lmao

In this thread, Brian makes absolutely incomparable comparisons. Nothing to see, move along.

Nobody is claimg objects have magic powers. Sane people simply want to reduce as much as possible gun deaths. The climate of fear the industry has for far too long, has maintained the conditions that lead to the ammont of gun death. Same stupid fucking attitude moderate or liberal Muslims have when you point out the climate of the middle east.

The idea of doing something about firearms leaves a wide open intro to---what should be done about how people think.  A firearm dosen't use it's own trigger, and has no thought process to have someone do it for itself.  A firearm cannot have any intent on harming someone. The latest thing is--- how to get firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill/ Ok, who's going to decide if one is mentally ill or not--and what if a mistake is made that the one found to be mentally ill was a mistake by the one making that determination. That means that someone's rights have been violated--then what.

A terrible mistake to make is to let government decide who is and who isn't mentally ill, or, let some government paid person make the decision---on behalf of the government merely so it can have it's way. Anyone then, (this has already happened) that criticizes government can easily be deemed mentally ill at the governments convienience to put away disenters.

The question is---will a government paid psychologist favor the government. If so-what then.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/criticize-government-get-arrested/

Another question is--- is all this violence due to people's facination with weapons, or, is there something wrong with socieity as a whole. It seems to me that if a firearm has no will to kill on it's own, then somethings gone wrong with society in general. And, if government aquires the powers to say "who' and "who" is not mentally ill then government can deam anyone it dosen't agree with to be mentally ill. If I'm not mistaken--the Nazis operated a scam precisely as this. .   

Says the person who advocates violence as the solution to absolutely every problem, real or imagined. The only reason you aren't a fucking ISIS nut is that you happened to be born in the US. 

So many things wrong here.

First,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk

This virtually covers it all (and it's hilarious). Among his good points, is that we're not allowed to drive without speed limits anywhere, because most people can't be relied upon to drive safely without some sort of guidelines, however mildly enforced. This is very clearly noticeable if you live in a climate where it snows in the winter, as you see people who barely, if at all, adjust their driving to suit clearly worse conditions. That's why we have speed limits, and other driving laws.

As far as guns, how many times have you heard of someone punched in the face in a brief fit of anger? Or a full on fist-fight that lasted a few minutes? Probably a lot. Now imagine how many times it occurred without your knowing, just in the immediate vicinity of where you live. Now, take that same anger, add some fucking pistols, and you have someone who 100% has to go to the hospital, and may be severely injured, paralyzed, or dead. Canada, Australia (as mentioned in the video), England, have ALL implemented some significant restrictions on firearms in response to a hideous massacre in each country. The result? Significant reduction in firearm violence and injuries. I'm sorry, it fucking works. 

If you don't like that fact, I don't fucking care. I love driving fast. The reason I don't rip around the curve in the nice residential area in which I live going 140km/h, is because either it's bright out and there could be children, or it's dark out and there could be drunk people walking home. I have to keep that sort of driving to a race-track. It's only fair that certain shooting never leaves the gun range. 

No it's not. At no point did I say that we shouldn't "teach, or demand" people to control their anger or themselves, although demanding people not to be angry is about as likely to work as religions demanding that their flocks don't masturbate. Should we offer programs to reduce anger? Of course we should! We should work to reduce anger in people. However, until we come up with a much better solution than anything we have thus far, you're in a situation where people are getting angry AND a lot of them have guns, and high-capacity ammunition clips available to them. What removing the guns does, is severely reduce the damage done by said anger, or lack of control. It worked in the UK, it worked in Australia, it worked in Canada. One massacre inspired most of the meaningful regulations, and in these countries we're now surprised if such a massascre occurs in a single decade. In the USA, a year without several mass shootings is unheard of. If there was no evidence that gun control worked, I'd agree. But it fucking does, and a bunch of dense people don't want to believe it.

My point isn't about laying blame. I agree, though, that if everyone was responsible enough to not grab a gun when angry, or if schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders that can cause someone to be irrationally violent didn't exist, you'd have a point. But grow up. You don't tell a schizophrenic to just get over it, and sometimes, you don't know their condition until they've already grabbed a gun. What I'm talking about is implementing a measure that most every other English speaking country, and most first world countries have taken, and has worked. What possible justification can you possibly have for at least not TRYING a measure that has worked everywhere else that it's been done?