The debate "Shootings are a resault of the lack of knoweldge of mental health and not the guns themselves" was started by
April 9, 2018, 5:50 am.
36 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 11 arguments, Slymcfly posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Ash, Matthew354, Slymcfly, luljeta101 and 32 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff and 5 visitors disagree.
Hey guys, back again rolling through what I've missed. Here's some perspectives not brought up.
If city to city statistics were invalid because criminals could buy, then move guns why aren't the legal cities riddled with more crime? Does an organized mob feel the need to keep these places safer or is a quick trip to another state better than moving? Criminology seems to say that areas that are comparable should be placed with likewise. The UK and Australia with no border organized crime like the Zetas carrying drugs (Zeta reading last letter in Spanish millitary alphabet), have a differing city size, and violent crime rates. Fast and furious attempted to track guns over the border, and they certainly dissapeared. Rather incomparable with another country for now, so for internal consistency it cannot... but if we really want to, violent crime rate is better for occurrence rather than end result, should we really fault for failing?
Yes, the point is we know too little about mental health, it isn't a stament of hopeless. Looking at other trends, we see the shooters come from single mother households with no father figure, anti psycotics commonly. There is no certainty in criminology, but internal controls and tabboos become much easier to overcome. It would not be oversimplified because you can find an idiographic situation, because the trends say otherwise. What do these people lack? Self controls implemented by society.
The reason why the amendment aren't questioned as often or rights is because of a difference in beliefs on how rights work. A right is not handed down from government, otherwise it's a privilege. The government does not subsidize or promise guns, and it does offer basic protections for citizens but ultimately it is their job to prosecute crimes. Guns are an equalizer, no rock paper scissors guesses on if an assailant is stronger or has a bat or brought his friends.
Any person has a right to protect himself when threatened, and though it may sound contradictory for the mentally ill to get denied, it isn't when we consider how people get committed for being a hazard to themselves. So this is one of the touchier rights in the first 10 amendments "Bill of Rights". Would it really be better for a criminal to use another weapon to do the same thing, or find their own way illegallly? Those acid attacks and grenades are going up in Europe, and I've heard banning knives as a whole is going up for a vote. People make it so hard to be safe.
and even if it was all mental illness, the only suggestion you guys have is "treat it" as if that is as easy as passing a law.
how many billions of dollars over how many decades have we thrown at cancer and aids world wide? have we conquered them? hardly. and the brain is one of the most complex things in the universe. to seek this as a solution for anytime soon is to live in a fantasy.
when an adult shoots up a school full of kids, its 99% mental illness.
but when they shoot up a blackchurch with a political agenda, that's not mental illness, thats hatred. when a bullied kid shoots up his school (the recent 17) that's not mental illness, thats vengeance.
greed is not mental illness
anger is not mental illness
jealousy is not mental illness
power trips (like domestic abuse) is not mental illness
all of these things are part of the default human condition, not a malfunction.
too claim they are all just mentally I'll is to dumb down reality, and simply convenient. but it's not reality, and it will not solve the problem.
no matter how well you handle mental ilness you will never catch every case. but if you correctly control guns you can prevent all mass shootings. or even better, do both.
Nemiroff I disagree with you on this one. To say that some of these shooters aren't mentally ill, just isn't true. If you're talking about previous diagnosis, then sure, I can give you that. But I could easily make the argument that every single one of these shootings are done by a deeply, deeply disturbed and sick individual. Many of them are undiagnosed individuals with DEEP issues. Even the Vegas shooter was on Valium, and that's something we don't hear much about.
We can do a lot better than we are doing now with mental health. If you solve that problem, you also solve the problem of mass shootings. Take away guns, and it won't solve ANYTHING, as we saw from 1994-2004 when they banned ARs, and mass shootings shot up EXPONENTIALLY during.
also, none of this actually addresses the thread topic which is about mental health aspect of the gun control debate, not gun control in general.
my arguments on that issue are that:
1. not all the shooters are clinically mentally ill.
2. if we are lacking in mental health knowledge, knowledge isnt something we can materialize at will so not exactly something we can control.
I would expect you to question both instead of treating either one as gospel.
if you believe the constitution is God given rights, then you must believe the founders to be gods and their words sacred. that can be the only reason why you see the existence of this right to be its ultimate justification no matter how horrible the consequences are.
whether its state power or average Joe power, it is my view that its justification must lie in logic and reason, not dogma. owning deadly weapons is not the equal of free speech, religion, and due process. it is nowhere near the same importance.
There is only one national law in place and enforced concerning firearms law: The National Firearms Act of 1934. That federally enforced law isn't doesn't even have full compliance from every state in the United States, so what makes you think any would follow stricter laws in what you have in mind after that?
You can't! It is a violation of the 10th Amendment for the federal government to force states to comply with national gun laws.
Not only that, it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment to have any regulations such as criminal screening, medical screening, and practical tests required by the federal government to enforce like the Czech Republic. What it means to have a right is not being forced to have evaluations or testing before an individual can practice something, you are forcing a right to be a privilege which is also unconstitutional; I told you this before.
You also told me before to question to 2nd, Amendment, I won't. Because you should expect me to question gun control, and authority of the state instead.
1st of all comparing gun laws city to city and state to state makes no sense. they can just drive to the next city or state over and buy all the guns they want. gun laws need to be national to work.
why would they shoot people at the gun show? that's where they go to get the gun. and crazy people certainly have killed at gun ranges. Chris kyle was shot and killed at gun range.
I've told you this already, the Czech republic has way stricter gun laws than America. they need a medical check, a criminal check and pass a written and practical test. if America passed laws like that it would help.
You won't excuse those who go in those places and purposely only shoot themselves. I am just a slight bit impressed at how well you defend those intent on shooting only people not shooting back. There's levels to life though. Wetting people up with bullets is a lot different than shooting with a water gun. You see, the people who shoot folks with Supersoakers have to worry about the victim returning fire with actual firearms if they shoot the wrong person by accident.
There is no consistent data nor correlation between countries with higher crime rates and looser gun laws, none! Not even when comparing between "developed countries," nor between states in the United States when the cultures between them are so different that they might as well be different countries.
You want European statistics about crime instead? Numbeo states that the Czech Republic and Switzerland do not have any more significant crime rates than any other European county, according to crime index despite having one of the freest gun laws in the world; following right behind US.
Not even a correlation between European countries.
Not one crazed killer have been reported to kill people in gun shows or gun ranges either
Those statistics don't look like they come from consistent or credible sources, and didn't you specify where you got them. Do you know what I found from a more credible source in comparison to other US states with wildly differing gun laws from freer to strict?
According to FBI crime rate statistics in 2015 (per 100,000) accounting all cities in state:
The states (including Washington DC; a federal district) with the strictest gun laws in the United States
Washington DC - 1,243.7 per cap (the absolute strictest laws in the US)
California - 423.1 per cap
New York - 406.8 per cap
The states with the loosest gun laws in the United
Arizona - 428.9 per cap (the absolute loosest gun laws in the US)
Texas - 414.6 per cap
Vermont - 143.6 per cap
Alaska - 603.2 per cap
City of Phoenix, in Arizona, can allow you to buy a machine gun and you can legally carry a gun openly outside. City of Washington DC makes it almost impossible to even carry a concealed and open carry is illegal, pistols are only legal firearm and machine guns are illegal.
Still no correlation! Phoenix should have significantly more figures of violent crime rates then every other state in the United States, if you what you are telling me is true...
Most shootings are the results of cowards with a conspiracy and scheme to only shoot at people who can't shoot back. They will accomplish the method of shooting unarmed people by any means necessary. Not one crazed killer has ever walked in a US police station and proceeded with the usual mayhem.
Another thing to consider is that there are 4 cities that skew the results fantastically and the avergare US city doesn't have a fifth of the rates. What do Washington DC, Chicago, New Orleans, and LA have in common?
That is true, however take note of the places listed. who are the neighbors on their border, and are there cartels on that border?
America is south of Canada and is pretty well developed, first world. The UK, Wales, and Australia do not have a neighboring country which has organized crime over borders
repeated correlations make a strong case for causation.
the homicide rate per capita. stats weren't readily available for the same year so I took the latest one available on the site.
Canada 1.68 (2015),
Australia 1.16 (2010),
England and Wales 0.91 (2014),
US 4.9 (2015)
your homicide rate, correcting for population size, is triple the Canadian homicide rate and 5 times the rate in England.
And don't tell me that gun control has any effect on murders and homicides, because they don't. From what I can read on the homicide and murder statistics from Numbeo, the United States have about same murder/homicide/crime rates among these countries that you so compare, despite such largely differing gun laws.
Even if there is a correlation between freer gun laws and and exponentially higher murders and crimes: correlation does not equal causation.
There is nothing about those countries that prove that control works, if so, what statistic or evidence can you specifically show me that gun control has been working at all? If there is anything these "loopholes" tell me, it shows that gun control never works.
Matthew all I got from your point about loopholes is we need to work harder to close those loopholes.
gun control is proven to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. it works in lots of countries. Australia, the UK, Canada etc. so saying gun laws don't keep guns out of their hands is just wantonly stupid.
No, gun control in practice does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it actually makes new criminals. It rolls my eyes that everytime we gun owners comply with new gun laws you just passed in the way you don't like it, you call it a "loophole."
False, there is still a loophole in Canada that allows 10 round magazines for rifles. There is a "pistol" called the LAR-15 that allows 10 round magazines on AR15 style pistols, that pistol magazine on that model firearm can easily fit into regular AR15s that are legal in Canada; magazine couplers are also compatible with it.
You guys putting up so many gun laws, and never realize this is a goose chase ROFL
I don't think the coupler argument was to say two "lower capacity magazines" would be able to do the damage, the point is using one gun to reload. What prevents a shooter from reloading? The imagery with a "high capacity" and shooting into a crowd is nice, but in the end the point of the regulation suggested doesn't seem to address the reasons behind the shooting.
A crime is never indicative of a need, that implies people don't have free will even within soft determinism. However some of the more recent deliberate shootings suggest that being heavily medicated and getting a gun through another person is pretty bad. (Move the definition to cases of accident discharges or justified police action, and even on campus suicides and the number of mentally ill cases drops drastically.) An emotion or action is realized through a mediator, and while guns allow people to shoot mental illness allows a person to over come their internal taboos.
Arguing if a citizen should have a rocket launcher or grenade is different because an explosion doesn't have a target, it has a radius. It could be argued that a person is in danger by having a gun in their hand, but it is more likely that they will shot an attacker rather than themselves. With a grenade we know this is different. As for knives killing people, maybetake a look at some Chinese attacks with upward of 28 killed or 33 dead.
My biggest issue in arguments for regulation is not that people that don't have the capacity to manage their emotions or have the capacity to get guns. My issue is that whenever there is a "common sense gun law" it doesn't properly describe what it intends to do. People are pretty good at defining what they think is useful such as "High capacity" (I'm sure you would be able to provide a reasonable number for too high, but the numbers for people will likely vary), "Assault weapon"(Not a real classification, usually targets cosmetics), and "weapons of war"(Neglects uses of self defense and more times than less list weapons that are not military grade). But we can be pretty specific with mental illness.
In the end, when the blame is on the gun and for regulation a loose definition a ton of speculation can be made about guns. Why should our policy makers withold that kind of discussion with mental illness as a factor?
in addition to what buff said, you seem to be doing an all or nothing fallacy.
no matter how much we invest in law enforcement, crime still exists and criminals find loopholes and blindspots all the time. why bother with police if they dont fully stop crime?!? because even without stopping it, it reduces it and makes it harder for criminals, and that's worth it.
just because one can find a loophole or some technical flaw doesn't mean we should just throw in the towel and give up. that's just silly and sad.
ok. let's say you passed the same restriction as Canada, a maximum magazine size of 5 rounds. that means he would have a total of 10 rounds accross 2 magazines. that is a huge improvement over someone unloading a 30 round clip in a matter of seconds into a crowd of people.
It wouldn't matter if the firearm was "high capacity," the person could of easily take advantage of a loophole by using a magazine coupler.
This is appeal to emotion fallacy.
and the fact remains that mental health, like any disease, can strike anyone anywhere. its impossible to fully regulate. yet no matter the condition or lack there of. without high capacity weapons, so many people would not die. I doubt that kid would have killed 17 people, or even 2, with a knife.
why do yall think every shooter has mental illness? sounds like a convenient answer based on a baseless assumption.
regular people snap all the time. we all do numerous times throughout our lives. we dont reach for the gun every time, but with 330 million it will happen, repeatedlt.
True, the strict gun control in New York didn't stop that criminal who threatened people with a shower head. Ban shower heads! XD
so if the weapon isn't the cause and we shouldn't blame the weapon, we should hand out rocket launchers and nuclear weapons?