🇳🇱
@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
Do you think something similar still applies if there's a required and the evaluator explicitly has no access to the candidate's medical history? (Or would that be infeasible enough to be useless?)
Youd need a standardized way, and frankly psychiatry juat gets it wrong too often, e en if i did trust the govt to act responsibly i dont think the medical institutions are able to reliably and accirately diagnose people. False positives are rampant, which isnt so harmful for a person seeking help(you usually try deveral competing diagnosis ubtil one works). But in a gun ownership setting where the first, and likely wrong, diagnosis sticks... yea no sorry that just sounds like a bad move.
Why would the first diagnosis stick? I would expect the setup to be roughly along the lines "if you think it's wrong, you can appeal, but then a larger number of doctors get to examine you and their majority opinion is adopted". In such a setup, ignoring issues of cost, you'd be asking for a consensus of a random(?) subset of local psychologists. Are you pointing at the cost issues or something else?
@robryk @admitsWrongIfProven
Thats true, first diagnosis may not need to stick.
So how about this, handke it like a court. A person takes a standard test with standard questions. If all 12 of 12 randomly selected doctors who arent allowed to talk all come up with ide tical diagnosis it sticks. The person can appeal once a year and if even one doctor disagrees with the diagnosis the diagnosis is repealed.
I dont personally support this due to other concerns of abuse. But if this woukd be at all workable youd need a blind diagnosis requiring consensus.