Gun Control

[NebraskaHarry]

The "mental health care" thing is a boondoggle. People lose their minds in every country, top-notch mental health care or not. The key factor is availability of guns. There are simply more guns in American than anywhere else, and it's not even close.

 

 

This is from Wikipedia and I believe these are 2007 numbers, but it's either the same today or America has pulled even further out in front.

 

Availability plays a MUCH greater role in gun deaths than mental health. Nutjobs are everywhere. Guns aren't.

It doesn't matter if it's a gun, or a knife, or a bat..................we shouldn't have to deal with nutbags in our society. I'll give you an example:

 

I had to deal with a lady that was completely bat $hit crazy, had no idea as they had just moved into the city. So I get called there one day on a "domestic disturbance" I show up there and try to deal with the problem. Eventually this lady decided to assault me, was taking to the ground fairly quickly by me, handcuffed, taken to the hospital and then jail. During my discussions with her it became painfully obvious she was completely gone, crazy, etc. There was zero reason a person like that should be in society, whether her meds bring her closer to center or not doesn't matter, she refuses to take them. We get called there several times over the next few months and finally ask for the state to intervene and get her some help. She's ordered to be held for mental health evaluation in one of the local hospitals. She's there for only 30 days....................

 

I get called back there a few months later and she's back, I ask why? Husband says that it's the hospitals policy to send these mental subjects back home to "see how they do." That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, she's just as crazy before and nevermind there is a court order in place that "forces" her to take her meds. I don't see anyone there from the courts or state "forcing" her to take those meds. I leave as this isn't a police matter and I'm not getting assaulted again.

 

There is zero reason law enforcement should be dealing with these nut cases. We aren't mental health professionals and we shouldn't have to be. Folks like this should be locked up in a mental health facility and that would help A LOT with the issues that society faces with crazy people on a daily basis. You're trying to use the access to guns issue as the core issue when it isn't, it comes down to mental health..............period. I'm not saying it may not be an issue, it might be and I'm all for tighten background checks up and things like that, but I'm not for taking guns away from people.

 

There are nutbags in every society. America doesn't have a monopoly on people who need mental health care. What we have is too many guns. The numbers are quite clear on that.

I think one could make the case that the death rate by guns compared to guns per resident is much lower in the US compared to many other countries. And if you take out suicides, the gap between the US and other countries is even greater. The problem is people are scared of guns more than they are of nut jobs.

[T_O_Bull]

The "mental health care" thing is a boondoggle. People lose their minds in every country, top-notch mental health care or not. The key factor is availability of guns. There are simply more guns in American than anywhere else, and it's not even close.

 

 

This is from Wikipedia and I believe these are 2007 numbers, but it's either the same today or America has pulled even further out in front.

 

Availability plays a MUCH greater role in gun deaths than mental health. Nutjobs are everywhere. Guns aren't.

It doesn't matter if it's a gun, or a knife, or a bat..................we shouldn't have to deal with nutbags in our society. I'll give you an example:

 

I had to deal with a lady that was completely bat $hit crazy, had no idea as they had just moved into the city. So I get called there one day on a "domestic disturbance" I show up there and try to deal with the problem. Eventually this lady decided to assault me, was taking to the ground fairly quickly by me, handcuffed, taken to the hospital and then jail. During my discussions with her it became painfully obvious she was completely gone, crazy, etc. There was zero reason a person like that should be in society, whether her meds bring her closer to center or not doesn't matter, she refuses to take them. We get called there several times over the next few months and finally ask for the state to intervene and get her some help. She's ordered to be held for mental health evaluation in one of the local hospitals. She's there for only 30 days....................

 

I get called back there a few months later and she's back, I ask why? Husband says that it's the hospitals policy to send these mental subjects back home to "see how they do." That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, she's just as crazy before and nevermind there is a court order in place that "forces" her to take her meds. I don't see anyone there from the courts or state "forcing" her to take those meds. I leave as this isn't a police matter and I'm not getting assaulted again.

 

There is zero reason law enforcement should be dealing with these nut cases. We aren't mental health professionals and we shouldn't have to be. Folks like this should be locked up in a mental health facility and that would help A LOT with the issues that society faces with crazy people on a daily basis. You're trying to use the access to guns issue as the core issue when it isn't, it comes down to mental health..............period. I'm not saying it may not be an issue, it might be and I'm all for tighten background checks up and things like that, but I'm not for taking guns away from people.

 

There are nutbags in every society. America doesn't have a monopoly on people who need mental health care. What we have is too many guns. The numbers are quite clear on that.

I would edit this to say, 'We have too many guns that are not necessary for public ownership.' When I returned from Nam I was walking thru a mall in San Diego ad went into a sporting goods/gun shop. I was totally put off by the fact that fully half of the merchandise was basically good for only one thing, killing other people. I found this to be obscene. I have no problem with weapons that ae used for hunting and even ok with those that wand a gun for home protection, although I have always felt that the best thing for home protection is a ball bat, you know something that won't send a projectile through 2 sheets of dry wall and into your kids bedroom. I gaurantee if some nutbag asults me or my family he will end up like the guy who tried to mug me in Florida last December, trying to swallow his nuts from his throut back down to his crotch.

T_O_B

[knapplc]

I think one could make the case that the death rate by guns compared to guns per resident is much lower in the US compared to many other countries. And if you take out suicides, the gap between the US and other countries is even greater. The problem is people are scared of guns more than they are of nut jobs.

 

If we're favorably comparing America to third-world countries like El Salvador and Honduras, that's a pretty weak argument. We're a first-world nation and we have gun deaths per capita similar to those of third-world countries - or exceeding those of third-world countries.

[carlfense]

I think one could make the case that the death rate by guns compared to guns per resident is much lower in the US compared to many other countries.

What would that argument show?

 

The problem is people are scared of guns more than they are of nut jobs.

I think that more people are scared of nut jobs with guns more than either separately.

[NebraskaHarry]

I think one could make the case that the death rate by guns compared to guns per resident is much lower in the US compared to many other countries.

What would that argument show?

 

The problem is people are scared of guns more than they are of nut jobs.

I think that more people are scared of nut jobs with guns more than either separately.

 

That even though the US has more gun owners per capita the death rate by guns is much lower in the US than many other countries who have a lower gun owner per capita.

 

I think that more people are scared of nut jobs with guns more than either separately.

 

I think if that were true we'd be having the same discussion about nut jobs with knives and hammers and the capability to make explosives.

[carlfense]

That even though the US has more gun owners per capita the death rate by guns is much lower in the US than many other countries who have a lower gun owner per capita.

Which would show . . . what?

 

I think if that were true we'd be having the same discussion about nut jobs with knives and hammers and the capability to make explosives.

Have there been a lot of mass stabbings/mass hammer-ings/mass bombings lately? They sure seem rare compared to mass shootings.

 

(Also, I sincerely hope that you don't believe the often repeated lie that more people are killed with baseball bats and hammers than guns . . .)

[The Dude]

Worked out for Brazil. I'm all in.

 

Worked out for England. Worked out for Australia.

Not really. Those places had virtually non-existent gun violence even before they decided to ban guns. Brazil had out-of-control gun violence before they decided to ban them, and they still do. It may have even exacerbated the problem.

 

You're taking a very complex set of issues and dumbing it down to more guns = more violence. Which isn't necessarily true, anyways.

[knapplc]

Worked out for Brazil. I'm all in.

 

Worked out for England. Worked out for Australia.

Not really. Those places had virtually non-existent gun violence even before they decided to ban guns. Brazil had out-of-control gun violence before they decided to ban them, and they still do. It may have even exacerbated the problem.

 

You're taking a very complex set of issues and dumbing it down to more guns = more violence. Which isn't necessarily true, anyways.

 

More guns = more gun violence. Less guns = less gun violence. Unequivocally true.

[NebraskaHarry]

That even though the US has more gun owners per capita the death rate by guns is much lower in the US than many other countries who have a lower gun owner per capita.

Which would show . . . what?

 

I think if that were true we'd be having the same discussion about nut jobs with knives and hammers and the capability to make explosives.

Have there been a lot of mass stabbings/mass hammer-ings/mass bombings lately? They sure seem rare compared to mass shootings.

 

(Also, I sincerely hope that you don't believe the often repeated lie that more people are killed with baseball bats and hammers than guns . . .)

 

Well I think it would show that gun control isn't going to necessarily reduce the number of gun related fatalities. In fact it may very well make it worse if we're willing to look at many countries who have implemented gun control. I'm not stating facts here, just my own opinion btw.

 

Are murders that happen in masses the only things worth talking about or something?

[Junior]

Worked out for Brazil. I'm all in.

 

Worked out for England. Worked out for Australia.

Not really. Those places had virtually non-existent gun violence even before they decided to ban guns.

 

That's really not true at all. As has been well documented post-Sandy Hook, Australia averaged one mass shooting per year until after a 1996 mass shooting, the government instituted new gun policies. The result has been 0 mass shootings since 1996 and a 59% decrease in gun violence in the following decade.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

[carlfense]

Brazil had out-of-control gun violence before they decided to ban them, and they still do. It may have even exacerbated the problem.

Brazil banned guns? What?

 

You're taking a very complex set of issues and dumbing it down to more guns = more violence. Which isn't necessarily true, anyways.

Agreed, in general. However, it's pretty difficult to argue with a straight face that fewer guns in the hands of criminals would not result in a reduction in gun violence.

[Junior]

That even though the US has more gun owners per capita the death rate by guns is much lower in the US than many other countries who have a lower gun owner per capita.

Which would show . . . what?

 

I think if that were true we'd be having the same discussion about nut jobs with knives and hammers and the capability to make explosives.

Have there been a lot of mass stabbings/mass hammer-ings/mass bombings lately? They sure seem rare compared to mass shootings.

 

(Also, I sincerely hope that you don't believe the often repeated lie that more people are killed with baseball bats and hammers than guns . . .)

 

Well I think it would show that gun control isn't going to necessarily reduce the number of gun related fatalities. In fact it may very well make it worse if we're willing to look at many countries who have implemented gun control. I'm not stating facts here, just my own opinion btw.

 

Are murders that happen in masses the only things worth talking about or something?

 

Well that simply flies in the face of ALL data that currently exists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0

 

 

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

[carlfense]

Are murders that happen in masses the only things worth talking about or something?

I'll answer as soon as you show me where someone has made that argument in this thread.

 

Straw man. You probably know that already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Noticing a pattern from multiple posters . . . emphasize that changing our laws wouldn't prevent all crime and therefore no changes should be made. Is this being pushed by the NRA or some other organization? It seems too consistently repeated to be random.)

[knapplc]

It's kinda-sorta a straw man, but why are we talking about gun control right now? Sandy Hook - yet another mass murder using guns.

[NebraskaHarry]

Are murders that happen in masses the only things worth talking about or something?

I'll answer as soon as you show me where someone has made that argument in this thread.

 

Straw man. (You probably know that already.)

You brought up mass murders.