Just When You Thought USian Politics Couldn't Get Any Nuttier

[Aristocatt]

Compare that to a country where you can buy guns easily in stores i.e. America

Obviously having guns able to be sold in stores is going to increase the amount of guns people have and the amount of people killed by guns both deliberately and accidentally.

The US has a huge "ghost gun" industry of illegal firearms pouring in from eastern asian countries and making their way to California.
Banning guns like they do in the UK would probably reduce gun deaths over time(I don't agree with the logic, more guns prevents gun deaths), but it probably wouldn't have anything close to the same impact that it had on the UK back when they did it in the 90s.


In response to the snopes article:
From what I understand the issue people have with it is two fold.
1)  It has too high a false positive rate to be deemed acceptable.  (The example used was people that were incapable of managing their finances).
2)  It might incentize people with mental health issues to not seek help in the future.

I have no idea how true/likely either scenario is...but at the very least, it seems like portraying the roll back as 
"giving guns to the severely mentally ill, people with schizophrenia, anger issues, etc" is disingenuous

I'd say based on the arguments provided in the snopes thread, rolling it back was a mistake.
1)I am not opposed to casting a broad net and then having an opt in program for those that were wrongfully put on the list under specific circumstances, and this seems like a decent example. 
 
2)I also don't, at first glance, find the notion that large numbers of people will avoid SS benefits because they are afraid they can't get a gun compelling.  It seems backwards since owning a gun is more of a luxury commodity than it is a necessity.

I think the first one is open to differing interpretations, and disagreement seems more philosophical than evidence based.
I think the second one should require some proof before asserting.