GrayoxSure Doesn't feel like one.
SomeDudeNot sure what this instances views on “advocating violence” are, so I’m trying to explain it as non-violently as I still can:
Americans want gun control. That’s not up for discussion. It’s an absurd majority.
However, as long as it is “only” school children and ordinary civilians dying, Republicans will not change their stance on gun control in the slightest. The people who are responsible to fix this are the only group that is not at any risk of getting shot. They are so absurdly protected that they will never be on the receiving end of a barrel, and therefore, do not care.
And to make matters worse, the Republicans dictating the supreme court, who will block anything that could possible address this problem, not only cannot be voted out, no, they literally have to die before they can be replaced.
The only people who could fix the gun murder issue are the ones not dying because of guns.
uisHow mental health check is less popular, than abstract background check?
Mental health is a squishier standard. Let’s say I had depression and decided to talk to someone about it, get the help I needed to become mentally healthy again. Should that necessarily be penalized if I want to go buy a gun to go out to the range or hunting with my buddies? Should seeing help disqualify someone entirely? Does that prevent people from getting help they think they might need, stigmatizing an already stigmatized practice?
Meanwhile, if Dave down the hill has a record, he’s already down he was willing to do an illegal thing, whether or not the record is fair. If he already has reports against him for domestic distances, that’s pretty cut and dry violent behavior that ought not be allowed to intensify.
I’m not saying mental checks aren’t a good idea or aren’t worth it. I’m saying that they’re a harder sell because a) they take more nuance to formulate well and b) the propaganda machine will have an easier time telling people how those checks are overreach.