• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You know what would be a lot higher? Not letting mentally ill people or domestic abusers, or people who have shown to use them in an unsafe manner around children have access to them. But apparently that is way too far in America.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      People who have been convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership, same for people who have been involuntarily committed, and child endangerment is already also a crime that falls outside the scope of simply firearms.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        People who have been convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership

        Not for long.

        same for people who have been involuntarily committed

        That’s not what I said, I said a history of mental illness.

        and child endangerment is already also a crime that falls outside the scope of simply firearms.

        But it doesn’t include handgun ownership, which you know full well. And that’s what we’re talking about here.

        But since you are blatantly misrepresenting what I said and being incredibly dishonest, I don’t think this conversation needs to continue.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          That’s not what I said, I said a history of mental illness.

          Ah, so you want to nebulously define mental illness to include depressed people, people with ADHD, BPD, Bi-polar, and trans people as “undesireables.” Well this ableist position thankfully isn’t the law and it requires proof that a person is actually dangerous before stripping their rights. Furthermore all it does is make people less likely to seek the help they actually need for fear of being barred from rights for having a mental illness that wouldn’t have made them be violent anyway (stop stigmatizing the mentally ill btw, do better.)

          But it doesn’t include handgun ownership, which you know full well.

          Ah but it does. If someone is actually endangering their children with a handgun it absolutely applies, but no, “owning a handgun” isn’t in and of itself child endangerment and your suggestion that it should be is quite laughable.

          You seem to have a habit of cutting and running every time I prove that you have no idea what you’re talking about. By all means take your ball and go home lol.