Pages

Jump to bottom

5 comments

1 uncah91  Sun, Dec 16, 2012 8:45:51pm

Thanks for the promotion.

2 EiMitch  Sun, Dec 16, 2012 9:49:41pm

I agree with this for the most part. Here are my own 2 cents (a bargain, I know):

I don't think the answer is "tighter" gun regulation so much as it is "smarter" gun regulation. The problem ultimately isn't the guns themselves, but guns in the wrong hands. While I'm not against having higher barriers to gun ownership than at present, a mere filter won't do. We need to target (pardon the pun) the wrong hands. We need to identify them in advance rather than passively wait for someone be diagnosed with a mental health issue, or worse commit a crime.

I agree that we need to do alot mote about the social problems which drive people to commit street-crime/mass-murder/suicide. IMO, we should start with the economic problems, since they're relatively simple to address and solve. We don't need to make everyone rich, just get them out of poverty. Plus it'll give us the infrastructure and resources to better deal with the remaining problems.

3 uncah91  Mon, Dec 17, 2012 4:59:23am

Getting guns out of the "wrong hands" is much more tricky than it sounds like at first blush. Again, the mere presence of a firearm in a house increases mortality rates in that house, suicide being the most common cause. That is primarily a function of the gun being available when the person is suicidal.

In the last two mass shootings, neither shooter owned the guns they used.

And yes, improving the economy is important, but we also need to commit to availability of services that mitigate the negative effects of poverty on society as a whole. Because poverty will never be eliminated. For example, mental health services have been gutted over the last 30 years.

4 EiMitch  Mon, Dec 17, 2012 8:32:52am

re: #3 uncah91

A few clarifications:

And yes, improving the economy is important, but we also need to commit to availability of services that mitigate the negative effects of poverty on society as a whole.

I didn't say "improve the economy." I was talking about solving economic social problems. Yes, we need more public services and welfare.

Because poverty will never be eliminated.

In a sense, thats true. "Poverty" is a relative term, and therefore a moving target (no pun intended) during times of improvement.

When nobody has to worry about going hungry, or losing their home, or forgoing needed medical care, or other vital needs that could leave someone desperate, then I'll declare poverty solved. Oh yeah, and access to education thats worth more than a punchline.

As for what'll be called "poverty" after that, I really don't care.

For example, mental health services have been gutted over the last 30 years.

Yeah, thats part of the infrastructure I was talking about.

5 uncah91  Mon, Dec 17, 2012 1:24:09pm

re: #4 EiMitch

Ok. Misunderstood wher you were going with the "economic problems" angle.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh