Highest Rated Comments


crim-sama4 karma

Do you think ignorance and difficulty for the average consumer to avoid products from certain companies that commit certain practices while easily finding alternatives that don't add to the problem of farms like this?

crim-sama1 karma

do you think there could be more done by activist groups and non-profits to help minimize the effort needed for the average consumer to boycott practices?

crim-sama-2 karma

at least for me and some others ive seen, "strong gun control" doesn't simply mean "nobody gets guns". it means improved background checks, improved psychology checks that they have to have regularly, requiring improved use and storage training, regular tests to ensure that training has stuck, requiring homes of gun owners have proper storage to keep their guns from those who dont own them, suspending their licenses if they show habitual legal negligence, or banning them from keeping or receiving a license if they have a history of violence, and other stuff to ensure those who own and carry guns are doing it for the right reason and dont hold violent fantasies about using that gun on someone.

crim-sama-3 karma

isnt this just the slippery slope fallacy?

Psychological tests are a risk to doctor patient confidentiality and HIPAA privacy rules

then those rules need changed. if a psychologist felt their patient was likely to commit a violent crime, do you not think they would report such a thing? besides, id imagine such an evaluation for such a purpose would be administered by a trained professional employed by whoever administers and manages firearm licenses, although having this professional in communication with any other professionals involved in the applicants life(therapists, managers or HR at their work, etc) would probably help ensure that their process is stronger.

Requiring proper storage involves 4th amendment issues.

everything seems to be a 4th amendment issue when framed in a certain way. fact is, we've been over this hurdle, and as it turns out we can make some requirements for owning a gun already, and can even prevent some people from owning a gun.

mentally playing out self defense scenarios wherein a person has a violent encounter and using their weapon

this is more an issue of intent and wording which gives away intent. if someone is openly stating they HOPE to do such a thing, or they CANT WAIT till they can shoot someone, that shows an intent to escalate any situation in which would provide them opportunity and makes them appear as a bad actor hoping to supersede the justice system to administer their own view of justice. and even if they are a minority, weeding them out will help prevent the types of killings we see from time to time, where people leave a situation, grab their guns, then come back and escalate it.

All of those policies will necessarily make guns more difficult and expensive to own, which would have a harder effect on lower income people, who typically are more at risk to violent crime anyway

if this is the case, what would stop gun prices from lowering due to the decreased demand?

anyway, i dont think any of what i stated would make it more difficult for a majority of gun owners to own guns, its more about ensuring that those who do own guns have a better understanding of current safety standards, storage options available to them to help ensure their own access to their guns is fairly unimpeded while its tougher for those who dont own those guns(family, friends, etc) to have access to them(a common theme with school shooters seems to be that they used someone elses guns and had access to them), the only people who would have a harder time owning guns is people who either have a history of violence, or show a pattern of violent thought process along with a relative lack of impulse controls.