I support relatively few "gun control" measures. This doesn't mean that I do not acknowledge regulating guns similar to the regulation of free speech is not going to be constitutional and therefore within the authority of the federal or state governments. Gun free zones would be an an example. Restricting the rights of felons or people engaged in committing a crime. Restricting the rights of someone "brandishing" or negligently firing a weapon all of these are well within the authority of the federal or state governments. Requiring background checks for the sale or transfer of a weapon.
Sorry, I got lost in all the negatives in the second sentence. I think you mean you do support these things?
Background checks are already required for FFL transfers.
As I assume you know from your extensive research on the topic, the system contains glaring loopholes. This is why the House passed legislation earlier this year to strengthen the system so it's actually universal.
House Passes First Major Gun Control Law in Decades
Sadly the Senate is GOP controlled, so they won't even consider such obvious low hanging fruit for public safety.
Mental health screening violates HIPAA
No, it doesn't, disclosure of PHI for law enforcement purposes is permitted by HIPAA.
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/f...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0hU-EeiyNgw_15MV_m4Uk9
and stigmatizes mental health issues.
I brought this issue up before and you side stepped it. If identifying mental health as a source of gun violence stigmatizes it, and you're against that, why are you bringing it up so much?
You said
"If two countries share the same problem (a), and yet one has an additional problem the other does not have"
I asked is it then your claim that these other countries do not have a problem with guns or gun violence? It is a yes or no question.
No they don't, their gun violence rates are much lower than ours.
These will prevent people with mental issues from getting a gun? Or these will merely reduce the chances. By how much?
Is it your position that a public policy must be 100% effective for us to reasonably adopt it?
I've done literally all of the citation of evidence thus far in our conversation, and when I do you decline to comment on it or dismiss it. So I won't be doing any more of your homework for you.
Yes, guns are efficient and effective tools. Some eople wanting to do harm will choose these if they are available.
No, not "some." The vast majority. Which is why I'm focused on it.
And I think we could make great strides by increasing funding, outreach, awareness, and accessibility.
Walk and chew gum. Preach!
That cherry picking countries to get the desired result evades the issue of violence.
I didnt cherry pick countries. Homicide rates by country are widely available available online. Yes, we are safer than third world countries. Congrats. We are also much less than many other countries.
Are you thinking that I am disputing that where guns are available they are often selected? They are efficient and effective tools. They are a go to for many interested in harming others but many more interested in self defense.
Great, then it shouldn't be a mystery to you why the focus is guns. They are by far the deadliest weapon available to the average person. Self-defense is fine, although a gun in the home actually makes you statistically less safe, not more.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no
Again, we are culturally conditioned to associate guns with safety and freedom. These are not objective facts of reality.
Because they are efficient and effective tools.
Yes, specifically tools for killing. Which is the obvious reason why we should restrict access to them.
That the violence in our country isn't in part related to mental health? No.
Does addressing mental health as a source of gun violence stigmatize mental health or not? If it does, I don't know why you've brought it up so many times as a priority over gun safety. If it doesn't, then you shouldn't have a problem with mental health screenings.
Yes, that is good. You recognize that the data on other countries doesn't accurately reflect what would happen in the U.S.
The research I cited included research done in the US. While every country is unique, patterns can be found. To pretend that we are that special and exempted from how reality works is, again, another cultural issue we should work to address.
I have researched the issue plenty--extensively. I am sorry that you won't accept that gun control will not reach the roots of violence in our society.
I never claimed that gun control would end all violence in society. That is a silly straw man. Gun control is a kind of harm reduction - it is not absolute, it is not perfect, it is not a panacea for all society's ills, but it does save lives.
There is a reason why Australia still has a rape problem.
Gun control's purpose is not to prevent rape, so that's a complete non sequitur.
There is a reason why the decreases that are seen cannot be determined as causal,
This is a widespread ethical problem faced in all public policy and health research, not unique to guns.
and there is a reason why you still see gun violence, though slightly lower (but still statistically significant) in these countries that have enacted gun control measures.
Yes, in the real world remedies are not 100% effective, virtually ever. That is not a rational reason to oppose them.
Those reasons are that the problem is multi-faceted and culturally embedded. If you want to make real strides you would join me in the pursuit of root issues, instead of chasing down a highly propagandized (on both sides) issue.
I keep bringing up the deeply embedded cultural beliefs and issues at play here, and yet you keep either ignoring them or endorsing them.
Basic facts to accept. Until there is an amendment to the constitution the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. The founders enumerated this right because it was related to the fundamental right of self defense. This was incorporated by the 14th and 15th amendments and also applies to state governments. If you want to rally behind gun control that is outside of the authority of our government then change the authority of our government first. Otherwise why not focus on what we can do?
1) That is a one-dimensional and ahistorical analysis of why we have a 2nd Amendment. This is a subject for another thread, but the Amendment was insisted upon by states who wanted state militias to oppose a federal military force if necessary. It wasn't interpreted by a majority on the Supreme Court as guaranteeing an individual right until 11 years ago in the Heller case.
2) Even the Roberts court in Heller did not interpret all gun control as unconstitutional, so you are just incorrect as to what can be done.