Nearly 9% of Americans are angry, impulsive and have a gun

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/

Very much supporting my contention that guns should be licensed and everyone who has one should be periodically given a mental health exam. I don't see any conflict with their possession being a right either, as many of our rights, like enjoying a public park, are, in fact, heavily regulated.

 

complete idiocy from a gun banning rag that fails to note that there are millions upon millions of gun owners and the number of legal gun owners who actually misuse their guns is far far less than 9 percent-far far less than one percent. doctors' screwing up kill far more people than legal gun owners.

 

The phrase "shall not be infringed" leaves very little wiggle room, and is pretty unambiguous.

 

The article you present does not elaborate on what amounts to angry, violent, or impulsive behavior.

Various states have varying interpretations of what amounts to domestic violence. Some interpretations include the following: undermining sense of self, name calling, sulking, lying, denial of sleep, making important decisions without spousal input, controlling locations that are visited beyond the home, not tending to housework, etc.

http://www.ncsmc.org.au/wsas/violence_and_abuse/definition_of_domestic_violence.htm

With "violence" being defined in such a wide-reaching manner, that any negative action or comment constitutes an act of violence, it calls into question just what sort of anger and violence issues the united states truly has.

Which would ultimately do no good should someone decide to engage in mass murder between mental health exams. Should that occur, many would simply ask what good the exams serve, or how did they exams not determine that the individual might commit such an act.

Present these regulations that are required to be obeyed for enjoying a public park. Present how these regulations would be considered heavy. Present the basis for which someone can be denied access to a park on the basis of being angry.

 

The LA Times is a gun-banning rag? And I guess that means I shouldn't even try defending the pointy bearded commie professors from Duke, Columbia and Harvard who did the study

"A well-regulated militia BEING NECESSARY"...also is fairly clear. It's the independent clause which the "shall not be infringed" is meant to support, NOT the other way around. The thing is the militia is no longer necessary, we have a fairly well-sized standing Army now.

Moot point anyway. Common sense safety regulations which do not forbid one from having a gun altogether do not infringe the right.
A right can be regulated, saying it can't is tantamount to saying you can't have laws, as that's what laws do, regulate our rights

This is a valid objection. You'd have to read the source article to find that out. It seems to be quibbling to me, however, as many of the things you present, such as sleep deprivation, name calling and controlling locations visited beyond the home seem valid definitions of domestic violence to me.

So? This is another constant argument of gun advocates. Regulations would not be perfect, therefore we should have no regulations

Depends on the park and its facilities. I've seen regs that don't let children play unsupervised, require you to pack out all your trash, don't have fires, swim in inviting streams, even not remove your shirt, many things. Again, what would be considered heavy would depend on the user. Don't see how the last one is relevant. A park is not a gun.

It's not just parks, try walking on most Interstates.

 

Well I hope I get a good shrink like the ones Joker Holmes and Adam Lanza had.

More than likely, I'd end up with radical Leftist anti-gun nut, like the OP.

 

Having a gun and shooting people and being a legal gun owner are two completely different things.
The bulk of these "angry" people that are responsible for these stats are gang bangers in the inner city. Funny how there is no mention of that in this article. It's impossible to have an honest discussion about gun violence without distinguishing the difference between gang violence and legal firearm owners.

 

The phrase "well-regulated" did not mean, to the men who wrote it, what you apparently think it does today.

 

How do you know this? If you have a validating link or some other source please share it. If you don't then I have to call you on it, as it seems unlikely that Universities would target such people or even that gang members would fill out questionaires.

 

So?? Maybe it didn't, (and how do you find what I think it means today to be apparent?) It's irrelevant to our discussion in any case.

 

yeah the LA times, and the Washington Compost that first published this idiocy are anti gun rag sheets.

now tell us why you are so afraid of honest people being armed

- - - Updated - - -

most of these studies are authored by people who start off with the goal of demonizing gun ownership and work backwards in an effort to prove their hoplophobia is justified.

 

The height of silliness.

 

Jeffrey W. Swanson is a gun control advocate and finds what he is looking for no matter what.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm
In at least three of the five cities, gang homicides were significantly more likely than nongang homicides to occur on a street and involve a firearm (Table 2). More than 90% of gang homicide incidents involved firearms in each city. For nongang homicides, firearms were involved in 57%–86% of the incidents. Gang homicides also were most likely to occur in afternoon/evening hours in the majority of the five cities; however, comparisons were not examined because the data were missing for 23% of nongang homicide incidents. In Los Angeles, Oakland, and Oklahoma City, gang homicides occurred significantly more frequently on weekends than did nongang homicides.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx#gangs



Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://mic.com/articles/27281/gun-c...accounts-for-half-of-violent-crime-in-america

The FBI's 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report states that there are 1.4 million active gang members comprising more than 33,000 gangs in the United States. Gang violence is a serious issue significantly contributing to violent crime, including homicides. Gang membership is rapidly increasing; the 2011 report indicates a 40% growth in gang membership since the 2009 report.

The current gun control debate in the U.S. is long on emotion and cosmetic approaches to reducing violence, but short on meaningful solutions that address the underlying causes of violence. Tacking the underlying causes may not be as immediately gratifying in terms of producing swift results; however, if we are serious about reducing crime, shouldn't we consider the underlying factors? One of those underlying causes is gang activity, which accounts for “an average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions,” and up to 90% in some jurisdictions.

 

Between the LA Times report and the DHS contention that veterans are "potential terrorist", I must be a ticking time bomb. Keep searching. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

 

Tell us how many legal gun owners used their guns for unlawful actions in your stats. Otherwise, your silly thread is destroyed.
Prediction, you wont, you wont because its BS.

 

Obama ordered the cdc to do the study..... Now he wishes he didnt

 

And I suppose it is the government who decides who is "mentally qualified" enough to have a gun?
I see real potential for abuse here.

 

The article in question is accessible only by those willing to pay money to read and refute the findings.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=09D1D7D0EA798D7D280D3209C92A3FCC.f03t01

Which simply raises the question of precisely what the article considers to be anger issues. If mere yelling is enough to constitute impulsive displays of anger, then the findings are moot.

The research method used is also of questionable validity. The so-called researchers analyzed data from less than six thousand face-to-face interviews, and assumed that firearms ownership was a symptom of violence and/or anger issues. This is the classic causation/correlation substitute fallacy of research.

You either misunderstand, or purposely misinterpret in an attempt to support your position. What is being said, is that time and resources should not be wasted enacting pointless restrictions that will do no good, and be easily subverted. What is being proposed by you, is little different from claiming that a fresh coat of paint will be sufficient to fix up a condemned house.

Major Nadal Hassan, the individual responsible for the Fort Hood shooting, was a psychiatrist in the united states military; in simpler terms, the one who is trained in recognizing/determining who should not have access to firearms. That is quite literally the fox guarding the hen house.

You claimed access to parks is heavily regulated, and used such as justification for why access to firearms should be heavily regulated as well. Yet heavy regulation of firearms includes restricting access by people who have committed no crime, and cannot pass some arbitrarily defined mental health evaluation, given by some unelected and unaccountable individual, who is potentially unqualified to be making determinations for how others live their lives.

Paperwork does not lead to either lives saved, or violence reduced.

- - - Updated - - -

Ask the survivors, and relatives of the fallen, regarding Fort Hood when a trained and vetted psychiatrist decided it was a good idea to commit mass murder because he was unhappy that day.

 

Every human born in the history of the universe is impulsive....yet somehow 9.9997% of gun owners will never commit a crime while armed.

 

Why does it take so much text to reveal the truth? How can anyone pay attention long enough to comprehend it? It's so much easier, and more convenient to just keep on bleating: "Guns are Baaaaaad"
I had a guy from NJ in the cab yesterday. He said that he can understand why someone would want a handgun for self defense, but why does anyone need a 30 round "clip" (sic)? You can't tell him that it's because the gang bangers have them. The drug runners have them. The NWO has them. He'll just respond: "well, those are Baaaaaad".

 

I saw nothing which indicated that the study in question was having its results skewed by inordinate use of gang members as respondents, and I still find it ridiculous that such a thing would or even could be so. All you prove is that gang members murder lots of people and use guns to do so. Can it not be reasonably argued that at least a main contributing factor here might be the easy availability of guns?

Not the overall availability of guns, not guns themselves, the EASY availability of guns; WHY are gun advocates so wedded to that? It's as if all drivers were saying we should give licenses to 10 year olds and the legally blind or Doctors suddenly arguing that anyone who'd taken HS biology should be qualified to do surgery in a hospital. I've noted that many gun advocates are also the type of people who like to justifiably consider themselves members of elite groups for one reason or another (and there's certainly nothing wrong in taking pride in one's achievements) but WHY then are you so anxious to undermine your own status as a gun owner and enthusiast by making sure it is available to anyone, including criminals and the insane?

 

No it cannot. Not without attempting to discount the notion of human responsibility, and the nonsensical belief that if firearms were not readily available, then the murderous impulses of various gang members would simply not be acting upon. Beyond being nonsensical, it is outright stupid. Comparatively speaking, it is no different than suggesting bears,wolves, and coyotes will stop posing threats to people, so long as their teeth and claws are surgically removed.

Dangerous individuals remain dangerous regardless of what implements they may possess. Why do you support leaving dangerous individuals free in society where they can do the most harm? It is no different than suggesting the best treatment for cancer and disease is to do nothing whatsoever, and hope it goes away on its own.

Those with criminal convictions are forbidden from having access to firearms. There is no easy availability to firearms along legal channels for them. Theft is a violation of established societal rules, and cannot be further outlawed or legislated against. There is no way of adding more obstacles to the illicit acquisition of firearms, short of permanently incarcerating those who are most likely to do it.

You are either discussing pure hyperbole, either accidentally or intentionally, or you are associating yourself with some of the stupidest of people the world has to offer.

Present for consideration any one single proposal that spells out how it would make firearms available to criminals, or those who have been involuntarily committed on the basis of mental illness. Cite and quote specific sections from various proposed bills or enacted laws that support your position. Do not use your own interpretation exclusively as a basis for your position.

If there are proposed bills that would allow felons to freely purchase firearms from licensed dealers, or restore access to firearms to those who are insane, then it is one matter. If you are relying either one your own interpretation of what someone else may have said, then it is another matter entirely.

 

You are on record as a gun banner. So when you start complaining that guns are too easy to get, its obvious to us your real goal is to incrementally ban guns by pushing more and more idiotic laws that only impact honest people. Its already a felony to hurt someone with a gun. Its already a felony for someone with a record to even touch a gun. Your silly definition of "easy availability" basically is a complaint that non-criminals can own guns. So your facade is specious. You want to prevent good people from owning guns and that is patently obvious

 

Yes, what the constitution means is totally irrelevant.

That was sarcasm, btw.