more guns less crime

[tkhayes 348]

I never argued that this was the only solution, I only argued that it is part of the solution. I never argued that it would STOP any shootings, but it would reduce them "More guns LESS crime" is the title.

And the point of the mental health care is not to 'predict' who will become violent fer chrissake - it is to TREAT people with mental illness.

And three posts ago, the claim was made that mental health professionals are NOT advocating for this - so thanks for at least clamoring that they are in fact.

Quote

The only accurate predictor we have is that people who have been violent in the past are more likely to be violent in the future.

not necessarily true. The type of violence, that would likely be reduced DRAMATICALLY, by gun control, mental health care, access to firearms, whatever you want to call it would be the 'one-time-nut-job' who decides to kill his wife, spouse, kids, whatever.

THe lady who just killed her kids in Tampa was NOT a violent offender, is NOT a violent offender (well, she is now), and I expect that the event would never be repeated even if she was freed tomorrow.

Better mental health care for her and less access to a handgun might have prevented the tragedy.

One of the things that I have advocated for MANY times in the past was proper training and use of a firearm prior to being allowed to own one. And then ongoing training to maintain that status - kind of like a pilot's license.

I bet most of society (including that mom in Tampa) would not have bothered with it (too much hassle) and therefore she might not have had a gun in her purse at the ready. Whereas today, I can go to a gun show in Florida, do a CW permit in 2 hours and walk out with a handgun, legally allowed to carry it,

No it does not STOP gun crime, but it reduces the number of guns out there to the 'law abiding people who really want to carry them' instead of 'every person who has the RIGHT to carry them just because they have a small penis'

If there were no guns, then there could be no gun crime. I am not advocating no guns as a realistic solution, but it is still a fact. If there was only ONE gun in all of society, then there would likely be no gun crime either.

So somewhere between 0 guns and the millions and millions that are out there is a number that society can tolerate with an amount of gun crime that society can tolerate.

Society seems to be willing to tolerate the number of guns, but not the gun crime - so what are we going to do about that?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The type of violence, that would likely be reduced DRAMATICALLY, by gun control, mental health care, access to firearms, whatever you want to call it would be the 'one-time-nut-job' who decides to kill his wife, spouse, kids, whatever.

Opinion != fact.

Quote

Better mental health care for her and less access to a handgun might have prevented the tragedy.

Was she under care? Judged to be violent? If not, opinion != fact.

Quote

One of the things that I have advocated for MANY times in the past was proper training and use of a firearm prior to being allowed to own one. And then ongoing training to maintain that status - kind of like a pilot's license.

Then you have no problem with proper training and use of speech, or proper training and use of voting, and then ongoing training to maintain that status, right?

Quote

No it does not STOP gun crime, but it reduces the number of guns out there to the 'law abiding people who really want to carry them' instead of 'every person who has the RIGHT to carry them just because they have a small penis'

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - S. Freud

Thanks for proving you're just another lib gun grabber.

Quote

If there were no guns, then there could be no gun crime. I am not advocating no guns as a realistic solution, but it is still a fact.

That's an overly-simplistic wishing on a star argument.

Jamaica forbids gun ownership and has a firearm murder rate of 49.6/100k (2006) vs 3.04/100k for the US.

Quote

Society seems to be willing to tolerate the number of guns, but not the gun crime - so what are we going to do about that?

Demonize the tool for the action of the user and demonize legal owners of the tool, if your posting is any indicator.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[futuredivot 0]

could you try answering the original question?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I never argued that this was the only solution, I only argued that it is part of the solution. I never argued that it would STOP any shootings, but it would reduce them "More guns LESS crime" is the title.

And the point of the mental health care is not to 'predict' who will become violent fer chrissake - it is to TREAT people with mental illness.

Yes, the point of mental health care is to treat people with mental illness. There is a lot of money that is poured into that system every year. For some people it is a good system and works very well. For others there are holes and gaps. Overall there is quite a lot of mental health care available for those who choose to utilize it. I only said that we are not very good at predicting who will become violent because it seems germane to the discussion of prevening people from committing gun violence. Of course, if we could predict accurately who would become violent as a result of mental illness it would be an easy problem to solve. We would simply prohibit those people from owning guns and allow other people with mental illness their constitutional rights. As it is there is not an easy solution for preventing gun violence by people with mental illness--we have some restrictions but not all people who are going to become violent fall under these restrictions (judged incompetent, involuntary commitment). The only other solution seems to be to systematically prevent an entire class of people from exercising their civil liberties. I am not convinced that is a constitutional or a good solution.

Quote

Quote

The only accurate predictor we have is that people who have been violent in the past are more likely to be violent in the future.

not necessarily true. The type of violence, that would likely be reduced DRAMATICALLY, by gun control, mental health care, access to firearms, whatever you want to call it would be the 'one-time-nut-job' who decides to kill his wife, spouse, kids, whatever.

THe lady who just killed her kids in Tampa was NOT a violent offender, is NOT a violent offender (well, she is now), and I expect that the event would never be repeated even if she was freed tomorrow.

Better mental health care for her and less access to a handgun might have prevented the tragedy.

I have not seen anything that indicates the woman in Tampa was seeking or was denied mental health treatment. I don't know, maybe she was. I do not see how more mental health treatment is going to prevent one-off gun violence. I would guess that most people who are one-off violent offenders are not seeking mental health treatment. Short of forcing mental health evaluations on everybody (and again, they are not very accurate) I see no practical way to evaluate every potential person. If a person is in the system, and displays either through words or actions that they are a threat to themselves or others, they should indeed be restricted in their freedoms. I don't see how you can restrict freedoms in the absence of that. I really am not addressing access to handguns (although I know other people are in this thread). I just don't know what would justify treating this woman in Tampa differently from anybody else. Of course facts are thin this early, so maybe it will turn out in support of your argument.

Quote

One of the things that I have advocated for MANY times in the past was proper training and use of a firearm prior to being allowed to own one. And then ongoing training to maintain that status - kind of like a pilot's license.

I bet most of society (including that mom in Tampa) would not have bothered with it (too much hassle) and therefore she might not have had a gun in her purse at the ready. Whereas today, I can go to a gun show in Florida, do a CW permit in 2 hours and walk out with a handgun, legally allowed to carry it,

Again, I'm primarily interested in the mental health system. I would just say that in my state there are no restrictions on having a gun but you do have to pass a course to get a concealed weapons permit. I don't really have a problem with that. Of course you can open carry without a permit here.




Hope you don't mind I chopped up your post a bit so I could reply to the most relevant parts. I tried not to distort or dismiss any of your arguments.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I never argued that it would STOP any shootings, but it would reduce them "More guns LESS crime" is the title.
...
not necessarily true. The type of violence, that would likely be reduced DRAMATICALLY, by gun control, mental health care, access to firearms, whatever you want to call it would be the 'one-time-nut-job' who decides to kill his wife, spouse, kids, whatever.

such wild waffling within a single post, and within a single sentence! 'It won't stop any, but it will reduce them?' Followed by it will DRAMATICALLY reduce them.

You'd write great copy for the global warming crowd (either side).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Mental Health organizations ARE fighting for more action:
http://capwiz.com/nami/issues/alert/?alertid=22427516

http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=A4E57EA7-1372-4D20-C8B17D1418D1D85B

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp96145.pdf
took me 4 minutes to find dozens of articles and various mental health and psychiatric associations that have issues with mental health and gun 'control'.

Most of them advocate better mental health care - not necessarily restricting the gun laws further and further to 'blacklist' potential nut-bars from buying guns - which you seem to advocate would be the only way to solve the problem.

These are professional organizations with well-respected credentials. Perhaps we should listen to them.

Were you hoping no one would actually click on the url's you provide? Let me give you a hint - debate in this forum will include your citations being scrutinized. You'll need to do more than just run google, post the first hits, and think you've made an argument.

Your first listing was a form letter to Congress advocating that mental health care is important.

The second was a poll by USA Today where 15% suggested better mental screening might have prevented it.

The third is a psychology paper that investigates why social outcasts become aggressive.

None of these are a proposal by mental health to do screenings to prevent shootings. Or remotely close.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

Mental Health organizations ARE fighting for more action:
http://capwiz.com/nami/issues/alert/?alertid=22427516

http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=A4E57EA7-1372-4D20-C8B17D1418D1D85B

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp96145.pdf
took me 4 minutes to find dozens of articles and various mental health and psychiatric associations that have issues with mental health and gun 'control'.

Most of them advocate better mental health care - not necessarily restricting the gun laws further and further to 'blacklist' potential nut-bars from buying guns - which you seem to advocate would be the only way to solve the problem.

These are professional organizations with well-respected credentials. Perhaps we should listen to them.

Were you hoping no one would actually click on the url's you provide? Let me give you a hint - debate in this forum will include your citations being scrutinized. You'll need to do more than just run google, post the first hits, and think you've made an argument.

Your first listing was a form letter to Congress advocating that mental health care is important.

The second was a poll by USA Today where 15% suggested better mental screening might have prevented it.

The third is a psychology paper that investigates why social outcasts become aggressive.

None of these are a proposal by mental health to do screenings to prevent shootings. Or remotely close.

Actually conducting background checks would be a good place to start.

edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/31/new.york.gun.bloomberg/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually conducting background checks would be a good place to start.

edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/31/new.york.gun.bloomberg/

bit off the topic, no? But sure, we can talk about the practice of private sales. Though note that while this sting by one state in another state (WTF?) doesn't say as much as you think it does.

someone that truly knows he won't pass a background check is unlikely to offer the information, or try to buy one that way in the first place. They have other methods for purchasing guns. And we've already covered that fact - gun shows are not remotely the primary source.

Feel free to harp on states that don't properly record events that are purchasing disqualifiers. While you're at it, why not harp on the fact that virtually no one that fails a background check is ever prosecuted. This was true during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and likely hasn't changed with the current one.

Meanwhile, let's see if TK can do some better googling.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I have not seen anything that indicates the woman in Tampa was seeking or was denied mental health treatment.

Just replying to myself because I read this over lunch (paraphrasing from the article). The woman's (shooter's) mother had apparently called police sometime in the last few days because she had received some worrying texts and or e-mails indicating that the woman was suffering from depression.


It is impossible to really make any conclusions without knowing the contents of those e-mails and what exactly the mother. Presumably they were pretty alarming if she was calling the police about them. Be interesting to see if more information is released.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

One case where more guns did nothing to lessen the crime from happening.

Are you are trying to claim that the officers returning fire and killing the suspect didn't stop the suspect from killing more people?

Fail.

Compare this shooting to the last unarmed area killings for body count. Say look at VT where Cho killed 32 people and injured 25. Ft. Hood the suspect killed 13 and injured 30, AZ the shooter killed 6 and injured 13 .

This police station shooting had 0 dead, and 3 wounded

0 < any of the above.

While the Detroit shooting is a tragedy.... It actually proves that when a crazy starts shooting that the innocent death count is less when the targets are armed.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

NO guns would stop gun crime.

Yes, but unless you have a magic wand... That will never happen.

Look at prohibition.... didn't work.

Look at banning drugs.... does not work.

Look at banning drunk driving.... People still do it.

Look at banning killing.... Does not stop it.

Look at banning guns.... Criminals still get and use them.

So you might as well just make murder "double illegal". It will have the same effect.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So you might as well just make murder "double illegal". It will have the same effect.

oooo - that's a good idea, it appeals emotionally to me as something we should do because stopping murder is 'very important'. I'll write my congressmen.

for the children

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I am spoofing the argument of more guns = less crime given the example I cited and I stand by that argument

And you are wrong. We always say less crime... Not NO crime.

Shooting someone is a crime, but Murder is also a crime. In the police shootings, no one died. So there was less crimes being committed since the police killed the attacker before he could kill them or shoot more people.

You just keep proving OUR point with every post.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I bet the insurance company knows just how many people out there need mental health care.....

How about you answer the question he asked?

"Then why didn't the insurance company know he was going to flip out and shoot people? "

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Magazines should be limited to ten rounds. Ban assault rifles.

1. Why do you get to decide what is allowed?

2. You do know that the Second was not to protect the right to hunt?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The fact that businesses cannot afford to buy health care for their employees is actually the PROBLEM, not an excuse to avoid the SOLUTION.....

Your company had over 100k stolen from it without you even knowing. That 100k could have paid for HC for your handful of employees.

You just choose not to do it.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

ooh ooh!! Another one!!

Glad you take such glee in the murder of two children

The fact is this woman waited 5 days and used a revolver.

So two anti gun pushes failed there..... Mandatory wait period, and capacity limit.

You just keep proving your own positions to be wrong.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

I bet the insurance company knows just how many people out there need mental health care.....

Insurance companies only know an individual needs mental health treatment when the individual takes one of a number of steps:

1. Calls to request pre-authorization of treatment
2. Presents to a mental health professional.

They would be able to produce fairly good population statistics on the overall incidence of need but would not be able to tell about any one individual.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Magazines should be limited to ten rounds. Ban assault rifles.

1. Why do you get to decide what is allowed?

2. You do know that the Second was not to protect the right to hunt?

I asked one of these banners a question earlier in the thread

Which gun is more deadly

An AR15 "assult" rifle chambered in the .223 with a 10 round mag or
A Browning BAR sporting rifle chambered in a 30.06 with the same mag

Never got an answer

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Magazines should be limited to ten rounds. Ban assault rifles.

1. Why do you get to decide what is allowed?

2. You do know that the Second was not to protect the right to hunt?

I guess 10 people shot is ok, but 11 is right out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[normiss 806]

Now that's just a silly comment.
How do you know what the stolen money would have been spent on?

They did know, once seen, it was reported to the authorities.
Can you mind read a thief to know when they are stealing???

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Now that's just a silly comment.
How do you know what the stolen money would have been spent on?

The point is he had over 140K stolen from his business in 2009. Yet he is claiming he could not provide coverage. 140K would have provided coverage to his handful of employees.

Quote

They did know, once seen, it was reported to the authorities.
Can you mind read a thief to know when they are stealing???

The point is that he is claiming he could not provide something, yet he had 140K missing and didn't notice till the accountant caught it almost a year later.

So, misplacing 140k and claiming to not be able to provide coverage does not make sense when you are running an 8m dollar company.

He CHOOSES not to do it.... fine. But then he should not complain that he could not.

[DaVinci 0]

They should all be forced to watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

Especially at the 5:50 mark on.

[normiss 806]

You really need to understand the details of a sneak theft when the paperwork didn't show it. Accounting methods and review methods might also help.
If I'm not mistaken, SDC doesn't technically have employees for that matter. As a 1099 contractor, I've never been offered benefits nor have I questioned how a business owner decides to spend THEIR money.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

They should all be forced to watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

Especially at the 5:50 mark on.

Good video

I did not have time to go through it all but
if it did not do this
I wish it would should the energy difference between a 30.06 or a 7mm Winmag compared to a .223

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln