General Discussion

upaloopa

(11,417 posts) Wed Jul 25, 2012, 04:03 PM Jul 2012

One response to those who want more gun control by those that don't was something like this;

we need to fix the problem that causes someone to shoot people. Like if we fix mental illness we don't have to worry about being shot in the theater. Or if we get the gangs off the street they won't be involved in so many shooting.

I interpreted this as saying; don't pass restricting gun laws, fix the problem that causes the violence.

Suppose we did both. Wouldn't we be even safer? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure right?

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

One response to those who want more gun control by those that don't was something like this; (Original Post) upaloopa Jul 2012 OP

Get rid of the NRA. They use fear and obfuscation. Then a reasonable dialog can happen. Lint Head Jul 2012 #1

And just how do you propose we do that? pipoman Jul 2012 #4

Of course, the answer is to fix both. DanTex Jul 2012 #2

Or we can fund mental health services pipoman Jul 2012 #3

Only farmers and dorks wear both a belt and suspenders slackmaster Jul 2012 #5

A better mental health system would also be able to identify those who should be prohibited aikoaiko Jul 2012 #6

YAwn. L0oniX Jul 2012 #7

Lint Head

(15,064 posts)

1. Get rid of the NRA. They use fear and obfuscation. Then a reasonable dialog can happen.

Reply to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 04:07 PM

Jul 2012

There was no NRA when the 2nd amendment was adopted.

pipoman

(16,038 posts)

4. And just how do you propose we do that?

Reply to Lint Head (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 04:17 PM

Jul 2012

There wasn't a lot of things when the Bill of Rights was adopted..what does that have to do with anything?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

2. Of course, the answer is to fix both.

Reply to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 04:08 PM

Jul 2012

The unfortunate reality is that we are never going to get rid of all crime, or all mentally unstable people. Of course, we should do everything possible to address the root causes of crime. But the fact of the matter is that access to guns makes crime more lethal, and so guns need to be addressed as well.

Among wealthy nations, the US is actually about average in terms of overall crime rates. But we have by far the highest homicide rate, and this is largely due to the fact that crimes in the US are much more likely to be committed with guns, and gun crimes are much more likely to end up with someone getting killed.

pipoman

(16,038 posts)

3. Or we can fund mental health services

Reply to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 04:13 PM

Jul 2012

and end the war on drugs failure and see where that gets us before further restricting civil liberties. We are talking about a tiny fraction of 1% of lawful gun owners who commit a crime with their guns. Why would we restrict 99%+ of the population for the fraction of a percent who are either driven by drugs, drug money, or mental illness? What other civil liberties should we restrict based on the same stats?

Let's say we do enact something gun control. What would it be? What law would have stopped this asshat?

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

5. Only farmers and dorks wear both a belt and suspenders

Reply to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 04:17 PM

Jul 2012

Getting to the root cause of mental illnesses would fix a lot more than the occasional violent crimes that mentally ill people commit.

People who live with mental illnesses are often miserable.

aikoaiko

(34,184 posts)

6. A better mental health system would also be able to identify those who should be prohibited

Reply to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 04:54 PM

Jul 2012

There is a mechanism that involves due process to prohibit someone with mental health issues from acquiring firearms from a Federal Firearm Licensee.

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)

7. YAwn.

Reply to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 05:03 PM

Jul 2012

Reply to this discussion