control) and assist those with murderous intentions and other mental health issues who, believe it or not, are also victims of our sick culture and so-called societies.
Nah, we don’t very much need to worry about the murderous intentions, as long as they’re not able to put them into action.
That’s the problem, guns let people turn those intentions into actions very easily.
Fair enough, at least you are honest in your selfishness.
It’s better for all concerned. The would-be murderers have the opportunity to reconsider and seek help before they’re in jail for life or killed by the police.
The Nice, France truck attack resulted in more deaths than someone shooting pseudo-automatic high capacity magazine rifles into a crowd of hundreds of people from an elevated position for like 30 minutes straight in Las Vegas
People in Europe can easily enact their murderous intentions, they just seem to not have them at anywhere near the same scale
The fact that a bag o’ guns enables one lone nutjob to carry out an attack comparable to a targeted attack from an organized terror group / government kind of proves the point that guns are in fact the problem.
It doesn't exactly take an organized terror group to rent a truck and get one single pistol, anyone with the will to do it could have committed that attack
Well whenever we have a massive problem with frequent mass killings involving trucks we can talk about truck control too.
I would argue that gun control is more immediately actionable and greatly reduces the capability of the mentally disturbed to commit atrocities of such scale at such a common rate.
Long-term? Yes, access to mental health care and a culture that encourages receiving it will help immensely. But that takes time and will ultimately not save nearly as many people as gun control would. We need both, but gun control can happen today.
I'm not saying it will, I'm saying it CAN. If suddenly there were an armed militia of private liberal citizens who were protesting outside the capitol buildings and offices of enough pro-2nd amendment congresspeople, laws would be passed very quickly to make that not happen.
Most of us don't want to be murdered by the local police or CIA
I would argue that it isn't immediately actionable until we amend the constitution. Gun control is being stricken down all over the place, and honestly that's an appropriate application of the foundational document. If you want real gun control, that is the high bar you need to cross.
Congress could absolutely amend the constitution and control access to guns faster than we could solve the mental health crisis.
If fires are happening because of so much gas around, and matches that people are lighting, you limit the amount of matches AND the amount of gasoline.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
You also can't make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it's not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
I understand your point, but everytime I see someone pointing at mental issues, it just seems to be like they will point at anything except the guns. We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved and they are killing childrens with knives instead of bullets.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help? Only one of the two solutions you mentioned has a bunch of idiot fighting against it.
No, the same group of people fights against BOTH the solutions.
Reagan is responsible for gutting our mental health infrastructure, and Republicans vote against increasing funding consistently.
They won't support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won't support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980
https://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
This last one is a ddg search - you can just pick which article you want to read about Republicans voting against mental health funding.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans+vote+against+mental+health+funding
What if I want to hunt so I can eat meat without supporting factory farming?
Just playing devils advocate here, I agree we need gun control in the US. But saying "fuck responsible gun owners" seems pretty black and white.
It seems to me that the media loves to latch onto gun stories to further polarize the US. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. Republicans don't want anyone thinking. They want emotional reactivity and sensationalized, impulsive retorts with lack of reasoning from both "sides" and nothing close to nuanced thought.
Do you really think no one else in the world is hunting?
Copy any weapon possession law from another first world country and it's already a great step in the right direction.
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn't say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn't take. That's what I mean about the impulsive responses.
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
This is the perfect example of a strawman fallacy. I didn't say no one else in the world was hunting. I asked a question. Interesting how your first reaction is to immediately attack a position I didn't take. That's what I mean about the impulsive responses.
You asked a question that is very easily answered by looking at any other country. Which is why I referred to any other country.
Nothing about that is an attack lol
In any case, which laws from which countries are you referring to specifically?
Take Germany's laws for example.
So, to summarize, your answer to the question is people should be allowed to own guns to hunt with restrictions?
Yes, in a model similar to Germany. Which means you can only purchase weapons made for hunting, you need to be a trained and licensed hunter, your weapons needed to be unloaded and locked away any time you aren't hunting, no every day carry, etc.
I am one of these people who think the only meat you should eat is hunted by yourself. Not just because of the animal rights violations in the farming industry but also because birthing something to eat it is immoral in my eyes and I feel there's a weight that comes with killing something. I don't count hunting with a gun as hunting, its simply unfair, there's no challenge and the animal doesn't have a chance. If you can't make it yourself in nature, you shouldn't use it. I'm okay with bringing knives n all but I personally prefer to make them myself.
I need to specify fuck all gun owners because everytime, one comes out of the woodwork talking about how he likes the hobby and he keeps his gun safe. Well his hobby is leading to unnecessary deaths and he should grow the fuck up. If you want to eat meat without the factory, raise it, bow it, trap it, fish it or go vegan. People don't deserve to die because of some snowflake that only eats wild game or some loser that built his whole personality on aiming a stick.
That being said, there is an easy compromise; no private ownership of guns. You want to have fun shooting clay pigeons, rent the gun at the range. You want to spend time with the boys shooting hogs, rent the gun at the hunting ground. But it's a non starter because that takes away the whole power thing and that's the real reason people are so obsessed with the damn things.
I guess people really can't have this conversation without it being super emotionally charged. I mean, you can kill a person with a bow too, I don't think that's really a viable solution, it's also a dangerous weapon. Anything you use to easily kill an animal can be used against humans, and arguably should be regulated too. And not everyone has the land, money, and resources to raise their own domestic animals for food.
Insulting people who want to ethically eat meat and anyone who owns a gun is what your going for here, but I don't see where the "snowflake" remark comes in. It's a big jump to say someone who wants to hunt to avoid factory farming has their entire personality built around it and to minimize their attempt at ethical food consumption by calling it a "hobby". And saying "fuck all everyone who does X" is usually a pretty unhelpfully broad generalization that lacks scrutiny. You're using the "attacking someone's character" fallacy.
Renting a weapon to hunt seems like a decent solution, but who is qualified to rent or safekeep the weapons? Then they're just in someone elses hands. What criteria do we use to judge who's capable of renting them out?
My point is it's a complex issue, and anyone who says it's so easily solved by doing "this one thing" isn't considering every angle.
The personality part is aimed at people that think having easy distribution of weapons is justified by their choice of hobby(not hunting but gun range).
You can't kill a crowd of people with a bow.
The current ownership restrictions can be used for hunting. Anyone that clearly isn't fit to use it doesn't get to. The difference is it's not sitting in someone's closet where an innocent child, angsty teenager or jealous spouse can just pull it out. If you're in the middle of a psychotic episode, the guy at the counter just won't rent it to you.
You aren't getting real responses because we've heard it all before. They are weak arguments, as if you didn't know the simple difference between a bow and a gun.
So no, it's not complex. Guns are dangerous, they are being misused. The negatives of everyone having access to them outweigh the benefits by a huge amount. Ban them.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? There is a small group of us. Also gun owners who need to have them for their job as police, security, or soldiers? Farmers and Hunters have legitimate reasons, too. The government are never going to give up guns. Neither will criminals. The cat is out of the bag on them. We will never be done with guns until a better alternative is developed like the phasers from Star Trek or something. So saying fuck people for just owning a gun is a bit shortsighted, at least in my opinion.
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I'm over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN. I don't give a fuck if you want to keep your happy fun times playing with dangerous weapons as if they were toys. Grow up, this is bigger than your hobby.
It's crazy how many activities are available to us in this modern age that don't involve potential death.
Obviously, I'm not talking about police or the army. I don't care about farmers and hunters, they can learn to trap it, bow it or fish it.
How many innocent people are you willing to cut down so you can have your fun. Put a number on it. Less than 100 school children per year and we get to keep our guns? Sounds gross doesn't it?
What about gun owners who support restrictions and bans? Sorry, I’m over here busy caring about DEAD CHILDREN.
People need kidneys, it's sad but decreed yet this Senator's hoarding one more than she needs I offer this bill and I hope you'll vote "aye" Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Traffic deaths have many crying with fear Over 30,000 people are dying each year this modest change I propose must be applied Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Alcohol deaths are exceeding comparisons Black people, white people, Native Americans We need to ban alcohol, it can't be denied Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
Murders are bad. They have no defenders yet many are committed by repeat offenders I say lifetime in prison, whatever the crime unless, of course, you want PEOPLE TO DIE!
These car deaths I mentioned are terrible stuff It just doesn't seem that one seatbelt's enough Either vote for my act so that fewer will cry Unless, of course, you just want PEOPLE TO DIE!
The carbs. The container. We cannot ignore Whipped cream's killing more people than ever before This bill would be passed and be ratified if those people there didn't want PEOPLE TO DIE!
None of those things are remotely comparable to guns lol. Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
I don't understand what the kidney one is about.
Cars are central to our society, it would collapse without it(although I'm completely for phasing them out). Their main use is transport, not killing people.
Everything else you mentioned only affects the person using it and killin isn't their main use. My neighbor can't kill me because he's mad about his job and is eating too much whip cream.
Guns are made to kill. People are using it to kill innocent people. No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I'm clearly not talking about banning it for then). Go back to posting pictures.
Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
Are you okay there buddy?
No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I’m clearly not talking about banning it for then).
name a profession you think needs a gun more than the working people need guns, please.
That's easy since working people don't need guns.
Infantryman, swat, police(but the UK policemen don't have them so probably not after a few years of a gunless society), ice cream truck driver
working people don’t need guns.
fucking liberals.
Lol
working people don’t need guns.
they do if a landlord tries to evict them or the pinkertons try to break their strike.
Infantryman, swat, police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU&pp=ygUVbG92ZSBtZSBpJ20gYSBsaWJlcmFs
Did you read my comment? I said I would vote for restrictions or bans. That means I would give up my gun. I am not the reason guns are so freely available in the US. Since that's the way it is, I figured I'd face reality and learn how to use them. It's not a hobby, I live in a place with a lot of gun crime. I would prefer if they weren't so easy to get, but here we are. I'm going to continue to choose to live in objective reality here, and if/when restrictions or bans are actually feasible in this country I'll be all for it.
You are naive if you think there is no legitimate hunting use for them. I don't think you understand how important hunting is in certain parts of the US. It keeps the ecosystem from collapsing in more rural places.
Have you ever seen anyone arguing against mental health help?
Yes, several times. Even this meme implies that arguing for more and better mental health services as a solution to massacres is foolishly wrong. Also, another reply I got here says:
Nah, we don’t very much need to worry about the murderous intentions, as long as they’re not able to put them into action.
You also can’t make mental health illegal overnight. People are born with mental health issues, it’s not something they buy at the store or grab from their fathers closet.
I think you are a bit confused about what I'm suggesting here, or I'm not understanding what you mean with this.
Ban guns, ban guns now. Fuck gun culture and fuck all gun owners (even the responsible ones)
We can thoroughly take care of the more complicated part of the problem once the easy part has been solved
You think banning guns is the easy part? History has shown us time and time again that prohibitions don't work. Even if possession of a single firearm was punished with death people would still own and trade them as it happens with drugs in places where its punished with death.
Gun control or even prohibition is like a small umbrella under heavy rain, you dont get drenched but you still get wet. We need a raincoat, a hat and rubber boots.
To be fair, better metal health services is not an absolute solution either, there are plenty more stuff we should improve in order to achieve a real solution.
Lol, guns aren't an addicting substance thats consumed, you can't make guns easily with veggies and a vat. It isn't comparable to alcohol or the prohibition.
And again, it becomes clear that anyone arguing for other solutions just wants to keep their guns, they don't actually care about the situation or how it's affecting people.
Get a better hobby than aiming a stick at paper targets. It's menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.
you can’t make guns easily
wrong
anyone arguing for other solutions just wants to keep their guns, they don’t actually care about the situation or how it’s affecting people.
false dichotomy
It isn’t comparable to alcohol or the prohibition.
there's a direct comparison.
Get a better hobby
It’s menial, pathetically simple and is leading to real problems for zero gains except to your ego. GROW UP.
Username checks out
Nope, fuck you. We will not ban guns, and there is nothing you can ever do about it. Our gun rights are set in stone.
I know it's hard since you have built your personality around it and without guns, everyone becomes stridently aware how uninteresting you are but it's necessary for society so deal with it.
Your snowflake feelings aren't more important than innocent lives, loser
My feelings about it are irrelevant, and you have no idea about me except your strawman bad guy concept that you imagined. Ad hominem attacks are inherently weak.
I support all rights for all Americans, and will continue to do so perpetually. The US Supreme Court has confirmed the individual right to own firearms in triplicate, and the amendment that right is supported by will never be repealed since it requires 3/4 of the 50 US states to ratify. You can deal with that with your own feelings one way or another, which are also irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
You support all rights except the one to feel safe in public places.
The supreme Court is busy dismantling abortion rights, they are obviously not a beacon of sanity and justice.
Believe what you want but your little hard-on for gunpowder is costing innocent lives.
Also, get off your high horse. You started your reply literally with a fuck you, it's a bit late to cry about me calling you a snowflake lol
Nope, you don't get to speak for me. I alone represent myself and I have done so with my former statements of fact.
I will remain on this high horse because it was YOU who started with "Fuck You" to all gun owners. I responded proportionally.
Regardless of who started, it makes you a hypocrite to try to call me out on it when you exhibit the same behavior. That's more my point.
Also, it's not a good thing to stay on a high horse. The expression means you are being arrogant and snoby but you do you.
Most gun owners live in a paranoid fantasy world with a hero complex. I've heard some wild shit come from the mouths of people who own guns. Many who do own them should have them taken away. It's mostly brainwashing and less about mental disorders with these people.
Call it a mental health problem, a societal health problem, whatever. Unless we accept that wanting to slaughter the people around you is an unfixable natural quirk of some people's human experience, then this cannot be purely a gun control issue.
It's not even like Canada even gives a shit about mental health.
Apparently the Ontario prime minister had heard a out how much people were suffering post pandemic - - - and then cut funding to the point that people could only get 10 sessions with a consoler (not even a psychologist or anything special!)
... or anywhere else, except the USA.
It can be surprisingly difficult to get a therapist in the US if you don't have insurance. Honestly, I found the process remarkably frustrating even with insurance.
I don't know what it's like in the other countries listed, but they all have much better healthcare systems than the US, so I imagine it's much easier.
Well there is another thing they all have in common...
They're all dirty commies! At least that's what Fox News told me.
let me guess, you self identify as a centrist
Running statistical analysis on the data now. Preliminary results suggest video games as the main causal effect.
Are you sure it’s not Dungeons and Dragons and that heavy metal music?
And don't forget about Tarot cards and Astrology!
Are you sure it's not vaccines? Either the vaccine the shooter took made them do it, or if they weren't vaccinated the vaccines in the people around them!
For the record, we have video games, D&D and tarot cards up here in Canada.
No you dont Canada is a frozen wasteland populated exclusively by Moose. Except Newfoundland their real.
Oh, cool - we're pretending there are no other differences between the countries listed, e.g. healthcare, social safety nets, etc. that may or may not have been shown to be an unavoidable majority of the underlying issues.
Gotta enjoy the meme circlejerk though, eh?
I always say that this is more cultural than anything else. Americans tend to be more gung ho and are ammosexuals who worship guns excessively. The Swiss have more guns per capita, they are legally mandated to own guns, but they have practically zero mass shootings unlike the US. I'm not deriding American people themselves, I'm just criticising how they handle and view guns. They can do whatever the heck they want, it's their prerogative, but if one's rights end with another then that's going to be an issue. Just relax with the guns and emulate their Swiss brethrens who are self-disciplined about handling guns. Rights come with responsibilities.
Isn't it interesting that tons of people own guns in America and DON'T shoot people? Or the fact that we had crazy people and assault weapons previously without mass shootings.
Looking at these issues as if they're either-or is ridiculous. Of course you're going to need a multivariate approach. You're not going to get rid of the guns, and you're not going to get rid of crazy people. We need to address gun laws, mental health laws, and societal collapse overall. There's no singular approach that will fix everything.
ah the pro-gun weirdo lemmings have come out once again.
If you go far enough left you get your gun rights back
ah the fucking horseshoeit theory.
no you don't, the only purpose of guns is to kill someone, that is not very respectful of their bodily autonomy, is it?
You're stopping short on the "kill all landlords" scale, there
guillotines exist mate and much harder tp shoot up a school with them
Do a search to find out who said the following:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
the only purpose of guns is to kill someone, that is not very respectful of their bodily autonomy, is it?
Yes, if they aren't respecting your rights, they have forfeited theirs
you're a perfect example of it, actually.
Jesus Christ... Where's the humanity? They called you a pro-gun weirdo lemming (reddit ≈ redditor; lemmy ≈ lemming) and nowhere did they state or even suggest that you were subhuman. Suggesting someone might deserve an active shooter? Nah man, fuck you all the way to Pluto and back.
Btw, I actually agreed with your original message. It's your response to the comment that I'm criticising.
Ngl the lemming thing went over my head too, so thanks for explaining
all the way to Pluto and back.
Interrupting just to say Pluto is an effing planet.
Carry on.
Username checks out
I think they were referring to the Underworld of the Roman Pantheon
I think they were referring to the Underworld of the Roman Pantheon
Exotic, but possible.
New to Lemmy. Don't call me a lemming. The connotations are insulting.
Also if you dismiss my perfectly cogent argument as being from a weird pro gun nut....then fuck you go die in a fire, you're not here to discuss you're here to insult. In which case if you wanna get nuts, let's get nuts. I hope the baby Jesus pisses on their corpse
You won't get real far with an attitude like this. Tit for tat and turned up to 1000. You're clearly very defensive over being called anything and still need to figure out who exactly you think you are. If some simple name calling ("lemming") is enough to make you fly inyo attack mode like that and wish an active shooter on someone, you've still got a very long way to go.
Not defensive, dismissive. Simple prisoner's dilemma. I start off nice. If you're not nice back, then die in a fire.
He called me a lemming. Fuck him.
Lemming, because you're on lemmy?People on reddit are called redditors, no? People making content on YouTube are called YouTubers. People who stream are called streamers. I'm sure there are more.
I could see the "weirdo" part being offensive, but I'm confused why you're upset about the lemming part. This is on lemmy. We are all lemmings, technically.
It would be like using discord and then getting upset with someone for calling you a discord user.
a pro gun weirdo lemming.
If that's how he's gonna talk to me I'll talk shit back.
We are all lemmings here. Lemming is colloquial slang for a person who uses Lemmy. That's all. I think you replied to yourself, btw.
He still called me a pro gun weirdo for saying you're not going to be able to disarm America. If that's the level of discourse, then America deserves school shooters.
I think you are being a bit overblown about being called a pro gun weirdo on a random internet forum. FWIW, I thought your previous comment was completely reasonable, and do not see you as a pro gun weirdo at all. I dont even think thats that much of an insult, I know people who would wear that as a badge. I agree that the reality is that America is not going to get rid of them anytime soon. Just don't take random comments on the internet so personally. They don't know anything about you and vice versa. They could be a little kid for all you know.
So? Fuck em.
Just wipe out the guns and no more school shootings, stupid.
No annual school shooting is Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China, Hongkong, Australia and people like you still defend it.
So retarded view. Go more left till nothing's right.
Okay, how? Are you signing up to go door to door?
Sign the law, order everyone to surrender or face imprisonment. See, that is easy.
So many excuses thrown around.
Will you volunteer to go collect guns from people?
Who says collecting door to door again? Reading comprehension
Are you that naive? I am saying that is an inevitability.
When people refuse to surrender weapons, what do you suppose the step after that is? Arresting someone for not turning in their weapon; which will lead to several violent encounters. This will create additional loss of life, and I thought that was the problem we need to solve.
Australia did it. This really is an American problem
Australia didn’t have a hole as deep either.
Your reasoning for not removing the guns is that it will lead to gun violence. You think they are going to knock on your door? If it ever would come to that, if laws get changed and having assault rifles becomes outlawed I imagine you would get a few 'friendly requests' to bring them in - just like they did in Australia. If you still don't - you're a criminal and should be treated accordingly. I'm sure the government can handle a few nuts with guns who they don't want to give up.
This will create additional loss of life, and I thought that was the problem we need to solve.
There'll be less blood than a few weeks of school shootings.
But keep making up new problems
If you still don’t - you’re a criminal and should be treated accordingly.
You're almost there... what do you think the implications of this statement are? How does the US treat criminals? What does the US do to pursue and arrest criminals? Shit... how does the US treat mis-identified people asleep in their own beds during no-knock raids?
Keep working your way through this, you might actually get there!
There’ll be less blood than a few weeks of school shootings.
And now you're making up outcomes.
Then do it. Few losses here and there than perpetual cycle of deaths, naive guy.
I’m not going to go around collecting weapons from people door to door, and it’s beyond fucked up to try to force someone else to do that. Anyone that suggests for someone else to put their life in danger should be compelled to do the same. You sound like a fucking psycho.
Nah no. If you are weak, say so.
That's just a fantasy, and it's impossible.
Excuse.
"just"
no, they just stab you to death, but guess what? you're still dead
But at least the person next to me was able to run away and get help or call the authorities.
and the police will be armed with?
a. Magic
b.Stick
c. Gun
- Tazer
- Pepperspray
Well. It's partly a mental health problem, sure. But it's not just that.
We've got a number of things going on that a lot of other countries don't have.
First, guns are a civil right in the US. Multiple SCOTUS rulings in the last 20 years have affirmed that it's an individual civil right, and not a collective one. (Which would be weird, since everything else in the Bill of Rights is about people, rather than the gov't; the power to raise a military was already listed as a power of the gov't in the constitution, so why would the signatories need to also specify that the gov't had the right to arm the army that it had raised?)
Second, the US is one of the few developed countries that has extremely poor social safety networks. We have a low individual and corporate tax rate (again, as far as developed countries go), so we can't pay for the kind of social services that other countries take for granted. We have comparatively high rates of poverty and a far larger economic inequality gap than most other developed countries.
Third, we have a declining public education system; we've been cutting public education, and putting more money towards selective schools, like charter and magnet schools (and, in some places, public funding for religious schooling), which decreases the quality of education. This shitty education system means that comparatively fewer people--and disproportionately black and Latino people--don't have access to goo education, which limits their career prospects.
Fourth, we have a terrible, broken criminal justice system. We focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, and people that go to prison often find that their opportunities are sharply limited when they get out, likely trapping them in a continued cycle of poverty.
The latter three things contribute to fairly high rates of violent crimes. The first factor makes crime much more lethal.
The truth is that the rate violent crime in the US is on par with violent crime in the UK or Australia (violent crime referring to forcible rape, assault/battery, robbery, and murder), with Australia having a quite high reported rate of forcible rape, the UK having a quite high rate of battery, and the US dwarfing their murder rates.
In regards to spree-killers, there's not a single profile. The US Secret Service has looked at some thigns that are risk factors, but spree killers are so comparatively rare, and have such widely varied motives, that there's nothing that they can draw definite conclusions on. When I say that these events are rare, what I mean is that commonly reported figures that claim daily mass shootings aren't looking at spree killers, but are looking at ordinary crime--robberies, assaults--involving multiple injuries, rather than an active shooter that's trying to kill as many people as possible. A running gunfight between gang member that sees 2 people killed and ten people shot isn't what most people think of when they thing "mass shooting"; they're thinking of something like the Mandelay Bay massacre in 2017, Pulse Nightclub, or Newtown, CT. Some of the people that are spree killers do have a real mental illness; the Aurora, CO murderer is schizophrenic. Many do not.
There's not a quick, easy answer, because this wasn't something that happened overnight. The idea that we've never had mass murderers prior to Columbine HS is just factually wrong, and Columbine has been 30 years ago now.
As a non American I can't see a simple solution to the problem, guns are already abundant so banning them won't magically make them disappear, attempting to sieze them would probably cause a dark stain (ala Boston massacre) in the countries history and you've got to deal with the fact that the USA only exists because they had the fire power to make it so which is ingrained in a lot of people.
I wish there was a magical solution but I fear its a choice between a slow, turbulent transition or a quick, brutal, bloody change.
Or, ya know, it could be both?
Can we stop making these things into a false dichotomy?
those other countries still have issues.
They just don’t have easy access to guns. Doesn’t mean the guy with schizophrenia down the street found a compound bow and hasn’t been threatening people and requires 5 police officers each and every time someone calls it in.
It doesn’t mean the guy who set himself on fire the other day was a figment of everyone’s imagination.
It doesn’t mean the guy stabbing people in the neck just outside of one of the main stations because the bible told him to doesn’t exist
Or the other guy wielding a machete outside another one of the stations threatening people with it just didn’t happen.
It doesn’t mean there isn’t domestic violence because of someone’s underlying undiagnosed problems.
please stop downplaying mental illness and violence.
It's literally because guns are hard to get here. I'd have killed myself by now if they weren't.
Are you ok? I know life hits hard sometimes and I get what you're saying, but that sounds like you're in a bit of a dark place right now.
I'm just some random internet idiot from Canada but if you need someone to vent to, I'd be happy to listen, as I'm sure many others would be. No judgement.
Just had my heart broken, she slept with another guy while I was helping my friend prepare his house for his sister (while she was being evacuated from a war zone). She suddenly blocked my number and when I finally bumped into her at the gym (two weeks later) she grinned when I said my feelings were hurt by that. I feel utterly emasculated, worthless and ugly, to the point I see something grotesque when I look in the mirror. It's really peculiar. Maybe it's okay, there wasn't much heart left to break.
Ah yup that would do it, she sounds like a real piece of work that one.
I dated a girl "J" for a few years once. She was pretty hot, we got along well, and I thought I was in love with her. I blew lots of money on her, and near the end even lent her enough money to buy a minivan that she had wanted to replace her shitty car with the deal being that she'd pay be back the money in installments when she could afford it. Then she tried ghosting me and refused to pay me anything. (I learned later that she started hanging around some other guy right after I loaned her the money.) Long story short, I was just a tool for her to use because I made good money at the time. ( I did eventually get most of my money back but it wasn't easy or nice.) It really hurt to get taken advantage of by someone who I loved and thought loved me back.
Now, many years later I realize I wasn't in love with her at all... I was only in love with who I thought she was. The flags were there, I was too dumb to pay attention to them. The real "J" didn't deserve the time of day from me, let alone all I did for her. To be honest it doesn't sound like this lady is worth your love either.
I just wanted somebody to love, I think. And she was very pretty. I was ready to pay half the fees for her Master's degree, I guess it's a good thing it didn't get that far but hard to see things that way at the moment.
hard to see things that way at the moment.
For sure, it's hard to see clearly when your heart is broken. I was the same way. They say time heals all wounds, but it sure as hell doesn't feel that way when you're depressed and sad. I stopped dating for several years after my ordeal just to try and get all my ducks in a row again and focused on myself. I knew it wasn't my fault but that didn't make me feel any better. Hell, I'm still a bit mad at myself for ignoring the signs and letting it get as far as it did.
I wish I could say that you will find the right one that will love you as much as you love her, but I'm no psychic. But what I do know is there are many women out there that have had the same experience you and I have had that are in, or have been in the same boat. They are not easy to find because they tend to withdraw from others just like I had. But they are out there, sometimes in the least expected places. And all they want is to be loved for who they are, just like you and me.
How did you get those ducks in a row? My life is not great, and I have a hard time creating opportunities for myself even though I'm an extremely hard worker.
Well, I guess whether I ever actually succeeded in getting them in a row would be a matter of opinion lol. I don't make nearly the kind of money I used to, in fact money is pretty tight the last little while for me. I was a hard worker too, always the first one to jump to get things done and everywhere I worked I was always getting raises and was the one to be trusted with getting things done. But then at one point I had a bad accident at work that didn't do me any favors in the least bit.
Between the accident and me getting older I'm not in great shape anymore. I get bad headaches, My back is shot, my right hand only has a limited range of motion, my knees are crap, my lungs are scarred, my kidneys hate me, blah blah blah.
So now I live out in the boonies near a tiny village of about 400 people with my oldest daughter who has cerebral palsy. My other daughter lives nearby about a half km away, and I spend most of my time helping them out and fixing their stuff, and trying to make friends with the local stray cats. Not where I expected to end up considering I've always been a hyper-active "go go go" type of person but that's ok... It's not much, but I'm happy with that for whatever time I have left.
Yeah, I was hospitalised with viral encephalitis ten years ago and made homeless while I was catatonic, since then I haven't really been able to get back into a good position although I did manage to get my MSc a couple of years ago. No career to speak of although people consider me a useful guy. It's a shame how these things happen.
That's life for you. All we can really do is make the best of the cards we've been dealt. But no matter how bad it gets, there's still millions of people who have gotten even worse than we could imagine.
I've had a lot of bad experiences and I've made my share of fuck ups along the way, but I also made a lot of good choices and had some good experiences too. There's some things I would have liked to change if I could start over, but overall it hasn't been too bad. All those experiences for good or bad made me who I am and made me really think about how I treat others around me and those that I care about.
It's literally because they have free healthcare.
*Free lol
🤓👆
you can always go be black near a cop and that would get you executed pretty quick
Not really how things work in the UK.
Tall buildings are also a thing. I tried ODing but now I'm glad it didn't work out.
same. fr tho glad you're still here.
Those same people who point to mental health are the ones denying any kind of public funding to address such issues (aka voting "no" on proposed legislation). There might be similar rates of mental health challenges in other countries - but we can also acknowledge that the US lags far behind in offering any kind of supportive system for those in need.
It does, it just prefers the personal one on one touch in other places over the get em all at once way America seems to like.
Mental illness don't kill people, uh uh;
I kill people, with mental illness
What if mental illness but guns? Like, lots of them.
They don't kill people, but they certainly poison society wherever they are. It's like the mentally sick can't keep themselves from administrative positions.
Can you get semi autos in Canada and the UK easily? Definitely can't in Australia. The most you're allowed is a rifle and only if you're a farmer.
as a australian this is complete crap people here either alcoholics, depressed or corrupt politicians
I think the person who made this meme should be put on watch for mental illness
No those places’ history of massacres were enacted by perfectly “sane” governments
Canada has guns too
I hear of people getting stabbed like atleast once every two weeks lol.
Gun kill more people at once, which makes bigger headlines, but desperate people are still doing horrible things becuase of a lack of safety nets.
Other than the immediate body count, the only difference is how easy it is to ignore.
Edit: I'm not saying gun control won't stop gun violence. Pretending that the metal health doesn't play a role in why people trapped in a bad situation end up doing drastic things is just wrong.
It just gives those in power an excuse to ignore how societal deficits harm people, and it doesn't really convey a convincing argument for gun control. It comes off as if you think gun control will fix everything, when it just make gun violence exclusively less prevalent.
Hmmm I wonder why there weren't any mass shootings TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. What a ridiculous argument
Culture, politics, financial well being, careers, but also allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004.
Violent crime has actually decreased since that assault weapons ban ended.
Assault weapons were also still available to buy with high capacity magazines DURING the ban. It was completely ineffective actually.
Kinda hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock.
clearly it was all the good guys with guns stopping them.
potential shooters from 1911
yes, the society where beating your wife was a fact of life was certainly a normal one. all the lead in the air was good for your brain too! you know crime has gone down and only continues to drop, right? sorry, but the facts don't give a shit about your fear-mongering
This was made in 1881 a few months after the assassination of James Garfield
Mass shootings weren't commonplace, but the talking points sure were
America's debate on guns has gone on well before mass shootings, and that the exact same points are brought up. Back then the big scary weapon was the revolver.
My point is none of this is truly new.
Fully automatic weapons didn't exist back then.
Sad scenario but I would not consider this a mass shooting. This was fallout from a robbery attempt.
And this shooting displayed that the common police equipment of the time (pistols, shotguns) were ineffective against determined and well equipped criminals. Police wanted handy, precise rifles (AR-15), and better armour for themselves and vehicles in case of emergency.
So the police looked to relatively cheap mil surplus and things that were compatible with them, fast forward a few decades and that is why the police have a ton of military grade gear.
I don't know who needs to hear this but fully automatic weapons (1 trigger press=many bullets until the trigger is released) are not used in mass shootings.
Semi automatic weapons (1 trigger press=1 bullet) are and a majority of guns used in crime and defense belong in this category. I know some people get annoyed because it's seen as nitpicking but even if you are anti gun you need to understand guns enough to make a coherent argument. I recommend having someone you trust take you to a range if you can.
But yeah imagine a group of government officials wanted to regulate cell phones but constantly said tablets like the words are interchangable. Then they start using vague terms like "smart screens" all the time like it means one very particular thing. You see what I mean.
Since 1884, nice try.
Good luck carrying a Maxim Gun into a school to massacre children.
Yeah way too heavy. Wheel it around on a tripod or mount it to a wagon instead
Patented in 83. Thanks, Maxim! (The dude, not the magazine)
Dunno. Just recently(2 days ago) people without any guns hijacked an airport.
And are there mass shooting in Finland or Ukraine. Besides putin's mob I mean.
What a terrible take. Can you get mental health care in those other countries, or is there a wait list and a huge bill at the end like in the US?
Wait list, yes. Bill, absolutely not.
Taking care of mental health is about as hard in most other countries too, yes. We should also be solving that problem. But not exclusively.
Can you show me where I said exclusively?
My apologies, in context it seemed like you were implying that mental health was indeed easier to get help for in the other countries listed. Which I took to mean you were saying it was indeed more of a factor and not completely irrelevant. So I assumed you didn't think guns were the main problem from that. When they are indeed the main problem.
I didn't get from your post that you were also calling for gun control, for some reason it seemed like you were against it. Sorry.
In Canada? Huge wait list unless you want to pay, same as the USA. What's the next excuse then?
In the States it's free if you are very poor, but if you get a real job they remove the benefit. The welfare cliff is a really undiserable there.
In Australia you can get like 5 free psych sessions a year or something. It’s not very well advertised, nor is it really enough to help those who actually need.
For any serious help, you’ll be looking at out of pocket expenses.