Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, May 25, 2022.
There are lies there are damn lies and there are statistics.
That cliche is not cliche for nothing.
I wouldn't be against that. But this doesn't preclude anything I proposed. It might stop SOME shootings. And anything that helps is good. I do think it would be very expensive. Because for every potential shooter, those psychiatrists or psychologists would have to evaluate thousands who are NOT potential shooters. However, taking away any guns during the process is a good thing because the appointment queue would likely end up being years long.
It's unclear at this point that this would have prevented THIS shooting. Doesn't look like the guy had discernable mental issues different than thousands of misguided teenagers. But maybe it would have delayed it If we do something like this, we should also apply this to high school dropouts. And that might also have helped.
But, again, the ONLY way to actually control this would be through a gun license. Any report by schools or family would put a hold on their gun license. So they wouldn't be able to just go out and buy MORE guns and ammunition.
It makes no difference what I think. What civil right ARE is clearly spelled out in the REAL world. And reality says that it's not a civil right. What they see it as is irrelevant. Except if they have a habit of denying reality, we might want professionals to evaluate their mental health before we allow them to own guns.
He stated and I refer directly to the fact of gun smuggling in Mexico specifically problems such as:
"Between 1 January 2019 and January 2021 alone, Mexico's Milenio Televisión reported that 1,585 people were detained for weapons trafficking, over 90% of whom were US citizens.
In the same time frame, official data compiled by Stop US Arms to Mexico - a project aimed at reducing illegal weapons in the country - shows that 11,613 weapons were seized by the army, a small fraction of what is believed to be on Mexico's streets.
A single raid in early March this year near the US border saw authorities discover over 150 guns and almost three million rounds of ammunition from a suspected cartel stash house."
Your attempt to suggest most of the weapons used in crime in Mexico are made in Mexico is just not true. To start with you are aware
Mexico has only one gun shop in Mexico City and due to Mexican gun regulation laws there is a time consuming set of searches and paper work to go through to buy a weapon. So even if someone wanted to purchase a Mexican made weapon they would have to go through this one store and lengthy process creating an actual bottle neck on distribution of Mexican made guns on the streets.
I now repeat what Golem myself and others have stated about where weapons used in crimes in Mexico come drom:
"..according to studies done by Intersecta, Mexico’s military registered 900,000 firearms from 2000 to 2019—close to 45,000 per year. Therefore, firearms used to perpetrate crimes in Mexico, by and large, come from abroad. In fact, the United States is the main supplier of guns used in crimes throughout Mexico. Reports from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Government Accountability Office have consistently determined, since 2009, that close to 70 percent of guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes originate in the United States.."
Your comment makes no sense. Regulation of gun issues is not about your personal feelings, your personal subjective beliefs or how you were brought up. It has nothing to do with you and your needs or beliefs. It has to do with reducing risks associated with access to weapons.
Yes. Smart guns. I added that later. We should invest on incentivizing the development of smart guns. And, when we have them, they should be subsidized.... Eventually, they should be the ONLY guns that can be sold legally.
Its comments such as the above that simply make a parody of legitimate gun owners who are responsible and practice proper training and safety.
Provide your evidence of which "leftist" policies during the pandemic caused mental illness. Next explain how since Trump was in power during the pandemic, these leftist policies were passed. Please explain how any policy creates a mental illness. Please explain which leftist policies made it "impossible" to take "even the most seriously screwed up individuals off the streets until he kills someone".
Also please also explain how your being against any gun regulation does NOT interfere with a police officer or the ATF or any enforcement agency getting a weapon away from someone until after they have killed someone else. You can't have it both ways where ********* about police not properly doing their job on the streets while you demand they not be able to police the flow and access of weapons on the streets.
Ok. I won't, then.
As usual, you lefties just don't understand the real problem. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and we let people run around loose who shouldn't be running around loose. It's stupid to let bad people run around loose and then try to pass laws to keep them from getting guns. And, gun control laws don't work because people who want guns and can't get guns legally just go out and steal guns so they get guns anyway.
Ah, I figured you might play the race card in response to that fact. Sorry to inform you that I am about as far away from being a white supremacist as you'll ever find. That doesn't change the fact that my words are correct. We had more deaths of young black men just in the city of Chicago over the past 7 days at the hands of other young black men than in both the TX school shooting and NY grocery store shooting combined, but you don't want to talk about that because it wasn't done by crazy ass white boys using weapons you describe as "assault weapons".
Tell me, why haven't you condemned just as hard the mass shooting of Taiwanese by a Chinese native in a CHURCH, along with your gnashing of teeth about those two events? Doesn't fit your agenda?
See Irrelevant argument 5 on the OP. The rest of your post has NO substance. Clearly, seeing your pre-canned response, you quoted but didn't read the OP.
Like immigration, gun violence is an area where the Democrats would rather have the issue than a solution.
The reason he claimed what you said was irrelevant is not based on his subjective opinion it was based on your inability to connect what you were saying to prove what you had previously stated. There was no connection between what you were saying to the argument you claimed to be making. Let's assume since you do not understand what the term relevance or materiality principle mean. I will explain it in easier terms for you. When you argue something, try provide evidence that backs up what you say and deals with the subject matter you claim to be addressing. That will help.
Next you stated in a few of your responses guns don't kill people, people do.
That slogan was created by the NRA to argue against ANY gun regulation. The argument suggests the weapon type does not matter when considering gun regulation because someone who is going to kill someone will find a way to do it no matter what so gun regulation won't stop it.
The problem with that argument is that its been repudiated time and time again with studies that prove regulations addressing proper training with weapons, proper storage practices, restriction in the same of certain types of weapons, thorough screening of persons seeking to purchase weapons, has in fact reduced not just the number of crimes and acts of violence perpetuated with a gun BUT have lowered the rates of suicide and unintentional injury.
The biggest error in your trotting out that statement is that to believe it you need to ignore all these studies (which of course is easy because you probably label them as "leftist insanity") and also try deflect from the fact that gun regulation is not just about preventing homicides, its about reducing ANY risk involved with the ownership, use of, access to or circulation of weapons to criminals or unstable/violent people. No crime has to be committed for their to be a risk and the need to manage that risk. Most risk prevention is designed to prevent the risk NOT react after it happens.
The next issue is that you claim a gun is inanimate so that makes it non problematic until a human comes in contact with it. However as you are fully aware the whole point of gun regulation has nothing to do with inanimate guns, it has to do with what happens once a human connects with them. So saying the gun is inanimate is not relevant. Its being inanimate is not the issue. Its being handled by people is and how to reduce the risks associated with how people handle the weapon is the issue. You mistake it being about just the gun. No gun regulator has ever said that. The entire premises of gun control is to manage human behaviour of the gun. So can you please at least understand what is being regulated or your comment is not relevant.
You are probably unaware and do not care but it was back in 1972 that a Law Professor, Franklin Zimring presented evidence that in fact the type of weapon used is highly influential in determining whether the victim of an assault lives and that gun assaults had a much higher “case fatality rate.” He did examine crimes that were done by different types of gun and was able to show that the likelihood of death increased sharply with the caliber of the shooter’s firearm. He also was able to shiow that there was a large random component to the outcome of gun assaults and that the firearm caliber was a systematic factor that influenced whether the victim lived or died. This relationship is called “instrumentality.” It was from these studies it was then argued that policies governing how we access a weapon, how we train on the weapon, how we store the weapon, what kind of features the weapon has all can help reduce risks associated with unintentional and intentional injuries and deaths while using a weapon and that certain weapons might be by their inherent design more capable of killing than others.
The US Department of Justice, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, The FBI, numerous universities and medical associations have done studies since 1972 showing direct links between types of weapons and the crimes they are used in. Interestingly what is consistent is that MOST homicides are done with handguns. Certainly in the vast majority of domestic violence incidents, hand guns are used. In regards to mass killings handguns are still used. However the AK 15 semi-automatic assault rifle appears to be used in at least 11 mass killings in the last 20 years or so getting a lot of attention. Machine guns, or fulkly automatic rapid fire or multi-fire (when you squeeze the trigger multiple rounds come out) weapons used in crimes are rare. There was one example of a police officer killed by someone with two rapid fire fully automatic weapons, but for the most part the largest concern comes with handguns and semi automatic assault weapons.
Here is a study for you that discusses the type of weapon and how it impacts on killings, i.e., it shows you with updated information Zimring’s findings were accurate, i.e.,there is a direct link between death rate and caliber of weapon.
That all said death rates by calibre of gun are just one of many considerations when analyzing gun use and safety.
I see no argument in the OP. Just BS. You didn't even try to have an argument.
Yowzer. Replace Dems with Repubs and you'd have something there.
I will assume when you use the word "argument" you mean debate. You said Golem made no "argument". In fact he raised his positions and then stated his premises or basis for them. If you then respond without any counter evidence as you again have above, it is in fact you not Golem, not debating. All you did above is to show as you have earlier done, NOT debated.
You might want to practice what you preach. Simply stating something you disagree with is BS is not debating or as you call it arguing, its name calling because you have no evidence or basis to counter what he said.
You have choices. You can try provide counter evidence to show what he says is wrong. You can ignore him entirely or you an come back and simply name call. If you come back and offer no evidence to counter what he says and just name call, he is simply on further responses going to keep it short as you have said nothing new to respond to.
Then you have to put up with people like me trying to explain this to you.
The last serious effort at comprehensive immigration reform was sponsored by George W. Bush. And you don't see Repubs trying to raise funds off mass shootings.
I have noticed you take post line by line to make responses out of context. It isn't working.
False, their is no such thing as unrestricted access to guns.
You mean people who support the constitution.
Nothing in my post has anything to do with the 19 children. Its about the increasing gun violence.
It doesn't but you are having trouble keeping up I see
Then you will be here a long time as my post has nothing to do with that.
They aren't heavily restricted, they are illegal. More exaggerations
And I will explain it.
Yet out of the last 120 mass shootings in the US between 1982 and 2022, 78 of them are in Democrat controlled states. California alone with the majority of 23.
More than half of all mass shootings have happened since 2000
16 of the 20 most deadly mass shootings have happened in the last 20 years
8 of those in the last 5 years
In the 70s we had 5-7 deaths per year
In this decade alone we have 51 deaths per year
While the number of gun homicides overall have decreased in recent years, the number of mass shootings continues to rise.
Most of these killers tend to be 18, 19 years old.
Which is supportive on my post. More entitled brats with no ability to live in the reality of the real world due to coddling, helicopter parents, and hands off, don't spank mentality are producing more mass shootings.
Where did you live? Somewhere is Asia? Stop with this garbage.
Yes, your social status doesn't give you the right to be undisciplined and disrespectful to anyone. That is the statement and the belief of the entitled. Which is my point.
Not necessarily. Any licensed psychiatrist should be able to clear the flag. Most people have health insurance and many already have an established relationship with a psychiatrist, who knows their patient pretty well - for those, clearing the flag should take just days. For those who have never seen a psychiatrist the process should take a couple of months for the professional to fully evaluate the mental state and establish confidence in clearing of such flag. But the law must clearly state that if such evaluation started, it must be completed and if it wasn’t, it should be reported as confirmation of the necessity to keep such flag in place and allow next evaluation only in 10 years.
I really don’t think such law would cost that much, except for the initial cost of setting up the database and integration with law enforcement and gun dealer databases.
LOL. He made no debate on the point he pointed out. In his irrelevant argument number 4 guns don't kill people, people kill people, his debate was "bullshit". Well, there's a lot of facts and evidence in that statement. LOL
Well Mr. Atwater I believe the problem may not be inherent in whether one is Democrat or Republican. It may be a problem inherent with the entire species of homo sapiens. We are after all simeons. We are pack animals still led by alpha males and struggling to find ways to inhibit our primal behaviour patterns such as indiscriminate acts of sex, violence, anger and killing.
It appears we have made some progress as our fur on our bodies becomes less and less abundant and we learn to walk more upright and not on our knuckles, but we are far from at a point in our evolution where we have learned to move past indiscriminate behaviour of any kind let alone violent behaviour.
Have a nice morning.
Harry and Meaghan Markel
Jared and Ivanka Kushner
Bullshit has many nuances yes. Lol. Thank you for your sense of humour. Appreciated.
YOU brought "blacks" into a discussion about gun control measures, and I'M the one playing the race card?
Yes, by your selective outrage.
Separate names with a comma.