Texas shooter struggled with mental health, family dysfunction, was fascinated with guns

Yep, this is the United States. The only country in the world where this is a common reoccurrence

I wonder why....

 

Certain weapons do require a license, it isn't unconstitutional to require a license for certain weapons, and it isn't unconstitutional to add more weapons to that list

 

I’m not talking about self harm either unless you are an animal or ****ing yourself. . Sorry, the set up was too good…

I’m talking about things people do that cause orders of magnitude more death and misery for others than mass shootings. You don’t have to care about the bigger problems but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or that you get to choose for society the far lesser “evil” to address.

 

Unless the sex isn't consensual, I would classify that as self harm. I don't really agree with policing self harm. I'm a person who doesn't agree with seatbelt laws, but I do agree with speed limits. Why? Because choosing to not wear a seatbelt doesn't put other people at risk against their will. Going over the speed limit does, and it's as simple as that.

In regards to weapons, the question is should certain weapons require a license and mental health evaluation to own. If the weapons is designed for enough offensive force, I think it should

 

Video games and movies

 

For at least 25 years, Australia, Canada, Norway, UK and others have been severely regulating semi-automatic guns.

With spectacular results.

 

Oh yeah, they definitely don't have video games and movies in any other countries. Brilliant!

 

You know what the US has never had? A Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mussolini. I wonder why that might be?

 

Most countries haven't

 

They chose countries with gun control

 

But we had Trump. 'Nuf said.

 

Says a Biden Devil

 

We too have long had strong gun control laws in some of our major cities and we also get spectacular results every weekend

 

But it's the truth. That you can't admit that is quite telling.

 

And what message does it bring you?

 

Uhh no, they didn't choose their countries, that's not how that works

 

How about the fact that there is a pathological addiction for guns and weapons in this country

This whole thing may have started ears ago due to the way life was in the wild county.........After all......... the immigrants had to defend themselves against the Native Americans....... That mindset took hold and expanded to other "defense excuses.....

This country has been programmed to almost worship weapons ........... as they represent power and "strength" and toughness, masculinity, and all the mythical properties that movies have reinforced.

This conditioning of a population took many forms........until laws no longer matter as much as personal rights for gun ownership?.......which is now an obsession..............as opposed to something that might have been practical at one time.

Sadly it became a political issue.........llike too many things do for selfish reasons..............and currently the situation is out of control. It i s not only outof control now......itis irrational...............

It might be time for the nation to do some serious soul searching in this area.........Because what might have been a need at one time is no longer ni that category.

There are security systems that do a fine job of "protection".

If folks are so afraid that they have to carry guns...............what kind of a county is this now??

Other nations have weapons............and yet seem to handle them with responsibility and maturity. Most have to be capable , and knowledgeable in handling weapons before they can buy weapons. (as it should be)

The tragedy that has evolved along with all this is a desensitizing of horror. and gun deaths. It hardly "shocks" one now to hear of this in this county

So........the empty platitudes and words continue......and in a way the country is being held hostage by its own beefs (about guns ).

 

I’ll concede the sex example isn’t strong analogy. But the original point of bringing it up was to show that mass shooting deaths are very rare.

That said, your act of consent to sex does place the other party (parties if you really like to party) at risk they would otherwise not be subject to. Certainly at more risk than my legally owned, much used, (but never nefariously) firearms put you in.

That brings us to your seatbelt/speeding analogy. And (if we accept the actually false assertion seat belt wearing doesn’t affect others) it completely destroys your argument for restricting/prohibiting semiautomatic weapons. My possession of a semiautomatic firearm does not put you at any more risk than if I don’t wear my seatbelt. If I take that firearm into the public space and fire it we are analogous to your risk from speeding—at that point there is some risk. If I murder someone with the firearm I have done harm as if you crashed into someone and killed them because of your excessive speed.

On this point we agree….I guess. I do not believe in seatbelt laws either. Until the point I harm others with my firearm, ownership of said firearm is no different than not wearing a seatbelt. Or have I misunderstood you and you believe not wearing a seatbelt should be predicated on a mental health evaluation and a special license?

To clear things up, are you only advocating for licensing firearms? Initially you made the following statement that appears to support eliminating legal ownership of probably hundreds of firearm models

How would you define “enough offensive force”?

 

Let’s see if you can use data and make a convincing case that Canada’s regulations have made a statistically significant (or spectacular) difference in reducing mass shootings/mass shooting deaths. I’m betting you are parroting a journalist’s uninformed or dishonest opinion. Let’s see you back up your claims. I’m weary of doing your work for you.

I’m not interested in your opinion or a journalist’s opinion. I want to see statistically significant data such claims can be based on. You brought up Canada….so….GO……

 

Mental health treatment in the USA is a disaster.
Pills isn't solving it.

 

Yes, I am advocating for licensing and registering firearms

And no, I wouldn't compare licensing firearms to paying a fine for speeding, what I would compare it to is requiring a license for driving. The point I was trying to make in that analogy was the risks to others from the machinery we use. Naturally we don't simply assume that all people are knowledgeable and responsible enough to drive a car, which is why we require a license. Keep in mind that a car is something that is designed for the purpose of bringing you from point A to point B, and is something which we require one to get a license to operate, and we also require registration. A gun is something that is designed for the purpose of killing, and can cause massive harm to others, therefore I do not believe it is unreasonable to also require a license for certain weapons.

I also wouldn't call this a ban on said weapons, in the same way I wouldn't call our driver's license requirements a ban on driving. So ultimately I wouldn't advocate for gun control laws like what they have in Japan, what I would instead advocate for are gun control laws similar to what they have in Norway or Switzerland. You will find that a lot of people in Norway and Switzerland own semi-automatic weapons, but they also require a license to own such weapons. You will also find that every country that has implemented said policies has seen a significant decrease in gun homicides, and in particular they have seen a significant decrease in mass shootings. If people in the US wish to keep such weapons, they can do that.. it is not an unachievable task for them to get their licenses and register their guns. Most of us already do this for our driver's licenses and our cars.

Naturally, if we were to get rid of driver's license requirements here in the US, we would see a significant increase in vehicle related deaths.. and likewise, if we were to require licenses for more firearms, we would also see a decrease in gun related deaths. I wouldn't necessarily say we should require a license for all guns, but I would still advocate for universal background checks, and weapon registration. As for which weapons I think we should require licenses for, I would mainly say semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Do I think policies like this would prevent incidents like the recent school shooting from occurring, or at least significantly decrease the amount of casualties we see from incidents like this? absolutely I do

I would also argue that the magnitude of these mass shootings we see are only encouraging the next psychopath to commit the same atrocity. We're never going to bring gun related deaths to 0, but we are capable of significantly decreasing the overall occurrence of said deaths in a reasonable manner, the same way many countries already have

 

I like how a fascination with guns is equated with family dysfunction. lol

 

So far we’ve seen every insult that an emotionally frustrated person can make; reference to organ size, calling us psychopaths, not progressive, racists, child haters, I’m interested now just in seeing all the new pejoratives.

 

But this is what you posted.

And my owning any firearm puts you at no risk. I’m not opposed to “punishing” bad behavior whether it’s speeding or misuse of a firearm. But I’m intellectually consistent in my belief you don’t preemptively “punish” potential bad behavior whether it’s speeding or owning an object—any object—a firearm or a bag of weed. The logical conclusion to your analogy would be fining you because you have the potential to break the speed limit.

The car licensing thing is old and trite. It doesn’t apply because I own several vehicles that are not licensed. To be intellectually consistent you would have to say you support registration of a firearm regularly used in a public place, not registration for ownership. Or that you support fining those who own vehicles with a certain weight to horsepower ratio that can exceed the speed limit to a greater degree than others with different ratio.

I can present (and have on PF) peer reviewed studies and statistics showing being obese kills and harms others at ALARMING rates. I can make a strong argument that obese people or causes of obesity should be regulated in some manner to protect others. But I don’t advocate for that. Nor do I advocate for telling people what they can own or do with their own body. I respect the right to personal property and bodily autonomy too much.

Thanks for answering my questions, I do appreciate that. I understand why many have a problem with semiautomatic weapons, but they are far less deadly in society than things like obesity. I find it curious and disturbing people are completely unaware of their (obesity etc.) effects on others while laser focusing on firearms that are far less damaging and do have very legitimate positive effects on society.

It’s very obvious most anti gun sentiment is ginned up by politicians and media. That’s just the way it is. But it’s very obvious saving human life is not the reason and I think it’s sad so many follow along blindly without questioning the motives of the provocateurs.

And to be clear and open with you, both sides are provocateurs playing us against each other. I’m very in tune with all things firearm related because I use them regularly in my work. But the NRA is a garbage organization that I avoid like the plague and many Republican politicians who claim to be pro gun appear to be using their position as political leverage only.

 

I wouldn't consider a license a preemptive punishment, I don't consider it a preemptive punishment for vehicles, and I wouldn't consider it a preemptive punishment for guns, but most importantly, I do not consider it a violation to one's status as the owner of their own body. With guns we are talking about a piece of machinery that is designed for the specific purpose of killing that gives a single person the capability of killing 15 to 60 people with ease. I do not consider a rational inconsistency to require a license for said guns in a similar way we do for cars