[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Phantom Hoover]

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

[Scotty]

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.

[headdie]

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 

[Phantom Hoover]

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

[headdie]

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"

[General Battuta]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Phantom Hoover]

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!

[General Battuta]

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'?

[Phantom Hoover]

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

[General Battuta]

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

[TwentyPercentCooler]

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.

[jr2]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Bobboau]

'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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Mars]

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.