Ex-cop murders theatregoer....isn't it nice that we let people carry guns around? (Page 5)

davesdatahut: Ok, so what do you do about cases like the ones I noted above? Do you just chalk it up to 'shit happens?'

davesdatahut: As an aside, I do NOT think that this particular idea of mine will do a lot to reduce gun violence in general - just the very public murders by unhinged nuts.
The best way to reduce gun violence, writ large, is to legalize drugs and take away the reason for a lot of this violence - drug dealers protecting turf. But that's a whole nother debate.

LiptonCambell: >>>But I have grave concerns about those who are irrational and unstable.

But you presented two examples of people you met on the street, that you don't think they should be allowed to arm themselves. Do you, or do you not, think these people should be permitted to defend themselves?

>>>Answer my question about the two anecdotes, and then I'll answer yours.

Lol so lemme get this straight- you want me to decide if two people should or should not get guns, based on a brief review of what you think are their negative character traits are? That's nonsense. Even your suggestions for gun control don't have the kinds of situations where someone announces "This guy is racist, and shouldn't get ahold of guns", and thus, they're denied.

Is that honestly how you want that law to unfold? People talking smack about each other is how someone gets denied?

But after training, yes, I do think they should be allowed to purchase guns.

davesdatahut: No, I want you to address the larger issue of what to do in these kinds of situations (and one of these people is not someone I just met on the street), when people with clear instability want to own guns. I used those two case as anecdotes...just anecdotes.
I see, as I was typing, that you do think they should have guns. Even though they show clear signs of mental instability? You can train that away? I don't think so. Their instability removes their right to defend themselves with deadly weapons. Society deserves protection against people who are unstable and could pose a danger to the public, with a gun in their hand.

LiptonCambell: >>>when people with clear instability want to own guns.

You and I are not psychiatrists, and it's uncommon that people who have issues are violent Unless either of us are trained to understand that distinction, I do not think you or I should be making that call.

LiptonCambell: Wiki has this to say on violence and mental disorders;

"Despite public or media opinion, national studies have indicated that severe mental illness does not independently predict future violent behavior, on average, and is not a leading cause of violence in society. There is a statistical association with various factors that do relate to violence (in anyone), such as substance abuse and various personal, social and economic factors"

...

"In fact, findings consistently indicate that it is many times more likely that people diagnosed with a serious mental illness living in the community will be the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence.[200][201] In a study of individuals diagnosed with "severe mental illness" living in a US inner-city area, a quarter were found to have been victims of at least one violent crime over the course of a year, a proportion eleven times higher than the inner-city average, and higher in every category of crime including violent assaults and theft.[202] People with a diagnosis may find it more difficult to secure prosecutions, however, due in part to prejudice and being seen as less credible.[203]"

...

"The mediating factors of violent acts, however, are most consistently found to be mainly socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, of lower socioeconomic status and, in particular, substance abuse (including alcoholism) to which some people may be particularly vulnerable.[25][200][204][205]

High-profile cases have led to fears that serious crimes, such as homicide, have increased due to deinstitutionalization, but the evidence does not support this conclusion.[205][206] Violence that does occur in relation to mental disorder (against the mentally ill or by the mentally ill) typically occurs in the context of complex social interactions, often in a family setting rather than between strangers.[207] It is also an issue in health care settings[208] and the wider community.[209]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Perception_and_discrimination

" it was determined that 5 percent of 'normal' television characters are murderers, while 20% of 'mentally-ill' characters are murderers. 40% of normal characters are violent, while 70% of mentally-ill characters are violent. Contrary to what is portrayed in films and television, Henry J. Steadman, Ph.D., and his colleagues at Policy Research Associates found that, overall, formal mental patients did not have a higher rate of violence than the control group of people who were not formal mental patients. In both groups, however, substance abuse was linked to a higher rate of violence. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorders_in_art_and_literature#Motion_pictures

What you are describing is a stereotype.

dhasty1949: I have no problem of convicted violent persons being denied access to fire arms. To be denied my lawful rights because of a minor infraction or a medical diagnosis is another matter. Law abiding citizens are not the problem here, We need to focus on the person with the history of criminal violence.

davesdatahut: Lipton and others, for what it's worth....more grist for the mill, a study suggesting that gun control repeal led to more gun violence in one state, Missouri. Researchers claim a connection between the two. As noted in our discussion here, there are lots of factors involved in this issue, but the researchers claim to have accounted for at least some.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26222578

LiptonCambell: You don't find it odd that, when I present evidence that shows "more guns= more safety", you insist there's alot more factors to it than that- but if you present evidence that shows "more guns=less safety", well then all the factors have been accounted for, and this study is absolutely true....

davesdatahut: Let me clarify.
I'm not saying this study is true or any more or less valid that others, nor am I taking sides here with the my post...just presenting it as grist for the mill. Again, my view is that the connection between gun control laws and gun violence is varied and tenuous, with many other factors involved.
However, I remain strongly in favor of stricter background checks as a way to stop or reduce some of the random, public and mass shootings. And I remain one million percent opposed to the idea that you create a safer society by giving more guns to more people and letting them walk around the streets with them, without regard to whether they are stable or not. That is no kind of society where I want to live.
The last point is where you and I differ most. On the part about the broader connection between controls and gun violence, we may have more agreement.

LiptonCambell: Oh, and since you never said anything...one of those graphs I posted was actually just a image asking if you are even looking at them....it was a test to see if you we're actually looking at the information I was providing, or ignoring them

Kinda disappointing you're not looking....

davesdatahut: Which post was this? I looked at a bunch of the graphs you posted, but not all. I gotta contain my time here!

LiptonCambell: I strongly believe your conclusions on there being a safer society with stronger gun controls was based long before you viewed any evidence supporting the cause. It's simply a fact of you coming to a conclusion before examining the facts.

I agree, logically, you wouldn't think that would be the case- but logic be damned if people are safer.

LiptonCambell: The one where I posted about 7 graphs in a row.

davesdatahut: Yes, I did look at that...most of them. I must have missed the one you mentioned. But I did check out most of them,

DEEP_acheleg: the best way to deter gun crime is to have an armed citizenry. that way, when a criminal draws a gun, there will be dozens of gun barrels pointed back at him.

the problem with these mass shootings is that they all happen in "gun free zones", restrictions which criminals simply ignore- leaving those legally-acting citizens defenseless

davesdatahut: Consider that scenario: a criminal draws a gun in a crowded area and dozes - DOZENS - are pointed back at him. And a regular ole gun battle ensues. In a crowded area.
Enough said.
Ok, well, not enough said.
Consider a drunk guy in a bar with a gun. And a bunch of other drunk guys in the bar with guns. And one pi
sses off another and it escalates. And a regular ole gun battle ensues.
Enough said now

LiptonCambell: >>>Consider that scenario: a criminal draws a gun in a crowded area and dozes - DOZENS - are pointed back at him. And a regular ole gun battle

Haha what kinda movies have you been watching? First off, I like to believe no one goes out of their way to get themselves killed- sure, there are the odd case here or there, but no guns laws prevent that, so arguing it is moot- so that means that, if you point a gun at a crowd, and the crowd points their guns at you, that no one will shoot, since no one wants to die.

Gun violence would go down, not up.

Also, a 'gun battle'? are you kidding me? If you pull a gun, and 7 other people point their guns at you, you'd only get a few shots off before you get put down. Simple.

The simple fact is, things would not unfold as you believe they would. It's illogical, and defies human nature.

>>>Consider a drunk guy in a bar with a gun. And a bunch of other drunk guys in the bar with guns.

Consider a drunk guy in a bar with car keys. And a bunch of other drunk guys in the bar with car keys.

Should we severely restrict or ban cars because people can get ahold of them when drunk? You're asking that around 1/3 of all Americans should have their guns severely restricted and be psychologically evaluate on a regular basis- and this evaluation shouldn't be private, as with other medical records- because they might be drunk when they have guns?

How many of these mass shootings were done when someone was drunk?

Thats right- NONE. Not a single one. Everytime a psycho unloads their gun into a crowd, they do it sober.

Like I said previously- this is all in your head. There is no evidence supporting your stance- it's just paranoia

davesdatahut: Oh dear Lipton, you are a smart man. But sometimes I think it is you who live in a fantasy world.
First off, stop throwing up the canard about cars. It has NOTHING to do with guns and you know it. Or you should know it because you are a smart guy. It is a ruse from the word go, for all the reasons noted earlier in this thread. So let's quash that red herring before it swims any further.
As for paranoia, the entire mindset surrounding your view is rooted in a paranoiac view of society that says we need guns - and the fear associated with knowing someone else might have a gun - to control the population. It is beyond dystopian. It grows from the premise that the threat of force, and ONLY the threat of force is the way to a peaceful society. Rubbish.
Getting back to the scenario of the dozens of people who might be carrying a gun in a crowded place, here's whay I mean: one pulls a gun and others pull theirs and start blasting away. What about that would be movie-like? It would be EXACTLY what your solution to the world would create. I sure as hell would not want to be a passerby in that scenario. Call me crazy. But I just don't trust people's aim, especially in a chaotic situation. Good grief, the possibilities are horrific.
Just as an aside, the guy who murdered the theatre-goer in Florida lived in a place where everyone gets to run around with a gun. We saw what that led to. One guy pisses off another guy. So the other guy shoots him. Fabulous! It was movie-like only to the extent that it was in a movie theater, ironically

LiptonCambell: >>>First off, stop throwing up the canard about cars. It has NOTHING to do with guns and you know it.

Did....did i mention cars prior? I think you're confusing me with someone else

Regardless, it's simply an analogy- you need to be responsible with guns, just like you need to responsible with vehicles. It's trivial to say that people should be under constant scrutiny and have all kinds of restrictions applied to their safety because of the existence of alcohol- it's a flawed line of reasoning, that could be applied to nearly every facet of life- what if people have lighters, and are drunk? What about knives? What if there's a bunch of drunk people around a pool? What if a football team gets drunk?

>>>It is a ruse from the word go

No, it's a comparative analogy- I am comparing your stance that drunks cannot be trusted with guns to the stance that drunks cannot be trusted with carkeys. Both situations have drunks using extremely dangerous objects that are responsible for many deaths throughout the country, and both objects require training and skill to use.

I don't care if you refuse to acknowledge it's apt, because it IS apt.

>>>As for paranoia, the entire mindset surrounding your view is rooted in a paranoiac view of society that says we need guns

Don't we? Does gun violence not exist? Doesn't gun violence go down when gun ownership rises?

I've already proved all these- and you've proved you aren't reading the charts and evidence, so I don't know what else you expect me to do here? I can continue to prove that, with guns, society is safer and less people are harmed in gun violence.

But you've refused to read it.

You want to talk about paranoia, PROVE that your stance isn't based on some Hollywood based nonsense where Jason Bourne unloads on a crowd because someone looked at him crossways.

>>>to control the population.

What?

I haven't said ANYTHING in this thread about population control.

>>>It grows from the premise that the threat of force, and ONLY the threat of force is the way to a peaceful society.

Isn't that your premise too, though?

How do you think laws work? If I break the law, the police will apply force against me and force me to comply.

>>> one pulls a gun and others pull theirs and start blasting away.

Haha and your solution is have the first man should be permitted to use that force against the group? Do I need to bring up the example of Suzanna Hupp? It's only been a month and you already forgot her testimony? Where a man pulled a gun on a crowd that were legally obligated to be disarmed, and he casually murdered nearly 2 dozen people?



You solution wouldn't stop events such as that from happening! What you don't get is you're not calling for anything NEW- you're just repeating the laws that have been on the books for nearly a quarter of a century, and think that THAT will make the difference.

People should have the right to defend their lives.

>>>Good grief, the possibilities are horrific.

And the reality of unarmed citizens has created mass murders.

DEEP_acheleg: gun ownership laws ONLY deter the law abiding citizens from posessing firearms, criminals just tend to ignore laws- thats why we call them criminals in the first place

DEEP_acheleg: david, i do agree that gang murders would be reduced by laxing drug policies; however, if the cartels lose the cash cows of illicit drugs, they may increase their activities regarding prostitution and human trafficking- & the only practical way to limit human trafficking is to better enforce national borders, and prostitution, well, that is actually quite directly related to HARD drug addiction (meth, heroin- mostly, the same drugs which lead to gang shootings).

DEEP_acheleg: to be more succinct, there is a trade off between gang murders and sex slavery, when you make changes to drug policies.

Wild__:

Davesdatahut says...

As for paranoia, the entire mindset surrounding your view is rooted in a paranoiac view of society that says we need guns - and the fear associated with knowing someone else might have a gun - to control the population. It is beyond dystopian. It grows from the premise that the threat of force, and ONLY the threat of force is the way to a peaceful society. Rubbish.

And I respond...

The ONLY way to deal with a violent criminal is with violence. The concealed carry and stand your ground laws in Florida are an admission of failure. i.e. The state governments failure to protect its citizens from violent criminals.

Spend a day in Dade County, Florida and you might understand why people there feel the need to carry firearms as a means of self preservation.

And incidentally the crime rate in Florida has dropped since those two laws were enacted.

DEEP_acheleg: the government has to admit to its natural ineptness? "ask not what your country can do for you- cause it really cant"