• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What lessons can Canada teach America about deadly gun violence?

Mental health is our problem. Caused by the fact that Americans are overworked, underpaid, and stressed out, because a single lapse in judgement, one mistake, one accident, can set us back a decade or more, and quite literally dictate the trajectory of the rest of our lives. We're all wound too tight, and it's our economic realities that cause this. My opinion.

Be very careful there. You are getting very close to suggesting that the US lacks an adequate "social safety net" and doing that is akin to advocating outright, doctrinaire Communism (at least in the US it is considered that way).
 
The problem?
Access to adequate mental health.
What's the conservative plan for better access to mental health besides less healthcare, more police, more prisons, more guns and less restrictions? That's a rhetorical question.
 
Last edited:
Too little access to care, too much access to firearms. When combined with a culture that stokes conflict it's a recipe for disaster.
Oh poo on the too much access to firearms bull.
And the culture that stokes conflict
Got some evidence there skippy.?
 
Be very careful there. You are getting very close to suggesting that the US lacks an adequate "social safety net" and doing that is akin to advocating outright, doctrinaire Communism (at least in the US it is considered that way).
Heck it's not even a discussion of asking a safety net. Even those with good insurance often have little access to mental health treatment. For reasons from few providers to tge stigma of getting treatment.
 
What's the conservative plan for better access to mental health besides less healthcare, more police, more prisons, more guns and less restrictions? That's a rhetorical question.
Well as a conservative.. we need to 1. Stop stigmatized those that need mental health. One of those ways is to be careful not to have patients have to fear that if they discuss their feelings if depression with their doctor..the sheriff will be at their door to take grandad shotgun.
We need more healthcare providers trained in mental health. Teachers and school personnel should be trained to identify and make referrals for evaluation.. BUT NOT. Referrals for medication.
Insurance companies should include mental health as a benefit..just like stroke or a broken leg. .
One of the biggest things is to stop focusing on firearms as the cause of suicide and mass shooting.
The parkland shooter and many of theses mass shooters have a mental health history..we need to know how the system failed.
 
Be very careful there. You are getting very close to suggesting that the US lacks an adequate "social safety net" and doing that is akin to advocating outright, doctrinaire Communism (at least in the US it is considered that way).
Oh, I know. But it needs to happen. Americans need livable wages, and we need insurances against disruptions to those wages. One mishap should not be a life ending/altering event.
 
When is the last time that one of the developed nations had a retail store looted during a mostly peaceful protest?


I don't know. I'd guess less than here, where gun violence is on the rise regardless of looting.
 
I don't know. I'd guess less than here, where gun violence is on the rise regardless of looting.
The homicide rate for the last decade is the lowest for a decade since the 1950s, and the second lowest for a decade in the last 100 years.
 
The homicide rate for the last decade is the lowest for a decade since the 1950s, and the second lowest for a decade in the last 100 years.
such facts matter little to those who only pretend that societal safety is what motivates their anti gun scheming
 
such facts matter little to those who only pretend that societal safety is what motivates their anti gun scheming
Homicides don't include all US gun deaths. But, y'all know that.

Such facts matter little to those who only care about their pro-gun scheming
 
Homicides don't include all US gun deaths. But, y'all know that.
most gun deaths are self inflicted-ie deaths that laws cannot stop
 
most gun deaths are self inflicted-ie deaths that laws cannot stop
Golly gee, if there weren't so many guns, I wonder what would happen to the US total gun death number?
 
Golly gee, if there weren't so many guns, I wonder what would happen to the US total gun death number?
well what do you propose that is both constitutional and won't get lots of people killed. why is someone owning 50 guns instead of 30 going to cause any additional problems?
 
Why do you continually tout disingenuous facts about gun deaths?
I don't. How do you get to fewer guns?

Why do you believe that the number of homicides or total gun deaths gives the government any power to restrict the rights of the people to keep and bear all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes?
 
Why do you continually tout disingenuous facts about gun deaths?
why do you pretend that pushing for gun restrictions is motivated by a desire to make society safer when the real motivation is attacking a group that you don't like politically?
 
I don't. How do you get to fewer guns?

Why do you believe that the number of homicides or total gun deaths gives the government any power to restrict the rights of the people to keep and bear all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes?
or why the actions of criminals should justify limiting the rights of people who have never violated any objectively proper law?
 
You don't tout disingenuous facts about gun deaths? You deliberately omitted an entire category of gun deaths. See post #283.
 
Last edited:
or why the actions of criminals should justify limiting the rights of people who have never violated any objectively proper law?
Do you feel any obligation to protect the mentally ill from guns?
why do you pretend that pushing for gun restrictions is motivated by a desire to make society safer when the real motivation is attacking a group that you don't like politically?
Yup, I don't care about a safe society or unnecessary loss of life. You caught me. :rolleyes:
 
Do you feel any obligation to protect the mentally ill from guns?

Yup, I don't care about a safe society or unnecessary loss of life. You caught me. :rolleyes:
more nonsense. I oppose punishing blameless people for the actions of criminals
 
well what do you propose that is both constitutional and won't get lots of people killed. why is someone owning 50 guns instead of 30 going to cause any additional problems?

A requirement that people comply with some reasonable level of public safety regulations (such as [1] proving that they can safely handle firearms, [2] that they can use firearms with reasonable effectiveness, and [3] have a reasonable knowledge of when and where it is appropriate to use firearms) would probably pass "constitutional muster". The analog is to a drivers' licence (and that can be revoked is the person is so irresponsible in driving that it shows that it simply isn't safe to allow them to drive even if they have demonstrated that they [1] do know how to drive safely, [2] do know how to drive with reasonable effectiveness, and [3] do know when and where it is appropriate to drive).

Once the person had satisfied the reasonable level of public safety regulations, then the number of guns that they owned would be totally irrelevant.
 
A requirement that people comply with some reasonable level of public safety regulations (such as [1] proving that they can safely handle firearms, [2] that they can use firearms with reasonable effectiveness, and [3] have a reasonable knowledge of when and where it is appropriate to use firearms) would probably pass "constitutional muster". The analog is to a drivers' licence (and that can be revoked is the person is so irresponsible in driving that it shows that it simply isn't safe to allow them to drive even if they have demonstrated that they [1] do know how to drive safely, [2] do know how to drive with reasonable effectiveness, and [3] do know when and where it is appropriate to drive).

Once the person had satisfied the reasonable level of public safety regulations, then the number of guns that they owned would be totally irrelevant.
accidental deaths from guns have been decreasing and your suggestions only would impact those. making sure a criminal knows how to handle a gun has no relevance to public safety

driving is not a constitutional right-your analogy fails for that reason alone
 
A requirement that people comply with some reasonable level of public safety regulations (such as [1] proving that they can safely handle firearms, [2] that they can use firearms with reasonable effectiveness, and [3] have a reasonable knowledge of when and where it is appropriate to use firearms) would probably pass "constitutional muster". The analog is to a drivers' licence (and that can be revoked is the person is so irresponsible in driving that it shows that it simply isn't safe to allow them to drive even if they have demonstrated that they [1] do know how to drive safely, [2] do know how to drive with reasonable effectiveness, and [3] do know when and where it is appropriate to drive).
A requirement that people comply with some reasonable level of public civics regulations (such as [1] proving that they can read [2] that they pass a test showing they have a basic level of understanding of civics and economics to vote...
 
Back
Top Bottom