🇳🇱
@stormy178@mastodon.stormy178.com @MelodyCooper
And when someone staps someone or beats them with a bat do we cry about how bats are legal... Yes there is a problem, but absurd solutions like making guns illegal is obviously not the answer.
@freemo @stormy178@mastodon.stormy178.com @MelodyCooper
Hmm, there is a disconnect: it was stated that guns should be regulated, with strict background checks. Your reply talks of "making guns illegal".
Did you reply to the wrong toot here or do you think background checks are a bad thing? If so, do you wish for people with known agression problems (psychological disorders or former history of violent crimes) to be able to have guns?
I dont think you can see the toot i replied to, the person blocked me.
I am not against background checks in their current form, which is thurough and complete.
The one issue with the current setup is loopholes at gun shows. But that doesnt appear to be a huge source of actual problems so yra im for background checks as they exist today.
@stormy178@mastodon.stormy178.com @MelodyCooper
@freemo @stormy178@mastodon.stormy178.com @MelodyCooper
You might want to state that, the toot history i read showed you ignoring the distinction between banning and background checks... it changes the meaning completely.
No i was quite clear i was talking about a specific type of commonly proposed restriction, banning.
@stormy178@mastodon.stormy178.com @MelodyCooper
@freemo And who you responded to was quite clear that background checks matter.
@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
I mean i dont mind private sales. But yea they should be taxed and follow regulation ideally.
@freemo @thatguyoverthere
Well for the topic at hand, it would not exactly matter if a sale is public or private - just that background checks are performed.
Are private sellers liable for what is done with their gun until background checks are performed?
Sell to a loonie, get imprisoned for their murder, right?
@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
Public gu sales require a paper trail be kept. This is a bigger issue for me than just the background check
@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
Yea but in private sales you dont have to transfer ownership at the point of sale. Sometimes you dont have to record it at all
@freemo @thatguyoverthere Sounds perfect, if the goal is to have a gun as a someone with rage control issues.
@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
Its worse than that... if the consequence of struggling with mental health and seeing a doctor has the consequence of revoking ones rights the end result is people who care about being able to buy a gun will go out of their way not to talk about or seek medical help for their mental illnesses.
The end result is increasing the number of people that get no help with their mental illness and a lot more of the wrong sort of people owning guns.
@freemo @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven there is a natural experiment that shows this. The FAA grounds pilots and controllers who have a medically diagnosed mental health issue. The result is that people in these professions do not seek treatment for their mental health issues because doing so means loosing their job.
@antares @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
It amazes me this needs to be told to antigun folks at all
@freemo @antares @thatguyoverthere
It amazes me that this seems to leas to one clear conclusion for you folks. Did i get that right, pilots with mental health issues should not be grounded? Or what exactly are you saying?
I would go the route with better help, not letting people become unemployed and forgotten, stuff like that.
And with guns, is your argument really to let people with some predisposition to impulsive violence have guns so seeking help would not be impeded?
@admitsWrongIfProven @antares @thatguyoverthere
I woukd say pilotes with mental health issues should not be grounded, 100%. Science is about going with what the nunbers say even when it defies your biases and assumptions.
We know for a fact that the result of groubding people with mental health issues means more people with mental health issues wind up in the pilots seat.
Are you claiming we should enact policies that are known to objectively increase the number of mental health issues flying planes?
@admitsWrongIfProven @antares @thatguyoverthere
You think, despite being disproven by example, that forcing mental health consequences means people with mental health issues wont be doing the thing.
You think the choice is between crazy people with guns/planes vs sane people.
The reality is the argument is treated people who are now mentally healthy flying/owning planes/guns vs untreated people.
It amazes me the republicans are out here trying to argue for better access to emntal health meanwhile democrats are trying to punish people who need access to mental health.
You got it all backwards man.
@freemo @antares @thatguyoverthere As far as i can see, there are no sane people. The question is more how severe conditions are.
So to clarify:
Generally, if i speak of any mental illness, i mean such that are relevant to the topic.
So for guns, conditions that cause problems with regulating anger. For planes, conditions that would making flying unsafe, like concentration issues or vertigo inducing stuff etc.
@admitsWrongIfProven @antares @thatguyoverthere
Doesnt change the fact your proposing a solution to a problem that is known in several examples to make thr problem worse.
Why woukd you want to enact a policy that results in more people with inappropriate mental conditions flying or owning guns?
@freemo @antares You have not explained how such a policy (relevant conditions mean pilots are grounded) would make _more_ pilots fly while they are not safe to.
I did propose leaving nobody unemployed because of this, so where is the mechanism that would still make it explicitly worse?