Pro-gun myths busted

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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%?

[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]

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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[ParsedOut]

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.

Can someone be put on trial for suspicion of being mentally unstable? Is the sole purpose to limit/remove firearms rights or could there be further implications? Could they be sentenced to a mental hospital? Would this be public record and therefore limit job opportunities? I don't know man, if I had a cousin that reported I was mentally unstable because I have a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition (completely legal) does that mean I would be subject to a court witch hunt? It's always an easy thing to say "I want this to happen" but refuse to dive into the deep details and consequences of the minutiae. Not saying it's a lost cause but I am saying that I don't trust the people elected to make these decisions for me, but maybe that's why I'm a libertarian...I don't trust anyone who makes a living as a politician.

[CorvallisBMW]

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.

Are you going to have a trial for every single person who might or might not be mentally unstable? That's not anywhere near feasible...

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.

When did I EVER say that you shouldn't be able to own guns?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Can someone be put on trial for suspicion of being mentally unstable? Is the sole purpose to limit/remove firearms rights or could there be further implications? Could they be sentenced to a mental hospital? Would this be public record and therefore limit job opportunities? I don't know man, if I had a cousin that reported I was mentally unstable because I have a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition (completely legal) does that mean I would be subject to a court witch hunt? It's always an easy thing to say "I want this to happen" but refuse to dive into the deep details and consequences of the minutiae. Not saying it's a lost cause but I am saying that I don't trust the people elected to make these decisions for me, but maybe that's why I'm a libertarian...I don't trust anyone who makes a living as a politician.

I'm a Libertarian.
A number of states do have involuntary commitment laws... I haven't studied the minutiae of those, nor how they vary from state to state.

How I envision it working:
State law is passed giving people standing to bring suits like the following:
A plaintiff brings a suit naming a defendant he claims is a danger to society for a non-frivolous reason. Assuming it passes some basic tests like "does the plaintiff actually have any personal knowledge of or contact with the defendant", then the suit proceeds, otherwise it's thrown out and expunged. I'm on the fence about whether the plaintiff should cover the legal costs or not... He hasn't suffered damages, so he doesn't have standing to sue under tort law... and if he thinks the person is a legit danger, then he should throw down the cash. Are both sides entitled to public lawyers if they're both poor? IDK.
If the jury finds for the plaintiff, then the defendant is restricted in some way related to the complaint. If the jury finds for the defendant, the record is expunged.
It's something like a supercharged competency hearing. Maybe the defendant has the option for a hearing before a judge or a trial before a jury. I don't claim to know all the details.

Then the fun questions come along...
If the jury finds for the plaintiff and the defendant has guns, what happens to them? Required to sell them within a certain timeframe? If the government confiscates them, then they need to compensate the defendant for the loss.

If the defendant lives with someone who has guns, how does a finding against the defendant affect that person? The obvious case in point is that if a prospective mass-murderer is willing to kill his own mother for access to her guns, a government restriction wouldn't do anything to stop him and all the effort would have been wasted.
However, the government can't reasonably restrict the mother unless the plaintiff originally files his complaint against her.

The big idea is that there MUST be due process.

Are you going to have a trial for every single person who might or might not be mentally unstable? That's not anywhere near feasible...

Really? How many are we talking about? You must know that because you also know when robberies are going to be benign and when they're going to be violent.

When did I EVER say that you shouldn't be able to own guns?

You have not, so far in this thread, acknowledged that you think ANYONE has the right to own a weapon. You have instead gone on about how "some people" shouldn't be allowed to own guns and said that "reasonable restrictions" should be in place. This is the language used by people who don't want anyone to own a weapon.