I think you’re taking the term “ban” too literally. It means enacting stronger parameters around obtaining these weapons, better book keeping of who has possession. Right now any person can get a licensee and weapon, if we put a ban in place it’ll be harder for people of poor mental health/stability to get licenses. If just once life is saved from a ban it’s worth it to me. And I don’t care who it inconveniences

0

Anonymous OP 15w

No I think you’re just using the word “ban” incorrectly

1

Anonymous OP 15w

And also not any person can get a license and a weapon. Felons cannot, children cannot, and believe it or not, your right to bear arms can be stripped away from you by a judge due to mental health. Your loved ones just have to step up and go to the courts

4

Anonymous #3 15w

So Charlie would’ve been safer if he had a gun on his hip to “protect himself?” You can’t protect yourself from a threat you can’t see.

-1

Anonymous OP 15w

Would you go shoot someone at an event that you knew most everyone there had a gun? Bonus points if those people actually know how to use it

1

Anonymous #2 15w

Utah allowed open carry on that campus, probably half of those people DID have guns on them yet did that deter the psycho? No. Did anyone shoot the psycho back? No. Did anyone catch him yet? No. If it was harder for him to get a gun he maybeee he wouldn’t have been a killer. Those teachers in schools could have guns but at the end of the day it would be unsafe to store around kids and the school shooter would catch them by surprise anyway. Very rarely does “an innocent civilian” with a gun win

0

Anonymous OP 15w

Having a gun on you doesn't give you a bubble of protection from guns, nothing does except body armor. It's an additional deterrent that decreases the expected value of any wrongdoers by increasing their risk if they were to pursue harming the said individual that got a gun for self defense.

3

There’s literally no psych evaluation required to get a gun??? Anyone with a clean criminal background can get one. If they required a psych eval by a professional before clearance, they would probably catch mass shooters before they even get the chance to touch a gun

0

Do you have any idea how many people are living with undiagnosed mental illness/instability. So if someone’s never been to the doctor specifically for mental illness you’re just going to take their word for it and give them a gun? Telling the public, yes you can buy guns AS LONG AS you pass our mandated psych eval, is not an infringement of anyone’s rights. It’s a protection of the public. Other people have guns will never deter a killer from shooting in public, they don’t fear death

0

Anonymous #3 15w

That’s exactly what you’re trying to say though?? Mass shooters do not fear the concept of OTHER people also having guns, there’s no deterrent. The only way to stop them is to get guns out of their hands, to make it harder for them to get guns

1

Anonymous OP 15w

I agree! So the problem isn't the guns, it's the people. I personally think we should open psych wards since there is seemingly a scary amount of people that can't take care of themselves or make rational decisions.

5

Oh sweet boy, please stay in school. You somehow managed to miss every single point being made. The enforcement of a psychological evaluation before handing out licensure for a weapon that is capable of fatal force is not at all against the US constitution. It is not singling out people who get anxious or have eating disorders. It is to red line individuals with undiagnosed schizophrenia, bpd, homicidal or suicidal ideations that have not been brought to the attention of a medical professional.

-1

Anonymous OP 15w

This is the same eval that law enforcement officers at the state and federal levels go through before being allowed in the field with their weapons. Protecting the innocent public should not be controversial in ANY way shape or form.

-1

Aw did I offend you, I hope he doesn’t shoot me 🙃 I finished school, bachelors in criminal justice, masters in forensic psychology, and a doctorate in global security and terrorism studies. If you’d like to read my thesis I can’t send it to you. The world is so much bigger than just the US and once you leave it you’ll learn so much from other countries and the way they protect their citizens and their rights while also keeping everyone alive. They don’t use guns to deter more guns

1

That’s actually not a thing? You don’t have to lie to try to drive your point home, it’s ok to admit you just haven’t learned it all yet. No one on this app really cares. People are allowed their opinions and frankly thank god you’re not in charge of a country because we’d all be dead lol please keep an open mind in the future and realize how special life is, it’s worth protecting, there’s no need to facilitate tragedies simply out of fear of public retaliation. Countries need leaders with

0

Anonymous OP 15w

Strong back bones and stronger morals. I’d rather piss off the mentally ill extremists than allow more innocent people to die

1

Sure, stay in that school! I never lied, I have no reason to lie. I made a statement that you decided was worth your time to argue but your points aren’t conceptualizing anything I mentioned. You misconstrue what has been said and twisted it to make it seem extremist in nature and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Protecting people shouldn’t be controversial, enabling people to harm others seems like an odd stance to have and is, actually, worse constitutionally than anything I said

0