Pro-gun myths busted

[Aleksey]

Never said there was but what are these rules and regulations on gun ownership going to do ? If one person wants to kill another, they will find a way. If some crazy person wants to do a mass killing, he will break into a home and steal one. If he can't get his hands on a gun, he can go the rout of mass murder by the use of pipe bombs or IED's that can be made by easy to find plans on the internet. The harder it's made to buy guns, the more home robberies of fire arms will go up. Gun store robberies will go up. Soon there will be as much profit in smuggling guns into the US as there is in drugs.

The only thing that will go up is blackmarket price on guns. Nobody is going to break into a freaking gun store or a gun owners house to get a gun.

There are enough guns on the street to arm ten armies. People will file them and sell at 1000x profit.

[ParsedOut]

Thanks for pointing that out.

My apologies to CorvallisBMW. I miss read the post.

Cheers,

Jim

You don't need to apologize to him, he's a flaming liberal. The libertarians take more offense. :D

[ParsedOut]

There are enough guns on the street to arm ten armies. People will file them and sell at 1000x profit.

True story, look at what pre-NFA firearms go for. $$$$$ Pre-ban mags and semi-auto rifles would sell for huge amounts of money...hmmm, who generally has huge amounts of money laying around and a need for guns?

[Dakotademon7]

The only thing that will go up is blackmarket price on guns. Nobody is going to break into a freaking gun store or a gun owners house to get a gun.

There are enough guns on the street to arm ten armies. People will file them and sell at 1000x profit.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/2014/01/26/gun-shop-rams-car-burglary/4916347/

You can find other story's with a Google search.

[The Dark Side of Will]

There are mentally disturbed people in every city in every country in the world.

Like Timothy McVey?

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

LOL.

First, you complain that mother jones made up the determination for what constitutes a mass killing for their analysis. I pointed out the FBI uses a similar definition but with a lower number for determining this distinction. And now you proceed to redefine it as you please.

What I said was that for the purposes of their diatribe, MJ conveniently defined a mass shooting so as to exclude the thing they were trying to say doesn't exist. Like the Brady foundation, they come as close to lying as they can without being so obvious that no one will believe them.

Furthermore, the author decided for this study that the definition is:

Obviously not very encompassing and done for a specific reason.

He's intentionally removing incidents (70% of his initial sample base) so that he can arrive at a foregone conclusion.

The author defined what he was looking for so that he would have data to work with. The FBI definition was inadequate for the data he wanted to examine. It's an unambiguous definition, but it does not rely on a number.
He excluded the things he excluded because they weren't the things he was looking at. He has definitions for his data set that are relevant to the question he was asking.
Mother Jones excluded attempted mass shootings in which fewer than 5 people were shot. They were working only with the set of attempted mass shootings in which 5 or more people were shot. Of course they don't state that outright.

You couldn't be arsed to cite your sources, so I had to go your source information.

I don't agree with the conclusion of the article and I don't think the study presents any meaningful conclusion because the data has been cherry picked to reach a particular conclusion.

Starting with a list of 100 events, it then whittled down to 29 incidents for determining that 14.3 vs 2.3 "statistic."

You wouldn't accept such poor standards if the conclusion was pro-gun control, so you shouldn't accept them here.

I linked the citation above.

You'd cheer exactly the same method if it showed a pro-gun control result.
He didn't cherry pick anything. There just aren't that many events to work with and you have to have the right data to analyze. If I'm graphing temperature, should I have wind speed in my data set?

The underlying question was one that required sample events that met specific criteria, and he had to work with events that met that criteria.

[The Dark Side of Will]

.

[CorvallisBMW]

LOL.

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?

[ParsedOut]

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?

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.

[Aleksey]

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/...glary/4916347/

You can find other story's with a Google search.

http://www.times-herald.com/local/20140213-AR-Bunker-suspect-arrested-W-mug-Dukes

http://mugshot-catalogs.com/booking/6333207/DOUGLAS-DUKES

He will be rotting in jail. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, people try to rob banks too.

Does not mean they walk away from it.

[Aleksey]

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.

You have a valid point that nobody will ever know if somebody has issues, but I want to point out (not trying to down play your issues) that pretty much everybody who goes to a doctor will get Xanax in America.

1 in 3 Americans are 'depressed' and are on some sort of medication.

This guy was actually (from what I read) on some heavy stuff and had a legit diagnosed asperger syndrome. Nothing close to Xanax.

But in a big picture, if he could not get a gun he would do something else.

People who choose to cross 'the line' will not go 'oh I can't get a gun, lets call it a day', he had a 4 ton vehicle at his disposal, could have stolen a truck, etc etc.

Shit will always happen, there are crazy and stupid people. They fail to evolve and function normally, we should not limit everything just to adapt to the needs of 0.1% of population.

This is how you end up with a nanny state that tells you what toilet paper you should be wiping with.

[deutschman]

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.

[Aleksey]

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

[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.

[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]

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.