Fun fact: handguns are used in mass shootings more often than AR15s. In fact, all rifles, of which AR15s is merely the most popular type, are responsible for ~500/60,000 gun deaths/yr in the US. Probably because, as you may guess, handguns are a lot more concealable than rifles.
Also, be fair about the buying process, you still went through the National Instant Criminal background check system. Sure instant checks don’t take long anymore due to Al Gore inventing the internet in the 90s, but they do still happen and adding arbitrary length does nothing to stop crimes. In fact even if they did, they don’t stop nor are they designed to stop the types of planned attack we’re talking about (mass casualty events), they are to stop “crimes of passion” (guy killing his wife), and there’s some contention that they effectively do that as it isn’t like the couple necessarily receives the proper counseling, so he just picks it up and does it next time he’s in a wife killin’ mood, or if he can’t wait goes all Chris Benoit or that “Stairs” jerkoff.
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.
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.
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.
Fun fact: handguns are used in mass shootings more often than AR15s. In fact, all rifles, of which AR15s is merely the most popular type, are responsible for ~500/60,000 gun deaths/yr in the US. Probably because, as you may guess, handguns are a lot more concealable than rifles.
Also, be fair about the buying process, you still went through the National Instant Criminal background check system. Sure instant checks don’t take long anymore due to Al Gore inventing the internet in the 90s, but they do still happen and adding arbitrary length does nothing to stop crimes. In fact even if they did, they don’t stop nor are they designed to stop the types of planned attack we’re talking about (mass casualty events), they are to stop “crimes of passion” (guy killing his wife), and there’s some contention that they effectively do that as it isn’t like the couple necessarily receives the proper counseling, so he just picks it up and does it next time he’s in a wife killin’ mood, or if he can’t wait goes all Chris Benoit or that “Stairs” jerkoff.
Sounds like a good reason to highly regulate handguns to me.
They are regulated.
There is a difference between regulated and highly regulated?
Crimes like straw purchasing or lying on a NICs form are punishable by 10yr in prison, federal prison in some cases. I’d say that’s pretty “high.”
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.
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.
Not for long.
That’s not what I said, I said a history of mental illness.
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.
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.)
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.