Miss Sloane - A Woman Fights for Stricter Gun Control

Miss Sloane - A Woman Fights for Stricter Gun Control

Miss Sloane is a movie about an intelligent, hardworking woman fighting for stronger gun control laws. That's fun.

Read Full Article

Too bad it wasn't about a woman fighting for stricter free speech control.

90sgamer:
Too bad it wasn't about a woman fighting for stricter free speech control.

That would've triggered a few Patriot Act take-downs.

But I thought that ALL lobbyists were bad. At least that's what I'm constantly hit over my head with when it comes to politics. The last movie I saw with a lobbyist as its "hero" was "Thank You For Smoking", and that was meant to be satirical.

Marter:
Chastain has had such a great last half-decade, and while this performance isn't going to top the one from Zero Dark Thirty, it's in a similar vein both in terms of quality and type.

I see she's also reunited, to roll with reviewer parlance, with Mark Strong, too. But yeah, phenomenal pretty much sums her up - Zero Dark Thirty and Tree Of Life would be my two favourite performances.

Oddly that trailer wasn't available in the UK, but here's one that is:

...oh look, a high dislike rate and wacky people whining about the evils of the 'MSM', who'd a thunk it.

90sgamer:
Too bad it wasn't about a woman fighting for stricter free speech control.

image

Fun fact about gun control, the Left eventually stops opposing it if you go far enough. (I mean the American left).

-Your friendly Internet Socialist.

90sgamer:
Too bad it wasn't about a woman fighting for stricter free speech control.

Unfortunately there aren't many high-priced lobbies interested in doing that. Everyone is for free speech before someone says something they don't like, though. In some ways it's a much more complicated issue than guns.

A movie like this set around the drama of a slander or libel case might be quite interesting, though, and delved into important aspects of that debate. I'm not sure how much this movie actually delves into the Second Amendment, even.

Fox12:

90sgamer:
Too bad it wasn't about a woman fighting for stricter free speech control.

image

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"

Stalin saying "we don't let our people have guns" would make all the schoolkids who just received their firearms training go "huh?".

hentropy:

90sgamer:
Too bad it wasn't about a woman fighting for stricter free speech control.

Unfortunately there aren't many high-priced lobbies interested in doing that. Everyone is for free speech before someone says something they don't like, though. In some ways it's a much more complicated issue than guns.

A movie like this set around the drama of a slander or libel case might be quite interesting, though, and delved into important aspects of that debate. I'm not sure how much this movie actually delves into the Second Amendment, even.

You are exactly right. Speech is a fascinating and complicated issue as all amendment rights are.

I was being pretty tongue-in-cheek with my original post, but we all need to remember, it was not guns that got the likes of Trump/Hitler in power, The PATRIOT ACT passed, or the War on Terror started. The most harmful events are caused first by words, but no one is tripping over themselves to attack the 1st Amendment, and therein lies our hypocrisy.

90sgamer:

hentropy:

90sgamer:
Too bad it wasn't about a woman fighting for stricter free speech control.

Unfortunately there aren't many high-priced lobbies interested in doing that. Everyone is for free speech before someone says something they don't like, though. In some ways it's a much more complicated issue than guns.

A movie like this set around the drama of a slander or libel case might be quite interesting, though, and delved into important aspects of that debate. I'm not sure how much this movie actually delves into the Second Amendment, even.

You are exactly right. Speech is a fascinating and complicated issue as all amendment rights are.

I was being pretty tongue-in-cheek with my original post, but we all need to remember, it was not guns that got the likes of Trump/Hitler in power, The PATRIOT ACT passed, or the War on Terror started. The most harmful events are caused first by words, but no one is tripping over themselves to attack the 1st Amendment, and therein lies our hypocrisy.

"Free Speech Zones" would tend to disagree with that statement. Their proponents just don't come out and say "we want to repeal the first amendment", because they don't actually want to repeal the first amendment, at least for themselves. Just like no one comes out and says "we want to repeal the second amendment", because they don't actually want to repeal the second amendment, just, you know, cleave a bit stronger to the "well regulated militia" part of the statement.

That said, most gun control, and just about all gun control laws passed in the states, doesn't actually conflict with the second amendment. For example, rocket launchers are "arms", but unless you got permits and security clearances out the wazoo, they're hilariously illegal.

so yeah gun control doesn't work, at least not in the US as the heaviest gun controlled cites have the most gun related crimes. Its not a gun control problem its a mental health problem that could be fixed by actually checking up on reports of people who may be a danger to themselves or others.

altnameJag:

90sgamer:

hentropy:

Unfortunately there aren't many high-priced lobbies interested in doing that. Everyone is for free speech before someone says something they don't like, though. In some ways it's a much more complicated issue than guns.

A movie like this set around the drama of a slander or libel case might be quite interesting, though, and delved into important aspects of that debate. I'm not sure how much this movie actually delves into the Second Amendment, even.

You are exactly right. Speech is a fascinating and complicated issue as all amendment rights are.

I was being pretty tongue-in-cheek with my original post, but we all need to remember, it was not guns that got the likes of Trump/Hitler in power, The PATRIOT ACT passed, or the War on Terror started. The most harmful events are caused first by words, but no one is tripping over themselves to attack the 1st Amendment, and therein lies our hypocrisy.

"Free Speech Zones" would tend to disagree with that statement. Their proponents just don't come out and say "we want to repeal the first amendment", because they don't actually want to repeal the first amendment, at least for themselves. Just like no one comes out and says "we want to repeal the second amendment", because they don't actually want to repeal the second amendment, just, you know, cleave a bit stronger to the "well regulated militia" part of the statement.

That said, most gun control, and just about all gun control laws passed in the states, doesn't actually conflict with the second amendment. For example, rocket launchers are "arms", but unless you got permits and security clearances out the wazoo, they're hilariously illegal.

And then you could break it down into what?s unconstitutional or not depending on the wording. 2nd Amendment points out the State, neither the federal government nor Country, and we all know what a militia is. So would that mean the Permanent Federal Military is unconstitutional? Congress only has the right to draft, not maintain, an army. So PFM would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment due to it putting militia and gun control in the hands of the federal government, not the state governments as detailed by the 2nd Amendment.

And this is where gun control/2nd Amendment discussions end up breaking down. The difference between how people view the 2nd Amendment, who makes the arms, state and federal government?s role in weapons, and what/if there should be any sort of control whatsoever. My belief in what the 2nd Amendment allows and not allows is different than the vast majority of US citizens believe the 2nd Amendment is for, and those beliefs can and have changed over the years.

Wow! I'm thinking that whoever fronted the money for this one is currently considering shooting themselves. When one of the biggest takeaways from the 2016 US election is rather blatantly a great shout from flyover country of "STOP PREACHING AT US ASSHOLES!!!" directed at Hollywood and the Media, a movie about a Heroic Elitist Liberal Lobbyist using every dirty trick in the book to fight for Gun Control seems like an amazingly bad investment. Like Ghostbusters'16 or an Adam Sandler movie level bad. Why not just light the money on fire?

faefrost:
Wow! I'm thinking that whoever fronted the money for this one is currently considering shooting themselves. When one of the biggest takeaways from the 2016 US election is rather blatantly a great shout from flyover country of "STOP PREACHING AT US ASSHOLES!!!" directed at Hollywood and the Media, a movie about a Heroic Elitist Liberal Lobbyist using every dirty trick in the book to fight for Gun Control seems like an amazingly bad investment. Like Ghostbusters'16 or an Adam Sandler movie level bad. Why not just light the money on fire?

They had the mid-term election right after Sandy Hook, one of the Democrats talking points was that the Republican wouldn't support gun control. And yet the Dems lost that time badly, too. The people in the "fly over states", don't want gun control. It's just the elitist who think they know best, who want it.

Just out of curiosity, I'm British and a bit of an outsider to the whole gun control debate.

So without wanting to start a flame war, what exactly is the basis of people not wanting stricter gun control laws?

From an outsiders perspective it seems like a no brainer that a dangerous weapon shouldn't be readily available to people who aren't responsible enough to own it?

Am I simplifying the issue too much, or missing a grander point? Just genuinely curious

ecoho:
so yeah gun control doesn't work, at least not in the US as the heaviest gun controlled cites have the most gun related crimes. Its not a gun control problem its a mental health problem that could be fixed by actually checking up on reports of people who may be a danger to themselves or others.

You do have a fair point. Here in Canada we have a mental health standard when it comes to gun ownership. The US doesn't. The gun control talks only come about when a mass shooting happens, and never when it comes to every day violence in places like Chicago or Compton.

Brewin:
Just out of curiosity, I'm British and a bit of an outsider to the whole gun control debate.

So without wanting to start a flame war, what exactly is the basis of people not wanting stricter gun control laws?

From an outsiders perspective it seems like a no brainer that a dangerous weapon shouldn't be readily available to people who aren't responsible enough to own it?

Am I simplifying the issue too much, or missing a grander point? Just genuinely curious

One outsider to another as I'm Canadian, it stems a lot from the US Left wanting to implement laws that they've tried before that don't actually reduce gun crime and the US Right will not budge on any gun control issue at all. If the Left simply said they want mental health checks I think the Right would be down for that. So far in the US the places with the strictest gun control have the highest per capita illegal gun use. And the Media only shoves the argument down people's throats when a mass shooting happens, but ignores general gun crime.

One thing that always got me is that the US Left deflects mental health as an issue with gun control when the majority of mass shooters in the last 20 have been found to have been medicated, or having just come off of medication for their issue. Furthermore the fact that most gun deaths in the US are suicides shows favour to the "get mental health into the discussion" argument. The Right is simply sick of being labelled as gun nuts when the majority of gun owners are responsible and will never cause a crime.

Both sides take it to nutty levels though.

AzrealMaximillion:

Brewin:
Just out of curiosity, I'm British and a bit of an outsider to the whole gun control debate.

So without wanting to start a flame war, what exactly is the basis of people not wanting stricter gun control laws?

From an outsiders perspective it seems like a no brainer that a dangerous weapon shouldn't be readily available to people who aren't responsible enough to own it?

Am I simplifying the issue too much, or missing a grander point? Just genuinely curious

One outsider to another as I'm Canadian, it stems a lot from the US Left wanting to implement laws that they've tried before that don't actually reduce gun crime and the US Right will not budge on any gun control issue at all. If the Left simply said they want mental health checks I think the Right would be down for that. So far in the US the places with the strictest gun control have the highest per capita illegal gun use. And the Media only shoves the argument down people's throats when a mass shooting happens, but ignores general gun crime.

One thing that always got me is that the US Left deflects mental health as an issue with gun control when the majority of mass shooters in the last 20 have been found to have been medicated, or having just come off of medication for their issue. Furthermore the fact that most gun deaths in the US are suicides shows favour to the "get mental health into the discussion" argument. The Right is simply sick of being labelled as gun nuts when the majority of gun owners are responsible and will never cause a crime.

Both sides take it to nutty levels though.

You mean like under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a law passed almost 50 years ago?

"It is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."

Conflating Suicide, which is most often a result of depression, with gun control is a terrible conflation for a number of reasons. First and foremost being that most suicides are a result of untreated (and there for undocumented) depression, so a law stopping depressed people from owning guns would only block people responsible enough to get help. You know, the ones who are less likely to commit suicide anyways.

Ukomba:
You mean like under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a law passed almost 50 years ago?

"It is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ?has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.?

Conflating Suicide, which is most often a result of depression, with gun control is a terrible conflation for a number of reasons. First and foremost being that most suicides are a result of untreated (and there for undocumented) depression, so a law stopping depressed people from owning guns would only block people responsible enough to get help. You know, the ones who are less likely to commit suicide anyways.

So why not have a test whenever someone wants to buy a firearm? People with poor vision are rarely allowed to drive, why not have a firearm license? And in all honesty, how many gun stores will turn away the crazy looking guy if his criminal record is clean? My guess is none.

shinyelf:

Ukomba:
You mean like under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a law passed almost 50 years ago?

"It is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ?has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.?

Conflating Suicide, which is most often a result of depression, with gun control is a terrible conflation for a number of reasons. First and foremost being that most suicides are a result of untreated (and there for undocumented) depression, so a law stopping depressed people from owning guns would only block people responsible enough to get help. You know, the ones who are less likely to commit suicide anyways.

So why not have a test whenever someone wants to buy a firearm? People with poor vision are rarely allowed to drive, why not have a firearm license? And in all honesty, how many gun stores will turn away the crazy looking guy if his criminal record is clean? My guess is none.

That wasn't the argument. The argument was that there was no law against mentally ill people buying a gun, which is in correct. Now how well those stores follow the law? I don't see why the store owner would want to sell a gun to a dangerous person as it would be trackable back to his store, and if it can be shown they were negligent or out right didn't follow the law there are legal ramifications for it. With out a history, how would you know? It isn't the job of a clerk to be able to determine that persons mental state. I mean, if they're literally foaming at the mouth, that's one thing, but they have no way to determine if there's some hidden psychological issue.

A Test for what? Sanity? O_o are you really suggesting you should have to pay to get a psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to buy a gun? It's not like you'd end up with an objective answer anyways as psychiatry is a soft science and would depend heavily on the elevator.

AzrealMaximillion:
[quote="Brewin" post="6.945128.23855172"]Just out of curiosity, I'm British and a bit of an outsider to the whole gun control debate.

One outsider to another as I'm Canadian, it stems a lot from the US Left wanting to implement laws that they've tried before that don't actually reduce gun crime and the US Right will not budge on any gun control issue at all. If the Left simply said they want mental health checks I think the Right would be down for that. So far in the US the places with the strictest gun control have the highest per capita illegal gun use. And the Media only shoves the argument down people's throats when a mass shooting happens, but ignores general gun crime.

One thing that always got me is that the US Left deflects mental health as an issue with gun control when the majority of mass shooters in the last 20 have been found to have been medicated, or having just come off of medication for their issue. Furthermore the fact that most gun deaths in the US are suicides shows favour to the "get mental health into the discussion" argument. The Right is simply sick of being labelled as gun nuts when the majority of gun owners are responsible and will never cause a crime.

Both sides take it to nutty levels though.

Thank you, that was a really helpful response, much appreciated

Ukomba:

You mean like under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a law passed almost 50 years ago?

"It is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ?has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.?

Then explain how the Washington Navy Yard shooter got his gun. Documented mental health issues, documented medication for said issues, 2 previous incidents involving firearms being fired. One through the ceiling of his apartment because he heard voices, the other time he shot the wheel of a car because it was "parked too close." Because he shot 13 people with a gun he bought on a Sunday that he used the Tuesday of that week.

The Virginia Tech Shooter was also diagnosed as a child with mental health issues. The Aurora Shooter was recorded by his psychiatrist to have been obsessed with killing for over a decade. And quite a few more examples in recent years.

If the Gun Control Act of 1968 didn't stop any of the people I mentioned from purchasing guns despite them having mental issues that classified them as violent, what good is it? There has to be a massive amount of loopholes or certain states must have had the option to ignore portions of it.

Here in Canada any of the people I mentioned would be barred from owning a gun under the 1993 Gun Rights Act that was made in response to a mass shooting in Quebec in 1989. If you've been diagnosed as dangerously mentally ill or have been medicated for such issues within the last 5 years you don't get a gun.

Conflating Suicide, which is most often a result of depression, with gun control is a terrible conflation for a number of reasons. First and foremost being that most suicides are a result of untreated (and there for undocumented) depression, so a law stopping depressed people from owning guns would only block people responsible enough to get help. You know, the ones who are less likely to commit suicide anyways.

Don't you think that some of the people responsible enough to get help not getting access to guns is a good thing though? Like here in Canada I mean the way mental health is treated is in general a "play it by ear" kind of situation. Specialists in the field don't have a sure fire medical way of curing depression and in a lot of cases depression medicine does cause a side effect of suicidal thoughts. I'd agree with you if mental health wasn't treated in a manner of "try this cocktail of pills and come back to me in a month."

I don't mean to dismiss mental health at all. If anything I'm arguing for more gun control in that area due to how it worked in Canada, but the pro-gun control side of the argument just wants to limit access to guns in general, and if the 10 year assault weapons ban, which was part of the 1994 Crime Bill, shows anything at all, banning certain guns doesn't stop mass shootings.

Let me bring up Virginia Tech again. Before the recent Pulse Night Club shooting, the Virginia tech shooting was the largest mass shooting by one person in US history. Now its 2nd. The shooter didn't have an assault rifle. He had 2 pistols.

I only focus on mass shootings because that seems to be the only time pro-gun control people care about pushing gun control. If you want to curb mass shootings you have to consider mental health in a manner that can't be ignored like the US Gun Control Act of 1968.

Brewin:

AzrealMaximillion:
[quote="Brewin" post="6.945128.23855172"]Just out of curiosity, I'm British and a bit of an outsider to the whole gun control debate.

One outsider to another as I'm Canadian, it stems a lot from the US Left wanting to implement laws that they've tried before that don't actually reduce gun crime and the US Right will not budge on any gun control issue at all. If the Left simply said they want mental health checks I think the Right would be down for that. So far in the US the places with the strictest gun control have the highest per capita illegal gun use. And the Media only shoves the argument down people's throats when a mass shooting happens, but ignores general gun crime.

One thing that always got me is that the US Left deflects mental health as an issue with gun control when the majority of mass shooters in the last 20 have been found to have been medicated, or having just come off of medication for their issue. Furthermore the fact that most gun deaths in the US are suicides shows favour to the "get mental health into the discussion" argument. The Right is simply sick of being labelled as gun nuts when the majority of gun owners are responsible and will never cause a crime.

Both sides take it to nutty levels though.

Thank you, that was a really helpful response, much appreciated

No problem. Its a complex issue that no one pundit can explain honestly. Too much money in being partisan these days.

AzrealMaximillion:

Ukomba:

You mean like under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a law passed almost 50 years ago?

"It is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ?has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.?

Then explain how the Washington Navy Yard shooter got his gun. Documented mental health issues, documented medication for said issues, 2 previous incidents involving firearms being fired. One through the ceiling of his apartment because he heard voices, the other time he shot the wheel of a car because it was "parked too close." Because he shot 13 people with a gun he bought on a Sunday that he used the Tuesday of that week.

The Virginia Tech Shooter was also diagnosed as a child with mental health issues. The Aurora Shooter was recorded by his psychiatrist to have been obsessed with killing for over a decade. And quite a few more examples in recent years.

If the Gun Control Act of 1968 didn't stop any of the people I mentioned from purchasing guns despite them having mental issues that classified them as violent, what good is it? There has to be a massive amount of loopholes or certain states must have had the option to ignore portions of it.

Here in Canada any of the people I mentioned would be barred from owning a gun under the 1993 Gun Rights Act that was made in response to a mass shooting in Quebec in 1989. If you've been diagnosed as dangerously mentally ill or have been medicated for such issues within the last 5 years you don't get a gun.

Long answer: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-aaron-alexis-could-buy-a-gun-navy-yard-shooting-shooter-2013-9

Short answer: Because "he was never declared mentally unfit by the Navy, and he was never declared mentally ill by a judge." The failing isn't with the law, but the system for getting a man with clear mental issues declared mentally ill. The man passed a federal background check, maybe work on getting that system fixed before blaming the laws.

AzrealMaximillion:

Conflating Suicide, which is most often a result of depression, with gun control is a terrible conflation for a number of reasons. First and foremost being that most suicides are a result of untreated (and there for undocumented) depression, so a law stopping depressed people from owning guns would only block people responsible enough to get help. You know, the ones who are less likely to commit suicide anyways.

Don't you think that some of the people responsible enough to get help not getting access to guns is a good thing though? Like here in Canada I mean the way mental health is treated is in general a "play it by ear" kind of situation. Specialists in the field don't have a sure fire medical way of curing depression and in a lot of cases depression medicine does cause a side effect of suicidal thoughts. I'd agree with you if mental health wasn't treated in a manner of "try this cocktail of pills and come back to me in a month."

I don't mean to dismiss mental health at all. If anything I'm arguing for more gun control in that area due to how it worked in Canada, but the pro-gun control side of the argument just wants to limit access to guns in general, and if the 10 year assault weapons ban, which was part of the 1994 Crime Bill, shows anything at all, banning certain guns doesn't stop mass shootings.

Let me bring up Virginia Tech again. Before the recent Pulse Night Club shooting, the Virginia tech shooting was the largest mass shooting by one person in US history. Now its 2nd. The shooter didn't have an assault rifle. He had 2 pistols.

I only focus on mass shootings because that seems to be the only time pro-gun control people care about pushing gun control. If you want to curb mass shootings you have to consider mental health in a manner that can't be ignored like the US Gun Control Act of 1968.

No, I don't think they should bar the responsible people from getting guns based on suicide. THE ONES GETTING HELP ARE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE. That's what the statistics show, so banning them makes no sense. Sure if, while getting help, they show that they have deeper issues, or still showing suicidal tenancies, by all means ban them. However, banning people who seek out aid with depression is not only ineffective, but counter productive. If a person knows that seeking help for their depression is going to put a black spot on their record that will make getting a gun in the future more difficult or impossible then they are going to be less likely to seek help, thus making them more likely to commit suicide.

The result would not only fail to solve any problem, but would be more likely to exacerbate it.

Ukomba:

Long answer: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-aaron-alexis-could-buy-a-gun-navy-yard-shooting-shooter-2013-9

Short answer: Because "he was never declared mentally unfit by the Navy, and he was never declared mentally ill by a judge." The failing isn't with the law, but the system for getting a man with clear mental issues declared mentally ill. The man passed a federal background check, maybe work on getting that system fixed before blaming the laws.

You have to realize that if it takes a Judge or the Navy to classify someone as mentally ill and not his doctors, that is a failing of the law. In what circumstance does a non-military civilian ever get classified as mentally ill by a judge without being charged with a crime? The effectively makes the 1968 Gun Control Act useless in preventing crime with guns done by those who are medically mentally ill.

Again, here in Canada a doctor is contacted if a person who fill out the registration says they have been medicated or treated for such afflictions. If anything the link you provided shows how flawed the law is. If a medical expert's opinion is not even required to be check, even though this man was considered very mentally disturbed by professionals, don't you think its time for a revision of a law from 48 years ago considering its from a time that didn't have a grip on how large the spectrum of mental health is? How is it that Canadian law from 21 years ago is more modern in considering mental health in comparison?

And you didn't even cover the other 3 examples I gave. If it takes a judge to brand someone as mentally unfit to buy a gun in the US, no wonder there's the amount of mass shootings that there are.

And to you point here "The man passed a federal background check, maybe work on getting that system fixed before blaming the laws."

Do you not think that a medical professional's opinion being excluded from federal background checks is a problem at all? If not how would you fix them without including them considering, at least with mass shootings, the majority of them are committed by people who should be considered mentally unfit to carry arms.

No, I don't think they should bar the responsible people from getting guns based on suicide. THE ONES GETTING HELP ARE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE. That's what the statistics show, so banning them makes no sense. Sure if, while getting help, they show that they have deeper issues, or still showing suicidal tenancies, by all means ban them. However, banning people who seek out aid with depression is not only ineffective, but counter productive.

Its not about banning people who have depression from getting guns. Its more a counter argument to the pro-gun control point of ignoring mental health as a factor entirely. If the majority of gun deaths are suicides, then I think there should be legislation in place to prevent that. Its not like most suicides are committed by people who are mentally healthy, regardless of whether or not they're documented as mentally ill. Same goes for people who commit mass shootings. The majority of mass shooters are coming off of medicine for mental health, and a couple of the most common side effects of coming off of said medicine are suicidal thoughts and lack of empathy. What mentally fit person shoots a dozen people and then takes their own life? And how does the 1968 Gun Control Act prevent any mass shooting if the shooter has to be called unfit by a judge? That law only seems to cover people who've already been found doing a crime due to their mental illness or someone who has already been treated in a facility, it does nothing to stop people like Aaron Alexis and the majority of spree shooters in US history.

If a person knows that seeking help for their depression is going to put a black spot on their record that will make getting a gun in the future more difficult or impossible then they are going to be less likely to seek help, thus making them more likely to commit suicide. The result would not only fail to solve any problem, but would be more likely to exacerbate it.

You missed the point entirely. And you're also only focusing on depression like its the only mental illness, or that all depression is the same. I frankly don't think that anyone who's on medication that has an all too common side effect of suicidal thoughts should be able to buy a gun unless their doctor clears them. I'm willing to bend on that point and say that people seeking non-medicinal therapy (i.e. not swallowing pills) should be able to. But anything past that, there should be a law that requires a medical professional's opinion on the matter. Like in Canada and most other Western countries. Why it isn't in the US, especially in the last 20-30 years, is frankly asinine. And you're going to have to provide a source on the amount of people who commit suicide due to not being able to buy a gun because that makes no sense whatsoever.

Brewin:

So without wanting to start a flame war, what exactly is the basis of people not wanting stricter gun control laws?

Because we live in a country where the police don't have to lift a finger to help you if they don't feel like it, all the way down to ignoring 911 calls and restraining orders. We're on our own when it comes to our self defense.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here