Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

slipperyrock4 t1_j9b5ncf wrote

Reply to comment by mrjharder11 in So we have a top 10/20 causes of death in CT yet we waste time with gun control by 1Bzi

It’s essentially the 2013 CT assault weapons ban but with food. I know it’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s a starter for the issues I personally have with this manner of reducing gun violence.

Regarding my (contrived) analogy: people do notice the selectivity. AR-15 style rifles are not banned in this state, they just have a $3000 price tag for being made before 1994. Ironically the target pistol used in the Olympics is an assault weapon and illegal under CT law.

Having destitute populations and readily available firearms and you will yield gun crimes. You take away the guns and all you’re left with is destitute people. Addressing the economic and social issues that drive people towards committing violent acts will prevent more of these acts long term. But it’s a lot harder to do this.

It’s not a fix to the issue. It’s aspirin for the side effects.

−7

mrjharder11 t1_j9bm9f7 wrote

"You take away the guns and all you’re left with is destitute people" You're proving my point. The presence of guns IS THE difference.

I'm with you on the guns with a destitute population argument but isn't that the point of gun safety? I mean there are destitute and crazy people all over the world, not just in the US. Despite the problems we face in CT and the US, there are plenty of countries that have a destitute population. The difference in most cases is their people don't have easy access to guns.

Yet here we have a representative body in DC that thinks we should just hand them out like candy. Unfettered access to lethal weapons if the NRA had it their way. An institution, by the way, that receives less than 5% of it's contributions from its 5 million individual members. Hmmm, wonder who's chipping in the other 95%??? Perhaps a small group of manufacturers that profit from fearful citizens arming up against fearful citizens who are simultaneously arming up.

Let's help the mentally ill get off the streets. Let's adopt a tax policy that pays to help people instead of sapping them of any extra wages. But until we solve the social issues, let's just keep the guns away from the people that don't need them.

As for the AR-15 I don't understand why people want these weapons. I get people want to plink and shoot boar down in Texas but what is the need for a firearm originally commissioned by the military to replace the M1 Garand with it's large capacity and rapid fire? It really shreds up bodies in a gruesome way. Why does anyone need access to this weapon or anything else like it? Please don't tell me about how it's just a rifle that looks scary. It has a recoil buffer in the stock and its super light weight. Perfect for keeping your sights on target through rapid fire. Great for large mammals like boars and humans.

I find it puzzling that people go hard for the second Amendment but when it comes to states rights it's like No Fuckin Way. There are plenty of states where you can purchase an AR with little resistance. Any US citizen can always move there and fire away. They may use imperfect calculus, but I am glad my Statehouse is making it hard for people to get a gun.

I'll end with the tired analogy of drivers licenses. Why can't you just go get a license at DMV on a whim? Why can't children drive? Why do younger people pay a much higher premium for insurance? For whatever reason we don't apply this logic to firearms.

2