Wait what? Rapid policy change in response to gun violence?
Good job
AustraliaAustria!Austria lol. Mozart, not kangaroos.
Whoops, thanks!
Schwarzenegger, not Satan.
Wow kneejerk pseudo-science enshrined into law because one person out of 10,000,000 used a gun to kill someone. Do you think if he had used a car instead you’d see a similar response? why or why not?
Probably the most goddamn idiotic take I’ve fucking seen. And what makes this even funnier is your smug attitude.
Honestly just seems like a run-of-the-mill US red state take. “Muh gunz” is where it stops for them, fuck kids dying, we need more guns. If everyone carried an assault rifle the world would be at peace because there would be a good guy with a gun stopping the bad guy with a gun or something like that. They call it culture as far as I understand.
Fortunately you (unless you are Austrian) have no voice in the matter.
Cars are tools for transportation that, unfortunately, sometimes result in death.
Firearms (specifically handguns and AR-type long guns) are machines specifically designed to kill humans. That’s it.
If you can’t understand the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
You’re totally right, and this is supported the data! The USA has the least restrictive gun laws of any major developed country but has similar rates of gun violence as all other developed…oh wait, never mind, the USA has by far the highest gun violence rates of any major developed nation.
Our per capita rate of gun violence is comparable to countries like Somalia, Iraq, and Haiti.
And also, car deaths is a huge issue too, and we should restrict car ownership and encourage mass transit and related infrastructure. Making more of our cities pedestrian-only locations protected by bollards, would also make people even safer from both accidental and intentional car deaths.
It’s also way better for the environment and thus, people’s long term health, leading to even higher life spans and better happiness.
And get safer cars. The US has some kind of car arms race going on where you need a super large heavy car to be safe because the roads are full of big heavy cars… Resulting in much more deadly crashes for everyone. Besides most states driving test is a joke.
Cars are much safer than they used to be.
Over the shoulder seat belts, ABS, airbags, crumple zones, stability control, etc all help prevent accidents and he’ll you walk away from any that still happen.
They are safe for car passengers, and a nightmare for everyone else on the street. High hoods with bad sight for drivers and awful impact profile for pedestrians, heavy cars which make low speed collisions much more deadly for everyone not protected by 3 tons of steel. Safety should be for everyone, not only car passengers.
America currently going: “la la la la la” while turning its back to the problem.
It was Austria. Autocorrect?Sorry, other replies didn’t load initially.
The main issue I have with laws like these is… once the person who “needed to cool off” has the gun all they need is to get hot-headed again and this time there isn’t a cool-off period for them to access it.
The psychology “test” is all fine and good, but a test doesn’t tell you what an actual licensed psychologist can. Way too easy for someone to just lie on a test if they know what the “right” answers are. A lot more difficult to hide dangerous personality traits in front of another human being. Step it up one more notch to requiring a psychological evaluation.
Would any psychologist risk their entire career and criminal liability to grant anyone a pass to obtain a firearms license? For what is ultimately a hobby?
I think an evaluation is just unreasonable considering how overworked mental health professionals are. I would genuinely hate it if someone who wants to get better and work out some issues can’t because there is better money in talking to the gun nuts.
Nah. I am a firm believer in chains of liability. Kid shoots up a school? Whose gun was that? Dad? Dad is now liable for a pretty major charge. Oh? He didn’t keep it locked up in a safe? Who sold Dad that gun? Herman? He better have ALL his paperwork in order and he better have followed every single required step to make sure Dad knows how to store a gun properly and has a gun safe and so forth. He didn’t? What distributor did he buy that gun from? And so forth.
Obviously US biased, but we put more effort into making sure someone buying a car has insurance than we do making sure someone buying a gun even understands why keeping “one in the chamber” is one of the dumbest things you can do.
So pass that on. Because if that guy who wants a people killer gives bad vibes? That isn’t just your license mister gun store man, that is potentially your freedom if he goes after the woman who turned him down for coffee. And if you are a gun company and you sell to sketchy stores that “lose shipments” all the time? You might not be a company the first time a serial number is run. Suddenly EVERYONE starts caring about actually doing due diligence.
And obviously that model is incredibly prone to racism and bias. But that also matters a lot less if the guy who will sell a gun to any white man with a swastika on his neck goes to prison after the first murder.
Right it’s a law that is on the liberal -> fascist pipeline. They don’t want to ban guns (why not?) they just want to make sure that only certain people can have them based on subjective evaluation. How is this good for anyone? It does nothing to prevent things like this in the future. I guess it makes low-information voters feel good?
Look, everyone! A rational response!
What? You were expecting thoughts and prayers?
