It might could. At least make it harder. I’d have to look hard at it just based on how skewed we are in violent deaths. I don’t disagree there is a social aspect to it, but other nations have social issues too.
So, to recap: -grown men should beat their kids to get them to listen and teach them discipline. This will decrease violent tendencies when they are older and make them less likely to want to shoot someone. Got it. -seat belt laws are unconstitutional and we should do away with them. They save lives but that doesn’t rank above their constitutionality. -the realistic outcome of everyone teaching their kids right from wrong, and empathy is the reason people shoot each other, not access to weapons or beating them when they’re young -I’m a pussy because I want to improve statistics of homicides and suicides in the US and the practical answer is to reduce gun access, which goes against your personal agenda. Is that professional victim hood? -you guys are the ones who keep spouting about media coverage, biases, and political agendas. All I’m talking about is public health and saving lives. Need to look in the mirror about who’s doing the bitching. -next person that calls me a pussy is getting a cap in ther’ azz
There is a difference between beating them and putting a hand across a sassy mouth. Don't think I called you a pussy
North Korea has clean streets, no guns and no crime. Does that make them better off? Freedoms come with a tradeoff of risks and choice. We are the freest, most secure and most advanced country in the history of history because our founders understood that value. The Declaration of Independence is the greatest written document for the protection of those individual liberties while specifically acknowledging our god given rights. Other countries throughout history have traded freedoms for security and have suffered since. While my reply may seem extreme over a handgun debate, its application here is important. Because once those freedoms are relinquished, they are never, throughout history, recovered. These freedoms are unique to our foundation which is why so many hold such strong beliefs and most would die to keep them. And why so many have.
Hey, man, I can appreciate that. I agree with most of it, but not fully. I think putting simple regulations in place to lessen gun access to those who shouldn’t have them is smart, not infringing. I also think you’re overstating the effect it’ll have. That’s the same fear monging that gun rights folks complain about to begin with, that the other side is making a mountain out of a molehill. Sounds similar to me.
This is the most lethal of all opinions. You simply cannot give up "just a little bit of freedom " or allow a law that "wouldn't infringe as bad as you think" because that truly is the beginning of the end. People like this are easily swayed and the government can't get enough "yous". Look I understand, crazy people should not have guns but that is a line that can't be drawn. That leaves us back to policing ourselves and society, we as a society have failed on a level beyond measure.
And who is that exactly? Precisely? Who makes that determination? Will there be a list? Will there be people mistakenly denied? Will you be on that list permanently should you ever go on it? How do we know it won't be used politically like the IRS went after people and organizations with certain political affiliations? And do honestly believe that limiting access will keep criminals and assassins from getting them? There are probably thousands of human ticking time bombs walking the streets today who have given no warning, done nothing....how will a limiting process identify them? Perhaps the biggest problem with such a process is that we would be depending on a process. Most of the shooters today have a demonstrated history of problems and yet their own families didn't or couldn't step in. What makes you think a stupid government process would be more effective than human family members? It is nothing but a way to get money from people for licensing, hiring people to hand out fines, and for the government to have yet another reason to "watch" certain Americans. Every dictator and oppressive country on the planet has one thing in common. A citizenry with no means to defend itself from that government.
We’re still “free” with drivers licenses and restrictions. Is the DMV a bloated bureaucracy? Probably. That’s one of the biggest problems with regulations, somebody has to regulate and draw arbitrary lines to not cross. But we’ve made huge improvements to traffic safety, one of the leading causes of death. After we conquer guns we can put a national lockdown on big gulps.
Probably? Lol. So is the USPS and the DoE and the CDC and EPA....the government does not know how to be efficient nor are they trying because efficiency reduces payroll. They also don't know how to be accurate. Driving isn't a right. It's a privilege. Why not discuss voting? We can talk about people who shouldn't be voting. Nonsense. VRD's are down because we have better cars, have reduced the amount of time spent on the roads and because we have vastly improved emergency response processes and trauma care. You take a T-bone in the middle of the desert and a chopper comes to ride your ass to the nearest regional trauma center. We didn't do that shit 40 years ago. One thing out here that continues to cause traffic-related deaths are all the unlicensed and drunk illegals. Wait....what? They don't follow rules and regulations? Shocking. There's more than an arbitrary line that we call the border. I'm certain it says Do Not Cross. How is that working?
