that isn't the debate, guns generally are more effective at killing more people with less effort

Or ppl who have had violent reports with a me tal ill ess

Id say a bomb is way more

discounting a bomb of course

Banning is semi pointless

Its also easier to catch a murder with a bullet than a knife

If done right

You cant guarantee peoples safety, they need to be able to guarantee their own safety. Therefore everyone should have a gun

i dont think guns are the problem, i think the problem is high population high vulneribility centers

I think there is a middle ground there, I think all responsible citizens should bear arms. Those with violent convictions and the seriously mental ill should not be permitted to own them until they have proven themselves capable

and the problem is the erosion of meaningful public shame, erosion of the social contract

the general lack of humanity that permeates through society

I can compromise on the middle ground.

As long as people are reasonably safe and that people can die

Its like arch fiend said, other factors make murder

Focus on those

I don't think we are arguing that point at all, merely limiting access to firearms to those who are mentally and socially unfit to use them

like republicans

I think, as with any generalization, there are probably many exceptions to be found there

Its just a right in the constititution for everyone to have a fire arm. I think lifetime bans are a bit much.

when you give government the ability to restrict your freedom, they arnt going to create exceptions to permit more freedom to you

That depends. There are ways to circumvent that statement

Which is the meat and potatoes of the video

If the elected officials that comprise the government are corrupt and don't have the citizen's best interest at heart

for the longest period of time where we have had law in our sociaty the method we default to in order to restrict the rights of people is either A. create flat regulations that prohibit certain behavure, or B. make exceptions based on actions they have commited which are themselves covered by A. your suggesting we introduce C. to make exceptions based on thoughts they have shared which are now covered by A.

No king rules forever

personally i think the method of removing peoples rights in society we already have is good enough, its called criminal justice. you have to actually do something wrong in order to be punished rather than just potentially being able to do something wrong due to characteristics of your psychology

Eventually corruption will have its turn

Which is why libertarians are mostly right because it lessens the damage

Arch fiend has the right idea. We have to accept nothing is perfect

The way it is probably fits human nature best right now

so when you say that we should only prevent firearms from being in the hands of the mentally ill what you should say is we should only prevent firearms from being in the hands of our social and political opponents and sometimes if we feel atruistic we might also prevent people with violent tendencys from having them too but more often than not that will be ignored for the other 2 groups

@Arch-Fiend I strongly encourage you to volunteer at a center for behavioral health, (especially the violent ones) to observe these pathologies first hand, I think you will be able to reform your world view, after that experience

because your position is untenable if you had actually observed some of those patients first hand

Its hard

Also proof of that

The apa has masculinity as a diagnoses for mental illness

No, when I say those with violent mental illnesses, I mean it

So therefore masculine people cant have a gun

Those aren't the type of mental illnesses I am referring too

I know man. I can trust you. Its someone else's judgement i dont trust