>What happens to people who already passed this mental health screening and already own guns, but later develop a mental health condition? Uhhhh Then it sounds like we have bigger problems. You're really not selling this idea to me

Fewer than literally anywhere else in the world.

>Gun control has been increasing since the 1960s yet crime as well as gun crime has been skyrocketing. False. There are also literally hundreds of millions more guns in circulation since the 1960s. >Putting the gun control bandaid isn't going to fix the root problem The root problem is the guns.

Um yes, these are reasons for separating a person from all weaponry

Making it illegal let's us deal with it, yes

I'm under the impression that making it illegal lets you deal with it.

Well there you go. It's a system with every incentive to sell as many guns as possible with as few barriers as possible. To see the results, look around.

What gets blamed after every mass shooting? Mental healthcare. Mental illness and guns don't mix. Full stop. If you can't pass a screening proving your competence, you shouldn't own a gun.

You need to pay more attention to what mainstream Republican politicians are saying with their mouths and doing with their votes.

>when every buddy and their dog has some kind of mental boo boo You're really not selling me on this whole "armed society" idea.

When did we hit the sweet spot for gun control, do you think? 2000s? 1980s? And why hasn't gun crime gone down? Are we at an acceptable level?

>It's pretty hyperbolic to argue that people want zero restrictions on firearms This is not hyperbolic at all, it's a mainstream Republican position. Multiple people are arguing this in this very thread. Much like with abortion, I think right wingers confuse their imaginary common sense regulations with what is actually being implemented and legislated. We have elected officials saying guns should be allowed in bars. There is no reasonable universe where that makes sense, and yet it is on the docket and being voted that way, time and again. Right wing America are "catching the car" on totally unrestricted guns, and they'll eventually start regretting it just like they do with abortion. Things just have to get worse first.

>I don’t mind making people take gun safety courses. It is still a rights violation, mind you. And there it is. You have the right to the gun but the training is optional. This guarantees the untrained and incompetent will have guns. There's nothing sane about that. It's magical thinking, a chosen crisis. > Thank goodness we had Founders that realized the government would regulate you into the groun Look up the founders and gun control sometime. They confiscated guns constantly. It's only in the last 30 years or so that the conversation has shifted so far that any obstruction to gun ownership became unacceptable.

Lol then what the fuck do I need a gun for?

>No law is going to eradicate bad behavior and I do not have to answer for those who didn’t consult me before acting like a jackass. Yes you do. Every time you stop at a stop light, you do. >Of course, that harms others and people should not do this and further should take classes to learn proper gun safety. These classes need to be mandatory and the responsible behaviors need to be backed up with enforcement. Otherwise it's an honor system and irresponsible people will ignore it. >loves being cavalier with their rights isn’t something I feel obliged to have to answer for. You ARE answering for it. You answer for it with mass shootings, mass suicides, gang violence, and the increasing draconian security measures we put everywhere to put a bandaid on the problem. >Even if laws are passed people choose to follow them or not except your rights have been infringed This is an argument against all laws for everything. Imagine if we treated dynamite the same way.

It's actually not. Four states place no restrictions of gun ownership for the mentally ill. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/us/colorado-firearms-mental-health-trnd/index.html

I know a person undergoing a depressive episode with guns in the home is a severe danger to themselves and others.

>There are laws that forbid minors, like this kid, having a gun. They're clearly inadequate since incidents like this aren't even that rare. What other societal issues do you suggest we give up on? Driving accidents? cancer? >have rights until they encroach on others. My exercising rights is not encroaching on others. Misusing or mishandling guns ABSOLUTELY impacts others. Any gun safety training should teach you this, and any responsible gun owner should understand it. >wearing a seatbelt is something the government really has really stepped outside their purview on. Lots of right leaning types think this, and they're demonstrably wrong. Seat belts improve the safety of everyone, not just the person wearing them. A car with three secured passengers is endangered by a fourth unsecured one who can disrupt the driver or injure the others if they're jostled. This kind of half-thought-out anti-government schtick is the reason libertarians are always the biggest victims of their own deregulation fervor (and it's also why all the anti-seat belt activists end up dying).

I think I'm starting to see why we have so many shootings in this country

Safe storage laws. Guns cannot be owned unless you have a locking container to put them in, where they must always be stored if they aren't on your person. This would cut down on legal sales to irresponsible morons as well as gangsters who cannot provide proof, and would improve the standards inside the responsible gun owning community, making thefts less common.

What's being stolen from me is the ability to go to public spaces without the expectation of being near a shooting. This is being stolen from ALL of us, some of us are just okay with it because they have fantasies about shooting back.

You wear a seat belt because of all the people who didn't bother to. You drive the speed limit because some people go 50 in a school zone. We are all subject to laws set for others. It's part of the simple compromises of society. You'll find similar regulations in any space that works with guns regularly, like military bases or police stations.

You are trusting the judgment and honor of people who are by definition mentally ill. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. Someone with signs of mental illness needs to have their guns removed. Magical allusions to a sacred ancient text do not change that.

There are certain tools and implements that pose a public danger if they're misused and require higher standards to own and operate. Things like dynamite, deadly virus samples, nuclear material, and guns. Minimum standards of behavior and respect are required to mitigate the public risks, and these standards can't be on an honor system because dishonorable people won't bother. None of this is in conflict with the constitution. It is just sanity. the founding fathers confiscated guns from civilians all the time because of the risk posed.

What morals? Mental illness and guns don't mix. That isn't overreach, that's just sanity.

Good question. With literally thousands of answers. How about you tell me one? I'd love to hear some solutions apart from "let's just get over it."

They do. These investigations are a necessary part of any gun crime. The problem is, often times the gun was purchased legally. Your options are to either make that purchase illegal in the future, or brace yourself to let it happen again. We choose the latter every time.

The speed limit IS the "punishment". Its the regulation, the reasonable imposition on the individual that makes the whole road safer. People like you want no speed limits anywhere because it might "punish" responsible drivers.

Lol what are you on about? People get their licenses taken for that stuff all the time. What do you think traffic court does all day?

Um, if you're feeling depressed then your guns should absolutely be removed from the home. That is absolutely something that can and and does and should happen.

Enjoy your mass shootings then

Okay so there ARE sensible gun policies. Cool.

> instead fuel political tensions by only focusing on the call to strip guns away from people. See, the problem is, literally any effective form of gun control involves separating the offender from the gun BEFORE they've shot someone. Which inherently means they still fall under the "responsible gun owner" label that gun fans viciously defend. I genuinely don't know how to advocate for gun control without falling into this trap. Nearly every offer is a "law abiding citizen" until they suddenly aren't, or they acquire their gun from a "responsible gun owner" who wasn't responsible enough to secure their firearm. It's an impossible situation. We can't move forward with proactive gun control because any control, no matter how reasonable, is framed as "punishing law abiding citizens". Especially the ones who are about to snap.

Drivers are "punished" all the time with things like speed limits and stop signs, i.e. REGULATIONS that prohibit unsafe activity.

Lol wtf kind of logic is this What about all the nukes that DON'T explode? What about all the cyanide that DOESN'T poison people? I've never blown up a single person with dynamite, therefore I should be able to carry as much of it in my car as I want.

The problem is a lot of the time the supplier was a legal purchase. When the laws say you can legally sell guns to mentally ill people, this kind of shit is inevitable.