Pro-gun myths busted

[The Dark Side of Will]

There would need to be a defined set of criteria that determines if someone is a risk to themselves or others. The opinion from a biased judge (all people have their biases) of what someone "might" do or "capable" of doing is not sufficient to strip someone of their constitutional rights. While I agree that it's a step in the right direction to have these discussions, it's also a slippery slope when we start handing off our rights to the fate of a judge when no wrong doing has been done. You will respond, "Let's just wait until they kill people then?", well without totally turning our due process entirely upside down...it's not that easy.

Easy answer: It should be the hands of a jury, not just a judge. If 12 people hear the arguments fro BOTH SIDES and come to the conclusion that the guy's a fruit loop, it's a pretty obvious case.

But the mechanisms have to be in place in State law first.

[The Dark Side of Will]

No. Just no. The government is NOT actively trying to do that, and Dianne Feinstein never said that 100% off all veterans have PTSD. Just stop, you're making yourself look like a raving idiot.

I'll take back the PTSD comment, but Feinstein and Obama absolutely want to take guns out of the hands of the American people. They're on public record saying so.

I'd rather have twice the home robberies and half the gun homicides, thanks. What about you? Would you rather be killed, or have your home broken in to?

I'd rather be able to protect myself when it happens to me.
I think it's pretty arrogant of you to try to make that decision (that I shouldn't be able to have a gun) for me. It's completely naive of you to think that restrictions on the legal possession of guns stops their use in crime.

Muggings and robberies only steal things, and things can be replaced. They're just stuff. Lives cannot be replaced. So if the choice is between violent crime and non-violent crime, I'd much rather have more of the latter and less of the former.

How do you *KNOW* ahead of time which events turn violent and which don't?

If I'm in such an event, I will *NOT* take the risk that the guy just wants my TV and doesn't want to kill, maim or permanently injure me, rape my wife/girlfriend, etc.

A severe beating can leave someone with enough brain damage that they can't make a living doing anything but mopping floors for the rest of their lives. I make my living with my brain now and would rather kill than be in that situation.

And once more... if I'm in that situation, I have no way of knowing a-priori whether it's going to be a beating that turns me into a mouth breather or leaves me dead in the gutter. There's a very slim difference.... and I will *NOT* take that risk.

[ParsedOut]

Please read this, you'll find the answer in here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...bates/9647671/

There would need to be a defined set of criteria that determines if someone is a risk to themselves or others. The opinion from a biased judge (all people have their biases) of what someone "might" do or "capable" of doing is not sufficient to strip someone of their constitutional rights. While I agree that it's a step in the right direction to have these discussions, it's also a slippery slope when we start handing off our rights to the fate of a judge when no wrong doing has been done. You will respond, "Let's just wait until they kill people then?", well without totally turning our due process entirely upside down...it's not that easy.

[CorvallisBMW]

Because the Federal government is actively trying to use the slightest shred of "mental illness" to deprive people of their rights. See DiFi's quote declaring that all returning veterans are suffering from PTSD, which is obvious bullshit. I bet she's not qualified to practice psychiatry, either.

No. Just no. The government is NOT actively trying to do that, and Dianne Feinstein never said that 100% off all veterans have PTSD. Just stop, you're making yourself look like a raving idiot.

More guns, less *crime* (of which gun violence is only a small subset). Like I said, the US is better than the rest of the developed world for non-fatal violent crime. Why? People can protect themselves. Even though only 2% of the population carries, would you want to take the chance that the mark you're trying to mug is one of that 2%? Would you want to take the chance that the house you want to break into is one of the 34%?

I'd rather have twice the home robberies and half the gun homicides, thanks. What about you? Would you rather be killed, or have your home broken in to? Muggings and robberies only steal things, and things can be replaced. They're just stuff. Lives cannot be replaced. So if the choice is between violent crime and non-violent crime, I'd much rather have more of the latter and less of the former.

So, of all the recent mass shooters, do they fall under what the APA and NAMI consider mentally ill? How could they have been identified as mentally ill and then placed in a database restricting their ability to purchase firearms? Would this have even stopped them?

Please read this, you'll find the answer in here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...bates/9647671/

[ParsedOut]

I'm not a psychiatrist or a mental health practitioner, so obviously I'm not qualified to make those calls. But the people who are qualified, people who run things like the American Psychiatric Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, don't consider those to be mental illnesses, and neither does anyone else. So you I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up.

So, of all the recent mass shooters, do they fall under what the APA and NAMI consider mentally ill? How could they have been identified as mentally ill and then placed in a database restricting their ability to purchase firearms? Would this have even stopped them?

[The Dark Side of Will]

The difference between the US and every other country is that we give them assault rifles.

OBTW...

of ~8500 murders with firearms in 2011...


About 300 were committed with rifles.

Rifles aren't "the problem"

"Assault rifles" are illegal for public possession ANYWAY due to automatic fire capability and the fact that they are purchased on government contracts and must be disposed of in particular ways.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

[z31maniac]

Would you want to take the chance that the house you want to break into is one of the 34%?

And this is why nearly every single robbery happens when people aren't home. "Home invasion" or robbery with the occupants in the home are very, very rare compared to how many houses are broken into during the day when the occupants are at work.

*I worked theft claims for State Farm for nearly 2 years.*

[The Dark Side of Will]

I'm not a psychiatrist or a mental health practitioner, so obviously I'm not qualified to make those calls. But the people who are qualified, people who run things like the American Psychiatric Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, don't consider those to be mental illnesses, and neither does anyone else. So you I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up.

Because the Federal government is actively trying to use the slightest shred of "mental illness" to deprive people of their rights. See DiFi's quote declaring that all returning veterans are suffering from PTSD, which is obvious bullshit. I bet she's not qualified to practice psychiatry, either.

So we can only do something after they've shot up a school? seems like a great plan.

Didn't say that. You obviously didn't read my other post about involuntary commitment laws. A day in court could be a competency hearing, for example.

If you bothered to read the original article I posted, it says very clearly that the US gun ownership rate is 34%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

Sweeet... so the real number's more like 40% ;)

And yes, it is far, far higher than any other country in the developed world. And what do we have to show for it? Far, far higher rates of gun violence. I don't know how much more cut-and-dry proof you need that more guns does not mean less gun violence, it means the exact opposite. The more people that have guns, and the more guns you have floating around in the environment, the more they will be picked up and used.

More guns, less *crime* (of which gun violence is only a small subset). Like I said, the US is better than the rest of the developed world for non-fatal violent crime. Why? People can protect themselves. Even though only 2% of the population carries, would you want to take the chance that the mark you're trying to mug is one of that 2%? Would you want to take the chance that the house you want to break into is one of the 34%?

[CorvallisBMW]

So I'm curious what your definition of mentally ill is.

Had a bout of depression 10 years ago.
Prescribed Xanex by her doctor because she had what she described as a panic attack on an airplane.
Wrote a "dark" poem (ala Edgar Allan Poe) and posted it to their personal blog.
Currently seeing a psychiatrist, no further details as per patient confidentiality. Could be in attempt to address some lingering mommy/daddy issues or could be due to feelings of extreme despair.
Plays 10 hours a day of GTA5.

These are all hypotheticals but where do YOU draw the line? How do you purpose we implement a system of tracking these mentally ill people without completely blowing patient/doctor confidentiality. What if the mentally ill do not visit a doctor, how do you pick them out of a crowd and add them to said database? Do we take the word of family, friends, neighbors that an individual is mentally disturbed? How do you confirm that this person is a danger to themselves or others?

The answer is SOOOOO easy for you, yet you fail to provide any real answers other than we shouldn't "give assault rifles to the mentally ill". How do we do that? Please share, if there is a way, I'm all ears.

I'm not a psychiatrist or a mental health practitioner, so obviously I'm not qualified to make those calls. But the people who are qualified, people who run things like the American Psychiatric Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, don't consider those to be mental illnesses, and neither does anyone else. So you I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up.

I personally think the problem in our lovely country is the people and the culture. .

Exactly; the GUN culture. We tell our kids 'guns are cool, they're awesome, you should own lots of guns and love guns because guns are the answer to everything. Guns will protect you, they solve problems, they are your best friend and absolutely indispensable.'

So is it any surprise that when some kid goes off the deep end, his/her first reaction is to grab a gun and start using it? The more comfortable people are with something, the more likely they are to do it. It's pure human nature.

The Constitutional answer is "due process". They have to get a day in court before they're "added to the database".

So we can only do something after they've shot up a school? seems like a great plan.

What are the rates of gun ownership in those countries?
It's hard to say exactly what the rate of gun ownership in the US is (which is a GOOD thing), but the estimates I've seen put it close to 30%... I was under the impression that's far higher than any other country in the developed world.

If you bothered to read the original article I posted, it says very clearly that the US gun ownership rate is 34%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

And yes, it is far, far higher than any other country in the developed world. And what do we have to show for it? Far, far higher rates of gun violence. I don't know how much more cut-and-dry proof you need that more guns does not mean less gun violence, it means the exact opposite. The more people that have guns, and the more guns you have floating around in the environment, the more they will be picked up and used.

[Ether-D]

I like guns. I grew up in a house with guns in it, it was assumed that all our neighbours had guns as well. While I don't really believe in carrying sidearms around I'm not 'afraid' of guns in general and I think that the laws here are obviously doing something. Would I like to own a semi auto AK based rifle or shotgun? Hell yeah! Am I mad that I can't because of the gun laws? Not really.

As someone who grew up around, handling and being taught about guns (My Christmas present when I was 12 was a rifle), I feel as though I have a respect for firearms but not some sort of worship for them as it seems many that are labeled as 'gun nuts' do.

^This.

[Roysneon]

Ok this is what pisses me off.
Look at other countries that have lots of gun ownership, and have NO WHERE near, if any, of the gun crime and mass killings we do. Iceland, Norway, and many more.
Why can those people own the same guns we own, and not have the same violent mass killings? Why?
Although I agree guns make it WAY easier to kill more people in a small amount of time, I dont think they are the real problem. Any of the nut jobs that killed people in schools, movie theaters, or where have you would have done their evil with or with out a gun. Mass stabbings are HUGE in China, and there have been a few mass stabbing incidents in Canada as well.
I personally think the problem in our lovely country is the people and the culture. No one wants to admit it, but thats got to be it. People are slipping through the cracks. Dont know if its our healthcare/metal health system, school system, some other system, or all of them combined.

As an outsider, from what I know, I have to make the same assumption.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Ok this is what pisses me off.
Look at other countries that have lots of gun ownership, and have NO WHERE near, if any, of the gun crime and mass killings we do. Iceland, Norway, and many more.

What are the rates of gun ownership in those countries?
It's hard to say exactly what the rate of gun ownership in the US is (which is a GOOD thing), but the estimates I've seen put it close to 30%... I was under the impression that's far higher than any other country in the developed world.

[The Dark Side of Will]

These are all hypotheticals but where do YOU draw the line? How do you purpose we implement a system of tracking these mentally ill people without completely blowing patient/doctor confidentiality. What if the mentally ill do not visit a doctor, how do you pick them out of a crowd and add them to said database? Do we take the word of family, friends, neighbors that an individual is mentally disturbed? How do you confirm that this person is a danger to themselves or others?

The answer is SOOOOO easy for you, yet you fail to provide any real answers other than we shouldn't "give assault rifles to the mentally ill". How do we do that? Please share, if there is a way, I'm all ears.

The Constitutional answer is "due process". They have to get a day in court before they're "added to the database".

[The Dark Side of Will]

I'm sorry, did you have something intelligent to say, perhaps a rational reason as to why you think we should be giving mentally ill people assault rifles? Or are you just dumb?

Your complete ignorance of what an assault rifle is.

I'm not giving anyone a gun. They're expensive. If someone wants to go buy one, that's fine. If someone's ill enough that they're a danger to themselves or others, then they need a day in court before their rights are restricted.

If you were actually interested in research, you might look into the relationship between the strength of involuntary commitment laws and gun violence, state-by-state.

[Aleksey]

I personally think the problem in our lovely country is the people and the culture.