UK:
Well, I found it interesting …
So, which mental illnesses would lead to these individuals having the right to bear arms taken away, and why?
At what point would they lose these rights and could they ever get them back? For instance, most mental illnesses wax and wane over time, and for some, they never recur. Would any history of any mental illness, no matter how long ago, count?
How many firearms murders are committed by someone with a mental illness? How many of those people would have had any record of having sought mental health services?
How is this registry of mental illnesses going to be assembled and maintained?
Will I have to report all the individuals I see and the diagnoses of mental illness that I make to this government registry?
Do you think this will have a chilling effect on mental health service seeking?
More guns, more homicides, holds true generally too.
Statistics have little effect on perception of crime.
Gun control laws are correlated to fewer murders here
You’re comparing two disparate figures here, which is the reason for the supposed disconnect. The analogy to mass murders would be mass drownings and mass falling off ladders. I’d support an investigation into pool safety if mass drownings occurred with some regularity and I’d advocate adding security features, if possible. As it happens, there were 3308 drownings in the US during 2004 and 29569 gun related deaths.
Do you have a cite for that? If this were true, one would expect a correlation between gun ownership per capita and lifespan.
Two wrongs fallacy. That said, particularly easy to address. I support the right of an individual to damage their own health in whichever exciting ways they see fit, but think that right ends when they put others in danger without their consent. There are numerous restrictions on where and when people may consume alcohol and I have no problem with similar restrictions on gun ownership.
Or, possibly, explosives and the components which constitute them are monitored more closely by intelligence forces. When explosives fail, they often do so spectacularly, whereas guns are less liable not to go off. There’s nothing similar to a gun range or weapons store for explosives enthusiasts, as far as I’m aware.
I’m not sure which null hypothesis you’re referring to, but I’d like to see cites. I don’t disagree that the US has less crime on average, I just want to look at the methodology of data correction to see whether a link between gun ownership and lower crime rates can be forwarded.
Like napalm?
Oh, for fuck’s sake. How about we wait till the bodies are cold to have another pointless gun bickering thread?
At this rate of killing, you might have to wait a while.
So exactly what is the waiting period before discussions can be had?
I’ve seen a guy on this board say they he’s perfectly fine with having an occasional mass shooting so that he can maintain the right to have an infinitesimal chance of saving his wife with his gun. That’s seriously fucked. Until the gun nuts show some signs of being reasonable, I see no point in being reasonable in return. Therefore my starting poing in negotiations has to be banning all private ownership of guns. As to what I would settle for- it would be banning of all assault weapons (defined as being able to shoot X rounds in Y seconds, X and Y to be determined, registration of all firearms and all transfers of ownership much like there is for vehicles, collection of a ballistic sample from all firearms, limits on the numbers of guns a person can own, and limitations on the types of bullets that can be sold. But if the NRA thinks any regulation is unacceptable, I say fuck 'em, let’s ban them all.
Too soon, eh?
Could you be more specific? Did you mean the bodies as the Sihk temple, the bodies at the Colorado theater, or the approximately 690 bodies from firearms murders across the country that occured in the three weeks in between?
Indeed, it’s your entire posting philosophy on any subject. I’m sure gonzomax would be very pleased to know that someone still carries the torch.
What, exactly, are you negotiating with? Pocket lint?
You can have one as soon as you like. Just don’t do it in this thread.
This thread is about the Sikh gurdwara shootings in Wisconsin.
No. Hell no.
Sweeping the problem of gun deaths under the carpet for a time because of another massacre is not that bright.
Get back to us when you are able to place a moratorium on gun deaths.
Thank you! That’s one of the nicest things anyone ever said to me here. Gonzomax was a brilliant poster and on the right side of virtually every issue.
“Was”? Oh, wait, I’m confusing him with Ralph.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. Yes, that incident was horrific. I feel terrible for those people and their loss.
Whoever could have foreseen that something like that could ever happen?
It’s sadly ironic that both Sikhs and gun nuts are adamant about carrying weapons – knives for one and guns for the other.
Case closed.
The GD thread has also turned into a gun debate. Fuck.
Wait, what? Evidence is irrelevant to that kind of question; perhaps you mean “argument” or “authority.”
So what!?
I’m not a gun owner, but still feel people have the right to own guns, (for now). I still understand why it’s a hot topic in conversations like these. What do you expect?
If only there was some way to make my expectations clear, so people didn’t have to go around guessing. Oh, wait, what’s this?