Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on June 25, 2014, 01:50:53 am
-
From
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/robbins-mental-health/index.php ml
Editor's note: Mel Robbins is a CNN commentator and legal analyst. Robbins is the founder of Inspire52.com, a positive news website, and author of "Stop Saying You're Fine," about managing change. She speaks on leadership around the world and in 2014 was named outstanding news talk radio host by the Gracie Awards. Follow her on Twitter @melrobbins. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- Next time there's a mass shooting, don't jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn't get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.
Strengthening gun control won't stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.
Take the case of the recent mass shooting incident in Isla Vista, California. Police say Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California campus in Santa Barbara, shooting and stabbing victims, killing six and wounding 13 before he killed himself.
He had legally purchased three guns, passed a federal background check and met several other requirements in one of the most liberal states with the toughest gun control laws in the country.
California was one of eight states that passed major gun reforms in the wake of 2012's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a lone gunman killed 20 children and six adults.
In fact California's gun control laws received an "A-" grade from both The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Los Angeles Times reported.
In this climate, how did Rodger succeed in his lethal plan? It wasn't the gun laws, it was the lack of common sense mental commitment laws.
A 2014 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit aimed at removing the stigma of mental illness and barriers to treatment, analyzed the state of mental commitment laws state by state, looking at both the "quality of involuntary treatment (civil commitment) laws which facilitate emergency hospitalization during a psychiatric emergency and the availability of court orders mandating continued treatment as a condition of living in a community."
On virtually all counts, California received an "F" (it got a "C" on emergency evaluation). In Rodger's case, a friend concerned about alarming videos he'd posted on YouTube had alerted a county mental health staff member, and police had conferred with his mother, but this was not enough to get him committed.
Under California's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150, a person must be a danger to himself or others before he can be held for 72 hours for evaluation, and the standard is even higher to mandate treatment. Police visiting Rodger found him to be "polite and courteous" and not an apparent danger, so they had no authority to detain him or search his home for weapons to seize. The reason had nothing to do with gun laws. It had to do with the commitment laws in California.
We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.
Indeed, the Treatment Advocacy Center's report describes the exact situation police found themselves in when they conducted that "well-being" check on Rodger:
"But what if the person is neither threatening violence against anyone nor at any apparent imminent risk of injuring himself? What if the concern spurring the family member to seek help is simply that the person is suffering, tormented by terrifying delusions, yet somehow unaware that he is ill? Do we as a society have reason to intervene? To answer 'yes,' we must believe there is a compelling societal imperative beyond preventing imminent injury or death -- an imperative to liberate a person from a hellish existence he would never -- in his 'right mind' -- choose."
The truth is that commitment laws shouldn't be a stopgap to prevent imminent harm, but rather seen as an essential tool to help a loved one needing treatment before things reach the imminent harm stage.
Next, we've got to connect the dots between mental health records and National Instant Background Check. In 2014, Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a report calling for states to close this gap. It found that 11 states and the District of Columbia have no reporting laws, and another 12 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the national background check system.
But connecting the dots won't help unless every gun sale is subject to an instant background check imposed on all licensed gun retailers.
And finally, the police need tools as well. They need training and the discretion to ask about and remove guns from any household where there is a domestic dispute, a call for a "well-being check," or a person who exhibits violent or unstable behavior. They also need a mental health professional on call for such checks.
Connecticut, Indiana and, yes, even Texas have firearms seizure statutes aimed at dangerous persons. Laws like these enable the police to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior until a judge can make a final determination on fitness for gun ownership based on evidence presented at a hearing.
I know what you're thinking. "This will only penalize gun owners. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens." You're right. And most gun owners believe in responsible ownership and agree that these mental health measures make sense.
You may also be thinking: "But most people suffering from serious mental illness are nonviolent." You're right about that, too. Indeed, mentally ill people only account for a small fraction of the gun deaths in America every year and the vast majority of those are suicide, not homicide. Violence by the mentally ill is usually a symptom of the untreated mental illness -- that's why access to treatment, not gun control, is the answer.
Overhauling mental health laws would give family members and professionals more responsibility and authority in care decisions. And in some cases, medications and therapies should not be optional.
We've got a major problem on our hands. And since guns aren't going anywhere, the discussion about solutions needs to place the focus somewhere else.
Even the NRA agrees that the seriously mentally ill should never own a gun. So let's finally do something about it.
To which I agree. And I don't think anyone would disagree. So how long before it actually happens?
-
The problem is that until someone finds a way to peer into the mind of someone else, you'll always have people which to an outward perspective just seem to snap and start killing, purely out of the blue.
I agree that better mental health care, better awareness of what mental health means and what to do when you're not well are all good and necessary things to have, but it is rather unlikely that this will stop people like Rodgers. Just like people determined to perform suicide will find ways to do so, and will find ways to deflect inquiries aimed at finding suicidal tendencies before they do it, so will people determined to kill.
Assume for a minute that Rodgers wasn't going to kill anyone, that the initial impression the police got of him (that he would not be a threat to himself or others) was correct. Should such a person be detained against his or her will, purely on the chance that something might possibly happen? It's the great dilemma of crime prevention, until a person has actually committed a crime, he or she is innocent, and free to do as he or she pleases.
Any involuntary commitment based on something as hazily defined as "need for treatment" opens up a lot of abuse potential. Barriers for involuntary commitment need to be high, else it becomes way too easy to get rid of someone by just implying they're unwell and in need of treatment, something that can have quite a lot of repercussions for that person's life.
-
:yes:
We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.
This, quite simply, is bananas.
Anyone who truly believes that this should be the standard is more in need of mental health treatment than the people they are talking about.
Mental health issues are very complex. The author means well but is trying to give a simple solution an issue which doesn't have a simple solution. And as such has simply wasted column inches on a suggestion that will never, ever work.
-
:yes:
We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.
This, quite simply, is bananas.
Anyone who truly believes that this should be the standard is more in need of mental health treatment than the people they are talking about.
Mental health issues are very complex. The author means well but is trying to give a simple solution an issue which doesn't have a simple solution. And as such has simply wasted column inches on a suggestion that will never, ever work.
I agree with the assertion that mental health care in the U.S. is in a state currently hovering between "non-existent" and "completely ****ed," but I agree the author's conclusions are wrong. Psych holds already exist in some areas, especially for minors (Florida's infamous Baker Act being one of them). The problem is exactly what The E mentioned; it's very difficult to recognize mental health problems in other people sometimes. I think one of the contributing factors to the whole mess is that the current policymakers grew up in a time when psychology was basically binary: you were either crazy (in which case you'd be locked in a "looney bin" and experimented on), or "normal" and "normal" people are apparently just supposed to will themselves into mental health. The stigma surrounding psychological conditions is sickening. I can't even ****ing count the number of times people imply that clinical depression isn't real, or some other such horse**** where they don't believe a certain condition exists because they don't have it, like people implying that ADD/ADHD is just ****ty parenting.
-
Under California's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150, a person must be a danger to himself or others before he can be held for 72 hours for evaluation, and the standard is even higher to mandate treatment. Police visiting Rodger found him to be "polite and courteous" and not an apparent danger, so they had no authority to detain him or search his home for weapons to seize. The reason had nothing to do with gun laws. It had to do with the commitment laws in California.
We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.
So family members, law enforcement officers or mental health professionals should be able to have anyone held for a mental health evaluation even when there's no apparent reason for it? How is that not a stupid idea and a great recipe for systemic abuse?
-
I was more referring to instances where the individual had made statements that were verifiable (FB, Twitter, emails, texts, etc).
However, this would of course run into "I wasn't being serious"
Perhaps part of the problem is that people are afraid of being committed and not being let go when their condition is under control (happened to a person I know - his wife was literally destroying his life and so he turned himself in to avoid a nasty situation and they happily kept him there for months, when all he needed was some time to settle down).
Basically, make it so people don't fear help, and they might get help before it turns into something more permanent. I mean who wants to be held indefinitely and then not be able to find decent employment cause they've seen a shrink? No one.
EDIT: basically, I don't think the article is referring to nor am I in favor of involuntary comittal of persons based simply on someone else's say so.
-
the NRA really will do anything to deflect responsibility for the constant mass shootings in their country from their favourite murdertoys, won't they
-
EDIT: basically, I don't think the article is referring to nor am I in favor of involuntary comittal of persons based simply on someone else's say so.
This is more or less directly contradicted by the passage zookeeper quoted:
We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.
What's the barrier here? At what point does someone's concern translate into enough official concern that people are sent out to take a person into custody? What I mean is, the standard of "does this person present a clear danger to himself or others" is sufficiently high that preventative action can be taken with a high chance of said action actually being necessary. If that gets changed to "this person is possibly unwell and really needs some professional help", then you get into issues where you're giving the power to upend some person's life with a few well-chosen words of concern, without any danger at all being present.
Again, improving the mental health care framework, and improving awareness of mental health issues, that's great. Necessary, even. And who knows, maybe it will prevent a bunch of horrible crimes in some cases. But the catch is that we'll never know that it did, because the big factors that enable such crimes in the US are still present.
Would someone like Rodgers have committed the murders he did if he lived in a country where access to guns is more restricted? Probably not. Violence might still have happened, but the ease with which guns can turn murderous intent into actual murder make such crimes quite a bit worse under the circumstances.
-
it's brilliant how they've twisted 'better mental health treatment' into 'LOCK THE MENTALLY ILL UP BEFORE THEY KILL US ALL'
****ing ****heads
-
Hrm. When someone makes posts about how they are going to make other people pay, other people hurt and suffer for whatever wrongs, real or imagined that the perp /victim has experienced, exactly what would YOU suggest?
And as far as that being contradicted by the quote, I was assuming that that was meant in context of actual evidence that you could obtain some sort of warrant for ("stated intent to harm others")
And, let us not forget, there are plenty of ways to kill if you go crazy. Cars being an excellent (in that twisted way) choice. Mount bully/brush bar and whack-a-mole away!
-
Hrm. When someone makes posts about how they are going to make other people pay, other people hurt and suffer for whatever wrongs, real or imagined that the perp /victim has experienced, exactly what would YOU suggest?
The correct answer is "nothing official". Talk is cheap. Talk, in this context, does not matter. In the vast majority of cases, talk is all that is going to happen. Putting someone into a psych eval queue just for venting a bit online or elsewhere is an overreaction, and it won't address the problem.
And as far as that being contradicted by the quote, I was assuming that that was meant in context of actual evidence that you could obtain some sort of warrant for ("stated intent to harm others")
And we can see where such policies go in all the cases of students being suspended for their online behaviour under the "no tolerance" rules some american schools seem rather fond of. The only actual evidence of someone harming himself or others is that person actually harming himself or others, or acting with that intent.
And, let us not forget, there are plenty of ways to kill if you go crazy. Cars being an excellent (in that twisted way) choice. Mount bully/brush bar and whack-a-mole away!
Yes, there are. But wouldn't the logical approach then be to ban cars? Or investigate those who modify their cars from factory spec?
The point is, you cannot have perfect safety. You cannot have both personal liberty and a risk-free society. If gun ownership is something you want to have, then you have to accept that people who in retrospect should not have been able to obtain guns will obtain them.
-
Why ban nuclear weapons after all? I mean, all a crazy person needs to kill is a kitchen knife...
-
And, let us not forget, there are plenty of ways to kill if you go crazy. Cars being an excellent (in that twisted way) choice. Mount bully/brush bar and whack-a-mole away!
and yet mass murders with cars are a regular problem nowhere in the ****ing world (also cars are far, far less effective at mass murder than guns; only one of these things is built for killing)
the only reason to own a handgun or an assault rifle is to kill people, or fantasise about killing people (statistically you are most likely to use them to kill yourself). and yet people like you constantly defend them by comparing them to dangerous and heavily regulated tools needed for daily life in the modern world and acting like this implies guns should be treated as though they're innocuous as a tennis racket
-
the only reason to own a handgun or an assault rifle is to kill people, or fantasise about killing people (statistically you are most likely to use them to kill yourself). and yet people like you constantly defend them by comparing them to dangerous and heavily regulated tools needed for daily life in the modern world and acting like this implies guns should be treated as though they're innocuous as a tennis racket
Target shooting is a real thing that happens and there are people who like it for the sake of itself, not to fantasize about killing people.
That said, you don't need an assault rifle for target shooting.
-
the only reason to own a handgun or an assault rifle is to kill people, or fantasise about killing people.
Bull****. I don't hunt, and I honestly have no real fear of someone breaking into my house, so self defense isn't my primary concern either. I own a gun because target shooting is fun. Some of my friends own guns because target shooting is fun. Yeah, a gun is meant for killing. So is a combat knife or a sword, but I wouldn't ever advocate banning those.
I put "assault rifles" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in the same boat as cars that can go 300km/h. In NA and most of Europe, there is no practical purpose for such a car. It isn't legal to go that fast for transportation in most places. People buy them because they're fun, or because they want to show off, or whatever else. These are valid reasons. Those cars aren't regulated any more than any other.
Same goes for armored vehicles like decommissioned tanks.
And before anyone tries to say "oh why don't we allow people to own nukes then?" or something else ridiculous, it's an issue of scale and potential for misuse. A rifle can be useful for self-defense or hunting. A handgun is useful for self-defense. A hand grenade, for example, has no legitimate civilian applications whatsoever. It has no purpose except to kill indiscriminately. Apply a little thought. I wouldn't argue for legal LMGs any more than I'd argue for legal hand grenades.
As an aside, I find arguments based on the Second Amendment to be ridiculous. The spirit of the Second Amendment would encourage people to own anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. Its purpose was very specifically to allow the people to violently oppose the government if necessary.
-
I personally have several firearms because one of my hobbies is collecting things and guns look very nice mounted above a fireplace (with no ammunition, on safe, and with the firing pin removed).
-
You don't need a gun in your house for target shooting. There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.
People buy guns cause they like owning a gun.
-
There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.
There are theoretically other ways to allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment.
None of those ways actually exist in the US in any great number or availability (or reasonable cost).
-
You don't need a gun in your house for target shooting. There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.
People buy guns cause they like owning a gun.
And people buy Ferraris because they like owning a Ferrari. People buy tanks because they like owning a tank.
And yeah, I do need a gun in my house for target shooting, because I shoot on my property. Fairly common in rural areas in North America.
-
wait, are you really using a handgun or an assault rifle for your target shooting?
-
Okay, this is getting a bit too heated for my tastes. Please cool it down a bit. This is not the topic to discuss the merits of gun ownership.
PH, stop the sniping. Calling all gun owners aspiring murderers or making all of them collectively responsible for gun deaths is not a debating tactic you should continue to pursue.
-
Edit: didn't see the cool it post, so redacted cause it was on that topic.
-
wait, are you really using a handgun or an assault rifle for your target shooting?
It's illegal to shoot handguns outside of an official range in Ontario (barring actual self-defense) and I don't own one, but how do you define an assault rifle? Automatic weapons aren't legal anywhere in Canada, but semi-automatic civilian versions of assault rifles are. I own an M14, which is a military semi-automatic battle rifle (well, it's a Norinco knockoff, but whatever), and I do use it for target shooting.
-
wait, are you really using a handgun or an assault rifle for your target shooting?
Ladies and gentlemen, the discovery of the day. Target shooting is done with actual guns. :)
Why wouldn't you do target shooting with a handgun? While I'm personally not fond of handguns (mostly because I'm bad with them :) ), my sister uses a pneumatic handgun, and will probably want to try out a "real" 9mm or something if we get the chance (shooting in Poland is an extremely niche sport). And assault rifles? Well, borrow and shoot one someday. An old AK-47 was one of the best rifles I've fired, and I'd love to get my hands on a Lee-Enfield or an M-14 someday. It's simply a great experience and a sport of great traditions. Target shooting with real guns is a great way to relax, if you don't mind expense. Even wimpy pneumatics can be fun, but it can't compare to a real gun. I'd own a gun if I could (even the license is bloody expensive here, especially if you don't have a "good reason" for it), will probably have one if I decide to take up hunting (like my great-grandfather, who had both a rifle and a shotgun) and I don't plan on shooting anyone with it. Heck, I don't think I'd have much chance, since I'm a long rifle guy, and those aren't much good for personal defense (well, you can use it as a club if you've got a wooden stock... :) ).
You don't need a gun in your house for target shooting. There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.
As a person from a country that actually does it (unless you're an actual sportsman/woman, you can't have a target rifle), I can tell you that lending rifles doesn't work that well. You can't have a gun you want, but only a gun they give you, not to mention that every bloody time you're going to have to fiddle with the sights, stock and everything, because once you're gone, someone else will get to play with that very gun. Takes a lot of "recreation" out of recreational shooting... :) If you have your own gun, keep it in your house and maintain it yourself, then you don't have those problems. In Poland, you need to be "serious" (i.e. actually a part of a shooting section) about it to have a gun on which you don't need to reset everything every time you want to go shooting.
-
Target shooting is in general a really really stupid reason to oppose gun control. I'll be diplomatic and leave it at that.
-
It's a perfectly decent reason to oppose gun bans though. And a fine answer to the question "why do you want to own a gun?"
-
Target shooting is in general a really really stupid reason to oppose gun control. I'll be diplomatic and leave it at that.
Quite the contrary, it's a very good reason to oppose gun control as it's commonly understood, i.e. "restricting people from owning guns". Now, I have nothing against stricter regulation (mandatory psych evaluations, for instance), as long as the assumption is that if you're fit to own a gun, you don't have problems with getting a license. A lot of people own guns for target shooting, even up to .50 BMG (target shooting with one of those is one of the things I really want to try before I die :) ). If someone wants a gun to shoot a few tin cans in their own backyard, or targets at a shooting range, they should not have problems with obtaining a gun for that. Of course, as long as they're mentally and legally fit for owning a weapon. Similar checks are done (at least in Poland) for driving license applicants, so this shouldn't really be a problem for a normal person. That sort of "control" I can agree with, as well as tracking guns themselves. Again, much like with cars. I think that better gun tracking would actually help legitimate owners, since if someone manages to steal a gun (though guys who try to rob a known gun owner are prime Darwin candidates), it'd be somewhat easier to recover.
-
The US Constitution guarantees liberty, not security. 'Tis the tradeoff of living in America, I'm afraid... though maybe not for much longer considering how much the Constitution gets **** on. I'm looking at you, NSA/4th Amendment.
-
The US Constitution guarantees liberty, not security. 'Tis the tradeoff of living in America, I'm afraid... though maybe not for much longer considering how much the Constitution gets **** on. I'm looking at you, NSA/4th Amendment.
-
The US Constitution guarantees liberty, not security. 'Tis the tradeoff of living in America, I'm afraid... though maybe not for much longer considering how much the Constitution gets **** on. I'm looking at you, NSA/4th Amendment.
Well, that's because people seem to want both liberty and security, which is kinda hard. Ever heard of Brave New World? It's a dystopia which sacrificed liberty for security. I think that for quite a few people, the world presented there would be surprisingly appealing. If you've got liberty, you've got to take care of your own security. It requires much greater responsibility, something many people simply can't handle. Indeed, I think that most people are like that, in spite of what they think. In general, I think that society should go either in one direction or the other. Either a high-security, more or less authoritarian system designed around make sure it's citizens are safe and comfortable, or a high-liberty, loosely governed system designed around mostly making sure people don't violate each others' liberty. The problem with the former is that it tends to devolve into a oppresive dictatorship, the problem with the latter tends to devolve into anarchy and subsequently warlordism. The problem with fooling about the middle is what America is facing right now. Moves towards greater security result in cries of "Big Brother, we're being repressed!" and attempts to move towards liberty result in "You're useless, do something!".
-
Oh christ, not the gun-control thing again. Can we resume talking about the mental health issues and not the rooty-tooty-point-n-shooty things? :nervous: Pretty much all of these mass shootings have one thing in common: the shooter needed HELP. Twisted worldviews, psychosis, paranoia, etc. Seems the public opinion (not necessarily the public meaning people on this board, because most of you are more reasonable than the average person) is to leave these people to the wolves, but I don't think that approach is working out very well.
-
I would really prefer that to happen. The gun control thing is a derail that isn't going to go anywhere productive.
-
Pretty much all of these mass shootings have one thing in common: the shooter needed HELP.
Completely agree. I think the hard question is how do we recognize people who need help if they don't seek it out themselves? How do we respond to those people? Obviously there is no single correct or simple answer... it's very complex. :blah:
-
The problem is with the way mental health care is handled. You go see doctors for preventive care starting when your born. It should be the same for mental health care but it isn't. If everyone had regular mental health care checkups then there wouldn't be the stigma associated with mental health care.
Of course on the down side the doctors would be pushing drugs to those that don't need them but that's another issue.
-
There was a little list somewhere that gave all of the mass shooters and the heavy duty drugs they were on for psych issues... shocking, really. If you're on those caliber of drugs (some of which have side effects that are the same as what they treat<--!!), you really shouldn't be messing with firearms unless under close supervision, and I dunno about even then. (The side effects thing... well, it seems terrible, but if it works for 95% of patients, then you just monitor and change the prescription for the other 5%, problem is these things change, they stop taking their meds (usually after they start feeling better cause they "don't need them" :ick:) etc.)
Extremely quick Googling reveals:
http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
Fact: At least 34 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 167 wounded and 78 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs). The most important fact about this list, is that these are only cases where the information about their psychiatric drug use was made public. (See full list below)
The below list includes individuals documented to have been under the influence of psychiatric drugs and not only includes mass shootings, but the use of knives, swords and bombs. 22 international drug regulatory agency warnings cite side effects including mania, violence, psychosis and even homicidal ideation. (http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/drug_warnings_on_violence/)
1. Seattle, Washington – June 5, 2014: 26-year-old Aaron Ybarra opened fire with a shotgun at Seattle Pacific University, killing one student and wounding two others. Ybarra planned to kill as many people as possible and then kill himself. In 2012, Ybarra reported that he had been prescribed the antidepressant Prozac and antipsychotic Risperdal. A report from his counselor in December of 2013 said that he was taking Prozac at the time and planned to continue to meet with his psychiatrist and therapist as needed.
2. Milford, Connecticut – April 25, 2014: 16-year-old Chris Plaskon stabbed Maren Sanchez, also 16, to death in a stairwell at Jonathan Law High School after she turned down his prom invitation. According to classmates and a former close friend, Chris was taking drugs for ADHD.
3. Sparks, Nevada – October 21, 2013: 12-year-old Jose Reyes opened fire at Sparks Middle School, killing a teacher and wounding two classmates before committing suicide. The investigation revealed that he had been seeing a psychiatrist and had a generic version of Prozac (fluoxetine) in his system at the time of death.
4. St. Louis, Missouri – January 15, 2013: 34-year-old Sean Johnson walked onto the Stevens Institute of Business & Arts campus and shot the school’s financial aid director once in the chest, then shot himself in the torso. Johnson had been taking prescribed drugs for an undisclosed mental illness.
5. Snohomish County, Washington – October 24, 2011: A 15-year-old girl went to Snohomish High School where police alleged that she stabbed a girl as many as 25 times just before the start of school, and then stabbed another girl who tried to help her injured friend. Prior to the attack the girl had been taking “medication” and seeing a psychiatrist. Court documents said the girl was being treated for depression.
6. Planoise, France – December 13, 2010: A 17-year-old youth held twenty pre-school children and their teacher hostage for hours at Charles Fourier preschool. The teen was reported to be on “medication for depression”. He took a classroom hostage with two swords. Eventually, all the children and the teacher were released safely
7. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina – September 21, 2011: 14-year-old Christian Helms had two pipe bombs in his backpack, when he shot and wounded Socastee High School’s “resource” (police) officer. However the officer was able to stop the student before he could do anything further. Helms had been taking drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression.
8. Huntsville, Alabama – February 5, 2010: 15-year-old Hammad Memon shot and killed another Discover Middle School student Todd Brown. Memon had a history for being treated for ADHD and depression. He was taking the antidepressant Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.” He had been seeing a psychiatrist and psychologist.
9. Kauhajoki, Finland – September 23, 2008: 22-year-old culinary student Matti Saari shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine. He was also seeing a psychologist.
10. Fresno, California – April 24, 2008: 17-year-old Jesus “Jesse” Carrizales attacked the Fresno high school’s officer, hitting him in the head with a baseball bat. After knocking the officer down, the officer shot Carrizales in self-defense, killing him. Carrizales had been prescribed Lexapro and Geodon, and his autopsy showed that he had a high dose of the antidepressant Lexapro in his blood that could have caused him to be paranoid, according to the coroner.
11. Dekalb, Illinois – February 14, 2008: 27-year-old Steven Kazmierczak shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amount of Xanax in his system. He had been seeing a psychiatrist.
12. Jokela, Finland – November 7, 2007: 18-year-old Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School in southern Finland, then committed suicide.
13. Texas – November 7, 2007: 17-year-old Felicia McMillan returned to her former Robert E. Lee High School campus and stabbed a male student and wounded the principle with a knife. McMillan had been on drugs for depression, and had just taken them the night before the incident.
14. Cleveland, Ohio – October 10, 2007: 14-year-old Asa Coon stormed through his school with a gun in each hand, shooting and wounding four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon had been placed on the antidepressant Trazodone.
15. Sudbury, Massachusetts – January 19, 2007: 16-year-old John Odgren stabbed another student with a large kitchen knife in a boy’s bathroom at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School. In court his father testified that Odgren was prescribed the drug Ritalin.
16. North Vernon, Indiana – December 4, 2006: 16-year-old Travis Roberson stabbed another Jennings County High School student in the neck, nearly severing an artery. Roberson was in withdrawal from Wellbutrin, which he had stopped taking days before the attack.
17. Hillsborough, North Carolina – August 30, 2006: 19-year-old Alvaro Rafael Castillo shot and killed his father, then drove to Orange High School where he opened fire. Two students were injured in the shooting, which ended when school personnel tackled him. His mother said he was on drugs for depression.
18. Chapel Hill, North Carolina – April 2006: 17-year-old William Barrett Foster took a shotgun to school and took a teacher and a fellow student hostage at East Chapel Hill High School. After being talked out of shooting the hostages, Foster fired two shots through a classroom window before fleeing the school on foot. Foster’s father testified that his son had stopped taking his antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs without telling him.
19. Red Lake, Minnesota – March 21, 2005: 16-year-old Jeff Weise, on Prozac, shot and killed his grandparents, then went to his school on the Red Lake Indian Reservation where he shot dead 5 students, a security guard, and a teacher, and wounded 7 before killing himself.
20. Greenbush, New York – February 2004: 16-year-old Jon Romano strolled into his high school in east Greenbush and opened fire with a shotgun. Special education teacher Michael Bennett was hit in the leg. Romano had been taking “medication for depression”. He had previously seen a psychiatrist.
21. Red Lion, Pennsylvania – February 2, 2001: 56-year-old William Michael Stankewicz entered North Hopewell-Winterstown Elementary School with a machete, leaving three adults and 11 children injured. Stankewicz was taking four different drugs for depression and anxiety weeks before the attacks.
22. Ikeda, Japan – June 8, 2001: 37-year-old Mamoru Takuma, wielding a 6-inch knife, slipped into an elementary school and stabbed eight first- and second-graders to death while wounding at least 15 other pupils and teachers. He then turned the knife on himself but suffered only superficial wounds. He later told interrogators that before the attack he had taken 10 times his normal dose of antidepressants.
23. Wahluke, Washington – April 10, 2001: Sixteen-year-old Cory Baadsgaard took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates and a teacher hostage. He had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.
24. El Cajon, California – March 22, 2001: 18-year-old Jason Hoffman, on the antidepressants Celexa and Effexor, opened fire on his classmates, wounding three students and two teachers at Granite Hills High School. He had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.
25. Williamsport, Pennsylvania – March 7, 2001: 14-year-old Elizabeth Bush was taking the antidepressant Prozac when she shot at fellow students, wounding one.
26. Oxnard, California – January 2001: 17-year-old Richard Lopez went to Hueneme High School with a gun and shot twice at a car in the school’s parking lot before taking a female student hostage. Lopez was eventually killed by a SWAT officer. He had been prescribed Prozac, Paxil and “drugs that helped him go to sleep.”
27. Conyers, Georgia – May 20, 1999: 15-year-old T.J. Solomon was being treated with the stimulant Ritalin when he opened fire on and wounded six of his classmates.
28. Columbine, Colorado – April 20, 1999: 18-year-old Eric Harris and his accomplice, Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 26 others before killing themselves. Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox. Klebold’s medical records remain sealed. Both shooters had been in anger-management classes and had undergone counseling. Harris had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.
29. Notus, Idaho – April 16, 1999: 15-year-old Shawn Cooper fired two shotgun rounds in his school, narrowly missing students. He was taking a prescribed antidepressant and Ritalin.
30. Springfield, Oregon – May 21, 1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel murdered his parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 25. Kinkel had been taking the antidepressant Prozac. Kinkel had been attending “anger control classes” and was under the care of a psychologist.
31. Blackville, South Carolina – October 12, 1995: 15-year-old Toby R. Sincino slipped into the Blackville-Hilda High School’s rear entrance, where he shot two Blackville-Hilda High School teachers, killing one. Then Toby killed himself moments later. His aunt, Carolyn McCreary, said he had been undergoing counseling with the Department of Mental Health and was taking Zoloft for emotional problems.
32. Chelsea, Michigan – December 17, 1993: 39-year-old chemistry teacher Stephen Leith, facing a disciplinary matter at Chelsea High School, shot Superintendent Joseph Piasecki to death, shot Principal Ron Mead in the leg, and slightly wounded journalism teacher Phil Jones. Leith was taking Prozac and had been seeing a psychiatrist.
33. Houston, Texas – September 18, 1992: 44-year-old Calvin Charles Bell, reportedly upset about his second-grader’s progress report, appeared in the principal’s office of Piney Point Elementary School. Bell fired a gun in the school, and eventually wounded two officers before surrendering. Relatives told police on Friday that Bell was an unemployed Vietnam veteran and had been taking anti-depressants.
34. Winnetka, Illinois – 20 May 1988: 30-year-old Laurie Wasserman Dann walked into a second grade classroom at Hubbard Woods School in Winnetka, Illinois carrying three pistols and began shooting children, killing an eight-year-old boy, and wounding five others before fleeing. She entered a nearby house where she shot and wounded a 20-year-old man before killing herself. Dann had been seeing a psychiatrist and subsequent blood tests revealed that at the time of the killings, she was taking the antidepressant Anafranil.
For more information read Another School Shooting, Another Psychiatric Drug? Federal Investigation Long Overdue (http://www.cchrint.org/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/)
-
http://www.cchrint.org/
jr2, you've stepped down from citing the CATO Institute to citing a Scientology front group. You need to check the veracity of your sources.
-
ah, i see jr2. all we need to do is lock up everyone with depression as a potential mass-murderer. it's important we find solutions like this that don't infringe on our fundamental civil liberties like gun control would
-
PH, you already got a warning from another moderator to stop trying to derail the topic into gun control, and more specifically to stop the drive by sniping. Taking a look at the issue beyond gun control does not invite you to put words in other posters' mouths just because they're not focusing on your favorite part of the discussion. Knock it off.
-
Going back to the topic, the sense I got was a lack of understanding on the way mental health actually impacts the person by the article's author.
For example even when i am consistent on my medication I can have marked swings in my mood within a day let alone day to day and even with that medication certain events can push me dangerously in any given direction (even "good" frames of mind in this state can be very bad, especially for my sense of responsibility or ability to register anything outside of myself)
and so to identify an issue with someone unaware or unwilling to admit they might have a problem takes prolonged observation by someone who is trained in order to correctly identify both the type and severity of the issue, for example Bipolar needs handling differently from outright depression to ADHAD because if you don't them you will make the problem worse.
As for posts online... yer that is a no go, certainly not on it's own, people tash talk more readily online, they adopt different personas and will happily act out of character for many reasons including bigging themselves up and just to get a reaction.
As for gun control. start a thread on it, but please keep it reasonable, those things get locked so often its not funny. while it is relevant to this thread its been talked about here that often that its old news unless a gun control issue comes up.
-
The US Constitution guarantees liberty, not security. 'Tis the tradeoff of living in America, I'm afraid... though maybe not for much longer considering how much the Constitution gets **** on. I'm looking at you, NSA/4th Amendment.
Well, that's because people seem to want both liberty and security, which is kinda hard. Ever heard of Brave New World? It's a dystopia which sacrificed liberty for security. I think that for quite a few people, the world presented there would be surprisingly appealing. If you've got liberty, you've got to take care of your own security. It requires much greater responsibility, something many people simply can't handle. Indeed, I think that most people are like that, in spite of what they think. In general, I think that society should go either in one direction or the other. Either a high-security, more or less authoritarian system designed around make sure it's citizens are safe and comfortable, or a high-liberty, loosely governed system designed around mostly making sure people don't violate each others' liberty. The problem with the former is that it tends to devolve into a oppresive dictatorship, the problem with the latter tends to devolve into anarchy and subsequently warlordism. The problem with fooling about the middle is what America is facing right now. Moves towards greater security result in cries of "Big Brother, we're being repressed!" and attempts to move towards liberty result in "You're useless, do something!".
That's a rather simplistic assessment of "government".
-
You don't need a gun in your house for target shooting. There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.
People buy guns cause they like owning a gun.
1. I dare anyone to find a way that the rifle in my home endangers anyone in the way its stored, or used by the people I allow to use it.
2. Target shooting when you don't own your own firearm and don't buy your own ammunition is bloody expensive.
I don't buy into all the NRA bull**** one bit, either; that said, I also don't buy the argument that responsible firearms ownership and possession is impossible. There exists a happy medium between the malarky in the US, and ownership restrictions so severe as to make it impossible. I actually argue that, aside from a few minor quibbles, Canada has actually managed to figure this **** out for the most part. That said, we still need two things: better ongoing licensing monitoring, and better mental health services that actually take family complaints about potential self/other harm seriously, especially when the person in question is a firearms owner.
The article is generally poor; that said, the point that most first-world democracies need better resources for mental health and *many* mass shootings can be traced to individuals with identifiable mental health problems is pretty much the truth. Only a tiny tiny percentage of people with mental health problems commit violence; a large percentage of mass shooters have mental health problems.
-
PH, you already got a warning from another moderator to stop trying to derail the topic into gun control
>thread starts with an attempt to shift the blame for america's constant mass shootings from the (extremely powerful) gun lobby by further stigmatising the (extremely powerless) mentally ill
>totes not about gun control, stop derailing ph, we have to talk about how this is the fault of the mentally ill
-
And here I thought we were having a good discussion about how the mental health care industry in the US is absolute ****. I had no idea we were blaming the entire issue on the mentally ill. Thank you for enlightening me on what I was actually staying.
Now seriously, knock it off. Next one is a warning.
-
PH, you already got a warning from another moderator to stop trying to derail the topic into gun control
>thread starts with an attempt to shift the blame for america's constant mass shootings from the (extremely powerful) gun lobby by further stigmatising the (extremely powerless) mentally ill
>totes not about gun control, stop derailing ph, we have to talk about how this is the fault of the mentally ill
actually what we can do is discuss if and how the content of the article is flawed which is what some of us are trying to do. thb i am finding the gun control element a tad frustrating atm as its everyone repeating the same stance they have in previous threads :doubt:
-
the fact remains, the opening post of this thread was bringing up mental health as part of a statement about gun violence and specifically to minimise the perceived importance of gun control. i object strongly to being forced to ignore this part of the issue so the admins don't have to bother moderating a heated political issue
-
the fact remains, the opening post of this thread was bringing up mental health as part of a statement about gun violence and specifically to minimise the perceived importance of gun control. i object strongly to being forced to ignore this part of the issue so the admins don't have to bother moderating a heated political issue
while gun control is part of the article, it is also a minor part of the article but seems to have taken over the discussion as is often the case with a "heated political issue"
-
It reads to me as if the article is an exploration of the causal connection between mass shootings, gun control laws, and mental health services. Gun control laws are a big factor there.
-
They very well may be. A good discussion on gun control would not be amiss.
Drive by sniping about the merits of gun ownership period are neither good nor constructive to the issue at hand, and PH has thus far failed to engage the issue in any sort of constructive fashion.
-
the fact remains, the opening post of this thread was bringing up mental health as part of a statement about gun violence and specifically to minimise the perceived importance of gun control. i object strongly to being forced to ignore this part of the issue so the admins don't have to bother moderating a heated political issue
while gun control is part of the article, it is also a minor part of the article but seems to have taken over the discussion as is often the case with a "heated political issue"
obviously, because it's the actually controversial part! nobody likes gun violence! everybody wants better mental health care!
-
Can anyone come back with a reasonably rigorous answer to the basic question of 'is gun violence more common per capita in the United States than in other First World countries'?
-
ooh, you know what america could do to reduce the harm caused by mental illness? restrict access to guns so people feeling suicidal are more likely to seek help or recover rather than quickly and easily kill themselves with a gun
-
I don't disagree - suicide is, statistically, one of the primary uses of personal firearms - but again that conversation would be helped by a firm idea of whether American has a disproportionate number of per capita gun suicides, and whether this has a major effect on the per capita suicide rate as a whole.
Method of suicide does seem to materially affect the rate of successful* suicides, judging by the gender gap, so that's some evidence suggesting that restricting firearms could help reduce the rate of successful suicide.
*this is such an odd term to use here
-
Can anyone come back with a reasonably rigorous answer to the basic question of 'is gun violence more common per capita in the United States than in other First World countries'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
It seems to be getting information from here: http://www.gunpolicy.org/about which is a site that (ostensibly) is run and updated by the University of Sydney's School of Public Health.
It might also be worth comparing the gun homicide rate to the total homicide rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
And looking at the actual NUMBER of guns per capita, since accessibility is likely a factor in gun homicides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Let's assume for a minute for the information is good (I don't really have time right this second to check the sources). There are obviously more accessible guns in the U.S., and its ranking in gun homicides is the worst among first world countries, although the total homicide rate is not nearly as terrible. However, there are a lot of social factors at play, mainly racial/ethnic/nationality conflicts that more homogenous countries don't have on such a large scale.
I don't have a whole lot of stake in this debate. I wouldn't necessarily oppose more stringent controls on the sale of guns, as long as they're sensible and not just a "hey look guys, we're doing something" measure. But the gun-wielding cat is out of the bag. The U.S. has a truly massive number of guns floating around, both legal and illegal. The real problem is devising controls that make it more difficult for criminals to acquire them. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a really overused cliche, but it does have some truth.
-
http://www.cchrint.org/
jr2, you've stepped down from citing the CATO Institute to citing a Scientology front group. You need to check the veracity of your sources.
Well, here: (Los Alamos Daily Post)
http://www.ladailypost.com/content/brief-history-psychotropic-drugs-prescribed-mass-murderers
I'll see if I can look up all the individual stories mentioned by cchrint. I don't really think they are lying about any of those, but hey. I'll check.
-
The idea that psychiatric drugs cause mass shootings is a myth that originated with 'alternative medicine' practitioners. It was pushed by a number of crank media avenues. Uptake has been about what you'd expect for a mildly plausible but ultimately baseless conspiracy theory.
Actual scientific studies on antipsychotic medication show a massive drop in per capita homicides among users as compared to the same populations without antipsychotics.
-
Why is a single-pronged attack the only possible measure anyway? It's not just gun crime, it is gun culture that is the real problem.
The worry for me is that you are, as a country, fighting a meme.
-
'same populations' being people who should be on antipsychotics but are not, or general population?
I would not be surprised by the former, but the latter seems interesting, as I would expect people who need antipsychotics to be more prone to violence, even if they are on their meds.
-
Former I believe
Why is a single-pronged attack the only possible measure anyway? It's not just gun crime, it is gun culture that is the real problem.
The worry for me is that you are, as a country, fighting a meme.
This is a point of interest for me too. It may be that other 1WCs have reduced gun violence because their populations don't care about guns.
-
Why is a single-pronged attack the only possible measure anyway? It's not just gun crime, it is gun culture that is the real problem.
The worry for me is that you are, as a country, fighting a meme.
your assessment of the situation I feel is accurate, we love guns, our culture is all centered around getting to do what you want (or the idea that you can and should be able to), not safety and stability, gun ownership is considered a big part of that.
-
Could this be an issue of keeping your rights from the government only to have them taken by other groups? It's being described as a dangerous but free society, but it seems to me you're also quite likely to lose freedoms to non-governmental forces.
-
I wonder how many lives would be saved if all the money spent on anti-terrorism measures within the US was instead put into measures to reduce gun deaths.
-
I think that's the difference between the US and countries that have high gun ownership but low gun homicide levels like Sweden.
Whilst I don't like to generalize, I think it's something to do with exercising Rights and the American urge to do that as an expression of defiance. When it comes to Second Amendment, maybe it ends up higher on the list of options in a high-stress situation merely because it is an enshrined (and often mentioned) Right?
Edit : Or to put it in it's simplest form; being able to carry a gun is part of what it is to be American, like protesting in public, but if you mix the two, you have the potential recipe for a Mass-Homicide.
-
This is a point of interest for me too. It may be that other 1WCs have reduced gun violence because their populations don't care about guns.
This, I think, is not true. Other 1WCs have significant "gun cultures" too; they differ mainly from the US in that none of them have a very loosely-interpreted "right to bear arms" entrenched in their Constitution, and their gun culture is not integral to their founding mythos. The United States has a colossal hang up about firearms because of its history and its Constitution; where other 1WC's have enacted reasonable legislative limits on gun ownership, the US is a patchwork quilt of different regulatory regimes that have a net effect of almost nil-effectiveness because cross-state travel and transport is completely unimpeded.
Firearms ownership rates in a number of other 1WCs are not outlandishly different from the states, yet their gun violence stats are but a fraction of those in the US. The other thing is that you have to consider the US is among the 5 largest geographic countries, and has a population of 300+ million people - there is a huge regional diversity in violence rates. Look at the differences between DC and Idaho state. ID actually has lower firearms homicide rates than some Canadian provinces.
The other major issue is literally no other 1WC does their firearms controls by region with almost no national oversight. In Canada, being the closest example to US firearms culture and geographical makeup, the entire firearms control program is nationally-administered (with very slight additional controls in some regions). It makes for a consistent model. Compare to the US, where driving across a state line can be done multiple times in a day, and firearms controls can change drastically just by crossing a line on a map that does not impede the flow of goods or people.
Tying this back to mental health, while health care in Canada is administered by the provinces, there are nationally-mandated standards in health care (including mental health) and the way it interfaces with firearms licensing. While some individual states have a system like that, there is nothing that blankets the entire US. Moreover, Canada still has problems with mentally-unstable and/or ill individuals committing violence with firearms and we have a fully-funded health care system with significantly better mental health safeguards at the lowest levels of society than any American state; with the pay-for-service system of the US, there is virtually zero opportunity for identifying undiagnosed mentally ill with violence risk as they seek to obtain firearms if they have not self-identified and sought treatment, or been ill enough to actually be involuntarily committed.
The mass de-institutionalization of the mentally ill in the 1970s had some positive effect, but huge unintended consequences. Instead of being institutionalized, most of the mentally ill who do not access health care are now left to self-medicate and often end up on the streets. Police are now acting as social workers and psychologists to a degree they've never before experienced. Society basically took the rug out from under the most seriously mentally-ill without leaving a safety net; those who can be treated at home and have the means and supports to do so are. Those who do have an immediate violence risk are institutionalized, frequently in prisons never designed for them. And there is a huge 'middle' population that are one crisis away from being self-medicating and living on the street. Mental health in the US - and most other 1WCs - is a problem everyone talks about, but no one is willing to confront. We don't have the supports these people need; most of them end up in self-harming tragedies, while a tiny few are often implicated in mass-violence. (most notably those who are likely diagnosable as ASPD or narcissists).
-
Edit : Or to put it in it's simplest form; being able to carry a gun is part of what it is to be American, like protesting in public, but if you mix the two, you have the potential recipe for a Mass-Homicide.
Most Americans can't carry guns and never seek to, though. I don't think it can be called a broadly accepted essentiality of being American.
-
being able to is the key though, I do not own a gun, don't want to, but I consider the fact that I can to be important, empowering, and fundamental. it's not the ownership per se, but the ability, the right that is considered something of an essentiality.
-
Also worth pointing out is that the "American gun culture" varies as widely from state to state as ownership and homicide rates. In Wyoming, Montana, or the less populated Northwest, gun ownership per capita is fairly high, owing to high numbers and good opportunity for hunting. In Detroit, DC, or NYC, the homicide rate is through the roof compared to the more rural areas while the gun culture is different in terms of both availability and acceptability of firearms.
-
Ah, yes, New York City, that hotbed of homicide, often mentioned in the same sentence as Detroit. :nervous: (NYC's homicide rate is actually extremely low, much like NYC crime in general - far lower than many rural areas.)
-
Really? Law and Order lied to me. D:
-
NYC has a reputation as being a seething cesspool of crime in most of the rest of the country (world?), because it was... 20-30 years ago, and it has had a dramatic change. I moved here about 3 years ago and was afraid of the city because of it's reputation, but having run around in it a bunch I now think of it as being a very safe place, like freakishly safe. I moved from St.Louis, which is on the top ten list of high crime rates twice. you can just wander about just about everywhere and not have to worry about someone harassing/robbing you.
but, unfairly, in much of the american (global?) popular imagination when the phrase "crime ridden big city" is uttered, NYC pops to mind.
-
as a crazy person i think i have the right to bear nukes.
i also think i have the right to nuke bears.
-
as a crazy person i think i have the right to bear nukes.
i also think i have the right to nuke bears.
not much meat left if you do that, though I suppose it comes pre cooked
-
It's just a waaaaay faster microwave!
-
Edit : Or to put it in it's simplest form; being able to carry a gun is part of what it is to be American, like protesting in public, but if you mix the two, you have the potential recipe for a Mass-Homicide.
Most Americans can't carry guns and never seek to, though. I don't think it can be called a broadly accepted essentiality of being American.
Most Americans can't? Where did that come from?
The idea that psychiatric drugs cause mass shootings is a myth that originated with 'alternative medicine' practitioners. It was pushed by a number of crank media avenues. Uptake has been about what you'd expect for a mildly plausible but ultimately baseless conspiracy theory.
Actual scientific studies on antipsychotic medication show a massive drop in per capita homicides among users as compared to the same populations without antipsychotics.
For real? (no insult intended, I was literally surprised that you though this was my line of reasoning) Obviously they (drugs) don't (cause mass shootings); mentally disturbed people cause mass shootings, my point was, if someone is on medications to alter their mental state for the reason that their natural mental state is too unstable, perhaps they shouldn't be anywhere near firearms, and, if their condition spikes, until the docs manage to get a new medication or alter their dosage current one, they need help.
being able to is the key though, I do not own a gun, don't want to, but I consider the fact that I can to be important, empowering, and fundamental. it's not the ownership per se, but the ability, the right that is considered something of an essentiality.
Agreed.
Although, on a side note, I do own a rifle, an air rifle, and an air pistol. And, on another note, it should be plain common sense that if you acquire a weapon, that you familiarize yourself with it and the appropriate safety rules:
Treat every weapon as if it were loaded
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire
Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire
Know your target and what lies behind it
For real. If you own a firearm, you should be able to recite those. It's not hard, and it's common sense.
-
And yet there's no legal reinforcement of these basic safety rules!
-
And all the basic gun safety rules in the world will not stop someone from killing someone else with a gun.
-
And yet there's no legal reinforcement of these basic safety rules!
That depends on what legal jurisdiction you live in. In many American states, no, there isn't. In some, there is. And there is in most other countries as well. Violation is usually covered under laws against "careless use or display" of a firearm.
Example:
Careless use of firearm, etc.
86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-43.html#h-39
-
Whilst they only cover a small fraction of US homicide, the odd thing about school shootings in particular is who is doing them. In many cases these people come from families with social backgrounds that, whilst not always affluent, are not necessarily 'poor' either.
There IS, I think, a deeper-seated issue of 'expectation versus non-importance', America has the same spectrum of achievement as any other country, but American culture does tend to embrace the idea of 'if you are not exceptional, you are just background'.
I think the reason you don't see many, if any, school- or mass-shootings among the very low-income groups is because they've grown up more or less knowing that the chances are they will end up in a medium to low income job, whereas middle-class American teens, I think, find themselves at a point in their lives where their self-image is more important than ever (as it is with every teenager, everywhere) and realizing that they stand a good chance of just being 'average' at best.
Elliot Rodger is an extreme example of this, someone who was convinced he was, because of his social position, entitled to have everything work the way he wanted it to and desperately wanted that 'Exceptionalism' that is so treasured in capitalistic mentality. As it was, he found a way which, in his mind will always make people remember who he was.
That's part of the meme problem I think, without belittling school shootings, they are the ultimate tantrum, and because school shootings tend to get massive amounts of media coverage unstable kids realize that it WILL get you noticed.
-
And people buy Ferraris because they like owning a Ferrari.
And if someone claims that they don't want a Ferrari so they can drive it fast and/or pick up chicks what would you say to them? What would you say to anyone who on a debate about high speed car crashes claimed that it wasn't the reason most people bought a Ferrari?
While there are some people who may have a legitimate reason for having a handgun at home, a lot of people who make the target shooting excuse are doing just that, making an excuse for having a gun in their house.
1. I dare anyone to find a way that the rifle in my home endangers anyone in the way its stored, or used by the people I allow to use it.
Easy. You're out and someone robs your house.
2. Target shooting when you don't own your own firearm and don't buy your own ammunition is bloody expensive.
Sure it is. Cause there is no interest in making it an activity people do without owning the gun.
I'm not saying that controlled target shooting ranges is a necessary or desirable solution. My entire point is that there are solutions that allow people to do target shooting and not keep a gun at home. I know because the UK uses them. I am pointing out that the "I need to have a gun at home so I can go target shooting" is a flawed argument which could very easily be countered in most of the cases (certainly for anyone who lives within city boundaries where it is illegal to use that gun outside a gun range anyway).
-
1. I dare anyone to find a way that the rifle in my home endangers anyone in the way its stored, or used by the people I allow to use it.
Easy. You're out and someone robs your house.
And *if* they find it, break into the locked container, they get a long metal pipe that's completely useless because it has a secure lock on the trigger and its bolt is removed, locked in a separate container, and stored separately in the house. And before you say "they can just get a different bolt," bolts are firearm-specific and matched to the individual gun. While you could probably find another bolt that would work in it, that requires tracking down a parts catalog and finding someone who's willing to sell one to you that matches.
2. Target shooting when you don't own your own firearm and don't buy your own ammunition is bloody expensive.
Sure it is. Cause there is no interest in making it an activity people do without owning the gun.
Also not correct. There are several ranges in my city alone that allow for [supervised] recreational target shooting, with or without your own firearm, license, and training. In North America, recreational target shooting is widely available for non-firearms owners and enthusiasts. It is still expensive because you pay overhead. A day at a range like that here is $30 (plus some additional ammunition costs). On the other hand, I can drive 20 minutes to a range with a yearly membership of $55 with my $200 rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition that costs ~$30 as often as I like. If I go 5 times in a year and shoot 100 rounds per trip, that's a cost per trip of ~$17 plus gas.
I'm not saying that controlled target shooting ranges is a necessary or desirable solution. My entire point is that there are solutions that allow people to do target shooting and not keep a gun at home. I know because the UK uses them. I am pointing out that the "I need to have a gun at home so I can go target shooting" is a flawed argument which could very easily be countered in most of the cases (certainly for anyone who lives within city boundaries where it is illegal to use that gun outside a gun range anyway).
You're applying a UK-specific model to countries that have significantly different geographical, legal, and cultural landscapes. And a frankly unnecessary one; countries with strict licensing and storage laws have extraordinarily few incidents with unsafe storage resulting in injury or death, far less than something as innocuous as a family pool or child deaths in hot vehicles.
-
And *if* they find it, break into the locked container, they get a long metal pipe that's completely useless because it has a secure lock on the trigger and its bolt is removed, locked in a separate container, and stored separately in the house.
Which they also rob.
Your argument is flawed at a fundamental level. No matter how heavily you secure the weapon you keep at home, it is still a bigger danger than not having a gun at home in the first place. If you feel that your security precautions mitigate the danger to an acceptable level, so be it. But trying to argue that it doesn't exist at all is rather silly. Especially when I was speaking in general and most people do not take the precautions you take.
Also not correct. There are several ranges in my city alone that allow for [supervised] recreational target shooting, with or without your own firearm, license, and training. In North America, recreational target shooting is widely available for non-firearms owners and enthusiasts. It is still expensive because you pay overhead. A day at a range like that here is $30 (plus some additional ammunition costs). On the other hand, I can drive 20 minutes to a range with a yearly membership of $55 with my $200 rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition that costs ~$30 as often as I like. If I go 5 times in a year and shoot 100 rounds per trip, that's a cost per trip of ~$17 plus gas.
It wouldn't be much more expensive to buy your own gun and store it at the range though. In fact, considering the cost of the precautions you have to take at home, it might even end up cheaper.
You're applying a UK-specific model to countries that have significantly different geographical, legal, and cultural landscapes. And a frankly unnecessary one; countries with strict licensing and storage laws have extraordinarily few incidents with unsafe storage resulting in injury or death, far less than something as innocuous as a family pool or child deaths in hot vehicles.
The fact that the UK model exists belies the argument that a gun must be kept at home for people to be able to go target shooting. While that may be true in certain cases, it's not certainly not true for a large number of them. As pointed out above, you yourself can't make that argument because it would be fairly easy to make it so that it wasn't a requirement. You have a range within easy reach of your home, your guns could be stored there. If you choose not to do that, that's your choice.
-
And *if* they find it, break into the locked container, they get a long metal pipe that's completely useless because it has a secure lock on the trigger and its bolt is removed, locked in a separate container, and stored separately in the house.
Which they also rob.
Your argument is flawed at a fundamental level. No matter how heavily you secure the weapon you keep at home, it is still a bigger danger than not having a gun at home in the first place. If you feel that your security precautions mitigate the danger to an acceptable level, so be it. But trying to argue that it doesn't exist at all is rather silly. Especially when I was speaking in general and most people do not take the precautions you take.
Every single one of these points can be equally applied to a car and its keys, and yet we're not discussing the merits of automobile ownership despite the fact that automobiles kill far more people each year than firearms do. Your staunch opposition comes from a position that is equally applicable to any object that can be used to cause harm to others. Hell, in the urban UK you probably don't even really need a car, making the comparison even more apt.
While you are correct in that owning a firearm is inherently more dangerous than not owning a firearm, a properly stored and secured firearm is only negligibly more dangerous than no firearm at all - much like a properly parked and secured car is only negligibly more dangerous than no car at all. Malicious intent does not suddenly make that danger worse.
-
Which they also rob.
Your argument is flawed at a fundamental level. No matter how heavily you secure the weapon you keep at home, it is still a bigger danger than not having a gun at home in the first place. If you feel that your security precautions mitigate the danger to an acceptable level, so be it. But trying to argue that it doesn't exist at all is rather silly. Especially when I was speaking in general and most people do not take the precautions you take.
Having a large wrench is a bigger danger than not having a large wrench in my home because someone could cave someone's skull in with it (seriously, the thing is massive). I don't see anyone arguing wrenches should be stored at remote sites. Moreover (foreshadowing!), robbery here is relatively uncommon compared to the UK.
It wouldn't be much more expensive to buy your own gun and store it at the range though. In fact, considering the cost of the precautions you have to take at home, it might even end up cheaper.
There are five ranges within 45 minutes of my home. Of those, one - the $30/day range - offers storage, and only of handguns, not rifles. Does me no good. There's also the matter that rifles and shotguns are used for animal/predator control, so even if I were to have some sort of secure storage at some else's site, I need to store it periodically at home before trips into the backcountry when its coming along (as purely a backup to the infinitely more useful bear spray).
The fact that the UK model exists belies the argument that a gun must be kept at home for people to be able to go target shooting. While that may be true in certain cases, it's not certainly not true for a large number of them. As pointed out above, you yourself can't make that argument because it would be fairly easy to make it so that it wasn't a requirement. You have a range within easy reach of your home, your guns could be stored there. If you choose not to do that, that's your choice.
Most ranges here don't offer storage for long guns because storing them properly in one's home is cheaper, more secure, and more practical. Recall that Canada is a country of 30 million people, and the landmass of the entire UK can fit into any single one of 7 of the Provinces, nevermind the Territories. While the model you propose may be practical and work well in the heavily-urbanized UK, it doesn't here. Canada, like many countries, has a significant firearms culture. While we have reasonable laws that put stringent limits on firearms ownership, storage, and use, an attempt to impose the UK model here would rightly be met with outrage as it doesn't dramatically improve safety while it severely curtails usage and ownership.
In general, while the rate at which firearms are involved in all types of deaths in Canada exceeds that of England and Wales, the homicide rates are fairly similar between the two countries (depending on the year you look at), with Canada's typically being slightly higher. Looking at overall violent crime rate, however, violent crime rates in England and Wales significantly outpace those of Canada (OECD report summarized at http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf). Would further restrictions on firearms significantly reduce deaths here? Unlikely. The majority of deaths here attributable to firearms are suicides (roughly 75%, varying slightly by year), which is one area where new legislation introduced in the 1990s made little in the way of impact. Moreover, the UK suicide rate overall is actually slightly higher than the Canadian rate, despite the much tighter firearms controls. Accidental deaths attributable to firearms in Canada are quite low, and homicides make up the bulk of the remaining deaths. However, StatsCan data show that the majority of those homicides are committed by unregistered and illegally-owned/stored weapons in the first place. In general, Canada and the UK are quite comparable in terms of crimes and deaths. While Canada has a slightly higher overall homicide rate, the UK has a higher violent crime rate. While firearms are involved in more crimes in Canada, the levels of crime committed in the two countries are quite similar. Most of Canada's gun violence is in suicides; the UK has a barely-higher but almost identical suicide rate to Canada.
In other words, the fact that Canada has far more firearms owners, more firearms in general, and laws permitting more varied uses of them makes almost no real difference when compared to the UK. Why would we apply a model of firearms controls that makes no sense given our geography, legal landscape, and culture when the statistics that control would affect are virtually identical to a country that uses that model anyway?
I don't make this argument, incidentally, when it comes to the United States. That country needs to take a look around and get its collective **** together.
Regardless, I'm not what you'd call a gun-nut, but I do believe in evidence-based policy and legislation, and the evidence generally is that near-bans, like those in the UK, don't have much effect on overall deaths and violence as compared to similar nations with legislation that focus on responsible ownership and use, but this is highly-dependent on the culture and history of the country and a one-size-fits-all-solution does not exist. It's largely cultural. In Canada, we can't fathom the idea of police not being armed with guns; many people in the UK are shocked by the idea of police WITH guns.
-
i also think i have the right to nuke bears.
That's racist! :shaking:
-
i also think i have the right to nuke bears.
That's racist! :shaking:
would you prefer i nuked humans?
-
i also think i have the right to nuke bears.
That's racist! :shaking:
would you prefer i nuked humans?
No. Nuke all the things! Be an equal-oppertunity nuker!
-
The majority of deaths here attributable to firearms are suicides (roughly 75%, varying slightly by year), which is one area where new legislation introduced in the 1990s made little in the way of impact. Moreover, the UK suicide rate overall is actually slightly higher than the Canadian rate, despite the much tighter firearms controls. Accidental deaths attributable to firearms in Canada are quite low, and homicides make up the bulk of the remaining deaths. However, StatsCan data show that the majority of those homicides are committed by unregistered and illegally-owned/stored weapons in the first place. In general, Canada and the UK are quite comparable in terms of crimes and deaths. While Canada has a slightly higher overall homicide rate, the UK has a higher violent crime rate. While firearms are involved in more crimes in Canada, the levels of crime committed in the two countries are quite similar. Most of Canada's gun violence is in suicides; the UK has a barely-higher but almost identical suicide rate to Canada.
There is some evidence that gun bans could lower the suicide rate, similar to how banning coal gas ovens in the UK (http://io9.com/5959303/why-have-people-stopped-committing-suicide-with-gas) may have lowered it.
-
There is some evidence that gun bans could lower the suicide rate, similar to how banning coal gas ovens in the UK (http://io9.com/5959303/why-have-people-stopped-committing-suicide-with-gas) may have lowered it.
Most of that evidence comes from countries without strict licensing and storage laws in the first place - namely, the United States. Canada did see a drop in firearms-related suicides following the stricter licensing and storage laws brought in in 1991, but the overall suicide rate in the country has remained relatively stable since 1920. Furthermore, while suicide in Canada is the leading cause of death of young people in the age 15-39 bracket, that age class has the lowest percentage of firearms-use in suicide of any age class. The highest percentage of firearms use in suicide comes in the age 60+ bracket. Not coincidentally, Canada does not allow for euthanasia. The greatest number of suicides occurs in the age 40-59 bracket, whose firearm usage is only slightly greater than young people and well below that of the 60+ bracket. Hanging and poisoning are both double the firearms percentage in that group; by contrast, the 60+ group has firearms use exceed poisoning and is slightly below hanging. (Relevant charts: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm)
In Canada, most of those firearm suicides are in aboriginal communities with severe social problems where social programs and mental heath services funding would actually get more value per dollar spent than criminal enforcement with more firearms laws in the first place. This country has a massive and chronic issue with under/mis-funding of reserve-based social and health care services. The aboriginal population has a suicide rate over 3 times higher than that of the general population. This is further complicated by the fact that aboriginals in Canada have the right to sustenance hunting and attempts to eliminate firearms in that population - nevermind the general population - will be met with Constitutional challenges. Aboriginals also have the highest percentage of accidental deaths by firearm, and research suggests the majority of these are actually suicide attempts. (Relevant report: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/mr131-e.htm)
-
Canada did see a drop in firearms-related suicides following the stricter licensing and storage laws brought in in 1991, but the overall suicide rate in the country has remained relatively stable since 1920.
I've looked into it, but I'm not really sure why wikipedia says that when the statistics on that very site show the rate almost doubling from 1950 to 1980's and then stabilizing at about 150% of 1950's rates.
-
Canada did see a drop in firearms-related suicides following the stricter licensing and storage laws brought in in 1991, but the overall suicide rate in the country has remained relatively stable since 1920.
I've looked into it, but I'm not really sure why wikipedia says that when the statistics on that very site show the rate almost doubling from 1950 to 1980's and then stabilizing at about 150% of 1950's rates.
Hunh? My info isn't coming from Wikipedia
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/chart/11696-02-chart1-eng.htm
The age-adjusted suicide rate has hovered between 9-13 per 100,000 for the last 60+ years, with brief spikes up closer to 15 (peak was in the 1980s). The suicide rate right now is higher than it was in 1950, despite the significantly tighter firearms laws. In other words, Canada's firearm regulations introduced in the 1960s and again in the 1990s have had no discernible impact on the overall suicide rate (there are no long-term drops in the suicide rate following either the regulatory framework introduced in the 1960s or the 1990s that are attributable solely to firearms legislation). Keep in mind both those events significantly tightened existing firearms controls.
I played around in CANSIM with the last decade worth of data and pulled together a spreadsheet that may interest people concerning some of the statistics I've been pointing at. Unfortunately, CANSIM doesn't appear to have pre-2000 data readily loaded, but the last decade is quite interesting on its own. See attached 7zip. I've made a summary JPG as well
Suicides by firearm from 2000 to 2011 dropped, just as suicides by other means also dropped (and slightly more). The overall suicide rate dropped by 1.3 per 100,000 (age standardized) over this period, with firearms-related death reductions accounting for 0.6 and all other for 0.7. All of this with no tightening of firearms-related controls in this period.
Does firearms availability impact suicide rates? Data from some countries points to yes. Does tightening firearms controls in countries with existing control legislation have a meaningful impact on the suicide rate on its own? Data for the Canadian experience points to no; there are other much more important causal factors at work.
[attachment kidnapped by pirates]
-
The majority of deaths here attributable to firearms are suicides (roughly 75%, varying slightly by year), which is one area where new legislation introduced in the 1990s made little in the way of impact. Moreover, the UK suicide rate overall is actually slightly higher than the Canadian rate, despite the much tighter firearms controls. Accidental deaths attributable to firearms in Canada are quite low, and homicides make up the bulk of the remaining deaths. However, StatsCan data show that the majority of those homicides are committed by unregistered and illegally-owned/stored weapons in the first place. In general, Canada and the UK are quite comparable in terms of crimes and deaths. While Canada has a slightly higher overall homicide rate, the UK has a higher violent crime rate. While firearms are involved in more crimes in Canada, the levels of crime committed in the two countries are quite similar. Most of Canada's gun violence is in suicides; the UK has a barely-higher but almost identical suicide rate to Canada.
There is some evidence that gun bans could lower the suicide rate, similar to how banning coal gas ovens in the UK (http://io9.com/5959303/why-have-people-stopped-committing-suicide-with-gas) may have lowered it.
guns have that quick and effective attribute and are capable of getting the job done. i for one think we need suicide booths. that would reduce rates of suicide by gun, and probibly reduce school shootings as well.
-
There are five ranges within 45 minutes of my home. Of those, one - the $30/day range - offers storage, and only of handguns, not rifles. Does me no good. There's also the matter that rifles and shotguns are used for animal/predator control, so even if I were to have some sort of secure storage at some else's site, I need to store it periodically at home before trips into the backcountry when its coming along (as purely a backup to the infinitely more useful bear spray).
You're making several incorrect assumptions about what I'm arguing.
1) I'm only arguing about handguns. Looking back, I haven't made this quite as clear as I thought I had. But it basically makes the points about rifles moot.
2) I'm arguing about urban settings (Especially those where discharging a handgun at a place that isn't a target range is illegal anyway).
3) I'm arguing that under those circumstances there is no NEED to keep a handgun in your house because it would be just as practical to keep the gun at the range you're going to have to take it to anyway.
Target shooting is often given as the reason to need to keep a handgun in your house. But I don't believe it is actually the reason people keep a handgun quite as often as people claim it is. In many cases it's a justification, not a reason.
-
There are five ranges within 45 minutes of my home. Of those, one - the $30/day range - offers storage, and only of handguns, not rifles. Does me no good. There's also the matter that rifles and shotguns are used for animal/predator control, so even if I were to have some sort of secure storage at some else's site, I need to store it periodically at home before trips into the backcountry when its coming along (as purely a backup to the infinitely more useful bear spray).
You're making several incorrect assumptions about what I'm arguing.
1) I'm only arguing about handguns. Looking back, I haven't made this quite as clear as I thought I had. But it basically makes the points about rifles moot.
2) I'm arguing about urban settings (Especially those where discharging a handgun at a place that isn't a target range is illegal anyway).
3) I'm arguing that under those circumstances there is no NEED to keep a handgun in your house because it would be just as practical to keep the gun at the range you're going to have to take it to anyway.
Target shooting is often given as the reason to need to keep a handgun in your house. But I don't believe it is actually the reason people keep a handgun quite as often as people claim it is. In many cases it's a justification, not a reason.
Your argument definitely holds more water if its solely about handguns, but its still flawed.
You can possess handguns in Canada for a couple reasons: employment, target shooting, and collection being the main ones. Of those, your argument really only applies to target shooting. Even then, ranges are still expensive to shoot at, storage at urban ranges is relatively expensive (even with a LE discount, the range near here where you can store is over $300 a year for a membership and storage fees are on top of that), and there are already stringent storage requirements on homeowners. All handguns here are restricted, meaning they must meet the requirements in s.6 here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-3.html#h-4 In short, trigger or action-locked, in a locked container/safe or secure room designed for the storage of restricted firearms, with ammunition stored separately or locked up similarly.
It's only practical to keep a handgun stored at a range if you always go to that range. Some people do that. Others don't. Since legally-owned-and-possessed handguns are virtually never used in crimes or result in accidental deaths here, I don't see a compelling reason to eliminate the existing storage laws and force off-site storage.
There are a lot of firearms owners - myself included - who are completely on board with laws regulating ownership, possession, transportation, use, and storage. Strong laws. But what I notice is that the gun control argument is generally framed by two groups of people: rabid gun owners who know a lot about guns and very little about the law and the public safety consequences of gun ownership, and people whose only experience with guns is popular media and the tragedies in the news. Moderate voices get lost.
There is no compelling reason why public safety demands firearms owners surrender their firearms, or jump through expensive and frankly unreasonable hoops in order to possess and use their belongings, especially in countries where this is part of the culture and history. Similarly, there is also no compelling reason why firearms owners can't be strictly licensed, and subject to strict laws ensure safety of that ownership, possession, use, and storage. Is it reasonable to ban fully and semi-automatic military-style weapons with large capacity magazines in the interest of public safety? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to ban .22 revolvers? Not particularly. But is it reasonable to impose more stringent controls on an easily-concealed handgun like a .22 revolver than a conventional shotgun or hunting rifle? Definitely. There exists a happy medium here. People who argue for quasi or actual bans on gun ownership generally, or entire classes of firearm based on look rather than potential threat are just as much of a problem as the guy who figures he should be able to own a fully-automatic AK47 with a drum mag and carry it wherever he damn well pleases. Both lack education on the issues at play, the statistics involved, and the legal landscapes.
-
Again you misunderstand.
I'm going to give up cause there is obviously a failure of communication going on here and I'm already heartily sick of explaining a fairly minor point over and over again.
-
What I don't understand is why you need live ammo for target shooting. I mean, wouldn't blanks be just as good? This way you could sell all the guns you want for target shooting/collection and only those who actually need to kill stuff(like hunters or policemen) would have access to live ammo. I know blanks can still be dangerous, but surely they're much less dangerous than live ammo.
And the whole self-defence argument seems a bit silly, you don't need a submachinegun for self defence, a pistol should be enough.
The Ferrari argument just doesn't work because you can actually take it to a track, a lot of these cars are even designed and tuned with a racetrack in mind. Rifles on the other hand are designed for warfare, not shooting ranges. That's why they use an air-rifle in the Olympics, not an M4A1.
-
The Ferrari argument just doesn't work because you can actually take it to a track, and a lot of these cars are designed and tuned for a track. Rifles on the other hand are designed for warfare, not shooting ranges. That's why they use an air-rifle in the Olympics, not an M4A1.
Some people are also interested in flashy cars for the same reason others are interested in fine art.
-
Blanks are useless for target practice.
Nothing hits the target - you can't really do anything. It would be like playing ball with an imaginary ball.
-
Then use rubber bullets, I know they exist. You just don't need lethal ammo for shooting ranges.
EDIT: it seems I was completely wrong on this one.
-
What I don't understand is why you need live ammo for target shooting. I mean, wouldn't blanks be just as good? This way you could sell all the guns you want for target shooting/collection and only those who actually need to kill stuff(like hunters or policemen) would have access to live ammo. I know blanks can still be dangerous, but surely they're much less dangerous than live ammo.
And the whole self-defence argument seems a bit silly, you don't need a submachinegun for self defence, a pistol should be enough.
1. Blanks are just casing and powder, there is no projectile.
2. Who has a submachine gun for home defence? Fully-automatic weapons are illegal even in the US.
3. Really, a semi-auto shotgun is the most practical weapon for 'home defense.' My thoughts on home defence? If you need a gun to defend your home, find a less ****ty place to live.
4. Handguns are involved in the majority of accidental firearms-related child deaths in the US.
The Ferrari argument just doesn't work because you can actually take it to a track, a lot of these cars are even designed and tuned with a racetrack in mind. Rifles on the other hand are designed for warfare, not shooting ranges. That's why they use an air-rifle in the Olympics, not an M4A1.
As far as I know - and I did Google it again before writing this - some Olympic shooting events use air pistols, but most use live ammunition; namely .22 and shotgun chambered in various sizes. Biathlon uses .22LR, the most common target shooting caliber in the world.
As for rubber bullets, they are specialty rounds that are more expensive, tougher to find, and really don't affect safety at shooting events anyway because a certified range is quite possibly one of the safest places you can be at any given time. Rubber bullets are also considered "less-lethal;" at close range, the proximity that you'd be at with an accidental discharge, they are still basically as lethal as lead ammunition. I'm not quite sure why you'd argue that rubber bullets are appropriate for target shooting given that death or injury at ranges is virtually non-existent, unless you're thinking that the storage at a home would be less problematic, but it's still ammunition and requires safeguards.
-
Well, you can clearly see that I don't know jack about rifles apart from the fact that they're bloody dangerous. My dad has a leftover Zastava M72 from the war and that's about the only gun I've ever seen(I've seen a few policemen carrying pistols, but they were hidden in their holsters). Anyway, the core of my point is that owning live ammo should be illegal for anyone who doesn't need to kill stuff. I don't see why they couldn't just sell/store the ammo at shooting ranges. If you only want a gun for it's artistic value or for shooting ranges, I think you don't need to store live ammo in your home.
Even if live ammo really is necessary to have fun on a shooting range, it should be possible to just sell it on-site. Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Thanks for making me a bit less ignorant on the topic though.
-
My thoughts on home defence? If you need a gun to defend your home, find a less ****ty place to live.
That seems harsh to me. A lot of people will have no choice in the matter. Or the trouble might come to them, and they don't want to leave. Or they don't want to leave their job, friends and family. Would you rather let thugs take all that away from you and money out of your pocket, or live your life how you want to? Even if you're not poor, it can take years to sell your house or find the right place and then have to wait for them to find the place for them so you can move in.
-
Well, you can clearly see that I don't know jack about rifles apart from the fact that they're bloody dangerous. My dad has a leftover Zastava M72 from the war and that's about the only gun I've ever seen(I've seen a few policemen carrying pistols, but they were hidden in their holsters). Anyway, the core of my point is that owning live ammo should be illegal for anyone who doesn't need to kill stuff. I don't see why they couldn't just sell/store the ammo at shooting ranges. If you only want a gun for it's artistic value or for shooting ranges, I think you don't need to store live ammo in your home.
Even if live ammo really is necessary to have fun on a shooting range, it should be possible to just sell it on-site. Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Thanks for making me a bit less ignorant on the topic though.
A rifle is only as dangerous as the person using it. The same thing goes for ammunition. Ironically, this sort of viewpoint is exactly why the Second Amendment exists, because making the purchase and ownership of live ammunition would quickly remove (either through expenditure or criminalization) any means to defend oneself at home (regardless of validity of defense claim). It'd also be a real bear of a thing to get around for people that like to go hunting in their free time.
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
This bears a second look. Neither bullets nor guns kill people individually. Hell, bullets and guns together don't kill people. For bullets and guns to be capable of killing people, someone has to **** up.
-
unless you bayonet someone or beat em to death with the butt of your rifle. im surprised these school shooters dont equip bayonets. actually one of the biggest killers in warfare is artillery. grab one of those avalanche control guns and a few rounds of ammo, and a ballistics table and a crazy person can indiscriminately rain down death into populous areas.
-
Pretty sure that the previously mentioned "less-lethal" ammo would suffice for self defence. Yeah, they're more expensive but you shouldn't find yourself in a situation where you have to actually shoot someone that often. And if everyone didn't have guns, you wouldn't have to defend yourself from guns. What terrible threat do you have to defend yourself from other than human beings with guns? Rabid animals don't just stroll into towns that often, and if you happen to be a certified hunter you should be allowed to carry live ammo for bolt-action hunting rifles.
-
FrikgFeek, where do you live (country?)
As far as defending yourself goes, a) criminals will have gone regardless, even if they have to fabricate them (not that hard of you're a machinist), and there are always weapons that work in addition: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html )
The thing about self - defense with a firearm, if you someone is simply making mischief, unless they are insane, they will either surrender or run if you confront them while ready to inflict deadly harm. Unless they have a firearm out, in which case, by announcing their intention to use the threat of deadly force, they are inviting whatever you end up doing to defend yourself.
Now, some may think I'm extreme and bloodthirsty. Not at all, lethal force should be a last resort, but when it comes down to it, that card needs to be on the table unless you have enough law enforcement around to be in your house before any harm comes to you or your family. (not going to happen, even in a police state)
I do think that people who are obsessed with killing in defense of their property (not people, property) are just a bit whack. Maybe legally justified, but whack. Announce your presence and your intention to defend your property AFTER calling the police, and they should clear out. To shoot to kill and then claim you didn't know if they were going to hurt you... Come on. If you have the drop on them, don't end someone's life because they f*cked up and decided to steal. Be ready to respond if they are crazy enough to insist with deadly force, but don't be a heartless nincompoop.
Heck, if they needed to feed themselves or their family, I would probably wait for the police, check their story out, and buy them food and not charge them with anything.
It's the people that somehow think that they are strong or well - armed enough to take what they please when they please from who they please however they please that are the problem, I would think. Honestly, unless you live in a bad part of a big city, you probably won't run into that. Probably....
And before you ask, I don't have an "assault rifle". Although I would like one some day. I need a good, locking case first. :p
-
you know inspired by nukes artillery comment, I wonder how hard it would be for someone on their own to make a reasonably effective makeshift mortar. assuming someone clever enough to make black powder, pipe bombs are dumb easy, and it doesn't seem like it should be too hard to make a bunch of pipe bombs, and then just make a bunch of charges, for launching the bombs, and you can figure out range by firing off a few sand filled bombs. doesn't seem out of the range of beleivability.
-
...things you can buy at a hardware store...
-
I feel like this thread is going in a really bad-dark direction.
-
Dude, of course you can. They make armor piercing IEDs from different materials over in Iraq and Afghanistan
EDIT:
the reason it's not that common probably is that it's more practical to just buy it on the black market. Probably less chance of accidentally blowing your face off too, that's always a plus. :yes:
-
its easy to convert a cell phone to a detonator. you just need a big ass mosfet (n channel, if you do this with a p channel you will die) and an electric blasting cap. connect the gate of the mosfet to the hot lead on the vibration motor, the drain to the positive power supply, and the blasting cap from source to ground.
well hard light is officially under nsa's radar. hi nsa dude, sorry you wasted your life. take over the world already.
-
My thoughts on home defence? If you need a gun to defend your home, find a less ****ty place to live.
That seems harsh to me. A lot of people will have no choice in the matter. Or the trouble might come to them, and they don't want to leave. Or they don't want to leave their job, friends and family. Would you rather let thugs take all that away from you and money out of your pocket, or live your life how you want to? Even if you're not poor, it can take years to sell your house or find the right place and then have to wait for them to find the place for them so you can move in.
The point is more that most people who think they *need* a gun to defend their home actually don't. The vast majority of break-ins occur when the owner isn't even on the premises, and for those few that do ("home invasions"), the chances of you getting to a properly and securely stored gun before an intruder is able to attack you are pretty much nil. Yes, there are anecdotes of people who fended off intruders because they had access to a firearm but these are the exception, not the rule.
If you home security plan is a gun, you don't have a home security plan. Ergo, move somewhere that you don't feel you need a gun. If you can't move, then clearly the motivation to move (by not relying on a gun) is less than all the other reasons that you want to stay where you are (financial and otherwise).
Did I mention this fun fact earlier? At a distance of less than 21 feet, an attacker will touch a trained and prepared person who is trying to draw, aim, and fire a loaded firearm. They teach this in law enforcement use of force training - if you're facing a person with a knife, and they're less than 21 feet away and you don't have a gun out and pointed at them, they will cut you before you can shoot them to stop them. I've trained in the drills; it's true. How many houses have you see where an intruder will be further away than 21 feet from you?
-
Pretty sure that the previously mentioned "less-lethal" ammo would suffice for self defence. Yeah, they're more expensive but you shouldn't find yourself in a situation where you have to actually shoot someone that often. And if everyone didn't have guns, you wouldn't have to defend yourself from guns. What terrible threat do you have to defend yourself from other than human beings with guns? Rabid animals don't just stroll into towns that often, and if you happen to be a certified hunter you should be allowed to carry live ammo for bolt-action hunting rifles.
1. If you are going to shoot at someone to defend yourself, even with less-lethal ammunition, it had better be because they intended to cause you death or grievous bodily harm... because otherwise you're going to prison for murder / attempted murder. That said, if I'm going to shoot someone to defend myself from death or grievous bodily harm, it's going to be with ammunition that WILL stop them, not that might stop them. And less-lethal ammunition is still capable of being lethal, and probably will be at short range. Once again, there is literally no purpose to less-lethal ammunition in civilian hands. It's no safer for the majority of ways accidents occur (extreme close range), and it doesn't prevent crime (because criminals don't use less-lethal ammunition, they procure live rounds).
2. "And if everyone didn't have guns, you wouldn't have to defend yourself from guns." If we could live in a world where we could ensure no one would ever die from a gunshot again because everyone got rid of their firearms, I'd be the first to show up at the smelter saying "melt these down and good riddance." Unfortunately, criminals manage to acquire guns even in places where ownership is fully banned. The cat's out of the bag, too - the first 3D-printer-built firearm was made not that long ago. Firearms aren't difficult to make, nor acquire, nor hide. They aren't going away. They haven't gone away in places they are banned because part of the population doesn't care if they are banned. Now, I don't own a gun to defend myself from other people, but I will say that the only practical way to deal with firearms is to regulate them, license the owners, enforce safety laws, and prosecute anyone who breaks them.
3. I don't know where you're from; where I'm from, I have had 300 lb black bears and cougars (mountain lions, to some of you) in my backyard and at the back window of the house. Now, while I have thankfully never needed to shoot one and I do prefer bear spray, having a gun on hand in case of emergency is ideal. I've also seen adult bull moose walk down the front street.... and no, I don't live in the bush or on an acreage. That's IN town. We've had bears get into people's houses. They're generally harmless, but they're everywhere.
4. Certified hunter meaning licensed hunter? I think you need to read up on the laws concerning firearms in places other than where you live. In Canada, to even own a firearm, you need to take a safety course that covers the law, safe handling, safe use, and safe storage. When you pass that course with over 80%, you send that certification along with an application which includes all of your personal information, criminal records information, spouse or ex-spouse/partner information, and three references to the national firearms center, who run background and criminal record checks on you and interview your references. Then, they may issue you a license to possess and acquire non-restricted firearms (most rifles and shotguns). If you want to own restricted firearms - which have severe restrictions on handling, storage, and use beyond those of non-restricted - you have to pass a separate course, and the application is the same. The course is a few hundred dollars, the application is $60-80. Once you get a license you can actually buy a gun or acquire one from friends/family, and you have to renew it every five years. To even have it in your possession you need your license with you. You have to follow all the storage and handling laws, and if you don't there are a number of criminal offences that specifically deal with storage and handling of firearms. Then, if you want to hunt, you need a hunting license, tags for the game animals, and there is yet another stack of laws that deal with how, when, and with what you can hunt. And most hunters use bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles anyway. However, there are a lot of hunters who bow hunt, for which they require no firearms license or safety course. Fact of the matter is, there are a lot more restrictions that are involved in merely owning a firearm than hunting that certify you are safe to have it.
Well, you can clearly see that I don't know jack about rifles apart from the fact that they're bloody dangerous. My dad has a leftover Zastava M72 from the war and that's about the only gun I've ever seen(I've seen a few policemen carrying pistols, but they were hidden in their holsters).
A rather large barrier here is that you appear to have no exposure to firearms, the laws governing them, or the safety/crime/etc statistics concerning them. That's not necessarily a bad thing the majority of the time, but it is a bad thing when you're trying to argue in a discussion on a topic you appear to know nothing about aside from what you've gleaned from popular entertainment and news media... who get it wrong far more often than they get it right.
The problem is not that firearms are dangerous - a firearm is simply a tube that allows expanding gases to force a projectile out the other end at high velocity. It is not fundamentally more dangerous than a bow (and frankly, I can think of several calibers of guns I'd rather be shot with than a bow any day). The problem is not responsible people who follow the firearms laws. The problem is people who don't - the wrong people are dangerous when armed with firearms. And like so many people who don't fully understand the issue, the things you're advocating punish already law-abiding people and do nothing to deter crime or reduce accidental deaths. What does that you ask? First off, strong laws concerning reasonable ownership, use, transport, and storage that promote safety but don't turn the majority of gun owners into criminals without enhancing safety further; second - swift, certain, and severe punishment of law breaking.
Like I said before, I am a passionate advocate for owner/use licensing and mandatory training and sensible, evidence-based firearms controls. I think Canada has a very sensible model that needs to be improved upon, too (though many Canadian gun owners would flog me for saying it as some think it over-bearing). I am ALSO a vocal opponent of proposals based on opinion without evidence or practical application.
-
Not sure how it's relevant, but I'm from Croatia. You have to pass a bunch of psychological inspections (they even interview everyone from your neighbours to your mother in law) to obtain a hunting license, which automatically makes you eligible for purchasing bolt-action hunting rifles. I think you can obtain a pistol as a civilian, but I've never heard of someone doing that. Some people have rifles from the war stashed away in their basement, but they couldn't kill someone with those rusty pieces of junk even if they wanted to. Most working guns are in the hands of the Police and security forces or the Mafia.
And don't tell me that banning guns is inherently impossible. Japan's done it and their firearm related homicide rate is one of the lowest(if not THE lowest). I understand that removing a market without removing the demand will just create a black market(like banning alcohol did in the prohibition era), but surely something can be done.
Obviously Ryan is much more educated on the topic than I am, and I completely agree with what you've said about home defence. If there's an armed person in your home you call the police and leg it. Dealing with armed criminals isn't something civilians should do. Same goes for animals, surely there's a service you can call to deal with wild bears and vipers and whatnot.
And you're probably right, my ideas sound more like asinine DRM now that I've re-read them, but I still don't see a reason a civilian should keep a loaded gun in his home.
And if I thought all my ideas were correct and the ultimate gun solution I would propose them to the U.S. government, not a public forum for everyone to criticise.
-
thats discrimination
psycho pride! we demand equal rights!
-
1) who said anything about loaded?
2)the reason I asked where you were from is, if it's not too difficult, a firearms safety and familiarization course would probably get rid of some misconceptions. The weapons aren't scary, irresponsible people are.
3)that sounds legit ;if there's an armed intruder in my house, I'll call the police, somehow convince my 20-month old son and 8 month old daughter to be quiet while my wife and I grab them and "leg it" ummm, or maybe since that won't work well, ask nicely for him to just take our stuff? :p Granted, if we are close to an egress route, that does make some sense. If.
-
Yes, trying to engage the armed criminal with lethal weaponry and an intent to kill seems much more practical. And yes, you should let him take your stuff, he has a ****ing gun. What rational human being would risk his life to save his property? And it's not like they can get very far in the 5-10 minutes it'll take the police to get there.
Croatia used to have a firearms safety course with some really old German rifles, but those aren't considered safe enough any more.
And if the gun you're keeping isn't loaded(or the ammo isn't right next to it so that it takes a few seconds to load it) then it's not very practical for home defence.
-
I would only intend to kill if the idiot didn't drop his weapon and / or run. I'm assuming he either thinks I'm not there (not likely, the car is a dead giveaway) or has harmful intentions for our persons because otherwise he would have waited until the house was vacant., like a "smart" criminal.
-
I would only intend to kill if the idiot didn't drop his weapon and / or run. I'm assuming he either thinks I'm not there (not likely, the car is a dead giveaway) or has harmful intentions for our persons because otherwise he would have waited until the house was vacant., like a "smart" criminal.
Doesn't matter if you intend to kill him, he might intend to kill you. And in a situation where you both have firearms and are within 5-6 metres(15-20ish feet I guess) it's basically up to luck who gets shot and who survives. Are you really going to risk your life like that? Might as well play Russian roulette to buy it back then. I'm pretty sure your chances against a criminal with an intent to kill are worse than 83,33% . Even if you're at the shooting range every day and you're an incredible sharpshooter it doesn't mean crap if he sneaks up on you in the dark.
MP-Ryan explained it much better than I ever could, a gun is not a home security plan.
And It's not like you're never home without the car, doesn't your wife ever drive it?
-
Only if hers is in the shop. And, if the criminal has the drop on you, that's a different story than him prowling around the house and you becoming aware before he accosts you. Then you really would have to play Russian roulette - and hope he's not a serial killer. :p
-
Major problem with gun control laws is that their violation can even be a felony. Thats not cool for things which are only indirectly harmful. Its why I am really hesitant to support increased gun control even if it could save some lives.
-
Only if hers is in the shop. And, if the criminal has the drop on you, that's a different story than him prowling around the house and you becoming aware before he accosts you. Then you really would have to play Russian roulette - and hope he's not a serial killer. :p
But again, let's say it's some kid who's trying to steal some minor stuff to fund his *insert generic drug* addiction. He stole his father's gun and then you jump out in front and ask if he could drop his weapon. He gets scared as **** and instinctively shoots you.
The very fact that you have a weapon and are confronting him with it is taking a needlessly huge risk. And you never know who's just a bumbling moron and who's a serial killer. Legging it always seems like the best solution. And if moving your kids really is such a big problem, then why are you even living in an area where you need a firearm to defend yourself?
I might be wrong here, but the whole " I need a gun to defend myself" thing just seems like an overreaction.
-
I have two bayonets casually laying around my room
Who needs a gun when you have a Russian two and a half foot long bayonet from 1940
Stick them with the pointy end which can be conveniently attached to your rifle or other items that fit it
-
The point is more that most people who think they *need* a gun to defend their home actually don't. The vast majority of break-ins occur when the owner isn't even on the premises, and for those few that do ("home invasions"), the chances of you getting to a properly and securely stored gun before an intruder is able to attack you are pretty much nil. Yes, there are anecdotes of people who fended off intruders because they had access to a firearm but these are the exception, not the rule.
If you home security plan is a gun, you don't have a home security plan. Ergo, move somewhere that you don't feel you need a gun. If you can't move, then clearly the motivation to move (by not relying on a gun) is less than all the other reasons that you want to stay where you are (financial and otherwise).
Did I mention this fun fact earlier? At a distance of less than 21 feet, an attacker will touch a trained and prepared person who is trying to draw, aim, and fire a loaded firearm. They teach this in law enforcement use of force training - if you're facing a person with a knife, and they're less than 21 feet away and you don't have a gun out and pointed at them, they will cut you before you can shoot them to stop them. I've trained in the drills; it's true. How many houses have you see where an intruder will be further away than 21 feet from you?
This is very interesting, thank you. Particularly about the 21 feet thing. 21 feet is a lot, especially in most rooms of a house. Being in the UK of course we don't have to worry about guns. Not normally anyway. I have always thought it would be difficult to get to your gun in such a scenario. I imagine the only way you'd do it is if your intruder is sneaking around downstairs giving you time to get to your gun, or perhaps makes a clumsy and noisy entrance. Or you stick up a middle finger at the rules and keep it around loaded and ready to go.
The guns probably do make people feel better on a psychological level though.
-
Funnily enough I came across this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKHeXC7L85s) today (possibly NSFW so I'm linking it instead)
It's nice to see someone is trying to be reasonable when it comes to gun safety. I've been saying for ages that no one seems to have that interest in mind so I wish them luck. Although by calling themselves evolve together they're going to be immediately ignored by a whole bunch of dumbasses who really should listen to them.
-
There's an amusing interplay going on between jr2 and FrikgFeek here that could probably be aided by a little cross-cultural understanding.
While most B&E events do not involve a homeowners presence, some do. In the US, a much greater proportion of these also include an intruder carrying a firearm than in other parts of the world. While I maintain a gun is *not* a home security plan on its own, relying on your ability to run if someone breaks into your home is *also* not a home security plan because that isn't always an option. Neither is relying wholely on the police to show up. Very, very few occupant-on-premises B&Es are home invasions where the criminal intends to do the occupant harm, but in the few that are, a police response time of 5-10 *if* you can get to the phone is not acceptable. Given the stunning lack of proper storage laws in most US jurisdictions and the prevalence of firearms generally in the US, I, too, would likely have a shotgun locked up in my bedroom in case of emergency if I lived in many American locales.
On the other hand, pointing a gun at someone and telling them to get out / go away has all kinds of bad things written all over it. If you're pointing a gun at someone, you'd better be in a position where you fear for your life or the lives of others and can immediately legally and morally pull that trigger. Otherwise, you shouldn't be pointing a gun at them. The film equivalent of "standoffs" is just that - entertainment. It doesn't happen like that in the real life. First off, when the adrenaline is pumping it is hard to remember how to operate a gun; second, it's hard to aim (which is why I say shotgun), and third, most people couldn't actually kill another human being unless confronted immediately by their own death or the death of another person. And anyone who says "just aim for the leg/arm/etc" needs to be ejected from this discussion - trained police officers are taught to aim center of mass because when the adrenaline is flowing, you will miss far more often than you will hit, and you aim for the biggest part of a person you are most likely to hit.
That video kara pointed out is excellent. Here's another article that I posted on Twitter a while back with which I [generally-speaking] completely agree: https://www.quora.com/Guns-and-Firearms/Is-it-better-to-own-a-gun-for-self-defense-or-is-that-more-likely-to-cause-problems/answer/Jon-Davis-10?srid=nG8l&share=1
On the subject of gun bans; Japan has successfully banned firearms for all intents and purposes. Points to note: Japan has no historical culture around firearms, Japanese citizens live in predominantly urban areas and have no real need for predator control when outdoors, and Japan still has firearms-related crime. Even with a gun ban. When it comes to firearms controls, there is no one-size-fits-all solution because what works and what can practically be implemented depend heavily on the country in question. The US needs to do better, absolutely, but any government in the US or Canada that tried to impose a complete firearms ban would quickly find itself tossed out on its ass.
I agree with one of jr2's statements too: anyone arguing firearms controls without any experience with them based on the 'dangerousness' factor should definitely take a course on firearm safety, handling, and general familiarization. He's right - firearms themselves aren't scary things, they're tools. That's all. Yes, some people fetishize them, but I place them completely in the category of "irresponsible people who shouldn't have access to firearms because they make them dangerous." In the hands of a responsible owner, any firearm is no more dangerous than a service firearm in the hands of law enforcement. Depending on where you are and the level of training they have, responsible owners are often considerably *less* dangerous than some people in law enforcement [who frankly shouldn't be in that career either.]
-
And people buy Ferraris because they like owning a Ferrari.
And if someone claims that they don't want a Ferrari so they can drive it fast and/or pick up chicks what would you say to them? What would you say to anyone who on a debate about high speed car crashes claimed that it wasn't the reason most people bought a Ferrari?
While there are some people who may have a legitimate reason for having a handgun at home, a lot of people who make the target shooting excuse are doing just that, making an excuse for having a gun in their house.
I'm not getting your point.
What exactly is wrong with buying a gun for its own sake? Like I said, someone might buy a fast car for its own sake as well. Or they might do it for the fun things one can do with a fast car, just like they might with a gun. I don't think saying "it's for target shooting" is an excuse because I don't think gun ownership is something that needs an excuse in the first place.
-
Well, I should be able to buy explosives, because my hobby is blowing up household items in the desert.
It's that hobbies existing around weapons is no excuse not to ban weapons.
-
@Aesaar I said I was giving up earlier but since you asked, I'll take one more stab at it.
I don't think saying "it's for target shooting" is an excuse because I don't think gun ownership is something that needs an excuse in the first place.
Then say that you want a gun for the sake of it. I was pointing out that many people who make the claim that they need a gun at home for target shooting don't. They just want to have a gun at home and are using the excuse of target shooting to justify it.
MP-Ryan is actually doing much the same for people who claim they need a gun at home for self defence.
-
@Aesaar I said I was giving up earlier but since you asked, I'll take one more stab at it.
I don't think saying "it's for target shooting" is an excuse because I don't think gun ownership is something that needs an excuse in the first place.
Then say that you want a gun for the sake of it. I was pointing out that many people who make the claim that they need a gun at home for target shooting don't. They just want to have a gun at home and are using the excuse of target shooting to justify it.
MP-Ryan is actually doing much the same for people who claim they need a gun at home for self defence.
I have been saying this. The point I've been making this whole time is that you don't need to justify why you want a firearm to others. Wanting to have one is a perfectly valid reason in itself, like it is for any other item.
I used the Ferrari analogy because it's similar. You don't need a fast car, and in most places, you won't get to legally use it to its potential except on a track. There's no real practical purpose (especially for purpose-built track cars). It's something you own purely for personal enjoyment, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Well, I should be able to buy explosives, because my hobby is blowing up household items in the desert.
It's that hobbies existing around weapons is no excuse not to ban weapons.
Just so. I'd love to have an ATGM launcher or an autocannon, but I'd never advocate legalising them. My argument is just to refute the notion that the only reason to own a gun is to shoot people.
My view on gun legislation is pretty much identical to MP-Ryan's, and I think it's a common opinion in Canada in general. At least for informed people.
-
You don't need to justify owning a firearm to your neighbours, but you do need to justify it to the state. Or are you saying everyone should be able to buy a gun just because they want to?
-
The implication is a little bit less random than that, but essentially. He's advocating that someone who qualifies for gun ownership after all the background checks and whatnot are done shouldn't have to further justify their firearm purchase by citing a reason.
-
The very fact that you have a weapon and are confronting him with it is taking a needlessly huge risk. And you never know who's just a bumbling moron and who's a serial killer. Legging it always seems like the best solution. And if moving your kids really is such a big problem, then why are you even living in an area where you need a firearm to defend yourself?
I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment. You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO. If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety. To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.
-
Why stop at guns then? If someone passes enough background checks, why not sell them an armed tank? Or a nuke? Sure a nuke wouldn't be very practical but maybe someone just wants it in their backyard to admire it. Where exactly would you draw the line if "I want it" is a good enough reason to buy a tool designed to hurt or murder people? Or do you actually believe that there's no line to draw?
Those background checks are never going to be 100% perfect. If they were, you could spot all criminals and do crime prevention. And if they're not perfect, you're taking a risk on every gun you sell. Most of them are going to be sold to responsible owners, but you'll always have that small chance that the background checks failed to spot a potential criminal.
-
You don't need to justify owning a firearm to your neighbours, but you do need to justify it to the state. Or are you saying everyone should be able to buy a gun just because they want to?
Scotty's got it. If the state has determined, through background checks and safety courses, that someone is responsible and knowledgeable enough to own a firearm, then that person does not need to justify why he/she wants one. Same as getting a driver's license, really.
Why stop at guns then? If someone passes enough background checks, why not sell them an armed tank? Or a nuke? Sure a nuke wouldn't be very practical but maybe someone just wants it in their backyard to admire it. Where exactly would you draw the line if "I want it" is a good enough reason to buy a tool designed to hurt or murder people? Or do you actually believe that there's no line to draw?
Those background checks are never going to be 100% perfect. If they were, you could spot all criminals and do crime prevention. And if they're not perfect, you're taking a risk on every gun you sell. Most of them are going to be sold to responsible owners, but you'll always have that small chance that the background checks failed to spot a potential criminal.
If you're going to outlaw everything that can be misused and potentially hurt people, you'll be outlawing a lot more than just guns. Shall we outlaw knives too? The government gives driver's licenses to people after they've passed their test, yet we still get people speeding and driving drunk. Shall we outlaw cars and alcohol on that basis?
There comes a point where potential for misuse becomes so dangerous that it's necessary for the state to interfere on someone's right to their hobbies, but I don't think that that point is with rifles and handguns. Most tend to agree automatic weapons is a good limit though.
As an aside, it's perfectly legal to buy a tank in a lot of places. This is just a hunch, but I'd bet that it's easier to do most of the time. Not armed, mind you, but an unarmed tank is more than enough to render you immune to nearly all police response.
-
The very fact that you have a weapon and are confronting him with it is taking a needlessly huge risk. And you never know who's just a bumbling moron and who's a serial killer. Legging it always seems like the best solution. And if moving your kids really is such a big problem, then why are you even living in an area where you need a firearm to defend yourself?
I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment. You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO. If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety. To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.
I'm with you. If someone's in your house, they've put you in a corner. They already have the initiative, they're prepared, you're not, and they've come purely to do you harm (not necessarily bodily harm, but harm all the same.) Why should you give them even more advantage? These people are criminals, not reasonable people.
-
I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment. You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO. If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety. To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.
Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't.
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?
And cars and knives aren't designed to hurt people, it's just an unfortunate side effect. If car manufacturers could make cars that are incapable of hurting people without sacrificing performance or price they'd do it. On the other hand a weapon incapable of hurting others isn't a very good weapon.
-
Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't.
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?
The point of owning a gun for self-defense is to make yourself the armed guard of your home. And given proper background checks and safety courses, there's no reason why you'd be any less responsible a firearm user than those armed guards.
MP-Ryan made a good case criticising the idea, but I understand the rationale behind home defense.
And cars and knives aren't designed to hurt people, it's just an unfortunate side effect. If car manufacturers could make cars that are incapable of hurting people without sacrificing performance or price they'd do it. On the other hand a weapon incapable of hurting others isn't a very good weapon.
What it's designed to do doesn't matter. What it can be used to do does.
-
I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment. You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO. If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety. To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.
Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't.
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?
For me, I'm not saying that I wouldn't consider fleeing if I was able (though the way my house is designed, it's likely impossible that I'd be able to get out without a confrontation.)
I believe the sentiment he's expressing (which even if he's not I am) is that you shouldn't feel you have to flee from your own home. That you should have the option to stand against the intruder/s. This is especially true if there are family in the house, especially the young or the infirm. Surely you'd rather stand in front of such loved ones than risk them getting hurt or taken hostage by violent criminals.
Basically, when backed into such a corner, you should be free to take whatever action is necessary to protect you and your family. That action might well be simply to flee. But it might have to be to fight for your life, and you shouldn't have to worry about anything else but that fight.
-
What it's designed to do doesn't matter. What it can be used to do does.
But if a car doesn't pass safety inspections and is deemed too dangerous it can't get sold. And that includes pedestrian safety. A gun only needs to pass inspection to ensure that it's user is safe, they don't test it for the safety of whoever you're shooting at(for obvious reasons). And I'm sure that even the most dangerous car is much worse at murder than a well-made firearm.
Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.
-
What it's designed to do doesn't matter. What it can be used to do does.
But if a car doesn't pass safety inspections and is deemed too dangerous it can't get sold. And that includes pedestrian safety. A gun only needs to pass inspection to ensure that it's user is safe, they don't test it for the safety of whoever you're shooting at(for obvious reasons). And I'm sure that even the most dangerous car is much worse at murder than a well-made firearm.
Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.
Misuse doesn't just mean murder. Driving drunk and speeding are both examples of misusing a car, and both of those kill quite a few people. Moreover, it doesn't matter how safe a car is designed to be, it can and will still kill someone if it's going fast enough.
And knives are designed to cut things. It's pretty much exactly why they make good weapons.
-
Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't.
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?
...you're suggesting that someone should have to run miles away, most likely at night, just to get to a place of safety? That aside, in what universe are there banks open 24 hours a day?
And I think it would be far more risky to attempt to rush past an armed assailant and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back, than it would be to defend yourself at home. But regardless, the point remains that I shouldn't have to. My home is my property. It is my refuge, and I should not be forced to leave it for anyone. That's the very definition of the "castle doctrine," which is derived straight from English common law.
-
Well, I should be able to buy explosives, because my hobby is blowing up household items in the desert.
You can, at least in most of the US - it's called Tannerite. And as a bonus, you have to use a high velocity bullet to set it off!
-
And I think it would be far more risky to attempt to rush past an armed assailant and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back, than it would be to defend yourself at home. But regardless, the point remains that I shouldn't have to. My home is my property. It is my refuge, and I should not be forced to leave it for anyone. That's the very definition of the "castle doctrine," which is derived straight from English common law.
I believe a law founded in 1628 is a bit outdated by now. And what kind of psycho would kill an unarmed person in a house he's trying to rob? I'm pretty sure confronting him with a gun is much more dangerous than trying to run away or just letting him rob you. By what logic is it better to risk your life and the lives of those around you(in case you actually do kill the guy but his assistants get mad and decide to murder your family in revenge) than just lose a few thousand dollars? And if you really do believe that a few thousand dollars are worth risking your life over, why not just play Russian roulette? 83.3% are good chances in comparison.
I can find a bank or a police station that's open 24-7. And I'd have to run a kilometre at worst. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for a healthy person. Don't tell me you can't think of a safe place in a 0.62 mile radius from your house.
-
What it's designed to do doesn't matter. What it can be used to do does.
But if a car doesn't pass safety inspections and is deemed too dangerous it can't get sold. And that includes pedestrian safety. A gun only needs to pass inspection to ensure that it's user is safe, they don't test it for the safety of whoever you're shooting at(for obvious reasons). And I'm sure that even the most dangerous car is much worse at murder than a well-made firearm.
Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.
Sure sure, cars are terrible at killing innocent unarmed civilians, but we can't ignore the scourge of the evil assault tractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Hebei_tractor_rampage).
Also, you can't know the intention of someone trying to rob you. Some think they'll just put you down on the spot to avoid having you go rat to the cops. Home invasions are especially concerning, because they've already shown blatant disregard for your personal property, safety, and well-being. Why go hide in the corner hoping they don't decide you'd be a fine human punching bag for all of their mommy issues, or a good rape toy for their feelings of insecurity? In the case of a home invasion, they've already shown that they have clear disregard for the law, and your human rights, so why even assume they don't intend to harm you?
EDIT: Also, your assumption that running out of your home is an option is kind've silly. Either you "shelter in place" and hope for the best, or you fight back. Lots of folks can't just hop out a second story window and then go running through the woods. Hell, being robbed in public doesn't even give the option to retreat sometimes.
-
Sure sure, cars are terrible at killing innocent unarmed civilians, but we can't ignore the scourge of the evil assault tractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Hebei_tractor_rampage).
I'm not going to lie, that's actually pretty damn hilarious.
In the case of a home invasion, they've already shown that they have clear disregard for the law, and your human rights, so why even assume they don't intend to harm you?
Oh come on, what kind of violent fantasies are you guys indulging in? Someone who's entered your house with intent to kill most likely isn't doing it alone, in which case your wimpy pistol won't do crap. A thief will almost always try to break in when he thinks nobody's there. If he knows you're there he's probably got enough firepower to feel safe about it.
And being able to run to the door is unreasonable, but being able to retrieve your safely stored gun and ammo is perfectly legit. I don't think this is the case unless you sleep right next to your gun.
-
More fun facts:
-More people in virtually every first-world democracy are murdered annually by means other than a firearm than with.
-Even in the US, with the highest firearms-related death rate in the first world, more people die as a result of motor vehicles (all causes) than die as a result of firearms (all causes). By the way, both general poisoning and drug poisoning are higher than vehicles too.
-In Canada, where there are licensing requirements for all firearms owners and specific usage restrictions on both restricted and prohibited firearms classes, the penalties for firearms offences are all federal, criminal legislation (including improper storage, etc). The penalties for most motor vehicle offences are provincial offences, which are non-criminal (though some motor vehicle offences are also criminal too; namely, things like drunk driving). This despite the fact that in 2004, ~2800 people in Canada died from motor-vehicle related causes; 743 died from all types of firearms causes (76% of which were suicides). In other words, vehicles account for 4 times the number of deaths in Canada in 2004 than firearms, yet have lesser requirements to own them, operate them, and face lesser penalties when their use is improper.
-To compare guns to another potentially-lethal tool, in Canada in 2008, firearms (with all their related legal requirements) were used in 34% of homicides. Knives, which anyone can make, nevermind buy and carry with no restrictions whatsoever, also accounted for 34% of all homicides. Knife used has doubled since 1974; firearm use has halved since 1974. Interestingly though, the number of times a knife was used in a violent incident has not changed for a decade. The overall homicide rate has dropped since 1974.
-In the UK, with some of the mos restrictive gun laws in first world democracies, knives are used in crimes four times more frequently than firearms. While the UK has a marginally lower homicide rate than Canada (1.0 vs 1.5 in 2011 according to UNODC), it also has a considerably higher violent crime rate (for which there is no single stat, so I'm not linking to a dozen sources).
What does all this mean?
I'd suggest it means firearms are not the inherent problem most of the time. Rather, unreasonable firearms use and access can be mitigated, but its overall impact on deaths and crime doesn't tend to significantly change. People are still going to die accidentally; people are still going to kill each other. Ergo, it makes sense to craft laws that improve safety around firearms ownership and use, but with the objective of improving safety. If your objective is to reduce overall crime rates, firearms regulation has a very limited benefit that makes an impact on the continuum of virtually no restrictions to reasonable restrictions, but pays diminishing returns for increased costs on the scale of reasonable restrictions to complete bans.
The statistics on this are outrageously complex. Firearms have no causal effect that is easily discerned.
-
Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.
And what kind of psycho would kill an unarmed person in a house he's trying to rob? I'm pretty sure confronting him with a gun is much more dangerous than trying to run away or just letting him rob you. By what logic is it better to risk your life and the lives of those around you(in case you actually do kill the guy but his assistants get mad and decide to murder your family in revenge) than just lose a few thousand dollars? And if you really do believe that a few thousand dollars are worth risking your life over, why not just play Russian roulette? 83.3% are good chances in comparison.
I can find a bank or a police station that's open 24-7. And I'd have to run a kilometre at worst. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for a healthy person. Don't tell me you can't think of a safe place in a 0.62 mile radius from your house.
I reckon we're getting off track here, the point was about not feeling we have to avoid a confrontation, not the merits of various courses of action. I don't want to fight if I can help it, but if someone brings the fight to me I don't want to have to worry about anything other than that fight.
And unfortunately people do get killed in home invasions, or brutalised.
On running, there's nothing but other houses in a kilometre radius of my house, and I'm sure that's very much not unusual. Also, if you run, you could very easily be chased down. There might well be another criminal outside in a vehicle, so you get yourself trapped between them and whoever's in your house, or maybe even run down by that vehicle.
The thing is there's a million ways a situation could go, and we need the freedom to be able to react and make choices as to how to deal with those situations without being restricted by the very laws which are supposed to protect us. As soon as someone steps into your home, they should forfeit all rights. I do however think that shooting a fleeing criminal in the back is wrong, but I wouldn't object to someone gunning a criminal down from behind in an ambush attack. If you get a chance to remove the threat you should be able to take it.
-
I can't really say that surprises me in the least. Unless you're living in an active warzone accidental deaths are always going to outnumber homicides. And I looked up some of the statistics: firearm related deaths by 10000 capita in the US in 2011 were 10.3 Motor vehicle related ones were 10.387, which rounds up to 10.4. The difference is actually very minor, at least for the US.
Then again the ratio of motor vehicle deaths:motor vehicle murders is much higher than firearm deaths:firearm murders. And cutting down on guns seems much more reasonable and practical than cutting down on cars or knives. You can't really live without a car or a bread cutter in the modern world.
Lorric, in a situation where you have multiple people in your home trying to kill you and a few more in a vehicle outside of your house to shoot down runners YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY BONED. Gun or not, there's absolutely nothing you can do. If you're such a badass that you can take on multiple armed men with a pistol you might as well impale them on your hypermasculine cock and be done with it.
-
I can find a bank or a police station that's open 24-7. And I'd have to run a kilometre at worst. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for a healthy person. Don't tell me you can't think of a safe place in a 0.62 mile radius from your house.
Congratulations. Perhaps you should stop assuming everyone lives in the same kind of area you do.
I live in a rural area, and I'm really not afraid of someone breaking in. However, I recognise that some people aren't as fortunate in that way as I am, and I can certainly see how someone who lives in a bad neighborhood might want a way to protect themselves if necessary, even if it's just to provide peace of mind. Especially if they have a family to consider and can't just run to the nearest police station, which for all you know could be kilometers away (which also assumes the streets themselves are safe).
-
And I think it would be far more risky to attempt to rush past an armed assailant and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back, than it would be to defend yourself at home. But regardless, the point remains that I shouldn't have to. My home is my property. It is my refuge, and I should not be forced to leave it for anyone. That's the very definition of the "castle doctrine," which is derived straight from English common law.
I believe a law founded in 1628 is a bit outdated by now.
Common law is the bedrock legal principle of the legal structures of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Just because common law principles are old does not make them outdated. Variations on the 'castle doctrine' are found in each and every one of those countries.
And what kind of psycho would kill an unarmed person in a house he's trying to rob? I'm pretty sure confronting him with a gun is much more dangerous than trying to run away or just letting him rob you.
A quick statistical search suggests that, in the US, occupants experienced violence during a burglary (FBI term) 7% of the time; 15% of that 7% were assaults, and 3% were rapes. In 12% of all burglaries where violence occurred, the criminal had a firearm. 0.004% of all burglaries in the US end in homicide. (Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)
-
Sure sure, cars are terrible at killing innocent unarmed civilians, but we can't ignore the scourge of the evil assault tractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Hebei_tractor_rampage).
I'm not going to lie, that's actually pretty damn hilarious.
In the case of a home invasion, they've already shown that they have clear disregard for the law, and your human rights, so why even assume they don't intend to harm you?
Oh come on, what kind of violent fantasies are you guys indulging in? Someone who's entered your house with intent to kill most likely isn't doing it alone, in which case your wimpy pistol won't do crap. A thief will almost always try to break in when he thinks nobody's there. If he knows you're there he's probably got enough firepower to feel safe about it.
The tractor massacre is not really funny. Not trying to high-horse you here, but I'm not sure how senseless mass murder can be funny.
Now on to the next bit.
A home invasion, by definition, is when someone is home.
Violent fantasies? This **** happens on the daily. Go have a look at local news and/or police reports in Detroit, Chicago, and Gary. Also who said anything about a pistol? HD options include handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Personally I feel a semi-automatic 5.56/.223 rifle of some sort is probably the best choice, because it will likely be light, easy to control, and won't overpenetrate. Also, multiple thieves/thieves with firepower just help bolster the argument for a standard-capacity magazine and a semi-automatic firearm (which I know you probably aren't arguing about, but it's worth mentioning). More rounds, more speed, better chances of putting them down. Finding examples of people fending off multiple attackers with capable rifles is not too hard. There's actually an entire subreddit on reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu) dedicated to documenting defensive gun uses.
-
firearm related deaths by 10000 capita in the US in 2011 were 10.3 Motor vehicle related ones were 10.387, which rounds up to 10.4. The difference is actually very minor, at least for the US.
Then again the ratio of motor vehicle deaths:motor vehicle murders is much higher than firearm deaths:firearm murders. And cutting down on guns seems much more reasonable and practical than cutting down on cars or knives. You can't really live without a car or a bread cutter in the modern world.
There is a reason why I highlighted the Canadian stats. They show that even when you increase firearms restrictions, your overall death rates are barely affected (in fact, what is a consistent trend is that regulation reduces accidental and unintentional deaths, but barely makes a dent in suicide and homicide). In Canada's case, firearm use went down and knife use went up, and the homicide rate has been falling steadily completely unrelated to firearms laws anyway.
Yours is a solution in search of a problem. The point we keep making: firearms regulation is a policy of diminishing returns; some regulation works wonderfully, but as you increase your regulation, the benefit to the public versus the expenditure to make it possible dramatically drops. US stats can't be used in this context as the US does not have a national firearms regulation scheme.
-
You can't really live without a car
I don't want to go off on a tangent, but this is exactly what I intend to do until the day I die. However, I would give you this if you replace car with wheels. Wheels on buses, taxis and other people's cars in my case.
I am also confused how you can say we are having violent fantasies as if that is wrong, and then you find a mass murder rampage hilarious. I am not having any violent fantasies personally. Thinking about the prospect of having to fight intruders in my home leaves me cold. It's something I wish I didn't have to think about.
But anyway, we're all kind of wandering all over the place here now, and I'm not sure where we're going.
-
Lorric, in a situation where you have multiple people in your home trying to kill you and a few more in a vehicle outside of your house to shoot down runners YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY BONED. Gun or not, there's absolutely nothing you can do. If you're such a badass that you can take on multiple armed men with a pistol you might as well impale them on your hypermasculine cock and be done with it.
Whoa whoa whoa, please calm down. You've got me all wrong. I think you've got us all wrong actually, but you've definitely got me wrong.
-
If we're at the point where someone is trying to argue that one doesn't need a firearm - for any reason - because one can simply run away to a bank or police station... well, I'm not going to continue in a debate where someone wants to set international law on the basis of their personal circumstances and limited understanding of the subject material.
-
If we're at the point where someone is trying to argue that one doesn't need a firearm - for any reason - because one can simply run away to a bank or police station... well, I'm not going to continue in a debate where someone wants to set international law on the basis of their personal circumstances and limited understanding of the subject material.
My wish for the world; stop having people who know nothing about a subject try to come up with regulations for it. (I'm looking at you, Dianne Feinstein).
-
Total death rates might not be, but they're still involved in 34% of all homicides. And it's not like governments aren't trying to cut down on motor vehicle death rates or food poisoning either. I don't think firearms should be exempt from this just because they alone don't cause a large amount of deaths. Home-defence just doesn't seem like a good enough justification to own a firearm to me, unless you're living in an area that requires it, which most people don't. I'm not arguing that there's no reason to own a gun, but "just wanting one" or feeling the need to defend your home from a 0.004% chance you'll get killed in a robbery seems stretched at best. It seems to create more problems than it solves.
I'm sure that for every story of someone defending himself against 4 armed guys there are 20 where they failed.
And civilian owned shotguns in general seems like a really bad idea, the misuse potential is simply too great. 1 guy with a shotgun in a crowded place can easily mow down 20-30 people.
And again, I'm not someone trying to come up with a solution, I wouldn't be presenting it on a public forum otherwise.
-
Total death rates might not be, but they're still involved in 34% of all homicides. And it's not like governments aren't trying to cut down on motor vehicle death rates or food poisoning either. I don't think firearms should be exempt from this just because they alone don't cause a large amount of deaths. Home-defence just doesn't seem like a good enough justification to own a firearm to me. It seems to create more problems than it solves.
As I keep saying, there is -zero- evidence that further restriction of firearms (or bans) in places where reasonable regulation already exists will affect the homicide rate completely on its own. Homicide rates have a great deal more to do with social factors than the availability of weapons. This is why both Canada and the USA have seen steady reductions in homicide rates for the last 30-40 years without steady adjustments to firearms laws.
You are massively oversimplifying this issue. I am done teaching. For every claim you make from this point on, I expect to see a legal or statistical citation or it will be ignored. I refer you to the forum guidelines concerning debate in the off-topic areas.
And civilian owned shotguns in general seems like a really bad idea, the misuse potential is simply too great. 1 guy with a shotgun in a crowded place can easily mow down 20-30 people.
Just stop. Please. This is now to the point of farce. Do you actually understand the differences between a shotgun and a rifle? Magazine capacity? Reload time? Ever fired one? Held one? Hell, seen one? Shotguns have their uses in hunting, predator control, and personal defense. They are also virtually never used in mass homicides. There is a reason for that. Do some research; like I said, I'm done teaching.
-
Whoa whoa whoa, please calm down. You've got me all wrong. I think you've got us all wrong actually, but you've definitely got me wrong.
My bad. That cock-impaling joke sounded a lot less offensive in my head(and in Croatian). And afaik most comedy is based on human suffering and unexpected events. A mass murder using a tractor is both. It's dark comedy sure, but I still can't help but find the situation morbidly funny.
-
So, basically, you're saying that if you're in a country with reasonable-ish gun control it's better to focus on the motive rather than the means? Guess that makes sense, and I'm thankful that you've taught me as much as you have on a topic I'm ignorant on. I really wasn't trying to rustle anyone's jimmies, and I was posting my half-baked ideas on a public forum expecting criticism, not approval.
-
Just wanted to say this is an excellent thread. Educational and thought-provoking.
-
Just wanted to say this is an excellent thread. Educational and thought-provoking.
The mystique surrounding firearms is insane. I'm probably going to put together a big informative post on firearms policy and regulation in the United States when I get back. I'll try to get it short enough to be digestible. Stay tuned.
-
i like how the thread about the option that is not gun control, turned into a thread about gun control.
-
i like how the thread about the option that is not gun control, turned into a thread about gun control.
apparently
the fact remains, the opening post of this thread was bringing up mental health as part of a statement about gun violence and specifically to minimise the perceived importance of gun control. i object strongly to being forced to ignore this part of the issue so the admins don't have to bother moderating a heated political issue
-
FrikgFeek: Despite how laid-back most of the conversation on HLP is, there's a certain standard of debate expected once things get a bit more involved. Those standards include backing up suppositions and assertions with more than just feelings and assumptions. If you're going to continue to participate in the discussion, please keep that in mind.
-
I would only intend to kill if the idiot didn't drop his weapon and / or run. I'm assuming he either thinks I'm not there (not likely, the car is a dead giveaway) or has harmful intentions for our persons because otherwise he would have waited until the house was vacant., like a "smart" criminal.
Doesn't matter if you intend to kill him, he might intend to kill you. And in a situation where you both have firearms and are within 5-6 metres(15-20ish feet I guess) it's basically up to luck who gets shot and who survives.
Actually, since bullets do not kill people instantly, chances are you both get shot and both die.
-
This isn't the movies. If I feel he is attempting to shift and aim, he will be swiss cheese. This is why, if he had the drop on me, I said that I would indeed have to play Russian roulette because, unless he makes it clear that he does indeed plan bodily harm (and therefore warrants risking everything to attempt to turn the tables) , going for a weapon would be an invitation to get shot.
Bullets do not kill you instantly - no, but if they are larger than a..22, they can and will throw your ass to the ground. (12-gauge shotty will do this nicely too) There's a lot of kinetic energy there. Like taking a full - on punch from a large individual.
Let's put it this way. I've seen a fellow US Marine take a. 223 round to the foot at the rifle range. (someone was a really bad shot, hit the wooden support of the target, which, freakishly managed to find a knot in the wood, which caused the round to angle down into the target pulling pit after penetrating the post.)
He was instantly SCREAMING. That little less than quarter inch in diameter piece of metal flew 500 yards, penetrating half an inch of wood and then punctured a combat boot causing tremendous pain.
At close range it would probably be like getting hit with a baseball bat.
-
well, if we are going to run with anecdotes (http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/01/stopping-power-myths-legends-and-realities.aspx).
The point here is that no single ammunition that is typically used by law enforcement officers today can reliably claim to have superior stopping power.
I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical activities.
-
It's worth noting that a baseball bat produces continuous force resulting in continuous acceleration. You can realistically predict the impact of a baseball bat if you know it's mass and velocity.
For a projectile E=0.5mv2. A projectile has kinetic energy when it's shot, but most of it is converted into heat and if it leaves an exit wound that means it didn't transfer all of the energy it had possessed. And depending on where you hit and from what angle you can produce rotational force (aka torque). Just knowing the speed and mass of a projectile won't tell you much.
Though if you normalise all other factors then higher kinetic energy=higher impact.
-
my favorite home defense device is a louisville slugger that has been leaded and covered in spikes.
-
You know that the baseball bat is following the same physical rules like the bullet and also has cinetic energy.
The difference is that you are usually unable to accelerate a bat that much that air resistances has major impacts but you can measure it.
A object with 0.6kg and 10m/s has the same kinetic energy like an object with 0.006kg and 100m/s
Thar means if you are hitting a pillow with a basball bat it has to absorb the same energy as if you are hoding it out a drivin sports car and the pillow is hitten by a little pebbel.
-
Though if you normalise all other factors then higher kinetic energy=higher impact.
Or it means overpenetration, which means the object simply cut clean trough the other object and then hits something behind that object.
Thar means if you are hitting a pillow with a basball bat it has to absorb the same energy as if you are hoding it out a drivin sports car and the pillow is hitten by a little pebbel.
An object does not have to absorb all the energy though, see above.
Also, the pebble's forces are spread over a much smaller area then that of the baseball bat, thus only a small part of the pillow is doing the absorbing.
-
You know that the baseball bat is following the same physical rules like the bullet and also has cinetic energy.
The difference is that you are usually unable to accelerate a bat that much that air resistances has major impacts but you can measure it.
A object with 0.6kg and 10m/s has the same kinetic energy like an object with 0.006kg and 100m/s
it's different because the force exerted on the bat is CONTINUOUS. A projectile, of any kind, has it's initial velocity and that's it. When you're trying to hit an object you don't just swing and then relax your arms letting inertia do the rest. You have to keep "pushing" it as whatever you're hitting exerts surface resistance.
This is why throwing a bat at someone hurts considerably less than hitting him with it. Air resistance isn't even that much of a factor at short ranges anyway.
Or it means overpenetration, which means the object simply cut clean trough the other object and then hits something behind that object.
That has more to do with pressure than just energy.
-
I am so very glad I can just call my owning of four (soon to be five, and then six) firearms simply a hobby and storing them in my house a matter of convenience without people bothering me much further about it
And if we're going to start talking about bullet physics, don't forget to account for different types doing different awesome things to the targets
I say awesome because while FMJ hitting a watermelon is cool, it isn't nearly as explosive as a soft point hitting it.
Also remember that it's a focused blow, to account for fragmentation and obviously resistance. Oh, and adrenaline, weight of the subject, pain tolerance and how severe the hit was. As well as if they were running toward you, away, or side to side
Basically there's a lot of variables which account to how effective your bullet will be. That's fairly obvious
-
face it, guns are awesome. people want awesome in their home. people will formulate whatever excuse they can to keep their awesome. if a ballot measure or candidate threatens to take away our awesone, there are enough people in the guns are awesome crowd (at least in the us) to vote it down.
-
I stopped caring about gun debates, except the bit where people do try to talk about mental health issues.
Prickly part? Asking people who are potentially unstable to submit themselves to unwilling detention, and that's where it goes to hell.
-
Asking people who are potentially unstable to submit themselves to unwilling detention
lolwut?
-
i went down to the local mental health office. they seem to spend all their money on stuff, like big screen tvs and computers with multiple screens, laptops everywhere, not one scrap of any of it appeared functional. there were animal cages with no animals in them, fishtanks everywhere, only a couple of them actually having fish (only some of which were alive). a huge basket with stress balls with their logo on them, files (no doubt of the confidential kind) strewn out all over the place, like they let a raging schizophrenic handle the book keeping. the floor everywhere looks like it hasn't seen a janitor in a several years. they did hook me up with a therapist free of charge. the guy is a bumbling idiot from an even smaller town that they fly in on the weekends. ive yet to be diagnosed with anything that i can use to get on medicare, and since i live in a state that did not expand medicare i probibly couldn't get on it anyway. you wonder why people dont ask for help? the fact of the matter is that some of these systems we have in place are just ineffectual money sinks. fix that and maybe there will be a slight reduction in crazy people shooting up schools and ****.
-
i went down to the local mental health office. they seem to spend all their money on stuff, like big screen tvs and computers with multiple screens, laptops everywhere, not one scrap of any of it appeared functional. there were animal cages with no animals in them, fishtanks everywhere, only a couple of them actually having fish (only some of which were alive). a huge basket with stress balls with their logo on them, files (no doubt of the confidential kind) strewn out all over the place, like they let a raging schizophrenic handle the book keeping. the floor everywhere looks like it hasn't seen a janitor in a several years. they did hook me up with a therapist free of charge. the guy is a bumbling idiot from an even smaller town that they fly in on the weekends. ive yet to be diagnosed with anything that i can use to get on medicare, and since i live in a state that did not expand medicare i probibly couldn't get on it anyway. you wonder why people dont ask for help? the fact of the matter is that some of these systems we have in place are just ineffectual money sinks. fix that and maybe there will be a slight reduction in crazy people shooting up schools and ****.
[Facebook like :yes:]