Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
I see we’re going for most level-headed ex-Redditor - hit me up when you’ve got a point instead of a hyperbolic rant.
Lol, good luck with that amendment.
Give it long enough and enough people will stop gulping down 2nd Amendment flavoraid and realize how many stable democratic societies exist where the kids have never had to participate in an active shooter drill.
Conversely, anyone with an IQ above room temperature will understand the appropriate way to solve a problem is to address the underlying causes, e.g. actually addressing the reasons behind mass shootings instead of only caring because firearms are involved.
Ah yes, good old “we just have to focus on mental health bandaids because it’s miserable people who are the problem, not easy access to weapons to enact their misery on others!”
Heads up, no matter how much you increase access to therapists miserable people are still going to exist. Society’s focus on psychiatry as a catch all leaves a lot of people in the lurch as therapy providers are already overwhelmed with paitent backlog. You can’t even get the US to agree to fund accessable health care, you think they are gunna find success in the pro-gun politicians somehow funding any kind of public mental health initiative?
Tell me you didn’t even skim the article without actually saying it.
Wow!
It’s a good thing therapist are far from the only piece of the solution to such a problem, as highlight by the article you didn’t even bother to skim.
You’re so close to getting it.
How likely do you think a different purely-partisan firearms ban would be?
Perhaps the constitutional amendment to revoke 2A?
For any action to proceed, there needs to be a point of compromise and departure from the wedges. Both parties are going to have to give.
Blue team is going to have to eat crow and address actual underlying issues (e.g. those you didn’t bother to read) and, to gain buy-in, is going to have to give something in, say, pushing for deregulating suppressors or otherwise delivering things the firearms enthusiast crowd would want.
Fortunately, as they’d be actually addressing the underlying pressures to violence, rates are very likely to drop.
But hey - keep pretending actual problem solving is somehow a bandaid. It fits right in with your commenting on things you haven’t even bothered to skim, let alone complex problems you haven’t bothered to understand.