🇳🇱
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.