In the abstract, no. But the devil is always in the details.
As long as there is due process and those falsely accused of being a threat can get their guns back, I'm good with it.
No harm, no foul, amirite?!
This hits closer to home.
This:
My point in posting these is to shine a light on the broad irresponsibility. America's gun culture needs to change. "Banning" specific weapons might be part of the answer, but is far from the full solution. First and foremost in that effort, in my estimation, is to call the bluff on the myth of widespread responsible gun ownership. Among other things on that note, and only a minor step, I'd propose legislation that requires the temporary or permanent forfeiture of weapons in the wake of irresponsible weapons handling.
Great, everybody has an opinion. It just so happens your opinion is conclusory, disengaged from further conversation, dismissive of pointless deaths, and fails to address the multiple concerns raised in this thread and elsewhere. But you may well have more you’re not sharing.
There’s nothing wrong with 2 year olds getting shot and killed I guess? There’s plenty wrong with gun culture in the US and the people that refuse to admit it or do anything about it.
The only response I’ll offer to this nonsense is to point out that it doesn’t deserve one.
My opinion is by nature conclusory, as opinions tend to be. I’m not averse to further conversation, I’m not dismissive of any gun deaths, and you haven’t raised any concerns. You opined that responsible gun owners are a myth and then edited to say, other than the ones you know.
You misunderstood my edit. I think the notion of widespread responsible gun ownership is indeed a myth.
I mean, obviously that family was careless in its handling of their guns. I don’t think anyone would debate that.
The one constant in the mass shootings is the presence of SRIs and/or the broad spectrum of psychiatric amphetamines. As this becomes more widely exposed, something might be done about it.
Again, what good will that do now?
Absolutely. Almost EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I think some accountability is only fair. And it doesn’t stop with just this family. Over the broader sweep, the notion of greater accountability (and avoidance of harm) is warranted. That’s the gun culture piece. Shrugging our shoulders hasn’t worked.
And by the way, I might say something similar about the corporate raider mindset. Many of us say we don’t want more government regulation, especially when it’s burdensome and ineffectual. But much of that regulation would be unnecessary if more leadership interests took care of the problems on their own. Instead, far too many corporate leadership voices have adopted the corporate raider/exploiter mindset as if it were a necessary Adam Smith incontrovertible truth of business. It’s obviously not. That’s partly why I question why so many cede ground to the notion that just Republicans can speak for business interests. That too is simply not the case. It’s part of the propagandized fog of corruption and broken ideology.
Not prescribing the drugs alone doesn't cure depression. The problem is twofold: the drugs don't cure depression and their side effects relevant to mass murder are 1) the SRIs block emotional response, thus no compunction for killing and 2) the amphetamines spur the otherwise inactive (depressed) individual to action. In many cases, this outcome is considered okay, a person is detached from his depressed feelings (along with other feelings) so that spurring him to action doesn't spur him to commit suicide. In other cases, the individual is mildly violent (as in the case of one poster here who responded to me once that before he was apathetic, now he'd like to punch me in the nose). In the worst case, the individual's spur to action is unmitigated and unremorseful violence.
Legally, I don't consider myself qualified to respond to your solution but my gut response is that the law profession is already far too excessive in incorrectly assigning responsibility. The gun owner is responsible for the gun. An auto manufacturer is responsible for malfunctions in the car but not for an appropriately operating car that the owner drives over a pedestrian.
Yes.
