(April 18, 2021 at 4:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote: There is also the economic cost the right ignores too. On average we spend about 2 billion dollars a year on first responders, EMT, ER. ME, investigations, and also the PTSD survivors face for a lifetime.
I had a co worker at the breakfast place I worked at. She bussed tables. She was skinny when I first started working there. One day she missed work. Came to find out her cousin blew his brains out in front of her in the driveway of her house. She left that job, and a couple years later, she came in to eat. I didn't recognize her at first. She had gained a lot of weight, wich can be a symptom of PTSD. She is going to be dealing with that trauma for the rest of her life. It never goes away.
My late mother passed away from natural causes in a nursing home and I was by her side when she died. But I can tell you, even with a nautrual death, it can be traumatizing to witness. I can't imagine what that busser went through, and I hope I never am a witness to someone being shot. But we average over 30k firearm deaths per year, of all kinds. Suicide are the biggest number. Second would be domestic violence (meaning violence between people that know each other.) 3rd would be accidental. While mass shootings are lower on the list, meaning the ones that make national news, we still average almost 100 firearm deaths per day. No other westernized wealthy country comes close.
That is not a privacy issue, that is a public epidemic and a public health emergency.
(April 18, 2021 at 4:08 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Getting a driver's license simply means you are old enough and in some states have taken a driving course and you usually have to pass a written and/or practical exam. They also do a pretty useless eye exam. There is nothing in place to stop some mentally ill person from getting a license and driving it through the wall of the DMV. It's simply an operators' license. They don't check your criminal history or your mental history...you do the things required and they hand you a license. After you pay for it, of course.
You want to restrict all alcoholics from being able to purchase a firearm? You do realize that an alcoholic is always an alcoholic even in they no longer drink and haven't in decades? So, that needs to be removed as an obstacle. You don't seem to understand the difference between and alcoholic and a drunk.
And, for the millionth time, while checking the mental health history and criminal history of a person is a good plan, it in no way in a sure indicator of future behavior. There are many, many mental health issues that manifest at different times in life that aren't something that can be planned for. Until someone shows symptoms they can't be assumed to be mentally ill or prone to mental illness.
So why is it Australia and Japan do a far better job and have far fewer firearm deaths? Because they have better vetting. And they don't hand out firearms like candy.
Does the government own our bodies or should we own our own bodies? Are we slaves? I'm ok with more guns possibly leading to more suicide deaths, because this is a choice these people are making for themselves. I'm ok with legalizing all drugs and ending the drug war, even if that may make it easier for people to obtain and purposefully overdose on heroin or whatever else. I'm ok with people arguing against gun rights and I'm not saying don't do that, but when particular discussions or threads get narrowed down to the topic of "Why isn't anything being done about these weapons of war" when they account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths or "Why aren't we doing anything about mass shootings?" when they account for a tiny fraction of the gun deaths, it seems to be kind of about pulling on the heart strings with sexy headlines rather than looking at the totality of the problem. Why not push for a handgun ban since that's what's causing most of the damage?
Brian, you brought up all of the people who end up killed by domestic abusers. That's an even better reason to have a camera in every room of every house in America and everywhere else. You see the husband beating up the wife, you come and put him in jail, and then there's less of a chance that he eventually ends up shooting and killing her. You could end up saving thousands of lives this way. Are you down for this new law? What's the argument again when it comes to taking away so called assault rifles to save less than three hundred some odd lives a year, because many of those killings will just end up being committed with handguns instead. No one needs a so called assault rifle. That's the argument, right? Well, no one needs privacy either. They just want it. No one needs free speech. They just like having it. There are plenty of rights that people don't need. Now, I ask you Brian, are you willing to have cameras put in every room of your house, if it could end up saving thousands of lives when everyone is forced by law to do this, or do you value your freedom and privacy more. What is your choice?
