Which of these would reduce the number of gun deaths in America?

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Are conservatives willing to pay for that? Or would they say it's up to the individual to pay for his own diagnosis and treatment?

Sure I think there's a good case to be made that treatment of serious mental illness is a legit gov't function, same as epidemics. It's the same principle as with public (gov't) provision of fire-fighting. If your neighbor decides not to buy fire protection and his house catches on fire, the fire could spread to your house, then from yours to another, and so on.

The real issue is not whether conservatives would be willing to pay, but whether the psychiactric profession would be able/willing to do this without mucking it up. My favorite example always re psychiatry: until not all that long ago, homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the official diagnostic manual (DSM); now, homophobia is listed.

[wutitiz]

To answer the poll question, I would have to have some specifics on what is meant by 'strengthening gun laws.' If it is a Japan-style virtual ban on all guns in civilian hands, I think it could be effective. Of course it would have to be accompanied by a draconian enforcement program that could make the Drug War look like a day in the park. But I think it could reduce the rate of death by firearms.

If it's a half-measure, like say limiting magazines to no more than 10 rounds, it's useless; it does nothing other than annoy law-abiding gun owners (which I often suspect is part of the motiviation for anti-gun crusaders).

[lifeexplorer]

I am sorry but this poll is ridiculous. The only way to reduce gun death is to get rid of all guns which solves absolutely nothing because people will continue to kill each other and themselves no matter of what.

Reducing gun death? What about other death increase as a result?

The proper questions to ask would be how we can reduce the number of murder, how we can reduce number of sucide or how we can reduce crime.