Is it time to talk about guns?

Gun nut illogic:(1) an assault-style weapon is as essential a part of life as the automobile; (2) deaths from mass shootings are largely accidental; (3) lots of people lately have been using their cars to commit mass murder; (4) the DUIs associated with different makes & models of cars are due to different propensities to kill people in large numbers; (5) statistics on DUIs associated with various makes and models of cars are accurate; (Note the vague, generic nature of the "source" citation. (6) DUIs are comparable to deaths by gun. I know that cars can be used as weapons, since some of my friends were run over by a person who was having a bad day. But it seems, so far, to be less common , and doesn't seem to be associated with particular makes and models.

 

Why aren't they called car nuts, or booze nuts? If anyone with a firearm is a gun nut it only makes sense. Oh wait, you're not afraid of booze and cars even though they're far more deadly. And that's because their original intent was in your opinion more utilitarian? You modern convenience nuts sound silly.

 

Not everyone with a gun is a gun nut. Only people who worship them and defend them zealously with specious arguments

 

Your argument lacks logic. Automobiles are not inherently used to kill people whereas the sole purpose of a gun is just the opposite.

and the NRA contributes to retrumplican candidates

 

Oddly not one of my guns has even come close to shooting anybody !

 

Ha, you must not be part of that well-regulated militia....

 

If the U.S. still can't bring legislation to ban guns after these unfortunate shootings recently, they should at least go the extra mile in investing heavily and developing the
mental health infrastructure and personnel in the U.S to desired levels. This can ensure that potential troublemakers can be identified and given appropriate medical treatment so that they can lead healthy, productive lives instead.

If there are budget issues, the U.S can easily siphon it off their military budget, which is larger than the military budgets of the next ten nations combined.

Imho, they don't have any military threats from neighboring Canada or mexico, so there is obviously a lot of money to channel to other sectors which require them badly.

Ensuring a healthy society at home can do much more for American ideals of democracy and freedom, the lack of which can be exploited by adversaries for effective propaganda purposes to the U.S.'s detriment.

 

Republicans already slashed funding for mental health infrastructure...

 

It is the duty of the informed citizen to bring awareness and accountability to the governance of his country.

In a democracy, the president or prime minister is just the official leader, while each citizen is duty-bound to be an unofficial leader and ensure the foundation and spade work for correct judgement and determined action is created.

 

Well, if the US didn't have to protect half the fucking world, maybe we'd have some more money for health care.

 

Logic 101: The "Guilt by Association" Fallacy.The more you argue, the more you demonstrate your inability to think straight--or else your cynical conviction that most people on this site can't

 

aka the whataboutism philosophy.

 

I think we're badly in need of better health in this country, since a sizeable part of the U.S. seems to be insane. But I'm skeptical it's the most efficient solution to the mass shooting problem. For one thing,psychiatry and clinical psychology are not rocket science. More importantly, there's the problem of getting people who need the help into the system. This is usually done voluntarily by the patient or involuntarily by a parent, teacher, etc, who thinks there's a problem. Voluntary works best, but people like the mass shooters often don't think they have a problem. Involuntary can generate resistance. We had a prominent poster on these forums before the Jan. 6 fiasco (I think he's been banned) who spent most of his time promoting the Great Replacement theory much in vogue among recent mass shooters. But he also posted in the Mental Health forum, railing about the concept and the quality of it. He had been forced into it by concerned parents and teachers, when, according to him, he didn't need it (some would disagree) and it didn't do him any good. And many who need it the most are the way they are because of families that are unlikely to send them there in the first place. Besides, Retrumplcans, who bring it up after mass shootings as an alternative to gun regulation, drop it after the heat dies down and actually decrease the funding.

 

I don't buy the mental health excuse. There are plenty of people with mental health problems who do not try to solve them by killing someone with a gun.

 

Bartenders will cut someone off if they have had too much to drink. Why don't gun shop owners cut people off who buy too many guns?
Is it really necessary to own more than one gun?