🇳🇱
@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
Depends on the state but yea
@stormy178@mastodon.stormy178.com @MelodyCooper @admitsWrongIfProven
Laws haven't stopped them at all. ATF also allows them to have fully automatic switches on their pistols too.
Do you have any bright ideas that might actually work to lower crime?
@GabeLakmann @freemo
There were some toots where freemo acknowlegded that there are underlying problems. I'd say the discussion is pretty far off from any useful path, with guns as core topic.
@admitsWrongIfProven @GabeLakmann
The things is i care about what is tbe most usefulnpath, full stop... you seem to care about the dicussion if and only if it frames guns as thr core problem. You literally go in with an incorrect and biased "fact" as a premis. That will never work.
@freemo You really think i do? Or am i misreading this and taking it personal for no reason?
@admitsWrongIfProven im just pointing out what you literally said in the message i responded to.
@admitsWrongIfProven except it wasnt really a change in problem. We are addressing the same problem (all the killing) but by requiring a prerequsite of thr dicussion being to frame the same problem but only with sokutions that assune your opinions are correct going in.. its basically "i know im bias but lets have a discussion where we assume my biases are correct".. it isnt bad so much as it will never give you a honest world view if you cant accept the solutions to a problem exist outside your proposed solution.
Less guns means more people dead, thr fact that the shape of the holes change seem like a poor measure of success.
@freemo So maybe the guns are irrelevant, and then you are as wrong as i was :-)
@admitsWrongIfProven My solution to the problem has always been free easy access and normalization of mental health... so id say if the problem has little to do with guns then id be more likely to be right.
@freemo I did agree to that part, so there we were both right. Shame, how the topic was so off the mark that nothing good came off of it.
@admitsWrongIfProven If we agree that is the most effective step 1 then ask yourself, everytime you hear of a mass murder are you posing about guns, or better mental health access? Since mental health access is as we agree, a far greater and more impactful solution then why isnt that the one your putting on blast?
@freemo I put quite some stuff on blast, as you say. Not gun stuff, i just joined a discussion in progress there.
I would see poverty in times of excess as the primary evil, but mental health access is important too.
Of joining in a discussion about guns, we are equally guilty.
The gun discussion i entered into was largely to point out why we shouldnt have thr gun discussion, because its not important...
@freemo I guess i can't read all of this, with my limited free time. Trusting you on this one.
I must say it is an interesting thing, how we had calm discussion switching to trolling by some parties, switching back... quite the effective distraction from the underlying problems, which we both can't solve.
@admitsWrongIfProven eh, its been good hearing everyones views. I dunno i have enough reach i probably contribute to this problem more than it would seem so even to me.
@freemo Question is in what direction. I'm no saint here, made enough toots with way too little context, but you did push some stuff that sounded quite different than what you tell me now ^^
In the end, it is like in any company of sufficient size i have ever seen: the problems are known, but the powers that be refuse any solution. We should laugh, because that is more enjoyable than crying.
@admitsWrongIfProven If i contradicted myself feel free to point out where and i can hopefully address it.
@freemo No, i don't say you contradicted yourself. I'm talking about the stuff with banning <-> background checks. A lot you said there is quite triggering, which could be prevented if you showed a more complete picture - some of your toots read like you meant to make guns available completely unregulated, while you did not actually mean that.
@admitsWrongIfProven I think ive been pretty co sistent on the backgrojnd check system.. the current system is very effective, other than addressing the private sale loophole i am all for using the current way backgroubd checks work, which is fairly effective outside of the mentioned loopholes.
Where can i clarify my stance, i do lean towards less regulation than most people, but i never claimed it shoukd be ubregulated
@freemo You don't have to explain to me, i have now understood what you mean.
I merely meant to point out that some toots that you wrote could be read that way, especially if read in isolation - and we both know that happens. Trying to help here, not trying to put you down.
@admitsWrongIfProven if you have a specific toot that reads that way id love to see it.
I suspect people get triggered and assume that when i saw nothing of the sort... i put 0 effort into mitigating other people making assumptions ;)
@undefined @freemo Eh, i scrolled a bit, but i don't feel up for it. So many toots.
You're adult enough to make somthing off this without link, if you want. And if you don't want to, we still had some interesting time here.
https://xmr-psychologist.com/
I have never used it but the idea Seems to be affordable private access to mental health resources. More psychologists should do this.
From what therapists told me anonymized therapy in the usa is illegal. Not sure of tbr details though.
@thatguyoverthere Oh i do talk to americans. Just not in gun range ^^
The guy in question was a psychologist that seems to actually want to help people who feel like going through normal mental health channels might get them into trouble in some way. This seems like a good thing whether done on person or not. His site says it's over matrix or jitsi or something which is cool because you can maintain some privacy and seek help. I think this is important if we actually want people to seek help.
@freemo Eh, if i stay on-topic, its bad. If i go off-topic by pointing out there is another, more important underlying problem, also bad.
I generally don't see guns as the reason there are problems, but immediately, less guns means less holes in people while the problems are being fixed. Nothing more.