When latest new gun laws don't produce results, what's next? (weapon, rifle)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's somewhat amusing that the same folks who claim that the supporters of gun control "know nothing about guns" love to pontificate about psychology and mental health, when it becomes painfully obvious that they know absolutely nothing about those subjects.
I don't even know where I would begin with someone who attempts to use the word "crazy" in a serious discussion about mental health. I mean, you guys don't even bother to find legitimate studies that have examined the alleged connection between schizophrenia or depression and criminal behavior.
I have not once grouped "all gun owners into a category with violent offenders." You made that up.
You want to see laws passed that will affect all gun owners in the misguided hope that those laws will somehow magically stop violence. Yes, you are grouping all gun owners in with the violent offenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
I think I've identified the other problem: You have no idea what causality means. Yes, paranoid schizophrenics can become violent. So can people with OCDs. So can people with green eyes who are pigeon-toed. You have and you will find zero evidence that there is a causal relationship between schizophrenia and homicidal behavior. In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. It just makes it more convenient to distract everyone from guns to these "crazy people" who should be put in loony bins.
I think the person who lacks a grasp on the definition of causality would be you. After all, you are the one who is implying that firearms cause violence. There is no causality between owning a gun and committing violent acts. Zero, zilch, and nada. Stop blaming inanimate objects for human behavior. It makes you look ridiculous.
I fully agree that Adam Lanza should not have had access to firearms. However, the proposed background check legislation wouldn't have done anything to keep him from having that access. His mother was the one who purchased the firearms, and she presumably passed a background check in order to do so. Remember, he killed her and stole the guns in order to commit his crime.
If limiting the sizes of magazines takes the death toll from 20 down to 10, is it worth it?
The automatic weapon ban seems to have worked well. Why do you think other bans would not?
The AWB from 1994-2004, a full decade, produced no measurable benefits. That is data driven proof that another AWB would not "work well."
In the case of Adam Lanza, I'm confident that most gun owners recognize that the death toll of his rampage would not have been different if he had magazines that held 10 rounds. Or if had used his semiautomatic handgunds instead. He was shooting children in a classrom.
I think the person who lacks a grasp on the definition of causality would be you. After all, you are the one who is implying that firearms cause violence. There is no causality between owning a gun and committing violent acts. Zero, zilch, and nada. Stop blaming inanimate objects for human behavior. It makes you look ridiculous.
No, I am arguing that the availability of firearms is precisely what allowed the massacre to happen, just as nuclear weapons would be the crucial variable in Kim Jong-Un bombing the United States. You people love to set up this strawman. I have yet to encounter anyone who believes the mere act of buying a gun transforms someone into a killer. If you can point me to anyone who has made that claim, I would be much obliged. The argument I do hear being made is that with the number of violent people we have in the United States, keeping guns from them is crucial because the gun allows them to do much more harm.
Someone suggests that I haven't been on this forum for long (true) and that incivility (insults, bullying, etc.) is the standard fare. I guess that's right. Since I find it too difficult, I'm going to try my hardest to quit (at least the political ones), since they raise my blood pressure and no one ever seems to even CONSIDER that they might be wrong, much less admit it. It's too bad, though, because when I'm wrong, I do admit it. And it seems like the bottom line (mine is, anyway) should be kindness. Have fun, guys.
I think there are reasons to believe improved sharing of medical information might have made it more difficult for Seung-Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) to buy handguns at a retail counter. He did not use an "assault weapon" nor a rifle of any kind. He is responsible for the second worst mass shooting in US history, using very ordinary handguns. Adam Lanza could have done the same thing without his Bushmaster rifle. We still don't know why his mother didn't do more to prevent her mentally unstable son from accessing her guns.
It's somewhat amusing that the same folks who claim that the supporters of gun control "know nothing about guns" love to pontificate about psychology and mental health, when it becomes painfully obvious that they know absolutely nothing about those subjects.
I don't even know where I would begin with someone who attempts to use the word "crazy" in a serious discussion about mental health. I mean, you guys don't even bother to find legitimate studies that have examined the alleged connection between schizophrenia or depression and criminal behavior.
What is amusing is, you failed to comment on ANY of the items you listed that I responded to.
And yes, he went crazy. With ALL laws he broke you somehow think MORE laws will stop another "crazy" person from repeating what he did.
No, I am arguing that the availability of firearms is precisely what allowed the massacre to happen, just as nuclear weapons would be the crucial variable in Kim Jong-Un bombing the United States. You people love to set up this strawman. I have yet to encounter anyone who believes the mere act of buying a gun transforms someone into a killer. If you can point me to anyone who has made that claim, I would be much obliged. The argument I do hear being made is that with the number of violent people we have in the United States, keeping guns from them is crucial because the gun allows them to do much more harm.
What you fail to consider is that HIS mother was responsible for NOT keeping the weapons she had from him.
And you want every other gun owner to pay for HER error.
No, I am arguing that the availability of firearms is precisely what allowed the massacre to happen, just as nuclear weapons would be the crucial variable in Kim Jong-Un bombing the United States. You people love to set up this strawman. I have yet to encounter anyone who believes the mere act of buying a gun transforms someone into a killer. If you can point me to anyone who has made that claim, I would be much obliged. The argument I do hear being made is that with the number of violent people we have in the United States, keeping guns from them is crucial because the gun allows them to do much more harm.
The counter argument, which you are ignoring, is that we need to deal with the violent behavior instead of trying to prohibit something which is nearly impossible to prohibit. If you don't want violent people to have access to weapons, put them someplace where weapons aren't available, such as a prison or medical facility.
The worst school massacre in U.S. history didn't involve a single firearm. Just because Lanza chose to use firearms because they were available does not mean that he wouldn't have chosen another form of violence if firearms were unavailable.
Browse these forums and you will see plenty of posts stating that firearms owners are violent, uncompassionate, macho, etc. ad nauseum. For some reason, we're not allowed to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few terrorists and we're not allowed to blame all urban kids for the actions of a few gang-bangers, but it's perfectly acceptable to blame all firearms owners for the actions of a few violent offenders. Explain that hypocrisy to me before you start accusing me of building strawman arguments, if you would.
As for Kim Jong-Un, if he starts a nuclear war with anybody, I'm not going to blame it on the nuclear weapon he uses. I'm going to blame it on Kim Jong-Un.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
