Guns + Mental Illness Question

Actually the 4th has multiple references to "Legal" owners and "CCW Holders" and the crime rates associated with both.

Why shouldn't a child have access to a firearm? If they can pass a firearm safety course why not? The constitution applies to everyone, not just the majority.

 

Cure them with death and don't worry about the rest. Would Hippocrates approve?

 

A mentally stable person can momentarily have his mind snap and reach for a gun. A law abiding citizen in a matter of seconds will no longer be a law abiding citizen when he becomes outraged and fires a gun at another.

 

and if you read my statements, you'll see what I'm stating applies equally to them... thats why I keep bringing this information up for people to digest... and when I furthered upon that information...and demonstrated that when you compare "attempts" at murder, not just the results, they are almost equally as violent as any large american city... the major difference is the delivery method for the attempted murder is less lethal, and medical providers are able to save lives as a result... its not that they are less violent than americans, they are just as violent, but the methods in which they attempts murder are easier to mend with medical attention...

I would think people who are jumping all over me screaming "this is a gun thread" would look at what I just said, and say, holy cow he just proved guns are a huge issue, by demonstrating the lethality of them... instead people want to take this as me defending guns... I don't understand your wacky logics when someone gives you the proof you could use to support your arguments... just because I package it as "they are just as violent, but less lethal" doesn't mean this proves you're wrong... this proves you're right! why do you and others keep thinking so narrow minded? expand the picture, I get it, its about guns, great, I just gave a HUGE critical factor of data to be used in relation to the guns... just because I also demonstrated, they're still monsters who choose to attempt murder another way, does not negate the information inaccurate, unwarranted, or not critical to this VERY discussion...

do you get it?

P.S. my goal isn't to say guns are good or bad... my goal is to explain WHY people do what they do... you know, the psychology behind it... not just a caveman style response "fire good"... understanding who does things, why they do it, and how that works out in society to identify the true causes and solutions...

 

I have a friend who is a U.S. citizen but has spent lots of time in Canada (BC). He contends that Canada gets much better bang for the buck for the taxes that they pay. They don't have the amount of institutional corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse that we do. I have done some reading on the Canadian education system. Education is run at the provincial level; there is no national Department of Education as there is in the US. They spend less per pupil than we do and are generally in the top 10 or so in PISA rankings. The US spends the most (per pupil) of any nation except the Swiss, and generally ranks in the mid-twenties, so we are well behind in performance.

I don't know anything about the Canadian mental health care system, but it would not be a shock if it is leaps and bounds better than the execrable mental health care system that we have here in the US.

 

Maybe you don not realize the problem all comes back to an unconstitutional government. We need to be unified to fix that. What is the matter? Why not agree with these fundamental American principles?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

I would assume neither of you has ever sued government. I have tried, and found massive injustice, collusion and conspiracy with media to coverup the fact of the law suit.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

The lawsuit was about a mental health care treatment that could end mass murders.

Maybe you don't realize that the killers most often do not want to kill, they do not want to die themselves. But , because psychology is so negligent, and our unconstitutional courts assure that psychology will never be able to provide effective mental health care, the murderous mentally ill REFUSE to go to psychologists.

NOW, if government and courts were not corrupt, and media was not colluding to secure that corruption, psychology would be enabled to start treating the unconscious directly. After a short period of time, the benefits of this will be news worthy and the public will know that effective mental health care is a reality. At that point people with mental problems will feel differently about seeking help.

With your mentality, we will suffer under tyrannical government and have constant mental illness around us.

 

Cure? Kill or Cure? That's what you got out of it?

 

In Indiana, you are more likely to be shot by a white meth dealer than a black gang member.

 

Let's see the per capita stats on that claim. Or are you relying on the tried and true "there are more whites, so they are a bigger threat!" argument?

 

i hear in indiana you're also less likely to be eaten by sharks

 

How did I change anything with the two examples met the statement's intent. Both examples had on nationality fighting another nationality within the 1000 year time frame.

 

Because children do not have the mental discipline to use that firearm in an adult like manner. The Constitution also provides that public safety is also a concern with allowing rights under the Constitution. That is why "yelling fire in a crowded room" is not deemed free speech. Allowing children to own and possess firearms is another example.

 

First of all, it is myopic to only look at "gun homicides" (as if victims of homicides unrelated to firearms are any less dead). Thus, if we look at Canada's overall homicide rate, it is 1.6 per 100,000 (compared to 4.7 per 100,000 in the USA). As you know, the USA is not a monolithic country: Rather, it is a diverse nation with 50 states, each with their own laws regarding firearms. Some of the safest states in the USA, (e.g. Utah, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont) have very lax gun laws, and their homicide rates are statistically no different than the homicide rates in Canada (1.7 per 100,000 in Utah, 1.4 per 100,000 in New Hampshire, 1.45 per 100,000 in Vermont, 1.5 in Iowa).

In conclusion, there are many reasons why countries have different murder rates (such as differences in gang populations, recidivism rates, socioeconomic factors, drug-addiction rates, criminal-legal system differences, mental-health system differences, etc) that are unrelated to legal gun-ownership rates. After all, why are some of our safest states the ones with the most lax gun-control laws?

 

why don't you create a specific thread to deal with your proposed topic, that would probably be better than derailing another thread for a separate discussion, and it would probably be better suited and appealing to more people than those who have skimmed through this thread to reach this point, most will never see your new topic...

P.S. you forgot to copy and paste your "got'cha questions" correctly from the other websites you post on... it seems people there get frustrated by your actions as well... anyhow, I would recommend creating a new thread to get a more specific discussion going as a recommendation as I'm not going to play your game that you've played out on so many other websites it seems...

 

Nosir. It's not a good argument for gun control, because "gun control" is not what made things the way they are in those other countries. Gun bans/confiscations did. The point of my analogy, which completely escaped you, was that comparing so-called "gun-crimes" between a nation that has all but prohibited guns and the US is pointless and silly, like your OP. Anyone who does that immediately exposes their "ban and confiscate all guns" agenda.

Singling out 'gun-homicides' as if they are somehow more important than a homicide committed any other way, can only be important to those scumbags who want to politicize the awful tragedies to further their "ban and confiscate all guns" agenda.

So here's some sour news for you, Nat: Guns in the US will never be banned or confiscated. Never. No laws you can pass, no jack-booted government door-to-door home searches your stormtroopers conduct, will ever be able to achieve your nefarious goal. So your efforts would be better focused tilting other windmills. The guns are here already, and they're not going away.

(If you got this far, you can stop reading here, Nat. The rest doesn't work with your agenda)

The good news is, when you strip away the BS, the US is becoming safer because of gun owners.

The FBI UCR data shows that violent crime has been on the decrease for well over a decade, while CCP issues and gun sales are through the roof. More guns and gun owners, less violent crime. This can only mean one of two things:

1) more guns make society safer, or
2) more guns have no positive effect on safety, at all.

Since the FBI data has already proven that more guns does NOT make society more dangerous, and, we can show that at least one person has prevented a violent crime with his gun, then we must conclude that more guns has contributed to the steady decrease in violent crime. More guns in the hands of good people = safer society as a whole.

 

Low IQ people + guns is a definite bad mix.

 

Unless the criminals are bikers or have worn a Confederate Flag, the focus will be on the guns.

 

I'm saying that in large, violent ethnic enclaves of Blacks, such as Chicago, Baltimore, Stockton, Detroit, Flint, Camden and so on--- the Black community and their liberal democrat leaders (they are ALL liberal democrats BTW) DO have a high tolerance for crime. They, collectively, allow street gangs to operate. The police are given instructions to treat such thugs with "kid gloves." There are horrendously low rates or convictions and jail time for such gangstas.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/po...s/Statistical Reports/Murder Reports/MA11.pdf

If you even looked at this link on figure 16, you could see that blacks are 75% of the victims and Whites less than 5%. Chicago is almost evenly 1/3 Black, 1/3 White and 1/3 Hispanic. Blacks statistically kill other Blacks 95% of the time----so anyone should be able to see the huge moral gap.

For high crime to exist, they must be a large percentage of morally debased people, with a culture of violence, and a weak criminal justice system that does a poor job of punishing felons. Cities like Chicago fit the bill perfectly.

 

The stats you are providing does not support your argument. What is interesting about the stats, besides the racial, is when the murders occured, motive for the murders, closing the case, and area which the murder occured. In the earlier part of the report, only 2 murders, out of 400 plus, happened in the Chicago Housing Projects. Most murders happened on the weekends between 10 pm to 4 am. Only 26 were related to gang or narcotics. Most involved robbery of some type. A lot of this suggests socioeconomic factors as a cause and not simply a racial motive.

 

Define mental illness.

 

Stoner built the Edsel? Don't think so.

 

Australia is the worst example to give. When handguns were banned the murder rates grew at an astronomical rate. The response of Australia was to massively increase the number of police until the rate finally returned to pre-ban levels. So citing Australia as an example is outright advocating a dramatic increase in gun deaths.

Canada does not have waves of impoverished young men by the millions flowing into their country like the USA. Nor does Canada have zones where people can buy firearms but other zones where people are required to be disarmed (Chicago, NYC, Detroit etc).

The "mental health issue" is a diversionary topic and another call for government to sidestep the Bill of Rights and 2A rights. As it is now, if I knew who you are, I could sign a statement that I think you are a danger to me and in most jurisdictions the police would come and seize all your firearms - no hearing of any kind first. It also now on your permanent record that you were placed under a protective order. Later there would be a hearing and you might get your firearms back. Even if there was no basis for my claim whatsoever, nothing would happen to me at all for making the complaint.

It can be claimed that all murderers are "mental health issues." But of itself that is absolutely worthless, just another call for government having more money and more power over people as there are few instances where - short of a radically oppressive government - that monitoring people's mental health would prevent anything. Rather, it is just the new American way of the government and most people now declaring there is no problem that isn't solved by the government having more money, more power, being bigger, and people having less rights.

No one in politics or the media will even discuss real solutions for how the USA works nor the relevant facts:

1. EVERY victim of a mass shooting was unarmed and unable to defend themselves or anyone else.

2. There has never been a mass shooting at any location where people are open carrying, though MANY states allow open carry.

3. Most mass shootings occur where government or the location has pre-assured the shooter that it is illegal for anyone to be there who is armed.

Instead, it is always the same crap of talking about "mental health" and "too many guns" - all calling for government to disarm people and for government to take more power to itself.

 

Are you trying to say that most of the time the 75% of all murder victims who are Black were not killed by Blacks most of the time? Who were killing these Blacks then?

Were they old Jewish women?
Were they Native Americans?
Were they Rednecks and the KKK killing them?
Were they Asians like people from India and China killing them?

As the police and DA's office in Chicago do not even find the killers over half the time perhaps you could use your wonderful insight and tell them to look elsewhere for the killers.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93 percent of black homicides were indeed committed by other blacks between 1980 and 2008. In 2012, the most recent data posted on the web, the figure was 91 percent.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...i/giuliani-93-black-murders-committed-blacks/

So Chicago logically operates like every other violent gangstaland where Blacks off themselves around 95% of the time.

 

Really? Explain how responsible, intelligent, educated, working, self sufficient people with families are bad for this country, compared to the violent, and uneducated, who rely on people like me?

The undoing will be those who won't face reality and make decisions based on emotion and feelings, rather than facts, logic and intelligence....and gasp, statistics😄

 

You are cherry picking the data and interpreting the data incorrectly. The stat you gave only tells a person whom a person was with at the time of the incident. That is all. When you look at the Chicago states, look at the different areas where those homicides occured. Look at the motives. Look at the place, indoor vs outdoor, and look at the age, time when the murdered happened, and how many cases were closed within a year. That tells you a lot and it does not provide any evidence of the gross generalizations you are placing on a racial group. Again, most is with socioeconomic issues, not having a job, being young and stupid, etc.