jan mcdowell sounds like a simpsons character

Phat32 said:

---

Jesus Corby let it rest a second before you get into gun control

---

The next original thought that enters Corby's brain will be the first.

There are 120 guns for every 100 US residents (and I'm counting day old babies and 105 year old ladies in that). Even if you are dumb enough to believe gun control would work in theory, that horse left the barn a long time ago. The guns are already out there and bad actors will always be able to find one

It's not really the place for this discussion, but continuing to do nothing clearly isn't working. Unless you're a fan of dead children, I guess.

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

It's not really the place for this discussion, but continuing to do nothing clearly isn't working. Unless you're a fan of dead children, I guess.

---

Take away guns and those kids will die by knife attack, vehicle, bombing, etc. like the rest of the world does. Taking away guns solves nothing if you don't get to the root issue. Besides...are you naive enough to think if we implemented "gun control" every bad actor who wants to do harm wouldn't be able to get one? All you're advocating for is for good people to be completely helpless.

Oh...and this was some bull****.

Quote:

---

Unless you're a fan of dead children, I guess.

---

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3671740

It's not taking away guns, it's having a honest discussion about possible solutions. 90% of Americans support universal background checks....

Jeez, so we can't even agree that something (anything) should try to be done? Politics ****ing sucks. Again, not the place for this.

If you want to save lives, lock away the looney birds.

There's 400 million guns out there already. Background check away or ban guns entirely, and that isn't doing squat. See Chicago. There are far fewer looney birds. This is basic math

Let's do both to increase the odds of success.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

If you want to save lives, lock away the looney birds.

---

Problem is, you don't know who the looney ones are until it's too late. And if you do identify one before they do something sick, the same people saying "lock up the crazies" will be saying "the government is abusing its power and locking this person up for no reason other than they support X (as long as it's something they too support, of course)."

The kids at Columbine got their guns through someone else. The Sandyhook guy killed his mother and stole her gun. The Vegas shooter bought all of his legally and would have passed all of his background checks. If this guy is 18 with a handgun how did he get it? What would have shown up on his record that would have prevented him from getting it? Tons of these guys don't have any sort of record prior to going off the deep end.

Insane asylums used to be a thing and now the most you can expect at a state hospital is 30 days before the judge has to do a full reevaluation. We don't handle our mentally I'll well at all. We force the schools to keep them (unless they commit a felony associated with the school), we dump them on the street, the hospitals and police are expected to "manage them". Until you figure out some way to manage the nutcases you can have all the universal background checks you want and it won't solve much of anything.

The answer probably requires some give n take from both sides but each side is so entrenched with their solution that I don't know if anything changes.

dallasag_123 said:

---

Because not having them has worked? You are right in that it will not solve the problem. But, my God, if stops one of these is it not worth it?

---

Chicago is exhibit A of how extremely strict gun control does absolutely nothing to stop bad actors

Stive said:

---

dallasag_123 said:

---

Because not having them has worked? You are right in that it will not solve the problem. But, my God, if stops one of these is it not worth it?

---

People that take the mindset of "well….we have to do something" are reacting emotionally. I get emotions are part of all of us but IMHO they're not why/how laws should be created and implemented.

---

There have been 200 "mass shootings" (not only school shootings) in less than 5 months in 2022. There isn't enough time between them for any reaction to not be considered an "emotional reaction". So in an effort to not react emotionally, we should continue to do nothing.

Anywho, have we gotten segment recapping Dwaine Caraway's Mavs watch party?

Are all the shootings in Deep Ellum counted in that stat? It is gunfire in a crowded area. And aren't shootings within so many miles of a school even after school hours considered a school shooting?

Statistics can be misleading, not saying you're wrong but each side twists them for their own argument.

Can you please provide the definition you're using for "mass shooting"?

Regarding mental health aspect of it, it is somewhat interesting that we have made so many advances medicine but seemingly very little progress when it comes to this discipline.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Plenty of threads on the Politics board to hash out the gun control stuff.

---

Not that I'm advocating thread derailing, but you'll find much more reasonable and thoughtful minds on this thread