High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[youfiad]

I don't understand how you can say that when so many of these spree shootings have been severely mentally disturbed people, who were known to be such, and got access to weapons. The VA Tech shooter bought his while he was on anti-psychotic medications.

Sure, but do you think that someone extremely deranged will be incapable of getting their hands on such weapons? The school shooting guy didn't even use his guns. I've heard that often times, those guns aren't even registered to the murderer. I'm not entirely sure if that's accurate, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that this law will make much of an impact. Maybe I'm wrong, but meh.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Sure, but do you think that someone extremely deranged will be incapable of getting their hands on such weapons? The school shooting guy didn't even use his guns. I've heard that often times, those guns aren't even registered to the murderer. I'm not entirely sure if that's accurate, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that this law will make much of an impact. Maybe I'm wrong, but meh.

I could flip that right around. Lanza's mother wasn't the most stable person on the planet either and she owned guns because she was a survivalist nut about apocalypse scenarios.

At any rate I don't see how anything you're saying shows that these laws would "do nothing." If they stop even just 1 spree shooting in 5 or 10 that's not worth even bothering to try? I doubt the parents of the kids shot would agree.

 

[youfiad]

I could flip that right around. Lanza's mother wasn't the most stable person on the planet either and she owned guns because she was a survivalist nut about apocalypse scenarios.

At any rate I don't see how anything you're saying shows that these laws would "do nothing." If they stop even just 1 spree shooting in 5 or 10 that's not worth even bothering to try? I doubt the parents of the kids shot would agree.

Ohh they for sure might, but I still feel like we're not addressing the real problem that is mental health treatments. As someone who has a brother who got expelled from school for threatening to kill everyone, and who has been chased around with an ax by the same guy, I can vouche being banned from purchasing guns by this person would not stop him if he were to do something stupid.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Ohh they for sure might, but I still feel like we're not addressing the real problem that is mental health treatments. As someone who has a brother who got expelled from school for threatening to kill everyone, and who has been chased around with an ax by the same guy, I can vouche being banned from purchasing guns by this person would not stop him if he were to do something stupid.

Well when we talk about these laws yes mental health is a definite part of the equation but saying a crazy person might get a knife or axe or attack someone with a broom handle isn't strictly relevant to the gun shooting spree problem in the U.S. If anything the most recent knife spree in China (where every single victim stabbed survived) is only a case in point about how limiting access to firearms for severely mentally ill people is only a good thing.

 

[csb999]

Paranoia like pride is an exagerrated irrational sense of self importance . It is not that you are stronger or safer but that the authorities have correctly determined that you are no real threat at all . You are not hiding better you are being ignored . Big Brother ? Winston was just another bored whiny meddlesome piker ( considerable unnoted element there . Surprise at the absurdity that the authorities can ever have seen him as any danger , but we will not insult him in this way ) . Oppressed minorities ? By being treated as a threat you are being given the hugest unjustified compliment . You are dangerous , really . And babies and little girls and little old ladies in wheelchairs . Potentially very dangerous . How much more likely is it that you will die at 85 with a tube up your nose than the victim of gun violence or terrorism ?

 

[bankside]

Ohh they for sure might, but I still feel like we're not addressing the real problem that is mental health treatments. As someone who has a brother who got expelled from school for threatening to kill everyone, and who has been chased around with an ax by the same guy, I can vouche being banned from purchasing guns by this person would not stop him if he were to do something stupid.

Running away from a man with an axe is a much better option than trying to dodge a bullet. Certainly the real problem is not just mental health (which is a real unaddressed problem) but also the sort of weapons made accessible by law.

As for mental health, treatment and support should naturally be a part of universal healthcare. But also something affecting liberty: I believe that once a person has chased you around with an axe, you should have some degree of veto over his future liberty… I think there should be a greater role for family members to contain people who are a danger to themselves or others. Subject to oversight and due process, but not the false presumption that liberty is automatically better for someone with crisis or chronic mental health issues.

 

[youfiad]

Well when we talk about these laws yes mental health is a definite part of the equation but saying a crazy person might get a knife or axe or attack someone with a broom handle isn't strictly relevant to the gun shooting spree problem in the U.S. If anything the most recent knife spree in China (where every single victim stabbed survived) is only a case in point about how limiting access to firearms for severely mentally ill people is only a good thing.

You're right that those items aren't the same. But to deny that my brother wouldn't have been able to get his hands on a gun would be insane to say.

 

[Rolyo85]

I never said I was a good bookkeeper.

Including a reference to "because the constitution says so" is an emotional allusion to what is really just a piece of paper with some ideas written on it, and it does not explain or verify anything for the children who watched their classmates get killed. I understand why you chose it. It is a common tactic of those who cannot make a logical assessment of data. Even the kindergarten children nursing their wounds could figure out, however, that "getting tough on crime" as the NRA proposes, will do sweet fuck all to stop someone who is dead at the end of his attack. A more proactive measure, like stopping him from getting guns in the first place, is warranted.

The fact that you'd even see room for a debate on whether Adam Lanza should have had ready access to guns could hardly be more astonishing. And there is an insinuation in your post that if Conneticut has gun laws, and Adam Lanza had a gun, then clearly gun laws are pointless. The NRA and their ilk make a point of showing how weak, trivial gun laws are ineffective. They are hoping that will persuade people that gun laws don't work. But that really isn't the standard of comparison. The standard is very restrictive gun laws with teeth. Those laws actually work. Disarmament works.

It's more than a supposition. If he were intent on committing a criminal act by flying a space shuttle into someone, he would have had a much harder time of it given the rarity of space shuttles. Rare things are, by their rarity, much less available to criminals. Making deadly things rare makes them less available to criminals. It is fairly straightforward math.

My point is exactly that invasive government action is necessary, and ethical, and long overdue, and that guns should largely not be present in your country. In the past I've said that if the NRA wanted to start another civil war over it, I'd hope there would be enough people of character to oppose them with overwhelming government force. The status quo is not acceptable, it is not civilized, and any high price paid to definitively put your country on a different course is very likely a better bargain than the current idiocy. Nancy Lanza, a supposed law-abiding gun owner, and pathetically held up as a victim, supplied a gun to a murderer because she thought everyone including her idiot son has the right to bear arms. There should have been no weapons in that house for him to have access to, but Nancy in her "Second Amendment Delusion" didn't see it that way, and scores of children are dead as a result.

I kinda wanna have sex with you after this post.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You're right that those items aren't the same. But to deny that my brother wouldn't have been able to get his hands on a gun would be insane to say.

No one has claimed any one restriction will stop all crime. So we're arguing from two totally different goalposts and no law we could possibly come up with would satisfy the criticisms you're making.

Yes, we should do something about mental health. Yes, we should do something about too-easy access to firearms. No, neither of them, even together, will stop 100% of all mentally disturbed violence. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to put us more into line with countries that have sensible regulation and sensible mental healthcare and, correspondigly, a less completely out of whack number of schoolchildren and random people shot from belltowers killed for really no reason than because we're a country fear goaded into believing that if we don't keep firearms as readily accessible to everyone as humanly possible, the next step is government crackdown or home invasions left and right or whatever other nonsense gets spewed by the NRA and the people who support them.

 

[csb999]

How much more likely is it that you will die at 85 with a tube up your nose than as the victim of gun violence or terrorism ?

 

[xbuzzerx]

How much more likely is it that you will die at 85 with a tube up your nose than as the victim of gun violence or terrorism ?

I don't understand these arguments.

If that's your logic why do we bother with high standards of airplane maintenance or car airbags? I mean after all... the chances aren't that high...

 

[Rolyo85]

Also, while mental health is AN issue, it's definitely not "the" real issue. The real issue about gun violence is and will always be the lack of adequate gun restriction, and anyone trying to deflect that is simply detailing the process.

 

[andysayshi]

Relax everybody.

Steven Seagal is training a civilian posse in Arizona to keep schools safe.






Seriously.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/sheriff-hires-steven-seagal-to-train-civilian-posse-20130211-2e78s.html

 

[youfiad]

No one has claimed any one restriction will stop all crime. So we're arguing from two totally different goalposts and no law we could possibly come up with would satisfy the criticisms you're making.

Yes, we should do something about mental health. Yes, we should do something about too-easy access to firearms. No, neither of them, even together, will stop 100% of all mentally disturbed violence. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to put us more into line with countries that have sensible regulation and sensible mental healthcare and, correspondigly, a less completely out of whack number of schoolchildren and random people shot from belltowers killed for really no reason than because we're a country fear goaded into believing that if we don't keep firearms as readily accessible to everyone as humanly possible, the next step is government crackdown or home invasions left and right or whatever other nonsense gets spewed by the NRA and the people who support them.

I didn't mean to imply that I assumed that it would stop all crime. I just don't think it would make a statistically significant difference.

Buzzer, you know I love ya', but I have to go study for immunology!!

 

[bankside]

I kinda wanna have sex with you after this post.

Well, make love, not war, as they say…

 

[Durango95]

I never said I was a good bookkeeper.

I can see that is probably true.

Including a reference to "because the constitution says so" is an emotional allusion to what is really just a piece of paper with some ideas written on it, and it does not explain or verify anything for the children who watched their classmates get killed. I understand why you chose it. It is a common tactic of those who cannot make a logical assessment of data. Even the kindergarten children nursing their wounds could figure out, however, that "getting tough on crime" as the NRA proposes, will do sweet fuck all to stop someone who is dead at the end of his attack. A more proactive measure, like stopping him from getting guns in the first place, is warranted.

I didn't make such a reference. You are stating something I clearly did not say. A lie to be exact. That too is a common tactic of the debate challenged. Since you bring the Constitution up, I'll say this. There is a mechanism in place to deal with the Constitution when the need arises. The only reason that will not be addressed is that the American public will not amend the Constitution capriciously. That is why the current President consistently uses illegal means to further his agenda. The Communist Manifesto is a piece of paper with some ideas written on it as well. The ideas are what is of importance. You reference the children again. (See my previous post)

The fact that you'd even see room for a debate on whether Adam Lanza should have had ready access to guns could hardly be more astonishing. And there is an insinuation in your post that if Conneticut has gun laws, and Adam Lanza had a gun, then clearly gun laws are pointless. The NRA and their ilk make a point of showing how weak, trivial gun laws are ineffective. They are hoping that will persuade people that gun laws don't work. But that really isn't the standard of comparison. The standard is very restrictive gun laws with teeth. Those laws actually work. Disarmament works.

Yet again you infer something that clearly was not there because it serves your point of view. I stated that Connecticut guns laws were broken By Mr. Lanza as is the case in most violent crimes involving the use of a firearm. Disarmament works only for some and then only to a point. Education works better when done effectively. I have owned guns for years. I have not harmed anyone. No one has stolen my guns to harm others. My neighbors know I am armed. It is a deterrent.

It's more than a supposition. If he were intent on committing a criminal act by flying a space shuttle into someone, he would have had a much harder time of it given the rarity of space shuttles. Rare things are, by their rarity, much less available to criminals. Making deadly things rare makes them less available to criminals. It is fairly straightforward math.

I suppose one could use the space shuttle as a weapon but it is unlikely. I do recall a group of middle eastern men used airplanes to do some damage a few years back. There are fewer airplanes in the world than guns. You are assuming a great deal here with your statements. You are assuming that if a criminal cannot get a gun easily then he will not get one at all. There is no information to support that statement. There are statistics that show in areas with very tight gun control laws in effect that crime is not abated. I know there are also statistics that seem the say somehow it does. That being the case I would think it is most probably a wash. There is no math here. It is all speculation. I must also remind everyone that Mr. Lanza was not considered a criminal prior to this incident.

My point is exactly that invasive government action is necessary, and ethical, and long overdue, and that guns should largely not be present in your country. In the past I've said that if the NRA wanted to start another civil war over it, I'd hope there would be enough people of character to oppose them with overwhelming government force. The status quo is not acceptable, it is not civilized, and any high price paid to definitively put your country on a different course is very likely a better bargain than the current idiocy. Nancy Lanza, a supposed law-abiding gun owner, and pathetically held up as a victim, supplied a gun to a murderer because she thought everyone including her idiot son has the right to bear arms. There should have been no weapons in that house for him to have access to, but Nancy in her "Second Amendment Delusion" didn't see it that way, and scores of children are dead as a result.

Massive government involvement, especially that which is by deadly force, is a cornerstone of communism. At least there are some that aren't afraid of admitting that they are communists. The problem with communist countries is that crime statistics are dubious at best. Crime isn't supposed to happen in these glorious realms. I think it akin to the "ignorance is bliss" mentality. Communism is not the ideology of those that think very much, thus the term, useful idiots, is permanently associated those that support such a complete failure of an idea. I think everyone knows where the idiocy lies. The last few statements aren't worthy of response. Again the children are referenced.

 

[itsmejeff]

It is actually very difficult to compare nations in regard to crime.

People tend to use nations like Switzerland as a point of comparison. Switzerland is a strongly homogeneous society with limited immigration (very few "undesirable" immigrants). Most of Europe is like that. Culturally, European states are more nationalistic and movement was not possible historically (it is now, but Europeans still hate each other). There is much less diversity. That goes beyond the Swiss as well. Nations like Finland, Norway, Denmark, and other supposed paradises are all societies that are composed of rich "whities."

Plus, there are theories that US violence, which most often occurs in the US south, is a result of European culture of "honor." Reputation and honor are considered to be more important in the south.

But, yeah, that is pretty much how it is. Claiming that other societies are somehow better is generally wrong. It only works if you support nationalism and elitist societies that hate everyone.

Lets take a look at other European countries with stronger gun control laws... where the crime rate is lower. Or Asian countries, like that of Japan. The homicide rate in America is shockingly high, and this is because of lax gun laws and gun culture. This is an unavoidable fact. Thanks, palemale for that link.

Except, [Text: Removed], crime rates (violent crime in particular) are higher in Europe than the are in the US. The US murders more, but even those rates are declining. Japan is a great example, too. Well, as long as you consider a society where rape and sexual assault is almost commonplace (Japan has specific words for various types of assault; "chikan" is public groping).

The reasons for crime are not simple though, so, again, direct comparisons are very difficult to make.

I think there should be a greater role for family members to contain people who are a danger to themselves or others. Subject to oversight and due process, but not the false presumption that liberty is automatically better for someone with crisis or chronic mental health issues.

Except, [Text: Removed], that most people who are mentally ill are not a threat to anyone. Those who are a threat are normally a threat to themselves (which should be accepted and allowed in all cases).

Your desire to strip freedom from people who may want to hurt themselves is sickening. I am planning my suicide now. Moral authoritarians like yourself make that very difficult. I cannot discuss it openly or kill myself in a clinical setting because society says that I have to live.

One has no right to harm others without their consent, but it is never unacceptable to harm oneself.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I didn't mean to imply that I assumed that it would stop all crime. I just don't think it would make a statistically significant difference.

Buzzer, you know I love ya', but I have to go study for immunology!!

Well statistically speaking these brutal mass killing sprees aren't that common, if you're reducing it to mere numbers. But psychologically and culturally they do have a great impact (for the negative) in our society and since they gain so much news coverage they act almost as a proxy for the issue in general of how many people in this country die needlessly from guns all the time. It's sad that it TAKES a kindergarten class being shot up to get our attention anymore, but the issue is as much about normal everyday people out there as it is about high profile shootings.

 

[HenryReardon]

. My ONLY conclusion from this is that gun ownership does not equal high gun violence.
Beyond that, gun control laws will have the effect of taking guns from law abiding people, but will be avoided by criminals. .

Which is precisely the point. I could have predicted the responses when I made the post this morning - have been out of town from then til now. It's too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel, really. These liberals who hate all things American can't resist posting their favorite talking points.

The truth of the matter is that while homicides from firearms are a bad thing, they aren't the catastrophe the gun nuts seem to think they are.

 

[HenryReardon]

People tend to use nations like Switzerland as a point of comparison. Switzerland is a strongly homogeneous society with limited immigration (very few "undesirable" immigrants). Most of Europe is like that.

Are you totally unaware of the huge problems that Germany, France, the UK and the Netherlands are having with their Muslim immigrants. Remember those riots in France? Immigration is a huge problem in Europe.

The UK is anything but homogeneous these days.