reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
IF (and that is a HUGE IF) we could show that "gun control" had effect on anything other than gun violence, then I would be willing to consider it.
But it doesn't. The only thing it effects is gun violence.
Sure, the comment may be, "Yeah, but without guns they couldn't kill as many people". Yes, that may be true (although it is untested, even if
logical). But it ignores the obvious issue that there are still dead and injured people left in the wake of the violence. Take China, for example.
Sure, they have no gun violence. But they have more school stabbings than in the US, showing that the will to be violent is there already (as it is
obvious that China is a vastly different culture with vastly different stressors than in the US).
So the question should NOT be "should we invoke more gun control", but rather, "how do we stop the violent tendencies". The US is among the
lowest spenders on mental health. We rate fairly close to China (if that isn't horrifying). As someone who worked mental health, in an acute ward
of an inpatient hospital, I can honestly attest to our lack of care for our mentally ill countrymen.
And if you look at the individuals who have been showing up in the headlines as the gunmen, it is obvious that they were products of this underfunded
mental health system.
So, my position is, if you want any of my guns, first spend my tax dollars on treating the mentally ill among us. Perhaps this could be achieved by
buying fewer guns for our soldiers to commit their own gun violence in foreign lands?