| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2015 03:54:54 PM · #26 |
| oh and telling states like SC to take down their stupid flag would be a good start to not encouraging racial hate in the meantime |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 03:59:59 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Interesting that so many distortions and obvious lies are collected in one document and given a 'Harvard' stamp of veracity |
Given by whom? The authors were not actually affiliated with Harvard, and this was not a peer reviewed research paper. More like an opinion piece posted to a printed blog with Harvard's name on it and, yes, riddled with distortions and obvious lies. |
OK. How about finding an unbiased study by someone or a group that does not have an agenda. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:01:15 PM · #28 |
.
Message edited by author 2015-06-18 16:01:49. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:08:41 PM · #29 |
| If only we could figure out how to get guns to quit pulling their own triggers. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:09:20 PM · #30 |
| Here is a list of crimes in the US by major cities. Rates among cities in Texas differ even though guns should be equally available. There is more to the story than availability of guns. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:11:04 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
If only we could figure out how to get guns to quit pulling their own triggers. |
If only we could reduce hate and get people to value life...
|
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:15:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by chazoe:
If only we could figure out how to get guns to quit pulling their own triggers. |
If only we could reduce hate and get people to value life... |
that was kinda my point. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:20:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Here is a list of crimes in the US by major cities. Rates among cities in Texas differ even though guns should be equally available. There is more to the story than availability of guns. |
Sorry Elaine, I don't want to seem dismissive but any reasoned dispassionate study of just the numbers will show you that the US has, by a huge margin, the highest gun killing per capita of anywhere in the world outside of a warzone and to say that this is not connected to the quantity and availability of guns (also the highest of any developed country) is to stretch credibility way past breaking point.
I don't live in the US and don't have any particular axe to grind apart from a feeling of overwhelming sadness at the waste of life and the ongoing tragedy that is gun killing in the US.
I get that a lot of americans love guns. I get that people don't trust their law enforcers to protect them. I get that the criminals all have guns and wouldn't give them up. I get that rural communities need to go hunting etc etc. Just don't tell me that more guns = less killing. You say that and expect me to believe it, you're calling us both fools |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:30:36 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Here is a list of crimes in the US by major cities. Rates among cities in Texas differ even though guns should be equally available. There is more to the story than availability of guns. |
Sorry Elaine, I don't want to seem dismissive but any reasoned dispassionate study of just the numbers will show you that the US has, by a huge margin, the highest gun killing per capita of anywhere in the world outside of a warzone and to say that this is not connected to the quantity and availability of guns (also the highest of any developed country) is to stretch credibility way past breaking point.
I don't live in the US and don't have any particular axe to grind apart from a feeling of overwhelming sadness at the waste of life and the ongoing tragedy that is gun killing in the US.
I get that a lot of americans love guns. I get that people don't trust their law enforcers to protect them. I get that the criminals all have guns and wouldn't give them up. I get that rural communities need to go hunting etc etc. Just don't tell me that more guns = less killing. You say that and expect me to believe it, you're calling us both fools |
That is what a good study would might confirm. I read a book Everything is Obvious. It is easy to look at a situation and assume we can draw the correct conclusion. This is not always the case. Culture, the economy, the media, and many other things we may not know to consider might be a better explanation than simply the availability of guns.
Message edited by author 2015-06-18 16:37:35. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:42:44 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
[Crime rates] among cities in Texas differ even though guns should be equally available. |
Why? Nobody is arguing that the availability of guns causes crime. The point is not that Detroit should somehow have the same crime rate as Marquette just because they're in the same state, but that where there IS violent crime, the weapon of choice is usually a gun. It's a lot harder to kill lots of people with a baseball bat than a rocket launcher, which is why we have restrictions on owning rocket launchers instead of insanely demanding that everyone have access to them. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:46:38 PM · #36 |
| The comparison to suicide was made earlier in this thread. As a crisis therapist, when I assess for risk of suicide, access to lethal means is considered a big risk factor. Does taking away guns cure depression? Nope. Does it prevent someone from looking for other ways to commit suicide? No. But removing someone's access to extremely immediate and lethal means provides some time for intervention. I think the comparison holds true when it comes to mass killings. Putting a barrier between angry people and guns does not address the hatred, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, etc. but it may reduce the immediate and lethal consequences of an attempted mass killing. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:50:21 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Here is a list of crimes in the US by major cities. Rates among cities in Texas differ even though guns should be equally available. There is more to the story than availability of guns. |
Sorry Elaine, I don't want to seem dismissive but any reasoned dispassionate study of just the numbers will show you that the US has, by a huge margin, the highest gun killing per capita of anywhere in the world outside of a warzone and to say that this is not connected to the quantity and availability of guns (also the highest of any developed country) is to stretch credibility way past breaking point.
I don't live in the US and don't have any particular axe to grind apart from a feeling of overwhelming sadness at the waste of life and the ongoing tragedy that is gun killing in the US.
I get that a lot of americans love guns. I get that people don't trust their law enforcers to protect them. I get that the criminals all have guns and wouldn't give them up. I get that rural communities need to go hunting etc etc. Just don't tell me that more guns = less killing. You say that and expect me to believe it, you're calling us both fools |
That is what a good study would confirm. I read a book Everything is Obvious. It is easy to look at a situation and assume we can draw the correct conclusion. This is not always the case. Culture, the economy, the media, and many other things we may not know to consider might be a better explanation than simply the availability of guns. |
ok. break it down on a simple level - a good number of US gun deaths are the result of accidental discharges, kids playing with their parents' weapons, that kind of thing. Now, do you agree that less guns would reduce the number of these deaths? They are not dependent on culture, economy, media whatever, are they? In other developed countries where people have less access to guns these killings simply do not occur. And it's obvious really, isn't it. So, even if you reduced the number of deaths caused by these accidents you would reduce gun deaths by taking guns out of circulation |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 04:50:35 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by mindbottling:
Putting a barrier between angry people and guns does not address the hatred, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, etc. but it may reduce the immediate and lethal consequences of an attempted mass killing. |
Of course, and this has proven true in every single advanced nation that has implemented gun controls– the mass murder and suicide rates both drop significantly. Guess what DOESN'T happen? A huge surge in crime because "criminals are the only ones left with guns." |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:00:22 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by mindbottling:
The comparison to suicide was made earlier in this thread. As a crisis therapist, when I assess for risk of suicide, access to lethal means is considered a big risk factor. Does taking away guns cure depression? Nope. Does it prevent someone from looking for other ways to commit suicide? No. But removing someone's access to extremely immediate and lethal means provides some time for intervention. I think the comparison holds true when it comes to mass killings. Putting a barrier between angry people and guns does not address the hatred, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, etc. but it may reduce the immediate and lethal consequences of an attempted mass killing. |
I have been taught to assess the plan a person has for committing suicide and the availability of items to carry out that plan. If my plan is to OD or hang myself, having 50 guns in the room won't make a difference, and removing the guns won't stop me. That said, it can never be wrong to remove access to guns for anyone who is suicidal.
As to mass murders, if the goal is to kill as many as possible, a method can usually be found. Access to a gun might make it easier, but one could also use a bomb, a car, an airplane, or... And for one person killing another, several years ago there was a killing at a middle school by a student using a screw driver. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:00:29 PM · #40 |
I'm struggling not to get involved in this gun debate. DPC is my refuge from Facebook where I debate this stuff constantly and vehemently. It should be discussed here as well, because these issues are hugely important to the well-being of all of us.
But, DPC is my clean ground.....for my photo fetish and like-minded creatures whose beauty and peace is tethered to their creative souls. AAARRGGGHHHH!! Somebody stop me!!!!! |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:04:31 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mindbottling:
Putting a barrier between angry people and guns does not address the hatred, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, etc. but it may reduce the immediate and lethal consequences of an attempted mass killing. |
Of course, and this has proven true in every single advanced nation that has implemented gun controls– the mass murder and suicide rates both drop significantly. Guess what DOESN'T happen? A huge surge in crime because "criminals are the only ones left with guns." |
Can you post actual data to back that up? I've seen "reports" that would prove and dis-prove this. Hard to know where the truth is. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:07:55 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Interesting that so many distortions and obvious lies are collected in one document and given a 'Harvard' stamp of veracity |
Given by whom? The authors were not actually affiliated with Harvard, and this was not a peer reviewed research paper. More like an opinion piece posted to a printed blog with Harvard's name on it and, yes, riddled with distortions and obvious lies. |
OK. How about finding an unbiased study by someone or a group that does not have an agenda. |
It's hard to find studies when the NRA has bought off convinced Congress to BAN FUNDING RESEARCH into the relationship between guns and mortality rates. Ask yourself, if more guns equals a safer society, why wouldn't the NRA want there to be "independent" research to prove it? |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:10:03 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Interesting that so many distortions and obvious lies are collected in one document and given a 'Harvard' stamp of veracity |
Given by whom? The authors were not actually affiliated with Harvard, and this was not a peer reviewed research paper. More like an opinion piece posted to a printed blog with Harvard's name on it and, yes, riddled with distortions and obvious lies. |
OK. How about finding an unbiased study by someone or a group that does not have an agenda. |
It's hard to find studies when the NRA has bought off convinced Congress to BAN FUNDING RESEARCH into the relationship between guns and mortality rates. Ask yourself, if more guns equals a safer society, why wouldn't the NRA want there to be "independent" research to prove it? |
How about objective studies from other countries? The US is not the only place where research is done. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:10:26 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by mindbottling:
The comparison to suicide was made earlier in this thread. As a crisis therapist, when I assess for risk of suicide, access to lethal means is considered a big risk factor. Does taking away guns cure depression? Nope. Does it prevent someone from looking for other ways to commit suicide? No. But removing someone's access to extremely immediate and lethal means provides some time for intervention. I think the comparison holds true when it comes to mass killings. Putting a barrier between angry people and guns does not address the hatred, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, etc. but it may reduce the immediate and lethal consequences of an attempted mass killing. |
I have been taught to assess the plan a person has for committing suicide and the availability of items to carry out that plan. If my plan is to OD or hang myself, having 50 guns in the room won't make a difference, and removing the guns won't stop me. That said, it can never be wrong to remove access to guns for anyone who is suicidal.
As to mass murders, if the goal is to kill as many as possible, a method can usually be found. Access to a gun might make it easier, but one could also use a bomb, a car, an airplane, or... And for one person killing another, several years ago there was a killing at a middle school by a student using a screw driver. |
I absolutely disagree that if your plan was to OD or hang, having guns won't make a difference. Yes, the plan matters in a suicide assessment. But it's significance has much less to do with the actual plan as it does the fact that the individual has thought it through well enough to have a plan at all.
The kid with the screwdriver killed one person. I'm not saying that it's insignificant because it was only one person. However, when you hear stories about 26 people being killed at school, the weapon of choice is not usually a screwdriver. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:11:33 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
ok. break it down on a simple level - a good number of US gun deaths are the result of accidental discharges, kids playing with their parents' weapons, that kind of thing. Now, do you agree that less guns would reduce the number of these deaths? They are not dependent on culture, economy, media whatever, are they? In other developed countries where people have less access to guns these killings simply do not occur. And it's obvious really, isn't it. So, even if you reduced the number of deaths caused by these accidents you would reduce gun deaths by taking guns out of circulation |
Yes, those deaths could be reduced. Responsible handling and storing would also reduce the numbers. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:23:03 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by mindbottling:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by mindbottling:
The comparison to suicide was made earlier in this thread. As a crisis therapist, when I assess for risk of suicide, access to lethal means is considered a big risk factor. Does taking away guns cure depression? Nope. Does it prevent someone from looking for other ways to commit suicide? No. But removing someone's access to extremely immediate and lethal means provides some time for intervention. I think the comparison holds true when it comes to mass killings. Putting a barrier between angry people and guns does not address the hatred, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, etc. but it may reduce the immediate and lethal consequences of an attempted mass killing. |
I have been taught to assess the plan a person has for committing suicide and the availability of items to carry out that plan. If my plan is to OD or hang myself, having 50 guns in the room won't make a difference, and removing the guns won't stop me. That said, it can never be wrong to remove access to guns for anyone who is suicidal.
As to mass murders, if the goal is to kill as many as possible, a method can usually be found. Access to a gun might make it easier, but one could also use a bomb, a car, an airplane, or... And for one person killing another, several years ago there was a killing at a middle school by a student using a screw driver. |
I absolutely disagree that if your plan was to OD or hang, having guns won't make a difference. Yes, the plan matters in a suicide assessment. But it's significance has much less to do with the actual plan as it does the fact that the individual has thought it through well enough to have a plan at all.
The kid with the screwdriver killed one person. I'm not saying that it's insignificant because it was only one person. However, when you hear stories about 26 people being killed at school, the weapon of choice is not usually a screwdriver. |
I don't want to argue about suicide, but unless you are also going to remove all pills, sheets, upper story windows, razor blades, bathtubs, cars, and any other means, someone who is truly serious about ending his/her life will find a way. And, of course, the chance of someone trying to commit mass murder with a screwdriver is pretty small. That is why I separated it out saying "one on one". |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 05:44:30 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
ok. break it down on a simple level - a good number of US gun deaths are the result of accidental discharges, kids playing with their parents' weapons, that kind of thing. Now, do you agree that less guns would reduce the number of these deaths? They are not dependent on culture, economy, media whatever, are they? In other developed countries where people have less access to guns these killings simply do not occur. And it's obvious really, isn't it. So, even if you reduced the number of deaths caused by these accidents you would reduce gun deaths by taking guns out of circulation |
Yes, those deaths could be reduced. Responsible handling and storing would also reduce the numbers. |
"Responsible handling and storing" gets more difficult with the ever-increasing number of guns on the streets. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 06:10:27 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
"Responsible handling and storing" gets more difficult with the ever-increasing number of guns on the streets. |
Can you expand on this a little more? |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 06:38:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by bohemka:
"Responsible handling and storing" gets more difficult with the ever-increasing number of guns on the streets. |
Can you expand on this a little more? |
Gun-owners die, but their guns don't. How many guns are made each year? Millions of new guns entering our communities each year, very few leaving. Criminals don't forge their own weapons -- the guns they hold have originated from a lawful source. If you think the personal arms race going on is going to lead to anything but disaster, I very much disagree.
There are dozens of stories each day that point to irresponsible handling and storing of firearms. This particular case is one of them. More guns, more similar stories. |
|
|
|
06/18/2015 07:22:59 PM · #50 |
from CNN:
When Dylann Storm Roof turned 21 in April, his father bought him a .45-caliber gun, a senior law enforcement source briefed on the investigation said Thursday.
It's not clear if this was the gun that was used. However, I claim that this was not a wise investment. Not only will parents bear the horrible aftermath of a child committing such atrocities. But if you actually provided the weapon used, I'm not sure how one could ever get passed that. |
|
