allow me to offer a little something unhinged to this old and tired discussion. feel free to disregard it. Just trying it out to see if it makes anyone feel any certain way.
The existence of mentally unstable people should be a motivation to make a society that doesn’t prey on them or make them idealize being active shooters. The existence of mentally unstable people shouldn’t be a preface to talk about which rights and autonomy is okay to take away from people.
In the context of “taking away rights and autonomy”: Cars are 100x more useful than guns, both during insurgency and peacetime. We still have locks, licensing, inspections, laws against unsafe use, and registration for cars, but not for guns. Wouldn’t it be more liberal to have a right to drive?
Compare your ideal system to systems like Sweden and Switzerland, where citizens own many guns, and are well trained, but gun crime and gun negligence is extremely rare.
That’s true, cars are regulated in ways you’d think would make sense to map onto gun. I’ve live some places though where I would even call auto regulations harmful for people trying to survive there. But you raise a excellent point, I’m as guilty as anyone of contempt for people over a certain age having access to freeway. There’s some deep ageism within me I need to address and there’s an issue societally to examine about how to handle the issue. My gut instinct is to immediately say that’s different from 2a but I can’t think of a compelling reason why it is.
Sweden and Switzerland kind of sound like my personal ideal actually. That’s a good system and I’d be happy seeing combined with an economic setting that made that training available to everyone.
It helps if a whole section of the political mass, the one that supposedly wants to protect minorities, didn’t swear off guns.
“swear off” vs “wanting the most basic of testing so mentally unstable people don’t get to browse their local shops like a kid in a candy store”
You: “they are the same picture”
😑
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
That’s so much a strawman it’s not even worth the time I spent to read it.
allow me to offer a little something unhinged to this old and tired discussion. feel free to disregard it. Just trying it out to see if it makes anyone feel any certain way.
The existence of mentally unstable people should be a motivation to make a society that doesn’t prey on them or make them idealize being active shooters. The existence of mentally unstable people shouldn’t be a preface to talk about which rights and autonomy is okay to take away from people.
You’re right that Healthcare is real problem.
In the context of “taking away rights and autonomy”: Cars are 100x more useful than guns, both during insurgency and peacetime. We still have locks, licensing, inspections, laws against unsafe use, and registration for cars, but not for guns. Wouldn’t it be more liberal to have a right to drive?
Compare your ideal system to systems like Sweden and Switzerland, where citizens own many guns, and are well trained, but gun crime and gun negligence is extremely rare.
https://youtu.be/PXlSF15IBis
That’s true, cars are regulated in ways you’d think would make sense to map onto gun. I’ve live some places though where I would even call auto regulations harmful for people trying to survive there. But you raise a excellent point, I’m as guilty as anyone of contempt for people over a certain age having access to freeway. There’s some deep ageism within me I need to address and there’s an issue societally to examine about how to handle the issue. My gut instinct is to immediately say that’s different from 2a but I can’t think of a compelling reason why it is.
Sweden and Switzerland kind of sound like my personal ideal actually. That’s a good system and I’d be happy seeing combined with an economic setting that made that training available to everyone.
I think that’s a very thoughtful way to look at it.